Trans Exterminatory Radical Forces Recruitment Ad

May 20, 2015

I am a detransitioner, recruited by the TERFs, and now a proud member of the Trans Exterminatory Radical Forces. I am a warrior, and a member of the team. When I realized that I was just a Normal Cis Girl, I was welcomed into the TERF Fortress of Gender Essentialism, where I was rigorously trained in denying the existence gender identity, freebleeding all over 3rd wave feminism, denying my cis privilege under duress, and recruiting trans men into the detransition sector of the TERF forces. I will never accept defeat. I will never hesitate to misgender even when branded literal TERF scum. I am disciplined; vulvally and laydee-brainily tough. Trained and proficient in my warrior tasks and drills of bringing the good news of the SCUM Manifesto to the world, and spelling womyn with a “y”. I am an expert, and I am a professional. I stand ready to deploy, engage, and aggressively blog about the trans enemies of Mother Earth in pronoun-to-pronoun combat. I am a detransitioner. I am a soldier. I… am a TERF. Call 1-800-NOT-TRAN today to schedule a showing of a detransitioner to your local trans group.
– AnythingButFemale

(Disclaimer: This is satire.)

94 Responses to “Trans Exterminatory Radical Forces Recruitment Ad”

  1. GallusMag Says:

    Freebleeding LOLOLOLOL

  2. stchauvinism Says:

    Reblogged this on Stop Trans Chauvinism.

  3. Zemskull Says:

    Hi Gallus: Regarding online social media, do you know anything about a possible disparity of name policies on Facebook in relation to transgenders? I recall reading that FB had a transgender employee on staff to address transgender issues on the service, including naming issues, but I don’t recall specifics. To clarify, I am not referring to professional drag queen performers who have Facebook profiles as promotional tools.

    What I have definitely noticed is that some transgender professional peers and acquaintances have been using fake names for a long time, and their profiles have remained up and unchanged. Some of the names should be obviously fake; it seems a number of them create names that are a sexy adjective followed by a woman’s first name, e.g. Foxy Felicia. By contrast, the “cisgenders” I’ve known using altered or fake names tend to be contacted by Facebook relatively quickly, and required to change to their legal names. I assume that transgenders using fake names are reported and/at the same frequency as “cisgenders,” so it appears that enforcement is uneven. If this is the case, purported transgenderism might be a good cover for someone to use a fake name with impunity.

    • No name Says:

      I noticed that, this is why I’m not on facebook.

    • Violet Irene Says:

      They are explicit about this being their policy, after they got in trouble with the “drag community” for not letting people use their drag names. OTOH they went through and systematically warned and banned a bunch of people who were using a professional or spiritual title in their name ie Rabbi Sarah Cohen, Priestess Diana, or Sister Mary Martha. A woman who fears for her life because of stalkers isn’t allowed to use a dummy last name for safety, a woman who has a title that is integral to her identity isn’t allowed to use that title, but trans and drag people can do anything, no matter how ridiculous.

      • Really? I’ve had three different facebook accounts and never used anything resembling my real name.

      • Andi Says:

        Facebook is crap and I know very few people who use their real names there. Most people have multiple accounts.

        Best thing to do is turn off the computer every once in while: there is a beautiful world out there where the sun shines on our skins, the rain drops on our heads and, most importantly, women call themselves women, not ciswomen, men call themselves men, not cismen, etc.

      • LC Says:

        @Dusquene, yeah, I know some people who use fake profiles on facebook and get away with it for a long time, but it’s always been the policy of using one’s real name. If someone reports you, you can have the account shut down. Interesting that it’s being unevenly applied, but not surprising.

      • river Says:

        If you are posting trans-critical, and have been reported (trans stalk radical lesbian/feminists on FB) you will lose your account.

        Many rl/fs have lost FB accounts for “not real name”. We have to show government id and/or give our phone number to recover the account.

        None of this happens to T, who not only have fake names, but actively stalk, harass and death threaten rl/f posters. How do they find us? They actively seek out so-called rl/fs to FB ‘friend’ and play “nice tranz” and use that cover to abuse rl/fs. The friended woman usually liberal feminist will inevitably plead NATALT, certainly not her T friend. They are nice.

        We have to work harder at making women understand it’s not about if T are ‘nice’. It’s about the erasure of Female. It’s about sexual fetish called Autogynephilia (one of the ‘philias’ which occur primarily in men, and which include pedophilia look it up) and it’s about the abuse of children and youth and homophobia,

      • river Says:

        The erasure of women: Any suggestion this will ‘help’ women and is being done for women, is bullshit. This is research done by male scientists, subsidized by taxpayer money, from which the males privileged to have them keep women out with rare exception. We know from recent news that one segment which heavily backs the idea of female pregnancy pods are gay males, who would probably prefer this to the starving, impoverished Asian women they are buying to give them children.

      • australopithecene Says:

        River, yep, that happened to me. Absolutely true.

      • Zemskull Says:

        I agree that this apparent disparity in the naming policy is questionable. Facebook asserts that the use of legal names creates a safe and positive environment. Assuming that their philosophy is correct, they’re undermining their goal by waiving the rule for persons with purported gender identity issues. This could be a security loophole that non-transgenders with unsafe intentions can easily exploit.

