For years I’ve been pointing to Susie Green’s Ted Talk as one of the clearest examples, not only of the despicable homophobia of the trans rights movement, but their habit of putting the evidence for it right under our noses.
For years, the sacred mantle of ‘trans’ made TRAs’ think their dangerous and foolish ‘communications’ were comfortably above reproach. But now, the tide is turning, and they’re frantically memory-holing — video deletion, tweet deletion, covering tracks — but thank goodness so much is archived for the Gender War Crimes Tribunal. (Thank you Graham.)
Even 1984 was a better society than ours. Winston's a wrong'un who rapes prostitutes (and whines about them being ugly) and fantasises about bashing his girlfriend's head in, and then the authorities take him off to Room 101 (aka the Based Department). He deserved it. Plus everyone has housing and food and even a wee bit gin. Meanwhile in real life, punters and creeps get away with it or are even praised, and there's people destitute.
It could be that they're going into the denial stage. All the people who backed this suddenly denying it all. They surely can't be naive enough to think we'll just forget.
Why would they assume that we are more attached to reality than they are?
They have shown time and again that they refute science and empathy, and actually every notion that there is such a thing as material and social reality.
In showing that and in the way they showed it, they also let us know that they think that in principle everybody is like them.
This is extremely important, Chris. It will explain many, many crazy actions by TRAs, and also, perhaps, why my now dead Trans ex-H has or has not left a will. The (1) back-tracking and (2) omissions are very important instances and evidence of illogical behaviour.
You'll find no disagreement from me on that point.
It's just that after many discussions with adherents of queer- and transideology I honestly think that they believe that in principle everyone is like them and just doesn't know it yet. Which is also why they think they'll get away with saying the opposite of what they just said half a minute ago. If they are still capable of understanding how they are contradicting themselves.
It is unfortunately true of most people that if they conform to whatever society says is right-think at the moment, they believe everyone else thinks the exact same thing. And I give credence to your idea that they may not even be aware they're contradicting themselves.
A LOT is going to be scrubbed, so we all have to keep receipts. I am really grateful to Graham and JL for giving us a blow-by-blow over the years, and I wouldn't be surprised a lot of what they reference "vanishes" also. Archive, archive, archive. Download, download, download. Screenshot, screenshot, screenshot.
I really don't think they are going to ever change their minds. She is far too invested an he probably doesn't think he's wrong on hating having a gay boy. Some people like to point at the "woke" liberals as the only culprits of this, but I would argue the bulk of "better a trans than a gay kid" are hardcore conservatives - and the seemly easy acceptance this has in churches across the globe (Pakistan to the Church of England) points to this too. Anti-feminists have much to respond to, and sometimes I wonder how conservative commentators do mental gymnastics not to acknowledge that the sexist stereotypes they think are innate are at the core of trans.
Add to that that the idea of an innate and immutable "gender identity" is essentially the "Immortal Soul" - at least the way US Americans perceive it. (The notions are slighty different in Europe.)
Some merit in that argument, though likewise in the idea that "gender identity" is more or less synonymous with personality or personal identity -- which is something of a murky topic in itself:
Seems the problem is maybe less with "gender identity" itself than with the labels used to describe different ones, different personalities. That some badly confused or tricked dysphoric boy asserts that his gender identity is "female" is to use that word in a way that is very different from, antithetical to, what it means as a sex. And shouldn't grant him any rights that are generally granted to those who we describe as members of the female sex. But, ICYMI, a tweet from Matt Walsh that shows that fundamental dichotomy:
However, maybe a bigger problem is that far too many -- maybe mostly among the Christian Right -- "think" that sex and gender are synonymous. Great deal of justification to argue they're two entirely different kettles of fish, to define them as such. ICYMI, fairly decent and succinct synopsis of that from James Lindsay:
"As all this confusing controversy indicates, gender genuinely is a complicated issue that is somehow related to biological sex. The question is how they are related. On the one hand, there seem to be very obvious connections between the two: most men are masculine [gender] in various ways and most women are feminine [gender] in various ways (see also, cisgender and cisnormativity), but that this is the case doesn’t explain why it is. On the other hand, these connections are not hard, fast, and universal. That all of us—and this dates back into antiquity—recognize that sentences like 'she is a very masculine woman' make sense indicate that there’s some flexibility in gender (masculine/feminine) that is separate from the underlying biological sex (man/woman). Thus, gender being understood as the sets of traits associated with maleness and femaleness is also not controversial, nor is the idea that maleness and femaleness are, indeed, social constructions, that is, ideas about what it means to be male and to be female, which are, in fact, somewhat flexible."
