A MUST-LISTEN: “transgenderism is being pushed under an anti-bullying policy.”

Thank you, Paula Deist and Lew Rockwell.

This is a must-listen discussion over how gender issues are taking over the conversation at public schools.  

Schools shape the hearts and minds of children.  Most American children attend public schools. 

1.  Kids are graduating from school without a real love or appreciation for America, or the United States, as a special place.
2.  Kids are graduating as practical atheists.
3.  Transgender ideology has created this watershed moment in public education.  

Transgender ideology has created this watershed moment in public education.  Most kids go through public schools, and in the past it has been one of those formative experiences that has in some ways brought people together but what we’re seeing is that the public school of today is not the same public school of perhaps “the people of the parental generation went through” or even the public school they sent their older kids to.  What we’ve seen in people’s lives is the gender issue.  You say in your book, talking about gender ideology and why it’s a watershed moment in public education, you say, “These activists regard opposition to their agenda as morally equivalent to opposition to racial equality.  They would no more compromise with us than they would compromise with segregationists.”  That statement really struck as far as the power of this ideology. 

“Yes, that’s absolutely true, and what we’re seeing is, in terms of the way policies are being written in school districts, there is no dissent that is allowed because transgenderism is being pushed in under an anti-bullying policy.  And you’re not allowed to be a bully ever in any school situation, public school, private schools . . .  So when parents come and want to opt their kids out of transgender ideology and some of the more offensive lessons, they’re told they can’t because you can’t opt out of an anti-bullying lesson.  And I think that is one of the things that parents don’t seem to realize.”  8:28

Yeah, but I think an important part of that too it’s not just teaching kids to be nice; we know how to do that.  And nobody wants kids to be bullied.  But I think that anti-bullying programs become a gateway to talk about transgender ideology and to change the understanding of who we are as persons, and that’s the real problem.  They introduce definitions, they teach kids they have to affirm things that are not true.” 8:53

“Get out now and not give up,” a statement in response to the demoralized state of education today.  

I was telling a friend that schools no longer are in the service of showing the value of western values or western civilization in a historical context or a comparative one; instead, schools are instructing kids to judge white people in places of authority as racist against, say,  a student from Sri Lanka or Montreal.

We want to stress that there are a lot of good people at school, great teachers, great administrators, great families, and great kids.  The administrators wear a straitjacket. They’re not free, if they’re people of faith to be people of faith in the public schools, to express a viewpoint about which programs are moral or not.  We’re not condemning people who are in the public school community; there are many wonderful people there.  Parents know their kids best.  We’re trying to bring forward information that every parent should know.  11:14

Unfortunately, her feelings don’t count.  More than that, the courts are starting to say, “You shouldn’t feel uncomfortable.”  That’s wrong of them to think that.

One example was of a female principal who showed up to school one day with a man’s name.  How can a student challenge her lie?  The principal now insists the school and student population address her as Mx. instead of Mr. or Ms. or Mrs.  Even if the parents are teaching them the truth about the person at home, at school they’re taught to accept a lie.  Kids are at the mercy of public opinion.  Principal changes the pronoun and then comes the next day with a male pronoun, like Mx. instead of Mr. or Ms.  So even if the parents are teaching them about the people at.  Schools will have a “Day of Silence for LBGT” or a “Day of Solidarity” where kids will hang up rainbows everywhere.  Hard for a kid not to have a rainbow on your locker.  Rainbows on lockers to show alliance.  How hard it is for a kid to not have a rainbow on their locker.  Kids suffer consequences for affirming what is a lie.  Some of these kids are coming to school as part of their gender transition and their 504 Letter of  Medical Necessity that require accommodation.   Using pronouns as medically necessary for the child’s mental, physical and emotional well-being.  Schools can’ t tolerate any child who doesn’t affirm, for they run the risk of running afoul of the 504 programs.  19:47


To qualify for a 504 Plan, a student must have a disability that affects a major life function. That disability does not have to be one of the 14 categories outlined by the Department of Education.  It can be any mental or physical disability.  That disability has to impact a “major life function.”  Unlike an IEP, a “major life function” does not have to be an educational impact.