        I’m not advocating here for a “real names” policy across all social networks. If, however the users of a specific network have the assumption that legal names are being used by everyone, that policy should be upheld for all, with possible exceptions for persons who can document they have stalking or domestic violence concerns. Transgenders, like the rest of us, can legally change their names and identification documents before using those new names on Facebook.

    • MaryMacha Says:

      There are many reasons to not FB. But that problem is no longer limited to a few websites. Many people have gotten shut out of many conversations because a lot of sites insist that you link to FB or a Gggl account and require your real name. I’m sure there are ways around this but for most of us it’s just too much of a PIA to be bothered. I no longer comment on HP for example, and we all know they could really use a few opposing viewpoints on their numerous trans articles. Of course if you do comment under their guidelines you’ll just get a lot of abuse and possibly get stalked.

    • Double X Marks The Spot Says:

      Are you sure about this? All sorts of my friends use fake names. A recently divorced friend dropped her husband’s name from her profile. Another friend changes her name on the same profile on a regular basis as a kind of performance art.

      Related anecdote: recently, a group of us on the gender critical FB page got into it with a dude named Mitchell who claimed to be trans and told us he wanted to be called “Michelle,” even though his page was filled with dudely expressions of aggressive masculine culture (and the male name). He said “she” had to “pretend” to be male because his parents would throw him out if they knew he was trans. We were like, so your parents control your FB page? (He got banned eventually. We were much too patient with him, IMV.)

      • stchauvinism Says:

        Yes,if you are a feminist and critical of trans politics you will have your name reported as fake whether it is or not. There is a transgender male who is very anti-feminist working at Facebook and he actively tries to silence them

        [removed link to website authored by a woman who has filed multiple false DMCA claims against GenderTrender, purchased and several other URLS based on my name that re-direct to her own site, and in general conducted a multi-year campaign of stalking, libeling, and harassing me personally, as well as many other women.-GM]

  4. Zemskull Says:

    Hi Violet Irene: I know of a “genderfluid” man who has one account under his legal male identity, and also accounts for two different female alter-egos. A total of three accounts. This man is not an entertainer or in any way a professional impersonator.

  5. a cat Says:

    People who Gaelicise their names (write them in Scots Gaelic) fell foul of this rule too as Facebook decided they weren’t real names. (They are). Seems like one rule for one…

    • river Says:

      American Indians and Canadian First Nations have been targeted and some shut down. Their Indian nation (for Canada, Status) ID cards were not good enough.

      • Double X Marks The Spot Says:

        I wonder if FB changed the rules in response to criticism of their past actions. An aboriginal friend has recently changed her profile to include her native name, as has her son and daughter. No problems.

      • neme Says:

        They just haven’t been reported yet.

  6. Gallus, Memorial Day is next Monday. I don’t feel comfortable viewing this satirical video that involves U.S. female soldiers.

    Besides, I really don’t think it’s that funny.

    • stchauvinism Says:

      its fucking hilarious.

    • AreUSayingWhatUThink Says:

      I am never comfortable viewing soldiers of any country. I’ve been viewing them for what – my whole life? In memory of that woman who was in a bomb squad and got blown up very early in the Iraq invasion, I mean war, I will watch this video AGAIN, if not several times. She might have liked it. She might have faced a bunch of sexist crap in the Army, or growing up, who knows what kind of sense of humor she had. Did she look at porn like her male colleagues? When she was growing up, this woman soldier who got blown up taking an IED off a telephone pole I believe it was, because George Bush and Dick Cheney and Condelezza Rice and that sleezebag Donald Rumsfeld who I fucking DESPISE, sent her there because they WANTED to invade Iraq, it had nothing to do with national interest, it only had to do with Haliburton, and evening the score between Bush family and Sadam Hussein, this woman who was sent there to “do her duty,” was she into wargames, or GI Joe, growing up? Did she have family members who were in the military? Did she have no other options in the US for economic security?

      I’m glad you posted your misgivings about this video around Memorial Day. My feelings about Memorial Day (and I have family members who were in the military) go from sadness to rage, I HATE that they play all those patriotic movies “Band of Brothers” and heroism and flagwaving I fucking HATE IT. I FUCKING HATE MEMORIAL DAY, what a monument to utter human stupidity, what a fucking WASTE WWII was!!! An utter complete WASTE, every war is a monument to human stupidity, if not MALE stupidity, violence, selfishness.

      I will watch this video ON Memorial Day, as a TRIBUTE to this woman who died taking an IED off a damn telephone in the middle of goddam nowhere in some country called Iraq!!!!!

  7. survivorthriver Says:

    Ha ha ha, sign me up for the basic pronoun-to-pronoun combat training!

  8. stchauvinism Says:

    Why isnt anyone talking about the funny and awesome video posted? this is the most brilliant satire ive seen in ages.

  9. DJ Says:

    Have you seen this from last week?

    2nd letter is allegedly from a “cis” lesbian concerned about online dating. She’s told in order to remain an ally she should date transwomen. Seems planted to promote a certain agenda”

    “I’m a lesbian who has been pretty successful at online dating. Lately, however, I’ve had a few women contact me who turn out not to be cisgender. I’ve tried to remain open, but I have never been attracted to a trans woman. I don’t rule out the possibility that it could happen. But one great thing about online dating is that you can express preferences before going on a date, and I’d rather not unknowingly walk into these potentially awkward and painful situations. Is there something I could put on my profile expressing my preference for cisgender women that is not offensive to trans people? It’s important to me that I remain an ally.

