According to Sheriff T.K. Waters of Jacksonville, 21-year-old Ryan Christopher Palmeter, who lived with his parents in nearby Orange Park and had no criminal arrest history, bought a handgun in April and an AR-15-style rifle in June and used these weapons on Saturday to kill three people and then himself at the Kings Road Dollar General store. The manifesto he left behind has been described as “the diary of a madman.” His victims were black: Angela Michelle Carr, aged 52, Anolt Joseph “A.J.” Laguerre Jr., aged 19, and Jarrald De’Shawn Gallion, aged 29. Palmeter was white. He was also a racist.
Sheriff T.K. Waters of Jacksonville briefs reporters on the Kings Road Dollar general store shooting
Before the rampage, Palmeter appeared at the historically Black Edward Waters University around 12:45 pm. There, he equipped himself with tactical gear, including a bullet-resistant vest, mask, and gloves. His actions raised suspicions among the university’s security personnel, prompting him to leave the premises shortly after. Following his departure from the campus, Palmeter proceeded to carry out the shooting without warning. Amidst the chaos, he allowed certain individuals to exit the store before taking his own life.
Sheriff Waters said there were no red flags in this case. Both the rifle and handgun were legal and had been purchased legally. The firearms dealers―Wild West Guns and Orange Park Gun and Pawn—followed proper procedures in the sales. The shooter had come to the attention of law enforcement in 2017 in connection with the state’s Baker Act, a measure that permits the involuntary confinement and assessment of individuals for up to 72 hours when facing a mental health emergency, but uncertainties remain regarding the accuracy of the recorded Baker Act incident and whether it was categorized as a comprehensive Baker Act case. “In this situation, there was nothing illegal about him owning the firearms,” Sheriff Waters told reporters.
The corporate state is making the shooting about two things: racism and guns. It appears that racism was an element in the crime. Palmeter had composed manifestos that explicitly articulated his abhorrence for the black people and his intent to perpetrate violence against them. His rifle was adorned with swastikas. He specifically targeted black people before turning the gun on himself.
To punctuate the racial aspect of the crime, the media has noted that the shooting occurred on or around the anniversaries of two significant events in the history of civil rights, namely Ax Handle Saturday and the March on Washington.
Ax Handle Saturday took place on August 27, 1960, at Hemming Park in Jacksonville, Florida. The incident was a brutal attack on black protesters by a white mob. On that day, a group of black college students, led by civil rights activists Rodney Lawrence Hurst Sr. and Alton Yates, organized a peaceful sit-in demonstration at several segregated lunch counters in downtown Jacksonville. The students were advocating for an end to racial segregation in public spaces. They entered the whites-only lunch counters and attempted to be served, which was met with hostility from white patrons and counter-protesters. As tensions escalated, the situation turned violent. A white mob, including members of the Ku Klux Klan, gathered and began attacking the protesters with various weapons, including ax handles, baseball bats, and bricks. The police response was inadequate, as officers reportedly did little to protect the peaceful protesters from the mob.
The March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, often referred to simply as the March on Washington, was a historic civil rights event that took place on August 28, 1963, in Washington, DC. Organized by a coalition of civil rights, labor, and religious organizations, the march aimed to address issues of racial segregation, economic inequality, and civil rights for African Americans. The march is perhaps best known for being the site of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s iconic “I Have a Dream” speech, where he spoke of a future where individuals would be judged by their character rather than the color of their skin. The event drew a massive and diverse crowd, making it one of the largest political rallies for civil rights in American history up to that point. The March on Washington helped build momentum for the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which were significant legislative achievements in the struggle for racial equality.
At this point, I have no evidence or reporting indicating Palmeter planned his actions around these anniversaries. However, in tying the shooting to these events, the corporate media is perpetuating the ideological project to portray the United States as a country fraught by white supremacy. To be sure, it is crucial to continue the struggle against racism, but the United States of today is not the United States of the 1950s and 1960s. White supremacy exists in the United States, but it is not a significant problem. In fact, as I have reported on Freedom and Reason, in cases of homicide where the perpetrator is a different race than the victim, it is far more likely the perpetrator will be black and the victim white than the other way around. Video evidence of violent altercations indicating racial antipathy of black towards whites is voluminous. In addressing this problem, attention must indeed be focused on the problem of racial thinking. We must recognize that the antiracism rooted in identity politics is a racist ideology; identity politics manufactures racial resentment and antagonize people.
Along with leveraging the shooting to portray the United States as a white power project, the corporate state wants to make this about the availability of semiautomatic rifles. This is a red herring designed to advance the agenda of disarming the population, as well as creating the ability of propagandists to selectively identify ideology in motivation. That second piece allows for the horrific frequency of homicide in black neighborhoods to appear as occurring without human agency and therefore outside the scope of explanation; the fact that the number of those nineteen and younger killed by guns is driven by violence in black neighborhoods is obscured, with gun deaths framed the same way public health officials would talk about injurious and lethal pathogens, except where they can be attributed to the actions of mentally-ill white supremacists.
The AR-15 used in the shooting.
As I have admitted on this blog, I have been wrong in the past on the gun issue, repeating a logical fallacy that disappears the person who is actually the agent or cause of shootings and implying that an inanimate object has agency. The fact is that guns don’t shoot themselves. They’re tools like anything else—a means to an end. To understand the use of any means, we have to determine why the person seeks the ends he seeks. This requires a comprehensive study the root causes that explain why one human being kills another human being. In a large proportion of gun deaths, the shootings are perpetrated by those immersed in drug trafficking and gang society.
But elites don’t really care about why people kill people unless it is useful to the agenda at hand. The irrationalism in the debate over semiautomatic rifles makes it clear the motive of the state in arguing for bans and stricter regulations. More people are killed with feet and hands every year than are killed by rifles. The type of gun typically used in gun violence is the handgun. Yet the focus is on semiautomatic rifles. Why? Because handguns and long guns are not effective in combat against the high-powered weaponry possessed by the federal and state governments, and the corporate state doesn’t want the citizenry to be effectively armed to defend their liberty and their republic.
Everything that has been unfolding over the last several decades telegraphs the desire of the elite to dispense with democratic-republicanism and liberal freedoms and establish a totalitarian system of corporate governance. When they aren’t saying it out loud, the contempt for the American Republic exhibited by progressive Democrats is palpable. The framing of the rare mass shooting involving a white supremacist is amplified by the corporate state and media to heap disrepute on the American republic. The desire to disarm Americans is why it is so vitally important to keep the Second Amendment as free and open as possible.
The importance of indoctrinating children in the ideology of the indoctrinators is so that ideology is felt by the indoctrinated in adulthood as common sense or the ordinary social logic. They don’t even know it’s ideology because it has been put in their heads before they developed abstract and critical thinking. It feels intuitive to them.
Inoculating in the masses the social logic of the indoctrinators is a major part of perpetuating the established hegemony. To be sure, some will escape the indoctrination. But many will not. They will carry the frame that keeps them in darkness their entire lives because early childhood indoctrination structured their cognitive and emotional response with deep-seated assumptions and truisms.
This is why progressives started the long march through the institutions a century ago: to colonize the spaces where they could get easy and exclusive access to the children—doctor’s offices, schools, television programming. Progressives were especially eager to infiltrate the public education system. It’s why public school classrooms are today festooned with the signifiers and symbology of woke progressive ideology.
I’m not here warning you that they’re after your kids. I’m here telling you that they’ve already got them.
Alice Cooper believes that contemporary woke ideology is excessive. He’s in the news for criticizing the trans gender phenomenon. Cosmetic companies who had endorsed him in the past dropped him from the lists of their endorsees. Predictably, Cooper is being smeared as “anti-trans” and “transphobic.” I grew up with Alice Cooper’s music and have understood his politics from early on. Like Frank Zappa (who discovered Cooper and gave him his first record contract), Cooper was uncomfortable with the cultural revolution of the 1960s. For Cooper and Zappa, art, music, and theater are vehicles for the expression of ideas. The cultural revolution was challenging the very liberal framework that guaranteed the freedom of expression.
Cooper is portrayed as conservative and right wing based on his comments. However, Cooper he has identified as a libertarian in the past. Libertarianism is a political philosophy that emphasizes free market capitalism, individual rights, limited government, and personal autonomy. Libertarians are anti-authoritarian and individualist, emphasizing minimal state interference in economic and personal matters. Cooper’s politics have been stable over his decades-long career, and his alignment with libertarianism explains his views with respect to woke ideology. For those of you who follow Freedom and Reason, you are aware that these are also my politics.
