can happen when you undergo ‘sex change’ operations. The trans lobby
tries to portray it as easy and straightforward – yet it’s anything
being paid for the fashionable transgender theories of our day. There
are unseen victims, invisible, though in plain sight. They are hidden
because their supporters believe too blindly, and their detractors write
them off, and their misery is facilitated by a lack of open discussion
and a censorship of the facts.
These victims get overshadowed by
the concerns of the general public who are caught in a culture war, by
the parents who lose children to this strange and manufactured dogma,
and by the disinterested innocents subjected to bewildering
pronoun-usage and terrible Netflix adaptations.
These hidden victims are the young transgenders
themselves, who are led to believe so strongly that they can ‘change
their sex’ that they undergo sex-reassignment surgery, only to find
themselves not just disappointed by the result, but horrified.
are true victims, in the sense that many of them suffer horrific and
irreversible physical damage and pain, which often leads to them
may have heard of these high rates of suicide among transgender people.
What many people are not aware of is that this suicide problem is not
predominantly due to social rejection, bullying, or self-doubt. It is
due to the complex, unnatural, and somewhat shady nature of the surgery
involved in ‘sex changes,’ and its after-effects. I will focus in this
article on the male-to-female cases, as the list of complications in
these operations is long and harrowing.
It should go without
saying at this point that a person cannot really change their sex; it
comprises your genetic make-up at the molecular level (XX/XY genes). A
man who seeks to become a woman will never have a baby. The surgeon’s
knife is not a ‘magical’ transformation, it is a complicated cosmetic
operation, changing one’s outward appearance. It is a complex, fraught
rearranging of flesh.
Many young people today believe (and are
being taught) that they can elect their sex like they choose an item of
clothing, and go through with ‘surgery’ that will wholly transform them.
Often the result leads to disappointment, and there are many stories of
regret, and of (too late) reticence just before committing to the
operation. These stories are unfashionable to the ears of gender-theory
enthusiasts, who wish to forever believe that sex is a fluid and
insubstantial thing, and can be easily changed.
With male-to-female surgeries, post operative complications occur
at a rate of 32.5% (that is a one-in-three chance of complication),
and there is a re-operation rate of 21.7%. This is insanely high for any
kind of medical procedure, let alone considering this is an elective
surgery, and one that is performed, generally, on healthy, functioning
bodies. They now call it ‘gender affirmation surgery’ so that even the
language is deceptively adapted to sound positive and non-threatening.
In this sense, medical ethics and genuine concern (not virtue signalling) for these young people appears to be out the window.
GRAPHIC CONTENT WARNING
is not often discussed (likely because it is not a topic for the
squeamish) exactly what are the common complications resulting from
modern sex-change surgeries. If you can bear it, I will attempt to
elucidate a few of the male-to-female complications, while seeking not
to be overly graphic. Those who are faint of heart may wish to stop
The patient’s “neovagina” is partly constructed
from an inverted scrotum and penis, therefore any hair-bearing skin used
for the “neo-urethra” can cause
chronic infection and obstruction. In vaginoplasty, failure to perform
preoperative or intraoperative hair removal can lead to inaccessible
hair deep within the vagina. This can result in a hairball, which can be
a nidus for debris and infection.Infections are common and known to be
incredibly painful, according to sufferer accounts.
is no natural lubrication for a neovagina. In a procedure called
colovaginoplasty, a lubricant is sourced by opening up the abdomen and
using part of the colon to join the gap and make the vagina. The
lubrication comes from the bowel, and is constant (not based on
arousal). Post-op patient questions vary from, ‘Is it dangerous for my
partner to ingest this lubricant?’, to ‘Will I need to wear a pad
forever?’ (Often, yes).
is known as a Rectoneovaginal Fistula, which is an ‘abnormal connection
between the rectum and neovagina’. The result is that the neovagina
begins to secrete fecal matter, resulting in permanent diaper-wearing.
There are many difficulties that can arise when you decide to open a new
hole in your pelvis that was not there naturally.
complained about ‘never being able to have sex again’ – in some ways an
odd complaint after making the decision to castrate yourself. Another
common complaint is the necrotising of the neovagina, where the
constructed vagina (or portions of it) simply dies off.
surgery in general requires perpetual clinical follow-up and post-op
monitoring, as well as a lifetime reliance on estrogen and other
The wider trans community and the wealthy trans lobby
do not want any such negative information about transgenderism to get
out. They maintain that it is impossible to tell the difference between a
vagina and a negovagina, but this is not true. Many who undergo the
procedure learn the hard way that they have caused irreversible damage
to themselves, and their suicide rates are astronomical. There are many
stories of chronic pain and tissue necrosis that are either too graphic
to relay, and there is too much fear of censorship and legal threats
from the trans lobby for sufferers to speak out.