    Can I Say?

    You can put “not into trans women” in your online dating profile, CIS, but you’ll have to hand in your Trans Ally card. Gay men are likewise free to put “no fats, no femmes” or “white guys only—just expressing my preference” on their profiles, and too many do (and not all of them are white guys), but gay men who do that have to hand in their Not an Asshole cards. Occasionally having coffee with someone you’re not into—and having to tiptoe through the awkwardness—isn’t something you can avoid in online dating. You would have to do that even if only cis lesbians responded to your ads, as you’re presumably not attracted to all cis lesbians. Having a coffee now and then with a trans woman you most likely won’t find attractive—but you never know—is a small price to pay to make the online dating world a less shitty place for trans people. It’s what an ally would do.”

    • MaryMacha Says:

      I always get the feeling that a lot of the “letters” in the Savage column are written by the same person. It has to do with the writing style and tone.

    • kesher Says:

      Of course Savage writes this with not one care in the world how entitled men are to women’s time and attention. As if transbians would take a face-to-face rejection any better than a man would.

    • GallusMag Says:

      So, in order to be a political ally to someone you have to date them. Even if you don’t want to.

      You heard it from Dan, straight allies! I wonder if Dan and his BF use this line to pick up hetero twinks for their threesome tricks.

      • neme Says:

        I wonder if Dan & his bf pick up transmen for threesomes. If not… Hypocrite Dan.

      • KgSch Says:

        I doubt that Dan Savage and his boyfriend are having threesomes with transmen. Dan Savage is such a hypocrite and a coward. All it took was the trannys glitter-bombing him one time and now he’s their puppet. Dance puppet dance!

        Of course, it’s Dan’s readers especially the lesbians who must pretend to be attracted to trannys. I just think it’s hilarious that as recently as a few years ago he was ranting and raving about how much he hated bisexuals and how they were cowards for not fully committing to just being with the same sex. Now, everyone must be bisexual-ish to appease the trans cult. Well, actually it’s only really the lesbians that need to appease the men by going on dates with them. We don’t have the right to boundaries or too choose who we let into our lives or who love; we must go out with hetero male trans, nevermind that they often act more male than your average male by being in constant rapist mode of refusing to take no for an answer. I doubt Savage expects too many gay men to hop in bed with FTTs/transmen (they don’t count as much because they are female), with the exception of that mostly gay guy who likes Buck Angel after marathoning a bunch of tranny porn.

        Oh, and nice subtle dig by implying that a lesbian refusing to date MEN is like a racist. It’s especially rich coming from the man who blamed black people (including Obama), in particular black women for the passage of Prop 8.

        I wish there was a way I could write to this girl (if she isn’t made up by Savage MaryMacha suggested) and tell her she’s not a bigot or wrong for wanting to only love women. I am proud not to have a trans ally card; instead I pledge my allegiance to lesbians.

        (Also, I swear that every time I’ve thumbed through the local newspaper when I visit my hometown that prints his column, there’s a least one letter with tranny bullshit!)

      • kesher Says:

        I think I’ve mentioned this before, but it’s interesting to me that Savage hasn’t yet disavowed Bailey or Dreger; Bailey for saying things the trans cult doesn’t like and Dreger for defending his right to speak. I wonder how long until the trans cult forces him to capitulate on that front as well.

        He’s also fielded questions from wannabe MTTs who are obviously fetishists; I remember there was one fairly recently that involved a man who fetishized peeing like a woman. And of course now Savage isn’t “allowed” to call a spade a spade and address those fetishes for what they are, rather than sacrosanct identity. It’s really just so pathetic for a man who used to open his column with a reclaimed anti-gay slur.

      • KgSch Says:

        By Bailey, you mean Micheal Bailey, the guy who wrote that book about autogynophiles right? I don’t know who Dregar is, but if Dregar is a man and we know Bailey is a man, you have your answer. Most gay men never bother to make an effort to unlearn their misogyny and still expect all women to serve men in some way. That’s why being a lesbian is equated to racism.

        But yeah, it is kind of pathetic how he’s going along with this. I don’t have any sympathy for him though because even if he turned on the trans cult, they are still not as much of a threat to a gay man with money and a pseudo-nuclear family compared to lesbians who have zero space of our own.

        Still, I’m not surprised he doesn’t call out the fetish behavior because there’s almost no fetish he doesn’t approve of. I would think though that the more of those kinds of questions he got, the more he’d connect the dots.

      • kesher Says:

        I certainly wouldn’t expect Savage not to endorse some dude’s peeing fetish. It’s more that I think it’s absurd that he won’t call it what it is. I bet he suspects that’s what’s really going on, but, despite Savage’s reputation for sex positivity, he’s not allowed to address these fetishes for what they are. He has to pretend that a guy who gets off on peeing sitting down is totally a woman.

        Dreger is a woman; I haven’t yet seen her attacked by the trans cult the way most women are, but I’m sure that’ll change if she keeps defending researchers who say inconvenient things.

    • Biscuit Says:

      Well, I think he needs to hand in his “Not an Asshole” card for daring to suggest that a lesbian who wants to date only women is somehow doing something wrong.

