The Chinese Communist Party, sensing an ideological challenger no less daunting than a religious order, has drawn a line in the sand, ordering regulatory bodies to reign in the ‘chaos’ of celebrity culture, while finding ways to curtail the influence of ‘effeminate’ celebrities. Can the United States, which lacks such a unified decision-making apparatus, adjust its sails to meet the same challenge?

With the invasion of foreign cultural influences, not least of all from South Korea and its popular ‘K-pop’ boy bands, Beijing has practically declared a state of national emergency. Chinese President Xi Jinping, in the name of promoting a more moral and “healthier society,” has called for a program of “national rejuvenation” with an aim to controlling the “idol worship” of celebrities, not least of all those male stars who exhibit a feminine persona, AP reports.

The ruling, which wasn’t forced to pass through a tortuous game of partisan chutes and ladders as is always the case in the United States, has already sent a chill through China’s thriving entertainment industry.

The ban requires broadcasters to “put an end to sissy men and other abnormal esthetics,” according to the National Radio and Television Administration (NRTA), which employed a derogatory slang term for effeminate men — “niang pao,” which roughly translates into “girlie guns.”

@BTS_twt CONGRATS BTS 🧈 You’re nominated for Group of the Year at the 2021 #VMAs!

Vote on @MTV’s Instagram Story starting TOMORROW! pic.twitter.com/9kgfOaJG7Q

— Video Music Awards (@vmas) September 3, 2021

The collective frenzy that has welcomed K-pop bands in China – groups like Exo, a South Korean-Chinese collaboration, which is ranked as one of the most influential boy bands in the world – is no longer a phenomenon that Beijing feels it can ignore. Impressionable adolescents, eager to emulate the style that seems so alluring to young female fans, has got the authorities worried that the “feminization” of young men will lead ancient Chinese civilization, if not to a radical change in its traditional makeup, then to the brink of national disaster.

Here it is interesting to note how China and the United States, two competing economic and military superpowers, view the issue of masculinity – or the purported lack thereof – in their separate cultures. In China, the question of protecting masculinity from the onslaught of a hyper-sexualized world is obviously a priority; in the United States, the debate is heading into a maddening cul-de-sac, with the authorities – including teachers, politicians and even, to its eternal shame, the Gillette Company – calling out “toxic masculinity,” while promoting LGBTQ+ lifestyles inside of the classroom.

In Shanghai, male students aged 10 to 12 are taught from a 2016 textbook entitled, “Xiaoxiao Nanzihan,” or “Little Man,” which is designed to address China’s perceived masculinity crisis. Chen Laixiu, a teacher who co-authored the book, has a simple message for Chinese males: “man up.”

“Boys have to be outgoing, be able to face the pressure of life and society, and be responsible for protecting the family,” Chen told Sixth Tone.

Now just try and imagine a school teacher in the United States – where Drag Queen Story Hours are being organized at public libraries across the land, and young children are being introduced to the mysteries of transgenderism – holding onto their position for longer than 24 hours after uttering such a glaringly confrontational remark.

Meanwhile, in January, a representative of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, a governmental advisory body, warned that Chinese youth are becoming “weak, self-effacing, and timid,” and may be unduly influenced by the so-called “little fresh meats,” those boys who gyrate on stage to the approving squeals of females under the K-pop circus tent. The warning went on to describe the feminization of young Chinese males as “a threat to the development and survival of our nation.”

Imagine that. A single word by a single Chinese official put into motion a national movement to get the Asian powerhouse moving again, with emphasis being placed on physical education in schools, and less time in front of the computer. And people wonder how entire Chinese cities arise out of the desert almost magically overnight.

Just last week, China’s National Press and Publication Association announced the prohibition of online gaming on school days. The rules also limit gaming to one hour a day on the weekend and holiday evenings. Once again, no endless debate that gets nowhere in the political talk shops.

The authorities were moved to swift action after “many parents… reported that game addiction among some youths and children is seriously harming their normal study, life and mental and physical health,” the administration said, as reported by the New York Times.

NEWS: Government of China plans to prevent activities of foreign celebrities in the country #kpopnews https://t.co/gNHn5vqh4H

— Reddit K-Pop (@redditkpop) September 6, 2021

The first conspicuous lesson to be learned here is that, for whatever reason, the elites in the United States either do not sense a problem with the ongoing feminization of American boys, or they have no desire to see the United States succeed as a viable nation for long. Considering the disaster that just transpired in Afghanistan, the second choice is a tempting one. The advantages of supporting masculine traits in society are too obvious to warrant serious discussion here; suffice it to say that no nation that promotes the feminization of its male youth can expect to survive for long, neither in the demographic realm nor on the battlefield.

Russia, by the way, no stranger to surviving in a hostile world, saw the immediate threats posed by global cultural trends and acted accordingly. While not denying anyone of their freedom to pursue whatever type of lifestyle they choose, the Russian Duma in June 2013 passed a law (“for the Purpose of Protecting Children from Information Advocating for a Denial of Traditional Family Values”) that prohibits the distribution of “propaganda of non-traditional sexual relationships” among minors. The Russian population overwhelmingly supported the motion.

Meanwhile, the United States, a culturally and politically fractured nation that has become ground zero for the globalists and their worldly machinations, has become utterly paralyzed when it comes to invoking legislation that protects children from the onslaught of cultural experiments gone mad.

Independent-spirited countries like China and Russia, which have not been conquered by liberalism on steroids, still have the power within them to protect their young citizens, and with amazing alacrity. This right is no longer possible in the land of the free, where a complicit corporate media machine keeps two sides – the conservatives and the liberals – perpetually at war with each other over issues that never should have been issues in the first place.

‘Boys will be boys’ is no longer a given anymore, and that tragic state of affairs may just help the United States to fade away on the geopolitical stage faster than anyone could have imagined.

On the one hand, America’s Supreme Court is so concerned about the alleged ‘right to life’ of non-conscious early-stage human fetuses as to dictate to any woman in whose body such an object is being formed, “That is state property and you have no right to terminate it.” But, on the other hand, America’s public are so little concerned about their own and actual “right to [conscious] life” as to allow (and to accept their Government’s allowing) — at a time of one of the deadliest and most intensely communicable pandemics in global history — unmasked people to mass together in crowds of strangers to entertain themselves and so to catch the sometimes deadly disease and pass it on to others (after the event), and they thereby produce vast numbers of entirely preventable deaths throughout the entire U.S. population, despite America’s claimed ‘right to life’. Americans, obviously, care more about protecting the lives of pre-conscious fetuses than about protecting the lives of themselves and all of the strangers whom they meet — conscious beings. Is that sane?

