Immanentizing the Lexicon: Transgenderism's Language Police Take Command

Our sane people no longer know what sanity is

Revisionist History Website

Copyright ©2023

“Power’s proper partners are accountability and thick skin. Secularists avoid accountability with the thinnest skin in the history of mankind. The slightest imprecision or misspoken word is cast as an existential threat.”—Jason Whitlock

Here’s an issue as raw as a scraped knee; as fraught with the possibility of cancelation of a writer’s cri de coeur as any choc du mois. This is outlaw territory and the non-conformist who ventures into it risks his visibility in the social media firmament by daring to insist on le mot juste, in contrast to the prescribed Newspeak cant.

Androgyny as the prerogative of the artist is not the point here. David Bowie’s cross-dressing was postlapsarian theater of the fallen, with a history extending back to the homoerotic innuendo and female impersonation of Protestant England’s Shakespearean stage, where women were forbidden to act, and where boys played female roles and became pederastic love objects.

No lucid person actually believed that the rocker Bowie, or the boys acting the roles of Juliet, Ophelia and Titania Queen of the Fairies at the Globe Theater in London, were anything other than imitators undertaking impressions of the feminine. It was the stuff of a midsummer night’s dream, “of imagination all compact,” reality consciously burlesqued. Any attempt to assert that those fellows actually were women would have gained the speaker a brisk carriage ride to Bedlam.

In 1632, Parliament’s Puritan legal scholar William Prynne published his tome, Histriomastix: The Player's Scourge, or Actor's Tragedy, arguing for a ban on theaters, partly due to the prevalence of cross-dressing (Prynne’s book was banned by the Anglican church. King Charles I sentenced him to life imprisonment).

Like Halloween, female impersonation we will have with us until Judgement Day. However, the semantikos of demanding submission to the biological impossibility that persons with xy chromosomes are actually persons with xx chromosomes, is an order of magnitude beyond rock and roll ribaldry, theatrical antics and same-sex attraction.

Concerning the xy = xx sophism, we apply George Orwell’s observation about an earlier outlandish fallacy, “You have to be an intellectual to believe that—no ordinary man could be so stupid.”

Occult Connection: The Convergence of Scientism’s Transgenic and Transgender Creations

Xy = xx is an invocation energizing a Jungian archetype, the Kabbalistic Adam Kadmon—revived in central Europe by the Rosicrucian camarilla about the time Prynne was penning his jeremiad. Here we encounter a sorcerous précis engineering the human person by literary means that today we would term neuro-linguistic programming.

For this to succeed a newly scripted reality must be imposed, first through the soft power of virtue-signaling and appeals to libidinal autonomy and liberation, and when that fails, intimidation and self-censorship; and for the absolutely intractable, loss of reputation and cancelation of career and livelihood. Draconian punishment is the order of the day in lieu of a discussion and debate which would unveil the essentially preposterous nature of the sacred belief. Unfortunately in the eyes of fanatics, their “truth” cannot be debated. Those who reject the “truth” of xy = xx (or vice versa), are embracing error and error has no rights. This is the doctrine of the Inquisition, dusted off and reborn 500 years later by “progressives.”