    • WTF Is This Nonsense? Says:

      “Lesbian. No males. Duh! Get over it. Not hetero/bi.”

    • Savage is now calling the Duggars hypocrites for having abuse within their family while at the same time working to prevent transwomen from women’s restrooms. 😦

      So basically we have to let bio males in our bathrooms or we are just like the Duggars.

      I’m frustrated with the T takeover of GLB. Lesbians don’t exist anymore. Transwomen have taken over.

      And the MEN don’t give a shit about the little girl victims. It’s just a pissing contest to them.

      They don’t listen to women. Transwomen are not women and never will be. They are wolves in sheep’s clothing.

      If society really cared about children, this shit wouldn’t happen at all. And yet we have Sandusky, Warren Jeffers, the Catholic Church, etc., getting away with it for decades.

      Anyone who thinks men and women are interchangeable are dangerously mistaken. A matriarchal society would not permit this psychological “virus” to grow and take root. It would be wiped off the planet. Instead, it’s protected.

      • nonny Says:

        I’m sorry, sidetrack here, but: I hate how Savage is trying to turn “Duggar” into the new “Santorum.” (He’s trying to make the term “to Duggar” into slang meaning “to cover up sex abuse.”)

        This is different from clowning on a single public figure, a homophobic politician, (Santorum) by referring to bodily fluids. “Duggar” isn’t simply the name of a single fucked up person but a public FAMILY who undoubtedly has female abuse victims within it!!!I think the molesting Duggar pedophile should be castrated and locked up, btw, so I know it’s a relatively “who even cares” kind of complaint. But it seems so opportunistic & exploitative.

      • KgSch Says:

        A lot of media outlets have referred to Michelle Duggar’s comments about how MTTs shouldn’t be allowed in women’s bathrooms and locker rooms as “gay-bashing” and “homophobia”. Forget lesbian and gay organizations (not that those organizations ever really helped lesbians to begin with), it’s all about the “T”. And now thinking that women need to have their own bathrooms away from men who do rape them is “gay-bashing”.

        It’s very dangerous to ally with people who actively work against you and co-opt your movement.

      • KgSch Says:


        I have to agree, there’s a difference between the Santorum thing and uses a surname that applies to female victims of abuse.

        I really always hated that show even before the abuse charges; it’s fucked up propaganda to promote overpopulation and another baby boom, and another way to tell women who say no to reproducing that there’s something wrong with them; because look at the woman on TV with 20 kids. (Because we totally need more people to reach 11 billion by 2100!) Not sorry, it’s unnatural to have that many children and their kids keep breeding too, even when her pregnancy might kill her…At least my parents and grandma are also disgusted by it.

        Still, I do agree about it not being okay to turn the surname of female victims into a meme. And Michelle Duggar was right about MTTs (the het ones at least).

  10. MaryMacha Says:

    Hi Gallus, I found this article on HP that almost made sense but has a way of missing the point by many miles while masquerading as rational. Thought you’d find it interesting.

    • GallusMag Says:

      TLDR: So we’ve been stomping all over the Lesbians since forever, and that’s fine because they are man-hating dick-rejecting bull-dykes bearing no relation to what we’ve been led to believe from watching lesbian porn. So they deserve not only total disregard of their boundaries, but any abuse we feel like dishing out. But I’m having reservations about alienating the straight women, not only because they are open to loving and sleeping with men but because there are just so many of them. We certainly shouldn’t alienate them as a movement based on the political objectives of “transmen” because they are just women themselves. Stomping all over women is the purview of men. Heterosexual men. Oops. I mean “Lesbian Transwomen”. Like me, Wayne Beyer.

      • branjor Says:

        Good sum-up.

      • Jane (the first) Says:

        The short-sighted trannies in the comments are hilarious. Unlike Beyer, they can’t see how they’re starting to alienate the het women who are their chief source of support and political labor. The way transentryists co-opt other movements is becoming a bit too obvious, even to libfems.

        Support of porn and prostitution are non-negotiable with 99.9% of MTFs, since they are crucial to acting out the trans kink. Transentryists have long accused abolitionists of being inherently transphobic, since many MTFs are prostitutes. Now they and their fellow sex pozzers are equating abolitionism with racism. The liberal pile-on against Meghan Murphy reveals their shameless attempt to link antiracism with support of the sex industry. White women like Murphy who oppose the sex trade are denounced as racist. Women of color who do so are ignored or said to be collaborating with so-called white feminism. Outside of Twitter libfem world, I don’t think many women of color appreciate this hijacking of their civil rights movements.

        Another increasingly popular sex poz tactic is to claim that married women are sex workers:

        There are a lot of libfems who love to signal their support of the prostituted, but won’t be at all happy to be equated with them. They’d better get it through their heads that sex poz males, including MTFs, have no interest in elevating the status of prostitutes. Rather, they seek to treat all women like whores.

      • kesher Says:

        Well of course they’re short-sighted. These dudes are accustomed to treating women like shit. Currently they’re operating under a mass delusion that says their behavior is above reproach because “oppression” and “ladyfeels”, but they’re going to slowly see het female support drop off. As with any other male abuser, they’re going to find every excuse in the book as to why their abuse isn’t responsible for women turning against them.

