Move over Drag Queen Story Hour. You’re no longer alone: The “Rainbow Dildo Butt Monkey” has now made an appearance at a children’s event — courtesy of adults who grew corrupt but never up.
No, this isn’t bad satire, sadly. Such a character did actually appear at a Redbridge Libraries Summer Reading Challenge event at Goodmayes Library in east London in (once) Great Britain. A Rainbow Dildo Butt Monkey is just what it sounds like, too: a man in a rainbow colored, bare-bottomed costume with a prosthetic phallus.
This trespass understandably caused outrage among parents. As the Gateway Pundit tells us, the “Standard reports that ‘Redbridge Council said that they did not arrange the event and it was organised by Vision Redbridge Culture and Leisure (RCL), a registered charity and a non-profit organisation, who [sic] have ‘since apologised to residents’.”
Gateway also informs that the twisted Rainbow Dildo Butt Monkey (video of the character below) is part of an entity called the Mandiga Arts Group.
Now, following the blowback from parents and the wider world, reports Gateway, the library promised that “this will never happen again.” I’m certain of that, too.
Next time it may be a Rainbow Dildo Butt Donkey or a Rainbow Dildo Butt Rabbit.
{modulepos inner_text_ad}
This joke gets at a deeper point, one I’ve often addressed. When dealing with these sexual devolutionary trespasses, the immediate problem, though requiring remedy, is not the main issue. It’s a symptom. So in the Redbridge case, the real issue is not that a perverse character appeared before children, as disgusting as that is.
It’s that some involved in setting up the kids’ event are the kind of people who would expose kids to a perverse character. And their nature not only won’t change just because they’re forced to issue an empty apology, but also ensures that in the future they’ll corrupt children in some other fashion.
This is why Janice Turner, the columnist who sent the above tweet, was right to ask in a follow-up, “[H]ow many librarian/councillor eyes had to behold the Rainbow Dildo Butt Monkey before he was released into the wild to delight the children of Redbridge?”
At least a few must have, as the images below attest.
The point here is that as English philosopher Herbert Spencer warned, “The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools.” People in various fields have long had “morality clauses” in their contracts, and countless conservatives have lost their jobs (been “cancelled”) just for speaking unfashionable truths. Heads should roll in the Redbridge situation, and, barring this, the lunacy will recur.
In fact, it’s clear that the Redbridge transgressors don’t even grasp the problem. The library stated, “We deeply apologise for the offence caused”; the Mandiga Arts Group, reacting likewise, wrote, “We never intended to offend residents. We respect everyone’s individual opinion with no offence to any part.” See the problem?
This isn’t a matter of “offense,” a personal thing. That is, most everyone is offended by something and most everything offends someone; hence the saying, “Offense cannot be given, only taken.”
Rather, the problem with the Redbridge monkey business is that it’s wrong — objectively, absolutely, and eternally. This isn’t just a matter of having served a guest a vegetable he didn’t like.
This doesn’t compute to the Redbridge library officials and Mandiga, however. This is why they talk as moral relativists do — because they are moral relativists. This alone, by the way, should disqualify them from influencing children.
But realize that this sexual devolutionary conditioning is no accident, and it has a very deep and profound effect.
Consider, here, that people are not governed by reason as much as we may like to think. In fact, without “the aid of trained emotions the intellect is powerless against the animal organism,” as writer C.S. Lewis put it.
This training’s necessity is why ancient Greek philosopher Plato emphasized that children “ought to be brought up in an atmosphere that provides them examples of nobility and grace,” wrote William Kilpatrick in Why Johnny Can’t Tell Right from Wrong. “This imaginative education is not a substitute for a reasoned morality, but it paves the way for it, making it more likely that the grown child will happily accept the dictates of reason,” he explained. “In this way, the child develops an erotic attachment to virtue, by which Plato meant not so much sexual as passionate.”
Unfortunately, children can even more easily develop an erotic attachment to vice, by which I mean passionate and sexual (often) — and then it becomes far more likely that the grown child will angrily reject the dictates of reason.
Now, what kind of people would want a population that rejects reason’s dictates, and why? Whose agenda does it serve, and whom does it empower?
Answer these questions and you’ll better understand why, as philosopher Edmund Burke warned, “Men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”