AI generated Alice Cooper
I will discuss more politics in a moment, but before I do, a brief biography of Cooper for those who may not know who he is. Cooper, born Vincent Damon Furnier in February 1948, has enjoyed a career spanning several decades as a rock sensation, recognized for his theatrical stage presence, making him one of the most notable figures in the realm of shock rock and rock more broadly. Along the way there was a great deal of gender bending, which was typical in the 1970s. I will dwell on the Zappa connection in Cooper’s early years because of the political affinity between the two artists and the cultural milieu in which both charted a unique path through rock music.
Zappa witnessed an Alice Cooper performance in Los Angeles during the early 1970s. As per Cooper’s account: “We were playing a big party in LA, with The Doors, Buffalo Springfield, Love—all those great bands—and we came on next to last because we were the house band. Everybody in the audience was on acid, of course, grooving on peace and love, and then all of a sudden you hear this DA-NA-NAA-NAAA and there’s these insane-looking clowns onstage. We scared the hell out of these people. They were all on acid, we looked like we’d just come up out of the ground, and we didn’t mind a little violence onstage. That audience couldn’t get out of the room fast enough. It was like somebody yelled ‘FIRE!’ There were three people left standing: Frank Zappa, my manager Shep Gordon and one of the GTOs. Frank said, ‘Anybody that can clear a room that quick, I’ve got to sign.’”
It has been reported that Christine Frka, Zappa’s babysitter (Frka is on the cover of Zappa’s 1969 Hot Rats) proposed that Zappa offer Cooper a recording contract. Alice Cooper’s debut album, Pretties For You, was released on Zappa’s Bizarre Records label in 1969. Their second album, Easy Action, was released on Zappa’s Straight label in 1970. In a 1974 interview, Zappa noted, “We were the first ones to sign them. They existed. I didn’t put them together, but I put out their first two or three albums…. They came to my house and auditioned…. About a year after we signed them they started really costuming it up. But they were always strange.” According to a 1993 Pulse Interview, Zappa was the one who encouraged Cooper to wear women’s clothes on stage. It has also been reported that Frka played a pivotal role in shaping the band’s image.
While many artists during that period participated in the cultural revolution of the 1960s and expressed what today is known as woke progressivism, Cooper and Zappa worked from a different standpoint. Zappa was an outspoken libertarian known for his advocacy of free speech, individual rights, and limited government intervention. Zappa was aggressive in expressing his concerns about censorship, the erosion of personal freedoms, and government control. He was also very suspicious of what I have called the medical-industrial complex. He incorporated political and social commentary into his songs and albums.
Zappa’s testimony before the United States Congress in 1985 during hearings on music censorship, where he defended freedom of expression and criticized the efforts to regulate music content, was a remarkable moment for both politics and music culture. The Parents Music Resource Center, or PMRC, was an American committee formed in 1985 by a group of politically influential women, including Tipper Gore, the wife of then-Senator Al Gore, with the aim of increasing parental control over the access of children to music deemed to have drug-related, sexual, or violent themes. The organization gained attention for its advocacy of labeling music with explicit content and for its push to establish warning labels on albums containing such content.
The PMRC’s efforts were met with criticism from various quarters, including free speech advocates and musicians. The controversy surrounding the PMRC’s activities, including their list of songs with lyrics they considered objectionable, led to congressional hearings in 1985, during which musicians like Frank Zappa and Dee Snider of Twisted Sister testified against the organization’s proposed labeling system and censorship. Zappa’s appearance on the CNN talk show Crossfire in May of 1986 was also notable. During the give and take, he insisted that his problem with PMRC censorship concerned lyrics not the videos and album covers to which the host and other guest kept objecting.
In a recent interview with Stereogum journalist Rachel Brodsky, Alice Cooper discussed his history of challenging gender expectations during performances. However, he noted that some of his fellow theatrically inclined rock contemporaries, such as Paul Stanley from Kiss and Dee Snider, have started expressing doubts about certain aspects of gender ideology. Stanley was criticized for tweeting, “There is a BIG difference between teaching acceptance and normalizing and even encouraging participation in a lifestyle that confuses young children into questioning their sexual identification as though some sort of game and then parents in some cases allow it.”
Snider, was criticized for agreeing with Stanley. “You know what? There was a time where I ‘felt pretty’ too. Glad my parents didn’t jump to any rash conclusions!” After the barrage from gender ideologues, Snider responded, “I was not aware the Transgender community expects fealty and total agreement with all their beliefs and any variation or deviation is considered ‘transphobic.’” He wondered why his “lifetime of supporting the Transgender community’s right to identify as they want and honoring whatever changes they may make in how they present themselves to the world isn’t enough? Why not?”
In asking his question, Brodsky focused on Stanley’s characterization of trans phenomenon as a “sad and dangerous fad.” Cooper agreed with Stanley. “I’m understanding that there are cases of transgender, but I’m afraid that it’s also a fad, and I’m afraid there’s a lot of people claiming to be this just because they want to be that,” he opined. “I find it wrong when you’ve got a six-year-old kid who has no idea. He just wants to play, and you’re confusing him telling him, ‘Yeah, you’re a boy, but you could be a girl if you want to be.’”
Cooper argued that is is perilous not solely for young children but for teenagers as well. “I think that’s so confusing to a kid. It’s even confusing to a teenager,” he said. “You’re still trying to find your identity, and yet here’s this thing going on, saying, ‘Yeah, but you can be anything you want. You can be a cat if you want to be.’ I mean, if you identify as a tree… And I’m going, ‘Come on! What are we in, a Kurt Vonnegut novel?’ It’s so absurd, that it’s gone now to the point of absurdity.”he clarified, “I have respect for people and their individual identities, but I won’t advise a seven-year-old boy, ‘Put on a dress because you might actually be a girl.’” He elaborated, “I believe that individuals should have the opportunity to understand their sexuality before delving into whether they identify as a boy or a girl.”
Cooper argued that he looks at topic “from a logical perspective,” asserting, “If you possess these physical attributes, you are male. If you have those physical attributes, you are female.” However, he contended, “The distinction arises when you express the desire to be of the opposite gender. That’s a choice you can make later in life, if you wish. But you don’t biologically transition from being a male to a female.” His comments were similar to those of Stanley, who wrote, “There ARE individuals who as adults may decide reassignment is their needed choice but turning this into a game or parents normalizing it as some sort of natural alternative or believing that because a little boy likes to play dress up in his sister’s clothes or a girl in her brother’s, we should lead them down a path that’s far from the innocence of what they are doing.”
At one point in the interview, Cooper questioned the popular and organic character of gender ideology. “The whole woke thing,” Cooper wondered. “Nobody can answer this question. Maybe you can. Who’s making the rules? Is there a building somewhere in New York where people sit down every day and say, ‘Okay, we can’t say ‘mother’ now. We have to say ‘birthing person.’ Get that out on the wire right now’? Who is this person that’s making these rules? I don’t get it. I’m not being old school about it. I’m being logical about it.” It is top-down. It reflects the tyranny of the administrative state and the technocratic apparatus. Confusing children about gender is a critical step in reorganizing mass consciousness for future political utility.
In the United States, which was founded as a democratic republic, a situation has developed where rules—not laws—are used as means of ideologically-motivated social control. These rules are devised by bureaucrats, for example, administrators and organic intellectuals in the Department of Education and elite education programs, and imposed on the structure of public instruction through the mechanism of financial control it enjoys—when public schools receive federal funds they are tied to agenda that seeks to push down into the states systems the doctrines of the LGBTQ+ movement. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion is another example of the top-down and administrative character of social control.
None of this is democratic. And it appears everywhere the same, as Cooper noted. It’s rather pointless to record that lockstep form and content couldn’t have happened by accident when we know exactly how and why it happens. Cooper, Snider, Stanley—these artists get what this is about because their main ethic in their lives is freedom of expression. It is how they can be creative. They’re artists. It’s how they can so readily distinguish between theater and the real world. If Zappa were alive I’m confident that he’d say the same thing (several of his lyrics express an antipathy towards the extremes of gendered thinking. Cooper, Snider, Zappa—they all have something in common: they’re libertarian or lean that way (Snider is defender of gun ownership and women’s rights).
Frank Zappa (left), his wife Gayle (pregnant with Moon Unit), and Jimi Hendrix on the intended front cover of the Mothers of Invention’s 1968 We’re Only in for the Money release.
