Some of us older liberals have been ranting at our peers to take Rush Limbaugh and Fox News seriously since the early '90s. It was always, 'How can anyone take that shit seriously? You're just wasting your time following it."
Sommer: "... you have countries in Eastern Europe that suddenly care really passionately about opposing trans rights where it wasn’t really a flashpoint before."
It wasn't much of a "flashpoint before", largely because the Left -- Democrats and Canadian Liberals -- had and have disappeared up their fundaments on the issue of trans-rights. Cases-in-point being Kamala -- "she's for they/them" -- Harris gushing over a transwoman, Dylan Mulvaney, "living authentically as a woman". And Canada's erstwhile fearless leader, Justin Trudeau, had endorsed the transgender article of faith -- i.e., "trans women are women (!!11!!)" -- from the Prime Minister's Office, and, adding insult to injury, on International Women's Day, no less.
No doubt there are some batshit crazy ideas on the Right, but their lizard people and UFOs pale into insignificance, into small potatoes in comparison to the barking mad idea that people can change sex. Which is another article of faith of transgender ideology, and some rather toxic if not fatal Kool-aid which Democrats and Canadian Liberals have swallowed -- hook, line, sinker, plus rod and reels -- as well as prescribing for the body politic and making matters of law.
Democrats and Liberals own that issue, one likely to be an albatross that they're going to wear for a very long time -- they'll be lucky to even survive as Parties because of that, and probably shouldn't as far as I'm concerned. And because of the "trans-gressions" in the crimes of various transgender ideologues and activists that Democrats and Liberals have given free rein to. For example, the assassination of Charlie Kirk by a fellow-traveler of those activists and ideologues; see:
Wikipedia: On January 21, 2025, Kirk praised President Donald Trump for revoking Executive Order 14004, which had allowed transgender individuals to serve openly in the U.S. military, and said, "Sorry, if you're Jeff and you think you're Jill, you are not going to serve in the U.S. military. Go find something else to do."
We have been living with openly trans women since 1953. There was never really an issue about them until the 21st century. The medical technology and market efficiencies have made the choice to transition both more aesthetically successful and financially attainable.
The problem for society is that trans-women (and this is always about trans-women and not trans men which is curious in itself) is that 20th Century trans-women just wanted to integrate into the fabric of society and live as women. The 21st century has brought about the consciousness that there is no shame in the choice and trans-persons are claiming a space in the public square.
I have no particular brief for the trans-community but they are part of society no matter how barking mad you think them. I think that tattoos, body piercings and 95% of cosmetic surgeries are barking mad. I think In Vitro Fertilization is barking mad. But I would never think about interfering with their choice let alone leading a political vendetta against them.
In so far as possible I think they should be able to find some accommodation in society. I do believe that being able to use a toilet without humiliation or violence is a basic human right. In this sense all of Europe, outside of the UK, has been pretty forward thinking in providing unisex facilities and monitoring sex segregated toilet facilities for hygiene and safety.
“There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
Harley: ".... openly trans women since 1953. ...."
"transwomen" -- compound word like "crayfish" which ain't. And 1953 is about the time that George Jorgensen "transitioned" to "Christine", and the BBC, among others, gave credence to the barking mad idea that he, and others of his ilk, had "transitioned" to become a female:
Harley: "... trans-women just wanted to integrate into the fabric of society and live as women. ..."
Well, bully for them. Maybe I'd like to "live as" the king of England and demand to be treated as if I had "transitioned" into that exalted estate. There's a bedrock biological difference between men and women that encompasses different reproductive abilities -- to a first approximation, testicles and ovaries, respectively -- that has more than passing relevance to various laws and medical conditions that have to be respected and accepted.
If, for example, transwomen want to play dress-up among friends then fine -- they can fill their boots as far as I'm concerned. But when they then want to be treated as if they had changed sex -- a medical and biological impossibility -- and insist on playing in women's sports and in other venues where sex segregation is justified -- as in the military as Charlie Kirk pointed out -- then the only solution seems to be to declare those transwomen as certifiably insane -- literally, out of their fucking minds -- and to incarcerate them as such.
Harley, channeling Shakespeare: "... more ... in Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
When you find some transwoman who's replaced his testicles with some functioning ovaries of his own is when I might concede that the "dream" of transwomen to "transition" to female has been realized.
What’s being labeled the “Extremist Right” is mostly a mix of trade controls, immigration restrictions, and government intervention in all levels of personal and economic life. These aren’t fringe ideas, they’ve been mainstream across US politics for decades, and were even core to the Democratic Party. It’s not obvious what makes MAGA distinctly “right-wing” in any traditional sense. It’s neither pro-capitalist nor pro-individual liberty. I would say that the correct term for today's "Extremist Right" is simply "Left Wing."
