Why the Left Hate Florida's 'Parental Rights in Education' Law (pt1)
Who are the Left's protagonists in pursuing the sexualisation of children?
By Alfred Read
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.
This is the end of Part 1 of Alfred Read’s piece on the Lefts Sexualisation of children and who are the protagonists and what are the idealogies. Part 2 is published on Substack on Tuesday 12th April.
The Full Piece can be read now on LIBERTATIO HERE
READ more by Alfred on LIBERTATIO here