The LGBTQ+ mob wants to lump libertarians in with conservatives and right wingers. They mean to suggest that glam and shock rockers are somehow traditionalist. Libertarians don’t care with who consenting adults have sex or how an adult identifies. All of these figures we’re talking about were gender benders. They’re products of a popular cultural movement in gender bending. What has happened in the meantime that a lot of people want to escape dysphoria by collapsing theater into reality. This is the postmodern character of transhumanism, where the simulation not onto becomes preferable to reality but those born into hyperreality can no longer distinguish between the simulation and reality. A man dressing in women’s clothing is no longer just that but has become an indication of a thing call “gender identity.” A stereotype used in theatrical performances has become the essence of the thing portrayed.
We used to understand the collapse of fantasy and reality in the mind of a person to be the surest sign of mental illness. Today we supposed to know it as the “personal truth” of the “authentic self.”
Have you ever stopped to consider that the wet dream of the cultural left is a BDSM clown world culture where the bottom—the majority—bends over and pleads to the top, “Govern me harder, Daddy. I’m unworthy of your love. Tell me what to believe and how to act. Please? Humiliate me. Make me feel shame. I’m so pathetic and stupid. I’ve been bad and need a good spanking. Harder. Boss me around. Put on the mask. Stick needles in my body. Please? Tell me who I’m allowed to see, where I am allowed to go, what I am allowed to say. I’m wretched. Make me your bitch. I’ll be a good dog. I promise.”
AI-generated interpretation of a BDSM humiliation & degradation clown
The wet dream is beyond palpable, it’s here, expressed in the symbolic imagery pushed by the cultural left. It’s all there. Deployment of emotional stress and psychological control. Discipline and restraint. Age play. Gender play. The drop. Except we are being forced into the munch. There’s no contract. No consent. No safe word. The play party is in our streets. It’s in our schools. It’s even in our churches. It’s in children’s books. Flags and standards and placards. Symbols and slogans. Public meetings where men do woman-face while reading to children delivered to them by parents desperate to virtue signal their devotion to inclusivity, in strip clubs where kinks are performed for children while the little ones stuff dollar bills in thongs, are guarded by TRAs dressed in fetish gear ready to use violence on the vanillas. These scenes are accompanied by grander scenes created by mask and vaccine mandates, lines of cars filled with ball-gagged bottoms waiting to be swabbed and jabbed. Children hormonally and surgically altered.
Masks, social distancing, and preemptive quarantining (lockdown) are crucial pieces in the mainstreamed BDSM project. Sensory deprivation is a BDSM practice that involves intentionally altering, eliminating, or sharply reducing one or more of the senses, such as hearing, sight, smell, taste, and touch. This leads to altered perceptions, which intensify the experience of other activities or dynamics. It focuses the body on the dictates of the top. Sensory deprivation creates an intense psychological and physical experience for participants. In BDSM culture proper, the ethic is that engaging in such activities should always be consensual and negotiated beforehand. But, as it is in struggle and torture sessions (reeducation camps, DEI training, etc.), it is not consensual or negotiated in its application at the mass societal level. Without the consensual and negotiated elements, BDSM is indistinguishable from the struggle or torture session.
There are several forms of sensory deprivation commonly practiced in BDSM including blindfolding, earplugs or noise-cancelling headphones, gags, restraints, and full-body encasement. It doesn’t take much imagination to see their parallels in clown world. It becomes obvious when you distill the principles from the comparative concrete realities. Keeping people from seeing or hearing what’s going on around them enhances the sense of anticipation and vulnerability. Not being able to know what’s going on around the individual puts submerges him into an altered state of consciousness where he is easily conditioned. Blocking out sounds or overloading the subject with information creates a sense of isolation and desire to withdrawal. Restricting the ability to speak leads to feelings of loss of control. Restricting movement, limiting the ability to move freely, boxing in or encasing the body—all of these things put individuals in altered states of consciousness in which they are easily controlled, conditioned, and manipulated.
Millions desperately cling to pandemic conditions
You might think that people would resist being treated this way, but those immersed in this culture are conditioned to seek more sensory deprivation to heighten their experience of being controlled. Under the right conditions fear can become a drug. People will seek out BDSM to feed their addiction. This is why it is vital to stress the importance of human dignity. And this is why the project to control the masses uses degradation and dehumanization to undermine self-regard. Sensory deprivation intensifies the power dynamics between participants and enhance the emotional and psychological aspects of BDSM play. It conditions the subject to develop an abnormal degree of trust between participants, as well as a clearer awareness of a person’s limits and comfort zones. It is a comprehensive system of control.
Who’s behind clown world? The corporate state. The big corporate conglomerates and transnational financial institutions, the administrative state and its technocratic apparatus, the education system, the mass media, the culture industry—the entire system dedicated to moving the population, already designated bottom, into every greater submission by destroying their confidence and filling their bodies with guilt and shame and the desire to be governed harder. The Pandemic—and they’re threatening to bring that wicked device back out—was a demonstration project of the BDSM culture the power elite mean to impose on the people. BLM and Pride Progress are the cultural spear tips of a comprehensive project to transform mass consciousness for the purposes of powerful political economic forces.
We need to pay attention to the question: For whom does the scientist work? If he is a traditional intellectual, then he is likely free to do his work in accordance with the objectives of science. His independence does not guarantee that he knows his art, but it greatly enhances his chances. If, on the other hand, he is an organic intellectual for capitalism, i.e., a scientist working for a corporation or university program/project directed by the business community, then he is likely doing the work of a capitalist firm or industry, which we can see in the areas of chemical manufacturing, energy production, the medical-industrial complex (which includes pharmaceuticals), and the military-industrial complex is performed for the sake of profits not enlightenment.
There are no exaggerations in this meme. It is literally true. All these insane positions are being advanced by elites with tens of millions of true believers falling in line. This should terrify you.
Science has been profoundly corrupted by profit and power. It has become a technocratic means of control and class domination. It is an ideological endeavor. Moreover, programs producing scientists are determined by the cultural, economic, and political needs of the elite. The degrees obtained from leading institutions are often without rigor or substance. It is well known that in many fields the majority of published studies—in peer-reviewed academic journals—cannot be replicated. Bad science is ubiquitous these days—and has been for years. Indeed, in many cases, nonscientists uncorrupted by corporate power or not left ignorant by ideological programming are much better equipped to think objectively and for the general population than are scientists corrupted and specialized.
Democratic-republicanism demands that the people shape policy through their elected representatives. So why are we asked to defer to experts and scientists? The desire that technocrats tell us what to do with our lives lives via the administrative route is a totalitarian desire. People who advocate for the latter are advancing not science but scientism, which is a religious-like ideology masquerading as science. The demand from these people is that we exhibit a faith-like belief in science. But science is the opposite of faith-belief. Science is about reason and evidence. That means that anybody who cares to learn to think in that manner and does the work can do science.
Yes, scientists are human and, as such, corruptible and fallible. But science as an enterprise is corrupted by the same forces that corrupt scientists—to the point where we can no longer trust the institution. (See The Cynical Appeal to Expertise.)
* * *
I expressed this opinion on the Facebook page of another users, which I rarely do. “You are free to believe what you want to believe,” was the response. Yes, of course. At least for now. But then again, are we sure? At any rate, the granting of my freedom was made by somebody who claims a science background. This was my response:
I have been a professional scientist now for almost three decades, a tenured professor for twenty-three years, with published articles (including an award winning paper), chapters, and essays in peer-reviewed journals, university press books, encyclopedia, and other venues. I have presented dozens of conference papers since 1993. Not only have I published empirical research, I’ve been teaching research methods since before my PhD program, and applying my research skills to practical areas, such as large-scale program assessment affecting the lives of thousands of people (the elderly, the addicted).
I told the person that I was only raising my background because she did. By her lights, I should therefore have something relevant to say. I know what I’m talking about—and would even without all those degrees and experience, of course, because I do my own research—and in my judgment she was expressing entirely too much faith in the enterprise. That’s how people get suckered, I noted: “they trust the experts” simply because they are experts (which experts) not because they, the faithful, actually take the time to study the matter under consideration. I stressed that one need not be a credentialed expert. But one needs to know how to do research and learn to tell the difference between “changing science” and an act of lying one’s way out of having been debunked.
As this impacts the lives of everyday people, we could not have had a better example of scientism than the COVID-19 pandemic, which was a disaster precisely because of scientific illiteracy (the technocracy means to keep the public ignorant and make them that way) and trust in experts. Progressive Democrats were especially subject to being fooled, as surveys of their knowledge of disease and death were widely off the mark. Comically so.