The sad result of this is that many confused kids, often
encouraged by virtue-signalling parents and teachers, are being led down
the path that leads to these horrors. Nobody seems to care about the
realities that await them, that there is a very high chance their lives
will be ruined and they will suffer great pain and remorse. Yet the
gender theory activists still pretend that you can easily change your
sex with surgery.
These people require rigorous mental health
treatment, real role models, and a society which does not encourage them
to mutilate themselves.
Russia’s President Vladimir Putin isn’t active online because he doesn’t have enough time to post, scroll and click, the Kremlin has revealed, saying he has rejected the idea of having an aide manage public profiles on his behalf.
Speaking to journalists at the Eastern Economic Forum on Thursday, Putin’s press secretary, Dmitry Peskov, revealed the Russian leader thinks there are better uses of his time than setting up an account on Twitter or Facebook. “Putin himself does not use social networks,” the Kremlin official said, chalking the decision up to pressures on his diary.
However, there is apparently no question about deputizing the job to an adviser. “He does not want anyone to do it for him,” Peskov said. “He considers it wrong.”
In 2017, taking questions at a meeting with especially-gifted children, Putin said there was no slot in his day for social media. “My working days are so busy and finish so late at night that I am not in the mood for Instagram,” he said. “All I think about is to get to bed to sleep,” the president added.
However, he warned that there are numerous satirical and fake accounts set up in his name. “I have nothing to do with any of them. Just beware of that. So, everything that is written on my behalf is not me,” Putin said.
A prolific social media user, Former President Donald Trump is estimated to have tweeted more than 25,000 times during his presidency, before tech giants, including Twitter, banned him from the service in the wake of protesters storming Washington’s Capitol building in January.
Comment by tonytran2015: When heading Microsoft, B. Gate was adamant (around 2000) that old computer software could not be donated to poor countries for free due to Microsoft’s copyrights. Fortunately, M.Shuttleworth offered Ubuntu software for free instead. The Operating Systems by Microsoft on PC’s showed that “computer-virus” and “anti-virus” were a nice lucrative business.
No surprizes? The photo of Bill there shows him in his truer scamming light, shot from well circulated video footage of him rocking to and fro in court trying to fool the judge about what he didn’t understand about his monopolizing behaviour over MS. After that episode he rebranded himself as the philanthropist. Why would you trust this man with your health? EWR)
(I recommend you visit their site & peruse their news list … )
An investigation has revealed that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation are the primary funders of the UK’s Medicine & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, and that the Foundation also owns major shares in both Pfizer and BioNTech.
The Medicine & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) extended the emergency authorisation of the Pfizer / BioNTech mRNA jab in the UK to allow it to be given to children between the ages of 12 – 15 on the 4th June 2021.
YouTube has continued to enforce and expand its censorship of opposing views on its site — enforcing what it considers to be the truth on various issues. The latest subject is Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), who has been suspended from the site for expressing his opposition to Covid mandates. One does not have to agree with Paul on his view of Covid or mandates to see the danger of such corporate control over public discourse in the United States. However, politicians (including President Joe Biden) are calling for even greater censorship to silence those with opposing views on such subjects.
Rand posted a video on Sunday in which he lashed out at the calls for mandates and the “petty tyrants and bureaucrats” supporting them, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi and President Joe Biden. He called for people to stand up against these efforts:
“It’s time for us to resist. They can’t arrest all of us. They can’t keep all of your kids home from school. … We don’t have to accept the mandates, lockdowns and harmful policies of the petty tyrants and bureaucrats. We can simply say no. Not again.
Nancy Pelosi, you will not arrest, or stop me or anyone on my staff from doing our jobs. We have either had Covid, had the vaccine, or been offered the vaccine. We will make our own health choices. We will not show you a passport. We will not wear a mask. We will not be forced into random screenings so you can continue your drunk with power reign over the Capitol.
“President Biden, we will not accept your agencies’ mandates or your reported moves towards a lockdown.”
Sen. Paul has been criticized for this and other statements on Covid but many agree with him. This is part of our political debate. People have a free speech right to oppose the mandates and question the science cited by the government. In this case, a corporation is preventing a major political figure from being able to use its platform to engage others on this subject. It is picking and choosing who can speak and what they can say. It has a right to do so as a private company but it is wrong to do so. It is a denial of free speech and we need to address the corporate control over political speech in the United States.
I have previously and repeatedly said that I believe people should be vaccinated. I and my family are vaccinated. However, I will not accept arguments that my public health concerns should negate the free speech rights of others, including Sen. Paul. I also do not accept that these corporations should hold such a strangle hold over public debate.