On September 3rd, NPR’s Nina Totenberg headlined “The Supreme Court Heads Toward Reversing Abortion Rights”, and reported:

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority tossed a legal bomb into the abortion debate late Wednesday night.

By a vote of 5-to-4, the court’s most conservative members upheld, for now, a Texas law that, in effect, bans abortions after about six weeks. But almost as important as the result was how the court reached its decision — without full briefing and arguments before any court.

The court majority, including its three Trump appointees, emphasized that it was not ruling on the issues presented in the case. Still, it refused to block the law from going into effect for procedural reasons. The unsigned court order was just one long paragraph in length. And within a day, state legislators in Florida and elsewhere announced plans to introduce copycat legislation in their states.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who has dissented from almost every decision upholding expansive abortion rights, disagreed this time. He called the Texas law unprecedented because it not only bans abortions after roughly six weeks, but delegates enforcement powers not to state officials but to the general “populace at large.” Roberts noted that the law appears to be deliberately structured to prevent courts from being able to promptly consider the constitutionality of the law. …

Specifically, the law confers on any individual the right to file suit for money damages against a clinic, or any person who aids or abets an abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected.

This is now the Trump Court; and, whereas, previously, signed 5-to-4 conservative U.S. Supreme Court rulings were common, this was an unsigned 5-to-4 theocratic ruling by all 5 of the U.S. Supreme Court’s fundamentalist Christians: four Roman Catholic fundamentalists (Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh), and the only Protestant fundamentalist) (Barrett), ruling that the new Texas law, which places $10,000 bounties on the heads of anyone who participates or assists, or “intends” to, an abortion in Texas, should maybe be allowed to be enforced by this bounty-system, and should temporarily be allowed to be enforced, though “this order is not based on any conclusion about the constitutionality of Texas’s law,” but the ruling instead invites all states to consider passing similar laws so that the U.S. Supreme Court itself maybe won’t need to act in order to outlaw abortions, and thus this matter might simply go back to being a state instead of federal matter. Interestingly, the billionaires-controlled U.S. ’news’-media report, and generally praise, details of each of the two (signed) dissenting opinions, but not of the one (and far more important but unsigned) five theocrats’ majority decision, so that the public won’t understand what’s happening (which that majority decision is preparing to impose).

Among the very few public commentaries on that majority (5-to-4) decision was one by the lawyer Luppe Luppen, who headlined “The Supreme Court Guts Roe and Opens a New Era of Nullification”, and he summed up by saying “If state legislatures can effectively turn off constitutionally protected rights by inventing or copying procedures that flummox these five Justices, they may well try to do it.” He pointed out the legislative chaos which that will cause. However, his assumption, there, that the five theocrats were simply “flummoxed,” instead of carrying out a very systematic and carefully thought-out pro-theocracy restoration of the coathanger-abortion era in America, wasn’t backed by him citing any evidence, because it is simply false. These theocratic ‘Justices’ are respected by the public, though they are carrying out the commands in the Bible, instead of in the U.S. Constitution, and it’s achieved by their own, and by the ’news’-media’s, deceits, and, especially, by ’news’-media refusing to call lies “lies.” Though, during Trump’s Presidency, Democratic Party ’news’-media were starting to call his lies “lies,” none of the American media call lies “lies” generally. For example, Obama’s hefty serial-lying is still generally ignored, instead of noted.

As regards Americans being “so little concerned about their own and actual right-to-life as to allow (and to accept their Government’s allowing) — at a time of one of the deadliest and most intensely communicable pandemics in global history — unmasked people to mass together in crowds,” RT headlined on September 5th, “‘Not a mask in sight’: Fans return to U.S. college football in a BIG way – to the delight of many, but the horror of others (VIDEO)”, and posted numerous photos of huge crowd-scenes of Americans at sporting events and other entertainments, in which no one was wearing a mask. Covid isn’t just a matter of private health, but it is especially a raging matter of public health; but, if Americans don’t care about the health of anyone but themselves, and if they are stupid enough to believe that by attending such events they are not endangering both themselves and others, then what else can this be but an insane country, where such dangerous behavior is legal? It might be common for many countries — France, for example — but still it is, quite simply, insane.

Is insanity normal? Is it good? Or is it bad? Is there any doubt about that?

The Visegrad nations in the center of Europe are challenging the orthodoxy of the EU elite and throughout history direct challenges to enforced dogmas spark a lot of chaos, change, and empower others to stand against the status quo.

Right before the Protestant Revolution in Europe many significant players doubted the necessity of Rome and had some qualms about certain dogma, but they dared not speak heresy, at least not publicly. When Martin Luther nailed his list of complaints to that church door it instantly shifted the Overton Window just enough to make yesterday’s unspeakable blasphemy, become a possible option with many lethal consequences. Luther’s heresy (or bravery depending on your religious views) opened the door for others to follow and led to the downfall of the Catholic Church in many nations, ending Western European Christian unity. It looks like history is yet again repeating itself as certain leaders are spreading a new heresy, openly and loudly against the sacred dogma of 21st century Europe.

We have all heard about the famous Russian law that bans “homosexual propoganda”. This has been blasted by the mainstream media but it is very much an external problem from their standpoint. In the minds of today’s spineless and genderless European hipster serfdom Russia is a distant backwards realm locked eternally in the Dark Ages. The Western subconscious mind is held together by the glue of belief in its own inherent superiority. This makes the Russians eternally bad, but that bad is an “out-group” sort of bad.

Image: Viktor Orban has chosen the path of most resistance in Europe or even perhaps career martyrdom.

But now in the heartland of the EU itself, the Hungarians, under the full weight of Brussel’s bureaucratic yoke and decades of Hollywood influence, have passed a similar set of laws to those in Russia about banning LGBT propaganda. This is happening at home and in the heart of Europe by members of the in-group. At the very least the Hungarians under Orban are now spreading a heresy against the core values of the EU.

Since the end of WWII Conservatives have utterly failed on all fronts to counter the changes to society that have happened. There has really only been a Liberal Agenda at high speed vs. a slower incremental Liberal Agenda that is slowed down by the human road bumps that are the modern Right. Rather than simply resisting the “inevitable” rise of gay marriage and adoption, Hungary is actually for the first time actively pushing in the opposite direction which could be that Martin Luther or Rosa Parks moment. The Silent Majority clearly sees that it is wrong to destroy the idea of gender and the family for the sake of the feelings of a tiny percent of the population and cradle-to-the-grave propaganda has failed to change this in the former Warsaw Pact nations. The absolute majority of humanity does not want to go to the back of the bus anymore for the ability of drag queens to dance upon the centuries of culture and struggle that got humanity to where it is today.

