The uproar over Florida’s ‘Parental Rights in Education’ law has served to again highlight not only the left’s capacity to lie, but its age-long obsession with sexualising children. To understand their motives it’s necessary to look a little deeper into some of the persons and ideologies that much of the modern left adheres to.
You could be forgiven for ignoring much of what comes out of Hollywood these days. Vapid and smug, the denizens of that rather unpleasant and massively overrated industry are generally best avoided, especially when attempting yet another typically ill-advised foray into the world of politics. Unfortunately a certain actor recently embarrassed himself so proficiently that he’s inadvertently triggered something of a blacklash, highlighting not only Hollywood’s political incoherence but the American “Woke” left’s own rank dishonesty.
Like the rest of his ilk, Ron Pearlman no doubt thinks he’s an authority on all kinds of things. Bullish and arrogant, he’s unfortunately graced film sets for years now, delivering mediocre performances in films such as Drive (2011) and Pacific Rim (2013). Mr Pearlman however recently decided to share his profound insights on Florida’s newly signed Parental Rights in Education Bill (PRE), using the medium of Twitter to broadcast a profanity-riddled rant that only served to highlight that fact he simply has no idea what he’s talking about
Some details are necessary. Repeating the popular lie that PRE is somehow designed to stop the word “gay” being said altogether, Mr Pearlman accused Florida Governor Ron Santis of being a “Nazi pig” (how original) before referring to him as a “piece of sh*t” who apparently needs to read the First Amendment. Pearlman’s belligerent incoherence, whilst objectionable, unfortunately stems from the mountain of lies surrounding the PRE bill, something that’s been intentionally constructed to undermine the defence of children and to better serve the anti-family, anti-parent, anti-child agenda of the US left.
A brief look at what the PRE actually does will prove this. According to the bill’s text as of signing, PRE will ensure that “classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate.” For those reading this outside the US, children in grade 3 will be eight or nine years old. So what this law does is protect children of that age and younger from material pertaining to so-called transgenderism and other massively inappropriate subjects that anyone in their right mind would want to shield children from. It does not control what any person on the street may or may not say in terms of their own personal and political persuasions, but instead ensures that parents have effective oversight in the education of their children to the point their kids are not subject to the incessant sexualised propaganda now common elsewhere.
It’s this specific point that has gotten leftists like Mr Pearlman so angry. Rather than permitting children to simply be children, the US left have launched a full-on assault on what were well-established family values, going out of their way to sexualise school curriculums, fill libraries with pornographic content, manipulate confused pupils into transgenderism (with tragic consequences) and even directly expose kids to cross-dressing perverts who have ultimately been discovered to be convicted child molesters. Florida’s PRE measures of course torpedo any such deranged schemes, protecting children and allowing schools to do what they are supposed to do, as in educate them. It’s that which has got characters like Ron Pearlman and other perpetually offended Wokeatrons so upset. They can’t, of course, simply come out and admit it, so they lie instead. The governor of Florida is a Nazi and homophobe. “Trans kids” are “at risk”. Concerned parents are “domestic terrorists”. The Orange Man is still bad. And so on and so forth.
The Postmodern Taint.
The left’s fixation with sexualising children is nothing new. Certain darlings of the so-called new left in the 1960s and 70s, such as Jean Paul Satre and his sporadic partner, Simone de Beauvoir, were in favour of abolishing age of consent laws, these two “theorists” actually signing a petition to the French Parliament in 1977 to discuss such a proposal. They were joined by a number of others, all of them considered “intellectuals” of their time, all of whom were downright depraved in their sexual leanings, albeit some more than others.
Michel Foucault, a leading figure in postmodern philosophy, was one of them. Foucault, in addition to having the distinction of denying the existence of AIDS before later dying from it, was a deeply disturbed individual with a frankly terrifying attitude towards sex and, you guessed it, children. Unlike many predators, Foucault had the hubris to try and intellectualise his shortcomings, attempting his own “History of Sexuality” as a means to legitimise his own malicious perversions. For some peculiar reason this book, like many of his works, is widely available in universities to this day.
Unfortunately it doesn’t stop there. Foucault’s deranged mewlings are part and parcel of the modern left’s hostile attitude towards the family and morality both, particularly within the field of human sexuality. For Foucault the sexual deviant wasn’t just to be accepted by wider society but actually carried the kernel of the new supposedly progressive society within himself. Sexual mores pertaining to Christianity, fidelity, love etc. were social constructs imposed on us from the outside. For this apparently unjust scenario to be overcome, such mores were to be deconstructed and replaced with a non-ethos of unfettered desire. Individual hedonism would thus become the norm and sex would be relegated to becoming just another recreational activity devoid of love, reason, and most certainly morality.
To say that Foucault was most likely an inhuman monster is something of an understatement. Unsurprisingly there are many who believe him to have been a persistent abuser of children, which would certainly make sense when one considers the nature of his “philosophy”. Indeed, given that postmodernism then and now is fixated on destroying any and all moral constraints on human sexuality it’s hardly unfair to suspect that its adherents think absolutely nothing of abusing others, children included. In the case of Mr Foucault and company this would appear to be the case. All the same, he remains widely celebrated by leftist “intellectuals” in the present.
He isn’t the only one. Herbert Marcuse was a theorist of the notorious “Frankfurt School”, itself a collection of intellectuals committed to the task of re-encapsulating Marxism independently of both western social democracy and eastern Bolshevism. In a similar mindset to Foucault, Marcuse took the Freudian notion of “polymorphous perversity” and attempted to utilise it as a means to validate absolutely anything so long as it yielded a sexually pleasurable result. Like Foucault, Marcuse was deranged enough to believe that the practice of such “perversity” was itself some kind of legitimate challenge to an oppressively hierarchical society. Again, like Foucault, his ideas are still actively “celebrated” by so-called Marxists and “revolutionaries” in our own epoch, and his writings continue to inspire others in their efforts to legitimise sexualised insanity as a means towards “challenging the established order.”
It should be noted that Marxists in any guise generally take a dim view of the family and, by association, sexual morality. The most obvious example of this is when Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels argued for the “abolition of the family” in their famous 1844 pamphlet “The Communist Manifesto”. Their reasons for doing this were complex and not sufficiently explained in the Manifesto itself, although we can gain at least some insights into their thinking by scrutinising their materialist and dialectical view of human society.
For Marxists, all human relations necessarily spring from economic relations, and the “patriarchal family” as such is nothing but a product of a specific ordering of social and class forces played out at a specific point in mankind’s historical development. Nothing is therefore sacred to such people. All is temporary, transitioning in and out of existence in accordance with the material dictates of a reality entirely absent of static notions of right and wrong. Karl Marx himself never seemed to show much interest in human sexuality (aside from when he betrayed his wife to impregnate his maid with a son he went on to ignore entirely) but individuals like Herbert Marcuse no doubt thought they were following in his footsteps when they put pen to paper. For Marcuse and his ilk, malforming human sexuality was a means to malform the family. We should keep that in mind.
Feminism and Sexual Revolution
As mentioned, the celebrated feminist, Simone de Beauvoir, like her partner Jean Paul Satre, was explicitly against age of consent laws. Ms Beauvoir does not appear to have been alone in “feminist” circles in terms of her attitude towards child abuse, with certain other persons apparently sharing them. Shulamith Firestone was one such individual, and in her book, “The Dialectic of Sex”, went to some lengths to politicise her own penchant for molestation, arguing that both the family and taboos against incest would have to be overcome in order for sexuality “to be released from its straitjacket and to eroticise our whole culture.”
Ms Firestone did not hold back on elaborating her plans for what she bizarrely thought would be a better society, arguing in the same book that her objective was to “promote relations with children (that) would include as much genital sex as the child was capable of”. In Firestone’s sick world, “non-sexual” relationships would entirely fall from favour, with absolutely everything, adult and child alike, serving as a receptacle for predatory lust. Whilst it would of course be foolish to think that ALL feminists then and now think as Ms Firestone did, both her and de Beauvoir were very much a part of the same movement, and it would be negligent to assume their ideas on this subject have just fallen out of fashion. The behaviour of the left in modernity and its “sex positive feminism” would certainly indicate they have not. A quick look at Ms de Beauvoir’s own personal interest in young girls would also indicate she was closer to Ms Firestone’s mindset than many would like to think.
Yet to really get to the heart of such ideologies we have to understand the cultural context in which they came to exist. The so-called “sexual revolution” of the 1960s thus warrants a little scrutiny, in part because this “revolution” was essentially successful and shows no sign of being curtailed, now or in the near future. To understand the sexual revolution, however, we must understand one particular individual, this being a zoologist named Alfred Kinsey, whose work did immense damage to the moral fabric of society and is partly responsible for the struggles we still face.
Mr Kinsey was an unsettling character in that, much like his comrades discussed above, he appeared to have absolutely no moral compass whatsoever. His twin books “Sexual Behaviour in the Human Male” and “Sexual Behaviour in the Human Female” are seen by some as having ushered in the “sexual revolution”, and much of his work seems to revolve around debunking certain ideas pertaining to sexual ethics in favour of popularising a libertine immorality. For Kinsey, everyone was as deranged as he was, arguing in his “research” that over ninety percent of married persons had committed adultery, ten to thirty seven percent of all adults had committed homosexual acts, and that fifty percent of “farm boys” (presumably agricultural labourers) had engaged in bestiality.
It gets worse. The author and academic, Bill Donahue, claims in his book, Common Sense Catholicism, that Kinsey collaborated “with paedophiles, keeping “scientific” records of their sexual exploits with the children they masturbated and penetrated”. For Kinsey, human sexuality was not fixed but existed on a continuum (sound familiar?) that could entertain all manner of terrifying perversities, all of which were somehow “scientifically” grounded and thus justified. Many “progressives” at the time reacted to this as you’d expect. The age of supposed prudishness was over. Kinsey had apparently proved that everyone was a deranged pervert and so there was no harm in acting like one. Right and wrong didn’t enter into it. Pleasure was all that mattered.
Sadly for Kinsey there were still enough decent people around to pick some holes in his “research”. One such flaw that was uncovered was his use of statistics. Kinsey liked to make out his findings were based on interviews with the average man in the street (who in his eyes must be as perverted as he) but in actuality he had a penchant for basing his findings on imprisoned sex offenders, prostitutes and abused children.
In short, Kinsey was a liar who was deliberately skewing his findings in order to present an entirely malformed view of human sexuality that would serve to validate his own perversity. Kinsey also appears to have gone out of his way to “prove” that abortion was far more common than it actually was, thus partly helping pave the way for the legalisation of abortion in the US in 1973. The damage had been done, and despite his exposure as both a fraud and child abuser, Kinsey remains influential to this day. The “Kinsey Institute”, for instance, still exists, boasting of its status as the “trusted source for scientific knowledge and research on critical issues on sexuality, gender and reproduction.” How progressive.
The Kinsey Institute is also a big fan of a certain Doctor John Money. For some reason Money is a relative unknown today, but he’s actually the “sexologist” who first coined the term “gender identity”, ushering in the whole new field of gibberish “science” on “transgenderism” that we unfortunately still have to endure. The not-so-good Doctor dedicated himself to other fields, fixating on categories such as “sexual orientation” and, of course, came to the conclusion that gender was arbitrarily assigned rather than being physical manifest in actual reality. He was also a child abuser himself, the full story of which can be found here, and shared the opinions of fellow deviants such as Alfred Kinsey that paedophilia and incest both were just other sexual preferences. Bear all this in mind the next time you hear somebody droning on about “trans kids”. The concept is not coming from a good place.
The legacy of people like Kinsey, Foucault, Marcuse, Money etc. unfortunately did not die with them. On the contrary, many of the ideas and terminology they employed has been integrated into the vernacular of 21st century Wokeism. Foucault and Marcuse’s notion that the sexual deviant is actually a revolutionary agent is now widespread, and this in particular has served to make certain persons immune to criticism even when accusations of serious harm come to the fore.
Indeed, it was only recently that the US Navy made the bizarre decision to name one of its vessels after the accused paedophile and LGBT activist Harvey Milk. Although it’s not confirmed that Mr Milk was what some people believe him to be, you’d have thought in this age where risqué jokes and unfashionable opinions can result in job losses that being an alleged child molester would result in cancellation. Mr Milk, apparently, is immune to criticism, a point well demonstrated by the likes of George Takei when he referred to a person concerned over Milk’s alleged conduct as being “even lower than the scum we already thought you were.”
