On Boobs and Cluster B's
On Boobs and Cluster B's
Our current sexual politics are not only libertine, but a symptom of personality pathology
No doubt many of you have seen the news. A shop teacher in Ontario who goes by the name of “Kayla” Lemieux was filmed by his students wearing comically large prosthetic breasts, complete with large erect nipples, long blonde wig, and tight black shorts.
“Kayla” recently “transitioned.” In other words, he is a man who either believes he is a woman (and one with an absolutely enormous rack, to boot) or simply demands that everyone pretend he is.
The school defended Lemieux’s “right” to bear such Brobdingnagian bazongas in front of his high school students. All staff, after all, have the right to “equitable treatment without discrimination based upon gender identity and gender expression.”
Lemieux’s monumental imitation melons are apparently an essential ingredient in creating “a positive learning environment” based on school “values” and ensuring “a safe and inclusive environment.”1
As a troll, this would udderly epic. Unfortunately, there is so far no indication that this is the case.
In other news, Katharine Birbalsingh, the headmistress of one of England’s most successful state schools, recently posted a photo of her standing next to Jordan Peterson. Just that.
One guess which of the two—Lemieux or Birbalsingh—was reported to police.
What is going on?
I’m with Josh Slocum on the transgender debate. What we are seeing here is not simply a matter of “gender dysphoria”; it is a mass manifestation of sexual and personality pathology. From autogynephilia (a fetish that involves a man being sexually aroused by the thought of being a woman) to the unstable identity of borderline personality and the cynical and self-serving manipulations of psychopathy—our public morality shifted so far over the past decade that we not only don’t recognize fairly obvious forms of psychopathology when we see them.2 We embrace them.
This is the “first criterion of ponerogenesis” in action.
With the above example in mind (and I’m sure countless others come to mind), it’s worth revisiting a few excerpts from Political Ponerology.
In a civilization deficient in psychological knowledge, hyperactive individuals driven by an inner angst caused by a feeling of being different easily find a ready echo in other people’s insufficiently developed consciousness. Such individuals dream of imposing their power and their different experiential manner upon their environment and their society. Unfortunately, in a psychologically ignorant society, their dreams to impose on societies their own, different way of experiencing and conceptualizing, and then, their power, still stand a chance of being accomplished. (p. 13)
There are ill people whose social role is insignificant. However, there are also those in whom mental deviations and anomalies of various qualities and severities can be diagnosed and whose negative social role is much greater. Many such people are driven by an inner angst caused by a sense of their own difference: they search for unconventional paths of action and adjustment to life with a characteristic hyperactivity. In some cases, such activity can be pioneering and creative, which ensures societal tolerance for some of these individuals. (p. 37)
In these two excerpts, Lobaczewski is referring to what Dabrowski called “negative maladjustment.” There are plenty of healthy and highly intelligent people who feel out of place and critical of society at large for failing to embody higher values (“positive maladjustment”). Negative maladjustment is more of a wholesale rejection of conventional morality. Think of the “pioneering and creative” writers discussed by Cleckley in The Caricature of Love, or many of the criminals populating our prisons.
And while Lobaczewski only makes brief mention of sexual pathology, Cleckley brings the connection right out into the open. The writers Cleckley highlights were incapable of love (they have that in common with psychopathy). Their sexuality was characterized more by fetish and decay than any emotional and loving bonds—which are scoffed at and dismissed as naive delusions.
It’s not just love that they reject. The entire structure of society, culture, tradition, and custom strikes them as an affront to their very being—a stifling and oppressive farce.
To individuals with various psychological deviations, such a social structure dominated by normal people and their conceptual world appears to be a “system of force and oppression.” (p. 127)
It’s understandable. But just because some psychopath finds it unbearable that he’s not free to simply take what he wants—what he “deserves”—whenever he wants it, that does not mean the majority have to roll over and give it to him. It’s not “systematic prejudice” to have standards, or to refuse perverts the “right” to prance around naked and perform simulated or real sex acts in public, for instance.
Lobaczewski comes back to this dynamic in the context of schizoid personalities—one such “mental deviation” of relevance:
Schizoid characters … aim to impose their own conceptual world upon other people or social groups, using relatively controlled pathological egotism and the exceptional tenacity derived from their persistent nature. They are thus eventually able to overpower another individual’s personality, which causes the latter’s behavior to turn desperately illogical. (p. 186)
The theory behind transgenderism (e.g. queer theory) is clearly schizoid in origin and flavor. And it has been successfully imposed on Western society to the extent that any protest against it is turned back against those protesting. The borderline personality faction are the vanguard of the Woke brigade in this regard.
