Categories
anti-Semitism conspiracy theory incels misogyny transphobia

Incel conspiracy theorist: The Jews want to turn us all into a “hybrid gender” of lady men

Do the Jews want to make us all into Sexy David Bowie?

Antisemites have it easy. If they run across anything at all that offends them, they can just blame it on the Jews. Can’t find a job? It’s the Jews. Can’t find a girlfriend? Also the Jews.

A regular commenter on the Incels.is forums called ItalianPolishCel doesn’t much like the new visibility of trans and gender-fluid people. Whose fault it that? You get one guess.

“Jews are trying to create this hybrid gender with both feminine and masculine features,” he writes in a recent thread,

because to then this is perfection and this is what is needed for the times of their ultimate control of the world.

What? Why? No answer.

Don’t expect any explanations of any of this from ItalianPolishCel; I guess the Jews stole his evidence.

Thats why they make everything so hard for men and push them to become trannies and why they give so much masculine power to foids. Not to mention their pushing of transgenderism etc.

Not to mention? You’ve mentioned it like three times already.

If you want more info about this, watch some videos of Know More News on bitchute. He exposes Christianity as well as the controlling tool of they goys by the jews.

Good to see bitchute serving the needs of antisemite video blabbers and their fans.

All in all they want to diminish any differences between the two genders and create a “perfect being” of a genderless nature.

And you know this how?

Never mind, I’m sure it’s just the Jews keeping you from offering proof of any kind.

This is why they did everything to make sure inceldom is a global problem for men because we are the stronger gender and foids are weak so it was easy to subvert their gender while they needed much heavier artilery for men.

Well, that’s one big pile of shit.

The conversation got even more ludicrous from there. While there were a few commenters who took on ItalianPolishCel’s conspiracy theory (“Imagine being so in denial about being ugly you just blame da jooos”), others ventured even further from the world of rational thought, explaining how “da jooos” are really the Qus — an ancient race of space aliens who just happen to enjoy fucking with humanity in their spare time.

Yet another commenter blamed “the blacks” for starting “the tranny shit.”

“i’m a mischling (1/4 kike) where do I stand?” 52baldcurryjanitor began.

but the tranny shit started in the black community. When my parents took me to manhattan you only saw black trannies on the subway (it was DISTURBING!) basically any trend that starts in the black community will spread to the white community. (single moms shit like that started in the black community now it is spreading to the white community).

A commenter called Lykan had an even longer list of suspects:

it’s the fault of normies, corporations, foids, simps, soys, degenerates, npcs, and maybe a little jews here and there too

Glad we’re got that all sorted out.

Follow me on Twitter.

Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.

We Hunted the Mammoth relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!

27 replies on “Incel conspiracy theorist: The Jews want to turn us all into a “hybrid gender” of lady men”

o no please anything but hybrid genders. lol.

this list is quite extensive btw

it’s the fault of normies, corporations, foids, simps, soys, degenerates, npcs, and maybe a little jews here and there too

aka basically everyone except incels! amazing detective work there, guy named after an exclusive vanity car for extremely rich people

Im’a have to push this… (I dunno, maybe I’m just “meddlesome” 🙂 )

Conspiracy FANTASY… not “conspiracy theory”

not so much because I’ve spent so much of my life trying to understand how a theory is constructed, but more so because I have found nothing that pisses off the people who believe this horse… er, dinosaur shit so much as having authoritative people refer to it as fantasy. I would give real money to hear a national news reporter say “Here’s the latest conspiracy fantasy from inside the ‘bullshit bubble’!”

Off-topic, a male Texas high school student was beaten unconscious by another male student, apparently over a female student. Guess one boy didn’t respect the other boy’s “ownership” of the girl??? Ain’t misogyny grand…. 🙁

@ Mish:

Shoot, they forgot the Illuminati, the Deep State, AND the Satanic New World Order!

Shameful. What is bigotry coming to…???

It’s December 6 today, the 32nd anniversary of the anti-feminist terrorist attack at Polytechnique.

The big difference this year is that it’s finally not controversial to call it that.

@ numberosis:

“… not controversial…”??? You inhabit a more enlightened section of the planet than I….

If you throw a rock at the dead center of the continental U.S., I will probably hear it hit… around here the only thing that’s NOT controversial is “WHITE Christmas”… 🙁

I’m in Montreal, about 5km away from the massacre site.