Remember this: Accept Satan’s money, and you have to do Satan’s bidding.  Accept the state’s money to provide free education, and you will receive an unholy education.  Public schools work to ensure one thing: equality.  It starts with inclusiveness.  Can’t leave “No Child Left Behind.”  It gives a whole new depth to the meaning of shallow.  

This is Socialism 101.  It desires to make each person equal.  No one can be different.  Worse, it can take decades to purge your student of the horrors of these 4 years.  I made the case before.  Education is not so much about accumulating information or knowledge but rather it is the subtraction of wrong assumptions and errant views.  Don’t harm your child by putting them in a classroom with a Social Justice Warrior who willingly does the state and district’s bidding so long as their failed lives and private demons are allowed to give voice to how terrible this country has been to them and how it and its history is responsible for theirs and their parents’ failures.    


On This Day, July 3, in 1988, the United States Navy . . . Oh, God . . .

Shot down Iranian Air, Flight 655. 

Thanks to Robert Wenzel at Target Liberty.

MoonofAlabama explains how the U.S. claims were false,

On July 3, 1988, the guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes shot down the civil Iranian Flight 655 with 290 people on board. The U.S. claimed that the plane’s transponder was signaling an Iranian military identification code, that it was seemingly attacking the Vincennes, that the ship warned the plane 12 times, and that the ship was in international waters when the incident happened.

The crew of the Vincennes received medals for killing the Iranian civilians.

Investigations showed (pdf) that all the above claims were false. The shootdown was intentional. Iran sued the US in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) over it. The case was settled in 1996 when the U.S. agreed to apologize and to pay $61.8 million to the families of the victims.

“Goodnight everyone except Antifa criminals who I plan to sue into oblivion”

Now, this is an attorney.

Thanks to Dale Steinreich at Lew Rockwell.

And this is an attorney’s statement.  From Harmeet K. Dhillon . . . 


“The newsman will never ask the question, ‘What are we doing there in the first place?'”

Sandy Winnefeld is on the Raytheon board of directors, and CBS News doesn’t bother to tell you that.  CBS News doesn’t think that’s important for you to know that he makes money off of war.  That’s exactly what I’m talking about.  Do you see how these people have no integrity; they’re the worst people in the world.  That’s why there on TV giving you the news.  Do you think they’d have someone like me giving you the news or Ralph Nader or Aaron Mate or Glenn Greenwald or Max Blumenthal or anybody with a conscience?  No.  

When did Jimmy Dore become the one-man anti-war movement in the United States?

Thanks to Lew Rockwell.

We’re in international waters next to Iran?  What is the U.S. doing spying on Iran?  Iran is not an economic competitor?  And if the U.S. were at all concerned about nuclear weapons or their proliferation, why pick on Iran?  Aren’t there lots of other countries to worry about, like Pakistan, India, N. Korea, and others?  Iran is not hostile to the U.S., but the U.S. certainly has made it their mission to bury Iran and put its people in hell with the U.S.’s economic sanctions.  

Whether it’s Raytheon or Jimmy Dore’s source, the information contradicts the other’s story.  Dore’s source says that Winnefeld is on the Board of Directors of Raytheon, but Raytheon states on their Biographical page that Winnefeld actually works for Omni Air International.  

Mr. Winnefeld has been a director of the Company since 2017.  Admiral Winnefeld served as the ninth Vice Chairman of the Joint Chief’s of Staff prior to his retirement in 2015.  His 37-year career in the U.S. Navy includes having served as Commander, U.S. Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) and Commander, North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD).  Admiral Winnefeld’s operational commands include serving as Commander, U.S. Sixth Fleet and Commander, Allied Joint Command Lisbon.  Mr. Winnefeld currently serves on the Board of Directors of Omni Air International, Enterprise Holdings, Inc., Cytec Defense Materials, and Alliance Laundry Systems LLC< all privately held.   

Is Eugenics Central to Globalism (i.e., Socialism)?