      • dbrvnk Says:

        “Another increasingly popular sex poz tactic is to claim that married women are sex workers:”

        That’s also an incredibly popular tactic among MRAs—not only marriage but even dating women since the dude is ‘spending money on’ his date by taking her to a restaurant or whatever in order to have sex with her, and therefore she is exactly the same as a ‘sex worker’.

      • Ashland Avenue Says:

        Jane, I’m not sure which pisses me off more – “deBeauxOs’s” stupid comment, or the fact that he has the nerve to use Patsy as his avatar. She doesn’t deserve that.

  11. gunhild Says:

    Male trans activists making a game about a woman with PTSD…

    I don’t have any good commentary right now but I find this sort of things ironic and offensive…

    • GallusMag Says:

      Men in general really get off on female trauma. That being said, Silence of The Lambs was made by a man. So “Not All Men!” LOL. Unfortunately “Amy Dentata” is a rabid anti-woman femulating MRA nutjob, so expect his “product” to follow. Trust your gut! Agent Starling did!

    • No name Says:

      Tormented women are their favorite porn.

    • Dogtowner Says:

      When one signs up to be a white biological male transactivist, is the first requirement that one be super unattractive?

      Lenny Bruce suggested that maybe we should just persecute ugly people — who do you want to sleep with, Kate Smith or Lena Horne? Harry Belafonte or Charles Laughton? — and after seeing some of these phenomenally ugly males, it’s sounding like rather a good idea.

      (I fully comprehend that homely women have a hellish time of it, and there is a huge gap between homely and monstrous.)

      • dbrvnk Says:

        “When one signs up to be a white biological male transactivist, is the first requirement that one be super unattractive?”

        I’ve been reading some of the archives of ‘We Hunted the Mammoth’ (site that collects examples of MRA activity) and it seems like het men are never at peace. I don’t know whether it’s male culture or male biology or what, but men are constantly in competition to be the top 10% or 20% and everyone who doesn’t make it is a ‘failed man’. It seems like a lot of those ‘failed men’ become transsexual, which I guess makes sense logically, you’re moving up in the world (of men). You’re no longer a failed man or (heavens forfend) a f*ggot, you’re now an ultra oppressed, ultra special kind of woman, and now women have to date you otherwise they’re being transphobic, and having ownership of a woman makes you better than other men, etc, etc. And being super unattractive is definitely one way to ‘fail’ at being a man. Men are incredibly concerned with their looks, probably more so than women, it’s really odd how people believe the stereotypes

        (It does seem to me that unattractive men turn into unattractive transsexuals, whereas attractive transsexuals were also attractive as men, but this is obviously subjective!)

      • kesher Says:

        I’ve definitely noticed a new category of male transitioners emerging.

        They don’t have anything resembling sex dysphoria, they’ve never indicated gender non-conformity pre-transition (unless being a weak man counts as gender “non-conformity”), and I’m not sure they’re really fetishists either.

        They fit that model of failed men except they’ve failed to an extreme extent. They’re either unemployed or marginally employed, have a string of failed relationships with women (or no relationships with women), and, if they have children, these men are already deadbeat dads. In short, they have nothing to lose by transitioning since they’re already losers, and, like you said, they now have a way to hold something over on women. I think these men are almost universally trans MRAs, and I think, of all the men who transition, they hate women the most.

      • GallusMag Says:

        I’ve seen men who fit your description discuss the fact that they were always viewed socially as “that weird guy” or “that creepy guy” and that transgendering allowed them to escape that role by providing an “answer”socially. They were no longer treated as a potentially dangerous social misfit basement dweller and instead were treated with kindness and deference, once they adopted the social category of “trans”.

      • kesher Says:

        And it probably goes without saying that these guys all keep their dicks and may not even be on HRT. That’s the beauty of the over-inclusive trans umbrella, males who transition have to give up literally nothing except perhaps a tiny bit of dignity (since identifying as a woman would be embarrassing for men who value themselves). But, I’ve yet to see any evidence that the trans MRAs and the fetishists have any dignity.

    • Tiki tiki tavi Says:

      Man is he greasy! Are all those transactivist greasy nerds who look like the type of people you’d see playing warhammer, watching anime or ren fairs

      And what does he know about what women go through?

  12. @AreUSayingWhatUThink,

    “…I believe it was, because George Bush and Dick Cheney and Condelezza Rice and that sleezebag Donald Rumsfeld who I fucking DESPISE, sent her there because they WANTED to invade Iraq, it had nothing to do with national interest, it only had to do with Haliburton…”

    True, but it could go much deeper than just Halliburton. Most people know that the neoconservatives had their eye on the middle east for years. The more I research it, the more I’m convinced that 9/11 was an elaborate false flag operation possibly to cover up what George H. Bush, a rogue element in the CIA, and some elite bankers cooked up a decade ago. Project Hammer makes more sense than the official story coming from the lying Bush administration. I know some people might say that this is impossible, but ask yourself this. Is there anything that George W. Bush didn’t lie about?

    In the 1960s, intelligence agencies were concocting various false flag operations in Operation Northwoods.

    As to 9/11, the physical evidence doesn’t match with the official story. There are 2,300 architects and engineers who took the time to research it. I watched the entire Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, “Blue Print for Truth”. It’s available on DVD and youtube. The architects and engineers from aren’t conspiracy theorists. They just say that the physical evidence doesn’t match with the official accounts from the Bush administration.