The small minority of transgender activists has been persistent and “exceptionally tenacious” (one might say, zealous) in lobbying to get these policies implemented at federal levels, in infiltrating schools with activist teachers and curricula, and in using “controlled pathological egotism” to deflect any criticism (a special skill of borderlines). The behavior of those allowing this to happen, and facilitating it, has turned “desperately illogical.” Witness the approving reactions to Lemieux and the disapproving ones to Birbalsingh and Peterson.
If “controlled pathological egotism” sounds confusing, it is the arrogant self-certainty of those with serious personality disorders. The strength of their certainty and self-entitlement, and their willingness to berate and attack any who disagree, overpowers common sense and criticism. It’s the battering ram of pseudo-moralistic mindf***ery.
For such people, forcing others in their environment, whole social groups, and, if possible, entire nations to feel and think like themselves becomes an internal necessity, a ruling concept. A game that a normal person would not take seriously can become a lifelong goal for them, the object of effort, sacrifices, and cunning psychological strategy. [HK: You have to give it to the Woke activists—they’re nothing if not devoted to the cause.]
Pathological egotism derives from repressing from one’s field of consciousness any objectionable, self-critical associations referring to one’s own nature or normality. Dramatic questions such as “who is abnormal here, me or this world of people who feel and think differently?” are answered in the world’s disfavor. Such egotism is always linked to a dissimulative attitude, with a Cleckley mask over some pathological quality being hidden from consciousness—both one’s own and that of other people. (p. 136)
Dissimulative. That is the perfect word for the transgender burlesque. Unless they’re suffering from a pathologically severe form of delusion, people like Lemieux know they are pretending. And their “Cleckley mask” is the pretense of normality, buttressed by the pathological egotism that insists they are what they say they are, and you have no choice but to comply. But in reality, they are just covering over a pathology rooted in their own nature. They will not accept it, and they will not allow you to acknowledge it either. You must accept the delusional system they have created for themselves and for you.
In other words, people with dangerous psychopathologies have the tendency to terrorize people into accepting their pathology as normal. It’s kind of like wearing a pair of mountainous knockers and forcing everyone to pretend they don’t notice them. They are persistent in such efforts. If a public figure says something that threatens to draw attention to the dissimulative mask or the underlying pathology, they lash out with a vehemence all out of proportion to the criticism.
For example, merely poking fun at Mr. Lemieux’s jumbo jubblies is an unforgivable offense. We’re expected to react as if he were some wilting flower subject to the advances of an uncouth suitor and not merely a clown wearing a set of cumbersome clown coconuts. “How dare you insult her honor, sir! I demand justice!”
No, it is just a clown show.
The same desperate illogic would apply if Lemieux identified as a demonic dominatrix—“Don’t you dare criticize her, bigot. I can’t believe what a horrible person you are.”
In contrast, the assault on everyone else’s senses and sensibilities is a mere trifle—as if they were mere servants or peasants. But in this case, as in so many others, the servants and peasants have the right of it.3
But aren’t all these guys simply playing dress-up? Where’s the harm in that? Sure, they may dress up like demons or comically exaggerated women, but what’s the big deal? Well, in case you haven’t noticed, it’s not just dress-up. Aside from the fact that the majority is being asked to pretend to assent to a personal and collective delusion, the transgender fantasy is part of a much wider ideology. An ideology that includes mutilating and castrating children. Our “healthcare professionals” are literally chopping off young girls’ breasts and young boys’ penises, sterilizing them, and calling it “gender-affirming care.”
And some of the surgeon-butchers are positively gleeful about it. Here’s Josh Slocum discussing Dr. Sidhbh Gallagher. Watch the first 12 minutes (then if you have time, the rest of the show, and all Josh’s other shows!).
Another set of examples, courtesy of Billboard Chris (click through to see the full thread):
When thinking of these stories (along with kindergarten drag shows and demonic drag queens), an anecdote from Cleckley came to mind. A young medical doctor had written to Cleckley about an issue concerning a local 40-year-old schoolteacher in his small community of around 5,000. The man taught sixth grade, and numerous parents had complained to the doctor about his conduct with their boys. (This was sometime in the 1950s.)
The doctor had reported his findings to parents and the local school board:
Much to my surprise, the Board took no immediate action and gave the parents little if any information as to what they intended to do. The teacher was retained. Both directly and indirectly I learned that the Board felt that one of the mothers was making every effort to get rid of the teacher because she had made a complaint about his beating some of the boys. The Board was annoyed that she appeared to be meddling in their affairs, particularly as it had not been her own boy who had been hit. It appeared to me that the Board had been so impressed with this mother’s animosity toward the teacher, that they are unable to view the present case objectively. This I explained to them, and reiterated my advice as to what to do about the teacher.
What was this teacher doing? The first accounts from the boys were innocuous enough: telling them dirty stories and off-color jokes.
I advised the School Board, on the strength of these tales, that I considered no teacher is fulfilling his school responsibility when he tells his pupils stories of this type, and that I consider them unsuitable. When one of the members suggested that the boys probably hear worse than this at home, I replied that regardless of what one may think of so-called dirty stories at home, the telling of such stories and jokes by a teacher to young boys, in or out of school hours, is not only beneath the dignity of the profession, but actually a perversion of conduct.
But it wasn’t just jokes:
All three boys agreed that the teacher has a special liking for boys in and out of school, and shows it by buying them treats and inviting them to his bachelor apartment in the evening. He often scuffles with them in the apartment. One boy related that he had been “tickled all over—just anywhere he wants to grab”—and admitted to his mother that he had been handled genitally in one of these tickling episodes. Another boy said he had been kissed by the teacher in a similar episode, and knew of others who had also been kissed. On another occasion, the teacher approached a boy who happened to be leaning forward with his elbows resting on a low table. Undoing the zipper of his trousers, the teacher bent over the boy, pressing his pubic region against the boy’s buttocks, and making motions with his hips. He made no attempt to go further, but winked and spoke jokingly to the two other boys who were present and who took his action to represent some sort of sexually slanted horseplay.
I informed the Board that I do not believe these actions are just innocent sport, but that they look as if they had some motive, conscious or unconscious, and that it is of a homosexual nature. I pointed out that it is an abnormal thing to find a male teacher kissing boy students of any age. Medically my opinion is that such action is undoubtedly perverse and homosexual in its nature. I pointed out that roughing with a boy is different from tickling. Also that for a man to handle a boy genitally is a homosexual perverse act.
In other words, this man was a pedophile. But the Board wasn’t that concerned:
When the Board finally took action, it was to send a letter to the parents referring to the insinuations that they had been hearing about a certain school teacher. They told the parents that they had investigated and had decided to retain the teacher in his present position, hoping that nothing of the sort would arise again.
Sound familiar?
Cleckley then writes:
Now, what shall I, as a psychiatrist, reply to my young colleague? Shall I quote Freud’s letter as authority and tell him that what this teacher does is “nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation,” that his condition “cannot be classified as an illness” but should be considered a “variation of sexual function” shared by “many highly respected individuals of ancient and modern times . . . several of the greatest men among them”?
… Is there any psychiatrist who would differ with my opinion that it would indeed be a disastrous day for our country if physicians pronounced such a teacher as the one referred to above as normal and argued that he was well qualified for his work? Is there a psychiatrist who would knowingly permit his ten- or eleven-year-old son to be taught by a man whose sexual inclinations lead to this type of behavior, or be subjected to the influence of such entertainment in the teacher’s apartment? If such there be, I can only say that he has not benefited by his studies and that he is himself psychiatrically ill.
Oh, if only Cleckley were alive today.
What shall we do? Shall we quote Freud and the queer theorists that Lemieux and others’ affliction is “nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation,” certainly not an “illness,” and simply a natural variation of gender fluidity—one to be celebrated, in fact? Or shall we refuse to have our minds addled by the pathological persistence and controlled egotism of those who would convince us that this is all normal? That, in fact, we’re the abnormal ones?
These people need help, not a soapbox. And they certainly shouldn’t be encouraged to be around children—all in the name of creating a “safe and inclusive” environment. Those are clown words for a clown world. If you really want to keep your children safe, take such displays of pathological sexuality out of the classroom. They should be the first sign that you’re dealing with someone who is unstable, emotionally immature, socially irresponsible, and potentially dangerous.
Therapists, doctors, nurses—do your jobs. You have lost touch with reality, your behavior has become desperately illogical, and you are contributing to one of the greatest evils of our generation.
Now imagine a woman who identifies as an extremely well-endowed male and “expresses” that identity with a visibly massive prosthetic member? Would she get the same response? Actually, I wouldn’t be surprised.
Or even just basic taste and decent manners.
Lobaczewski observes: “A greater resistance to hystericization characterizes those social groups which earn their daily bread by daily effort, and where the practicalities of everyday life force the mind to think soberly and reflect on generalities. As an example: peasants continue to view the hysterical customs of the well-to-do classes through their own earthy perception of psychological reality and their sense of humor.” (p. 172)
Comments
Post a Comment