Thanks to Amazing Polly

Globalists are doing the same things in countries around the world, that’s a sign that we have come under a central planning authority way off in Brussels with things like bike lanes, transgender bathrooms, it’s not normal.  The controllers in Belgium want to rule the world, they want to be the government for the world. 

Has to do with harmonizing tax regimes, tariffs, and different standards across the world for food safety, for environmental safety, for labor relations, for criminal justice–they want it harmonized all over the world.  Eugenics is central to globalism.  Canada is racing to take this further with children.  Canada is trying to redesignate children as “capable patients” so that they can kill themselves without parental authority through “medically-assisted death.”  When you hear these nice-sounding terms to refer to murder, think of George Orwell and how the state lies by distorting the meaning of words  Think about what is happening in your local schools where schools and districts override parental authority on abortions or vaccines.  This is Globalism 101.   And they have plenty of foot soldiers.

Just as the mainstream press is in the death throes of their existence thanks to internet journalism, so too are globalists going to war against nationalist leaders.  And so it is that globalists have grown more desperate in their attempts to insert murderous values into nations to effectively kill off nation states.  Eugenics is one of their platforms.   

Canada was the first post-nationalist country.  

Immigration is part and parcel of the globalists’ agenda.  Globalists are both democrat and republican.  Those supporting open borders are globalists.  Those decrying the poor treatment of immigrants at the border detention centers are globalists.  

A country without borders.  

A country with no rules.  

A country that doesn’t have a national identity

On Globalism, Gary North wrote in 2016

The handwriting is on the wall. A terrifying phrase is scrawled symbolically on the walls that separate the globalists from the masses: “national sovereignty.” The elite rely on globalism to maintain their power. Globalism is being challenged by a resurgent national sovereignty — at long last. A century of backroom deals among globalists is being challenged. The League of Nations was a paper tiger from day one. The United Nations has power only when the USA provides the troops to back up the UN’s blue helmets. The real power is in the high-rise buildings that house the faceless bureaucrats who issue regulations.

No nation has to obey these regulations. The Brits finally figured this out this year. They told the EU in fine British fashion: “Bugger off!” This attitude is spreading.

National Organization for Women has opposed every single shared parenting bill proposed in the United States.

Unless the evidence is overwhelming immediately, then you give both parties the benefit of the doubt.

Here are Tom Woods’ notes for the show.

from the 18:37 mark:
Toxic masculinity is a set of norms and expectations placed on men that are detrimental to men or to the people around them.  So that would include stoicism, aggression, violence, promiscuity, all kinds of things like that.  One of the things that’s most interesting about the entire toxic masculinity concept is that a lot of it is based on they call it a conformity to “masculine norms inventory” that was developed by James Mahalik.  And how he put this together was that he brought together by a focus group of his grad students and, keep in mind that this inventory is about the norms and expectations that are imposed on all men by a dominant group of men which is straight white men.  You know those are the dominant group that we perceive in society, or that feminists say are dominant in society imposing their values on everybody else. 

So you had this focus group of three women, two men of color, and one white man.  And they did some brain-storming sessions and found some traits, and then they put them to a larger body of people, to say, do you think this an expectation placed on men, this, this, this, and this?  Well, one of the most interesting things is he wrote a paper on how he developed this inventory and in it he references a book for one of the norms we call playboy, which would just be promiscuity, you know, being able to score.  And he referenced a book on masculinity to justify this being in the inventory, right, and in that book they had surveyed a whole bunch of men from all kinds of different cultures and asked them “What they find intrinsic to their sense of masculinity, how they feel about themselves, whether they’re a real man or a good man, and the majority of the respondents answered being a faithful partner, right, more than 50% said being a faithful partner was intrinsic to their masculinity.  Being nurturing to those around them was also a majority said that this was intrinsic to their sense of masculinity.  And playboy?  One percent.  One percent of men said that that was important to their sense of self-worth as a man.  Playboy made it into the masculine norms inventory but being nurturing and being a faithful partner did not.  And you know why because women can be and are expected to be faithful partners, and women can be and are expected to be nurturing, and therefore it’s not a masculine norm.  And you can see the pattern over time, with these inventories because Mahalik’s was not the first one, that year after year, they prune out anything . . . on the basis that women can be courageous and are expected to be courageous, so that’s no longer a masculine norm–get rid of it–right, get it off the inventory.  So they whittled all the good stuff and now it’s what they consider to be masculinity, in general, is almost, more than half negative traits.  So there’s that.  And you know, on top of it, I always look at traits on a spectrum, right, a spectrum based on the intensity of the trait and based on whether it’s constructive or destructive in its expression.  So you can have something like aggression.  Well, we honor our police officers, we honor our military, we just honored the men who died to bring us freedom and you know had the D-Day thing and that ceremony in France at the beaches of Normandy.  We have all of those ways of honoring aggression because we understand that sometimes aggression is sometimes constructive.  So to just use the word aggression and violence and say that it’s 100% bad and wrong that’s really not productively to deal with those kinds of traits.  Anything taken to an extreme and used in an immoral or unethical way can be a negative thing, including passivity.  