The dead centre of the US can get enlightened another day. Hopefully without murdering 14 young women and then thinking about it for 30 years before accepting they were murdered for being women.

@Weird Eddie:

If you throw a rock at the dead center of the continental U.S., I will probably hear it hit… around here the only thing that’s NOT controversial is “WHITE Christmas”… 

A song, incidentally, that we owe to Irving Berlin—né Israel Beilin.

@Weird Eddie: Wasn’t there a Doctor Who episode a few years back with almost that exact premise?

Off-topic, a male Texas high school student was beaten unconscious by another male student, apparently over a female student.

Men getting into fights over who gets access to a woman is, sadly, a very common thing, and has been for at least the past four thousand years, to judge by the fact that such a fight was the putative cause of the Trojan War all the way back in the Bronze Age. (Whether it actually was is more-or-less immaterial; it was considered plausible enough by a Bronze Age mass audience as to be, at minimum, the chosen plot device for starting the war in a story written by a Bronze Age author. This is sufficient evidence to support the claim that men fighting over access to women was a commonplace occurrence in ancient Greece.)

@David: The actor who speaks that “big pile of shit” line is, interestingly, Jewish.

I give thanks to anyone who helps free humanity from the gender binary. I know embracing my nonbinary nature made my life infinitely better. People don’t have to exist in the middle; plenty of people will still be at either end of the spectrum and that’s fine. It’s just that no one has to be.

Do the Jews want to make us all into Sexy David Bowie?

Yes. Yes, that’s exactly what we want. Except you forgot lactating. I want to turn all the cis people into Sexy Lactating David Bowies. Why else did we CRISPR viruses into DNA GPS machines if not to mutate all the cis people into Sexy Lactating David Bowies?

The research into further mutations required to make certain Sexy Lactating David Bowies who become superfluous when our SLDB population grows too quickly morph into spring rolls and samosas is ongoing, but our laboratories are quite optimistic the technology will be ready before the SLDB demographic explodes.

“Perfect being” eh? I volunteer as tribute. I am ok with being perfect through none of my own effort. It has eluded me all my life.

Also maybe if we’re all perfect genderless beings (that reproduce parthogenetically, I guess?? Or just are immortal and never die? Question left as an exercise for the reader.) then we can stop having everything be about sex all the time. Damn sick and tired of it.

@Surplus to Requirements:

Men getting into fights over who gets access to a woman is, sadly, a very common thing, and has been for at least the past four thousand years, to judge by the fact that such a fight was the putative cause of the Trojan War all the way back in the Bronze Age. (Whether it actually was is more-or-less immaterial; it was considered plausible enough by a Bronze Age mass audience as to be, at minimum, the chosen plot device for starting the war in a story written by a Bronze Age author. This is sufficient evidence to support the claim that men fighting over access to women was a commonplace occurrence in ancient Greece.)

Fun Fact: that was also how David Bowie suffered the eye injury that caused his signature anisocoria (not heterochromia; his irises were the same color.)

Speaking of incels, the Law Commission have just reported back on, inter alia, making misogyny per se a crime. They’ve rejected that idea. They have recommended the creation of some new specific offences though.

The considerations which have led us to reject extension of hate crime laws to sex and gender do not apply in relation to stirring up hatred. In response to the growing threat of “incel” ideology, and its potential to lead to serious criminal offending, we recommend the creation of an offence of stirring up hatred on the basis of sex or gender.34 This is one context where existing hate speech offences may be usefully adapted to address extreme misogynistic content.

Link to a summary of the report as a whole.

https://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/lawcom-prod-storage-11jsxou24uy7q/uploads/2021/12/6.7808_LC_Hate_Crime_Summary_Dec21_WEB.pdf

watch some videos of Know More News on bitchute.

Nah, I’d rather recommend Some More News on youtube, also known as Cody’s Showdy. Your way more likely to get somethin that actually adds up there. Also information on the impending invasion of a Radioactive Teleporting Boar.

Though I am pretty sure the similarity in names is not a coincidence. SMN is pretty successful and misinformation spreaders love to lift on the coattails of better fare through such things as copying a name.

@Alan Robertshaw

I am not a lawyer. I’m a highly educated layperson, an expert in other fields. I’m immediately opposed to the ruling, in particular:

Sexual offences: These offences are already difficult to prosecute [and why is that? is that because of systemic injustice and bias and not because they need to be? legitimate question, it really seems that way to me], and adding an extra layer of proof and complexity could worsen this. We also considered that it was not necessarily helpful to distinguish between sexual offences which had a proven additional element of “misogyny”, and those which did not. We expressed concern that this could create hierarchies of victims of these offences and reinforce certain rape myths.

