By Rubashov
Is it the ACLU’s fault? Or is it the people who fund them who have changed?
We all remember how the ACLU stood up for Freedom of Speech – even when it meant protecting that freedom for people with whom they had absolutely no sympathy. It was the ACLU who famously set the parameters of First Amendment protections in the 1970’s, when the organization defended the right of the American Nazi Party to march through Skokie, Illinois, a town chosen by the Nazis for its ethnic and religious make-up. Placing their loathing of the Nazis aside, the ACLU stood with the American Bill of Rights to argue that the Nazis had the right to transgressive speech – the right to knowingly offend.
Of course, transgressive speech is the very foundation of comedy, and there was some wisdom in the suggestion that we laugh at the Nazis, their silly uniforms, and that flag. Better to laugh at them, to tolerate them, than to become them, so the wisdom went.
But times have changed.
The ACLU is under pressure from the people who fund it, from its donor class, as are politicians from all parties and persuasions. There is a new public religion and it is in the process of driving out its competition from the public square.
And just as transubstantiation demands that its believers accept that bread and wine is changed into flesh and blood, so in this new religion, a person with a penis can be made woman. It is mystical, faith-based, beyond debate or reason. It is religion.
Central to this new religion is a persecution myth. Just as the early Christians had their martyrs and their festivals of remembrance, this new religion has its Stonewall, its AIDS epidemic, its accounts of martyrdom. The carnality of it – the sex – is all scrubbed from the accounts. The public face of this new religion is Neo-Victorian in its use of language – “No Sex, please” – this is all about “Love”.
Proselytizing to children is central to all religions, but especially so to groups who make the oppression of the faith central to their ideology. This was so with Jim Jones, David Koresh, the “Children of God” cult, and many others. Did they not all operate under the banner that children be sexualized at the earliest possible moment? Did they not preach endlessly about “Love”? That “Love is the Answer”, “Love is Love”?
Sex is as addictive as tobacco and like the sellers of cigarettes (or narcotics) they like to get them while they’re young. So they come for the children. Public libraries host “drag queen story hours” for little children, with readings by folks with names like “Lil Miss Hot Mess”. Isn’t “hot” an explicitly sexual term? School curriculums now include such varied activities as “condom races” – in which 10 and 11 year-old girls compete to be the first to put a condom on a model of an erect adult male penis. All watched by their male classmates. Magazines like Teen Vogue – specifically marketed to children – argue that prostitution is just a job, work like any other, with no moral or psychological concerns whatsoever.
This is all part of this new public religion. So a new law, signed by Governor Phil Murphy, mandates the teaching of people from history based on how their alleged sexual practices conform to one of a series of letters (LGBTQ…). It’s a rather shallow way to teach, for how can the endless ways in which human beings order their lives really be bound and categorized by a half dozen letters – or indeed, a thousand?
Within the last few days, a School Trustee in Hackensack had the temerity to express an opinion on the new mandate that failed to conform to the new public religion. In response, Garden State Equality (GSE) – the “LGBTQ” equivalent of Hezbollah – went all jihadist on the trustee, demanding that she be forced into submission or made to resign and shunned thereafter.
An email from GSE made it clear that they weren’t stopping with her: “It’s imperative that each and every education official across New Jersey understands that our curriculum law must be faithfully implemented.” Each and every. There is no place for religious dissent.
A GSE supporter reached out and noted that the trustee in question used the term “repugnant” to describe “the LGBTQ lifestyle.” The term is generally used when describing something that the user finds “distasteful” or that the user is “incompatible” with. It must be noted that many of our fellow human beings do find such sexual practices as oral or anal sex “distasteful” and that they are “incompatible” with same.
We are not speaking here for Phil and Tammy Murphy, or Valerie Vainieri Huttle, or Jim Tedesco, or Gordon Johnson, or Loretta Weinberg, or indeed for the other politicians who have condemned the use of the term “repugnant.” What they find “tasteful”, what they are “compatible” with, what their appetites bend towards is entirely their business. And we would defend their endorsement of oral or anal sex as much as we defend the right of others not to enjoy such things. Whatever floats your boat, as they say.
But expressing one’s sexual preferences, one’s choice, is not welcome by the new “public” religion. Blank conformity is what is expected. Every public statement, written or spoken must conform. The new religion allows no public expression of older religions. All must conform… or they will be made to conform.
Having gained significant cadres amongst elites in government, the media, in education, and with One-Percenters who control the corporate world, the new religion is attempting a top-down takeover of the public square – bullying out older religions, forcing compliance and general conformity of expressed opinion. They seem to forget that Americans are contrarian by nature. Nonconformity is the way with us and we will continue to practice it, even while being oppressed and punished for doing so.
Of course, this is another reason why they want our children. But then they forget that generations of Soviet indoctrination did not extinguish the seed of traditional faith in Russia or in Eastern Europe.
This is an interesting topic that should be debated openly and honestly. Instead, jihadists like Garden State Equality are concerned only with bullying and banning public dissent. They don’t care if people dishonestly mouth those allowed saccharine platitudes, so long as they mouth them.
Instead of punishing questioning minds, why not debate them? Before we allow government – in service of the new public religion – to continue to sexualize children, why not have an open and honest debate on the subject?
Maybe a group like the Center for Garden State Families or the New Jersey Family Policy Council will set up a series of open discussions on the Murphy administration’s sexualization of young children. Then they can invite folks like Senator Loretta Weinberg and Assemblywoman Valerie Vainieri Huttle to explain what they like and don’t like – and how they came to embrace the new religion (HINT: Check their campaign finance reports, and you will know why).
Before the Murphy Democrats force one more unfunded mandate on the property taxpayers of New Jersey… have an open and honest debate about their need to sexualize children.