Woods:  What did you mean by the expression “toxic feminity”?  

Oh, toxic feminity you know one of the best parts, the most telling part of toxic feminity is their trend toward plausible deniability.  My often sort of describe it through Lady MacBeth.  You know she did not go and stab King Duncan.  She shamed and harangued and nagged her husband to do it when he was having second thoughts, what did she do–she questioned his manhood.  She essentially said, “I’m more of a man than you are.”  That’s what she did in the play.  She undermined his masculinity in order to coerce him into doing something that she wanted him to do because she was hungry for power above her station, right, and I think Shakespeare got that part right but I also think what he got wrong was I don’t think she would have killed herself out of guilt over it.  

It is.  Yeah, she would have attached herself, once everyone was dead, including her husband, she would have attached herself to one of the most powerful man left standing and then told him a sob story about how her husband abused her, and how he was crazy, and how he killed King Duncan, and he made her go along with the whole thing . . . .  Warren Farrell, Dr. Warren Farrell has written a whole bunch of books on men, masculinity, boys, just came out with one called The Boy Crisis recently, one of his, my favorite quotes from him is “Women’s greatest strength is their facade of weakness and men’s greatest weakness is their facade of strength.”  And I think that’s where you really have the Ying and yang of masculinity and feminity.  That women can leverage the perception of their vulnerability to do some really crazy things.  When you actually put it in layman’s terms, when you actually take something like a false allegation, right, and you put in terms that–in slightly different terms–that remove the distance between the woman and what happens to the man that she’s accused, so if I was mad at my boyfriend, which I often am, thank you very much, but if I was mad at him and I wanted to punish him and get him out of my house, I could try and rough him up, try and tie his hands together, walk him down the basement, put the key on the shelf, and leave him down there for a few days until he’s learned his lesson.  And I’d be guilty, if I could do it, I’d be guilty of a whole string of violent felonies.  I could call a couple of my male friends and do all of those things on my behalf, let’s rough him up, lock him in the toolshed for a few days and he’ll be good and sorry and he won’t make me mad anymore.  And, uh, we’d all be guilty of all of those felonies and conspiracy, right, but if I call the police and tell them he’s been hitting me, they’ll come and do all of that stuff for me, they’ll rough him up a little, cuff his hands, put him in a cell for a few days until he’s good and sorry and learned his lesson, and all that I am technically guilty of is lying to police.  


Yeah.  And that’s the danger of toxic feminity.  And the fact that women don’t necessarily understand that they have this power.  In one case, where a young woman, maybe like 18, 19 years old, she lied to her friends at a pub and you know, pointed at a guy who she was not happy with–he didn’t want to date her or something–and she lied to her friends and told her friends that he had raped her.  And then after they had all went home, her friends got together and plotted to beat this 18-year-old boy to death, which they did–savagely beat him to death.  And, uh, she’s sitting on the stand, saying, I had no idea anything like that would happen.  

Oh, my G–

And I’m thinking, you just told a bunch of people he raped you. 


I mean do you think this kind of stuff doesn’t happen?  You had no idea it could happen?  No, it happens, right, and it’s because it’s such an emotionally kind of crime, kind of accusation and that’s all based on the reason it takes in that kind of response so much more often than any other accusation because of the perceived sexual vulnerability of women, right? 

You know, this brings to mind, there’s actually a couple of more things I want to raise with you, but this one’s kind of a big one and you could do a whole episode on it, but I’m gonna see if you can summarize it somehow because it’s tricky–and that is the simple question of the word feminism, because I know people, let’s say young that are not like ideologues, they’re not subscribing to all the different implications of the word feminism today, what they mean by feminism is they just want to have opportunities, and I want the same opportunities to me that are available to men, and I don’t like the presumption that has existed or a lot of time that the–well, for example, the church will have a special camp for the boys but yeah we don’t have anything for the girls this year.  You know, that’s just stupid, we just want the girls to have a fair shot at things and that’s the way they look at it, and that’s the way that they think feminism is.  So when you hear people like that–who just think that feminism is just common sense, so if somebody goes around, talking about the toxicity of feminism, this must just be an incorrigible chauvinist.  What would you say to that? 

Well, I mean, first off, I would suggest that any woman who I call these women sort of coffee-shop feminist, right, they’re feminists in name only, and you know, like I said, they will have bought into that mainstream feminist narrative, sort of one-sided oppression, enslavement, and subjugation of women throughout all of eternity while all men were sitting around smoking cigars and living like kings, apparently, you know, most people have bought into that to one degree or another.  I would essentially . . . I really hate that there are women out there that use the word feminism and don’t buy into all of that stuff, right, they don’t buy into the whole rape culture narrative, and they don’t buy into the idea that domestic violence is always about men beating their wives and never the other way around and all of these other issues, these gendered narratives that we have, thanks to feminism largely, they may have always existed to one degree or another, but feminism has entrenched them in law and policy to a degree that did not exist before, so I would say to them to just call yourself an equalist or an egalitarian, I mean that’s really what you are if you really just want to have the same opportunities as men.  And I would, I often talk about new people, “Oh, you’re an antifeminist.  What’s up with that?” I just start talking about how the National Organization for Women has opposed every single shared parenting bill proposed in the United States.  Most of the time they’re successful in blocking that legislation.  They want to maintain the sole custodial and visiting parent model because that overwhelmingly favors mothers in terms of custody and marginalizes fathers.  And it maintains levels of child support because it’s usually based on if you have the kid all the time, you get more child support than if you only get the kid half the time, right, so all of these things that feminists have “Oh, you know, we want things to be equal, you know, we want things to be equal but NOT this thing.”  You know, you just sort have to look at it, um, things like sexual coercion and sexual violence–not as one-sided as you would think.  Women are perpetrators more often than a lot of people would ever suspect.  Men are victims much more often than people would ever suspect.  And when it comes to the consequences of being violated sexually, sure, I think that there’s probably a more intense, immediate emotional trauma felt by women who are violated by men than the other way around but when you’re actually looking at 15-year-old boys who are having their paper route garnished because the adult woman who statutorily raped him and who went to prison for it, got her child, got custody of her child when she got out and went on welfare and the state is now collecting child support from this kid, right, like those are the kinds of consequences when men get careless or allow somebody or are in a position where somebody is able to take advantage of them in that way.  You know, I’ve seen ah, there was a case in the U.S. of–they were two doctors, believe it or not–and he refused to have any kind of reproductive, vaguely close to reproductive sex while they were dating because he didn’t want any kids before marriage and he wasn’t sure he wanted to marry her, so they were not even having protected heterosexual intercourse.  They had oral sex one night, and after he, you know, shoot, got up and went to the bathroom, and she inseminated herself with semen from the oral sex, got pregnant, and was awarded child support.  And these were all facts before the court, right, there was no question about whether she actually did this, no, the court said, yeah, no, we found that she did this.  It doesn’t matter; he has to pay.  Right, so these are the kinds of risks that men, and consequences, that men have to deal with and we’re not even looking at the situation in such a way as to admit that men can be sexually violated by women, period, right?  One of the most astounding things about one of these statutory rape cases of child support is the prosecutor, or, no, I think it was the DA of the city in question, made a comment to media, he was 14 at the time that the sex occurred, and he said, “Well, he wanted to act like a man then, but now he wants to be a kid, huh?” 

