Manqué cineaste Simon Lynxx needs to raise money for his film, so he pays two black friends to mug elderly movie mogul Hermann Wolff, so Lynxx can rescue him and get cash out of gratitude. That’s from Take Fivea D. Keith Mano novel released in 1982, the year actor Jussie Smollett was born.

Nearly four decades later, Smollett is an actor in the Fox series Empire, centered on hip-hop artist Lucious Lyon, CEO of Empire Entertainment. In real life, not on the show, Smollett sends a threatening letter to himself showing a noose, then pays two black friends to attack him in Chicago, which they proclaim is “MAGA country!”

The pair beat Smollett and string a rope around his neck while yelling racist and homophobic slurs. Smollett somehow escapes unscathed. The tale soon unraveled, and as Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson put it, Jussie Smollett “paid $3,500 to stage this attack…The stunt was orchestrated by Smollett because he was dissatisfied with his salary,” reportedly more than $1 million per year before taxes.

Smollett paid the $3,500 to Abel Osundairo, his personal trainer, and Ola Osundairo, a former extra on Empire. Police have the check and a video shows the pair buying the masks. The story was less credible than Al Sharpton’s Tawana Brawley hoax, but Smollett cast himself as a Trump victim. So right from the start leftist Democrats were all in.

“The vicious attack on actor Jussie Smollett was an attempted modern-day lynching,” proclaimed Cory Booker. “I’m glad he’s safe.” In similar style, fellow presidential candidate Kamala Harris tagged the attack a “modern day lynching.”  Green New Dealer Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who believe walls are immoral, called it a “racist, homophobic attack.” The media echo chamber also chimed in.

On February 14 Robin Roberts interviewed Smollett on “Good Morning America.” Smollett contended he was a victim and did not orchestrate the alleged attack. According to Roberts, “It’s a setback for race relations, homophobia, MAGA supporters. I cannot think of another case where there is this anger on so many sides and you can understand why there would be.”

Yet as the story unraveled, Smollett’s siblings blamed the media.

Jocqui Smollett and Jurnee Smollett-Bell reposted on Instagram a 1964 quote attributed to Malcolm X. “This is the media, an irresponsible press. It will make the criminal look like he’s the victim and make the victim look like he’s the criminal. If you aren’t careful, the media will have you hating the people who are being oppressed and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”


Though suspicious from the start, Chicago police gave Smollett the benefit of the doubt and assigning a dozen detectives to what the victim said was a hate crime. Old-fashioned police work quickly exposed Smollett’s fakery and, as Superintendent Johnson said, “When we discovered the actual motive quite frankly it pissed everybody off.”

By February 20 Smollett’s story had completely collapsed, and African American comedians were mocking the actor. Chicago police were coming after Smollett with charges of felony disorderly conduct for filing a false police report. At that point, the establishment media escalated the rhetoric.

Thursday morning, Keith Boykin and Van Jones appeared on “At This Hour” with Kate Bolduan and both defended their belief in the story as it broke. “A lot of people say, how can you believe this story from the beginning?” Boykin said. Jones responded  “Because it happens!” and described Smollett as “a Jackie Robinson against homophobia in the black community, an icon, a beloved icon.”

Boykin said “I’m hoping still despite all the overwhelming evidence that is presented that it’s not true.” And as the CNN commentator explained, “we had Nazis marching in Charlottesville not long ago. We have people sending pipe bombs to CNN. We have just today or yesterday, we have a Coast Guard white nationalist who is involved in plotting a terror attack on Americans. So, we live in difficult, extreme times. When a story comes up however implausible it seems on its face, unfortunately, we live in a world now where these things are even possible.”

That is the prevailing ethos of fakery on the left.

Since such bad things are possible, that trumps any concern over the “overwhelming evidence”  of the Smollett case and other hoaxes. Like Pelosi, Ocasio-Cortez, Booker and Harris, Van Jones and Keith Boykin said nothing about Smollett’s motive for the fakery, to boost his salary beyond $1 million a year, and whether that constituted greed. Also missing was analysis of leading Democrats who got it wrong, the slander toward those who elected Donald Trump president of the United States, and the effect of fakery on actual victims of hate crimes.

For further reading on that theme see Crying Wolf: Hate Crime Hoaxes in America by Laird Wilcox and Wilfred Reilly’s Hate Crime Hoax: How the Left is Selling a Fake Race War. Based on the record, and the fathomless credulity of the media, readers can expect more fakery in the style of Jussie Smollett, who faces three years in prison.

Meanwhile, Simon Lynxx got money for his movie but went on to lose his senses one at a time, so Take Five is paginated in reverse. As the Jussie Smollett case confirms, the left has lost all sense of truth, and the soi-disantprogressives march backward on the road to serfdom.



Biology Denying Cross Dressing Actor Asserts Existence of ‘Biologically Female Penis”

A man’s penis becomes a female penis once a man declares himself to be transgender, says Indya Moore, one of the players in a transgender-themed TV show on FX network.