Critics often point to the more "outlandish beliefs" among the more uneducated MAGA supporters, like anti-vaccine views. But what about the many highly educated and influential voices promoting anti–fossil-fuel positions?
A more useful way to understand the landscape is this: both major political camps are varieties of the same underlying approach: authoritarianism. One is more religious in tone, the other more secular, but both advocate total government control of our lives in one way or another. The real divide isn’t left vs. right, it’s between different styles of leftism.
What’s missing today is a genuine right-wing in the classical sense: a movement grounded in individual rights, limited government, and capitalism. That tradition once had a foothold, at least rhetorically, within the GOP. Now it’s largely absent, not just from politicians, but from the electorate itself. This represents a truly historic failure of our experts and commentators in politics and that's the real issue that needs to start getting discussed at all these chin-wag sessions.
At this point, the political contest isn’t over whether government power should expand, but over who wields it, red-MAGA or blue-MAGA. Whoever wins from this choice, everyone loses.
I think this is wrong. The cringe, earnest, slightly neurotic portion of the left was warning you about this since the first day Trump took the lead in a primary poll in 2015, and Stephen Miller emerged as his primary speechwriter.
"We should have taken it seriously , , , " WE? Who in the fuck is we? We should have had a sitting democratic party who was watching out for us instead of investing via special info from insider trading making them all millionaires. When all is said and done, when real justice has set right our ship again, if ever, the complicit blue party kabukiers who sold out in their silence and inaction should be blindfolded and stood up against the wall, along with all the media whores who knew it all and said nothing, did nothing and lied.
Project 2025 is a massive sea change from some of their other Mandates, and even more clearly because it was crafted by an entire coherent infrastructure of former Trump appointees and ascendant post 2021 insiders.
Some of us older liberals have been ranting at our peers to take Rush Limbaugh and Fox News seriously since the early '90s. It was always, 'How can anyone take that shit seriously? You're just wasting your time following it."
Sommer: "... you have countries in Eastern Europe that suddenly care really passionately about opposing trans rights where it wasn’t really a flashpoint before."
It wasn't much of a "flashpoint before", largely because the Left -- Democrats and Canadian Liberals -- had and have disappeared up their fundaments on the issue of trans-rights. Cases-in-point being Kamala -- "she's for they/them" -- Harris gushing over a transwoman, Dylan Mulvaney, "living authentically as a woman". And Canada's erstwhile fearless leader, Justin Trudeau, had endorsed the transgender article of faith -- i.e., "trans women are women (!!11!!)" -- from the Prime Minister's Office, and, adding insult to injury, on International Women's Day, no less.
No doubt there are some batshit crazy ideas on the Right, but their lizard people and UFOs pale into insignificance, into small potatoes in comparison to the barking mad idea that people can change sex. Which is another article of faith of transgender ideology, and some rather toxic if not fatal Kool-aid which Democrats and Canadian Liberals have swallowed -- hook, line, sinker, plus rod and reels -- as well as prescribing for the body politic and making matters of law.
Democrats and Liberals own that issue, one likely to be an albatross that they're going to wear for a very long time -- they'll be lucky to even survive as Parties because of that, and probably shouldn't as far as I'm concerned. And because of the "trans-gressions" in the crimes of various transgender ideologues and activists that Democrats and Liberals have given free rein to. For example, the assassination of Charlie Kirk by a fellow-traveler of those activists and ideologues; see:
Wikipedia: On January 21, 2025, Kirk praised President Donald Trump for revoking Executive Order 14004, which had allowed transgender individuals to serve openly in the U.S. military, and said, "Sorry, if you're Jeff and you think you're Jill, you are not going to serve in the U.S. military. Go find something else to do."
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charlie_Kirk&oldid=1311056624#LGBTQ_rights
Hard not to see that as the smoking gun laid at the doorsteps of Democrats and Liberals. For which there should be hell itself to pay.
We have been living with openly trans women since 1953. There was never really an issue about them until the 21st century. The medical technology and market efficiencies have made the choice to transition both more aesthetically successful and financially attainable.
The problem for society is that trans-women (and this is always about trans-women and not trans men which is curious in itself) is that 20th Century trans-women just wanted to integrate into the fabric of society and live as women. The 21st century has brought about the consciousness that there is no shame in the choice and trans-persons are claiming a space in the public square.
I have no particular brief for the trans-community but they are part of society no matter how barking mad you think them. I think that tattoos, body piercings and 95% of cosmetic surgeries are barking mad. I think In Vitro Fertilization is barking mad. But I would never think about interfering with their choice let alone leading a political vendetta against them.
