On Thursday, March 30, more than a thousand activists gathered at Tennessee’s state capitol to demand restrictive gun laws. The House of Representatives’ legislative business was brought to a halt when three elected Democratic Party representatives, barking commands through a bullhorn, led the activists into the capitol building. There were no arrests.
Protestors began assembling inside and outside the state capitol in the morning. They confronted lawmakers as they arrived for legislative sessions. Later, a crowd gathered at War Memorial Plaza, where various speakers spoke about gun control following The Covenant School shooting on March 27, where a trans man murdered six Christians, including three children.
While the House of Representatives debated an education bill, the three Democrats violated the chamber’s rules by approaching the podium without being recognized to speak. The three were Rep. Justin Jones, D-Nashville, Rep. Justin Pearson, D-Memphis, and Rep. Gloria Johnson, D-Knoxville.
Section 12 of the Tennessee Constitution reads: “Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member, but not a second time for the same offense; and shall have all other powers necessary for a branch of the Legislature of a free state.”
If leading a mob into the Tennessee state capitol building with bull horns and shutting down the democratic process such that it necessitated police intervention is not the disorderly behavior Section 12 is referring to, then to what on earth could those who authored that passage have been referring? Indeed, it looked an awful lot like what Democrats call an “insurrection.” Even more so, in fact; in this case, party members actually incited the mob to occupy the capitol.
In an egregious violation of that body’s rules, Tennessee State Representative Justin Jones calls on his colleagues to pass gun control legislation from the well of the House Chambers during the legislative session at the State Capitol Thursday, March 30, 2023 in Nashville, Tennessee.
Before getting to the expulsion and Nashville’s shameful vote to reinstate one of the Democrats, readers need to recognize that, contradicting these comparisons of these actions of the “Tennessee Three” to the civil rights activists of yesteryear, these protests were not intended to expand a civil right but rather to diminish one. They were seeking to abridge the fundamental right to self-defense.
This was not a violation of a house rule to throw rules and laws into question for the sake of enlarging the scope of rights to which citizens are entitled, such as the right of the people to keep arms to defend their homes and persons from rampant crime and violence on the streets of Memphis and Nashville, two of the most unsafe cities in America. This was a demand to restrict that right by attention-seeking personalities in violation of democratic rules—a demand to make it more difficult for their imperiled brothers and sisters to effect their human right to self-defense.
It was therefore all the more disturbing to listen to a man with no understanding of democratic norms or practices or American history exploit an opportunity to engage at length in an obnoxious exercise of anti-white bigotry using an affected voice in the preacher’s cadence ostensible to diminish the rights of those most subjected to the failure of progressive government to protect themselves.
In place of an orderly demand for enhancing public safety was disorderly action by disordered persons driven by inflated ego and an obnoxious sense of entitlement. Knowing that there were people watching the speech with tears in their eyes and muttering “Amen” just made the spectacle all the more troubling.
Nashville returns Justin Jones to the Tennessee State House despite, according to the definition used by Democrats, having led an insurrection in the capitol.
Despite the body of that chamber having spoken in accord with the state constitution concerning the fate of Justin Jones and his comrades, the Nashville Metropolitan Council voted Monday to return Justin Jones to the state legislature. The thirty-six council members at the meeting unanimously supported reinstating Jones, even suspending its rules to allow an immediate vote instead of holding a month-long nomination period.
I learned Monday night, that Jones was involved in assaulting a legislator at the capitol in 2019. Jones, attending a protest to remove from the capitol a statue of Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest, assaulted Republican Glen Casada. Jones was charged with two counts of misdemeanor assault and one count of disorderly conduct. Lawmakers attempted to ban him from the capitol then, since he represented a danger to legislators and others there on legitimate business. A judge blocked the ban.
That’s not all. Jones has been removed from and arrested during other protests, including a 2020 protest in the wake of the George Floyd’s death. That he was arrested indicates that he was not involved in peaceful protests.
I want to be clear: being arrested for civil disobedience is not necessarily wrongful conduct in a moral sense. But, unlike the protests against Jim Crow in the 1950s and 1960s, the riots of 2020 lacked the moral imperative. The protest against alleged racially disproportionate killing by police was a contrived matter.
A year later, Jones faced additional charges for allegedly throwing a traffic cone at a car during the protest.
The greatest predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Jones is sure to pull another stunt like he did on March 30. But this doesn’t matter to the politicians in Nashville. Preventing the process that would find a replacement for Jones, one who didn’t assault a legislator or lead an insurrection at the capitol just so the progressives running Nashville into the ground can stick a thumb in the eye of the state of Tennessee—this is what democracy look like?
Of course, we are dealing with a different definition of democracy. Progressives are not confused about what democracy is. When progressives use the word they mean two things: (a) rule by the corporate state through the technocratic apparatus; (b) action taken by their side beyond democratic norms and processes. In this context, (a) sees armed citizens of a certain ilk as a threat to its continued existence; (b) uses the occasion of mass murder by a disordered person to push (a)’s agenda.
Rinse, repeat.
You will note that progressives want to take away rifles of a certain sort, firearms they brand “weapons of war,” i.e., semi-automatic rifles. They seek to ban or restrict these weapons despite the fact that most gun homicides are perpetrated with handguns. In fact, more homicides are perpetrated with knives, and even fists and feet (personal weapons), than are perpetrated with “weapons of war.”
Why are progressives obsessed with these weapons? Because these are the weapons that would prove most effective against the agents of an administrative state when the final abolition of democratic-republican government arrives. Democrats are thinking in terms of war (abroad and at home).
This is why, for progressives, populism, i.e., the actual maximal democratic norms and processes, is declared “fascism.” Just as progressives redefine democracy to fit illiberal desire, they redefine opposition to corporate state authoritarianism as its opposite.
Like the Orwellian slogans, “Ignorance is strength,” “Freedom is slavery,” and “War is peace,” the desire here is to produce in the public mind a confusion that renders the slogan “Fascism is democracy.”
The reflex of progressivism is projection: conservatives and liberals are accused of what progressives are. This requires doublethink, a technique of control I have written about in the past and will again in greater depth in the near future.
This is why it is so important to read—or reread—Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. You must understand how the corporate state uses language to disrupt normal consciousness. The public is being conditioned to believe, depending on what is convenient for the corporate state, that the most sure things in the world are not sure at all or that a thing is the opposite of what we have always known it to be.
All eyes are on now on Shelby County to see what happens with Justin Pearson, the Memphis Democrat who was also expelled for his participation in the insurrection at the capitol.
I describe myself as an atheist. But, really, why does someone who is not religious need a label? Religion is a thing. Its absence is nothing. It is no thing.
To be sure, the word means “absent god.” But that’s not what most people think when they hear that word. For them, the atheist is something. He is some thing.
Moreover, to be absent some thing conveys some thing is missing, some thing one should have—that one is supposed to have.
But not having god in one’s life is not like missing a leg. Being godless is different from being legless. I am not godless because of accident, war, disease, or deformity. I am godless because I do not believe in God. And I don’t have to in a free society.
The labels “atheism,” “heathen,” “infidel,” “pagan” have long been used to persecute people for not being some thing. But the atheist is not someone who chooses to step into oppression. The label creates the status that oppresses him. He is being othered for no good reason. He is not othering himself.
The atheist is a man who would rather not be forced to believe that which he does not. Is he to be responsible for his oppression because he rejects the beliefs of others? Why must he be included in their belief system? Why must he be burdened by the labels of believers?
The term “atheism” is lot like the term “uncircumcised.” The woman tells her girlfriends at diner, “He is uncircumcised.” “I’ve never been with an uncircumcised man,” a girlfriend says. “That’s gross.” It creates an assumption. It makes the women wonder why he’s not. Not everywhere, of course; where circumcision is the norm, being uncircumcised means the man is on the outside, even if only a little. He may feel a need to explain himself.
Do we say that women who have not had mastectomies are “unmastectomized”? No? Then why “uncircumcised”? Is it because circumcision is a religious thing? Then imagine a cult or a religion where girls aremastectomized to indicate their membership in the tribe, to show their commitment to the doctrine, to express belonging to the group. I suppose we might then have unmastectomized women.
How about that term “cisgender”? The term, appearing at the end of the twentieth century, denotes a person whose gender identity corresponds with the sex registered for them at birth. Simply put, to be cisgender is to be not transgender.
Why is there a word for not transgender? “I am not transgender.” “Most people aren’t. Why are you telling me this? Why is this relevant?” “Because I am a thing. I am ‘cisgendered.’ I was ‘assigned’ male at birth and identify as a man. I thought you should know.” “I don’t care.”
If I reject the cisgender label then for many I am a bigot—and the label will be imposed anyway.
Why should those who don’t believe in supernatural things or who don’t alter their bodies get labels? Do those without tattoos have a label? They have no tattoos. Most people don’t. More and more people do. But, like religion, circumcision, and many other things, people aren’t born with tattoos. What are these people called?
Those who don’t get tattoos are not doing some thing. They are being the way they are. But if tattooing ever becomes the norm… What if those with tattoos wish to label those who don’t with a special word? Let’s make up a label and apply it. When people resist their new designation, we shall call them as bigots. They are, after all, tatouazophobes.
Let’s put on our sociology caps and answer the general question raised by the pattern. There is a explanation for why things work this way. It’s a method of “othering,” of making stubborn and wayward individuals live within the scope of an ideology and marginalizing them for refusing to accept the doctrine or participate in the rituals of those who do.
That those who are not included get a label tells the rational observer that there is a power relation and indicates those who control that relation. Those who control the relation may be the majority. They may be a minority. They may be a constellation of minorities. We are interested in the source of power.
Whatever the source of power, it is a truism that those who have the power to define words and label things have the power to control minds. By controlling thought, they control people. One of the most powerful way to control thought is by establishing the assumptions that steer those thought away from some thing towards another.
Why aren’t your pronouns in your profile and signature line? Because I am not religious. I can’t control what the believers call me. That is for sure. Can I control what I call myself? That’s less certain.
Update (April 17): I did not know about this case until yesterday. This occurred in Australia. Evie Amati, a trans woman (his parents named him Karl), seriously wounded a man and a woman at a 7-Eleven in Sydney in January 2017. Security footage showed Amati approaching his first victim, Ben Rimmer, as he waited to buy a meat pie. After a brief conversation, he struck Mr Rimmer in the face, knocking him to the ground with a severe facial wound and facial fractures. He then attacked his second victim, Sharon Hacker, near the door, fracturing her skull. Amati turned on a third customer, Shane Redwood, but he shielded himself using his backpack. Amati was arrested shortly afterwards.When the BBC initially reported this story, it left out the fact that Amati is trans gender. It finally clarified the story two years later. I am sharing the video below.
In 2017, transgendered person Evie Amati had a bad tinder date, triggering gender dysphoria and took it out on strangers at a 7-11. Now serving 14 years in prison for attempted murder. The court ruled that the original sentence was “manifestly inadequate.” https://t.co/ufZx2TiB68
Update (April 12): Another murder by a trans identifying individual.
#Portland media & police still refuse to mention the suspect accused of brutally murdering a cab driver on Easter Sunday is #trans. I first broke that report & spoke with @IngrahamAngle about the latest updates in the murder of Reese McDowell Lawhon. The suspect was arrested days… pic.twitter.com/QGE3yuX6yB
“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”—George Orwell, Animal Farm
“In conclusion, then, we may say that the difference between delusion and illusion lies in the impact that belief has on the individual holding it. Delusion is a system of ideas that is not shared by other people, and that is of such a nature as to make its possessor unhappy or a menace to society. Illusion, on the other hand, is a false belief that is not susceptible to correction by outside evidence, but that serves the needs of the individual’s emotional life.”—Sigmund Freud, The Future of an Illusion
I begin today’s blog with clear evidence of corporate state disinformation and official state suppression of critics concerning the rise of militant trans activism represented by a single case: the government harassment of Mitchell Watley, an illustrator of children’s books, and the corporate cancelling of his career.
A Mitchell Watley illustration
Watley will have a preliminary hearing April 11 in Juneau, Alaska, on a single count of “terroristic threatening” for allegedly placing notes in businesses that included an assault rifle superimposed over the trans gender flag with accompanying text reading: “Feeling Cute Might Shoot Some Children.”
The New York Post frames the story this way: “An Alaskan children’s book illustrator was dropped by his publisher after he was arrested for posting menacing, transphobic notes targeting children at local businesses. Mitchell Thomas Watley, 47, is accused of putting the threatening notices in public places throughout the capital city of Juneau beginning on Friday—the International Day of Transgender Visibility.”
The official complaint against Watley reads in part: “Officers spoke to Mitchell, who said (in essence) that he was in fear of the recent transgender school shooter and took it upon himself to print out and distribute these leaflets.” Rexene Finley, the assistant district attorney, told the judge in court that Watley “targeted our most vulnerable populations.”
The second Antifa member from the left bearing a rifle is wearing the trans patch that pairs an AR-15 with the slogan “Defend Equality.” This is from August 2022 in Roanoke, Texas.
The image in question is not Watley’s invention. You can see in the above image, as well as in the image below, members of Antifa, a street-level manifestation of the New Fascism, wearing a patch with an AR-15 superimposed onto a trans flag with the slogan “DEFEND EQUALITY.” Go here to find for purchase numerous banners, buttons, patches, and posters with the image and the slogan. Next time you are reviewing photos of Antifa, pay attention to the uniform. See any patches from the Etsy catalog?
Another armed Antifa member wearing the patch, Denton, Texas, November 2022.
Obviously, the image doesn’t mean what the assistant district attorney and the media suggest it does. The reality is that the image signals something very different, something the corporate state does not want the public to know, namely that this is a patch worn by trans activists to signal to opponents of gender ideology that violent trans action, including gun violence, is now part of the movement’s growing militancy, justified by growing resistance to the ideology.
You’re supposed to be upset over the Tennessee legislature removing members from its body for commandeering the house floor and inciting mob violence at the state capitol. Demagogues took to the house floor to distract you from thinking about the actual problem. It wasn’t guns that killed the six people at a Nashville Christian school. It was a person with thoughts in her head. But progressives want you to make a fetish of guns so they can advance a project to disarm the population of weapons that allow them to effectively counter state oppression.
They are now distracting you with rhetoric about “racism” and “white supremacy.” The two men removed from the Tennessee legislature were black so therefore racism and white supremacy. But there are several members in the Tennessee legislature who are black. Most of them are still in the legislature. Why? They didn’t commandeer the floor of that body with bullhorns and lead a mob in disrupting the democratic process. Expelling two members from the Tennessee legislature wasn’t about race. It was about making sure those elected to serve the people don’t use the cover of the electoral process to instead thwart the democratic process they were sworn to uphold. It was the act of egregiously violating the rules of the House and the principles of a free society that caused that body to expel these men.
Nor does Watley’s text mean what the assistant district attorney and the media suggest it does. When you know what the image is actually about, the meaning of the text associated with the image become obviously a sarcastic warning about the rise in violence by trans activists and a reference to the Nashville children murdered by a trans man. It’s not Watley threatening to kill children. It is Watley telling people that trans identifying people are killing children. And they are.
Anderson Lee Aldrich killed five people at a nightclub in Colorado Springs, Co. Aldrich identifies as nonbinary.
Audrey Hale, the Nashville shooter who murdered six people, including three children, isn’t the first mass murderer identifying as trans gendered. Last year, Anderson Lee Aldrich (seen in the photo above surrendering to police) killed five people at a nightclub in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Aldrich identifies as nonbinary. Alec McKinney, who identifies as a trans man, teamed up with Devon Erickson in 2019 to shoot several students as a Denver-area school. They killed one person and wounded several others. A 2018 shooting at a Maryland warehouse that left five dead was perpetrated by a trans woman named Snochia Moseley.
William Whitworth, aka Lilly, was well on the path to mass murder before police intervened.
According to a local news source, police just disrupted the plans of a fifth trans identifying person in Colorado Springs, Colorado. William Whitworth, a male who now goes by the name “Lilly,” has been charged with two counts of criminal attempt to commit murder in the first degree, criminal mischief, menacing and interference with staff, faculty, or students of educational institutions. Lilly was planning to “shoot up” multiple schools in Colorado Springs.
Look at what this cult has done to our youth. @Riley_Gaines_ was barricaded in a room at San Francisco State University Thursday night after she was assaulted following a speech to students about saving women's sports.pic.twitter.com/sFWLc65Ull
— Billboard Chris 🇨🇦🇺🇸 (@BillboardChris) April 7, 2023
My last blog covered the assault of Riley Gaines by trans activists at San Francisco State University during the Turning Point USA event. The university’s administration, without mentioning the assault on Gaines, praised the trans activists who perpetrated the assault.
Breaking🚨📰: San Francisco State University has just released a statement to students after @Riley_Gaines_ was assaulted and held hostage by them.
The University VP commended the trans activists for their “tremendous bravery’’ and described them as behaving “peacefully”.… pic.twitter.com/GJWRAxgSQe
Here is a video of the trans activist mobbing of Kellie Jay Keen, aka Posie Parker, in Aukland, New Zealand. Keen has just been assaulted along with several other women. (See also here.) What you are seeing very clearly in the crowd, alongside the true believers driven to mob violence by ideology, the convergence in the movement by individuals with mood and personality disorders.
Kellie Jay Keen mobbed by trans activists in Aukland, New Zealand
What you are seeing very clearly in the crowd, alongside the rabid true believers driven to violence by gender ideology, are individuals with disordered personalities who have found in this movement a way to transition their mental illness into what progressives tell them is a positive expression of social justice. We saw this in San Francisco in the mobbing of Riley Gaines, who was assaulted and kidnapped for more than three hours while the hostage takers demanded money for her release. A sickness was clearly apparent in the actions and on the faces of members of the mob—and San Francisco State University then praised the mob and offered them counseling without mentioning the victim of misogynistic violence.
We are told that the rise in violence committed by trans identifying people is a myth. My Google news aggregator is teaming with stories claiming to debunk the myth. There is also the return of the sentiment, often heard during the period in which another violent extremist movement, Islamic terrorism, that one cannot blame an entire group because a member of that group commits an act of violence. Obviously those making this claim are hypocrites given how easily they accuse the entire white race of enjoying skin-color privilege and for harboring at the very least implicit bias and unconscious prejudice for black people—and white isn’t an ideology or a religion operating on doctrine. Contrast being white with the act of preaching a gospel of vengeance, and portraying the adherents to the doctrine that underpins that gospel as a persecuted minority morally privileged to use any means necessary to defend itself. As with islamism, gender ideology attracts and transitions disordered people into agents of harassment, intimidation, and violence.
A poster advertising the “Trans Day of Vengeance,” protests toned down in the wake of Hale’s murderous act.
* * *
The cultivation of an antagonistic social movement is bearing fruit. The construct “gender identity” as it exists in gender ideology/queer theory constitutes for many of those so identified a re-coding of their personality disorders (PDs), including cluster B type disorders, as a positive thing. (The intersection of gender identity disorder/gender dysphoria and personality disorders is demonstrated in the research literature. For examples, see here, here, and here. There are more, and I encourage readers to explore the matter further.)
Cluster B type are a group of PDs characterized by dramatic or erratic behavior, emotional dysregulation, and impulsivity. One can see an overrepresentation of this class of disorders among trans activists, who are involved in acts of intimidation and terrorism across the globe. This is an important matter to address, especially in light of the normalizing and mainstreaming—and amplifying—of these personality types.
Audrey Hale killed six people in a Christian school on Monday. She had recently changed her pronouns and declared herself to be a man.
The four disorders in this cluster are antisocial (ASPD), borderline (BPD), histrionic (HPD), and narcissistic (NPD). ASPD is characterized by a disregard for the rights of others, a lack of empathy or remorse, and a tendency to engage in deviant or impulsive behavior. BPD is characterized by instability in mood, self-image, and relationships, and a tendency to engage in impulsive and self-destructive behaviors. HPD is characterized by excessive attention-seeking behavior, emotional instability, and a tendency to engage in dramatic or exaggerated expressions of emotion. NPD is characterized by a grandiose sense of self-importance, a lack of empathy for others, and a strong need for admiration and attention. You can see from these descriptions the likelihood of compounding disorders.
Twitter has suspended TNDTracker’s Twitter account for repeatedly expressing the sentiments found at the top of the image
Historically, treatment for PDs has typically involved a combination of medication and psychotherapy, as well as support from family and friends (although in providing this support one must be careful not to be drawn into an abusive or exploitative relationship). One might think it is still important for individuals with these disorders to seek professional help from qualified mental health professionals But in the current environment this poses a risk; what was heretofore treated as a mental illness is now affirmed as an identity. Young people with PDs are redirected to gender clinics where they are put on a path to gender transitioning, first social, next medical, the latter now a billion dollar industry where they will become life-long patients.
“The T-shirt says “TRANS RIGHTS…OR ELSE.”
Gender identity is an ideological construct that, by redefining PDs and giving them a cultural and social purpose, not only disguises and obfuscates these disorders, as well as frequently associated emotional and mood disorders, but turns those in need of psychiatric help into subalterns for the corporate state project to dismantle the American republic.
One need not to sign on the theory I have been advancing about the corporate state project on Freedom and Reason to see the obfuscation and to know that this development is not benign. Whatever the motives behind the transitioning of personality disorders to gender identities, the results have been a rise in harassment and violence against members of society who do not subscribe to this ideology. Those who advocate the ideology are responsible for its consequences whether or not they are working consciously to advance the transnational and transhumanist agenda.
Activist Kellie-Jay Keen, who was forced to flee New Zealand recently after being attacked at a pro-woman rally.
Gender ideologues tell society that if the majority is skeptical of or resists the claim that a person can change her or his sex, that gender is either a soul-like entity that inhabits bodies (including wrong bodies) or so disconnected from sex that it can be whatever individuals wants it to be, then the majority is plotting and perpetrating a genocide against those who have proclaimed gender ideology as their faith. They can, therefore, expect the “trans community” to fight back. That is, having asked the public to deny reality and affirm delusional beliefs that advance an illusion of gender so constructed in all its quasi-religious character, public rejection of the doctrine justifies extreme action on the part of the believers.
There is no shortage of opportunities for direct comparisons between Islamism and trans activism.
If this ideology reaches a person with an antisocial personality disorder, a person who is gathering weapons in preparation for killing those people this person believes wronged her, it teaches her that her disordered thinking is a valid identity, that she is really is a man trapped in a female body, that her imagined grievances are real, obviously real because others won’t affirm her delusions (forcing her to undergo puberty, etcetera), and her impulse is therefore also valid. She comes to believe that she has the right to and must defend herself against a genocide—to martyr herself for the cause.
The explanation obviates the need for mental health treatment, at least treatment that would take up the actual problem, and the disorder is not helped but valorized. Gender ideology transitions the personality disorder from a limitation on living a normal life into a force promising an extraordinary one, a transcendent identity, a real thing to be recognized and embraced, a source of legitimate political action, legitimizing the use of violence against her oppressors. It takes the pathological desire to violently lash out at others and empowers it by giving it a justification—the affected becomes an instrument of agency in solidarity with a group of believers. The affected becomes a suicide death machine.
We are waiting Audrey Hale’s manifesto. But based on the totality of the circumstances, it almost certain that Hale was a zealot moved to murder Christians because she believed they had wronged her. In fact, it seems so certain that if the manifesto does no contain a clear motive, or suggests one that doesn’t fit the circumstances, an objective observer might suspect official manipulation. The observer might consider whether the document is being censored and modified to hide the motive that would make this a hate crime or an instantiation of domestic terrorism.
The ideology provides the actor with the targets of her valid wrath. It constructs and defines her oppressors. The ideology points the mentally disordered person in a direction. It puts the gun in her hand. It instructs her to pull the trigger. Like all extremist ideologies, by manufacturing the identity, the ideology creates a worldview and peoples it with good and evil entities. It instills and heightens the paranoia and resentment necessary to motivate committed action. To paraphrase Buckle’s truism: gender ideology prepares the crime; the trans person commits it.
Gender ideology is like Islamism. Both rest on mythology. Both attract disordered personalities.
Violent and suppressive acts short of homicide abound. The many videos of trans activists (TRAs) harassing feminists and lesbians and shouting down and physically assaulting participants at women’s rights rallies illustrates the unhinged nature of many of those in this movement. Read aloud the slogans on their placards. Hear how they sound. Listen to the terms TRAs use to describe their enemies. Review the images of armed TRAs standing before the trans flag making terroristic threats (some of which I am sharing in this blog).
Examples of incitement to violence abound
TRAs are openly using the language of war. Conservative Christians are portrayed as the principle enemy, described as “Nazis” and “fascists,” and of course “transphobes.” But even allies are being threatened (see video at the end of this blog). The enemy is portrayed as representing a mass desire to erase the existence of the trans people. What follows from an imagined existential threat taken as real? Should not those who are about to be genocided take up arms and defend themselves against the genociders? To be sure, not all trans identifying persons will go there. But the reality is that a lot are going there, and all it takes are as many who are to endanger the public.
Why do we condemn fascism? Why do we condemn Christian and Islamic extremism? Why do we condemn extremist ideologies? Not just because they are wrong, but also because they can result in terrorism and violence. To be sure, TRAs enjoy the First Amendment right to convey their paranoid delusions and gather in groups—they have the same right to speech and expression, assembly and association as we all do. That means that we also have the right to tell the truth about this dangerous and harmful ideology. And we have the right to gather together and organize against it, to seek through legislation rules that protect all of us, including trans identified people.
That’s what all this language about Nazis and fascists is about in the rhetoric of the trans activists. This worldview plagiarizes both the real and the mythical dynamics of good and evil in reality and stories of the distant and recent past. Indeed, stepping into oppression, gender ideology is the work of future-past. Parents, politicians, teachers—anybody who fails to affirm and celebrate the delusional is portrayed as “fascist” and “collaborator.” The steps of genocide are recited. The delusions of the paranoid are fed. The bomb was fused years ago. It’s a short fuse.
Islamism and trans activism are highly similar in form and content.
Just as in Islamism, where the critics of a form of religious extremism are portrayed as “Islamophobic,” so in gender ideology are the critics of this form of quasi-religious extremism portrayed as “transphobic.” In this ideology, the trans gender person becomes the moral equivalent of the Jew and those who do not accept his worldview become the Nazis (see below video). The illusion that ideology creates resonates with the delusions of mentally disordered individuals. The delusions are given definite form and certain content. The desire to carry out aggressive violence is rationalized as defensive action.
Imagine comparing yourself to six million murdered Jews simply because people don’t view you as a woman. What a complete whack job. pic.twitter.com/Zck1OiIuCV
— CAMILLE PAGLIA STAN✨ (@AgingWhiteGay) April 4, 2023
This is analogous to the Islamic extremist who shoots up a school blaming his actions, motivated by his beliefs, perpetrated on those who deny or criticize his beliefs, on the victims of his actions. Islam is the only true way to think about the world, so to his mind he is justified. That Allah is the only god and that law and policy and everything else flows from him is obvious. That Muhammad is his messenger must be true. This ideology must be defended—even with violence.
New bill in Canada would prosecute anyone that misgendered, criticised or protested against Transgenderism.
Anyone deemed “transphobic, homophobic or offensive” would face prosecution and a $25,000 fine. 🇨🇦
The demand that others respect preferred pronouns is indicative of theocratic desire. The admonition to avoid “dead-naming” the trans person is a prime indicator of the depth of faith-belief; the person believes they have killed their former self and are reborn in a differently gendered body that is what they say it is. Gender ideology seeks a theocratic order where its doctrines are effectively if not formally the state-sanctioned religion, punishing those who deny it are to be punished. Until that order is established, if the state won’t listen, then activists believe they must take matters into their own hands.
This is jihad and it moved a disordered person to enter a school and murder children, as well as moved the purveyors of this ideology to blame the victims. That Hale sought suicide by cop just cements the analogy. Hale was a suicide bomber. There are more to come.
Just curious, at what stage of genocide does the “victimized” party start shooting up schools? pic.twitter.com/vNkGdyM2Hj
— Right Side of History™️ (@xxclusionary) March 29, 2023
We are told that there is no rise in mass shootings perpetrated by trans identifying people. That is not merely a myth, but that it is “anti-trans” to say otherwise. William Whitworth would have been the fifth trans identifying individual in only a handful of years to murder people had the police not intervened. Moreover, not all violence committed by trans identifying people and their allies involves murder. Indeed, murder constitutes only a small portion of the violent acts perpetrated by this movement—violence accompanying patterns of harassment and intimidation.
You will remember that we were told to ignore the terroristic actions of Islamists, that their beliefs and their choice of targets had nothing to do with their religion. We were told that most Muslims are peaceful, that Islam is a “religion of peace,” and that to suggest that the political-ideological motivations of the perpetrators of violence constituted “Islamophobia.”
We are in the phase of awakening that involves the defenders of an antagonistic social movement trying to prevent objective observers from rationally grasping what is happening by intimidation and shaming. The downplaying of danger from groups the corporate state pushes is as predictable as the exaggeration of danger from groups the corporate state fears. We are told that white supremacists lurk everywhere and that Christian nationalism is on the move, while we are at the same time told to disbelieve that which we can see with our own eyes and hear with our own ears and know with our own minds. But for how much longer?
It is imperative to ask yourself why things happen in the way they do. Why is the corporate state pushing political-ideological agendas that not only have no benefit for the ordinary working class people who make up the vast majority of the country but that also disrupt the consciousness of their children. What are the ends that the corporate state seeks by turning children against their parents—indeed, by turning children against their own bodies?
To more fully understand the religious character of trans gender movement, grasp that the genocide trans activists are warning about does not involve actually killing trans identifying people. The genocide is a symbolic one. It is the rational act of denying that a man can actually be a woman. The genocide occurs not in the material world but on the spiritual plane that constitutes the cosmology of the new religion. Because the belief that a man can be a woman depends on substituting for reality a slogan, it is vital that everybody believe that slogan.
I will leave you with this dialogue from George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. O’Brien is torturing Winston in the Ministry of Love. “We control matter because we control the mind. Reality is inside the skull. You will learn by degrees, Winston. There is nothing that we could not do. Invisibility, levitation—anything. I could float off this floor like a soap bubble if I wish to. I do not wish to, because the Party does not wish it. You must get rid of those nineteenth-century ideas about the laws of nature. We make the laws of nature.” He then says, “Nothing exists except through human consciousness.”
When Winston challenges O’Brien’s claim that the earth is as old humans by asking him about fossils, O’Brien asks, “Have you ever seen those bones, Winston? Of course not. Nineteenth-century biologists invented them. Before man there was nothing. After man, if he could come to an end, there would be nothing. Outside man there is nothing.” When Winston tried to remember the word for such fallacious thinking, O’Brien reminded him “that metaphysics is not your strong point. The word you are trying to think of is solipsism. But you are mistaken. This is not solipsism. Collective solipsism, if you like. But that is a different thing: in fact, the opposite thing.”
This reminds me of Sigmund Freud’s point in The Future of an Illusion where he distinguishes between “delusion” and “illusion.” Here are several passages that speak to the situation we face today with the quasi-religious system of gender ideology.
“We shall not be far wrong if we define a delusion as a system of ideas that is not shared by other people, and is of such a nature as to make its possessor unhappy or a menace to society. It is an obvious disadvantage if an individual has to admit to himself the full share of his own meanness, vileness, and shoddiness. In such circumstances, he will be sure to try and dispose of them in the minds of other people as intolerable qualities belonging to them. This he can do only by projecting them and by setting himself up in opposition to them as a paragon of virtue, a hero, or a saint.
“An illusion, on the other hand, is a false belief, a product of wish-fulfillment, which is not susceptible to correction by outside evidence. The difference between an illusion and a delusion is not a difference in the objective truth or falsity of the belief in question, but rather in the impact that belief has on the individual holding it. An illusion is a form of happiness that is available to everyone, and is thus not incompatible with social life.”
“The source of religious energies lies in the individual’s own emotional nature, and it is only through an illusion that this source can be rendered accessible to the conscious personality. To be sure, there are many forms of illusion, and it is not always easy to distinguish them from each other. But we shall not be far wrong if we define an illusion as a belief that is founded on a wishful fantasy, and that is maintained in the face of evidence to the contrary. An illusion is a false belief that is not amenable to correction by evidence, and that serves the needs of the individual’s emotional life.”
“An illusion is essentially a product of the imagination, and it is only through the imagination that we can overcome the limitations of reality. The imagination allows us to transform reality into a more satisfying form, and it is only through this transformation that we can find meaning and purpose in our lives. The function of religion is to provide individuals with a set of illusions that can help them to cope with the harsh realities of existence.”
The delusion that a disordered man possesses in which he believes he is a woman comes with the wish that he actually were. He suspects he really isn’t so he needs others to affirm him. Something as untrue as a man being a woman requires affirmation from everybody. When universal affirmation is not forthcoming, the man becomes mean and vile. If his delusion becomes an illusion, if his delusion is sustained by many millions affirming his disordered thinking, then he finds a ready vehicle for wish fulfillment. He is given a purpose alongside others who are also disordered in this way.
The threat to society becomes ever greater as disordered people come to the calling. Something happens when a thing nobody would wish on anybody else becomes a thing people want more than anything else: they are prepared to hurt other people to obtain it. A proselytizing religion spreads its denial of reality. And, like all such religions, those who resist the doctrine become despised and demonized, justifiably subjected to the vengeance of the righteous. No disbelievers makes the fiction finally real. Any person who declines to affirm the delusion—to celebrate the illusion—becomes an enemy of God. And so we have a terrorist movement.
There is a serious problem in America today. This movement is already extremely dangerous. When children are massacred for the sake of an ideology, we must at the very least call out the ideology that animates the monster. We have a moral obligation to condemn terrorism. I have a long history of calling out Christian nationalist violence, white supremacy, Islamic terrorism, etcetera—this history documented on this blog.
Progressives defend trans activism the way they defended Islamic terrorism. They believe that the victims of these terrorisms had it coming to them. Those with whom they disagree are unworthy victims—undeserving of sympathy. Remember how gleeful progressives were when a critic of mRNA gene therapy died of COVID-19?This attitude pervades the rank-and-file devotees of this ideology. Never being wrong combined with political extremism makes an individual so righteous in his beliefs that he can justify any level of immoral action. We see the glee of the psychopath in these actions. These are the traits of disordered persons.
This movement has become dangerous. We can talk about the mass shootings by armed trans identifying people (four so far, with a fifth event thwarted by the police). But far more common are acts of harassment, intimidation, and physical violence short of murder. Ask Kellie-Jay Keen about it. Or ask twelve-time All-American swimming champion Riley Gaines, who was attacked by trans activists after giving a speech on saving women’s sports at San Francisco State.
All-American swimming champion Riley Gaines believes males should be excluded from female sports.
“Yeah you fucking transphobic bitch—I fucking see you!” a deranged activist screamed as Gaines as she escaped the mob down a hallway to a safe room, protected by security and university staff. “Bye bitch! Fuck you,” the activists shouted. Holding “Trans Lives Matter” signs, they chanted “Trans rights are human rights” and “Trans women are women.” Gaines was barricaded in the room for several hours. The San Francisco Police Department had to be called in to manage the situation.
What justifies the harassment, intimidation, and violence we see from this movement is a false doctrine popularly known as “the weapons of the weak” (a phrase taken from James Scott’s book by the same title). This doctrine holds that a minority can exert control over the majority by deploying such terroristic tactics as deploying or threatening violence to prevent people from speaking and receiving information, or restricting the free movement of people.
Terrorism is a form of political violence that aims to create fear, panic, and terror among the population or some group to achieve an ideological, political, or religious objective. Terrorism takes many forms (bombings, hostage taking, shootings). Terrorism is typically carried out by non-state actors, such as members of extremist groups or radicalized individuals, rather than by governments. However, some terrorism is developed and effectively used by government actors.
Transgender activists holding @Riley_Gaines_ hostage demanded money in exchange for her safe passage off of the San Francisco State University. pic.twitter.com/4APxWLdVvO
The goal of terrorism depends on the ideology that animates it. In the present case, the ideology puts central to its praxis the transgression of norms concerning sex and gender, for example erasing age of consent laws. This is a movement founded in anarchism in its most nihilistic tendency, fueled by postmodernism, and dressed in the clothing of critical theory (queer theory). It’s the same cloth that covers today’s anti-white bigotry (anti-racism, critical race theory). All this is smuggled into corporate board rooms and public institutions as DEI and progressive education. At universities, these programs draw those in society’s disordered pockets and incubates the subaltern forces—organized as “SFSU’s Queer and Trans Resource Center”—who show up at Turning Point USA events and mob the attendees.
Terroristic tactics are popular among those who believe their cause is so righteous that they can run roughshod over the civil and human rights of others. We see this in members of a neo-nazi cell who are so convinced of their racist beliefs they believe they’re justified in disrupting a meeting of liberals discussing the threat neo-nazism represents to the community. Less hypothetically, we see this in members of Islamist cells so convinced of their religious beliefs that they feel justified in shooting cartoonists who mock the prophet. Whatever means are deployed, the end is the same: to suppress the fundamental rights of people.
The “heckler’s veto” is not an exercise in speech. It is a violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The weapons of the weak is free speech and association. What you see in the video above are the weapons of the authoritarian.
White privilege refers to the set of cultural, economic, political, and social advantages that are granted to people who are perceived as white, simply because of their skin color. White privilege is often described as an invisible set of advantages that white people enjoy, which are not available to people of color.
Examples of white privilege include access to better education, job opportunities, and healthcare, as well as better treatment by law enforcement and the criminal justice system. White privilege can also manifest in more subtle ways, such as not having to worry about being discriminated against or stereotyped because of one’s race, or not having to constantly navigate and combat the effects of systemic racism.
A protester holds a sign at a rally against policy brutality in New York on September 2020.
Why do I say on my blog that the white privilege rhetoric is anti-white prejudice and racism? (Not “reverse racism” but racism.)
Consider the fact that black males as a group are overrepresented in serious crime, especially homicide and robbery, in which more than half of these crime types are committed by black males, a statistic disturbing in light of the fact that black males comprise only around six percent of the United States population.
Suppose I argue that, because of this overrepresentation of black males in serious crime, that every black male you encounter is a criminal who represents a danger to you and your family. Wouldn’t we all agree that I am misusing abstraction and statistics to make every black male appear to be problematic and that this move represents a type of ani-black prejudice? Isn’t it racist to say all blacks are criminals?
The problem is a confusion over things. Aggregate statistics concerning demography and criminality are abstractions. These are averages and rates. Not every black male has committed murder or robbery (in fact, most haven’t). It is an error to assign to each man the average characteristic of the demographic group to which he is assigned.
One always commits this error when he portrays or treats a concrete individual as the personification of or some aspect of the abstract group to which he has been assigned. To treat an individual as representative of a statistical average or rate commits the the fallacy of misplaced concreteness.
This is not to say that we don’t need to worry about the statistics concerning the overrepresentation of blacks in serious crime. This is of vital importance. But we are told not to talk about them because the statistics are themselves racist in that they cast a bad light on black males.
They’re not racist, of course. Those who cite the statistics are falsely smeared with the accusation or suggestion of racism because the elite who mismanage the cities in which homicide and robbery are rampant want to silence critics of their politics and policies.
Now consider the fact that whites as a group are more likely than blacks to have jobs, jobs with higher pay, homes that possess more value, better education and health outcomes, etc. These are the facts that are provided in specifying white privilege.
Suppose I argue that, because of this overrepresentation of whites in these statistics, every white person one encounters enjoys a racial privilege and is thus in some way implicated in the inferior position of blacks, that is the means for this demographic.
This is an assumption that must be made if reparations are to be in order. This assumption must also be at work in justifying the practice of selecting a black person over a white person in employment and other opportunities on the grounds that the black person comes from a historically disadvantaged group, disadvantaged because of the legacy of racism.
How could a white man be responsible for the historic debt owed black people on the basis of his skin color? Shouldn’t he be held responsible for his actions as an individual? How can his skin color be used to disadvantage him on the grounds that there other whites who have higher incomes, etc., than him?
There is no difference between the cases. They both commit the fallacy of misplaced concreteness. But, unlike in the case of black crime, I don’t think that we would all agree that it is wrong to use abstraction and statistics to make every white male appear to be problematic, that this indeed represents a type of anti-white prejudice.
Both cases are wrong because they involve treating abstract statistical trends as if they were a concrete reality that applies to every individual within a particular demographic category. Both involve reducing an individual’s unique characteristics, experiences, and perspectives to a simplistic and generalized stereotype based on demographic identity. Both of these examples highlight the importance of recognizing the complexity and diversity of individuals and the groups to which they are assigned.
We are told that white privilege is not about individual guilt or blame, but rather about recognizing the historical and ongoing inequalities that exist in society based on race, and working to dismantle these systems of oppression. This is a disingenuous claim.
White privilege is about individual guilt and blame because all whites are included in the group that is blamed for historical and ongoing inequalities that exist in society allegedly based on systemic racism. All whites are presumed responsible for dismantling this system of oppression. Either one is an anti-racist or a racist. The term therefore represents anti-white prejudice. It is racist.
The negative response to safeguarding children that assumes content available to adults should also be available to children—and that it is therefore wrongful censorship to deny children access to that content—already has in mind and conduct the negation of age of consent rules.
From Gender Queer by Maia Kobabe
Because those rules have been so effectively negated, reasserting them feels to those who have erased the boundaries in their minds and conduct as if something is being taken away. Feelings aside, the norm is being clarified and reinforced. Folks need to take a look at themselves and ask themselves why this feels like wrongful censorship. Also folks needs to ask themselves why the safeguarding of children is portrayed as the stuff of right-wing culture war—that is, who is doing the politicizing?
It is commonplace in history that when a norm has significantly eroded by sociocultural dynamics or concerted efforts to disrupt it, the norm is encoded in law to remind society of its vital importance. Societal reaction that negates exploitation feels like oppression to the exploiter. One feels bad for exploiters because they have successfully portrayed their thoughts and actions as acceptable or preferred. Those who decry the law need to ask themselves how they came to regard exploitation as acceptable or preferred.
Part of the process of restablishing the norm is asking reasonable people to research why we established age of consent rules to begin with. To begin your journey of enlightenment start by reviewing the harm caused to children by adults sexualizing them. But you can also use common sense. Ask yourself, why would an adult be so eager to have children thinking about sexual matters? Why the obsession with sex and gender? Why the desire to get children into that obsession? Are there terms for this way of thinking and acting in the literature on child sexual abuse and child sexualization? How about the term social media is censoring and suspending over? How about grooming?
* * *
Sasha Colby
Entertainment Weekly ran a story about Sasha Colby wanting “Tennessee frat boys arrested for appropriating drag on Halloween.” The magazine frames Colby’s demand as a response to the state passing “anti-drag and anti-trans legislation.” Tennessee hasn’t banned drag. No state has banned or is planning to ban drag. The law bars “adult cabaret performances,” also known as burlesque, overtly sexualized performances, on public property or in places where they might be within view of children. The law resemble laws already on the books concerning strip clubs and other venues of adult entertainment.
In this context, the law bans “male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest.” What does “prurient” mean? It literally means “having or encouraging an excessive interest in sexual matters.” It’s not drag per se the law targets, but drag for that purpose, namely to cause or encourage children to have an excessive interest in sexual matters. That’s the explicit purpose of the drag queen story hour and all-age drag queen shows. This isn’t Mrs. Doubtfire reading a book to children or Dustin Hoffman dressed as Tootsie talking about his role in the comedy by that name. This is a propaganda push by a gender cult backed by corporate state power.
Republican-controlled states are restricting the current practice of using drag as a vehicle for the sexualization of children because proponents of this legislation understand the effects the sexualization of children has on childhood development. Child sexualization, which refers to the portrayal or treatment of children as sexual beings, carries devastating and long-lasting effects on a child’s physical and mental health, as well as their relationships and future prospects in life.
Child sexualization is emotionally and psychologically harmful, associated with anxiety, depress, and trauma. Children experience confusion, guilt, and shame when compelled to obsess over sex and gender. This can affect their self-esteem and developing self-image and detrimentally affect their relationships with others. We have seen a marked rise in mental health problems in our youth. What’s driving the deteriorating in the emotional and psychological well being of our children? The rise of social media and the gender questioning project lie at the heart of this development.
Sexualization involves objectification where a person is treated as an objects for some one rather than a free person on her way to becoming an autonomous individual with thoughts and feelings of her own. In this way, objectification leads to a loss of the child’s developing autonomy, an inability to make decisions about her own life, and a loss of control over her own body—the opposite of what we are told by those pushing the agenda of early childhood sexualization and gender questioning. This is not about ferreting out those suffering from gender confusion to help them. This is about creating gender confusion in order to exploit them.
Personifying stereotypes and edge work
Sexualization of children perpetuates harmful gender stereotypes and encourages children to conform to destructive, reductive, unrealistic, and culture industry constructed standards of beauty, behavior, and sexuality. Consider what children are being exposed to when drag queens, who in these contexts typically present as hyper-sexualized and objectified women, are represented as desirable personifications of girls and women—as representative of proper gender norms.
The reality is that the sexualization of children normalizes sexually predatory behavior, which is associated with an increase in sexual exploitation and the abuse of children, including by those who say they are there to help the children with the emotional and psychological maladies they played a role in manufacturing.
We all know what’s going on with this. The goal of having children think about sex and gender at a young age is to prepare them for a life of reducing themselves to only one thing about themselves—and to have them question that one thing constantly to cause them to seek out experiences to validate themselves. It expands the universe of paraphiliacs—and provides the raw materials for the multibillion dollar industry that markets its business as “gender affirming care.”
We are told that drag queen story hour and all-age drag shows are to build tolerance for sex and gender diversity, to support an alleged marginalized community. Why is that even necessary? The trans community is the most celebrated minority in the United States maybe ever. The movement’s flags are everywhere. The agenda is promoted in classrooms and cultural industry programming. Tolerance for the community is part of DEI training in corporate and public institutions.
Here’s the real point of building tolerance about the minority (the members of which are literally stepping into oppression): asking children to tolerant, to in fact celebrate a group that defines itself on the basis of disrupting normal understandings of sex and gender requires an explanation about what children are being ask to celebrate. The tolerance and acceptance rhetoric is a cover for getting to children so that the members of the movement can then tell them about the wonders of the movement. Children come out of these experiences questioning their gender, and wanting to be like the person who is confusing them.
Again, we don’t have to speculate about this. The organizers of these events are telling us that the goal of presenting drag is to children to sexualize them to encourage them to obsess over gender. Dressing it up in the Trojan horse of tolerance for marginalized groups is a deception that gets them around children to expose children to ways of acting, being, and thinking that the organizers want to socialize. But these ways of acting, being, and thinking are not for children.
This is a social contagion, one that is intentionally spread by the actors pushing the agenda, which, as we can see, involves corporate and government actors. In the latest issue of the Archives of Sexual Behavior, Suzanne Diaz and J. Michael Bailey, report on nearly two thousand cases of rapid onset gender dysphoria reported by parents. They write, “During the past decade there has been a dramatic increase in adolescents and young adults (AYA) complaining of gender dysphoria. One influential if controversial explanation is that the increase reflects a socially contagious syndrome: Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD).”
I encourage you to read the article, but this passage stands out: “Pre-existing mental health issues were common, and youths with these issues were more likely than those without them to have socially and medically transitioned. Parents reported that they had often felt pressured by clinicians to affirm their AYA child’s new gender and support their transition. According to the parents, AYA children’s mental health deteriorated considerably after social transition.”
See how it works? It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. Get children to question their gender. When a boy suggests he is a girl trapped in a boy’s body, change his pronouns and begin social transitioning. The resulting deterioration in his emotional and psychological health will not be treated as the consequence of the path he is on but as clear evidence of the need to push him further down the path—into medical transitioning. Hormones and surgeries will break him in so many ways and he will be under a doctor’s care for life. Sterile. Unable to achieve an orgasm. In other words, the process is the manufacture of raw materials for the medical-industrial complex (see Making Patients for the Medical-Industrial Complex).
* * *
You might wonder why corporations are all in on woke. It’s because woke is neoliberal. Where did you think these crackpot ideas come from? Working people? No, corporate elites and the professional-managerial strata that carry out their bidding. Aside from mega-profits, the idea of woke is to keep folks the hell away from democratic-republican populism and make corporate governance appear to be the politics of the people. People are told to obsess over gender and race and they will be celebrated figures in the bureaucracy. There they will enjoy a symbolic politics over a real class-based politics. Progressivism is the ideological projection of these arrangements. See Brendan O’Neill’s latest in Spiked: “Why capitalism loves transgenderism.”
Trans-Activists, who are young, inexperienced, and steeped in ideology, present a “list of demands” to every school in the nation, which also apply to “everyone in the community”
The line about mandated LGBTQ etcetera specific diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) training? That’s straight out of the Maoist Cultural Revolution playbook. DEI training thus has another name: “struggle session.” The way the sessions were framed during the Cultural Revolution was as a form of public reconciliation over class oppression. Today, the struggle session is pitched as a form of reconciliation over the myriad of intersecting oppressions. The oppressor is the straight white man and woman, presumed Christian.
One of rare posed DEI training session not showing participants happy and smiling
The struggle session is designed to do several things:
First, struggle sessions are recruiting operations involving captured subjects. In cult induction and grooming, these are known as “targets.” Embedded in the corporate bureaucracy, workers are captive in much the same way workers were captive under conditions of bureaucratic collectivism. Corporate governance arrangements are very different from liberal capitalist relations and resemble more those of People’s Republic of China (PRC) than the American republic prior to the institutionalization of progressivism.
Second, struggle sessions are designed to detect disallowed or disfavored attitudes and opinions and to identify enemies of the Revolution. Resistance to both participating in the session and during the ensuing struggle mark you as a subversive. Suppose you work at a university and you do not believe trans women are women, or that one cannot change sex, or that males should not compete in women’s sports. These positions are not inclusive and therefore they do not support the goals of the DEI university. What does the institution do with your heresy? What will it do if its demands are met?
Third, struggle sessions are designed to intimidate resisters by presenting the ideology of the revolution as the institution’s official position, thus giving the doctrine the force of normal authority. Many of those who are of the opinion that, for example, one cannot change his sex, will not voice that opinion because they are fearful of what the institution might do with their heresy. This is the chilling effect. The chilling effect may not need high-profile examples. The process itself chills the air.
Fourth, struggle sessions are designed to reeducate resisters and break the recalcitrant by having them rehearse the slogans of the revolution, or at the very least appear not criticize the doctrine. The latter is usually viewed as passive resistance, however, and one may not escape having to finally rehearse the slogan. He may be reprimanded for his half-hearted commitment to it. This violates the First Amendment of the US Bill of Rights and Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Freedom of speech and conscience mean that I cannot be forced to hold the opinions of others or punished for the opinions I hold or don’t hold.
Fifth, struggle sessions are designed to train subalterns to police and correct the thoughts of not only those in the session, but those who lie beyond the reach of the mandated training. In other words, mandatory trainings are designed to disseminate the idea to the general population. This is the proselytizing character of Cultural Revolution.
This would make a nice gift to the DEI official in your life.
It is crucial to realize that the Chinese youth carrying out the cultural revolution did not spontaneously take up these ideas, nor did they design the struggle session. This was the work of the administrative state and technocratic apparatus, and the functionaries and organic intellectuals embedded in those structures, all controlled by the Chinese Communist Party. The American youth carrying out the cultural revolution in Biden’s “Build Back Better” is no more clever than those Chinese youth. Like their counterparts, they are directed by the administrative state and technocratic apparatus and the functionalities of organic intellectuals embedded in these structures, all controlled by the corporate state. (See The Mao Zedong Thought Shift from the Class-Analytical to Race-Ideological.)
Yesterday, USA Today, ran the headline “Donald Trump using antisemitic rhetoric to get political donations after indictment.” The author, Erin Mansfield, writes, “Less than two hours after his indictment became public, former President Donald Trump’s fundraising machine sent out an email to supporters on his behalf loaded with extremist rhetoric and antisemitic tropes.”
“The Deep State will use anything at their disposal to shut down the one political movement that puts YOU first,” Trump wrote in the email. This, Mansfield explained is “a reference to a conspiracy theory about a network of people working inside the federal government to exercise power over ordinary people.”
Mansfield then told readers that “Trump also attacked Manhattan prosecutor Alvin Bragg, whose office was responsible for bringing the case to the grand jury, as being funded by George Soros,” who she admitted is “a major donor to Democratic causes,” before asserting that Soros is “a popular target of anti-Semitism on the far-right, including in his birth country of Hungary.”
Mansfield talks to a professor at American University, Kurt Braddock, a public communication professor, who leans into the corporate state characterization of Trump’s communications. “They’re loaded with antisemitic language, some of which has been used in the past to validate violence against Jews,” said Braddock. “There’s no other way to describe it—he’s using anti-Jewish stereotypes and historical hatred to raise money.”
Braddock pointed to language pinning Bragg’s activity on Soros and presenting Soros as “a shadowy financier” that “feeds into anti-Semitic tropes related to Jews and money,” and references to Soros as part of a “globalist cabal.” Mansfield then drops the obligatory QAnon conspiracy theory reference, an Internet boogie ideology “based around the idea of a shadowy cabal going after Trump.”
Mansfield is not the only corporate state mouthpiece peddling the smear. Jonathan Hurley identifies another one here:
PBS White House correspondent and CNN political analyst Laura Barrón-López said last night that even mentioning that Alvin Bragg received funded from George Soros is “antisemitic” because Soros is Jewish. That would effectively prevent any reporting on Soros donations to DAs…
Everyday the corporate state media tells you what it’s doing. They mean to mobilize an army of reactionaries made stupid by how smart they think they are, talking now about rank-and-file progressives. Hot off the heels of blaming Christians for a trans man murdering Christians and making her the victim, the corporate state now accuses those who object to lawfare as “anti-semitic conspiracy theorists.” There is no decency to be found here. The establishment will use whatever tactic is needed to marginalize and silence those who point out facts and their implications.
Here’s how it works: A person talks about the deep state, the existence of which has been clearly established in hearings over the last several weeks being conducted by the Judiciary Committee subcommittee on the weaponization of government, chaired by Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and he is advancing a “conspiracy theory.” It’s as if the deep state is invisible and secret and therefore to talk about it is to proceed without evidence. But it is not invisible. Nor has it been able to keep its secrets. (See Church 2.0. See here, as well.)
If the hearings over the last month have not been enough to confirm the existence of the deep state, recall that the existence of the deep state was established by the Church Committee hearings back in the 1970s. The hearings, conducted by the United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities from 1975 to 1976, were a series of investigations initiated in response to revelations of illegal and unethical activities by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and other government agencies in the 1960s and early 1970s. The committee held numerous public and closed-door hearings, conducted interviews, and reviewed classified documents related to intelligence-gathering activities by the government. The committee’s final report, which summarized its findings and recommendations, was released to the public on April 26, 1976.
I was a teenager in the 1970s, and the Church Committee hearings are burned into my memory. The committee conducted extensive hearings over a period of several months, interviewing witnesses and reviewing classified documents to investigate various intelligence-gathering activities by the government and it was covered on all the TV channels. The hearings revealed a range of abuses and excesses committed by intelligence agencies, including the CIA’s covert operations to overthrow foreign governments, its illegal surveillance of American citizens, and its use of drugs and other forms of coercion to obtain information from suspects. The FBI was also found to have engaged in illegal activities, including the use of warrantless wiretaps and other forms of surveillance against Americans.
What they’re really telling us is that there is a deep state and that you’re not allowed to talk about it.
If you correctly observe that George Soros spends millions of dollars to elect prosecutors who intentionally fail to enforce the law knowing this will increase disorder in the neighborhoods under their control, then you will be accused of advancing an “anti-semitic conspiracy theory.” Why? Because Soros is Jewish and that makes any criticism of him racist. Is this because all Jews are like Soros and they all want—and this desire flows from the Jewishness—the levels of crime disorder sufficient to make the lives of black and brown Americans a living hell? (See my many blogs on criminal justice. See also George Soros, Philanthrocapitalism, and the Coming Era of Global Neo-Feudalism.)
Alan Dershowitz is a high-profile critic of Soros. Dershowitz is a Jew. Does Dershowitz advance anti-semitic conspiracy theories? Or is he a “self-hating” Jew? You know, like any black person who doesn’t vote for Biden isn’t really black, is Dershowitz not really a Jew? Are the millions of Jews who despise Soros and voted for Trump really Jewish? What about the millions of blacks and Hispanics who voted for Trump? Are they really black or brown? Or are all of the criticisms of Dershowitz because he defended Trump in an absurd impeachment proceeding antisemitic themselves? Who are the antisemites? Those who express fear, hatred, and loathing of Jews? Or anyone, including Jews, who deviate from the progressive corporate state narrative?
The corporate state media telling us that just mentioning that Alvin Bragg received funded from George Soros is “antisemitic” because Soros is Jewish is like telling us that reporting on homicide and robberies in America because black men are responsible for most of them is “racist,” or that the massacre of people at a Christian school in Nashville because the shooter identified as transgender is “transphobic,” or that the mass murder of gay men at an Orlando nightclub in 2016 because the shooter was a Muslim is “Islamophobic.”
Indeed, in each of these cases, because they are bad things the individuals did, we’re supposed to avoid thinking about the racial, gender, or religious identity of the actor because it might raise more thoughts we’re not supposed to think, for example that seems to be something about the culture or ideology associated with those identities that is a source of criminal violence. The corporate state must remind us not to think this way because we have not yet acquired the reflex to disattend to certain facts. Meanwhile, the population is encouraged to think about the racial, gender, and religious identities of people when they accomplish something (such as being the first this or that) or are looking for sympathy—and of course in thinking about the white male Christians who are responsible for all the bad things that happen in the world.
On Thursday I blogged about an all-age drag queen event at Forsyth Tech in North Carolina. I have updated that blog, so go check it out: Drag Queen Lap Dance at Forsyth Tech: Humiliating the Gullible. The performance was not merely drag, i.e., a man portraying a female character. It was burlesque. Before we forget history, it soul be recognized that drag does not necessarily involve provocative sexual conduct. These are more common in burlesque, which CBS News has note is a separate form of entertainment. That piece (from October of last year) tells readers that “It’s up to parents and guardians to decide [whether their children see drag performances], just as they decide whether their children should be exposed to or participate in certain music, television, movies, beauty pageants, concerts or other forms of entertainment, parenting experts say.”
In that Thursday blog, I posed the following rhetorical question: “If this were a man sexually touching a girl in front of other children, a lewd and lascivious act under the law of this state, would we all agree that this is inappropriate?” I then went on to ask readers to consider the point of sexual displays and touching children in front of children. My take on the matter? It’s a transgressive act by those who are seeking to disrupt the normative rules concerning boundaries between adult sexual activity and children. Should this be up to parents, as CBS News tells us parenting experts say? If so, then why the hysteria over laws restoring parent’s rights in education and health care?
There are, of course, some things children should be prevented from experiencing whatever their parents think about it. Clearly there are a lot of parents who are too naive to realize when their children are being groomed for induction into nihilistic cult obsessed with sex and sexual identity that increases the chances that those successfully inducted will have their minds and bodies broken and deformed.
The practice of confusing, gaslighting, and sexualizing of children angers and horrifies me (and I will blogging a lot more about this in the upcoming weeks). But I am also very troubled by how many decades gay men—who took over drag from the racist minstrel shows where the art originated—have had to fight the undeserved reputation that homosexuals represent a threat to children (the “boy love” slander and all the rest of it) only to have drag repurposed by the disordered and the technocracy to push an agenda that’s putting gay men in a poor light.
Only a few years ago it was widely understood that drag was an art form owned by gay men and not an appropriate venue for men who were not performing but exploiting an art form as an opportunity for acting out in public disordered and paraphilia desire. This was before the widespread appearance of Drag Queen Story Hour, which was founded in San Francisco in 2015 explicitly to introduce children to the transgender movement by reading picture books informed by queer theory. In his 2018 Atlantic essay “It’s Time for Drag Race to Move Past the Binary,” Spencer Kornhaber notes that “RuPaul took heat for saying trans women couldn’t compete on his show—when the truth is that’s exactly what the art of drag needs.” As I pointed out in Thursday’s blog, RuPaul now describes drag queens as the “Marines of the queer movement.”
I find it hard to believe that any gay man performing drag who has any sense of the history of anti-gay hatred and who cares about the health and safety of children would think that it’s a good idea to perform in an overtly sexualized manner in front of children. I have a hard time believing, therefore, that these performers are merely gay men in drag. I suspect that some, maybe many, perhaps not all (let’s leave room for the opportunistic and stupid), are acting out some type of paraphilia, i.e., autogynephilia, (auto)pedophilia, or some other form of deviance that endangers children. In other words, some of these men are doing this for sexual gratification. Others are expressing misogynistic desire. (These are not mutually exclusive categories.) If you’re missing the reality that these acts carry with them sadistic euphoria felt at taking advantage of and humiliating gullible people then you lack a type of awareness vital to adequate parenting.
Of course, whether these men are sexually disordered or not, it is the effect sexualization has on children that is mainly at issue. Moreover, these men are taking advantage of a situation created by the progressives who have captured our institutions.
A drag queen lifts her skirt and gyrates in front of a child in Texas.
This is why there are age of consent laws: children cannot meaningfully consent to adult sexual activity. Nor do they possess adult sexual identities. Many of them haven’t even entered puberty yet. Yes, I know, a lot of queer theorists want to eliminate those laws, as they see the rules regulating sexual conduct and other adult-child interactions as not merely social constructs but social constructs erected by the “oppressor” seeking to deny children their right to adult sexual activities and the sexualized identities the virtue seekers are clamoring to affirm. But queer theory is the crackpot academic expression of the nihilistic anarchist mindset that, if allowed to take hold, will destroy civilization.
They portray drag in front of children as benign and its critics as busybodies. But it is hardly benign—and I am as far from a busybody as one can possibly get without falling over into libertinism. So let me say this very clearly: I have nothing against drag per se. This is about protecting children from exploitative predatory and often criminal conduct that bad, ignorant, and stupid people are re-coding as love and rainbows. They’re after the children and the reason they’re after the children is multifaceted. I will be laying it all out over the coming weeks. Stay tuned.
That this is about some prudish reaction to drag or opposition to the trans agenda, an assumption that means to conclude what requires evidence, namely that somehow drag has something to do with gender-affirming medical care, is a straw man progressives stuff to keep their agenda to corrupt the normal development of children moving forward. It’s a lie. Preventing children from being sexualized has nothing to do with drag per se. Just like progressives lied about the parents rights law in Florida by leaving the impression that the bill was called “Don’t Say Gay,” a piece of disinformation picked up and spread by the corporate state media, they are lying about these laws designed to prevent children from being sexually exploited. They are smearing you as “bigot” and “transphobe” to shame you into silence.
This is not an analogy. I am not in opposition to adults consuming pornography (although I do recognize the dysfunction and harm pornography can cause). I am a First Amendment extremist. But should we let children consume porn? If your answer is that we should not, and that is my answer, too, ask yourself why pornography is so easily accessible in so many of our children’s libraries and classrooms. That’s another piece to all of this. Children have pornographic materials at their fingertips while they’re being spoon fed queer theory by men dressed as women and children who may also dance or writhe on the carpet provocatively in front of them. If all this strikes you as perverse, you’re right. It is. There is nothing wrong with you. There is something wrong with them.
Breaking, @OurRightsDC, the #Antifa group co-organizing the "Trans Day of Vengeance" in the U.S. capital, has announced it is canceling the controversial direct action planned for Saturday. They blame trans genocide & threats against them following the #trans mass shooting in… pic.twitter.com/SoNmCBdZef
I think the organizers of the Trans Day of Vengeance realized that the symbolism of, and the violence likely to emerge from such a high-profile gathering—violence already seen in a myriad of other places (for example the mob in in Auckland, New Zealand that assaulted Kellie-Jay Keen, aka Posie Parker, and others holding a women’s rights rally in Albert Park)—will only serve to validate the character of this movement for millions of interested observers and reveal the true character of the phenomenon for millions more.
The rhetoric of “genocide” has become a core element in the doctrine of this new religion. By portraying the group as persecuted and proclaiming victimhood, the enemy is defined and demonized and its authority discredited. This is why lesbians and women’s rights groups are especially hated, as they represent the most felt and visible pieces of the resistance. Christians (those not lost to wokeness) are a priori opposition.
That’s the goal of the movement anyway. But rational people across the trans-Atlantic community are reasserting reason and pushing back. Reason and push back in turn justifies in the minds of activists violent action. Hence the rhetoric of martyrdom and vengeance. A little too much too soon after Nashville. So Antifa, as has been made clear, a trans activist organization (a flock of cluster b types), calls off the day of militant action. I worry about more lone wolves.
“Trans Day of Vengeance” cancelled due to “credible threat to life and safety”
They are really trying to distract you now. In the wake of the Nashville Christian school massacre, they’re telling you guns are the leading cause of death in children (See Jon Stewart: Corporate State Stooge). I think if you check that statistic you’ll find that 18 and 19 years olds are counted among the children. Why are authorities counting men who go to war as children? This is double wickedness infantilizing men to push disinformation. Here’s the truth: central city violence is driving the death machine in America. Who runs the cities? (See America’s Crime Problem and Why Progressives are to Blame.)
Metropolitan Nashville Police Chief John Drake tells us that the massacre occurring earlier this week at the Covenant School, a Christian elementary school in the city, was a targeted attack. He’s read the manifesto, so he ought to know. Release the manifesto so we can see for ourselves. We need to understand the threat we’re facing. Unfortunately, the FBI has taken possession of the manifesto. They say they will eventually release it to the public, but can the FBI be trusted? I think readers know how I would answer that question.
The corporate state media want you to think about guns because they want your guns. But the instrument chosen in the commission of a crime doesn’t explain the crime. How could it? Guns don’t shoot themselves. The identity of the perpetrator, the identity of the victim, and the motive behind the action are the elements to consider when attempting to explain and understand criminal conduct.
The Manson family used forks and steak knives. how does that explain the massacre at the Tate residence? That Nazis used bullets, gas, and starvation is not central to explaining and understanding the Judeocide. Islamists use planes, bombs, and beheadings. The instruments and methods are not at the reason. These are tools and actions, hammers and drills, pounding and sawing. That’s horror show shit that some people dig at the movies. But in the real world, where we have real people to save, we focus on the things that matter.
People better get alert. The corporate state media is a massive lie machine. Sucker is not in anymore.
* * *
Note: A warrant has been issued for the arrest of the trans activist who assaulted Kellie-Jay Keen in New Zealand who has been formally charged with assault. The perpetrator has fled the county and is now in New York claiming to be the victim of a “hate” campaign. I have seen the incident in question. The hate was on the trans activist side and members of that group assaulted several women including Keen. Nice to see the authorities do something to hold these violent and disordered individuals accountable. But they should have done more at the scene. An elderly lady has a fractured skull thanks to the failure of police to protect those attending the rally. When will this person be charged and arrested?
freedom and reason 