This week, I thought we’d take a respite from the Chinese coronavirus, communist agitators, ginned-up charges of racism and juvenile public-policy proposals, and examine a couple of items that made news over the last few weeks. These garnered less attention than they otherwise might have given the above stories, which of course have dominated news cycles for many weeks.
On July 2, Ghislaine Maxwell – girlfriend and confidante of the late Democratic mega-donor and procurer to liberal elites, Jeffrey Epstein – was arrested by the FBI on multiple sex-abuse charges, including conspiracy to entice minors to engage in sexual acts. Maxwell has been accused of running a sex-trafficking operation that brought girls – some as young as 14 – to Epstein’s Manhattan home and other venues, where they were reportedly violated by Epstein, high-profile politicos and celebrities.
Obviously, given the gravity of the story and the controversy surrounding Epstein’s highly suspicious jailhouse death on Aug. 10, 2019, a lot of people are concerned for Maxwell’s safety and what she will ultimately have to say about the aforementioned elites who associated with Epstein.
Then, on July 10, Sports Illustrated announced that Brazilian-born Valentina Sampaio will be the first “transgender” model to appear in the magazine’s annual Swimsuit Issue “as part of the magazine’s attempts to diversify its roster of swimwear models.” The wispy Sampaio, 23, has racked up a number of “trans firsts” in recent years, being the first to appear on a Vogue magazine cover in 2017, and the first to represent the Victoria’s Secret lingerie line last year.
Although these two stories may appear more or less unrelated, I beg a moment’s indulgence. Believe me – there’s definitely a connection.
Vis-à-vis the Sampaio story: I seldom warn my readers when I’m about to say something controversial, because I do this fairly often. However, since so many otherwise reasonable parties have been cowed into accepting aspects of LGBTQ+ sensibilities over the years, I believe that a warning is merited.
I have previously articulated in this space that there is no such thing as a “trans” person. Here, I’ll go as far as to say there is no such thing as a gay or lesbian person either. People engage in lifestyles and behaviors that one might label as sexually deviant because they are psychologically scarred – period.
Now, I’m sure the argument that will arise, perhaps even among those who aren’t particularly sympathetic to the LGBTQ+ cause, is as follows: I am neither a psychologist, a psychiatrist, a sociologist nor an anthropologist, so how can I credibly make such statements?
To which I would respond with a couple of salient points: In practical application, anecdotal or circumstantial evidence trumps empirical evidence at least as often as it is contradicted by the latter. In our society, academics in particular love to downplay the validity of anecdotal and circumstantial evidence, either because it does not support their own agenda, or because there are no peer-reviewed studies at hand.
The second point I would make is this: If you’re planning to wait on the scientific or medical communities to be forthcoming with an honest, scientific appraisal of the nature of the behavior of those who self-identify as LGBTQ+, you’d better plan on waiting a long damned time.
So, say you’re willing to bite. Just how do I support my contentions?
Since we’ll probably always have a certain segment of society being raised in dysfunctional environments sufficient to produce psychological scarring, it’s likely that we’ll always have a certain segment of society that develops these proclivities. It’s the matter of degree however, that actually makes my proposition self-evident.
Despite Sampaio’s contention that he – I absolutely refuse to call someone wielding male sex organs a “she” – grew up in a remote fishing village in Brazil where his biggest problem was a lack of acceptance of “trans” people, the fact is that we’re not seeing this proliferation of such people anywhere but in the West, where post-1960s Sexual Revolution sensibilities abound.
During the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s – which was driven by the far left – all forms of sexual libertinism were aggressively promoted. Even more damaging was the fact that the early sexualization of children began at that time. Teens became sexually active sooner, leading to unwanted pregnancies and injurious emotional entanglements that, in many cases, dramatically impacted the individuals involved for the remainder of their lives.
It is well worth mentioning that in similar fashion to the catty invective liberals’ opponents face today, those who balked at adopting the new sexual paradigm were threatened with being called big fat prudes. I’m not sure what’s so harmful in being called a prude, but it’s safe to say that as a nation, we capitulated completely.
Subsequently, the divorce rate soared to around 50% and remains in this area to this day. Liberals are often eager to point out that the divorce rate is equally high among those who self-identify as Christian. This should be no surprise, however: In the 1960s, Christians – who are part of the general population, after all – went from being exposed to media, press and education that had been safe, to media, press and education that was patent leftist social engineering. Thus, many of these folks were insidiously subverted along with everyone else.
So, we have a 50% divorce rate, which means more disharmony, psychological stress and dysfunction in homes, fewer boys bonding with healthy male role models and more girls abused by Mom’s new husband or the string of predatory boyfriends. We have homosexuals legally adopting children, because to prohibit them from doing so would be bigoted, of course.
And it only got worse over time. The normalization of homosexuality gave rise to the inclusion of “gay” viewpoints in media, press and education. The levels of deviance increased, and activists’ cries grew louder and more confrontational.
Children who grew up twisted as a result of the new sexual sensibilities began having children of their own, and, as a poem popularized by the peace-and-love crowd during the 1960s intoned, “children learn what they live.” As any family therapist will affirm, breaking the cycle of familial dysfunction once it has been established is a damnably difficult thing to do.
Fast-forward to 2020, and is it at all surprising that we now have people claiming that there are literally dozens of genders, pushes for pedophilia to be recognized as a sexual orientation, young men purchasing feminine hygiene products, young women queuing up to have their breasts removed and 350-pound transvestites demanding the right to work as birthing coaches?
So, how does this tie in to the story of Ghislaine Maxwell’s recent arrest? Salacious though it all may be, the saga of a wealthy, well-connected pervert and his girlfriend coordinating the serial rape of children is hardly the real story, in my estimation.
What Maxwell may reveal about Epstein’s powerful political cronies is certainly of great interest, but the real takeaway from this should be the fact that from British royalty to former presidents to entertainers, the people who attended Epstein’s Manhattan soirées and private island retreats are among those who govern us, mold the worldview of millions and decide the fates of nations.
In reference to the Sexual Revolution, the Epstein-Maxwell phenomenon represents the point at which the left’s sexual deviance agenda has come full circle. We can learn a lot from seeing how these elites play when they think they can do it with impunity; it is now up to us to determine if such parties should remain in positions of power, trust and influence in our society, or be cast unceremoniously out.
Article posted with permission from Erik Rush
Become an insider!
Sign up to get breaking alerts from Sons of Liberty Media.