The rise of corporate censors has combined with a heavily pro-Biden media to create the fear of a de facto state media that controls information due to a shared ideology rather than state coercion. That concern has been magnified by demands from Democratic leaders for increased censorship, including censoring political speech, and now word that the Biden Administration has routinely been flagging material to be censored by Facebook.
This is why I have described myself as an Internet Originalist:
The alternative is “internet originalism” — no censorship. If social media companies returned to their original roles, there would be no slippery slope of political bias or opportunism; they would assume the same status as telephone companies. We do not need companies to protect us from harmful or “misleading” thoughts. The solution to bad speech is more speech, not approved speech.
If Pelosi demanded that Verizon or Sprint interrupt calls to stop people saying false or misleading things, the public would be outraged. Twitter serves the same communicative function between consenting parties; it simply allows thousands of people to participate in such digital exchanges. Those people do not sign up to exchange thoughts only to have Dorsey or some other internet overlord monitor their conversations and “protect” them from errant or harmful thoughts.
“There was truth and there was untruth, and if you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad.”– George Orwell 1984
“People will agree with you only if they already agree with you. You do not change people’s minds.”–Frank Zappa
Orwell and Zappa’s words of wisdom have never been truer than they are today. The level of untruth proliferated by the government, mainstream media, central bankers, military leaders, Big Tech, Big Pharma, Big Corp., and billionaire oligarchs has reached prolific heights. We are lost in a whirlwind of lies, destined to grow into a tornado of tragedy and ultimately result in acascadeof consequences.
Since theinstallationof the illegitimate dementia patient as president of this dying empire ofdebtby the Deep State (billionaire oligarchs, surveillance state agencies, military industrial complex, Silicon Valley censorship tyrants, corrupt bought off state politicians, Sorosinstalledbureaucrats, and…
… Facebook has introduced a new feature allowing users to request
critics, who say Facebook has far larger issues to focus on.
request mass prayers for anything from a job interview to personal
health. After a user creates their post, others can click a button
reading, “I prayed.” The feature began being tested in the US in December.
the Covid-19 pandemic, we’ve seen many faith and spirituality
communities using our services to connect, so we’re starting to explore
new tools to support them,” a statement from a Facebook spokesperson reads.
‘prayer tool’ was met with skepticism and mockery on social media,
where many critics blasted the company for focusing on the new feature
over numerous other issues, such as concerns over misinformation and
leaders have responded in mixed fashion to the feature, according to a
report from the Associated Press (AP). Some praised the new tool as an
innovative way to promote faith and connect religious communities, while
others dismissed it as meaningless compared to in-person gatherings,
and also expressed privacy concerns.
Facebook already uses personal information from users to better target ads, though it claims “prayer posts” will not be used in these algorithms.
“Is it wise to post everything about everyone for the whole world to see?” Father Bob Stec, pastor of St. Ambrose Catholic Parish in Brunswick, Ohio, told AP. “On
a good day, we would all be reflective and make wise choices. When we
are under stress or distress or in a difficult moment, it’s almost too
easy to reach out on Facebook to everyone.”
Egensteiner, of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America’s
Metropolitan New York Synod, called on Facebook to do more to battle “misinformation” posted to its platform, which he claims affects “religious communities and our efforts.”
has been under pressure from both Democrats and Republicans, with
liberal pundits and lawmakers claiming the company is not doing enough
to police “misinformation” related to Covid-19 and other
topics, and conservatives pointing to Facebook as one of multiple social
media companies that allegedly shadowban and flag conservatives pundits
far more than liberal ones.
Former president Donald Trump, who saw his social media
accounts purged following the January 6 riot at the US Capitol,
announced a lawsuit last month targeting Facebook, Twitter, and Google
over this alleged political bias…
Apple’s plan to scan every iPhone user’s photos, calling it an assault
on privacy. The company insisted its intention is only to root out child
published on the platform Github on Friday is signed by security and
privacy experts, cryptographers, researchers, academics, legal experts
and ordinary consumers, united in condemnation of Apple’s “privacy-invasive content scanning technology.”
If you have a @github
account, you can join me in co-signing the first letter uniting
security & privacy experts, researchers, professors, policy
advocates, and consumers against @Apple‘s planned moves against all of our privacy.https://t.co/QIb1TwJE0C
— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) August 6, 2021
While acknowledging that efforts to combat child exploitation and abuse are “almost unquestionably well-intentioned,”
the signers say that Apple’s proposal to constantly monitor and scan
everyone’s photos – and alert authorities if its AI-driven algorithm
tags them as criminal – “introduces a backdoor that threatens to undermine fundamental privacy protections for all users of Apple products.”
warn that the technology has the potential to bypass any end-to-end
encryption that would normally safeguard the user’s privacy – something
Apple has long been promoting as a major feature of its software
Apple’s plan to roll out the scanning program in the US was
leaked on Thursday via the Financial Times. It immediately raised
eyebrows among cybersecurity researchers and privacy advocates –
including Snowden, who became a household name in 2013 after blowing the
whistle on the National Security Agency’s warrantless surveillance of
“No matter how well-intentioned [Apple] is rolling
out mass surveillance to the entire world with this. Make no mistake: if
they can scan for kiddie porn today, they can scan for anything
tomorrow,” he tweeted on Thursday night. “They turned a trillion dollars of devices into iNarcs – *without asking.*”
letter he shared contains quotes from the Electronic Frontier
Foundation (EFF), the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), and the
Open Privacy Research Society, as well as several prominent advocates
They all urged Apple to halt the deployment of the proposed technology “immediately” and reaffirm their commitment to user privacy and encryption.
know, it sounds nuts. But ten years ago I would have said “running a
local scanner on your device’s photo library even when photos aren’t
shared” sounds nuts. And yet here we are.
— Matthew Green (@matthew_d_green) August 6, 2021
by the content of an internal memo sent on Friday by vice-president for
software Sebastien Marineau-Mes, however, Apple is doubling down on the
project – and seeking to motivate employees with a letter of praise
insulting the critics.
“We’ve seen many
positive responses today. We know some people have misunderstandings,
and more than a few are worried about the implications, but we will
continue to explain and detail the features so people understand what
we’ve built,” Marineau-Mes wrote in the memo, which was reprinted by 9to5Mac on Friday.
then appends the note Apple received from Marita Rodriguez, an
executive with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
(NCMEC), saying he found it “incredibly motivating, and hope that you will as well.”
distributed an internal memo today which referred to pushback against
its new content surveillance measures as “the screeching voices of the
minority.” I have nothing to add. pic.twitter.com/6R9moiekyN
— Nadim Kobeissi (@kaepora) August 6, 2021
“We know that the days to come will be filled with the screeching voices of the minority. Our voices will be louder,” Rodriguez wrote, after saying that NCMEC is “SO PROUD” of everyone at Apple and “the incredible decisions you have made in the name of prioritizing child protection.”
Apple has previously defended the encrypted nature of its operating systems, famously going to court in 2016
to fight the FBI demand for a ‘backdoor’ to the iPhone of the suspect
in the San Bernardino, California terrorist shooting rampage. In its
legal briefs, the company said the US government was demanding something
they didn’t have and would be “too dangerous” for them to create.
The FBI later managed to unlock the phone,
reportedly using an Israeli spy tool, but found nothing of use. Last
month, it emerged that another Israeli spy tool, Pegasus, has been used
to hack tens of thousands of iPhones around the world – including those
of journalists, dissidents and even heads of state.
The pharmaceutical giant Pfizer, which has grown rich and powerful from the human misery of the COVID-19 pandemic, is getting even richer.
Pfizer has been granted a $3.5 billion contract from the U.S. Army to peddle 500 million doses of the COVID-19 vaccine throughout the world. This taxpayer-funded giveaway from the Pentagon will likely send their stock shooting upward even faster.
“Our partnership with the U.S. government will help bring hundreds of millions of doses of our vaccine to the poorest countries around the world as quickly as possible,” said Pfizer Chairman and CEO Albert Bourla.
“COVID-19 has impacted everyone, everywhere, and to win the battle against this pandemic, we must ensure expedited access to vaccines for all,” he added.
Big League Politics has reported on how Pfizer is being shielded from liability from their COVID-19 vaccines if recipients are hurt by the jab, and they are now getting a third shot ready for their human guinea pigs:
“Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla has stated that a third COVID-19 vaccine shot will “likely” be needed after 12 months to stave off the virus.
In a predictable announcement, Bourla said that the public will keep having to line up for these experimental shots over and over again as Big Pharma racks up massive profits bolstered by a public crippled by media-generated fear.
“A likely scenario is that there will be likely a need for a third dose, somewhere between six and 12 months and then from there, there will be an annual revaccination, but all of that needs to be confirmed. And again, the variants will play a key role,” Bourla said to CNBC’s Bertha Coombs at an event with CVS Health.
“It is extremely important to suppress the pool of people that can be susceptible to the virus,” he added…
Soon, it will be impossible to participate in society without receiving these shots on a regular basis. The technocracy is taking shape, and the ramifications are going to be disastrous for public health and well being.”
Pfizer and other powerful pharmaceutical corporations is benefiting mightily from the emerging technocracy as civil liberties are crushed and the rule of law becomes a notion of the past.