In so far as possible I think they should be able to find some accommodation in society. I do believe that being able to use a toilet without humiliation or violence is a basic human right. In this sense all of Europe, outside of the UK, has been pretty forward thinking in providing unisex facilities and monitoring sex segregated toilet facilities for hygiene and safety.
“There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
Harley: ".... openly trans women since 1953. ...."
"transwomen" -- compound word like "crayfish" which ain't. And 1953 is about the time that George Jorgensen "transitioned" to "Christine", and the BBC, among others, gave credence to the barking mad idea that he, and others of his ilk, had "transitioned" to become a female:
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-20544095
Harley: "... trans-women just wanted to integrate into the fabric of society and live as women. ..."
Well, bully for them. Maybe I'd like to "live as" the king of England and demand to be treated as if I had "transitioned" into that exalted estate. There's a bedrock biological difference between men and women that encompasses different reproductive abilities -- to a first approximation, testicles and ovaries, respectively -- that has more than passing relevance to various laws and medical conditions that have to be respected and accepted.
If, for example, transwomen want to play dress-up among friends then fine -- they can fill their boots as far as I'm concerned. But when they then want to be treated as if they had changed sex -- a medical and biological impossibility -- and insist on playing in women's sports and in other venues where sex segregation is justified -- as in the military as Charlie Kirk pointed out -- then the only solution seems to be to declare those transwomen as certifiably insane -- literally, out of their fucking minds -- and to incarcerate them as such.
Harley, channeling Shakespeare: "... more ... in Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
When you find some transwoman who's replaced his testicles with some functioning ovaries of his own is when I might concede that the "dream" of transwomen to "transition" to female has been realized.
What’s being labeled the “Extremist Right” is mostly a mix of trade controls, immigration restrictions, and government intervention in all levels of personal and economic life. These aren’t fringe ideas, they’ve been mainstream across US politics for decades, and were even core to the Democratic Party. It’s not obvious what makes MAGA distinctly “right-wing” in any traditional sense. It’s neither pro-capitalist nor pro-individual liberty. I would say that the correct term for today's "Extremist Right" is simply "Left Wing."
Critics often point to the more "outlandish beliefs" among the more uneducated MAGA supporters, like anti-vaccine views. But what about the many highly educated and influential voices promoting anti–fossil-fuel positions?
A more useful way to understand the landscape is this: both major political camps are varieties of the same underlying approach: authoritarianism. One is more religious in tone, the other more secular, but both advocate total government control of our lives in one way or another. The real divide isn’t left vs. right, it’s between different styles of leftism.
What’s missing today is a genuine right-wing in the classical sense: a movement grounded in individual rights, limited government, and capitalism. That tradition once had a foothold, at least rhetorically, within the GOP. Now it’s largely absent, not just from politicians, but from the electorate itself. This represents a truly historic failure of our experts and commentators in politics and that's the real issue that needs to start getting discussed at all these chin-wag sessions.
At this point, the political contest isn’t over whether government power should expand, but over who wields it, red-MAGA or blue-MAGA. Whoever wins from this choice, everyone loses.
I take no pleasure in "I told you so". But I told you so.
Liberals may not have taken it seriously. Conservatives refused to gatekeep. Now some of them are worried - in their own words:
https://thedayofreckoning.substack.com/p/conservatives-are-suddenly-worried
Some of us did take it seriously but were written off as Jewish generational trauma.
I think this is wrong. The cringe, earnest, slightly neurotic portion of the left was warning you about this since the first day Trump took the lead in a primary poll in 2015, and Stephen Miller emerged as his primary speechwriter.
"We should have taken it seriously , , , " WE? Who in the fuck is we? We should have had a sitting democratic party who was watching out for us instead of investing via special info from insider trading making them all millionaires. When all is said and done, when real justice has set right our ship again, if ever, the complicit blue party kabukiers who sold out in their silence and inaction should be blindfolded and stood up against the wall, along with all the media whores who knew it all and said nothing, did nothing and lied.
Indeed…
When the Koch Brothers started financial support in the millions in 1973 of The Heritage Foundation, nothing noticed
The same Heritage Foundation developed Trump Project 2025
Madeline Albright wrote Fascim A Warning , nobody noticed
In 2020
https://evonomics.com/how-to-disguise-racism-and-oligarchy-use-the-language-of-economics/
By Lynn Parramore
And here we are. Nobody noticed.
They've been curating "Mandate for Leadership" since the '70s. There's nothing inherently 'Trumpian' about P2025 — that's just timing.
Project 2025 is a massive sea change from some of their other Mandates, and even more clearly because it was crafted by an entire coherent infrastructure of former Trump appointees and ascendant post 2021 insiders.