Czech President Milos Zeman has come out vocally and openly to support the legislation made by his neighbors. While joyously smiling, he told CNN that if he were younger he would “get trains and busses full of heterosexuals to come to Prague in order to show how absurd it (LGBT) is”. That is a very blasphemous thing for an EU leader to say. Zeman, who has already been deemed a Russian agent by the Mainstream Media, perhaps simply feels he has nothing to lose as he nears the end of his life. It is easy to be bold at the end of the road.

Of course the reaction from mainstream dogmatic EU officials has been shock and horror with calls coming to excommunicate Hungary. Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte declared that because of this move by Orban, Hungary “has no place” in the European Union. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen was a bit softer, saying “This Hungarian bill is a shame”. The EU bureaucracy has also called this law and similar Polish maneuvers to be “grotesque”.

Image: The Visegrad Group has a much more “European” vision for the EU.

The Hungarians passing some bill to ever so partially block LGBT, with the Poles trying shenanigans of their own with praise from an elderly Czech president may not sound that important, especially to those living in countries that have a more normal view on gender roles. However, we cannot ignore that for the Western elites LGBT is a core inarguable dogma. This is something that the EU takes dead serious and is a core element of their agenda.

Every corporation, every embassy, every school and every advertisement over the last 10 years has become increasingly rainbow ridden. The LGBT movement is vastly louder in its promotion from the West than Capitalism or Democracy ever were during the Cold War. Gay parade promotion has become a symbols of Westernness and Globalism and are a real foreign policy objective for the USA/EU. The push is on and has been on for quite some time. As we have seen standing up against this movement in the west is essentially career suicide at the least. This article does not use the terms “heresy” and “blasphemy” to be cute, this is really the dynamic at play – a zealous and extreme hatred of the family and traditional gender roles that has zero tolerance of any thoughts or actions to the contrary.

The Visegrad nations in the center of Europe are challenging the orthodoxy of the EU elite and throughout history direct challenges to enforced dogmas spark a lot of chaos, change, and empower others to stand against the status quo.

The strategic consequences of the Visegrad nations’ moves against Euro Dogma.

• The EU could simply wait this out. Hungary is the most uppity nation but they have no border with the Russians, meaning they simply cannot leave the union. They would be surrounded and starved out like a poorly defended Medieval castle. Generation upon generation of people are becoming more liberal and perhaps in another two generations Hungary will “grow up” to be as submissive and self-loathing as Germany.
• There are no legal methods to expel Hungary from the EU. But there were not any in the Soviet Union either and look what happened there. Perhaps if you calmly remove the first domino the others will not fall. See Brexit, as a good example of controlled demolition. Even the most delusional human suits in Brussels have to see that everything to the east is full of barbarians and is Polish migrant labour really worth some future risks of a mass exodus? Perhaps it would be best for stability to just go back to exploiting Africa for cheap labour and cut the Slavs loose.
• Poland (and to an extent the rest of the Visegrad Group) is traditionally terrified of Russia, thus given the choice of being cut loose from the EU or going “gay”, there is a strong chance that Warsaw would side with even the most Satanic and self-destructive EU model rather than bow to Moscow. Ironically the threat of being expelled could actually make these nations far more compliant.
• As individual nations the Visegrad Group are nothing, as a block they are something, and their Traditionalist efforts need to be coordinated in order to be effective. The EU must keep them as divided as possible.
• Any person who is not 100% for LGBT is the enemy in the West. The Mainstream Media will try to turn Orban and other Visegrad leaders into mini-Putins in Europe’s backyard that must be stopped because of freedom. The demonization for them is only just beginning.
• Russia will somehow be blamed for this. Russia should plead guilty regardless of the truth of the accusation because it gives even more credibility to them as the “last true Christian nation”.
• If the Visegrad Group were to become more or semi-independent then the Ukraine would be divided with the Russians within a few days’ time. All parties would agree that they want certain parts of that region to come back home. A Kiev trapped between “Visegradia” and Russia would be doomed to partitioning.
• The weaker the West is, the better Russians can sleep in peace. Russia needs to expand its ideological influence deeper and deeper into the Visegrad nations on all fronts. The EU must find a new way to repackage their Liberal Agenda because out East, they are not buying it.
• A system of apologetics/argumentation for traditional families in the XXI century will become more finalized soon and will be the greatest weapon for everyone on the “wrong” side of the Berlin Wall.

At the end of last month, the EU collapsed into emotional melt-down. It occurred when Charles Michel, Council President, decided to move up a summit debate on LGBTQI and EU values — in a reaction to a letter of concern drafted by 17 Council members. Dutch PM, Rutte, used the moment ‘to go nuclear’ (as he had earlier promised), saying in advance of the summit that: “My goal is to bring Hungary to its knees on this issue.” And, at the summit itself, Rutte threatened that Hungary “must repeal” its (allegedly) “anti-gay law”, and respect fundamental human rights, “which are not negotiable — or they must leave [the Union]”.

Rutte acknowledged that “I can’t push them out”. He argued however, that Orbán’s (alleged) ‘anti-gay’ law “seriously contradicts the values that Europe stands for”, and insisted that they were not up for debate. Should the EU not act now, it would stop being a union of values and would become a mere trade bloc, Rutte insisted. The debate then descended into the highly personal and emotional:

“We have known each other for eight years, but this touches me,” Xavier Bettel told Orbán inside the summit room. Luxembourg’s prime minister is married to a man, and was a co-initiator of the 17-state protest letter. “I did not become gay. I am. It is not a choice … My mother hates me for it. This [the draft Hungarian law] is very bad. This is stigmatizing”, he said, according to officials. “I respect you, but this is a red line. It is about basic rights, the right to be different”.

Well, there it is: the culture war, and its accompaniment – the war on ‘Populism’ flows, in full spate, as the floodgates open. As in America, it will have profound consequences, and give rise to sharp internal tensions.

The start to this ‘war’ reaches back to the 1990s, when Hungary and Poland “led eastern Europe in economic shock therapy, pushing market reforms beyond what their western advisers demanded. But in cultural terms, the Polish and Hungarian Right chose a more conservative course”. In particular, rather than open his nation’s border to offset population decline, Viktor Orbán, the Hungarian Prime Minister, looked to the nuclear family as the key route to spur national growth. Since 2010, which marked the start of Orbán’s role as prime minister, the number of marriages among Hungarians has increased by 89.5%; and the fertility rate is rising.

