Now that’s one ugly dude lol
Don't have an account? Register
Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.
Here you'll find all collections you've created before.
Reminds me of a line from “Murder By Death”.
”As a man you are passable, but as a woman you are a dog.”
That’s a man,….man! With all credit to Mike Meyers.
Sean Penn looking old these days
It totally does look like Sean Penn! I’m dead bro haha XD
That’s not even a girl-stache. That’s a straight up mustache.
You stole my line, delete! Man, oh, man! 🤣.
I guess nobody can now say “I have an auntie that looks just like that and she is 100% woman”.
Kissinger’s totally a bottom.
WOW. Thank you for this one. Oh my…
These photos have been retouched.
Fake photos. This doesn’t do the cause any justice when people lie. Go and have a look at this lady in the 1960s or 1970s. You can see from a photo search she’s a woman and these photos are doctored.
Discern better what your looking at – it doesn’t take two minutes to find a lie.
Entirely agreed, Rosey. We should be far less worried about the face of Kissinger’s wife, than about the technology which has been used here to so convincingly alter it.
Although I agree these photos are doctored – I still think it is a man. In their world a child is determined to be a transgendered person while still in the womb. They begin the torturing while still a fetus and never stop the torture all their lives. When a person is raised from birth as trans it is a different arena all together than the trans we are accustomed to. The hormone therapy and surgeries along with the programming make their transgenders more ‘believable’ than most can imagine.
@thekwon and @Daughter_of_Dust, though in truth she looks to me simply like a particularly lanky and awkward woman, I agree with both of you about the possibilities here. There are certainly still fouler things that happen at those levels, and it wouldn’t be the first case of its kind. But with the abundance of really solid and indisputable information about Kissinger’s despicable record that we could be considering, what real use is there in speculating about the gender of his wife? At best, it’s wholly conjectural; at worst, as Rosey has rightly pointed out, it’s tasteless and counter-productive.
Daughter_of_Dust, as a fellow artist, your points on portraiture are well taken, but there is a remarkable natural variety in the human form, and these signs, while suggestive, are far from demonstrative.
In any case, I don’t like digital legerdemain of this kind, even when it is ostensibly at the expense of a fiend and war criminal like Kissinger. The fact that these photos are doctored so competently makes it still worse. We have enough manipulation and deception to work through as is; what good could possibly come of adding to it within our own circles?
I think there is value in seeing the world accurately and through all their myriad of lies. Their lies are intended to deceive and harm so we should be as informed as possible. They are deceives trying to influence – seeing them accurately reduces their influence.
Rosey didn’t say it was counter-productive she said everyone is foolish for falling for the doctored photos and don’t be lazy and look at other photos. Daughter of Dust analysis was right on the money. We should all have clear eyes to see what they are parading around as ‘true’.
Kissinger is one of the most evil politicians this country has ever had. Everyone in his caliber has a tr@nny wife. Seeing all of his lies doesn’t hurt – it may not make a big difference in life but seeing through their lies, all of them, has value.
Many of the trans are so convincing (this one surely isn’t) that men are looking at them and getting lustful. Don’t you think there is harm in that?
I do believe it is enough to know what they are doing and not to go over example in minutia – which is why I very rarely talk about it.
Those who resist this subject I imagine, find it too difficult to admit it’s valid and happening on the level it is. That is denial. And if their is denial there where else is there denial @JBL?
We’re arguing two different points here, @thekwon. The first concerns the gender of Kissinger’s wife; the second concerns the cavalier use of manipulated images.
So far as the first point goes, I never once denied that there are people of high rank with gender-vague or gender-altered spouses; the contrary. I quite doubt there is much danger in many men “getting lustful” over Kissinger’s wife, whatever gender she happens to be, but I see your point: there is harm in these practices which extends well beyond the celebrities involved, precisely on account of their fame and the normalization of gender deviancy that they are consequently able to effect.
Having said that, I see no reason to believe that every person of high rank has a gender-altered spouse, as you have claimed, and as of yet, I have seen no compelling argument to support the hypothesis that Nancy Kissinger in particular is a man. If I am “resisting” or “denying” anything here, it is the habit of arriving at conclusions in the absence of sufficient evidence to support them. And I will stubbornly continue to resist that habit and to deny its fruits, not out of fear of their possibility, but because I, precisely like you, “think there is value in seeing the world accurately.”
