An Appetite for Aplause

Yesterday the right-o-sphere was afire with the outrage of a show in a bar in TX called “Drag your children to pride” in which parents took children to watch drag queens in definitely inappropriate outfits, do definitely inappropriate dances. Then the children were coached either to participate or hand the drag queens money.

At the same time, Pizza Hut has decided to include books about drag queens and transsexual children (Pizza Hut doesn’t seem to realize there’s a difference) in their “incentive to reading program.”

A lot of the outrage has the tone of “this is happening all over” and “it’s the end of the world” and that’s bullsh*t. It’s not happening all over. Most parents don’t engage in that kind of stupidity. And the world has spun on through more horrible stuff than this current insanity.

On the other hand, I find myself outraged — just as I was when of Dan’s co-workers would take his entire family to Hooters with tiny kids in toe — and in sympathy with my socon brethren. In a sane world, CPS would be descending on those families like a bunch of bees on honey, and taking the kids away. Because that ridiculousness is inappropriate, insane, and frankly painful to even know it’s happening.

But the fact that the CPS isn’t taking the kids away, and the fact that parents are — at all — doing this nonsense makes me step back and go “Woa!” and “WHY would you do that?”

The most inappropriate thing I did with my kid was take him to a Libertarian party meeting, and frankly at 2 he was too young to be affected by talk of making government powerless. Also, we couldn’t find a babysitter.

I mean…. I don’t think it’s appropriate to take kids to see exotic dancers, male, female or squirrel. What is in these parents’ heads, precisely?

So I followed the link the twitter discussion, and then got even more disturbed.

About half the comments were by liberals — and if they don’t want to be called NPCs they shouldn’t all say the same — saying something like “But the parents are only taking the kids to these shows so if they grow up to be drag queens they’ll know they’re loved and accepted.”

Um…. clears throat…. What else are they exposing the kids to, so they know if they want to do it when they grow up, they’ll be loved and accepted?

Look, drag queen is a performance profession. Yes, profession. It’s done for money. It’s a sub-form of burlesque, which means it thrives on pushing the boundaries and the outre, which also means being ‘loved and accepted’ not only doesn’t mean much of anything, but also might destroy all their joy in their transgression. In fact, the reason drag queen performers participate in these shows and in drag queen story hour is not to be accepted, but to experience the transgression of doing this in front of children.

Honestly, it doesn’t mean they’re minor-attracted. Or gay. Or anything else. Drag queens get their rocks (and often money) off on the performance, and transgression of social norms. That’s all it is. And most of them, by the by, are outraged at being aggregated to trans.

Can your kid grow up to be a drag queen? I suppose. I mean, sooner or later every guy dresses up as a girl, usually for Halloween. Some find they like it. Waves hand. Whatever.

The performance they put on is a poor caricature of females, but that’s acceptable under burlesque and shock-acts. That’s fine too. Whatever.

I grew up in the seventies. I’m used to un-funny comedy acts. I don’t attend them voluntarily and had one of my boys decided this was what they wanted to do for a living, I’d have disapproved. Which if they were that type would have increased their interest in doing it.


Look, my mom disapproves of what I do. She disapproves of reading fiction, much less writing it. In her head all writing and reading should be “useful” meaning manuals and the like. She strongly disapproves of what I do.

I don’t care. I’m an adult, and I do what I am called to do. I am sorry she doesn’t like that I do it, but that’s life.

So, why must kids know that drag queening SPECIFICALLY is approved of?

Are their parents also taking them to circus performances, so they know if they want to be clowns or jugglers they’ll be loved and approved of? No? Why not?

For that matter, are these mostly upper middle class parents taking their kids to watch plumbers and carpenters work, so they know if they grow up to be plumbers or carpenters, they’ll be loved and approved of? No? Why not?

I suspect it’s because the parents have rats in their heads and also confuse drag queens with trans, and want the kids to know it’s okay to be trans.

But WHY is it so important for them to know it’s “okay” and they’ll be “loved” if they’re trans?

The message of “you can do whatever” is everywhere now, so why this?

Have they taken them to visit with ultra-conservative religious families and told them it’s okay if they grow up to be conservative and hetero. If not why not?

But more importantly, and seriously, why do these people think that total strangers applauding whatever they decide to do — whether it’s “caring” (enabling) drug addicted homeless or pretending to be the opposite sex — is so all-fargin important.

People don’t love you because you’re straight, gay, a drag queen or a plumber. (Though people often love a timely plumber, in appropriate circumstances.) People love you for who you are, outside those characteristics. People applaud you for doing difficult things. BUT NOT ALL PEOPLE. Only people who are close enough to you, either physically or emotionally, to give a hang.

You’re never — unless you’re a rock star — going to get multitudes of strangers fawning over you. And even if you are a rock star — or less likely a writer — strangers will only fawn over you for a limited, specific time.

Here’s a newsflash: People have their own lives, their own priorities and their own interests. NONE of us are the center of the universe. And no matter how outrageous anyone gets, he or she or it or idiot can’t get people to care about him or her universally. And I fail to understand why ANYONE would want to.

If you think the most important thing in the world is for some kid to know he’s loved and approved of if he grows up in 20 years to become a drag queen, I have very serious and urgent advice: GET A LIFE.

Because the rest of us have more important things to do with ours than hang on what anyone wants to dress up in.

Leave us alone and stop performing for the applause.

145 thoughts on “An Appetite for Aplause

  1. IMO “applause” is only part of it. It’s about “Thou Shall Approve Of Them”. 😡

    1. Forcing someone to act like they approve of something which they disapprove of is a classic abusive move– there’s a reason that the bad guy demands that the good guy say it when all he actually needs is for the good guy to not get in the way.

      1. For Oceania, it wasn’t enough to obey big brother. It was required that one love Big Brother. What the left is doing by way of indoctrinating and pressure here is no different, and there are plenty of NPCs who are eager to show their love for Big Brother.

        1. Yep.

          Thankfully, 1) we’re not in a book, and 2) law of really big numbers, there’s a lot of people who think or will claim they’ve slept with Bigfoot.
          (especially after you suggest that claim. :D)

  2. The videos of the protesters outside, and the counter – protesters, and the cops, were interesting also….
    The protesters kept asking the parents why they would bring their children to this kind of thing but none of them really wanted to discuss it. I also looked but I did not see any male parents in the crowd, just women. I wonder what that means…

    1. That sows eat their piglets?

      But seriously it makes me want to look into Moloch worship and whether the majority of participants were mothers. Or birth-givers. At this point, we’ve got a great many “mothers” who’d toss their own kids in Moloch’s fiery maw for the dophamine hit of social media likes.

    2. For whatever reason, it seems like trans-activist types and their most fervent supporters skew heavily female.

  3. For myself, I have been wondering for months why performing as a drag queen isn’t viewed with as much condemnation as performing as a black-faced minstrel. In both situations, performers are acting out a burlesque version of a persona that they are not – for the amusement of an audience. Why is one acceptable these days, and the other anathema?

    1. I suspect that if you were to talk to someone steeped in intersectionality theory they would tell you drag queens are “allies,” in the fight to “normalize queering children,” and thereby honorary oppressed. They may also assume that only a potential trans person would want to dress in drag and should therefore be affirmed as a step on the way to getting him to accept his trans nature.
      In practice, it is a direct attack on women.

      1. In practice, it is a direct attack on women.

        More and more, I’m getting the impression that women need: To be seen and not heard. To be ridiculed. To be dismissed. This messaging is coming from the left.

        1. I love it.

          Women have been at the forefront of all this garbage and it’s so satisfying that they might finally suffer even a little bit of the consequences.

          1. The irritating part, of course, is that conservative men’s first impulse is to inflict the consequences on the women closest to them.

            Completely ignoring that the women closest to them most likely a) did not support any of this and b) are and always have been just as opposed to it as the men themselves.

            Meaning that conservative women get all the backlash for leftist women’s misbehavior.

            And then conservative men wonder why they can’t find a wife.

            1. One of my big clues about some of this stuff, was how few of the women close to me wanted anything to do with it.

              I could then know, very clearly, that the feminists and the left were not strictly speaking on behalf of every woman.

              This actually helped me be relatively sane when it came to the sex based politicial activist nutjobbery.

              Other flavors of political activist nutjobbery? I took much longer to realize how narrow some of the ‘support’ is.

              It is relatively easy to incidentally have contact with people of the opposite sex. To fail to realize that they are not monolithic or uniform seems to take observational issues.

              Some of the other theoretical categories of division, it is much easier to accidentally have no contacts, or to be unaware of having the contacts. So, observational issues can come into play, but there are other explanations.

              Seeking revenge on an abstract category that is a large group of people is pretty nuts when the left does it. It is also usually nuts when we do it. (I’m arguing with myself about categories defined as individuals who have done this or that specific act. Symbolic acts of revenge, or revenge against innocents, seem to fall into the nuts category.)

              It is true that I have said things wrt to sex category activist stuff that was interpreted as hurtful by people whose opinion I valued. So, it is not a case where I had a complete set of perfect answers.

              I’m also far from being consistently decent to those around me.

              1. Not just women. I’ve known at least one trans-guy (M –>F) who I’m pretty sure is one of the 1 in 100K live births that have actual, no kidding gender dysphoria. His take on it? “Keep those crazy activists away from me!”

                1. His take on it? “Keep those crazy activists away from me!”

                  Oh. Take about 1976. Get a call from the District. “How do you feel about SuziQ joining the crew this summer?” Lets just say that she was a raging feminist and heavily into the drug culture of the time. Me? “Let me guess. I’ll be paired with her all summer?” Silence. Me. “Hell No!” Might have been only 19 and naive. Naive does not mean stupid or an idiot. The older woman, who occasionally worked in the field with the crew, had the same response, and she was local.

            2. The irritating part, of course, is that conservative men’s first impulse is to inflict the consequences on the women closest to them.

              This isn’t really all that surprising. After the workers of the world failed to fulfill the Marxist prophecies they changed things around to use racial and sexual “classes”.

              And there is NO ONE so strident in their belief of Marxism than the stupider breed of anti-communist conservative.

            3. I’ve never seen the phenomenon you’re describing, where conservative men “inflict the consequences [of the leftist garbage] on the women closest to them” who never supported it in the first place. Evidence, please?

              1. Right up above, and the people cheering as teen girls are forced to bath, room, and compete in sports against biological males.

                There were even people cheering for that poor boxer gal who was beaten bloody because, shocker, WOMEN AREN’T MEN.

                Usually, people aren’t stupid enough to push “punish this group for the Sins of the group” on the blog of a member of said group.

                You can go check out Instapundit for examples, too.