Both these states nonetheless, continue to see themselves as deeply European, even as they have steered further away from the EU valorisation of cosmopolitanism as its primordial cultural end, to be brought about through open borders, and the consequent voluntary mixing of large numbers of diverse peoples.

Orbán is far from alone in his traditionalist stand. In Rome, as one example, the Vatican has taken the unusual step of making a diplomatic démarche to the Italian government concerning a draft bill. The law, known as the Zan bill (after gay activist lawmaker Alessandro Zan), was approved last year by Italy’s lower house and has since been fiercely debated in the Senate. The bill would explicitly categorize violence against LGBTQI people as a hate crime, making it akin to a racial or an antisemitic attack, whilst prescribing harsh penalties for any infringement. The leader of the League (Party), Salvini, said it would punish those “who think a mom is a mom; and a dad is a dad”. Many ordinary Italians would agree.

Even liberal-élite parents though, are anxious – witness the Vatican démarche – as they see their imagined, liberal Community of Meritocracy metamorphose into some kind of a super-woke ‘Moralocracy’. And it might only be a matter of time until academic testing is abolished in the name of combatting racism. “So how the heck are you supposed to get your kid into Oxford, if she’s white? And paying a woke surgeon (or maybe insurance will cover?) to cut her breasts off when she turns sixteen – is the new ‘cool’”. Abigail Shrier writes about this in her new book Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters. It is driving many parents close to breakdown.

And, as in America, parents don’t care for their children being taught Critical Race Theory, either. The latter stems from a school of thought amongst post-Russian Revolution Marxist intellectuals who were disturbed by the fact that communist revolution didn’t sweep Europe, just as Marx had predicted. This revisionist ‘Race Theory’ updated ‘Marx’ to being a struggle between ‘who has power in society, and who doesn’t’, instead of a class struggle.

Both Marxist variants however, rely on the disruptive dualism of the oppressor versus the oppressed, that is intended to set layers of society into conflict one with another. And this is what it is doing: With a younger generation severed and at odds with their parents, whom they are being taught to see as congenital racists.

Well, last week the EU declared war on such parental anxieties. It hung its hat on the ‘Race Theory’ and LGBTQI peg.

1. J. Hopkins, whom Matt Taibbi once described as a post-Soviet version of a самиздат writer (i.e. one who is so insightful that, sooner or later, both the writer and his readers are bound to be led to prison! – intended by Taibbi as a high compliment, incidentally), has sought to convey what it is that is ‘going on’ here.

Yves Smith, writing from the esteemed economic blog Naked Capitalism, expands on Hopkins’ prophecy. She writes:

As I begin explaining the work of Hopkins to my (remaining) well-educated liberal friends and neighbours [in NY], it startles me again, and again, that they are serenely oblivious to what to me is so balefully obvious: the rise of censorship in the USA — censorship by liberals! …“Look”, [Hopkins wrote in 2017, the first year of Trump’s Presidency] “I know what you’re probably thinking. But it isn’t that liberals don’t actually care about fundamental liberal values, such as freedom of the press and speech – and all that. It’s just that they desperately need the Democrats to take back the House and the Senate next year, so they can get on with impeaching Trump …“The point of all this propaganda [especially concerning Russian hacking] is to delegitimize Donald Trump,” “and to prophylactically reassert the neoliberal ruling classes’ monopoly on power, ‘reality,’ and ‘truth.’

In practice, the ‘Russia stole the election for Trump narrative’ was a stone cast at two different ‘birds’: One was Trump; but the other was aimed in the direction of Putin. Why? Well, in oligarchic capitalism, the latter’s huge wealth is both the anvil and hammer, on which western narratives of political ‘reality’ are forged. They ‘beat out’ each successive ‘reality’. Not so in Russia and China. The power of political leaders there trumps the oligarchic machinations (they go to goal). It was not always so. Cosmopolitan oligarchs came within a hair’s breadth of literally stealing Russia under Yeltsin; but then Putin entered the frame – to spoil it all. The oligarchs are still extremely cross.

Hopkins’s main theme however, is the War on Populism (the topic which so absorbed the Euro-élites at their Council summit). He asks: So how, and why, has unchecked global capitalism resulted in this War on Populism? “The problem is [he responds] … well, the problem … is people”.

Hopkins writes, in The Last Days of the Trumpian Reich: “Not rich and powerful people like themselves [are the problem], or the people they need to continue working, consuming, and servicing the interest on their loans, but … you know, all those other people. Uneducated, un-woke, working-class people. Gun-toting, fanatically religious people. Racist, conspiracy-theorizing people. Deplorable people. Populist people”.

“People they don’t need anymore. These people have been a problem recently. Not only are they a drag on the system, they have been actively interfering with it, voting for Brexit, electing Donald Trump, refusing to abandon their traditional values and outmoded ideas (e.g. national sovereignty, freedom of speech, and mammalian biology) and to get on board with global capitalist ideology – and have been otherwise a real pain in the ass.”

Yves Smith again:

“The [above] paragraph both illuminates, and is illuminated by, the work of Thomas Frank, who has so brilliantly shown — above all in his masterpiece, Listen: Liberal — just how, since the election of our first Neoliberal president in 1992 (which was, significantly, the year after the collapse of the USSR), the Democrats reinvented themselves as the party of the Liberal, Creative, Professional Managerial Class: The party of the credentialed meritocracy, the party, above all, of the winners. So, yes, as a matter of course, the Democrats have been taught to be openly hostile to working-class “deplorables”, as Hillary Clinton officially named them, to see them as “being a real pain in the ass,” as Hopkins writes.

“And the deplorables really are a drag on the global capitalist system. (Most of them want free health care, for Pete’s sake!) A lot of them voted for the socialist Bernie Sanders, and, far, far worse, even more of them voted for the “white-supremacist white-nationalist fascist dictator Nazi-Hitler” (as Glenn Greenwald said!), i.e. Trump. They really are – bottom line here – losers with a big ‘L’.

“The liberals, the bien pensants (as Thomas Frank has called them) — the ‘winners’, that is — who read The New York Times and The Washington Post and listen to NPR and watch MSNBC and CNN, who went to good colleges and got all kinds of professional credentials, are certainly well-informed enough to know that the future is all about global capitalism. And they know that, if they play by the rules, global capitalism has a place for them. Furthermore, they know (or could easily figure it out), that global capitalism does not have a place for life’s losers. But that’s just tough shit, isn’t it?”

