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?
At the bottom of the page I update the blog with information on the minors at the event. I provide the flier to the event which readers can see does not announce any age restrictions. I am attempting to verify the age of the female who received the lap dance, but we do know that minors were stuffing dollar bills in the underwear of the performers and you can see children in the video.
* * *
This morning I shared on Facebook a Fox News story about a drag queen straddling what appears to be a girl at North Carolina public school in front of a crowd of adults and what appear to be (and sound like) teenagers. I thought I should share it here, as well, as my Facebook is for friends only. The school, Forsyth Technical Community Colleges, enrolls students as young as 14 years of age. You can read about the event here.
Drag queen at North Carolina community college (image from Forsyth Tech’s Facebook page)
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? Well, this is a man sexually touching a girl in front of other children. Why does it become something else when the man is portraying himself as a woman? It doesn’t.
Even if we assume this is a woman, it changes nothing legally. What would change matters legally is if the person in the chair were an adult in a room full of adults, albeit still not an event appropriate for a public school. Yet we do know that drag queens speaking and behaving provocatively in front of children can be found in public school classrooms and in public libraries. So this is not a one off affair. It’s an instantiation of a widespread practice.
What’s the point of sexual displays and touching children in front of children? You might be asking yourself what this is all about. I can tell you: it’s a transgressive act by those seeking to disrupt the normative rules concerning boundaries between adult sexual activity and children.
This is not an interpretation. First, it’s obvious what this is even if you are not well-versed in the doctrines of gender ideology and queer theory. Second, queer theory, its origins in anarchist politics and postmodernist epistemology, carries central to its praxis the transgression of societal rules it regards as oppressive. Age of consent laws are put in place by the oppressors—the white, heteronormative, cisgender majority. According to the doctrine of intersectionality, individuals who lie at the intersections of oppression enjoy a privilege to break the rules. This is a feature of postmodernist critical theory across the board.
This is what the drag queen controversy is about. Those who support the practice support the sexualization of children. In fact, for organizers, that’s their goal. Rank and file progressives are gullible followers seeking strokes (which doesn’t excuse their actions). The leaders of the project are open about what they are up to. In a video posted to social media, shared above, RuPaul calls on his followers to vote out “stunt queen” politicians (his term for those passing legislation protecting children from sexualization and indoctrination) while describing drag queens as the “Marines of the queer movement.” Let that last phase sink in. Let it sink in in light of what happened in Nashville, Tennessee earlier this week.
What you are witnessing in this video is framed by the adherents to queer theory as an act of social justice. Actually, it’s a paraphilia. The powers-that-be are normalizing and mainstreaming sexual fetishes performed on and in front of children. I shared this story on Facebook and a friend wondered if the man in drag got a hard on. “Or whether he got great joy over humiliating a girl whose desire for virtue made her an easy target of his misogyny,” I responded. Maybe both. I am sure misogynists get hard over humiliating girls and women in public.
* * *
Update: Invitations to the drag show hosted during Pride Fest at Forsyth Technical Community College went out to students as young as 14 years old. Fliers advertising the performance did not include any minimum-age requirement to attend. Two high schools are attached to Forsyth Technical (which is located in Winston-Salem, North Carolina). The school’s chief officer of student success, Paula Dibley, confessed: “Parents of children under 18 were not notified of this event in advance.” Witnesses have reported that minors were seen “tipping” drag performers during the event. As the video pans around the room, children no older than elementary school age can be seen in the crowd.
The corporate state media is reporting that Florida charter school principal has been forced to resign after a parent complained sixth graders were exposed to pornography during a lesson on Renaissance art that included Michelangelo’s David.
Michelangelo’s David
This framing does not accurately convey what happened. The principal stepped down because of a failure to properly notify parents about what their school was exposing children to. It was not just one parent who objected. Others objected to the failure to provide an opportunity for informed consent, a fundamental principle of ethics in free and open societies.
I believe the failure to inform was an error. But it happened. What else had the school failed to inform parents about? I don’t think the principal should have resigned. Parents were upset. This could have been a learning moment for the school. Instead, the school board punished the principal.
The statue of David is arguably the greatest instantiation of Renaissance sculpture and a projection of the humanist ideals I hold dear. It was created by the artist Michelangelo between 1501-1504. It depicts the biblical hero David who, with a stone from a sling, rendered unconscious the giant Philistine warrior Goliath and then beheaded him with his sword. The sculpture is renowned for its lifelike representation of the human form and its exquisite detail.
From its inception, the statue was controversial for its nudity. At the time of its creation, many people considered the depiction of nudity in art to be inappropriate and scandalous. Some believed that Michelangelo had gone too far and that it was an affront to public decency. Despite this, the statue of David was eventually placed in a public square in Florence, Italy, where it has been on display for more than half a millennium. The statue is still controversial for its nudity today. While many object to its nudity, others see it as a celebration of the human species. I hold the latter opinion. At the same time, I recognize the right of parents to make their own determination about whether their children see depictions of male genitalia.
It is important to understand that the objection to David is not exclusively a Christian phenomenon. There are Jewish parents who object to David because he is not circumcised. They find the imperialistic Christianization of a Jewish patriarch offensive and wish to shield their children and communities from seeing this. There are Muslim parents who object on the grounds that Islamic aniconism forbids the depiction of holy figures. Remember, David is also a patriarch in Islam (in this version of the myth Dawud defeats Jalut with a single stone from his slingshot). Singling out Christians represents a narrow understanding of the issue—and a deliberate one, as I will discuss in a moment.
As readers know, I am an atheist. As I intimated in a recent blog, I have in the past identified as an anti-theist. My lack of faith notwithstanding, in a free society, one that protects religious liberty, freedom of conscience, and recognizing the central role the family plays in civilizational matters, parents are within their rights to exercise authority over their children and complain about curricular matters and pedagogical techniques when these contradict the tenets of their faith (see here). It doesn’t mean that all their demands should be heeded. These are, after all, public schools in a secular society. But this isn’t a communist or fascist society where the state is the parent. Parents have a role to play in the development and practice of public instruction.
Because we live in a free society where informed and voluntary consent is a core value, parents are often confronted with permission slips making sure they know the nature and risks of activities their children may be involved in. At my children’s school, a progressive school, I had to sign a form allowing my youngest to participate in Junior Achievement (one of the many forms I signed concerning a variety of activities), which, because it was an exercise in pro-capitalist indoctrination, and given the number of lefty and socialist parents there, the school felt an important step. I appreciated that. At the same time, I was upset that Junior Achievement was allowed into my son’s second grade classroom in the first place. I know why second graders are targeted by corporate propaganda. Obviously not everybody agreed with me. And, so, the propaganda show went on. Without my kid. (You can read about this here.)
It is also important to understand that modesty is not something unique to Christians. The Chinese have modesty rules and pixelate and cover statues. Jerusalem has refused to accept as gifts certain statues because they are nude. Orthodox Jews have a strong sense of modesty and cover things. Muslims have strict modesty rules, as well. Christians aren’t any more prudish in this regard. There are busybodies to be found in most if not all religions. Christians are not the only ones concerned about the sexualization of children, either. As an authority on the problem of child sexual abuse, I have problems with the sexualization of children. It’s the level of anti-Christian bigotry that marks the current period that singles them out for special treatment. I say this as no lover of Christianity—or any religion or religious-like ideology.
We live in a religiously plural society. The Bill of Rights protects religious belief and expression. Perhaps we allow too much. We allow parents to surgically alter their male children’s genitalia (see here). We allow parents to force their female children into restrictive clothing early in life (see here and here). I get no traction in raising concerns about these practices. But parental concern about the sexualization of children seen in parents wanting to know what their children are being exposed to isn’t analogous to the things we allow that violate the child’s personal freedom in often permanent ways. There is plenty of time and opportunities in life to see nude statues, read books about gender ideology, and view pornography. And it was not as if in this case the kids couldn’t see David. Some parents simply wanted to be notified first. (See here, here, and here.)
Again, the issue here was the failure to properly notify parents. Indeed, this case would be unremarkable but for the current political climate. Progressives are endeavoring to make this incident about the alleged backwards and intolerant character of Christian conservatism in order to advance the project to make education a black box and proliferate spaces where the development of children is disrupted by exposure to age-inappropriate content (see here and here). This case is being linked to the legislation and policy being rolled out in states across American requiring schools to open to the public curricular content and pedagogical strategies, in particular the reforms of Ron DeSantis, the governor of the state of Florida. Progressives are weaponing this and other cases to thwart the parental rights movement.
I remember a time when liberals and leftists insisted on transparency in public institutions, and involvement of the community and parents in the education of their children (see here). This author of this blog, who is a liberal and a leftist, still does. However, liberals and leftists are in short supply these days. And so it is up to conservatives to take up the cause and reclaim and restore the proper relationship of the family to the state characteristic of a liberal republic. Far from being backwards and intolerant, the push by conservatives to restrict and even dismantle the administrative state and technocratic apparatus that progressives have captured and direct at the behest of corporate power reflects of the revival of democratic-republican desire and liberal values. The populist-nationalist aspirations this movement portends is a welcome development for those who love liberty and their children. Indeed, whether they know it or not, conservatives are preserving the traditions of the Enlightenment in their darkest hour.
“Decisions are always difficult when they involve conflicting needs and rights between different groups, but we continue to take the view that we must maintain fairness for female athletes above all other considerations. We will be guided in this by the science around physical performance and male advantage which will inevitably develop over the coming years. As more evidence becomes available, we will review our position, but we believe the integrity of the female category in athletics is paramount.” —Sebastian Coe, President of the World Athletics Council (WAC)
“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.” —George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four
WAC president Sebastian Coe during a press conference on March 23, 2023.