Oh, Lindsay's argument is largely sophistry. He neatly conflates being and meaning, and sex and gender, while pretending not to. IDEAS what it MEANS to be male and female are indeed social constructions, and flexible. It is the MEANING that we call gender, in a broad sense. Meaning can only be some sort of social construct, however justified, because meaning can only emanate from communication. It can not be separated from language.
What BEING male or female is, is neither flexible nor a social construction. Which he hides neatly by basically equating masculinity and maleness and feminity and femaleness in the last sentence, while calling it "not controversial".
If you can't make a solid argument, just swirl around the categories until you make everyone dizzy, and then drive home your point. Old trick, as employed by James Lindsay.
That being said: If you fall down that rabbit hole of identity, it inevitably becomes murky. Identity has become a fetish, an unquestionable entity, religiously and politically charged. And no one knows what it really means. This is ever more true in the case of "gender identity" - a concept that has not been scientifically proven to date.
I'll cheerfully concede that Lindsay is often wide of the mark -- being charitable -- and too often acts like he's wearing "The Cloak of Papal Infallibility": "so let it be written, so let it be done 🙄"
But I sure don't see that he is conflating sex and gender. He has clearly differentiated between the two with his, "... sets of traits associated with maleness and femaleness ...." Even if he hasn't clearly delineated the "necessary and sufficient conditions" to qualify as members of the (two) sex categories, or the (myriads of) gender ones.
For example, it is not at all controversial that men are -- ON AVERAGE -- some 4 inches taller than women, or that women are -- ON AVERAGE -- more agreeable than men. See this joint probability distribution of agreeableness by sex:
A great many traits correlate -- to a greater or lesser extent -- with our sexes, however it is (precisely) defined. Moot of course which ones come under the rubric of "gender", but something of a consensus that behaviour and personalities covers many of them.
Chris: "What BEING male or female is, is neither flexible nor a social construction. ..."
But kind of think you're barking up the wrong tree with that assertion, that you're conflating the EXPERIENCES of being in a particular state with what society deems are -- what it "socially constructs" as -- the "necessary & sufficient criteria" for BEING IN those states in the first place.
Analogously, we have all had very different experiences of BEING a teenager, but the socially constructed consensus is that to BE a teenager is to BE between the ages of 13 and 19, inclusive. Entirely different kettles of fish.
But some murky or tricky sets of concepts there, notably the dichotomy between the map and the territory, between the abstraction of categories -- i.e., mere perceptions of traits shared by members -- and members of those categories, and the criteria to qualify as such.
Something of a rather brilliant insight on the latter was afforded by this tweet from RadfemBlack:
"You gonna tell people they’re 'reducing beings to their bones' next for saying that a vertebrate is a creature with a spine? (obviously you’re not one 🤡💀)."
No one HAS a vertebrate -- we ARE vertebrates because we have spines. Most of us in any case, many "politicians" (eg., Sturgeon ...) apparently managing without them .... But having a spine qualifies as the "necessary and sufficient condition" to qualify as a member of the category "vertebrate". However, no autopsy of a vertebrate is ever going to find, weigh, measure, or locate a "thing" called a vertebrate -- an abstraction, pure and simple.
Same thing with "male" and "female" -- they're abstractions, labels for categories and members of them, the criteria for which are, by standard biological definitions, to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being, ipso facto, sexless. See the Glossary in this article in the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction:
"Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of the two sexes" (Lehtonen & Parker [FRS]):
But that absolutely brilliant observation by RadfemBlack -- the revelation on the road to Damascus -- underlines the fact that too many are turning abstractions -- names for categories -- into real things -- the "sin", the logical fallacy of reification -- while ignoring the criteria for qualifying as members of those categories.
Apropos of which, my kick at the kitty, at that "age-old question" of "What is a woman?":
The Bible tract that was tucked under my windshield wipers specifically rejected gender ideology, so I'm not sure. There are plenty of liberals who are unbelievably homophobic though they would deny it (until you put them on the rack). I have a liberal state senator who just loves him some trans and then he told me how he persecuted kids who were suspected of being gay when he was in high school. He's far more comfortable with the idea of transgenderism -- of course he knows nothing of wrong-sex hormones, puberty blockers, or the Frankensurgeries -- than he is genuinely acceptant of same-sex relationships.
I was once in touch with a trans-identified male who was going all the way. His homophobic father begged him not to go through with surgery, etc, but by then it was too late.
You seem to be saying true remorse is rare. It may be, but there is evidence that some can wake up to the fact they've done extreme harm and admit it to themselves and others. It's not unheard of.
no one can be sure. It's not something it would be easy to collect data on. You could quantify by observing changed behaviour - but no accounting for last minute death bed confessions that may be genuine or not. No proofs. There are also the legal context 'you'll get off more lightly if you plead guilty' scenarios. Pleading guilt in a court can be expedient, doesn't necessarily indicate remorse.
You are thinking of the Wayback Machine, the Internet Archive. It is a bot which trawls the vast, vast ether of the Internet and takes snapshots of many webpages and websites at various times. It is neither comprehensive nor predictable. Better than nothing though!
One of its benefits -- if I'm not mistaken -- is that if you have a url of a page or site that's been memory-holed or deleted or behind a paywall and put that in their search bar then they will provide a previous archived page if one had been taken by someone else.
Wow, really!! Too late now. We all know what she said. Maybe beginning to realise what she said sounds like and has requested the videos be taken down.
Yes it really makes me wonder... "beginning to realise what she sounds likes"
How many people are alive today who were involved in the horrendous mass psychoses of last century (USSR, Germany, China, Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia etc) and were self-righteous, virtue signallers of their complicity in the atrocities?
Did they boast and feel proud of the terrible things they did?
When and how did they realise that what they had done is so heinous and evil?
And how do they cope? What do they tell themselves?
We are still away from the excesses of those tragedies but it feels like the same process.
Let's hope we can help all of those mesmerised by this inhuman ideology to "begin to realise"
There is a video showing Ratko Mladić entering Srebrenica on July 11, 1995. The town has just been occupied by the Army of Republika Srpska. He boasts to the camerateam that now they would exact vengeance on "the Turks". ("Turk" in this context is a colloquial insult for Bosnjaks or Bosnian Muslims used by Serbs and Croats.)
There also is a clip, from the same day (to my knowlegde) that shows how Mladić is relatively politely (considering the occasion) ordering Muslim girls and women to board busses that will take them to Bosnian territory not occupied by Serb forces, i.e. to safety. He promises them they won't be harmed and that their husbands, sons and brothers would not be harmed either.
These clips was shown in the evening news on the television of Republika Srpska and Serbian television. No one challenges its authenticity.
In the following days, more than 8.000 Muslim boys and men were killed in Srebrenica, the surrounding villages and the forests of the area. Separating them from the women was a precondition for the genocide to proceed.
And yet, many nationalist Serbs claim there is no evidence, Muslims were harmed in Srebrenica, or that Ratko Mladić ordered the genocide against more than 8.000 Muslim boys and men in Srbenenica.
So, hours before a mass murder commences, the man ordering it proudly proclaims his intent to the public, and yet people maintain he's innocent.
That gives you an idea how much people will be willing to deny if they've been indoctrinated enough.
Correction: The second video is from July 12, 1995. Not that it makes any substantial difference, it just highlights that the genocide of Srebrenica was intentional, well prepared, and went on over several days - and, most important of all, that we have the literal recordings of how the man ultimately responsible announces it and aids in the commitment.
Trans activists and advocates couldn't and can't resist overreaching themselves. Why wouldn't they have been increasingly emboldened when there's little listened to opposition? It's what happens, whoever the bully is. But the TRA/MRAs haven't just not been opposed, they've been celebrated on an institutional level. They haven't been asked to back up their bullshit, what they say goes and they make and change their rules at will. Maybe it's the case that their strength is their weakness. There's been some turnaround, but the momentum has to be kept up, let's hope it is.
The clever people (sadly, not me) who snatched a copy should take a Private Eye “Gratuitous pic of Andrew Neil in baseball cap with young lady” approach and attach the Susie Green vid to every comment they make. With an annual prize for the best justification.
Exulansic made this point about Jazz Jennings but I think it applies to Jackie Green here too: legally does this count as FGM? Taking a girl out the country for that is illegal. So either Jackie is still legally a boy (well, man now), or if he's legally a girl then the Greens could be prosecuted for it. I'd hope they could be prosecuted for it either way, it's a horrific child abuse, but it does raise a legal question.
For years, the sacred mantle of ‘trans’ made TRAs’ think their dangerous and foolish ‘communications’ were comfortably above reproach. But now, the tide is turning, and they’re frantically memory-holing — video deletion, tweet deletion, covering tracks — but thank goodness so much is archived for the Gender War Crimes Tribunal. (Thank you Graham.)
memory-holing. honestly. genius phrase!!
Genius — but not mine!
i will forever consider you the originator anyway. thank you.
(Just in case it may be of interest: it’s from George Orwell’s 1984.) x
Even 1984 was a better society than ours. Winston's a wrong'un who rapes prostitutes (and whines about them being ugly) and fantasises about bashing his girlfriend's head in, and then the authorities take him off to Room 101 (aka the Based Department). He deserved it. Plus everyone has housing and food and even a wee bit gin. Meanwhile in real life, punters and creeps get away with it or are even praised, and there's people destitute.
I want to invite you to visit Maine. It's no utopia, but it's somewhat better than 1984!
thank you. he was such a wonderful writer. an everlasting wordsmith.
Perhaps even TED have seen that the wheels are finally coming off the trans bus and didn't want to be incriminated. We can but hope!
This is one explanation. I hope you're right.
The more I think about it, there may be a less optimistic explanation, and I very much hope I'm wrong with that assumption.
It could be that they're going into the denial stage. All the people who backed this suddenly denying it all. They surely can't be naive enough to think we'll just forget.
Why would they assume that we are more attached to reality than they are?
They have shown time and again that they refute science and empathy, and actually every notion that there is such a thing as material and social reality.
In showing that and in the way they showed it, they also let us know that they think that in principle everybody is like them.
Why do you think they would change now?
This is extremely important, Chris. It will explain many, many crazy actions by TRAs, and also, perhaps, why my now dead Trans ex-H has or has not left a will. The (1) back-tracking and (2) omissions are very important instances and evidence of illogical behaviour.
You'll find no disagreement from me on that point.
It's just that after many discussions with adherents of queer- and transideology I honestly think that they believe that in principle everyone is like them and just doesn't know it yet. Which is also why they think they'll get away with saying the opposite of what they just said half a minute ago. If they are still capable of understanding how they are contradicting themselves.
It is unfortunately true of most people that if they conform to whatever society says is right-think at the moment, they believe everyone else thinks the exact same thing. And I give credence to your idea that they may not even be aware they're contradicting themselves.
Lol. Too little ,too late. We've already got the evidence. Hopefully they're running scared ,Susie Green especially. Thanks ,Graham 👍❤️👏
Green really should be prosecuted for the harm she's done to so many children.
I'm surprised it's taken them this long to take it down frankly. But I assume the people at Ted didn't look into it only just now.
Or am I a bit slow and is it more likely that Susie asked to have it taken down because its getting too hot in the kitchen now?
"Time to Think" just came out and is damning . . .
*until just now
A LOT is going to be scrubbed, so we all have to keep receipts. I am really grateful to Graham and JL for giving us a blow-by-blow over the years, and I wouldn't be surprised a lot of what they reference "vanishes" also. Archive, archive, archive. Download, download, download. Screenshot, screenshot, screenshot.
if she comes to realise what she's done, or already has, having to live with the knowledge is going to be punishment enough. Hell on earth.
I really don't think they are going to ever change their minds. She is far too invested an he probably doesn't think he's wrong on hating having a gay boy. Some people like to point at the "woke" liberals as the only culprits of this, but I would argue the bulk of "better a trans than a gay kid" are hardcore conservatives - and the seemly easy acceptance this has in churches across the globe (Pakistan to the Church of England) points to this too. Anti-feminists have much to respond to, and sometimes I wonder how conservative commentators do mental gymnastics not to acknowledge that the sexist stereotypes they think are innate are at the core of trans.
Add to that that the idea of an innate and immutable "gender identity" is essentially the "Immortal Soul" - at least the way US Americans perceive it. (The notions are slighty different in Europe.)
We don't point this out often enough.
Some merit in that argument, though likewise in the idea that "gender identity" is more or less synonymous with personality or personal identity -- which is something of a murky topic in itself:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-personal/
Seems the problem is maybe less with "gender identity" itself than with the labels used to describe different ones, different personalities. That some badly confused or tricked dysphoric boy asserts that his gender identity is "female" is to use that word in a way that is very different from, antithetical to, what it means as a sex. And shouldn't grant him any rights that are generally granted to those who we describe as members of the female sex. But, ICYMI, a tweet from Matt Walsh that shows that fundamental dichotomy:
https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1549382790952656899
However, maybe a bigger problem is that far too many -- maybe mostly among the Christian Right -- "think" that sex and gender are synonymous. Great deal of justification to argue they're two entirely different kettles of fish, to define them as such. ICYMI, fairly decent and succinct synopsis of that from James Lindsay:
"As all this confusing controversy indicates, gender genuinely is a complicated issue that is somehow related to biological sex. The question is how they are related. On the one hand, there seem to be very obvious connections between the two: most men are masculine [gender] in various ways and most women are feminine [gender] in various ways (see also, cisgender and cisnormativity), but that this is the case doesn’t explain why it is. On the other hand, these connections are not hard, fast, and universal. That all of us—and this dates back into antiquity—recognize that sentences like 'she is a very masculine woman' make sense indicate that there’s some flexibility in gender (masculine/feminine) that is separate from the underlying biological sex (man/woman). Thus, gender being understood as the sets of traits associated with maleness and femaleness is also not controversial, nor is the idea that maleness and femaleness are, indeed, social constructions, that is, ideas about what it means to be male and to be female, which are, in fact, somewhat flexible."
https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-gender/
Though I think he puts too much weight on "social constructions", and not enough on the biological roots to them: nature versus nurture.
Oh, Lindsay's argument is largely sophistry. He neatly conflates being and meaning, and sex and gender, while pretending not to. IDEAS what it MEANS to be male and female are indeed social constructions, and flexible. It is the MEANING that we call gender, in a broad sense. Meaning can only be some sort of social construct, however justified, because meaning can only emanate from communication. It can not be separated from language.
What BEING male or female is, is neither flexible nor a social construction. Which he hides neatly by basically equating masculinity and maleness and feminity and femaleness in the last sentence, while calling it "not controversial".
If you can't make a solid argument, just swirl around the categories until you make everyone dizzy, and then drive home your point. Old trick, as employed by James Lindsay.
That being said: If you fall down that rabbit hole of identity, it inevitably becomes murky. Identity has become a fetish, an unquestionable entity, religiously and politically charged. And no one knows what it really means. This is ever more true in the case of "gender identity" - a concept that has not been scientifically proven to date.
I'll cheerfully concede that Lindsay is often wide of the mark -- being charitable -- and too often acts like he's wearing "The Cloak of Papal Infallibility": "so let it be written, so let it be done 🙄"
But I sure don't see that he is conflating sex and gender. He has clearly differentiated between the two with his, "... sets of traits associated with maleness and femaleness ...." Even if he hasn't clearly delineated the "necessary and sufficient conditions" to qualify as members of the (two) sex categories, or the (myriads of) gender ones.