The declaration is built on the transgender claim that men who say they are women are actually women. But once the men are women, their bodies are women’s bodies. So men’s penises become female penises.

Moore extended the “female penis” claim by declaring the existence of ‘male vaginas,’ which are presumably carried by women who are living as men.


The “female penis” claim went viral because it spotlights the logic of the transgender ideology, which insists the Department of Justice must blur and forbid any legal or civic recognition of the biological distinctions between the two different and complementary male and female sexes.

This policy must be imposed to ensure that children and adults can easily discard their female or male sex by simply declaring they have an opposite-sex “gender,” or have a “gender identity” which is between male and female, say transgender activists.

A person’s “gender,” say activists, is their personal feeling about being female or male, or something in between. For example, Moore’s feelings are described as “binary,” or neither male nor female.


Moore’s feelings-are-more-important-than-biology logic was explained by another transgender writer:

Moore took the often-heard rallying cry “trans women are women” one step further: She argued that if trans women are biological women, by definition, a trans woman’s penis is “a biologically female penis.” That’s a radical point missing in mainstream discussions on trans bodies, as trans women are often made to feel as if they should be ashamed of their genitals if they don’t have a vagina.

“Don’t use science to justify your bigotry,” Moore tweeted at critics of the “female penis” claim. “The world is way too weird for that s**t.”

The transgender effort to suppress any recognition that men and women are different and complementary would not matter except for the movement’s political alliance with wealthy progressives and radical feminists who wish to destroy the political power of the male-and-female family.

For example, editors at the New York Times invited a February 7 op-ed which smeared women who reject the political claim that gender is more important than biology. Author Sophie Lewis described the vast majority of women as “terfs”:

… the most vocal trans-exclusionary voices are, ostensibly, “feminist” ones, and anti-trans lobbying is a mainstream activity. Case in point: Ms. Parker told the podcast “Feminist Current” that she’d changed her thinking on trans women after spending time on Mumsnet, a site where parents exchange tips on toilet training and how to get their children to eat vegetables. If such a place sounds benign, consider the words of British writer Edie Miller: “Mumsnet is to British transphobia,” she wrote “what 4Chan is to American fascism.”

The term coined to identify women like Ms. Parker and Dr. Long is TERF, which stands for Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist. In Britain, TERFs are a powerful force. If, in the United States, the mainstream media has been alarmingly ready to hear “both sides” on the question of trans people’s right to exist, in Britain, TERFs have effectively succeeded in framing the question of trans rights entirely around their own concerns: that is, how these rights for others could contribute to “female erasure.” Many prominent figures in British journalism and politics have been TERFs; British TV has made a sport of endlessly hosting their lurid rudeness and styling it as courage; British newspapers seemingly never tire of broadsides against the menace of “gender ideology.” (With time, the term TERF has become a catchall for all anti-trans feminists, radical or not.)

Lewis’ radical support for the transgender ideology is logical because she wants to minimize the role of male-and-female families. A review of her book, Full Surrogacy Now: Feminism Against Family, says:

Rather than making [birth] surrogacy illegal or allowing it to continue as is, Sophie Lewis argues we should be looking to radically transform it. Surrogates should be put front and center, and their rights to the babies they gestate should be expanded to acknowledge that they are more than mere vessels. In doing so we can break down our assumptions that children necessarily belong to those whose genetics they share.

This might sound like a radical proposal but expanding our idea of who children belong to would be a good thing. Taking collective responsibility for children, rather than only caring for the ones we share DNA with, would radically transform notions of kinship. Adopting this expanded concept of surrogacy helps us to see that it always, as the saying goes, takes a village to raise a child.

But Lewis’ ‘Terf’ smear is also aimed at lesbians who wish to maintain a clear distinction between women and men. For example, former tennis star Martina Navratilova is being slammed by political activists for her growing opposition to transgenderism in sports. The Guardian reported February:

The former Wimbledon champion Martina Navratilova has been criticised for “disturbing, upsetting, and deeply transphobic” comments after she argued that allowing transgender women [men] to compete in women’s sporting tournaments was “insane and cheating”.

The tennis player and gay rights campaigner first drew criticism from equalities activists and trans athletes when she tweeted in December: “You can’t just proclaim yourself a female and be able to compete against women. There must be some standards, and having a penis and competing as a woman would not fit that standard.”

“To put the argument at its most basic: a man can decide to be female, take hormones if required by whatever sporting organisation is concerned, win everything in sight and perhaps earn a small fortune, and then reverse his decision and go back to [fathering] babies if he so desires.

“It’s insane and it’s cheating. I am happy to address a transgender woman in whatever form she prefers, but I would not be happy to compete against her. It would not be fair.”

The Guardian also saw fit to quote a man who is living as a woman describing Navratilova as beset by “transphobia,” as if the former tennis star is mentally ill.

Navratilova’s criticism of the transgender ideology is increasingly echoed by other women and lesbians who say the ideology will erase society’s understanding of women — and of lesbians — as biologically, sexually, and socially very different from men.

This “biology matters” argument is also being made by Andrew Sullivan, a British-born gay advocate who led the political push to allow single-sex marriages. In a February articletitled “The Nature of Sex,” Sullivan argues that a pending Democratic-drafted bill which provides legal recognition and rights to people who try to live as members of the opposite sex:

could put all single-sex institutions, events, or groups in legal jeopardy. It could deny lesbians their own unique safe space, free from any trace of men. The bill, in other words, “undermines the fundamental legal groundwork for recognizing and combating sex-based oppression and sex discrimination against women and girls.”

The transgender push to create legal rights for people living as members of the opposite sex would also threaten the legal rights won by gays and lesbians, Sullivan writes:

If you abandon biology in the matter of sex and gender altogether, you may help trans people live fuller, less conflicted lives; but you also undermine the very meaning of homosexuality. If you follow the current ideology of gender as entirely fluid, you actually subvert and undermine core arguments in defense of gay rights. “A gay man loves and desires other men, and a lesbian desires and loves other women,” explains Sky Gilbert, a drag queen. “This defines the existential state of being gay. If there is no such thing as ‘male’ or ‘female,’ the entire self-definition of gay identity, which we have spent generations seeking to validate and protect from bigots, collapses.” Contemporary transgender ideology is not a complement to gay rights; in some ways it is in active opposition to them.

And the truth is that many lesbians and gay men are quite attached to the concept of sex as a natural, biological, material thing. Yes, we are very well aware that sex can be expressed in many different ways. A drag queen and a rugby player are both biologically men, with different expressions of gender. Indeed, a drag queen can also be a rugby player and express his gender identity in a variety of ways, depending on time and place. But he is still a man. And gay men are defined by our attraction to our own biological sex. We are men and attracted to other men. If the concept of a man is deconstructed, so that someone without a penis is a man, then homosexuality itself is deconstructed. Transgender people pose no threat to us, and the vast majority of gay men and lesbians wholeheartedly support protections for transgender people. But transgenderist ideology — including postmodern conceptions of sex and gender — is indeed a threat to homosexuality, because it is a threat to biological sex as a concept.

A growing percentage of progressives oppose any recognition of the reality that men and women are different. But conservatives and feminists are championing the normal view that women and men are different, Sullivan wrote:Pol

It might be a sign of the end-times, or simply a function of our currently scrambled politics, but [in late January], four feminist activists — three from a self-described radical feminist organization Women’s Liberation Front — appeared on a panel at the Heritage Foundation. Together they argued that sex was fundamentally biological, and not socially constructed, and that there is a difference between women and trans women that needs to be respected. For this, they were given a rousing round of applause by the Trump supporters, religious-right members, natural law theorists, and conservative intellectuals who comprised much of the crowd. If you think I’ve just discovered an extremely potent strain of weed and am hallucinating, check out the video of the event.

Polls show the transgender ideology is deeply unpopular, especially among women and parents.

In 2017, Obama told NPR that his promotion of the transgender ideology made it easier for Donald Trump to win the presidency. Multiple polls show that most Americans wish to help and comfort people who think they are a member of the opposite sex, even as they also reject the transgender ideology’s claim that a person’s legal sex is determined by their feeling of “gender identity,” not by biology. A U.K. survey shows a similar mix of some sympathy for people with lopsided opposition to the ideology.

The transgender movement is diverse, so its different factions have different goals and priorities. It includes sexual liberationistsprogressives, feminists who wish to blur distinctions between the two sexes, and people who glamorize the distinctions between the two sexes. It includes high-profile children, people who are trying to live as members of the opposite sex, and people trying to “detransition” back to their sex, men who demand sex from lesbians, masculine autogynephiles who say are entitled to women’s’ rights, wealthy donorspoliticians, political professionals, and revenue-seeking drug-companies and medical service providers.

Transgender advocates claim that two million Americans say they are transgender to a greater or lesser extent. But very few people who describe themselves as transgender undergo cosmetic surgery of the genitals. Only about 4,118 Americans surgically altered their bodies in hospitals from 2000 to 2014 to appear like members of the opposite sex, according to a pro-transgender medical study.

Yet the gender ideology is rapidly gaining power, aided by huge donations from wealthy individuals and medical companies. In Ohio, for example, in February, a judge forced parents of a teenage girl to give up custody so she can begin a lifetime of drug treatments and surgery that will allow her to appear as a male.

The progressive push to bend Americans’ attitudes and their male-and-female civic society around the idea of “gender identity” has already attacked and cracked many of the popular social rules that help Americans manage the cooperation and competition among and between complementary, different, and equal men and women.

These pro-gender claims have an impact on different-sex bathrooms, shelters for battered women, sports  leagues for girls, hiking groups for boys, K-12 curricula, university  speech codes,   religious freedoms, free speech, the social status of women, parents’ rights in childrearing,  children’s safety,  practices to help teenagers, health outcomes, women’s ideals of beauty, culture and civic society, scientific research, prison safety, civic ceremonies, school rules, men’s sense of masculinity, law enforcement, military culture, and children’s sexual privacy.