              2. There’s a strain of thought from some on the right that tends to arbitrarily lump all victims of certain types of progressive policy into the general pool of “people who supported this”. Some of the progressive policies in question adversely affect women specifically. And as a result…

              3. It’s the part about “the women closest to them” that I was objecting to; perhaps I should have clarified. You’re quite right that there are people lumping all women together when they shouldn’t be. But I haven’t seen anyone taking it out on the women closest to them: wives, sisters, daughters, etc., or cheering when those closest to them suffer the consequences of leftist insanity. Only anonymous women. You’re quite right that that’s buying into the BS Marxist idea of classes.

          2. No. Women haven’t. Improperly socialized little girls have.
            Women are the ones having the kids and raising them. They scare the hell out of the left and are the target of the blinkered, improperly-targeting right.
            Thanks. We love fire from both sides.

            1. But you don’t count: you’re really a white Mormon male!

              At least I thought your ‘woman’ card had been revoked.

              But sorry, no personal offense meant.

          3. I think one needs to make a distinction between women and girls. Age has nothing to do with it. I love women, a lot, always have. I hate girls, always did. Girls ruin everything.

            I would pay a great deal of money to watch Bob explain to my wife, or to any woman who posts here for that matter, why she should be seen and not heard. It would be spectacular and, after she was done, I could sweep up the remains.

            1. “why she should be seen and not heard”

              Not my argument. I actually prefer hearing what’s on peoples’ minds when they speak without fear, and the last five-plus years have done a lot to tear off the rose-colored glasses I and many others have been wearing re: the fairer sex and stomp on them.

              For whatever reason, the left has settled on women as prime instruments, whether as active foot soldiers or ‘weaponizing’ women so as to commit various forms of overreach in their name.

              To reference Tim Pool: toxic femininity exists. And it’s a problem. And the sooner women, men and society recognize that, the better off we’ll be.

              And yeah: toxic masculinity is also a real thing. It’s not what or where leftists say it is, but it’s real enough, and I could go on about it, but enough ink has already been spilled and is being spilled on men’s failings that I don’t see any need to add to it.

              In the long term (if there is a long term) that’s maybe going to mean women as a class losing some of their status and consideration. Here’s hoping.

              Meanwhile: I’m going to munch some popcorn and indulge in a little Schadenfreude as women face the prospect of getting upstaged in sporting events, and perhaps erased as an official classification altogether.

              Maybe then something might be done.

              Because as Prohibition showed us: the quickest way to societal change is for women to be uncomfortable.

              And I’m not too worried about conservative women: most of them have built families and support networks of trustworthy folks.

              1. On reflection, she’d probably feel sorry for whatever damaged you — she’s like that.

              2. > toxic masculinity is also a real thing

                Not that I can see. Though I suspect the toxic-screechers are using an entirely different, whack-a-doodle definition of “masculinity” than normal.

                “The perpetrator identifies as male, and I don’t like hir actions, therefore they are toxic!” might be pretty close.

                1. I’d say “toxic masculinity” is what the soibois acting like toxic females is. You know, the ones tearing down the idea of a man as a protector and provider–THAT is a deeply toxic idea, in my book 😀

                2. “…using an entirely different, whack-a-doodle definition…” That seems to apply to almost everything the left whines about, from what they call “racism” to what they refer to as various “phobias” (which are nothing of the sort). If it didn’t they’d have no arguments at all, not even the bogus ones they constantly harp on.

                3. Eh, toxic masculinity exists. Take the negative side of all the traditionally masculine traits and amp them up to 100 – think idiots who never emotionally matured past 16 or so. We all know a couple. It’s just the flip side of toxic femininity, where grown adults act like high school mean girls.

                  The technical term for both, of course, is “jackass”

          4. Congratulations, you just publicly declared that you deserve to get targeted by any of those folks that are angry at what some guy that isn’t you did.

            Right up there with any other idiot that wants to punish me for his bad taste in women.

            1. shrug

              I already do get targeted, whether I declare it or not. So geeses and ganders.

              1. You object to the boot stamping on the human face because you are not wearing it; I object because stamping on the human face is wrong.

                They are not the same.

                1. I’ve got zero interest in stamping anybody, but if the stamping finally spills over onto some who’ve been bystanders, then maybe the stamping might stop.

                  1. Too late to claim a lack of involvement, you started out with cheerleading for innocents being harmed because they’re in the wrong group.

                    1. I’m not claiming lack of involvement: I’m literally not involved. I’m observing consequences from policies and actions that I would have preferred to stop.

                    2. Yeah: I’m not involved. I didn’t cause this and I’m not doing anything to anyone now. That’s what I just said.

                  2. In my experience, nope, that doesn’t happen. The stampers just invent new reasons to expand the stamped-on group to include Those Girls Too and then everyone else agrees with it.

                    1. Especially when it’s those who weren’t going along with the stampers.

                      Then you have EVERYONE saying that yes, all of [group] agree, and can abuse those who show that’s a lie, with help.

          5. Bob, where on earth are the females in your life coming from? Every women I regularly interact with (including left leaning) disapprove of the taking little kids to see drag queens stuff. This is a small fraction of the female population that approves of this stuff.

    2. Because it is abnormal and intended to shock the squares. The transgression is a majority of the more aggressive end of the alphabet people.

      1. That’s the thing: they calm down when you visibly don’t give a $#!%.

        My example–a radically militant lesbian in grad school stopped pestering me when she got bothered about my lack of a reaction to her attempts to garner a reaction (outside the one time she called me a breeder and I responded by calling her an evolutionary dead end), and asked why I was neither uncomfortable, nor making jokes to demonstrate that I was comfortable, with her sexuality, was utterly astounded that I did not care, one way or the other, and stopped trying to get a reaction.