So when the Re-set – the ‘New Normal’ – was unveiled at Davos, millions of people were already living a reality in which facts no longer mattered at all, where things that never happened officially – happened. And other things that obviously happened never happened: not officially, that is – they were “far-right extremist” conspiracy theories, “fake news,” or “disinformation,” or whatever – despite the fact that people knew that they weren’t.

How then would Davos propose to slide humanity into this ‘new normal’? Well, perchance Davos man wants to go in the opposite direction to epistemological purity? That is, it seeks to generate a lot of contradictory realities, not just contradictory ideologies, but actual mutually-exclusive realities, which could not possibly simultaneously exist … which would still freak people out pretty badly. This could become the mental ‘blank page’ on which the deliberately fluid realities of cosmopolitanist gender, and self-defining identities, might be written.

The oligarchic Elect now seek to ‘unvalue’ all remaining national values, untether national cohesion – for its logical objective is not to author a new ideology (it doesn’t need that). But, rather, to impose a single global, mercantilist order through first, the monetisation of every possible ‘thing’, and then its ‘capitalisation’ into fresh financial ‘assets’.

Of course, even the Re-set needs its ‘narrative’. But the point here on narrative – any Establishment narrative (one example from the BBC’s “Reality Check” section) – is to draw a Maginot line, a defensive ideological boundary, between ‘the truth’ as defined by the ruling classes, and with that of any other ‘truth’, that contradicts their narrative.

The credentialled ‘managerial classes’ (such as run Brussels), know that their success is in large part made possible by their enthusiasm for official narratives. And their collective hope is that correct ‘narrative’ provides them with an enduring safe space. On one side of the Maginot Line then, is ‘normal’ society, gainful employment, and with career advancement and all the other considerable benefits of cooperating with the ruling classes. Beyond the Maginot Line is poverty, anxiety, social and professional stigmatization, and various other forms of suffering and discrimination.

“Which side of the wall do you want to be on? Every day, in countless ways, each of us are asked, and have to answer this question. Conform, and there’s a place for you inside. Refuse, and … well, good luck out there.”

So what will global oligarchy’s ‘Conquest of Absolutely Everything’ look like? A world of atomized consumers, stripped of their rights and of any allegiances to family, or clan, or nation, or religion, or even to meaningful cultural appreciation.

Nevertheless, a globalist world, for the few who aspire to grow immensely wealthy in it, is still understood to be a veritable cornucopia of uncountable material satisfactions. A magic carpet they would be loath to abandon. Yet, anxieties are rising, even amongst the billionaires. The world is tacking in new uncertain directions. To throw in one’s lot now with the ‘masters of the universe’ may ultimately prove to have been but a fleeting chimaera.

For ‘the many’, on the other hand, the tech and robotic Re-set, proclaimed by the Davos crowd, will be a place of glorified slavery, lived in deserts of social isolation. To the extent that some amongst ‘the many’ have seen what a tech Re-set has in store for them, they don’t like it. It smacks of totalitarianism, of tech-feudalism – and they have started to oppose it. They are then … ‘populists’. Which is to say, they become a huge problem for their masters. No wonder, the EU Council summit was so heated and distraught.

It. Never. Stops.

I don’t care if football is gay. I don’t care if football is anti-gay. I don’t want football to be either. I want football to be football. I know I sound like a broken record, y’all, but this kind of crap advances the totalitarianization of our society. From Live Not By Lies:

One of contemporary progressivism’s commonly used phrases—the personal is political—captures the totalitarian spirit, which seeks to infuse all aspects of life with political consciousness. Indeed, the Left pushes its ideology ever deeper into the personal realm, leaving fewer and fewer areas of daily life uncontested. This, warned Arendt, is a sign that a society is ripening for totalitarianism, because that is what totalitarianism essentially is: the politicization of everything.

Infusing every aspect of life with ideology was a standard aspect of Soviet totalitarianism. Early in the Stalin era, N. V. Krylenko, a Soviet commissar (political officer), steamrolled over chess players who wanted to keep politics out of the game.

“We must finish once and for all with the neutrality of chess,” he said. “We must condemn once and for all the formula ‘chess for the sake of chess,’ like the formula ‘art for art’s sake.’ We must organize shockbrigades of chess-players, and begin immediate realization of a Five-Year Plan for chess.”

Another sign of the totalitarianization of US society:

California added five more states, including Florida, to the list of places where state-funded travel is banned because of laws that discriminate against members of the LGBTQ community, the state attorney general announced Monday.

Democratic Attorney General Rob Bonta added Florida, Arkansas, Montana, North Dakota and West Virginia to the list that now has 17 states where state employee travel is forbidden except under limited circumstances.

“Make no mistake: We’re in the midst of an unprecedented wave of bigotry and discrimination in this country — and the State of California is not going to support it,” Bonta said.

Lawmakers in 2016 banned non-essential travel to states with laws that discriminate against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. The 12 other states on the list are: Texas, Alabama, Idaho, Iowa, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Kentucky, North Carolina, Kansas, Mississippi, Tennessee.

The five states newly added to the list have introduced bills in their legislatures this year that prevent transgender women and girls from participating in school sports consistent with their gender identity, block access to health care and allow the discrimination of the LGBTQ community, Bonta said.

They hate the rest of us. Do you think Texas, Florida, Arkansas, and the rest of those states on California’s blacklist give a rat’s rear end about how the laws of California treat LGBT people? No, they don’t. They are happy to let California be California. But California wants all of America to be California. These Californians, they tell themselves that they love virtue, but they really just hate their fellow Americans who don’t agree with them about LGBT.

We have heard this kind of thing before. Here, for example:

What is the goal toward which we are heading? The peaceful enjoyment of liberty and equality; the reign of that eternal justice whose laws have been inscribed, not in marble and stone, but in the hearts of all men, even in that of the slave who forgets them and in that of the tyrant who denies them. We seek an order of things in which all the base and cruel passions are enchained, all the beneficent and generous passions are awakened by the laws; where distinctions are born only of equality itself; where the citizen is subject to the magistrate, the magistrate to the people, and the people to justice; where our country assures the well-being of each individual, and where each individual proudly enjoys our country’s prosperity and glory; where every soul grows greater through the continual flow of republican sentiments, and by the need of deserving the esteem of a great people…

… Since the soul of the Republic is virtue, equality, and since your goal is to found, to consolidate the Republic, it follows that the first rule of your political conduct ought to be to relate all your efforts to maintaining equality and developing virtue… Thus everything that tends to excite love of country, to purify morals, to elevate souls, to direct the passions of the human heart toward the public interest ought to be adopted or established by you. .If the mainspring of popular government in peacetime is virtue, amid revolution it is at the same time [both] virtue and terror: virtue, without which terror is fatal; terror, without which virtue is impotent. Terror is nothing but prompt, severe, inflexible justice; it is therefore an emanation of virtue. It is less a special principle than a consequence of the general principle of democracy applied to our country’s most pressing needs.