For example, on the question of masks, folks kept hearing about research from the medical journals. That’s the wrong field. The right field is industrial hygiene, which shows that masks don’t work (really, common sense could have told people that). Were populations more curious and self-reliant and less obedient—and had institutions not censored and de-platformed those who could have helped people know where to look for reliable information—that would have known that masks were about control not public health. And all the rest of it. We could have en masse debunked the prevailing “science” concerning COVID-19, resisted effectively, and saved countless lives and businesses. (See Masks and COVID-19: Are You Really Protected?)
I concluded my argument with an appeal to my life in scientific research to note that I have had a front row seat to a lot of crackpot nonsense passed off as science for years now. I noted that, presently, humankind are in an era of science denialism—and it’s scientists and the people who trust them who are leading the way out of the Enlightenment. Scientism has a definite politics, which I noted two paragraphs ago. It’s there folks ought to start looking if they want to chart a path back towards the light of truth.
The International Powerlifting Federation (IPF) said in an updated policy document: “For a transgender athlete to compete in the sport of powerlifting at any level, he/she must declare before competing that he/she is a transgender athlete. If an athlete fails to declare that he/she is a transgender and competes that violation leads to Disqualification of the result obtained in that Competition with all resulting Consequences, including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.”
This is being touted as a win for women’s sports. It’s not.
Anne Andres, a trans-identifying man, currently holds multiple powerlifting records in the women’s division
The change in policy was in response to Anne Andres—a trans-identifying man who openly mocks the women against whom he competes—blowing out his competition in Canada last weekend. Anne Andres, who currently holds multiple powerlifting records in the women’s division, set an all-time powerlifting record at the 2023 Western Canadian Championship, hosted by the Canadian Powerlifting Union. The total weight lifted in squat, bench, and deadlift resulted in a final score for Andres of 597.5 kilograms, which was over 200 kilograms more than the closest competitor, SuJan Gill, who finished at 387.5 kilograms.
This isn’t fair. It denies science. It tramples women’s rights. It has to change.
Last month, following other organizations previously (e.g., World Aquatics, World Athletics), a cycling race organization (Union Cycliste Internationale) changed its rules to state that individuals who were born female are only allowed to compete in the women’s category (see The Casual Use of Propagandistic Language Surrounding Sex and Gender). Even the International Chess Federation recently announced a ban on transgender women competing in the female category of the competition (to which Yosha Iglesias, a trans-identifying man, responded ridiculously: “If you want to help women in chess, fight sexist and sexual violence, give women in chess more visibility and more money, Don’t use trans women players as scapegoats. We contribute to the development of women in chess. We are women in chess.”)
But the IPF did not follow suit. Instead, that organization chose to deny the intrinsic difference between genotypes and instituted a rule that does nothing to prevent the violation of women’s sex-based rights. The updated IPF policy document states that trans gender athletes must abide by specific testosterone levels. “The athlete must demonstrate that her total testosterone level in serum has been equal or below 2.4 nanomoles per liter (nmol/L) and/or free testosterone equal or below 0.433 nmol/dL (or at or below the upper limit of normal of a particular laboratory reference) for at least 12 months prior to her first competition.” In other words, men can compete against women in powerlifting as long as they take hormones and steroids to artificially reduce their testosterone levels while allowing all the other physical differences remain in place. That’s right, if they dope they can compete.
Anne Andres (male who identifies and competes as a woman) doesn't understand why female powerlifters are so "bad" at bench press….well idk Anne, but maybe it's because you have 20 times more testosterone than them. Just a thought…. pic.twitter.com/klxd4WaoYc
Men are not women. Men cannot be women. Men have no place in women’s sports. Full stop. Testosterone production is irrelevant. Any organization that moves to address this problem that does not systematically ban men from competing in women’s sports is not addressing the problem. They are participating in a lie.
I was shocked to see Andres’ competitors applauding his ascent to the highest stage during the award of medals. Why do the women celebrate such a thing? Why aren’t they objecting to it instead? Are this many women so brainwashed as to believe a man can be a woman and compete in a female athletic event? Or are they afraid of what will happen to them if they resist the misogynistic project to destroy women’s sports and cancel women’s rights? Is that why so many people are so silent? They’re afraid?
Yes, that must be the case for many people. Because it cannot be that everybody who is silent thinks this is okay. I refuse to believe that that many people could be that confused about objective reality. The gender binary is as solid a fact as gravity. This is to say that the gender binary is among the most fundamental truths of the universe. Indeed, people are afraid. And if they’re afraid to speak the truth about something as fundamental as the gender binary, then what other truths are they afraid to speak up about?
When so many people are afraid to speak the truth, then we know that freedom is not what it should be. The only way to turn back from the journey to totalitarianism is to resist the big lies the totalitarians tell us. I am not trying to shame those who are afraid. I get it. I have been there. But I can’t be there anymore. What one finds living in truth is a very real peace with self. To live a lie is to live in conflict with self. It’s not a good place to be. It’s certainly not good for the girls and women in our lives. By an ally. Stand up for girls and women.
One man’s opinion is that men can be women. Another man’s opinion is that men cannot be women. Of course the second opinion is the correct opinion from a scientific standpoint. But this is no reason to prevent the first man from uttering a falsehood. This is his opinion and he has a right to it. An institution or organization may tell the second man that he is not allowed his opinion because it offends those men who believe they are women, that if he intends to articulate this opinion he will face consequences, which can range from suppression of his opinion in forums where his opinion is relevant and orderly, such as in a science classroom or library conference room, to disciplinary action including termination of employment, but any of these actions against him violate his fundamental rights as a free person, not only his right to his opinion, but his right to his conscience.
AI generated impression of free thought
Both men’s opinions are protected under the fundamental law of this country as codified by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Article One of the US Bill of Rights states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” This article has been fully incorporated in the states by Supreme Court ruling. This article guarantees several fundamental rights: freedom of religion or conscience, freedom of speech and thought, freedom of the press, the right to assemble peacefully, and the right to petition the government for grievances. Implicit in these rights is also the freedom of association.
Both men’s opinions are further protected under the intentional system of human rights, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Articles 18 and 19. Article 18 states “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance.” Article 19 states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
In addition to the UDHR, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) further elaborates these rights and provides a legally binding framework to ensure their protection on an international level. Article 18: “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice, and teaching.” The article continues: “No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.”
Article 19 of the ICCPR states: “Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.” It clarifies that the exercise of the rights articulated in this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; (b) For the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals.”
By rights of others, the article means to clarify that one may not use actions or utterances to interfere with the right of others to freely express opinions in relevant and orderly forums. By reputations of others, the clarification is referencing the problems of libel and slander, a clarification that has been interpreted by many nation-states as applying also to abstractions, i.e., groups based on some shared characteristics, in addition to concrete persons or individuals. Fortunately, defamation laws in the United States pertain to false statements that harm an individual’s reputation. The law in this area focuses on protecting an individual’s reputation from false statements. The application of defamation laws is not directly tied to suspect categories as in the context of equal protection under civil rights law. Overcoming the problem of identity remains part of the struggle for individual liberty in many countries.
Limitations for the protection of national security, while necessary, has been abused severely (in the United States, the federal government classifies tens of millions of documents annually). Restrictions on speech for theprotection of public order is not particularly problematic if understood in terms of a greater appreciation for the freedom of individuals. Protecting the public order curtails the heckler’s veto, as well as allows the state to quell riots.
However, restrictions in the name of public health and public morals are problematic. If certain forms of expression or communication pose a clear and significant risk to public health, governments may argue that restrictions are necessary to prevent harm to individuals or the community at large. An example of this could be the spread of false health information that could lead to public harm. If certain content or communication provides misleading or dangerous advice about health treatments or medical procedures, it might be restricted to protect the health and safety of individuals who might act on that information.
However, the application of the exception is complicated by the corporate takeover and corruption of public health and the substitution of scientism, i.e., science as ideology, for actual science (scientific materialist epistemic). We saw this during the COVID-19 pandemic. The use of public health as a justification for restricting freedom of expression must be subject to scrutiny, which depends on a free republic that observes the rules of free thought and expression, as well as conscience. It’s important for governments to demonstrate that the restriction is proportionate, necessary, and based on genuine concerns, i.e., scientifically demonstrable reasons, for public health, rather than being used as a pretext to suppress dissent or unpopular opinions.