        (she later told me I was one of the most restful people she’d ever been around–because I didn’t care, and interacted with her the same way I did with everyone else: professionally)

        1. ” the one time she called me a breeder and I responded by calling her an evolutionary dead end”

          XD beautiful

      1. It is odd on one hand the left seems to want the world of Le Guin’s “Left Hand of Darkness” where everyone is effectively neuter until going into heat (kemmer) and then it’s a random selection who has which role. Essentially they seem to want to go back to the sexuality of some worms and nematodes (My apologies to worms and nematodes if I have that wrong). And yet we have some of the worst male sex offenders e.g. Clinton, various people in power in Hollywood, even some women like Ghislane Maxwell. It seems that cognitive dissonance is their favorite sound. trying to understand their logic is impossible for as far as I can tell there is none. They have literlly rolled with “If it feels Good Do it” with essentially no constraints.

      2. I have been informed by All The Best People all that’s just social constructions and means of oppression.

        Free yourself of your false consciousness!

        1. Yeah, that’s not celebrating being a woman, that’s acting like an a**hole to promote further hatred of women, while pretending its celebrating women.

          What menstruation represents is something they hate: the ability to bear children. So they’re not really celebrating it. It’s just another “weapon.”

          Also, any woman who claims to ENJOY menstruating has something deeply wrong with her. It’s something that happens, for many of us it sucks hugely, and only crazy people actually LIKE it (or claim to like it) in my book. (Note: not saying menstruating is bad. And what it represents is a wonderful thing, and THAT is worth celebrating. But…I can’t think of a single woman–of any political stripe–who is not completely bananapants bonkers who actually LIKES bleeding once a month. (Or more, if you’re really unlucky.))

          As I said somewhere else on social media in response to “uterus-and-ovary shaped” cereal (allegedly to promote “discussion” of things like menstruation)…that’s not helping things in any way, and likely making it worse. You don’t promote a healthy view or normalize the existence of natural phenomena by using them as a shocking and disgusting exhibition. You promote a healthy view by, you know, not acting like it is something weird and shocking Did my dad want to hear the nitty gritty details of the process? No. But neither did he object or act weird when he had to go get supplies for me, my sisters, or my mother. In fact, the only issue really was that he couldn’t remember who preferred which brand, and so generally erred on the side of caution and getting the kind nobody liked, but would work in a pinch 😀 Just because he didn’t want to discuss it ad nauseum did NOT mean he didn’t realize it was a normal thing that you live with and sometimes has wonderful results (but is always messy and frequently inconvenient)

          1. It’s kind of like any other waste product– it’s important, but disgusting, a health hazard if not handled properly, and thus perfect for being offensive with when you want to preen about being “realistic.”

            Oh, and it’s got the added “bonus” of weird hormone fluctuations, since it’s at the intersection of several different changes, and if you’re a little off on several different nutrients it’s even more miserable.

      3. And yet the current insanity of the radical left seems to be driven almost entirely by toxic women.

        Maybe after 50 years of feminist gaslighting, a kind of mass formation psychosis is creeping in. Or maybe it’s just that women tend to compete with each other in ways that, writ large and unchecked by moderating necessities, are incredibly destructive to order and stability. (Male competition taken to extremes is destructive, but in more direct and immediately deadly ways, and may actually tend to be less destabilizing.)

        I think mass-murder school shootings, which pretty much weren’t a thing 40+ years ago and are exclusively a male phenomenon, could well stem from being steeped in female toxicity. The feminist left has done a very good job of tearing down the social structures and civilizing forces that guide males toward prosocial behavior — and hasn’t replaced them with anything.

        Or maybe I’m all wrong…thinking out loud here.

        1. a) ‘seems to be’. i) Our observational skills are kinda bad when it comes to the scales we are discussing. ii) There are definitely also men involved.
          b) It seems to have been as bad for the sanity of women and girls as it has for the sanity of men and boys. Spree shooting is within the category of male type violence, females are more likely to poison instead. Leftism is almost certainly implicated in the shootings. It seems to be that the behavior we call sane was more or less defined from a heavily Christian culture. Folks with problems, but who have a serious grounding in Christianity, conservatism, or American culture seem to wind up stabilized by that exposure. In comparison, what the left and the bureaucracies provide seems to lack whatever the magic stabilizing ingredient is.
          c) chemistry is probably not a completely trivial factor. Recreational drugs, psych drugs, and maybe there could be an issue with hormones, given some hearsay about fecklessness in handing those out.
          d) There are a lot of women. Very definitely that represents a great aggregate ability to choose to do evil. However, there are also a lot of men, and likewise.

          Quite a lot of folks have chosen good, otherwise we would have actually managed to have worse problems.

          I think it unlikely that a fraction of women had a monopoly on doing the evil that was done. I consider that model, and go ‘wait, were the men just standing around in complete ignorance?’ My feeling is that it is more probable that there was a complicated collection of groups working with and against each other. I don’t think ‘Team Evil’ factions were exclusively female, or got the work done entirely without male contributions. We can select a slice of the data that could look predominantly female, but I’m not persuaded that this is meaningful.

          1. “Quite a lot of folks have chosen good…”

            This is a heartening thing. I have to remind myself sometimes that the overwhelming majority of people just want to prosper and be decent to the other people in their lives. The toxic/destabilizing/harmful people are a very small minority, and those who are doing so and aware of the damage they’re causing (who literally are evil, not just a cause of evil things) are a vanishingly tiny set.

            “…a complicated collection of groups working with and against each other…”

            Yes, true. My painting with the broadest of brushes idea there was not so much that it’s only women doing it, but that the left, having completely internalized the feminist ideology, has adopted a quintessentially female mode of operation. Backstabbing, emotional abuse, and poisoning/destabilizing the enemy’s social connections and support.

            Thanks for the measured and rational reply.

            1. Backstabbing, emotional abuse, and poisoning/destabilizing the enemy’s social connections and support.

              Have you looked at Rules for Radicals?

              Or back more– to the stuff that Communist or Socialist activists did?

              I’m pretty sure Sarah has mentioned Marx using such tactics, but I know they’re go-to Soviet stuff.

              1. Yeah, those actually started coming to mind as I was writing my reply. The left has been doing things that way for a looong time. I do think toxic feminism is a huge component of the left’s behavior, especially now, but it can’t really be the root of it all.

                1. Goodness, yes– easy access to females is an incredibly powerful motivator, especially if you can get people to believe it’s the only way you can find a mate, even a temporary one.

                  Macbeth had a lot of the same themes, didn’t it?

        2. The “toxic women” by and large have absorbed the idea that, to be successful, they must be cads– and their “male feminist” allies have, likewise.

          This was predicted back when the “sexual revolution” got going, by the way. By all those lame-o “SoCons” who suggested that, perhaps, choice of partner for reproductive acts is more important than in picking a partner for tennis.

        3. RE “a kind of mass formation psychosis is creeping in”

          The official framing of the mass formation psychosis “phenomenon” is misleading and wrong. The false hope-addicted psychologists and their acolytes want you to believe this is “just some temporary occasional” madness by the masses that has been going on for a couple of centuries when it is but a spike of a CHRONIC madness going on for aeons with “civilized” people — read “The 2 Married Pink Elephants In The Historical Room –The Holocaustal Covid-19 Coronavirus Madness: A Sociological Perspective & Historical Assessment Of The Covid “Phenomenon”” ….

          One of these mainstream psychologists who have been spreading this whitewashed reality, Dr. Desmet, also fails to see that the PLANNED Covid Psyop is a TOTALLY deliberate ploy because he doesn’t think (after more than 1 year, even 2 years, into this total PLANNED scam!) it’s ALL intentionally sinister as he stated in a prior podcast (this makes him witting or unwitting controlled opposition).

          In the May of 2022 podcast with James Corbett he stated that “some people tend to overestimate the degree of planning and intentions” (behind the COUNTLESS, VERIFIABLE, FULLY INTENTIONAL, FULLY PLANNED atrocities by the ruling tribe of psychopaths over the last century alone) and see all of it as being planned which Desmet called “an extreme position” … Sound logical thinking is “extreme” and therefore false and sick in his demented delusional view!!!

          In his overpriced misleading whitewashing old material regurgitated book the psychology of totalitarianism he too states that “There are countless … examples that seem to point in the direction of a plan being implemented, such as the fact that the definition of ‘pandemic’ was adjusted shortly before the coronavirus crisis; that the definition of ‘herd immunity’ was changed during the crisis, implying that only vaccines can achieve it … [he continuous with several other obvious facts of an ENTIRELY PLANNED event, especially discerned through the totality of all these facts].” “SEEM to point in the direction of a plan”??? No! They most evidently, clearly, and irrefutably DO demonstrate and prove it IS a COMPLETELY AND FULLY DELIBERATE PlanDemic! A big scam. An Entirely Planned Holocaust against the non-ruling herd of people (see cited link above). A coherent 12-year old kid can figure that out.

          It clearly shows Desmet’s own complete lunacy. But because almost everyone in the culture is a member of mass formation (madness), including the “woke” people of the alternative media domain, hardly anyone recognizes Desmet’s lunacy. Not surprising that he has even become some type of popular “guru” among the adherents of the alternative media landscape.

          With his false use of language Desmet obscures or hides the true reality instead of directly and uncompromising exposing it — aiding the obfuscation of the vital reality of what the ruling authorities really are. He does the same thing when he speaks of ‘the elite’ (as he does in a number of podcasts) when, in reality, they are THE SCUM OF HUMANS because they are REALITY-VERIFIED PSYCHOPATHS (see referenced source above). Yet in the Corbett podcast he “teaches” us that we, the masses, need to start thinking differently. Right… how about YOU start with sane instead of insane thinking/talking/”teaching”/etc, Dr. Desmet?

          This all means Desmet is ALSO a member of the masses of lunatics, an ACTIVE CARD-CARRYING MEMBER of mass formation!!! When, if at all, will he wake up from his state of mass psychosis? When, if at all, will he face the TRUE and FULL reality instead of hiding behind fantasies such as his whitewashed “reality” of human civilization?

          It shows we live in a global mental asylum with criminal and/or delusional mainstream psychologists, scientists, and docs as the guards, “teachers” and “therapists” … The blind/criminal/mad leading the blind/criminal/mad; the blind/criminal/mad adhere to the blind/criminal/mad = the human madhouse.

          Worst of all, perhaps, the mass formation/mass psychosis notion frames the problem as the public being a mere unaccountable non-culpable victim in this phenomenon (the gist of the circular argument is: the masses should change their thinking but they got brainwashed so they’re victims). Nothing could be further from the truth (see referenced source above).

          Desmet is right in that truth-activists must fight against mass formation psychosis (human madness). That also means exposing HIS deeply destructive mad part of it.

    3. Because women have fewer Victim Points.

      Witness that you can’t decide what race you are.

  4. I suspect there is also a strong rejection of nature and the idea that there are natural boundaries in this. Basically, if everything can be what we choose it to be, then gender must be as well.

    Something that really shocked me the first time I saw it was the DOD human mechanics standards. It’s MIL-STD-1472C. It has the geometry of every single type of aircraft cockpit knob, which is really handy for simpit buulding.

    What is also has is a table of 5%-95% lifts and static muscle strength. Note these are for DoD personnel, and are the range of expected human strength for someone in the armed forces. On Rev C, it’s on page 210, table XLI.

    The average female range is about half the average male range. The 5% male is on average 2x as stronge as the average 5% female in nearly all lifts. Infact, the 5% male is slightly stronger than the 95% female in nearly all lifts. The 95% male is about 1.5x as strong as the 95% female in nearly every lift, and in some cases has as much as 2.5x the strength.

    In some cases the 95% male is six times stronger than a 5% female.

    These are huge differences in physical limits, that I and no idea even existed up until then.

    And doubling the load bearing capacity of a structure isn’t a six month thing either. The idea that you can just do that with a round of hormones should be laughable on its face, yet actual accredited physicians repeat it every day. It’s insane.

    1. “If everything can be what we choose it to be, then gender can be as well.” Say that to gravity sometime. There is a boundary where “everything” becomes “nothing,” and we’re really close to that boundary right now.

      1. “The law of gravity is nonsense. There’s no such thing. If I think I float, and you think I float, then it’s happened.”

        1. Or as a far better writer than I put it:

          “The Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more”

    2. It’s also a good reminder that there is no one size fits all. We like adjustment instead of averages now. Was an apocryphal story where they went thru thousands of records that created those tables and found no one who was perfectly average.

  5. It’s called “grooming”, and it means “recruiting”.

    Part of any tyranny is compelling the victims to accept degrading humiliation.

    Like publicly molesting their kids, for example.

    1. True, but there are people wired for terrible parenting in every population.

      And, the Left is really big into overstating their support via supply of carefully selected examples distributed via media.

    2. Remember the halcyon days of yore, when grooming just meant good personal hygiene?

      1. You mean, like way back in 2015 or so?

        That’s like the 14th century in Internet Time.

    3. Granted that there are people who get off on flaunting their sexual beyond the pale proclivities. There have always been such, and they were pretty much restricted to performing for a particular clientele. These days these displays have become increasingly widespread and public.

      When I got out of the Navy in 1975, having not watched hardly any TV (not much reception at sea) for four years I was appalled and disgusted by how far the moral tone of regular programming had degenerated. It has gotten worse year after year and it is all grooming. The entertainment industry became the leaders by example of ever more promiscuous sexual mores, society has followed along. I will say the unsayable: that this push to “liberalize” sexual morays has resulted in increased divorce, unwed pregnancies with now vast numbers of fatherless single mother “families” (the pathologies of which have been known for decades), rampant STDs, child sexual abuse and a conflation of relationship with genital activity to the detriment of the institution of the family.

      No doubt the parents taking their kids to crave recognition and applause for skating along the bleeding edge of edgy without regard for the psychic welfare of the child. They are consenting to have their children groomed so that as they grow they will be unable to recognize the danger signs of potentially (too frequently, actually) abuse relationships.

      And that is the point of the exercise for the trend setters’ thought leaders: reduce the individual kid to a walking set of genitals seeking to be serviced and the destruction of the family.

  6. Who wants to be the first to stop clapping, or the last to start clapping, for Stalin?

    Okay, it is better to avoid situations where you will be murdered for not clapping, or whatever arbitrary signal a mad criminal seizes upon.

    Look at the social climbers ‘in who goes Nazi’. There are go along to get alongs, and then there are extreme go along to get alongs. who have a disordered appetite for the approval of others, and/or see it in utilitarian ways as being a means to success.

    Folks who are formally bosses have other folks, sycophants or suck ups, who think that bosses have more ability to help those they approve of than they really do.

    Normal levels of this disordered thinking include things like sending your kids to public school, in the theory that it is helpful and harmless.

    Abnormal disorder is the people for whom children are a utilitarian means of pleasing other adults. If those folks are in the left cult, drag shows. But, these types of parents only possibly manage to not be abusive if a) they are not around /any/ predators b) they have only good parenting role modeled for them, and the other adults around them can see when they are abusive, and put a stop to it. Both seem individually improbable

    Anyway, this can’t be entirely separated from the pro predator activists, but the folks who are fast to compete in this sort of extreme have something wrong with them.

  7. I see many of those parents taking their kids to something like that so other parents will think they’re cool. Oh, look! Martha took her six-year old to a drag show! How brave! How daring! Oh, Martha you’re so cool! Martha revels in that crap. Parents are doing it for social credit. It is shameful.

      1. I did a search on “Munchausen by proxy” before I commented. Sarah’s friends are well informed.

        Yes, it’s deliberately maiming your child in order to get attention for yourself. And it is evil.

        1. Yup there seems to be a serious need for attention by the Brahmandarin/tranzi types. It feels like the left is a bunch of neglected mistreated children begging for attention and affection. If they weren’t so fricking dangerous to the rest of us they be darned pitful sad little creatues like the one Lazurus Long mentions “This sad little lizard told me that he was a brontosaurus on his mother’s side”

          1. I wonder just how many people really think this way. I suspect we’d find the village atheist, the village idiot, and a couple of out of town narcissists.