That was from a famous speech by Maximilien Robespierre, in 1794, justifying the Reign of Terror. An early historian of the French Revolution, Aulard, described the politics of the Jacobins like this:

All politics, according to Robespierre, must tend to establish the reign of virtue and confound vice. He reasoned thus: those who are virtuous are right; error is a corruption of the heart; error cannot be sincere; error is always deliberate.

We are creating a Jacobin state in America. It’s accelerating. I know some of you are sick and tired of me banging the drum on all this, but dammit, we are losing our country — and if we do, there won’t be any going back. At the rate we’re going, there will be blood.

Look what they’re doing to the military:

Mandatory military celebration of LGBT Pride. If you are a traditional Christian in the military, you are SOL. Violate your convictions with this required affirmation of something you regard as sinful, or be dishonorably discharged. This is one reason why I am strongly discouraging my son from joining the military. The point is not that you have to serve alongside LGBT soldiers. Everybody can do that. The point is that you are compelled to affirm homosexuality and transgenderism, and thus deny your religious beliefs.

I am in Vienna today. Last week in Budapest, I told an American I know there that I would be back in the city on July 4, and asked him if he wanted to get together as two temporary expats to celebrate Independence Day. He said he wasn’t sure. “I’m not feeling too bullish on America these days,” he said, with audible sadness. I thought of that this morning when I read this shocking op-ed essay in the Washington Post, illustrating the depths of our moral decline. Excerpts:

Rowello explains that she is married to a transsexual, once her husband, now her wife. More from the Pride Parade:

Just as we got settled, our elementary-schooler pointed in the direction of oncoming floats, raising an eyebrow at a barechested man in dark sunglasses whose black suspenders clipped into a leather thong. The man paused to be spanked playfully by a partner with a flog. “What are they doing?” my curious kid asked as our toddler cheered them on. The pair was the first of a few dozen kinksters who danced down the street, laughing together as they twirled their whips and batons, some leading companions by leashes. At the time, my children were too young to understand the nuance of the situation, but I told them the truth: That these folks were members of our community celebrating who they are and what they like to do.

Children! Her own children! More:

As much as I want them to spend time in queer spaces so they can be with families like their own, I also want them to know that they shouldn’t limit their understanding of what relationships or expression look like to whatever’s most familiar. I want them to see that they can make their own ways in the world — and know that they’ll be supported and celebrated by their community. If we want our children to learn and grow from their experiences at Pride, we should hope that they’ll encounter kink when they attend. How else can they learn about the scope and vitality of queer life?

More:

Children who witness kink culture are reassured that alternative experiences of sexuality and expression are valid — no matter who they become as they mature, helping them recognize that their personal experiences aren’t bad or wrong, and that they aren’t alone in their experiences. I can’t think of a more relevant or important reminder for youth, who often struggle with feelings of isolation and confusion as they discover more about themselves and wrestle with concerns about whether they’re normal enough. Including kink in Pride opens space for families to have necessary and powerful conversations with young people about health, safety, consent, and — most uniquely — pleasure. Kink visibility is a reminder that any person can and should shamelessly explore what brings joy and excitement. We don’t talk to our children enough about pursuing sex to fulfill carnal needs that delight and captivate us in the moment.

Sharing the language of kink culture with young people provides them with valuable information about safe sex practices — such as the importance of establishing boundaries, safe words and signals, affirming the importance of planning and research and the need to seek and give enthusiastic consent. I never want my children to worry that exploring any aspect of consensual sex or touch is too taboo.

Read it all. 

This filth is something that the Washington Post, the leading newspaper in the American capital, a newspaper owned by the richest man in the world, sees fit to publish. They consider this legitimate public debate.

This is demonic, you know — and it is a sign of something horrible to come. From Live Not By Lies:

The post-World War I generation of writers and artists were marked by their embrace and celebration of anti-cultural philosophies and acts as a way of demonstrating contempt for established hierarchies, institutions, and ways of thinking. Arendt said of some writers who glorified the will to power, “They read not Darwin but the Marquis de Sade.”

Her point was that these authors did not avail themselves of respectable intellectual theories to justify their transgressiveness. They immersed themselves in what is basest in human nature and regarded doing so as acts of liberation. Arendt’s judgment of the postwar elites who recklessly thumbed their noses at respectability could easily apply to those of our own day who shove aside liberal principles like fair play, race neutrality, free speech, and free association as obstacles to equality. Arendt wrote:

The members of the elite did not object at all to paying a price, the destruction of civilization, for the fun of seeing how those who had been excluded unjustly in the past forced their way into it.

Regarding transgressive sexuality as a social good was not an innovation of the sexual revolution. Like the contemporary West, late imperial Russia was also awash in what historian James Billington called “a preoccupation with sex that is quite without parallel in earlier Russian culture.” Among the social and intellectual elite, sexual adventurism, celebrations of perversion, and all manner of sensuality was common. And not just among the elites: the laboring masses, alone in the city, with no church to bind their consciences with guilt, or village gossips to shame them, found comfort in sex.

The end of official censorship after the 1905 uprising opened the floodgates to erotic literature, which found renewal in sexual passion. “The sensualism of the age was in a very intimate sense demonic,” Billington writes, detailing how the figure of Satan became a Romantic hero for artists and musicians. They admired the diabolic willingness to stop at nothing to satisfy one’s desires and to exercise one’s will.

“They read not Darwin, but the Marquis de Sade.” Today they read the Washington Post, where a perverted Philadelphia mother teaches her little children to celebrate a sadomasochistic parade in the streets. Wake up, people, and see what’s around you. Prepare! 

I don’t know about you, but I cannot share a country with these people. I mean, I will — what choice do I have? — but they are not my opponents. They, and the elites who are forcing all this on us, are my enemies. History tells us where this is all headed. When it all falls down, the fault will be on them, these barbarians.

theamericanconservative.com

Little wonder that here and there sanity nostalgia is gripping the Western world, at least those isolated portions of it that are not internalising the sinister “new normal.” But it is seemingly to no avail. All commanding positions are firmly in the hands of lunatics, who are determined to turn a once great and exemplary civilisation into an asylum.

As George Orwell has taught us, language manipulation is at the frontline (yes, I have just broken one of the cardinal rules of his “Politics and the English Language,” but not his final injunction to “break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous”) of politicised mind-bending. The sort of language we are permitted to use circumscribes the thinking that we shall be allowed to engage in. The assault on language is, therefore, an integral component of the unrelenting warfare being waged for the conquest and control of the mind. Word elimination and reassignment of meaning, as Orwell also presciently noted, are essential elements of the campaign to reformat the mind and eventually to subjugate it.

A breath-taking example of how this process works was recently unveiled by the thoroughly brain-washed students of the once prestigious Brandeis University who, this time without prompting from their faculty elders and betters, voted to ban from their campus such odious words and phrases as “picnic” and “you guys,” for being “oppressive”. “Picnic” is prohibited because it allegedly evokes the lynching of Blacks.

The precocious young intellectuals took pains to produce an entire list of objectionable words and phrases, shocking award-winning novelist Joyce Carol Oates who tweeted in bewilderment: “What sort of punishment is doled out for a faculty member who utters the word ‘picnic’ at Brandeis? Or the phrase [also proscribed – S.K.] ‘trigger warning’? Loss of tenure, public flogging, self-flagellation?”

All three punishments will probably be applied to reactionary professors who go afoul of the list’s rigorous linguistic requirements.

Not to be outdone by the progressive kids on the East Coast, avant-garde California legislators have passed a law to remove the pronoun “he” from state legal texts. The momentous reform was initiated by California’s new attorney general, Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, who after looking up the job requirements made the shocking discovery that the law assumed that the attorney general would be a man.

Upon review, it turned out that the state code and other legal documents were enabling unacceptable concepts by using pronouns “he,” “him” and “his” when referring to the attorney general and other state-wide elected officials. Appalled, Ms. Bauer-Kahan denounced these linguistic lapses for not representing “where California is and where California is going.” She inarguably was right on that score at least, which has perhaps also something to do with the massive exodus of California residents to less complicated parts of the country.

When lawmakers of a state which is rapidly turning into a North American Calcutta have no concerns more pressing than to revise the use of pronouns in official documents, that sends a clear message where that state is going, exactly as the smart and thoroughly up-to-date woman said.

But as a Pakistani immigrant father in Seattle, state of Washington, discovered to his chagrin, the linguistic clowning can have very serious personal and political consequences. After checking in his 16-year-old autistic son for treatment in what he thought was a medical facility, Ahmed was shocked to receive a telephone call where a social worker explained to him that the child he had originally entrusted to the medical authorities as a son was actually transgender and must henceforth, under legal penalty of removal, be referred to and treated as a “daughter.”

Coming from a traditional society still governed by tyrannical precepts of common sense and not accustomed to the ways of the asylum where in search of a better life he and his family inadvertently ended up, the father (a title that like mother, now officially “number one parent,” is also on the way out) was able to conceive his tragic predicament only by weaving a complex conspiracy theory:

“They were trying to create a customer for their gender clinic . . . and they seemed to absolutely want to push us in that direction. We had calls with counsellors and therapists in the establishment, telling us how important it is for him to change his gender, because that’s the only way he’s going to be better out of this suicidal depressive state.”

Since in the equally looney state of Washington the age when minors can request a gender-change surgery without parental consent is 13, the Pakistani parents saw clearly the writing on the wall and, bless them, they came up with a clever stratagem to outwit their callous ideological tormentors. Ahmed “assured Seattle Children’s Hospital that he would take his son to a gender clinic and commence his son’s transition. Instead, he collected his son, quit his job, and moved his family of four out of Washington.”

Perhaps feeling the heat from the linguistic Gestapo even in his celebrity kitchen, iconic chef Jamie Oliver has come on board. Absurdly, Jamie vowed fealty to the ascendant normal by dropping the term “Kaffir lime leaves” from his recipes, in fear that the alleged “historically racist slur” would offend South Africans. No evidence at all has been furnished or demanded of complaints from South Africa in that regard. But it speaks volumes that someone of Jamie’s influence and visibility should nevertheless deem it prudent to anticipate such criticism even though, should it have materialised, it of course would not originate from South Africa but from white Western political correctness commissars.

Jamie is now busy, but not just cooking. He is going over his previously published recipes in order to expunge all offensive references to kefir leaves. Orwell aficionados will recall this precious passage from 1984: “Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered.” And now every recipe as well. The dystopia fits, does it not, to a tee even something as seemingly trivial as a cooking show?

But it is not just recipes. Children’s fairy tales are also fair game for 1984 revision. Hollywood actress Natalie Portman (Star Wars, The Professional, Thor), inspired apparently by the new cultural normal, has taken it upon herself not to write, but to re-write, several classic fairy tales to make them “gender-neutral,” so “children can defy gender stereotypes.” Predictably, pronouns were again a major target:

“I found myself changing the pronouns in many of their books because so many of them had overwhelmingly male characters, disproportionate to reality,” quoth Natalie as she put her linguistic scalpel to such old favourites as The Tortoise and the Hare, Country Mouse and City Mouse and The Three Little Pigs.

Need we go on, or does the sharp reader already get the general drift? How about State University of New York student Owen Stevens, who was suspended and censured for pointing out on his Instagram the ascertainable biological fact that “A man is a man, a woman is a woman. A man is not a woman and a woman is not a man.” (Owen was snitched on by fellow students, readers from the former Eastern bloc will be amused to learn.) Or the Nebraska university basketball coach who was suspended for using in a motivational speech the mysteriously offensive word “plantation”? Or the hip $57,000-a-year NYC school that banned students from saying “mom” and “dad”, from asking where classmates went on vacation or wishing anyone “Merry Christmas” or even “Happy Holidays”? Or female university student Lisa Keogh in Scotland who said in class “women have vaginas” (who would be better informed than she on that subject?) and are “not as strong as men”, who is facing disciplinary action by the university after fellow classmates complained about her “offensive and discriminatory” comments? Or Spanish politician Francisco José Contreras whose Twitter account was blocked as a warning for 12 hours after he tweeted what some would regard as the self-evident truth that “men cannot get pregnant” because they have “no uterus or eggs”?

As Peter Hitchens noted recently “the most bitterly funny story of the week is that a defector from North Korea thinks that even her homeland is ‘not as nuts’ as the indoctrination now forced on Western students.”

One of Yeonmi Park’s initial shocks upon starting classes at Colombia University was to be met with a frown after revealing to a staff member that she enjoyed reading Jane Austen. “Did you know,” Ms. Park was sternly admonished, “that those writers had a colonial mind-set? They were racists and bigots and are subconsciously brainwashing you.”

But after encountering the new requirement for the use of gender-neutral pronouns, Yeonmi concluded: “Even North Korea is not this nuts… North Korea was pretty crazy, but not this crazy.” Devastatingly honest, but not exactly a compliment to what once might have been the land of her dreams.

Sadly, Hitchens reports that her previous experience served Yeonmi well to adapt to her new situation: “She came to fear that making a fuss would affect her grades and her degree. Eventually, she learned to keep quiet, as people do when they try to live under intolerant regimes, and let the drivel wash over her.”

Eastern European readers will unfailingly understand what it is that Hitchens meant to say.

Laurel Hubbard will go down in the history books at the Tokyo Olympics as the first transgender athlete to compete at the Games. But the consequences of this decision for female athletes and women in general will be devastating and long-lasting.

The day may be imminent when natural-born females are no longer represented on the Olympic medal podium as biological males start to make serious inroads into their sports.

Laurel Hubbard, 43, is among five weightlifters chosen to represent New Zealand in the Tokyo Olympics to compete in the women’s 87-kilogram category. As an aside, he is also the progeny of Dick Hubbard, the former liberal mayor of Auckland. The criticism and controversy that has greeted the news of the first transgender athlete to participate in the Games does not seem misplaced. First, Hubbard, whose inclusion won the approval of New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, will enjoy a competitive advantage over his contenders that has been scientifically proven to come with inborn male attributes.

It seems ridiculous to have to remind anyone of the obvious anatomical differences between males and females, but such is the state of the current world we live in.

According to one study, published by the British Journal of Sports Medicine, “trans women still had a 9% faster mean run speed after the 1 year period of testosterone suppression that is recommended by World Athletics for inclusion in women’s events.”

The developmental biologist Dr. Emma Hilton seconded this opinion.

“Males can run faster, jump longer, throw further and lift heavier than females,” Hilton confirmed in a 2019 discussion. “They outperform females by 10% on the running track to 30% when throwing various balls.”

Hilton went on to produce some sports trivia to support her claim: there are 9,000 males between 100m world record holders Usain Bolt and Florence Griffith Joyner, the fastest woman of all time; the current female 100m Olympic champion, Elaine Thompson, is slower than the 14 year old schoolboy record holder; under-15 boys squad beat the U.S. Women’s National Team in a scrimmage.

And so on.

Those raw statistics are not meant to diminish, of course, the tremendous achievements made by female athletes. Rather, they are meant to demonstrate the very definite boundary that exists – or should exist – between male and female contenders. In fact, the physical differences between the sexes could actually come down to a matter of life and death. Already blood has been spilt.

TWEET: https://twitter.com/TartantuesdayI/status/1149253490750836737

Consider, for example, the 2014 Mixed Martial Arts contest between Fallon Fox and Tamikka Brents. Fox, the first transgender fighter in MMA history, subjected Brents to a violent beating that resulted in a fractured skull and concussion. How long before a female athlete suffers serious injury – possibly even death – at the hands of a transgender woman on the field of dreams?

As worrisome as that possibility may be, the real issue for female athletes is that these biological males are simply seen as interlopers trespassing on their territory, disqualifying them from the right to perform. Just ask Kuinini ‘Nini’ Manumua, 21, the woman who was deprived of making the Kiwi team due to the inclusion of Hubbard, who lived 35 years as a male before transitioning. As for Manumua, it would have been her first Olympics.

This is Kuinini ‘Nini’ Manumua, the woman who was ultimately displaced by inclusion of Laurel Hubbard.

She’s 21, and it would have been her first Olympics. pic.twitter.com/l8RH0q0njz

— Emma Hilton (@FondOfBeetles) June 21, 2021

Criticism on the decision to include Hubbard on the New Zealand team has been fierce. Belgian weightlifter Anna Vanbellinghen said that allowing Hubbard to compete at Tokyo was unfair to female athletes, calling it “a bad joke.”

New Zealander Daniel Leo, a former professional rugby player turned CEO, remarked in a tweet that the decision to include Hubbard “tarnishes [New Zealand’s] reputation BIG TIME.”

Meanwhile, the British advocacy group, Fair Play for Women, slammed the IOC’s policy as “blatantly unfair.”

“The IOC stated in its 2015 transgender guidelines that the overriding sporting objective is, and remains, the guarantee of fair competition,” remarked Nicola Williams, FPFW director. “But its current rules are blatantly unfair to women, and to trans gender women, who both want to play by rules which are fair to everybody.”

In the United States, meanwhile, resistance to the madness has taken root. A number of state legislatures are opposed to the idea of permitting transgender women to play sports alongside women. Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa and Kentucky, for example, are just some of the states that have passed legislation strictly forbidding the participation of biological males in female sports unless they have undergone full reassessment surgery and taken the relative hormones.

Louisiana law, by way of example, states that the student-athlete is eligible to compete in the reassigned gender when, among other procedures, “surgical anatomical changes have been completed, including external genitalia changes and gonadectomy.” They even demand that “legal recognition of the sex reassignment has been conferred with all the proper governmental agencies (Driver’s license, voter registration, etc.).”

Meanwhile, in ultra-liberal states, like California, Connecticut and Colorado, public schools are prohibited from discriminating on the basis of gender identity and gender expression. Now with Biden’s executive order on gender identity and sexual orientation in effect, schools are even legally required to let transgender females use the bathroom and changing facilities that match their gender identity, thereby invading the privacy of female students both on the field and in the locker room.

​Clearly, what needs to happen in order to ensure fairness and safety on the playing field (and in the locker room) is for more professional athletes to speak out on this alarming trend. One such brave woman is Czech-born American tennis star, Martina Navratilova, who is among a group of female athletes that launched the Women’s Sports Policy Working Group, which operates according to the idea that “if sports were not sex-segregated, female athletes would rarely be seen in finals or on victory podiums.”

The 18-time winner of the Grand Slam title opposed a situation where “trans men and women, just based on their self-id, would be able to compete with no mitigation … that clearly would not be a level playing field.”

Unfortunately, it appears that the IOC, by permitting Laurel Hubbard the right to compete alongside biological females, has taken a radically different view and approach on the matter, and this decision has all the potential to set back women sports by decades, if not make it altogether redundant.

Speak up now, ladies, or forever forfeit your rightful place on the Olympic podium.