    Richard Gage in Delft University in the Netherlands.


    This is a link to chemistry professor Niel Harrit’s paper on nano-thermite. Nano-thermite isn’t something that terrorists living in caves in Afghanistan could have easily obtained.


    A lot of people knew Iraq was bullsh** even before Bush invaded Iraq in March 2003. I was out on the streets with my anti-war sign in late February and early March 2003. For approximately two years, I actively protested the illegal and immoral war in Iraq. I proudly held up my anti-war sign in the freezing pouring rain, and I was cursed at by irate people. I didn’t care because I knew I was right.

    I have several members of my family who served in the military, and I believe their service should be honored. Soldiers didn’t start the war in Iraq. It was George W. Bush and the greedy and power hungry neoconservatives. It’s always the powerful elite and politicians who start wars, but they never do the fighting. They never send their sons or daughters to war.

    The problem I have with the video “Trans Exterminatory Radical Forces Recruitment Ad” is that it shows female service members in actual uniforms not props or costumes. Despite knowing that Iraq was based on lies, in my opinion, the uniform still should be respected. My oldest sister was a nurse during the Vietnam War. She worked in a burn unit. She took care of wounded, maimed, and burned soldiers. Her service is to be honored and respected.

    Happy Memorial Day weekend.

    GallusMag Says:

    @May 20, 2015 at 11:05 pm

    The video about testosterone is funny and insightful. Thanks for posting it.

    • AreUSayingWhatUThink Says:

      Some people feel we honor the service BY disrespecting “the uniform.” I disagree that anybody has to honor anyone’s military service, whether it be on the front line as a combatant or as support personnel, no matter the good work that they did. War is utterly horrific, and there is no one right proper way to react to it or those who participate, willingly or unwillingly, wittingly or unwittingly. I pay taxes, so I guess I am a participant as well, I vote for people who vote for war, so I am a participant as well, at a nice safe distance.

      I note that Julie Ward Howe wanted to make June 2nd a “Mother’s Day for Peace,” and wrote “Appeal to Womanhood Throughout the World,” which includes:

      “Let them meet first, as women, to bewail and commemorate the dead. Let them then solemnly take council with each other as to the means whereby the great human family can live in peace, man as the brother of man, each bearing after his own kind the sacred impress, not of Caesar, but of God.”

      Memorial Day in the United States absolutely does not involve “solemnly taking council with each other as to the means whereby the great human family can live in peace.” Rather the opposite; “so sorry you went through hell on behalf of your country, here’s a ceremony and a flower arrangement.” I also note the heavy male bias of the quoted paragraph: “man” “brother” “his own kind” “Caesar” “God.” Though she is talking about women “meeting first” “as women” etc.

      I guess I am a radical feminist. I guess any commemoration of military service I got behind would HAVE TO involve promotion of the idea that war is connected to sexism, male dominance, male appropriation, male disrespect for boundaries.

      I also have a problem with trans referral to military service as “hypermasculinization.” They have no thought for the larger impact this “hypermasculinization” has on anybody else. I feel terrible sorrow for the pain and suffering of soldiers and their families – some of it physical, some of it emotional, some of it lasting through generations, whether or not any of those later generations are in the military. Maybe if I had female family members who were in the military I would feel differently, but in my case they are male.

    • Dogtowner Says:

      Like AreYouSaying, I have no “respect for the uniform.” The Hill is a phenomenal British movie from the fifties about a prison camp for British soldiers, a camp run by the British. It makes clear the purpose of the military: to turn a human being into a THING, a UNIT, which is the purpose of the patriarchy as well (what is more patriarchal than the military, even if it includes women). How can we be surprised that men treat women as things when they treat themselves the same way?

      I want women and men who have often gone naively into the military to be well-cared-for when they return to the States; I never support politicians who vote to cut veterans’ benefits (interestingly, these are often the same ones gung-ho for wars). But that does not mean I unquestioningly respect veterans or their uniforms, uniforms being one means by which you turn human beings into things.

      • LC Says:

        I served in the military at one time, and while I have respect for many of the people there, “the uniform” is just a symbol of the institute whose policies the military enforces. It has nothing to do with anyone’s “freedoms” and is rarely about protecting anything or anyone other than the friends you have beside you. There is no higher purpose for many active service members beyond doing their job and not disappointing each other. People who “respect military service” really need to understand this psychology before they blindly defend everyone involved. Moreover, not everyone in the military joins with any good intentions, and it’s a disservice to those who do- and to the victims of those who don’t- to pretend otherwise.

        I.E. I agree with you dogtowner, and while I don’t regret my own time there, I’m glad I left. It’s a lot more complicated than just serving one’s country, and the nature of it allows for plenty of legitimate criticism.

      • Zemskull Says:

        I respect members of the military, but for their financial and career shrewdness rather than their “service.” I went to college, worked three jobs at a time to support myself during it, and took out massive student loans. I learned in my mid-20s that I could have learned the same line of work while getting paid to train in it, had I joined the military. I hadn’t even been aware until then that specialty existed in the service. Not to mention that had I learned the trade in the military, I could have skipped the lengthy post-college job searches, and enjoyed plenty of benefits both while in and following discharge, Wish I’d known!