            More and more I wonder just why I “know” about the things I do. After all, I know who the Kardashians are, it came up in the spell check! Why do I know that? Do I really need to know that? Is it good for me to know that? Whose purpose is served by my knowing that?

            1. BGE Said “I wonder just how many people really think this way.”

              Depends on where you are. In suburban areas of the blue states like where I am it’s probably at least a 1/3, may skate to as high as 50%. It is a class/income level thing. In the White Collar world it’s probably closer to 75%. The Blue Collar folks and such like still hold to more traditional views even if they aren’t regular practitioners of any religion, although that seems to be changing, the tail of the GenX and the Millenials Gen Z etc in the blue areas have no exposure to religion (Christianity or otherwise). Their education has been that man needs G*d like a fish needs a bicycle and any view they have of religion has been (intentionally) biased by the news and education folks making religious adherence part of the things supporting white supremacy. Get out of the population centers and its less pronounced but still there in the Blue states.

  8. And then the kids show up to work retail, wearing a 6-foot blonde braid wig attached to the top of their head and tights so tight their family jewels can be seen in every detail. And English riding boots. And a gallon of cologne so you can smell him coming. Prance, prance, then he looks around to see who’s clapping.


  9. In fairness, some of these people also try to make it so that the shared institutions of a nation are difficult if not impossible to share between ethnicities, such as ‘white’ and ‘black’, and conclude that in doing so they are /NOT/ being white nationalists.

    1. Well of course not. They want nations of color. Those of us of pallor will be executed by their jackboots to protect and serve the ruling class.

      1. Damn, when I read that my eyes apparently combined parts of 2 lines and I read “jackboots of color”. And it seemed so appropriate!

  10. My earliest ancestors fought sabre toothed tigers and my ancient ancestors fought the Huns. My recent ancestors fought Indians, my uncles fought Hitler, my father fought Koreans. My generation fought for women’s rights. My children’s generation fought for homosexual marriage. My grandchildren’s generation is fighting for pronouns.

    Seems to me the ardor to fight epic battles has persisted even as the quality of the battles has declined.

    1. The ardor to get the respect for HAVING FOUGHT IN epic battles is at an all-time high.

      Ardor for the actual fighting? Not so much.

      1. Both sides were here for the Revolutionary war. Just found out Applegate family has been here for 400 years, landing in Weymouth, Massachusetts, mom, dad, and 3 of their 5 children. Youngest two born a few years after arrival.

      2. My crowd were here, — fighting in the British Army. Well, one was in the French army so there’s that,

  11. Isn’t letting children below legal drinking age into a bar against the law?

    This is insane from beginning to end.

    Does any other species have deviants that engage in sexual activity with immature [cubs, kits, calves, fawns, chicks, whatever]? What species has deviants that try to induce other adults and young to do so?
    ‘Progressives’ will do the wrong thing just because the people they hate do the right thing.

      1. The legal definition is that less than 50% of their income doesn’t come from liquor. Between “entertainment” and “food”, the books show that. The same regulation affects whether you can carry in there.

        1. It depends on the state. In AZ you can carry concealed in a “real” bar if you have a CCW permit, but you can’t drink alcohol while armed. And although AZ has Constitutional carry, it doesn’t extend to bars. I’m a bit vague on whether CC is OK in restaurants that serve alcohol, but since it doesn’t affe\ct me I never checked on that part of the law.

          1. Yeah, state law, and if the state doesn’t have pre-emption, check county and city laws too.

            1. Or even if pre-emption is the law. Cities, and to a lesser extent counties, seem to take delight in violating pre-emption and letting the courts sort it out; not a “Good Thing” (TM) for the poor schmuck caught in the gears, sometimes for months or years.

    1. I think that depends on the state. I think in some it is just sitting at the bar, or after certain hours, that is banned. I know when I was a kid and my dad played in recreational leagues on Saturday, my parents would take me to a table at the bar the team was celebrating at, and I’d have OJ and a snack. And in my mid-teens I’d often go to bars with them for blues or rock music, again, sitting at a table, not the bar.

      1. It is variable by state. Not sure of current law, but at least into the 1970’s a minor with parent or guardian could even be served alcohol at a bar in WI. That’s not the case in MN, but a minor, in the presence of parent, may partake of alcohol at home – but nowhere else.

        1. 1975 – ’77, Oregon (specifically Corvallis), there was a very upscale restaurant that I finally got to go to with my parents, and new boyfriend (soon to be hubby), early ’78 … I finally turned 21 the prior October and mom & dad were in town. Tried in ’76 when dad was up for business, and they wouldn’t seat us because I wasn’t 21. I remember pizza parlors that had family and not family sections. Latter served alcohol. Worked at one. District manager got angry when I refused to step on the alcohol side. When I “reminded” him I was only 19 … he was not happy (store manager knew, was the one who had warned me about not going on that side). Legally there were huge fines on the company, and me, if I stepped even one toe on that side. I didn’t have the finances to risk getting fined. I found another job.

          Major changes in state since then. Even not that long ago Texas Roadhouse had a non-minor section around the bar area. Now the only limitation is can’t seat minors directly at the bar.

    2. Bonobos have some sexual behavior we’d label deviant. And at about 5 months we found one of our cats trying to mount his little sister.

    3. I’m amazed (not really) at the number of people who can’t figure out that this is the equivalent of taking kids to a strip club, but think it’s totally okay because hey, drag is cute and cool, right? Some of whom may be thinking of, say, a drag revue of over-the-top female impersonators in evening gowns singing pop music covers, like you’d see in Vegas twenty or thirty years ago, and have that idea in their minds. And totally disregard that these performers are dressed like strippers and doing stripper dances. Which is a completely different thing.