For example, it is not at all controversial that men are -- ON AVERAGE -- some 4 inches taller than women, or that women are -- ON AVERAGE -- more agreeable than men. See this joint probability distribution of agreeableness by sex:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Joint_probability_distribution_by_sex_and_agreeablenes.jpg
A great many traits correlate -- to a greater or lesser extent -- with our sexes, however it is (precisely) defined. Moot of course which ones come under the rubric of "gender", but something of a consensus that behaviour and personalities covers many of them.
Chris: "What BEING male or female is, is neither flexible nor a social construction. ..."
But kind of think you're barking up the wrong tree with that assertion, that you're conflating the EXPERIENCES of being in a particular state with what society deems are -- what it "socially constructs" as -- the "necessary & sufficient criteria" for BEING IN those states in the first place.
Analogously, we have all had very different experiences of BEING a teenager, but the socially constructed consensus is that to BE a teenager is to BE between the ages of 13 and 19, inclusive. Entirely different kettles of fish.
But some murky or tricky sets of concepts there, notably the dichotomy between the map and the territory, between the abstraction of categories -- i.e., mere perceptions of traits shared by members -- and members of those categories, and the criteria to qualify as such.
Something of a rather brilliant insight on the latter was afforded by this tweet from RadfemBlack:
"You gonna tell people they’re 'reducing beings to their bones' next for saying that a vertebrate is a creature with a spine? (obviously you’re not one 🤡💀)."
https://twitter.com/RadfemBlack/status/1161471915812360193
No one HAS a vertebrate -- we ARE vertebrates because we have spines. Most of us in any case, many "politicians" (eg., Sturgeon ...) apparently managing without them .... But having a spine qualifies as the "necessary and sufficient condition" to qualify as a member of the category "vertebrate". However, no autopsy of a vertebrate is ever going to find, weigh, measure, or locate a "thing" called a vertebrate -- an abstraction, pure and simple.
Same thing with "male" and "female" -- they're abstractions, labels for categories and members of them, the criteria for which are, by standard biological definitions, to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being, ipso facto, sexless. See the Glossary in this article in the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction:
"Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of the two sexes" (Lehtonen & Parker [FRS]):
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990
But that absolutely brilliant observation by RadfemBlack -- the revelation on the road to Damascus -- underlines the fact that too many are turning abstractions -- names for categories -- into real things -- the "sin", the logical fallacy of reification -- while ignoring the criteria for qualifying as members of those categories.
Apropos of which, my kick at the kitty, at that "age-old question" of "What is a woman?":
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/what-is-a-woman
The Bible tract that was tucked under my windshield wipers specifically rejected gender ideology, so I'm not sure. There are plenty of liberals who are unbelievably homophobic though they would deny it (until you put them on the rack). I have a liberal state senator who just loves him some trans and then he told me how he persecuted kids who were suspected of being gay when he was in high school. He's far more comfortable with the idea of transgenderism -- of course he knows nothing of wrong-sex hormones, puberty blockers, or the Frankensurgeries -- than he is genuinely acceptant of same-sex relationships.
I was once in touch with a trans-identified male who was going all the way. His homophobic father begged him not to go through with surgery, etc, but by then it was too late.
You seem to be saying true remorse is rare. It may be, but there is evidence that some can wake up to the fact they've done extreme harm and admit it to themselves and others. It's not unheard of.
True remorse is very rare. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
no one can be sure. It's not something it would be easy to collect data on. You could quantify by observing changed behaviour - but no accounting for last minute death bed confessions that may be genuine or not. No proofs. There are also the legal context 'you'll get off more lightly if you plead guilty' scenarios. Pleading guilt in a court can be expedient, doesn't necessarily indicate remorse.
Indeed. I sure wouldn't want to be in Susie's shoes or those of her husband. "Cognitive dissonance", big time.
Nope. Susie has joined GenderGP who prescribe off label hormones to kids confused about their sexual identity or sexual orientation
https://www.linkedin.com/in/susie-green-2062a047
Shifting rapidly into damage control mode.
Kellie-Jay does an excellent analysis of it here with most/all of the talk... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7rZ1IC-6gk
She may have downloaded a copy of it if you want just Green's talk.
Shows the way things are (finally) going. Maybe one day Graham will get the apology he deserves from the BBC.
Now I am dying to know how many views it had before it was pulled
Too many, and too many by the gullible crowd out there.
Could the Google / Internet Time Machine Thingy help us find out?
You are thinking of the Wayback Machine, the Internet Archive. It is a bot which trawls the vast, vast ether of the Internet and takes snapshots of many webpages and websites at various times. It is neither comprehensive nor predictable. Better than nothing though!
Archive Today is also very good:
https://archive.ph/
One of its benefits -- if I'm not mistaken -- is that if you have a url of a page or site that's been memory-holed or deleted or behind a paywall and put that in their search bar then they will provide a previous archived page if one had been taken by someone else.
Wow, really!! Too late now. We all know what she said. Maybe beginning to realise what she said sounds like and has requested the videos be taken down.
Yes it really makes me wonder... "beginning to realise what she sounds likes"
How many people are alive today who were involved in the horrendous mass psychoses of last century (USSR, Germany, China, Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia etc) and were self-righteous, virtue signallers of their complicity in the atrocities?
Did they boast and feel proud of the terrible things they did?
When and how did they realise that what they had done is so heinous and evil?
And how do they cope? What do they tell themselves?
We are still away from the excesses of those tragedies but it feels like the same process.
Let's hope we can help all of those mesmerised by this inhuman ideology to "begin to realise"
There is a video showing Ratko Mladić entering Srebrenica on July 11, 1995. The town has just been occupied by the Army of Republika Srpska. He boasts to the camerateam that now they would exact vengeance on "the Turks". ("Turk" in this context is a colloquial insult for Bosnjaks or Bosnian Muslims used by Serbs and Croats.)
There also is a clip, from the same day (to my knowlegde) that shows how Mladić is relatively politely (considering the occasion) ordering Muslim girls and women to board busses that will take them to Bosnian territory not occupied by Serb forces, i.e. to safety. He promises them they won't be harmed and that their husbands, sons and brothers would not be harmed either.
These clips was shown in the evening news on the television of Republika Srpska and Serbian television. No one challenges its authenticity.
In the following days, more than 8.000 Muslim boys and men were killed in Srebrenica, the surrounding villages and the forests of the area. Separating them from the women was a precondition for the genocide to proceed.
And yet, many nationalist Serbs claim there is no evidence, Muslims were harmed in Srebrenica, or that Ratko Mladić ordered the genocide against more than 8.000 Muslim boys and men in Srbenenica.
So, hours before a mass murder commences, the man ordering it proudly proclaims his intent to the public, and yet people maintain he's innocent.
That gives you an idea how much people will be willing to deny if they've been indoctrinated enough.
Correction: The second video is from July 12, 1995. Not that it makes any substantial difference, it just highlights that the genocide of Srebrenica was intentional, well prepared, and went on over several days - and, most important of all, that we have the literal recordings of how the man ultimately responsible announces it and aids in the commitment.
Thanks.
I just read it. A great piece indeed.
Mattias Desmet on Substack and his book (The Psychology of Totalitarianism) are also good reading for understanding this at the group level.
Thats right ted, pretend you didnt platform this fucking butcher and her poison.
Perhaps she'll do another equally unhinged "talk."
Trans activists and advocates couldn't and can't resist overreaching themselves. Why wouldn't they have been increasingly emboldened when there's little listened to opposition? It's what happens, whoever the bully is. But the TRA/MRAs haven't just not been opposed, they've been celebrated on an institutional level. They haven't been asked to back up their bullshit, what they say goes and they make and change their rules at will. Maybe it's the case that their strength is their weakness. There's been some turnaround, but the momentum has to be kept up, let's hope it is.
The clever people (sadly, not me) who snatched a copy should take a Private Eye “Gratuitous pic of Andrew Neil in baseball cap with young lady” approach and attach the Susie Green vid to every comment they make. With an annual prize for the best justification.
Exulansic made this point about Jazz Jennings but I think it applies to Jackie Green here too: legally does this count as FGM? Taking a girl out the country for that is illegal. So either Jackie is still legally a boy (well, man now), or if he's legally a girl then the Greens could be prosecuted for it. I'd hope they could be prosecuted for it either way, it's a horrific child abuse, but it does raise a legal question.