      • kesher Says:

        Current and former military love to complain about the VA, but it’s still better than most options in the private sector, especially for anyone who’s poor or lower middle class.

      • Zemskull Says:

        Hi Kesher: Veterans–even the ones who just served for two years in peacetime 50 or 60 years ago–have a number of impressive assisted living options that non-veterans have to pay $4K monthly or more for.

  13. Gallus, I’m sorry about the links to the videos. I apologize. I wanted to follow up on what @AreUSayingWhatUThink was saying.

    • amazondream Says:

      Skylark–As a veteran of the Vietnam era I want to thank you for your support of the truth in these matters–When the first tower fell down I knew something horribly wrong was happening–Building don’t fall like that on their–Although it’s been 45 years since I first took the oath to protect and defend I still feel as strongly about it today as then–

      Stay strong Sister–

  14. WeWillWin Says:

    I’ve watched this video 6+ times and every time I laugh and get a lift from it. Thanks 23xx!

  15. Gallus du you know this?

    This is a new swedish study about the mental health of gender dysphoric girls.

    conclusion: The findings do not fit the commonly accepted image of a gender dysphoric minor. Treatment guidelines need to consider gender dysphoria in minors in the context of severe psychopathology and developmental difficulties.

    These children have severe mental health issues and disorders. Transitioning is seen as the the magic cure but it will make things much worse.

  16. ED Says:

    Just genius- currently free bleeding all over the place. BBC announced last week that a bearded woo!man had won Eurovision, I switched it off – anything but Female, so true…

  17. […] (Link found in comments of GenderTrender) […]

  18. 23 XX Says:

    Why should I respect recruitment ads? jesus christ.

  19. Violet Irene Says:

    Did you see this?

    School Board member Elizabeth Schultz, who voted against the measure, said the vote was about the privacy of the vast majority of students and staff in the school system.

    “It is about the right of 99.7 percent of all students, all teachers and all employees to retain their right to privacy, safety and dignity,” said Schultz (Springfield). “Let’s change the policy to two words: ‘Don’t discriminate.’ ”

    School Board member Patty Reed (Providence) noted that the vote to add gender identity to the policy seemed rushed.

    Reed, who abstained from the vote, said that it took “10 years of study to institute later high school start times.”

    The parents nearly rioted against this. But still, it was pushed through. Why the rush, indeed.

  20. Zemskull Says:

    Hi Gallus: If you get the opportunity this week to watch the two Keeping Up the Kardhasians episodes that are titled About Bruce, I recommend you do so. As much as Bruce has purported that his family is “supportive” of him, it clearly took manipulation on his part. If it’s that noticeable with that what we’re seeing on the show with a camera-savvy family, who knows what happened behind closed doors. It’s on heavy rotation on E! right now, so your DVR can pick it up. It is interesting indeed to see how Bruce initially somewhat pitted the women in his family against each other. In particular, he’s clearly picked out Kim as his chief enabler. I imagine this happens in families across America, and it’s quite saddening to see what they, especially the underage offspring and grandchildren of these men, go through.

    • Atranswidow Says:

      That’s their m.o….pick on the most naive and trusting, usually the youngest child.

      No matter how many tears we see Bruce will still play the hero and if that doesn’t work there’s always the suicide trump card. What child wants to even contemplate the thought that they could be responsible for their father’s suicide. What choice does a child have? Manipulative and abusive behaviour is what these men are capable of in their quest to impose their new reality on those around them.

    • No name Says:

      The very worse autogynophiliacs pit women against each other when they play ‘woman’,- that is one way some men see themselves as fantasy women, as manipulative slutty ‘bitches’.

      It makes me sick that Bruce was messing with his teen daughters, and let them fight with each other about it knowing he was the cause. It is like an autogynephilic to play abusive games with females, but-even his own female children?

      These guys can be abusive and try to start arguments between females in every women’s place they go, Abusive males with no boundaries are dangerous at their worst. What was he thinking when he objectifies his own daughters? Russell Williams[the Canadian serial killer] broke into homes with young girls and he stole their underclothes constantly and took photos in their rooms wearing their clothes. Part of his thrill was that he had access, and the girls noticed the thefts and the violation, but could not stop him, even if the caught him in the act.

      Then to aggravate the situation, his children were fighting over shit he was pulling- and Bruce knew. I wonder if he let them fight or picked sides and blamed one unfairly like an abusive sadistic bastard? he goes in there again and gets caught on camera getting off in his daughter’s room after he knew they suspected some danger, -these ‘girls’ were his children he was suppose to be raising.

      Some men play into a character of women that is exaggerated, misogynistic stereotypes of low-class women, and play sadistic games with actual women. They expect you to interact or they become angry and more abusive.

      I feel like saying to Kris, ‘Run, and take your young girls with you!’

      • Zemskull Says:

        Hi No Name: I’ve known of men who subtly pit two women against each other and then act surprised when they don’t get along. It’s known as triangulation. In the case of Bruce and his offspring, the results are even more unhealthy because there are so many women who are different age-wise and in their relationships to Bruce. There’s the ex-wife Kris who is in her 50s or 60s, the step-daughters in their 20s and 30s, bio-daughters in their teens, and some granddaughters of younger ages. The step-daughter Kim is in the middle generation, pressuring both Kris and the bio-daughters to sign on to Bruce’s schemes.