      There’s at least one person on the Book of Faces who can’t distinguish between “specifically targeted at children” events designed to normalize sexualizing children, and kids being preyed on in other circumstances where the focus is elsewhere.

      Predators are going to predate. They used to have to disguise themselves and put themselves into positions where they could have access to their victims. Now parents are bringing the victims to them, and they don’t have to disguise themselves anymore.

      1. Now parents are bringing the victims to them, and they don’t have to disguise themselves anymore.

        The same parents are going to shocked. Shocked. That their precious was preyed on.

        /sarcasm off

  12. A question that has been meandering through my mind: what’s the difference between drag and blackface? AFAICT, both of them take a “minority” group and caricature it for laughs.

    1. Ummm… that True-Dough the Canadian Castrado never did drag? So far as we know, anyway…

        1. No surprise; he did blackface (which is ignored by the MSM), so his drag history is no surprise.

  13. in our “anything goes” culture … The message of “you can do whatever” is everywhere now, so why this?

    a society that CELEBRATES (not just accepts) deviant behavior gets more of it … and some of it goes too far even for our “anything goes” culture … like slaughtering school kids … but don’t “blame” the culture … when they said “anything goes” there was an hidden asterisk *(its ok to TALK ABOUT killing everyone at your high school (see Texas shooter) but please refrain from actually doing it …)

  14. that which is taboo is titillating, and therefore it’s to be commended. always push the boundaries of decency. then the attitudes change years later, and they’re vilified by their erstwhile friends for stuff that happened back in the day

    1. And, consider other entertainers that push norms.

      I’m not personally familiar with Dave Chapelle and Ricky Gervais. I only have slight exposure to Trey Parker, and Matt Stone.

      Ben Shapiro could be understood as an entertainer, and someone who violates the norms of the left.

      Maybe there are places where transgressive behavior is appropriate, or even laudable. But, those are not for children to learn from.

      An adult can speak in a carefully selected way, using a great deal of skill. Kids are gonna lack the skill, and the experience. The behavior that will serve a child better is one that can be appropriate at a lower skill level.

      1. It depends upon what is being transgressed. Transgressing against Woke dogma in front of children may be entirely appropriate.

        1. But, that should be in the behavioral norms that the parent is personally modeling for the child.

          Not a special sort of transgression art where you have to go out of your way to find performers.

  15. We all perform for the applause.

    The question is-what is the “applause”?

    For some people, it’s the adoration of the crowd.
    For others, it’s a “well done” from people we respect.
    For quite a few, it’s large stacks of large denomination, non-sequential bills in a Zero Halliburton attaché case…half now, half on delivery…

  16. Look, drag queen is a performance profession. Yes, profession. It’s done for money. It’s a sub-form of burlesque, which means it thrives on pushing the boundaries and the outre, which also means being ‘loved and accepted’ not only doesn’t mean much of anything, but also might destroy all their joy in their transgression. In fact, the reason drag queen performers participate in these shows and in drag queen story hour is not to be accepted, but to experience the transgression of doing this in front of children.

    I know I’m drifting into “no true Scotsman” territory but I don’t consider “Drag Queen Story Hour” performers drag queens. Certainly, they are not like the queens I know nor are they doing something any burlesque people I know want to do or endorse.

    As you say burlesque is about pushing boundaries. It is about being transgressive. But, like most arts of transgression, it has a narrow window. It is an adult performance of sexual exaggeration and coyness at the same time. As children cannot understand the adult aspects of the performance at best a real drag queen can be a humorous dress-up, a Mrs. Doubtfire. No drag queen (or king) worth her salt would consider that a worthwhile performance.

    Sadly, and I do mean sadly, I missed the golden age of drag shows here in Atlanta, although we’re perhaps in a silver age a blooming. I know the stories told with a mix of relish and embarrassment and none would have come from a drag queen story hour.

    Add in how many DQSH performers have been outed as child molesters and it doesn’t add up. Most queens are gay men (most kings are lesbians) but even compared to other gay men they seem uninterested in younger men/boys (a lot of gay men seem fascinated with teens and twink culture comes out of that a bit I suspect). The jollies of drag before kids don’t seem to fit them.

    And most of them, by the by, are outraged at being aggregated to trans.

    I suspect most are just as outraged at drag queen story hour but feel less safe in saying so.

    Also, crossdressers ain’t too pleased either, although some close to the tipping point might be pushed over by the takeover of CD spaces by transactivists others have just left. Trans activism and egg theory dominate most now and a lot of the fun is gone.

    1. “Egg theory?” Or is that one of those things that it’s likely that if I don’t already know, I don’t want to know?

      1. Yes…the briefest outline: any displaying any gender expression experimentation is transgendered and in denial.

        1. That… has to be the stupidest thing I have heard this week. And I am on Twitter

          1. Oddly, despite rejecting biological sex trans activists are the most essentialist about gender display indicating “true” sex than any biological essentialist.

            1. I have said it before and I will say it again: these crazies are so bound into gender roles that the Victorians of popular imagination would go “Dude, chill out”

            1. Oh hell yeah – I want that essay in every newspaper and feed. Never happen, though.

      2. Trans activists actively exploit psychologically vulnerable children and teenagers, who are the eggs. Even the slightest bit of experimentation or confusion is a crack to be widened…and broken eggs can’t be put back together. Evil.

Comments are closed.