It is for the same reason that I strongly object to cleverly falsified images like those posted at the head of this entry. They serve no end but confusion, as I think the comments here make abundantly clear.
I don’t know what kind of proof you’re looking for regarding Nancy – unless you can go look up it’s skirt there will be no iron clad ‘proof’. We have to go with biological facts about the differences between the male and female genders anatomy. I’ve noticed you’re always asking for more proof but never accept that which is offered.
The biggest tell tale sign between the genders is the pelvic shape and position. Because there are no bikini shots of Nancy (thank goodness) we have to look at other tell tale signs of gender identification which cannot be faked. Daughter of Dust covered them – arm length, shoulder width, the neck and adams apple, knobby knees, hand, feet and skull size. These are things that cannot be faked. Of course there will always be someone who says ‘my aunt has looked man-ish her entire life and she is a woman’. With transgenders this is not the case. With all that they do with the hormones, surgeries and programming they can look absolutely feminine in their youth – but by older age become a train wreck as all those hormones and surgeries take a terrible toll.
Two foundations of Luciferianism is pedophilia and transgenderism. Those dedicated and high ranking Luciferians are bi-sexual at the least for occult reasons having to do with demons. You will have to do your own research as I won’t take the time to ‘prove it’ to you. Start by looking at the presidents wives. Everyone I have investigated is clearly transgendered. Elon Musk’s wife, Bill Gates wife Melinda both born men clearly.
I imagine someone falsified those images of Nancy so that it would create plausible deniability. That way they can say some terrible person out there is trying to convince the public this poor lady nancy isn’t actually a woman how horrible of them.
I never asked once for proof, @thekwon — something which obviously can’t be delivered in this case. I spoke exclusively of arguments and evidence. I’ve looked carefully at the available photos of Nancy Kissinger, and to say it again, see nothing in them to suggest to me that we are dealing with anything other than a somewhat oddly formed female. Is it possible she is a man? Certainly. I am only really certain that there is no cause to make strongly affirmative assertions on this matter, along the lines of those which have been made throughout this comment section, and which you yourself have made.
For though I am wed to no position on the matter of Nancy Kissinger’s gender, the point that I do stand on concerns how swift we should be to accept, with total conviction, claims that are in truth at best conjectural. You and I evidently have different standards of evidence. You have noted that I have elsewhere been reluctant to acquiesce to certain other arguments; I must assume you are referring to my conversations with Gem. For my part, it seems to me that you are too ready to claim certainty and to speak as if you knew, where you are in truth only intelligently guessing.
I am well aware of the connection between transgenderism and Luciferianism. The hermaphrodism inherent to the occult is not always brought to the level of physiological and surgical manipulations. The occult is characterized precisely by its chaotic variety of paths, and to speak about its universal practices already seems to me to fundamentally miss the point. I am also honestly unsure how to understand your claim that “Everyone I have investigated is clearly transgendered.” I doubt you are saying, for instance, that Henry Kissinger is a woman. Evidently this is a rule that only applies to all the wives of the high and mighty?
You may well be right about the origin of these photos. All the more reason to avoid them like the plague, and to denounce them unequivocally when they appear.
You make a valid point that we must be careful to not draw conclusions when there is not undeniable proof. In Nancy’s case we don’t have photographic evidence of pelvic alignment which makes drawing conclusions problematical – it is speculation to a degree.
All I can say is there comes a point in doing the work when one develops the ability “to see” through the illusions they have placed all around in many different arenas of life.
Female to male transgendered is very common as well but harder to spot at least for me. I’m not saying Henry K was a female. That does not appear to be the case at all.
As far as the origins and history of Catholicism go there is way more than ample undeniable evidence to draw the conclusions Gem made.
I’m content to say that we probably don’t strongly disagree about Nancy Kissinger’s case, thekwon. Let’s say there’s a difference in emphasis in our views, owing, I think, to a subtle if perhaps important divergence in our understanding of the world “elite.” About the general corruption and wickedness of this elite, however, we seem to agree in the main.
As far as Gem’s conclusions go, on the other hand, it will come as no surprise if I here once again openly disavow them. I disagree with you even that there is ample evidence for these conclusions, not to speak of “ample undeniable evidence.” I can only imagine that when you speak of the “origins of Catholicism” you are referring to the era of Constantine. Though Gem was never able to satisfy me that this period represented a break with any established Christian practices, I am, as ever, open to renewing the dialogue on this matter with anyone who wishes to discuss it.
As for the “history of Catholicism,” the very idea, as you seem to be using it, appears to me an unjustifiable abstraction. The Catholic Church of the first millennium is different from the Catholic Church of the early second, which is again very different from the Catholic Church of the Renaissance, and still more different from the post-Vatican II Catholic Church. Gem’s argument absolutely depends on the radical consistency of the Church over the past two thousand years (@444gem, as ever, if I am mischaracterizing your views, it is not done intentionally, and I will welcome any correction); yet I would claim that any deep and sensitive approach to the historical periods in question reveals instead markedly variegated hierarchical moralities, religious practices, and popular beliefs from historical epoch to historical epoch. The only thing that has ever stopped the Catholic Church from becoming a mercurial and entirely historically contingent human institution is the profound faith of a core of pious Christians which has always graced the Church, even in her darkest periods.
It seems to me that this remnant faithfulness, and not the impossibly uniform and maliciously occult wickedness of its pontiffs and hierarchy, is the single thing that has ever given the Catholic Church any kind of transhistorical unity, whether for good or for ill.
In our previous discussion I gave you specific answers, with long lists and explanation of historically uncontested evidence dismantling each of your 7 points regarding your “incorruptible,” church and it’s supposed break from paganism, and heard no response to what I offered on 6 out of 7 of these areas (which you requested.) That you “disavow,” what I say, yet did not respond to the vast majority of it,
nor gave any indication it was read, is discouraging. That you claim I did not present you large quantities of solid evidence to you is simply false; That you ignored it doesn’t mean it wasn’t presented to you.
To my surprise we had a somewhat productive conversation regarding the Virgo lactans, although at that pace, we will be here analyzing and nitpicking tiny details until long after we are both dead. There is no reasonable discourse with someone who fully believes a Catholic can transmute pagan images, iconography, concepts and practices, with thousands of years of prior history in Luciferian paganism, into “holiness.” It is the type of stance that basically just ends the conversation because no amount of evidence and reason can overcome it. It will just be “transmuted Holy” because it’s Catholic, and that is that.
“Well sure all these saints were just local pagan deities that the pagans worshipped, but we sprinkled some magic water and stamped it Catholic, so now it’s totally good and not pagan because we are infallible!”
Again, I heard nothing back from you in our previous discussion on my responses to 6 out of 7 of your points you made regarding the church’s supposed break with paganism.
Responses I gave detailing reams of evidence (for you to verify independently) to which @thekwon speaks here.
Nothing regarding Justinian’s purity laws, while his wife (and Agrippa’s wife) was essentially a stage prostitute and escort for high society and slept with everyone in his court behind his back (and he executed anyone who came forward regarding her behavior.)
Nothing regarding popes digging up their predecessors from the grave, putting their corpse on trial in public, and throwing their bodies into a river for fun.
Nothing on the extensive historical documentation that the church positions were long sold to the highest bidder across different geographical areas and historical eras.
Nothing on indulgences and golden tickets to “do whatever atrocity you want, pay me money and still go to heaven because I say so.”
Nothing on the myriad of popes with reams of children by prostitutes and hosting large gay orgies. who simultaneously oppressed the masses they lorded over with tremendously harsh “purity,” decrees.
Nothing on the blood sacrifice and mass genocides (under another name) by inquisitions, heresy burnings, mock trials etc. much of whom was specifically designed to oppress any amount of dissent and instill fear.
Nothing on your church’s support of the N@sis, particularly in post WWII escape with the German treasury.
Nothing on the well documented blood sacrifices of Damasus at his coronation as pope, nor on Clement’s clear bloodline from Flavius Titus and Vespasian.
This is but a tiny fraction of what I presented to you (something on the order of 10-20,000 words in our previous discussion) that went completely unanswered. Currently I am doing primary source archeological research in the field, and don’t have the time or extra energy to go around in circles. If you wish to go back and read what I wrote on the “king” Charles thread.
You are free to continue in the church of Solar worship with your patriarch openly carrying the two headed staff of Surya the solar gorgon deity, but I ask you don’t falsely claim I haven’t given you substantial evidence, simply because you ignored it.
@444gem, I think it is probable there there is no one on this entire comment board who is at once so skeptical of your perspective, but who has at the same time dedicated so many hours of thoughtful attention to its consideration, as I. I can therefore say with confidence that your statements are not only uncalled for, but unjust in the extreme.
I could, if I so wished, level the same charges against you that you have brought against me, for you have passed over, in like silence, many of my detailed attempts to specifically assess the historical substance of your statements. You have on some occasions even reasserted the same bald claims (as for instance that Theophilus massacred tens of thousands of monks, or that the early Church committed “genocides”) without so much as acknowledging the meticulous responses I had previously made, at the cost of many hours of my personal time — which, I assure you, I can well spend elsewhere.
Yet I have never once reproved you for overlooking or ignoring my words. Our exchanges have been long and intricate, and I have accepted as inevitable that even large portions of our conversation would slip through the cracks. I have expected only the same courtesy from you, which you have nonetheless decided on several occasions is for some reason not owed me. You have seen fit to attack me, more than once, in a spirit which I can only describe as contemptuous and demeaning. You now accuse me of having ignored your words, even of never having read them, simply because I have not responded to everything you have posted — the which would have been literally impossible for me, given the length and variety of your posts, and the non-negotiable limitations on my time. It has evidently never crossed your mind that I might be paying you the respect of only responding when I am able to give both my replies and your words (which I have always taken the time to read) the space and consideration they deserve.
On the other hand, I am honestly doubtful whether you have read my own words with similar attention, since I did, in fact, respond to several (though certainly not all) of the points you say you received no response on. (To wit: I have several times agreed with you on indulgences, and I have responded, now specifically and now generally, both to the “genocides” and to the “heresy burnings” you have imputed to the Church.) I also cannot help but notice, with a degree of amazement, that despite all our exchanges, you continue to call the Catholic Church “my church” — which, alas, makes me strongly suspect you are not taking the same care, be it in your reading or your responses, that I am.
You have in this latest post gone so far as to estimate the number of words to which I have not responded, without stopping to weigh how many of my own you have similarly passed over. Most recently, our conversation on the Virgo lactans stands dead in the water, precisely because, after I once again spent no small amount of time and energy assiduously considering your specific, concrete claims, reading through numerous articles and even books in the full range of scholarly literature to orient myself, you responded to me without so much as mentioning even a single one of my points. Instead, you launched into a lengthy and multifaceted discourse in comparative religion, which, while characteristically fascinating and worthy of investigation, had no direct bearing whatsoever on anything I had said, leaving me at a total loss as to how to proceed.
Now, either we both are held to answer every single comment that the other makes, in which case it is imperative that we limit the scope of our conversation in order to make this rule practical, or we each give the other the same amount of good faith leeway in responding selectively. I am more than willing to continue our conversation on either of these equable premises, and will even leave it to you which point, be it new or old, we should consider, including any of those to which I have yet to respond to here or in the King Charles thread.
I am not willing, however, to subject myself to unwarranted derision or to unjust impeachment at the bar of an evident double standard.
President’s wives are more an end point than starting point. Look at openly transgendered Malaysians or Japanese. They have finer features already – even without the designer hormones and high end occulted surgeries they are virtually impossible to detect if fully clothed
I watched a 1974 video of her walking. She walks like a toy soldier, like a man. In old pictures I observe she has huge hands which appear able to cover her entire face – a distinctly male characteristic which I learned as a portrait artist, whereas the female hand will only cover up to the eyebrows. Huge feet. Extremely lean legs with knobby knees. All dresses puffy or loose around the hips to create the appearance of an hour-glass figure, or covered by an A-line coat. Extremely long arms with her wrists parallel to her crotch. Large head, deep set eyes. Only feminine traits I see are a thin neck (in youth) without an Adam’s apple, narrow shoulders (which appear larger in old age), and delicate looking v-shaped collar bones. She appears to have hips in old age, but this is also easily contrived by padding. Looks like a pretty man to me.
…also the forehead.
Didn’t care enough to look into it, I thought it was a funny looking tranzy but just wasn’t going to deep dive with this one. It did give me a laugh to see another example of a tranzy not trying hard, though I rather know the truth (and have the laugh), so thank you for telling everyone. Maybe in the future op add the truth at the end so people know it’s a joke, if you know yourself which you might not have. Now I will go check the original photos to see if there’s a reason they doctored these I’m curious now that people cannot agree it maybe challenging.
Gee, even when getting old, you’ll get crucified for looking less than perfect. Also just like Rosey said below, those pics are doctored from the originals.
Completely agree John. This is like the Serena Williams trope. It’s ill considered nonsense. If you look through her photos it is clear she’s a woman.
This one is way off guys. I can’t stand Kissinger either but this is tawdry and ill judged.
I’m not trying to be mean or pick on you but Serena Williams is one of the clearest examples of a t****y in all professional sports (after maybe Brittany Griner). Gotta get past the glamour photos with the makeup and lighting. And forget about the pregnancies those are routinely faked. Look at the beach photos. VERY broad shoulders and a huge cranium – women don’t have skulls that big. And a very clear Adonis belt with a very manly face in many ‘regular’ photos. I would post a couple pics but don’t know how to imbed them into comments.
Also Serena and ‘sister’ Venus are two of the most Luciferian names anyone could come up with. Venus = Lucifer and Serena = Moon Goddess.
I agree with Kwon’s observations, as I have observed the same thing in my research of Venus and Serena Williams.
To be clear on my perspective, this is not to sling mud at individuals for looking less than perfect, but rather observable evidence that they appear to be part of the ancient Luciferian cult which worships transgendered men as prophetic temple prostitutes, known as the Kadesh.
The practice of transgenderism, so contrary to our Creator’s design, increases a one’s ability to channel nephilim spirits (aka demons), and it is well known that sexual encounters, especially sodomy, facilitate the transfer of demonic attachments. Thus, high level transgenders serve as a valuable portal of access to the spirits these folks worship.
For them, it is a method of obtaining power, just as their other rituals are.
Very well said
Right. Calling a transgendered “person” what it is has nothing to do with “t****y bashing.” We need to trust our senses. In fact, deceiving us into *distrusting* our senses is how the wayward wizards led us over eons to this hellacious “reality” in the first place!
I completely agree. Instances of an actual biological female born with a male bone structure have got to be extremely rare, if any exist at all. I mean, they might have a single marker, like wider-than-normal shoulders, but all the other structure and biology would be spot-on female.
I say this because, as a 5’1″ woman, my shoulders are ever-so-slightly wider than my hips. Part of this may be due to the fact that I am of Norse descent. Part of it may be that I spent my entire youth and well into my 50s wanting to look like the trannies posing as women in film/tv/music. I worked out a lot! But the truth is, I am a woman, with all of the structures and physiological processes that go along with my sex.
And now that I know that the luciferian “Cosmic Androgyne” agenda is the basis for everything WRONG with our world, I have come to accept that I was deceived. But no longer: I can SEE the trannies, and I cannot un-see them.
Clearly you’ve done the work to see through the illusion. I was hoping you would chime in. Transgenderism has been treasured within luciferian culture for thousands of years. Their techniques and development far surpass common knowledge.
I completely agree with you. They’re male.
I’m pretty sure Mrs. Kissenger played for the Rolling stones 😂
I can’t remember where I read. Someone implied that he’s g*y. It threw me for a loop because He’s always dated pretty ladies…
That’s Roger Waters isn’t it? LOL
THAT’S A MAN, BABY!
That is so obviously a man it’s pathetic
I think you maybe meant to say, “Those are two ugly dudes!” Ahahaha! But yeah. Some of these images should come with vomit warnings.🤢
Barbara Bush vibes!