Ezpz: All rapes of women are misogyny, there is no hierarchy of victim. Done and dusted. Why is this not a solution?

What is your legal opinion on the rest of the paper (regarding misogynistic hate crimes since it also covers other hate crimes)?

I’m down for this but not quite feeling “lady-man”. Maybe “man-lady”? Hmm. I usually lean toward genderqueer but feel like I don’t look “queer” enough for that (yes, I know that’s not how it works but try and convince my brain lol).

Turning everyone into David Bowie… hmmm… remembers “Labyrinth”…

I’m here for it. The music will be amazing.

@Weird Eddie: I shall begin using “conspiracy fantasies” forthwith!

@ big titty demon

I am not a lawyer

I think this is one of the many areas of law where a layperson’s view is more valid than a lawyers. Crime and Sentencing is really more of a public interest issue than a technical legal one.

I do have some views though; quelle surprise. I’ll stick them behind a spoiler tag though, rather than flood the thread with screed.

[spoiler title=”Further rambings”] I can’t see why gender based offending should be treated any differently from other offences where a protected characteristic can create an aggravated offence.

So there are already offences where sexuality, or cis/trans status of the victim makes something a hate crime. Why should sex/gender be any different?

But I must confess I’m not a fan of hate crimes generally. That’s not to say I don’t think hate crime isn’t serious. Au contraire. It’s exactly because of that. Whilst creating hate crime offences sends a public message about what won’t be tolerated; in practice it makes convicitng harder, and actually results in lower sentences for hate crimes.

I appreciate that might seem a bit counter-intuitive, so it may be easier if I give examples.

To convict someone of an offence, the prosecution have to prove every element of that offence to the requisite standard. That is ‘so the jury is sure’. We don’t actually say ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ here; but it’s effectively the same standard of proof.

I’ll leave a link here to some background on offences against the person; and you can see the various elements that need to be proven to convict.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-against-person-incorporating-charging-standard

Now hate crime legislation actually creates a separate offence to the basic charge.

So take “Section 18” GBH. The elements of the basic offence are:

intentionally using unlawful violence against a person such that serious harm is caused.

So you have to prove a number of things. That the harm was caused intentionally (not recklessly); that the violence was unlawful, not self defence, and the harm crossed a particular threshold.

Now let’s say someone is convicted of that; but at the sentencing stage the judge thinks the attack was racially motivated. That is an aggravating factor and increases the sentence. But in the olden days a judge could just infer racism from the background facts; or what came out at trial. There was no formal requirement on the prosecution to prove motive.

So the threshold for finding an attack was racially motivated was in practice much lower than ‘so you are sure’. The judge was allowed to just come to that conclusion on common sense and/or gut feeling.

In theory there is a mechanism for challenging a judge’s conclusions. A so-called Newton hearing; but no-one ever bothered as the judge would just say they found the matter proved to the requisite standard anyway.

But now racially aggravated GBH is a separate offence. And that creates a new element to be proved with evidence. That the attack was motivated by a racial animus.

And a person’s state of mind can be really difficult to prove in a formal way. Unless they actually say something relevant; you can’t now infer that just from the circumstances.

So it’s really hard to convict of the hate crime offence, and usually the jury just return a guilty verdict on the basic offence.

But because the defendant has been acquitted of the racially aggravated offence; the judge can no longer up the sentence. There are different sentence guidelines for the different offences; and the judge can only apply the ones for the offence on which the defendant was found guilty.

Here’s a link to the sentencing guidelines for illustration.

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/outlines/

So I hope the above makes sense. And that you can see why I think hate crime legislation, whilst very well intentioned, actually allows offenders to get away more lightly than they did before it was introduced. [/spoiler]

@ Kupo:

For some reason, I picture “lady-men” always wearing whimsical late-19th-century curled moustaches as part of their presentation.

@Moon Custafer:

For some reason, I picture “lady-men” always wearing whimsical late-19th-century curled moustaches as part of their presentation.

Something like Svetlana/Nikoros from Babylon Berlin?

Kind of; or maybe like a Victorian circus strongwoman in tights and leotard, but wearing a big false moustache?

I think this person read, or more likely saw the film version of, “The Final Programme” whilst in an altered state.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.