When the “San Francisco Gay Men’s Choir” recently sang “We’ll convert your children. We’re coming for them,” it was just a blunter form of a very old sentiment and scheme. After all, in 1989 already in their book After the Ball, homosexuality activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen called for a “conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind, and will” on homosexual behavior “through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media.”
Given this, it should shock no one that a new report by Entertainment Insider outlines how the explosion in sexual devolutionary (“LGBTQ”) characters in children’s television is no accident, but the result of “‘queer creators’ pushing the LGBTQ agenda and working with major entertainment networks, writers, producers, showrunners, and directors to place sexualized themes into on-screen fare made for young audiences,” as Breitbart puts it.
“The rise of gender-diverse representation isn’t a coincidence,” Insider writes. “Shows created and run by queer women, trans, and nonbinary showrunners are largely responsible for the influx of nonbinary and trans characters in kids’ animation.”
In other words, a minuscule but radical and activist segment of the population is determining what the minds of the vast majority of America’s children (those allowed to watch mainstream TV) will be fed.
Breitbart points out that sexual devolutionaries’ overrepresentation in entertainment is accomplished via discrimination in hiring — in their favor.
“Taneka Stotts, a ‘genderfluid’ writer on Steven Universe: Future, told Insider that nonbinary, bisexual showrunner creator Rebecca Sugar ‘went out of the way’ to make sure a show was staffed by so-called ‘inclusive’ standards, and that new talent was searched for on platforms like Twitter and Tumblr, rather than traditional hiring avenues,” Breitbart writes.
Moreover, the site also informs that one “transgender showrunner, Shadi Petosky, told Insider that it isn’t enough for LGBTQ activists to simply get roles within the entertainment industry, [sic] they must also make sure that pro-LGBTQ content makes it into the shows.”
“I had to fight with the help of GLAAD to get the actual word ‘Pride’ in [her show Danger & Eggs], instead of it being called ‘Rainbow Parade’ or something,” the Insider quotes Petosky as saying.
GLAAD, a sexual devolutionary activist group, works hand-in-glove with Hollywood to infuse television programs with its agenda; furthermore, networks such as “Nickelodeon, PBS, and Cartoon Network … have signed onto the effort,” Breitbart also relates.
The site had reported in June that sexual devolutionary characters and stories have metastasized on kids’ shows, with their number registering a 222-percent increase between 2017 and 2019 alone. Breitbart then presented the following illustrative Insider tweet:
“The review of cartoons found a whopping 259 gay characters in cartoons and TV series aimed at kids,” Breitbart then reported.
The site points out that today, sexual devolutionary characters and/or themes permeate virtually every TV show. Breitbart presented 13 examples of such programs last month. A handful of them follow in the form of tweets the site presented.
Then there’s PBS’s Arthur:
And the Disney Channel’s Andi Mack:
“In 2017, this live-action series was hailed for featuring a coming-out storyline,” Breitbart explains. “Ultimately, the storyline ended with the character Cyrus Goodman (Joshua Rush) announcing that he is gay.”
And now, with the Left increasingly showing its true colors and intentions as its power increases — and it has less to fear from backlash — its minions are, again, openly singing about converting America’s children. (Since this may be hard to believe, see video here.)
None of this is surprising, actually. It’s what happens when conservatives — being “conservative,” as in defensive — retreat from the culture and thus leave the field to revolutionaries.
This issue was encapsulated well by philosopher G.K. Chesterton. “All conservatism is based upon the idea that if you leave things alone you leave them as they are. But you do not,” he noted. “If you leave a thing alone you leave it to a torrent of change.”
Just as we’ll have governmental laws like it or not — it’s just a matter of how many, what kind, and who’ll craft them — so will we also have “social laws.” It’s precisely the same, too, in that we’ll have them like it or not; it’s only a matter of how many, what kind, and who’ll craft them. But here’s the kicker:
Once these social laws become accepted widely enough and are seen as imperatives, they generally become the stuff of governmental laws. This is why “Politics is downstream from culture.”
It’s also why a misguided tolerance leads to civilizational death. As I explained in the must-read 2013 essay “The Acceptance Con,” tolerance of a thing allows it to emerge into the open. In turn, this can lead to its marketing; then its acceptance; then, eventually, its cultural dominance.
This is especially likely when at issue are those profound human weaknesses called carnal pleasures. As the ancient Chinese sage Confucius put it millennia ago, “I never knew anyone who loved virtue as much as sex.”
Yet culture wars are zero-sum games. For stigmas are the corollaries of values; if certain things are to be valued, it follows that their opposites will be devalued. And this is how Christianity and sexual propriety ended up being put ever deeper into the closet:
We tolerated sexual devolutionary behaviors to the point of marketing, acceptance, and then cultural dominance. So now, churches burn in Canada and activists sing about burning children’s souls — and neither makes mainstream media news.