Finally, concerning the issue of public morals, if this pertains to child safeguarding or the protection of individuals used for such purposes, then restrictions on pornography represent an exception to the free speech rule. The classification and regulation of pornography can be influenced by cultural and societal perceptions of what is considered morally acceptable or unacceptable. Different countries and legal systems have varying standards when it comes to defining and regulating pornography. Some countries may view certain forms of pornography as contrary to their concept of public morals and thus subject to restrictions or regulations. These restrictions might be aimed at protecting what the society considers as moral values or preventing potential harm associated with explicit content. The classification and regulation of pornography is a complex and contentious matter, often involving debates about freedom of expression, artistic expression, personal autonomy, and societal values. The balance between protecting public morals and respecting individuals’ rights to expression and privacy can be challenging and varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
A Swiss woman protesting the ban on full-face covering. In 2014, the European Human Rights Court upheld such bans giving governments broad discretion on limiting the display of religious symbols.
One interesting case is the French ban on full face veils, which includes the burqa and niqab (other European countries followed suit). The law was passed in 2010 and prohibits the wearing of full face coverings in public places. The rationale behind this law includes concerns about public security, gender equality, and the preservation of French secularism (laïcité). French authorities argue that the full-face veils hinder identification in public spaces, and the law is also seen by some as a response to cultural and religious tensions in the country. The question of striking a balance between individual rights, such as freedom of religion and expression, which in the case of the burqa and niqab also needs to consider the possibility that this is a coercive practice and not individual expression of conscience, and broader societal considerations, such as those cited by the French state, lies at the heart of the controversy. In addition to the morals question, the application of such laws point to the complex cultural and legal considerations that vary from country to country.
It is vital to recognize United States sovereignty and the integrity of its fundamental law because Article 20 of the ICCPR is more problematic than some of the clarifications to the UDHR offered in the previous two articles. First, Article 20 states: “Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.” I appreciate the sentiment here and war propaganda (any propaganda) is troubling. War propaganda specifically refers to the dissemination of biased or misleading information with the intent to emotionally charge mass consciousness and shape public opinion towards war aims, thus promoting support for or participation in armed conflicts or wars. War propaganda may be employed by corporations, governments, or organizations (usually in tandem) to manipulate public sentiment, build nationalistic fervor, and demonize opponents to justify military actions (whether offensive or defensive).
There are several elements typical of war propaganda. Propagandists misrepresent facts, presenting exaggerated or false information about the causes, intentions, and motivations behind a conflict to manipulate public perception. Propaganda dehumanizes population by portraying the enemy as evil, monstrous, and subhuman to evoke strong negative emotions and justify aggressive actions. Demonization creates a negative and one-sided image of the enemy by focusing solely on selected actions or perceived and manufactured traits while ignoring any context or nuances. Appeals to patriotism, where narratives, slogans, and symbols that invoke a sense of national duty and pride are used to encourage citizens to support military actions for the greater good of the country. Eliciting strong emotional responses from the public through emotional stories, images, or videos that depict atrocities, heroism, sacrifice, and suffering with the aim of rallying support for the war effort is typical.
Obviously there is not free speech protection for governments to lie to their citizens. Governments have powers not rights. Moreover. a core part of war propaganda is censorship and suppression of dissent, which involves controlling or restricting the dissemination of opposing viewpoints, critical analyses, or information that challenges the official narrative of the conflict. Part of this involves official and self-censorship in the form of selective reporting, where incidents and information that align with the desired narrative are shared, while ignoring or downplaying information that contradicts it. It is here that the Article 20 (which moves articles 20 and 21 of the UDHR down the list, here concerning assembly and association) is consistent with Articles 18 and 19 of both the ICCPR and the UDHR. However, many elements of war propaganda are protected by Articles 18 and 19 when uttered by individuals. People alone or assembled have a fundamental right to express sentiments that built nationalistic fervor and demonize enemies to build support for military action. In many cases, such expressions should be condemned; however, outlawing them contradicts the preceding articles.
The same is true for this piece of Article 20: “Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.” Incitement to discrimination refers to actions or speech that encourage or stimulate prejudiced attitudes and practices against individuals or groups based on their national, racial, or religious characteristics. It involves promoting or fostering a climate of bias and inequality that can result in exclusion, harm to, or unequal treatment of targeted groups. This type of incitement goes beyond simply expressing personal beliefs or opinions. It involves actively encouraging or promoting discrimination against others, often by spreading misinformation about individuals or groups, negative stereotypes, or fueling hostile attitudes. The goal of incitement to discrimination is to create an environment where the targeted groups are unfairly treated or marginalized.
Expressing derogatory remarks or offensive language about a particular ethnicity, gender, nationality, race, or religion with the intention of demeaning or belittling members of that group is often coded as hate speech. Propagating harmful stereotypes about a certain group that can lead to prejudiced attitudes and discriminatory behavior is therefore potentially an offense under Article 20 of the ICCPR in countries without strong protections of conscience and speech.
Promoting actions or policies that intentionally exclude certain groups from participating in cultural, economic, political, or societal activities based on their national, racial, or religious identity, i.e., encouraging the separation or isolation of different groups in society based on their characteristics, leading to unequal treatment and opportunities, as well as urging others to engage in discriminatory practices, such as not hiring individuals from a specific ethnicity or religion, denying them access to certain services, or treating them unfairly in various contexts—all these are potentially legally actionable if Article 20 is enforced. It is in this understanding of fundamental law that many European countries, such as France and Germany, find the basis for passing hate speech laws.
Muslims have a right to express their heterosexist and intolerant views under these articles, as well. What Muslims do not have a right to are practices that oppress members of their group or individuals outside their group—nor do they have a right to laws that restrict the speech that may incite discrimination or hostility towards them. Discrimination in practice may be problematic, as we have seen with France’s restrictions on face coverings (I struggle with the ban on full face coverings), but discrimination in practice is a far cry from incitement to discrimination. The latter is subject to criticism and even condemnation, but it cannot be subject to criminal prosecution.
All that said, the legitimate relevance of the ICCPR and the UDHR to the fundamental law of the United States notwithstanding, international law, while demonstrating the universality of the basic premise of freedom of thought and conscience, at least among the rational nation-states (Muslim-majority countries rejected the UDHR for fear that it would undermine Sharia, i.e., Islamic law), the national sovereignty of the United States makes the First Amendment and the Supreme Court’s rulings concerning that article the final say on the meaning and scope of these rights, articulated there in their highest form, demonstrating the genius of the Founders of the United States Republic.
Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) was an Austrian neurologist and pioneering figure in the fields of psychology and psychiatry, renowned for his revolutionary theories that reshaped scientific and popular understanding of the human mind. Born in Freiberg, Moravia (now part of the Czech Republic), Freud’s innovative ideas and concepts, such as the interpretation of dreams, the structure of the unconscious mind, and psychosexual development have left an indelible mark on modern psychology and continue to influence the study of human behavior and emotion and the complexities of the psyche.
Sigmund Freud’s early career and his theory regarding the role of child sexual abuse in causing neuroses are crucial aspects of his development as a pioneering figure in the field of psychology. Freud’s ideas evolved significantly over time, and his later work diverged from initial notions. However, too little attention is paid to Freud’s early work and the reasons why he moved away from his theory concerning child sexual abuse during their period. In this brief essay, I explain why. Crucially, it was not because of the rational development of his thought. Rather, it was because of cultural and political pressure he endured in his surroundings and professional life in the late nineteenth century.
Sigmund Freud circa 1885
In the late nineteenth century, Freud was working as a neurologist and psychiatrist, exploring various topics related to the human mind. In the late 1890s, he began to consider the idea, which he developed from observation of patients under hypnosis, that repressed sexual experiences, particularly those from childhood, might play a significant role in the development of pathology, including neuroses. He theorized that repressed memories could resurface in the form of symptoms of psychological distress. The point of psychoanalysis was to bring these repressed memories to the awareness of the consciousness mind so that the patient could deal with them forthrightly.
Freud’s initial views on the causation of neuroses were centered around child sexual abuse as a potential trigger. In “The Neuro-Psychoses of Defense” (1894), Freud introduces the concept of defense mechanisms as a way individuals protect themselves from distressing thoughts and feelings. This becomes a cornerstone of Freud’s later psychoanalytic theory. However, it is also a key part of his early work on child sexual abuse. In an unpublished manuscript, penned some time around 1895, in what is sometimes referred to as “seduction theory,” Freud considers the possibility that his patients’ accounts of childhood sexual abuse were significant factors in the development of their neuroses. He proposes that experience plays a role in the formation of unconscious conflicts and symptoms.
In his 1896 paper “On the Aetiology of Hysteria,” Freud presents case studies of patients with the condition and proposes that their symptoms might be linked to unresolved sexual experiences from their past. He expresses his belief that patients’ reports of childhood sexual abuse experiences were key factors in understanding their mental health issues. In “Sexuality in the Aetiology of Neuroses” (1898), Freud continues to develop his thoughts on the role of early sexual experiences in the causation of neuroses. He discusses the complex interplay between sexual factors, traumatic events, and psychological symptoms.
These papers were met with skepticism in the psychiatric community. Indeed, his ideas became quite controversial. Obviously, one of the factors that led to the rejection of Freud’s early theory was the prevailing cultural and societal norms of the time. Discussing child sexual abuse was taboo. Freud’s seduction theory challenged these norms and thus were met with resistance from both colleagues and the wider society. He was a young professional and the controversy threatened to derail his career.
At the time, Krafft-Ebing (1840-1902) was an influential Austro-German psychiatrist and pioneering researcher in the field of psychology, renowned for his significant contributions to the study of human sexuality and mental disorders. Krafft-Ebing, who coined the term “sexology” (as well as “sadism” and “masochism”) focused his work on describing various sexual behaviors and paraphilias rather than on the developmental aspects of neuroses. His most famous work is the 1886 Psychopathia Sexualis which established him as the leading expert in the field. Krafft-Ebing shared the overall conservative attitudes of the psychiatric community of that era, which, combined with the societal taboos surrounding sexuality, contributed to Freud’s ideas being met with skepticism and rejection.
From Krafft-Ebing’s private photography collection
Due to the challenges and skepticism he faced regarding his initial theories, Freud underwent a significant reevaluation of his approach. He shifted the focus from external factors, such as childhood sexual abuse, to internal mental dynamics and conflicts. While he initially believed that women suffering from hysteria and neuroses had experienced sexual abuse, he later began to consider that these patients might have developed fantasies in the context of their early sexual development. These fantasies, even if not grounded in real events, could still generate unresolved intrapsychic conflicts. But the idea that they were so grounded faded from his work. This transition marked a pivotal point in Freud’s work, leading to the development of his psychoanalytic theory and its dissemination.
Freud indicated the shift in his thinking in “On the Aetiology of Hysteria.” There he proposed that certain neurotic symptoms in his patients might not necessarily be tied to actual experiences of sexual abuse, but could also be linked to unresolved psychological conflicts, fantasies, and unconscious desires related to sexual development. Freud continued to develop and refine these ideas in subsequent works, such as the 1905 collection of three essays “The Sexual Aberrations,” “Infantile Sexuality,” and “The Transformation of Puberty.” In these essays, he introduces the concept of infantile sexuality and suggests that all humans go through different stages of psychosexual development in childhood. (It is in these essays that Freud theorizes sexuality as a continuum ranging from heterosexuality to homosexuality.)
We now know that as many as one in five individuals worldwide has experienced some form of childhood sexual abuse. This can include a wide range of abuse, from unwanted sexual comments or touching to more severe forms, such as rape. Because childhood sexual abuse is underreported due to factors such as fear, shame, and stigma many cases go undisclosed, leading to an incomplete understanding of the true prevalence. Regardless of prevalence, it is well-established that childhood sexual abuse carries profound and lasting impacts on individuals’ mental, emotional, and physical well-being. These effects may extend into adulthood and may contribute to various psychological and interpersonal difficulties. (See my essay What is Grooming?)
Needlessness to say, on this point, Freud was not a profile in courage. At the same time, as we have seen up close in our own time, the consequences for telling the truth about matters the powers-that-be want people to lie about can be severe. The obvious example is gender ideology. Telling the truth about gender, that there are only two and that humans cannot change their’s (no mammal can), can result in cancellation, demotion, deplatforming, and disciplinary action. Forcing people, especially those who occupy places of authority, as Freud did as a prominent neurologist, to deny the truth and accept an obvious lie is a function of power. Had Freud stuck to his original conclusion that hysteria and neuroses often had child sexual abuse and child sexualization at its core, our understanding of these problems, as well as the problem of grooming, would be much further along. It might have carried a child protective function given Freud’s reputation. Then again, the man might never have had a reputation had he stuck to his guns.
The major work concerning Freud’s and his shift way from his original theory is The Assault on Truth: Freud’s Suppression of the Seduction Theory, penned by psychoanalyst Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson in 1984. Masson had a front row seat to Freud’s transformation, serving as Projects Director at the Sigmund Freud Archives, where he had access to several unpublished letters written by Freud. Masson contends that Freud intentionally withheld his early proposition (seduction theory) that hysteria stems from sexual abuse during childhood. Masson asserts that Freud suppressed the hypothesis due to his reluctance to accept that children could fall victim to sexual violence and abuse within their own families. Masson also argues that Freud worried that his seduction theory would lead to a reluctance in the field to accept his psychoanalytic theory and method. My contention is that Freud’s reluctance was, at least in part, due to his awareness of the consequences for advancing such a claim. Freud was rightly concerned for his career path and reputation.
Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson (1941-)
Masson himself felt cultural and political pressure for his argument. The book was met with unfavorable, even hostile reviews, with several critiques cloaking politics beneath a dismissal of Masson’s interpretation of psychoanalytic history. Within the field, reviewers categorizing the book as the latest installment in a series of assaults on psychoanalysis, emblematic of the prevailing reaction against Freudian. Notably, Masson’s conclusions found support among certain feminists. However, predictably, with the rise of gender ideology, which puts central to its politics the sexualization of children, a movement that has since become embedded in western institutions, Masson’s proposition that children possess inherent innocence and lack of sexuality was especially offensive—and potentially harmful to movement objectives. With child sexualization having become a major part of the sexual revolution, unfolding during the 1960s and 1970s, Masson was perceived as an organic intellectual for the reaction against the sexual revolution that marked the 1980s.
“Individuals need not believe all these mystifications, but they must behave as though they did, or they must at least tolerate them in silence, or get along well with those who work with them. For this reason, however, they must live within a lie. They need not accept the lie. It is enough for them to have accepted their life with it and in it. For by this very fact, individuals confirm the system, fulfill the system, make the system, are the system.” —Václav Havel
Hat tip to Wesley Yang @wesyang on X (formerly Twitter) for alerting me to this June 2018 Goggle business entry: “Adding ‘LGBTQ-friendly’ and ‘Transgender Safe Space’ attributes on Google My Business.” The entry gives a business owner a way to add woke slogans to his web site, actions that will ingratiate him not only to the woke subaltern, whose narcissism feeds on the obsequiousness of others, but to his superiors, the men who control the fate of his business and career. Before getting to the businessman’s superiors, let’s pay attention for a moment to the express intent of attaching to one’s business woke slogans and symbols.
“There’s little that compares to the feeling of walking into a place and being immediately comfortable—your shoulders loosen, your breathing slows, you physically relax, knowing you can be yourself. Finding those spaces has often been hard for the LGBTQ+ community. We want to help celebrate those spaces of belonging and make them easier to find,” the Google entry instructs its users. “One way to do this is with small businesses, which are an important part of any community. Business owners can mark their businesses as ‘LGBTQ-friendly’ and as a ‘Transgender Safe Space’ on their Google listing to let customers know they’re always welcome. These attributes appear on a business’ Google listing on Maps and Search.” The entry neatly appeals to the popularity of making this move into woke sloganeering: “Your business can join the more than 190,000 businesses globally that have already enabled the ‘LGBTQ-friendly’ and ‘Transgender Safe Space’ attribute.” (It is certainly many tens if not hundreds of thousands more since then.)
Why has everything gone woke these days? ESG scores.
Here is BlackRock CEO Larry Fink along with the CEO of AmEx explaining his desire to “force behaviors” (2017): pic.twitter.com/wCoeoJBD8x
I shared the tweet above in mu June 2023 essay The Politics and Purpose of Affirming the Person. The Chair of Asset Management and CEO of the transnational investment management and financial services firm BlackRock, Inc., Larry Fink, brags about establishing and his campaign to legitimize in the corporate world Chinese Community Party style social credit systems that compel corporations to conform to political-ideological agendas. BlackRock can do this because the firm manages eight trillion dollars in assets. In the clip, Fink touts the firm’s project to force behavioral change through financial reward and punishment.