National Public Radio (NPR) reports that the governing body for international track and field will bar trans women athletes from elite competitions for women. The council’s policy, which goes into effect at the end of this month, focuses on athletes who “transitioned from male to female after going through puberty as a male.”
The false claim that individuals in our species can change their sex is typical of NPR’s anti-scientific standpoint, a standpoint we see has also affected Scientific America and other progressive-captured media outlets. Unfortunately, this language is also in the WAC’s verbiage. This is embarrassing given what Coe has said appealing to “the science around physical performance and male advantage.” However, presumed in the statement, the WAC recognizes that such persons remain male and retain those biological advantages regardless of their self-proclaimed gender identity.
NPR reports that the WAC plans to form a working group to consider the issue of “transgender inclusion” over the next year. The committee will speak with trans athletes to seek their perspective, review research on the matter, and submit recommendations to the council. Presumably, the working group will speak only with males who live as women, for reasons I explain in a moment, as well as the specific reference to “transgender women.”
“At the center of the issue is whether transgender women athletes have a physical advantage over other female competitors, even after lowering their testosterone levels. But there is limited scientific research involving elite transgender athletes — which the council also acknowledged,” opines Juliana Kim of NPR. After suggesting that the WAC is “without strong evidence of an advantage,” she continues, “World Athletics Council said that they have conducted their own research over the past decade and that they found there can be an impact in performance. Several international groups including the Human Rights Watch have called the council’s evidence flawed.”
What evidence could possibly negate the observation that, on average, males have many and obvious advantages over females in physical sports? (See Fair Play for Women for a comprehensive review of the differences.) Why is “inclusion” so important that we must deny what we can see with our eyes confirmed by every piece of scientific evidence that, while these are overlapping distributions, on every metric relevant to physical sports the average is widely disparate? We might need to remind the religious-minded that we are as a tenet of human rights free not to live in their worlds. However, we and they have to live in the real one.
Common sense matters, too. By this, I mean the obvious uncontroverted by some underlying fact. If there is so little difference between males and females, then we should expect to see that insignificance working in both directions. If being male provides no advantage in women’s sports, then being female provides nodisadvantage in men’s sports. So why aren’t females who live as men dominating men’s sports? Where are the trans men football players leading NFL teams to the Super Bowl? Where are the trans men boxing champions? Who really believes that will ever happen?
I am sure a reader will come back with a counter example in some sport. But anecdotes don’t contradict general truths. Moreover, on an ethical plane, and safety issues aside, the ability of a female to compete against men is different than males competing against females for the obvious reason that only one of these genotypes as an average advantage over the other.
Men can live as women. Most people don’t care (I do see in the face of compelled speech, harassment, suppression, and violence growing numbers of people reverting to an uneasy tolerance). But let’s not forsake fairness and thwart women in the pursuit of the dreams of a handful by pretending that trans women and women are the same thing in track and field and other sports. One is a male and the other is a female. That’s a result of natural history. The human species is a species of great ape and, like the other great apes, there is considerable sexual dimorphism between the the genotypes, which are always only two. Sex is not a social construct. Sex is a scientific reality. It exists independent of culture, politics, and social history.
There is a tricky issue when it comes to intersex conditions (e.g. Caster Semenya). But on the question of trans gender, this is not a complicated matter. One does not get to move from an average athlete to an exceptional one by changing genders. Or maybe one does, if the power elite decide that “transgender inclusion” is more important than fairness in athletic competition. What is the point of athletic competition? Why segregate sports at all? As I wrote a few days ago in the blog The Casual Use of Propagandistic Language Surrounding Sex and Gender “Maybe it’s time to end sex segregation in sports. If authorities are not going to recognize the biological differences between men and women, then why put women at a distinct competitive disadvantage in divisions that were created specifically for them in order to level the playing field? Just eliminate women’s sports altogether and let individuals compete regardless of sex. Why all the pretense about hormone levels and such? Abandon any pretense to science altogether and just throw individuals into the arena and let the best person win.”
The framing of NPR reporting reveals that state media (which should be public media) has been captured by progressives who are determined to push a cultural and ideological agenda rationalized by the crack pot theories of academic elites and political activists that have come to dominate popular discourse. Without the power of the corporate state behind them, these “theories” would remain outside the boundaries of acceptable scientific discourse. In light of the power of the corporate state, my greatest fear is that these ideas will corrupt science so thoroughly that it will become difficult for people to know what science is anymore, erasing centuries of progress in enlightenment. Elites will simply appeal to ideology that pretends to be science (scientism) and the masses will shrug their collective shoulders.
freedom and reason 