Similar allegations against prominent members of the LGBT movement are not exactly unusual. Harry Hay is widely regarded as a gay rights pioneer and all round hero that people revere to this day. He was also known for openly defending an entity known as the “North American Man/Boy Love Association”, which unfortunately is as horrific an organisation as its name implies. Again it’s not entirely clear if Mr Hay was what some might suspect him to be, but his defence of NABLA does raise certain questions as to his own conduct and beliefs. If he were opposed to paedophilia then why would he have bothered with a group whose sole purpose is to promote it?
Peter Tatchell is another strange case. Described as a “national treasure” in the pages of the Guardian newspaper, Mr Tatchell styles himself as an LGBT “human rights defender” with something to say on all manner of things. He’s also previously defended paedophilia, writing to the Guardian several times in the late 1990s in defence of a book edited by one Joseph Geraci who was himself associated with a fortunately now defunct publication called “Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia”. The book, titled “Dares to Speak” (so brave) apparently consists of articles from Paidika, a point that Tatchell now claims he knew nothing about given he somehow had not even read the book he sought to defend. He did however still have an opinion on it, arguing in his letters to the Guardian that the book “challenges the assumption that all sex involving children and adults is abusive” and the publication of such a tome was thus “courageous”.
Tatchell also had a rather suspect relationship with members or ex members of an organisation (now dead and gone, fortunately) known as the “Paedophile Information Exchange” (PIE). This at one point appears to have involved writing an essay for a book edited by PIE’s own former vice-chairman, Warren Middleton. Tatchell’s essay was titled “Questioning Ages of Majority and Ages of Consent” and the chapter that followed was allegedly titled “Ways & Means: How to make paedophilia acceptable.” Other chapters that appeared in the book were titled “Child Pornography and Erotica”, “Child Prostitution” and another simply called “Incest”. Tatchell used his own chapter to argue that age of consent laws were based on a “moral fiction” and should therefore be questioned. “Human rights defender”, indeed.
Tatchell of course maintains he’s entirely innocent and claims he was “misquoted” in his letters to the Guardian. However his own writings mentioned above would certainly give any reasonable person grounds to suspect that Tatchell isn’t as well intentioned as he likes to make out, and his association with members of PIE and their politics has already been well documented elsewhere. PIE’s tentacles also extended into the leadership of the Labour Party at that time, and it’s unsurprising that both the LP and Tatchell himself still take a keen interest in sex education in schools and undermining the ability of parents to shield their children from inappropriate material.
Tatchell is also an associate of Ireland’s Minister for Children, Roderic O’Gorman, which, when revealed sparked a protest by Irish patriots for perfectly understandable reasons. The Irish left of course defended Tatchell and O’Gorman, branding the protesters as “homophobes” and “fascists”. Tatchell now has his own documentary out on Netflix, the latter of course being the streaming service that still refuses to take down the film “Cuties”. You couldn’t make it up.
A lesson to be drawn here is that we need to consistently question the motives of those who cry “homophobia” in the face of efforts to shield children from LGBT indoctrination. Whilst many of the individuals scrutinised in this essay are dead and gone, their followers soldier on as part of a broader movement, one that is both persistent and malevolent in its efforts to take control of the educational apparatus and western society in general.
This of course brings us back to the left’s reaction to Florida’s Parental Rights in Education law, a backlash that unfortunately shows little sign of settling down and has now resulted in teachers allegedly leaving their jobs in outrage at the notion of not being able to talk to little kids about sex. That’s not a normal reaction from normal people. The left is sick, but it’s a sickness that can be traced back to its point of origin in the minds of people like Kinsey, Money, Foucault etc. These individuals set out to harm others, including those who are most innocent and deserving of protection. Their modern “Woke” inheritors seek to continue that legacy. We shouldn’t stand for it. If we’re to take back our society from such people we need to be knowledgeable as to the ideologies that got us here. We can’t afford to do anything else. Our children depend on it.
Alfred Read is a journalist and writer see more of his work on LIBERTATIO HERE
His work is also on LIBERTATIO SUBSTACK HERE