The Corporate Equality Index, popularly known as the CEI-score, published by the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBTQ+ political lobbying group in the world, drives business to BlackRock which then concentrates wealth and power under its transnational governance structure. The CEI isn’t the only social media score used. The principle of ESG, or environmental and social governance, is another benchmarking construct used by BlackRock and other firms. These powerful firms demand from corporations who seek investment funds that they conform to the terms of these social credit systems they control and delegate.
The Human Rights Campaign is one of the organizations socializing the idea that business owners should be compelled to act in bad faith by punishing them for, among other things, failing to affirm the chosen gender identities of other persons. We see other projects in, for example, Black Lives Matter. “But it is not your responsibility to affirm anybody’s subjective identity,” I assert in The Politics and Purpose of Affirming the Person. If you are obligated to affirm the myth of systemic racism, then you know you do not live in a free society. “Rules that tell you must affirm or validate the subjective projections of others—that is, rules that punish you for refusing to participate in affirming the desires and delusions or others—are inherently tyrannical.”
In his 1978 essay “The Power of the Powerless,” Václav Havel, the Czech playwright, essayist, dissident, and statesman who played a pivotal role in the peaceful transition of Czechoslovakia from totalitarianism to democracy (such as it is), provides the template for understanding the postmodern character of oppressive power, a manifestation of power that operates by giving those under its thumb a way to adapt to tyranny while maintaining their dignity. Havel regards the need for dignity as an innate trait of human being. This trait is leveraged in compelling individuals to impose upon themselves and others the structure of power by supplying them with For the purpose of adding LGBTQ-friendly slogans and symbols to one’s business is not to make people feel welcome, but to signal one’s obedience to the power structure.
In this entry, save for a short concluding paragraphs, I share passages from Havel’s essay without further commentary. These passages are easily translatable to our current circumstances. If you remain unsure about why these passages apply to your situation living in the West, read more Freedom and Reason.
Václav Havel (1936–2011)
“A specter is haunting Eastern Europe: the specter of what in the West is called ‘dissent.’ This specter has not appeared out of thin air. It is a natural and inevitable consequence of the present historical phase of the system it is haunting. It was born at a time when this system, for a thousand reasons, can no longer base itself on the unadulterated, brutal, and arbitrary application of power, eliminating all expressions of nonconformity. What is more, the system has become so ossified politically that there is practically no way for such nonconformity to be implemented within its official structures.
…
“The manager of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: ‘Workers of the world, unite!’ Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moment’s thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean?
“I think it can safely be assumed that the overwhelming majority of shopkeepers never think about the slogans they put in their windows, nor do they use them to express their real opinions. That poster was delivered to our greengrocer from the enterprise headquarters along with the onions and carrots. He put them all into the window simply because it has been done that way for years, because everyone does it, and because that is the way it has to be. If he were to refuse, there could be trouble. He could be reproached for not having the proper decoration in his window; someone might even accuse him of disloyalty. He does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life. It is one of the thousands of details that guarantee him a relatively tranquil life ‘in harmony with society,’ as they say.
“Obviously the greengrocer is indifferent to the semantic content of the slogan on exhibit; he does not put the slogan in his window from any personal desire to acquaint the public with the ideal it expresses. This, of course, does not mean that his action has no motive or significance at all, or that the slogan communicates nothing to anyone. The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message. Verbally, it might be expressed this way: ‘I, the greengrocer XY, live here and I know what I must do. I behave in the manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace.’ This message, of course, has an addressee: it is directed above, to the greengrocer’s superior, and at the same time it is a shield that protects the greengrocer from potential informers. The slogan’s real meaning, therefore, is rooted firmly in the greengrocer’s existence. It reflects his vital interests. But what are those vital interests?
“Let us take note: if the greengrocer had been instructed to display the slogan ‘I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient,’ he would not be nearly as indifferent to its semantics, even though the statement would reflect the truth. The greengrocer would be embarrassed and ashamed to put such an unequivocal statement of his own degradation in the shop window, and quite naturally so, for he is a human being and thus has a sense of his own dignity. To overcome this complication, his expression of loyalty must take the form of a sign which, at least on its textual surface, indicates a level of disinterested conviction. It must allow the greengrocer to say, ‘What’s wrong with the workers of the world uniting?’ Thus the sign helps the greengrocer to conceal from himself the low foundations of his obedience, at the same time concealing the low foundations of power. It hides them behind the facade of something high. And that something is ideology.
“Ideology is a specious way of relating to the world. It offers human beings the illusion of an identity, of dignity, and of morality while making it easier for them to part with them. As the repository of something suprapersonal and objective, it enables people to deceive their conscience and conceal their true position and their inglorious modus vivendi, both from the world and from themselves. It is a very pragmatic but, at the same time, an apparently dignified way of legitimizing what is above, below, and on either side. It is directed toward people and toward God. It is a veil behind which human beings can hide their own fallen existence, their trivialization, and their adaptation to the status quo. It is an excuse that everyone can use, from the greengrocer, who conceals his fear of losing his job behind an alleged interest in the unification of the workers of the world, to the highest functionary, whose interest in staying in power can be cloaked in phrases about service to the working class. The primary excusatory function of ideology, therefore, is to provide people, both as victims and pillars of the post-totalitarian system, with the illusion that the system is in harmony with the human order and the order of the universe.
“The smaller a dictatorship and the less stratified by modernization the society under it, the more directly the will of the dictator can be exercised. In other words, the dictator can employ more or less naked discipline, avoiding the complex processes of relating to the world and of self justification which ideology involves. But the more complex the mechanisms of power become, the larger and more stratified the society they embrace, and the longer they have operated historically, the more individuals must be connected to them from outside, and the greater the importance attached to the ideological excuse. It acts as a kind of bridge between the regime and the people, across which the regime approaches the people and the people approach the regime. This explains why ideology plays such an important role in the post-totalitarian system: that complex machinery of units, hierarchies, transmission belts, and indirect instruments of manipulation which ensure in countless ways the integrity of the regime, leaving nothing to chance, would be quite simply unthinkable without ideology acting as its all-embracing excuse and as the excuse for each of its parts.
…
“Ideology, in creating a bridge of excuses between the system and the individual, spans the abyss between the aims of the system and the aims of life. It pretends that the requirements of the system derive from the requirements of life. It is a world of appearances trying to pass for reality.
“The post-totalitarian system touches people at every step, but it does so with its ideological gloves on. This is why life in the system is so thoroughly permeated with hypocrisy and lies: government by bureaucracy is called popular government; the working class is enslaved in the name of the working class; the complete degradation of the individual is presented as his ultimate liberation; depriving people of information is called making it available; the use of power to manipulate is called the public control of power, and the arbitrary abuse of power is called observing the legal code; the repression of culture is called its development; the expansion of imperial influence is presented as support for the oppressed; the lack of free expression becomes the highest form of freedom; farcical elections become the highest form of democracy; banning independent thought becomes the most scientific of world views; military occupation becomes fraternal assistance. Because the regime is captive to its own lies, it must falsify everything. It falsifies the past. It falsifies the present, and it falsifies the future. It falsifies statistics. It pretends not to possess an omnipotent and unprincipled police apparatus. It pretends to respect human rights. It pretends to persecute no one. It pretends to fear nothing. It pretends to pretend nothing.
…
“We have seen that the real meaning of the greengrocer’s slogan has nothing to do with what the text of the slogan actually says. Even so, this real meaning is quite clear and generally comprehensible because the code is so familiar: the greengrocer declares his loyalty (and he can do no other if his declaration is to be accepted) in the only way the regime is capable of hearing; that is, by accepting the prescribed ritual, by accepting appearances as reality, by accepting the given rules of the game. In doing so, however, he has himself become a player in the game, thus making it possible for the game to go on, for it to exist in the first place.
“If ideology was originally a bridge between the system and the individual as an individual, then the moment he steps on to this bridge it becomes at the same time a bridge between the system and the individual as a component of the system. That is, if ideology originally facilitated (by acting outwardly) the constitution of power by serving as a psychological excuse, then from the moment that excuse is accepted, it constitutes power inwardly, becoming an active component of that power. It begins to function as the principal instrument of ritual communication within the system of power.
“The whole power structure (and we have already discussed its physical articulation) could not exist at all if there were not a certain metaphysical order binding all its components together, interconnecting them and subordinating them to a uniform method of accountability, supplying the combined operation of all these components with rules of the game, that is, with certain regulations, limitations, and legalities. This metaphysical order is fundamental to, and standard throughout, the entire power structure; it integrates its communication system and makes possible the internal exchange and transfer of information and instructions. It is rather like a collection of traffic signals and directional signs, giving the process shape and structure. This metaphysical order guarantees the inner coherence of the totalitarian power structure. It is the glue holding it together, its binding principle, the instrument of its discipline. Without this glue the structure as a totalitarian structure would vanish; it would disintegrate into individual atoms chaotically colliding with one another in their unregulated particular interests and inclinations. The entire pyramid of totalitarian power, deprived of the element that binds it together, would collapse in upon itself, as it were, in a kind of material implosion.
“As the interpretation of reality by the power structure, ideology is always subordinated ultimately to the interests of the structure. Therefore, it has a natural tendency to disengage itself from reality, to create a world of appearances, to become ritual. In societies where there is public competition for power and therefore public control of that power, there also exists quite naturally public control of the way that power legitimates itself ideologically. Consequently, in such conditions there are always certain correctives that effectively prevent ideology from abandoning reality altogether. Under totalitarianism, however, these correctives disappear, and thus there is nothing to prevent ideology from becoming more and more removed from reality, gradually turning into what it has already become in the post-totalitarian system: a world of appearances, a mere ritual, a formalized language deprived of semantic contact with reality and transformed into a system of ritual signs that replace reality with pseudo-reality.
…
“The profound crisis of human identity brought on by living within a lie, a crisis which in turn makes such a life possible, certainly possesses a moral dimension as well; it appears, among other things, as a deep moral crisis in society. A person who has been seduced by the consumer value system, whose identity is dissolved in an amalgam of the accouterments of mass civilization, and who has no roots in the order of being, no sense of responsibility for anything higher than his own personal survival, is a demoralized person. The system depends on this demoralization, deepens it, is in fact a projection of it into society.
“Living within the truth, as humanity’s revolt against an enforced position, is, on the contrary, an attempt to regain control over one’s own sense of responsibility. In other words, it is clearly a moral act, not only because one must pay so dearly for it, but principally because it is not self-serving: the risk may bring rewards in the form of a general amelioration in the situation, or it may not. In this regard…, it is an all-or-nothing gamble, and it is difficult to imagine a reasonable person embarking on such a course merely because he reckons that sacrifice today will bring rewards tomorrow, be it only in the form of general gratitude.”
…
When a state has as much power and control over a population as the corporate state currently possesses, nothing happens by accident. The application of power may feel arbitrary, the actions of leaders capricious, but the phenomena of experience are not accidental. Your task as a person who wishes to be free is to acquire a theory that will explain the structure and process of power as clearly and thoroughly as possible and wield it to show others power’s purpose. If freedom is not what you wish, then you’re part of the structure and process of power, however incidental to it. A person who does not desire freedom terminally is either a tyrant or a useless person, that is an idiot. The latter is of course not useless to the tyrant; the tyrant depends on the idiot. The idiot is useless to those whose struggle is against tyranny.
Just in case folks were thinking this teacher’s dismissal was unwarranted, Katie Rinderle, formerly an employee of Cobb County School Board in suburban Atlanta, released a statement through the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), the disreputable organization that helped represent her, confirming the absolute necessity of jettisoning her from the classroom—and hopefully this occupation. (For more on the SPLC’s efforts to defend indoctrination in public schools, see my recent essay Southern Poverty Law Center Defames Parents Invested in Safeguarding Children.)
Cobb teacher Katie Rinderle, right, embraces a recent Harrison High School graduate, after a Cobb County school board meeting Thursday, Aug. 17, 2023 in Marietta, Georgia. The school board voted to fire Rinderle, who read a book about gender identity to fifth grade students.
“The district is sending a harmful message that not all students are worthy of affirmation in being their unapologetic and authentic selves,” Rinderle said in the statement. “This decision, based on intentionally vague policies, will result in more teachers self-censoring in fear of not knowing where the invisible line will be drawn.”
In March, Rinderle had read to the children of Due West Elementary School the picture book My Shadow Is Purple by Scott Stuart. The color purple is achieved by mixing blue and pink, colors representing the gender binary that gender ideology, rooted in postmodernist nonsense, denies. Stuart fallaciously claims that a person can be both or neither. Here’s the link to My Shadow Is Purple on Google books. Note the gender stereotypes. Gender ideology depends fundamentally on stereotypes. (See Simulated Sexual Identities: Trans as Bad Copy.)
The opening pages to Scott Stuart’s My Shadow Is Purple
Parents rightly complained. The board’s Republican faction of four members cast their votes in favor of terminating Rinderle. On the opposing side, three Democrats voted against her dismissal following an unsuccessful attempt to postpone the voting process. A panel of retired teachers had recommended against dismissal (no surprise there). Superintendent Chris Ragsdale had recommended termination.
“It’s impossible for a teacher to know what’s in the minds of parents when she starts her lesson,” her lawyer Craig Goodmark said. “For parents to be able, with a political agenda, to come in from outside the classroom and have a teacher fired is completely unfair. It’s not right. It’s terrible for Georgia’s education system.”
There is no invisible line. Rinderle, who must understand how impressionable children are (indeed, those who brainwash children depend on it), and furthermore must have understood what the point of Stuart’s book (or otherwise prove herself too stupid to be a teacher in the first place) sought to indoctrinate her students—other people’s children—in the perverse notion of gender fluidity. Goodmark raises the specter of an outside political agenda. He means the agenda of parents safeguarding their children from sexualization. Is that political? But Rinderle is self-evidently pushing an outside political agenda, namely that of gender ideology. (Linguistic Programming: A Tool of Tyrants.)
Why is the notion of gender fluidity perverse? Gender is a fact of natural history. One is either male or female. One cannot be both or neither. This is nothing more false than this claim. For many people, their god made children either a boy or a girl ( Sex and Gender are Interchangeable Terms). In the view of science, the gender binary is the result of mammalian evolution. The gender cult stands in opposition to both systems—as well as and for this reason to the interests of children. If a child feels he is moving between genders he may be on the path to being a gay man. Or perhaps he will be bisexual. Maybe he will be an effeminate heterosexual. To confuse the child by substituting the fallacious construct of gender identity for his expression of sexuality, or for the non-problem of gender nonconformity, is a violation of the boy’s human rights (see Neutralizing the Gender-Detection Brain Module; Denying Reality: The Tyranny of Gender-Inclusive Language; Why I am Not “Cisgendered”). It is not the job of the teacher to shape the sexuality of children.
“The district is pleased that this difficult issue has concluded; we are very serious about keeping our classrooms focused on teaching, learning, and opportunities for success for students. The board’s decision is reflective of that mission,” the Cobb County district said in a press release. That’s the job of a teacher in a public school: teaching, learning, and student success. In a free society, public education is not a system of reeducation camps. Rinderle believes it is. She acted intentionally to expose her students to a crackpot premise for the purpose of confusing them. She said it herself: she wants to teach “affirmation” in “authentic selves.”
To be sure, the notions of gender fluid and nonbinary identity are inauthentic for the reasons explained above. But it’s not the job of teachers to “affirm” children’s “authentic selves” any more than it’s the job of teachers to audit children help them find the thetan inside their bodies or to preach to them about Jesus to save their souls from eternal damnation (see Dianetics in Our Schools). Rinderle works from a crackpot ideology that has damaged the lives of countless young people, confusing them about nature, turning them against their parents, putting them on a path of hormone treatments and surgery, a vast and explicit scheme, pushed by the government, to transform them into permanent clients of the medical-industrial complex. (See Making Patients for the Medical-Industrial Complex; Disordering Bodies for Disordered Minds; Feeding the Medical-Industrial Complex.)
Teachers like Katie Rinderle are functionaries of an ideological project that not only delivers primary commodities to the contemporary equivalent of Nazi doctors (I’ve been calling for a Nuremberg 2.0), but is designed to disrupt the normal understanding of children as a step in undermining western civilization, which progressives believe is illegitimate (cisnormative, heteronormative, white supremacies, etc.), to allow backwards ideologies—Islam and a myriad of lesser indigenous belief systems, as well as fallacious notions of implicit race bias and systemic racism—to overwhelm rational systems of thought necessary for human rights and individual liberty. This is a political project as much as it is a profit opportunity. And for that reason, Rinderle lost her job. She was the one with the political agenda. Good riddance.
freedom and reason 