Oh, boy! 

Yeah.  Like absolutely no sympathy whatsoever.  I’m just blown away by this, and, you know, one of the reasons why, even now, after a whole bunch of research most people don’t know that the sexual victimization of men by women, you know, however, it happens, whether some woman took advantage of a passed-out or drunk man who’s drunk out of his mind or some other means, coercion, saying, you know, if you don’t have sex with me, I’ll scream rape and everybody . . . you know what’s going to happen to you, things like that.  Most people don’t know about any of that, and it’s because the leading feminist sexual assault expert, Mary P. Koss, who was the originator of the “One-in-Five College Women Will Be Raped” statistic that Ms. Magazine promoted back in the 1980s, I believe, [Wikipedia says that it was one-in-four and the year of the national study was 1987], she’s just defined male victims by female perpetrators out of the definition of rape.  She consults for the CDC.  Those men aren’t counted as rape victims; they’re counted as other sexual violence, so . . . . 

Ah, alright, that’s about as good an answer to my question as I could have asked for because that’s a lot of stuff nobody knows about. 

You just have to kind of let people know that I mean, feminists say they want equality, but they don’t seem to want it if it would benefit men or if it would somewhere make a woman unhappy not able to get everything she wants, right?  So that really just seems to be what it is. 

Let’s pivot over to the last thing that I wanted to ask you about.  Before we went on the air, I asked you, because I wanted to help get more supporters your way if you were on Patreon, and you said that you’d quit Patreon in protest, which I know a number of people have done, but I’m curious to get your personal thoughts on that subject, why, why you did it? 

Well, I’m a big proponent of free speech.  I think you have to be.  If you’re a men’s rights activist or advocate, you certainly want to maintain your ability to speak in the face of objection from the mainstream.  So there’s that.  And a man in the U.K. who was kind of enough to admit publicly that I’m the reason he exists.  He’s a YouTuber called Carl Benjamin.  His screen name is Sargon of Akkad and his channel has far surpassed my channel which inspired him to make his which I am very pleased about.  So he’s kind of anti-political correctness, classical liberal, just, you know, really wants as minimal, as little government interference in people’s lives as possible.  He wants fairness under the law.  He doesn’t want special treatment for anybody, um, all of those things that I agree with.  He was debating some white nationalists, somewhere on YouTube on some obscure channel with a hundred subscribers, something like that, and he’s actually been in real life harassed by them.  He’s been doxxed by them.  His wife has been harassed on her social media account, because she’s his wife, by white nationalists and their followers.  So he’s not too pleased with these guys, but he used . . . he essentially said he used an ethnic slur against them that begins with “n” and said essentially, exactly the way you describe black people as behaving is how you’re behaving, right? 

Ah, okay. 

And, uh, on Twitter, his Twitter account got deleted, I think, for tweeting interracial gay porn at white nationalists. 

Ah, I had heard that!  That’s right! 

Yeah, yeah . . . so, anyway, Patreon, the white nationalists, actually, start sending the link to this hangout, this live stream, to Patreon demanding that Carl Benjamin be removed from the platform for his use of this ethnic slur while debating white nationalist and calling them bad people and all of that, right, so that’s why he got kicked off of Patreon–was because white nationalists launched a campaign to essentially say he used the N-word.  Tell on him to Patreon, say he used the N-word and that’s not acceptable and Patreon just kicked him off.  And I was like, “You know, I have this money or I have my principles, and I think I’m going to go with my principles and say ‘Goodbye, Patreon.”  Well, I totally understand that.  You know Jordan Peterson and David Rubin left in a very high-profile way . . . 

Sam Harris as well . . . 

Sam Harris, that’s a good point.  Yeah, Sam Harris, particularly interesting, because on most of his politics he’s not really all that close to Sargon. 

No, he’s quite left-wing.  But he’s a free-speech enthusiast as well.