        Another interesting thing to observe: everyone in the group, including Bruce, talking about his female personality as a new, separate person they all haven’t met yet. For example, one of the step-daughters brought him women’s shoes and Bruce said he wasn’t sure yet what type of fashion “she” was going to like and wear.

        I know a lot of people don’t like the Kardashians and reality shows, but these episodes are worth a watch IMO.

      • Zemskull Says:

        Also, Bruce seems to want it both ways in terms of whether his female personality will be a completely new person or not. His teen daughters are clearly in a mourning process about the father they’re losing, yet Bruce seems to blow them off and say, “It’s still going to be me!” I think this plays into my earlier post about transgenders on Facebook using multiple identities for years. They jump between narratives about being completely reborn, or just altered, and expect everyone else to play to both mindsets.

      • morag99 Says:

        Your drawing the parallels between Bruce Jenner and Russell Williams is brilliant, No Name. The similarities are frightening.

        Williams of course went further along the fetishistic continuum of objectifying and dehumanizing girls and women, to the point of serial rape and murder. But it’s the SAME continuum. Jenner and Williams are living in the very same macho, socially powerful and violent male head-space. Sick fucks, both of them. Walking lethal weapons. Perhaps Bruce has gone much, much further in his misogynist, sexually-obsessed pursuits than we know right now. Would it be a surprise?

      • No name Says:

        Bruce has a captive group of women to ‘play’ with, it is hard to say what damage he has already done to the younger ones. He is quite comfortable and untouchable there.

        Their worry over the new ‘woman’ Bruce will become- sounds like media hype, and cover-up for the new level of abuse Bruce will inflict on them as the ‘female persona’

        It really sounds like -the children getting together to discuss it- is reflective of children gathering to discuss ‘abuse from dad may get worse, but we must stick together’ tone. He already has many distanced family members pitted against each other with this, that is his enjoyment.

        I would not be surprised if one or two grand children/young daughters come forward in a few years speaking out about him being abusive by this shit in front of them- awkward in-your-face-objecting females and getting off on sexy clothes 24/7 sex life infront of them as girls.
        Of course mom wants out, do you blame her? I could just cry thinking about Kris, she tryed so hard to be the perfect wife.
        ‘Sorry honey, you can’t play with your frozen wand or your frozen princess dress anymore, your dad stuck the wand up his ass and ejaculated on your costume. You know we have to throw away your things if daddy plays with them’
        Oh, that’s healthy.’

        With Russell, he ended up killing two young women under his command when they displeased him. It was not enough for him to just be the supreme commanding officer in-charge of what the women do, or having command of their duties/actions or assignments, he felt entitled to take their lives too.

      • “Walking lethal weapons.”

        Driving lethal weapons, too.

        Bruce killed a woman this year. For real. But that seems to have been totally forgotten…even though it was totally his fault.

      • Zemskull Says:

        @edruminations I would not be surprised if Bruce’s eagerness to become a “new” person is partially coming from the realization that he made some selfish choices in his past. I’ve often found that a person embarking a “fresh start” or “new beginning” is actually dumping his responsibilities on other people, e.g. absentee fathers, which Bruce was.

  21. Zemskull Says:

    I think he “felt out” who his easiest mark would be. In this case, Kim is not the youngest, but she is most aggressive of all them. At one point, Chloe, who was raised by Bruce since age 4 but wasn’t his bio daughter (her bio father died when she was young), wasn’t getting signing off on his plan as quickly as Bruce wanted, and Bruce said he only cared what his bio children what thought. Ouch! Yet he was happy to recruit Kim to his cause, even though she’s also not his bio. Interesting.

    • Zemskull Says:

      I’ll add: something Bruce Jenner said on the show, and other MTFs have said, is that their lives prior to transition had been about “pleasing everyone else.” Yet in the case of Jenner, he’s lived an enviable life with fame, attractive wives, a net worth of $100 million, a beach house in Malibu and one of the most elite Olympic medals. It would seem that pleasing “others” has been of great benefit to him. A late-transitioning MTF I know of was a ruthless corporate type and arguably made a lot of his money from harming others, and he was also not kind to his wife and children. I don’t see a lot of “pleasing” others in this person’s life.

      • anon male Says:

        It’s possible to have “happiness dysphoria”: under their way of thinking, it doesn’t matter how poorly or how well you engage with patriarchal power, because no matter the result, any and every result was damaging to your true sense of self.

        I’d had always imagined that this would inflame some sense of indignation for gay trans, or that even regular dudes would take offense at guys like Seal Team Betty or Helicopter Bob claiming that somehow the average male dishwasher is more privileged than them (because I myself take such offense!) due to cis privilege. But no.

        Instead, males who are aware of this seem to be content with the reward of using their gendah knowledge (aka the elite practice of privilege checking via pointless online admissions and underhanded call-outs) to put other, less in-the-know males in their place.

        It’ll be interesting how this plays out in the next generation, where you have highly successful trans youth (all the boys winning homecoming queen and whatnot — where does that leave cis people who never even feel entitled to show up at prom on the privilege scale?), and how that will relate to late transitioners who surely will still exist.

  22. WeWillWin Says:

    “Politics is war without bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed.”

    Mao Zedong

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: