[cryptome] Re: Transracialism

  • From: "douglas rankine" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Redacted sender "douglasrankine" for DMARC)
  • To: cryptome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 21 May 2017 17:06:18 +0100

Dear Mags Lucas,

see url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Like_Me

I don't really know what transgenderism or transracialism are...or is it, is... I neither accept or reject any of them, and there is no must about it. Each to his or her own. Physical sexual attributes and actions, and mental sexual drives, instincts, habits, tendencies, irresistible impulses, or learned behaviour, can be produced or influenced by the genes or by society or by the environment in which they live, or a mixture of all and from what I have seen, they don't necessarily correspond or have to correspond with one's sexuality. It is generally left up to the individual to control these urges as best as possible, apart from children, who have to be taught or to learn about how to control them; and the consequences levied by society or the culture, tend to enforce the limits of the aberrant behaviour.

The onset of puberty too, can bring about change of sexuality and attributes and gender. Human beings are capable of all of them and putting them into action. Pure man, if there is such a thing, is at one extreme, pure woman is at the other. In between that lies a whole continuum which I would call normal... The range of human sexual behaviours and responses is very wide and encompasses many different behaviours, from copulation to fondling to the use of violence or sadistic and masochistic behaviours, or just talking in a certain way, acting in a certain way, or kindling and developing fantasies. I believe that it is only human beings that can become sexually aroused through fantasies or thinking about it, and not animals, but I could be wrong. These behaviours can also be culturally defined.

Encouragement in World War 2 by Stalin to his officers to turn a blind eye to the rape of German women by Soviet soldiers, was a common theme both in retaliation for what the German soldiers did to their people and to teach the German women a lesson. War makes uncivilised behaviour lawful and moral. The spoils belong to the victors. Most wars are like that, any decency and morality or respect goes out the window. In Vietnam, the CIA became the biggest creators, distributors and sellers of drugs in the world. When the war ended, many Vietnam vets and their families and ordinary US citizens suffered the consequences, and American society finished up with a huge drug problem. World War 1 it happened too, rum and punch. World War 2, Churchill was surprised at the speed at which the Panzers mounted the Blitzkrieg. It was discovered that the German Army, particularly the tank drivers were high on stimulants which kept them awake for days.

I noticed, when I went to Scotland in the 1990s, to visit my father in hospital, that there was a great debate going on about a man who wished to have his leg amputated, for no other reason that he didn't like it being attached to his body. It was functioning perfectly. He hated his leg. A surgeon at the infirmary was prepared to do the operation, but the management didn't want to allow it, not even if the man was prepared to pay for it. Some people with this...I don't quite know how to describe it...overwhelming feeling, get it so bad that they do it themselves and self injure, or even threaten to kill themselves, the compulsion is so great. It is right or wrong, do people have the right to do what they want with their own bodies? I don't know, and I don't know if right comes into it, but people can kill themselves and do so. Would it be against the Hippocratic oath to conduct such an operation? I don't know...but it got done anyway.

see url:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/625680.stm

I watched a programme once about a tribe of indigenous people who lived in Yurts in Mongolia. Two things I noticed, one was that for some reason, some boys were put through a gender change by their mothers, by being dressed in girls clothes. The mothers wouldn't talk about why they did it. The other thing was that when the film camera people came to interview the mothers and children in the Yurts, if the boy children played up, became naughty, the mothers would fondle their penises which immediately calmed them down. I noticed it, but the film people didn't, or didn't say anything about it. The consequences of such behaviour in our society is abhorred and condemned and the legal penalties for it are very serious.

There was another case in the South Seas, Pitcairn Island, which made the headlines...

see url: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103569364

Some people get a sexual kick out of mass rape or sexual torture. It happens in both sexes and genders. Some folks get a kick out of watching it. The World Wide Web was funded on such and similar sexual fantasies, way back in the 1980's. Some folks had telephone bills of £300 a month because their telephone kept kicking them out and they had to pay all over again to get back to where they were. The ISP's made a packet out of the practice, as did the telephone companies and the porn industry. In fact if it hadn't been for the huge income derived from it, the internet would look no where near as developed as it is now. I believe it was mostly men too, who watched the stuff, and it catered for all sorts of sexual flavours and tastes...still does.

If one presents oneself as something which one is not, and it gets discovered, there are generally consequences. When people are deceived it makes them feel victimised, bad, hurt, inadequate and stupid and they often want to retaliate in some way. I have watched television programmes where male transvestites have deceived other men who were presumably heterosexual, into thinking that they were female. When the heterosexual male found out that he had been deceived, and how he found out, it produced an emotional response which was just as unpleasant, if not more so, than the deceptive behaviour; often driving the heterosexual to violence. I dare say that a woman and a man in the same circumstances, but the opposite way round would have the same feelings.

The art and science of deception is not only prolific in nature, but endemic, and not only pertains to spies and governments, but also to men and women, throughout history and there have been many occasions when in the presentation of one's credentials, whether it be aggrandisement of some kind in the name of love; money, a home, a nest, or great sexual prowess promised by either party, the remarkable rocket has turned out to be nothing more than a damp squib.

I remember once, way back in the 1960s reading a book by an anglo-saxon Catholic Priest who spent a lot of time darkening his skin, dying his hair and curling it, and studying behaviours of the target Africo-American community and went to live there with them for a while, to find out what changes occurred in attitudes towards him from his own community. Very interesting it was too. There has been a number of experiments carried out by anglo-saxons in the US. However, I have been unable to find any Afro-Americans who have decided to become anglo-saxon, by lightening their skin and straightening their hair and see how the Afro-American community treats them when it comes to getting jobs, promotion, education or equal opportunities...

I hope this helps to clear the matter up a little, though I must say I still don't understand what transracialism or transgenderism is and how the argument is sound....?



P.S. What is the difference between a subject and an object? Just a thought...:-)

On 21/05/2017 15:21, Mags Lucas wrote:

Hi mr rankine, The logic of her premise is sound don't you think? We must 
either accept both transgenderism and transracialism, or neither of them, since 
they both depend on subjectivity, inner feelings and so on.

On May 21, 2017, at 6:39 AM, douglas rankine (Redacted sender "douglasrankine" for 
DMARC) <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Mags,

I don't know what is sound about the argument...perhaps you could elicit it 
more for me, so that I can understand and become enlightened.

A number of years ago, when my wife and I were living on the Isle of Wight, a 
little island off the South Coast of England, we used to do a lot of walking. 
One of our favourite walks was a circular one from our home up to Culver Down 
and then down the Coastal Path and then along the beach to Sandown, a local 
holiday resort, before returning to our home.

One day, about 10 years ago, on a Sunday afternoon, we had just had a picnic 
lunch on Culver Down, and were returning along the Coastal Path admiring the 
views.  It was a sunny day, in early summer, not too warm, not too cold.  There 
was a lovely blue sky, with a light wind and the white clouds were scudding 
across the blue sky, changing shapes...as they do.  As we meandered along we 
saw an object in the distance, sticking out of the coastal heather, and on 
coming closer, we perceived that it was an elderly woman, in her 60's or early 
70's with silver curly hair, lying flat on her back, perfectly still, wearing a 
long coat, nylons and black brogue shoes.  As we approached, we both stopped 
talking and just stared and, as we passed by, we fell silent, though we both 
looked closely to make sure that she was OK, and decided to ignore her as we 
didn't want to disturb her.  We could see that she was breathing, but she had 
her eyes closed, and her skin colour looked OK...so we decided to walk on.

We got about a further 10 yards, when we both stopped and I said to me missus, 
I think we should go back and check that the lady is alright, and my wife felt 
exactly the same thing.   Other people had passed her in the meantime and they 
had all stared, but ignored her.    We returned to her and I went close to her 
and asked her if she was feeling OK.  At first, she ignored me, so I asked her 
a bit louder, watching her breathing and her face and body for any signs of 
life, then she opened her eyes and responded to me and sat up.  She sat up, 
thanked us very much for checking up on her and said that she had decided to 
have a sleep, as she often gets tired whilst she is out walking, and then lay 
back down again and closed her eyes.  Me missus and I proceeded on our way.

Of course, this stimulated a whole lot of musings and discussion between me 
missus and I, as I am sure you can imagine.  All sorts of questions went 
through our minds.  After all, it was a strange situation, it was a strange 
thing to do, what were her motives, was she really sleeping, was she really 
tired, or was she just enjoying the moment and meditating with the blue sky and 
white clouds, and green and purple and white heather as her composition?  Or 
was she playing a game with the passers by?  Was she seeking attention?  Was 
she conducting an experiment, to find out what people would respond to her 
situation and how they would respond, or how many would respond?  Was she 
checking out people's curiosity and had a little curiosity meter secreted in 
her overcoat? We never found out.

We never saw her again, but we have often thought back to that day.    And 
another strange thing, and you can believe this or not, but the next time we 
went that way, it was a showery day, and as we passed close by to that spot 
where the lady had lain down, the sun came out and the most beautiful rainbow 
appeared, and came close to us to almost the point at which we could touch it.



P.S. And no, I didn't find a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow...and did 
you know that rainbows are actually composed of more than 7 colours?  The 7 is 
a throwback to Newton who did a lot of work with light refraction and a lot of 
work on religion, and it took 7 days to make the world.

P.P.S.  The scientists reckon, that cats cannot see a rainbow, because the 
structure of their eyes are very different from us human beings.  Be that as it 
may, do rainbows really exist or are they a figment of our imagination?

On 21/05/2017 00:52, Mags Lucas wrote:
It's a sound argument. The reaction after an assault by the Transquisition was 

On May 20, 2017, at 1:53 PM, douglas rankine (Redacted sender "douglasrankine" for 
DMARC) <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

see url: https://cryptome.org/2017/05/in-defense-of-transracialism.pdf

Definition of Race: I'm pink...therefore...I'm spam....:-)



Other related posts: