Currently in Idaho and around the nation there has been a growing pushback against school gender issues and controversial sexual materials in books being found in school libraries. Most recently this is being witnessed in the small rural town of Riggins, Idaho at the Salmon River High School. The image below is of the Facebook post from a concerned citizen. Go to this link to read the thought-provoking discussion below the post.
This is the link to the response from the Salmon River High School.
When I read the complaints being levied on the concerned citizen’s Facebook page and read the material he underlines in the books, I agree, as do most of the contributors from the community in the discussion below the Facebook post, that the content is inappropriate for young readers.
When I read the response on the matter provided by the SRHS on the school district’s website, it looks to me like the school is being transparent and putting forth the effort to resolve the issue with the tools they have. They’ve formed a committee that is representative of the community, discussed the matter and made a decision. Below is the “Lead Opinion” of the committee reviewing the first contested book “Looking for Alaska”.
Lead Opinion-
The majority of the committee members did not find that the book was an introduction to pornography. Though there is sexual content and a mention of oral sex, it was not pornographic. The content is developmentally appropriate for young adults. In addition, the content of the book is an accurate representation of what being a young person is like and the questions and curiosity that accompanies this time in life. In addition, the drug and alcohol abuse was not portrayed in a glorified manner and may even educate on the negative aspects of using these substances. The book will therefore remain in the district and placed in the high school library as a young adult selection for grades 9-12.
Like was stated in the lead opinion above, I think the offensive material would be developmentally appropriate for young adults and on par with what they will come across elsewhere. The committee acted appropriately by restricting the book to the high school. Even so, I would argue that the books the offensive material are contained in, do not provide enough value to achieving the goals and objectives of public education to warrant a school library obtaining and holding on to the articles of contention. If the school were under an autonomous local control and society not under influence by a social contagion, it seems it would have been easiest to quietly remove the books and spare the community this drawn-out controversy. Especially, as one teacher in the comment string under the Facebook page posting pointed out, these books can be obtained from many places outside the public school. (I make this judgement not having read the book, so I can’t speak much to the books value in promoting positive student social development or contribution to their literary skills. My assessment has more to do with what I have learned about the author’s other endeavors, which make me think the offensive material in his book was purposeful. Rather than being a genuine effort at fostering equality and acceptance, I suspect this genre of books for young readers are written to be in-line with other industrial and institutional motives. I suspect this is one of many ways in which children in society are being groomed).
The excerpt below is from an article on grooming. If you apply this concept to an institution, one might recognize similar processes. By no means am I suggesting that any school district is actively invested in the process of grooming. I do, however, think that at levels of higher authority, where school curriculum and mandates are developed and where political motivations have the most influence, there are nefarious intentions that trickle down into implementation. The sexualization of children and gender dysphoria is just one area where we see this influence. (“Just War Theory” is another area that I’ve written on where students, from K-12 and beyond, are being heavily groomed to accept and promote toxic foreign policies that justify human rights violations and war crimes).
Another finding was that offenders take a lot of time to develop relationships, learning about their victim’s vulnerabilities, likes and interests. They use this knowledge to gain and maintain control and trust, and then slowly introduce sexual content and physical contact. Readers might be shocked to think that a person can be repeatedly sexually abused without the use, or threat, of violence. But as Lanning wrote:
Many of the most persistent and prolific (and therefore dangerous) sex offenders primarily groom and seduce their child victims and rarely use violence.
Grooming creates long-lasting harms while preventing the likelihood of disclosure. Victims are often manipulated to “acquiesce” to the abuse.
Grooming: an expert explains what it is and how to identify it
Published: May 16, 2022
Under the current paradigm, even if the Riggins book review committee voted to remove a book being challenged, I don’t think this would resolve the issue. On the contrary, such an action might have made matters worse. This is because of the legal precedence (as cited on the school website) and, perhaps, due to the potential for a legal backlash that might threaten the school’s Title IX funding. Maybe this doesn’t make sense to the members of the community who think a local school district has more control over what they teach and allow in the school library. I suspect the local school district and librarian are not the ones most culpable or warranting of being singled out. If you look deeper, as with many issues with public education and beyond, local school districts and communities are subject to greater forces of control over their actions. School districts are almost completely dependent on State and Federal funding and subject to their arbitrarily imposed mandates. (I think it is worth noting that school levy funding is the more locally controlled source of funding and the one more subject to the demands of the local community. It seems a petition to vote down school levies would have the consequence of forcing a school to rely more heavily on compliance driven State and Federal funding).
Because of the dependency paradigm in education, that has been fostered over many years, responding in ways that make the most sense for a community doesn’t always make sense to the powers that be. Nor does it always align with certain agenda items they have. This appears to be true in the case of the current controversy over various books that contain inappropriate sexual content and the broader matter of gender identity and modern school policy reforms. (There are some very compelling criticisms of public education in general, levied through the works of the deceased New York school teacher John Taylor Ghatto and the deceased former senior policy advisor to the Dept. of Education Julia Iserbyt. These critical reviews and insights on public education are well worth taking the time to look at).
In the grand scheme of things, I don’t think a few inappropriate books being shelved in a high school library; especially ones that have probably gotten little to no attention and are being responsibly restricted to age-appropriate readers, is worth pursuing any further or worth the risk of further fracturing a community over. I do, however, think the issue of sexualization of children warrants a great deal more review and attention. Looking into the authors and publishers of some of these books, along with their other efforts, and comparing this to the 24/7 entertainment and social media content children are being exposed to, I do see cause for concern. If we take a deeper look at the history of sexual research, it’s influence on public education and on our communities at large, I suspect there is a much bigger cause for concern than most people think. This article seeks to take a broad look at this matter, starting with the background leading to our current state of affairs and the social norms being accepted with regard to sex and children.
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: While reviewing this article, I am hopeful that the reader can resist the urge to perceive this assessment as another conservative critique about gender identity or feel that I am trying to diminish the frustration being felt by those with gender identity issues or who identify as LGBTQ. I think the frustration felt by those with these alternative perspectives is very real. I think we all do well to keep an open mind about all things and respond with care and compassion for others. I also think we would do well to consider all the information, not just that which gets filtered through the political pundits we most identify with, and the “experts” among various institutions of influence.
Because I recognize how the Hegelian dialectic process works to diminish reasonable and transcending conversations, it has been a primary focus of this blogsite to get past the left vs. right perception of all things and find the contradiction in the mainstream narratives on both sides. While this article will speak primarily to the more progressive ideas on sex and the ways I think the liberal side of the equation is being used to target children, I am well aware of the inappropriate backlash from the conservative side, who use this issue as a platform to condemn everyone in the LGBTQ community. I feel, underneath all this (arguably purposeful) confusion around the issue of sex and gender identity, there is also room for compassion and understanding. People should always be aware that we are much more than just an extension of our genitalia and capable of being productive, upstanding citizens and role models regardless of our sexual preferences and orientation. (What people choose to be and do, as long as they’re not hurting anyone (especially children!), in the privacy of their homes is none of my business). Off the top of my head, I can think of five people in my life who identify as gay, who I care very deeply about and have great admiration for. All of them contribute a great deal to their communities and are great role models. I fully support their rights as citizens to function as every other citizen… to marry, adopt, serve their country (preferably in ways other than our current perpetual two party war monger establishment would like) and otherwise.
Pertinent Historical Precedence-
I think it can be argued that we’ve been sliding down a slippery slope for a long time now with regard to the sexual revolution and its influence on children’s perceptions about all things sexual. The history on this is fascinating, as I’ve recently discovered, albeit extremely disturbing!
In my review of this specific matter in the Riggins School, I investigated the background of the author of the first book under review, “Looking for Alaska” by John Green. In this research, I came to a YouTube video of his brother speaking on the subject of sex (below). This video on sex is being offered through the YouTube channel that John and Hank Green (the “vlogbrothers”), co-created called “Crash Course”. The “Crash Course” series was created for the purpose of educating students on many different subjects beyond just sex. (In my opinion, the entire “Crash Course” effort does a disservice to the critical thinking process of people of all ages, though I think it does align mostly with what is being taught in schools. I would say, as does John Taylor Ghatto and Julie Iserbyt, that public education in general does a disservice to critical thinking. I would also say their efforts are serving to entrain children into the on-line learning component of the Great Reset. It’s not unreasonable to think that the transgender issue, as it is being perpetuated, has the same underlying intent to promote technological dependency and advance the transhuman agenda).
This is the video I first came to in my research of “Looking for Alaska” by author John Green’s brother Hank Green:
(Other videos with Hank Green speaking on sex and gender can be found here: (1) (2) (3))
It’s evident in the video above and many other sex related “Crash Courses” by Hank Green, that he is invested in teaching on this subject. I wonder, however, what are his credentials in this topic of discussion? Particularly, what are his qualifications for teaching school age children about sex and gender?
Relating to the above video, specifically, I see that Hank starts out his review by recognizing the pioneering work of Alfred Kinsey. To this day, Kinsey’s work (for a long time now through the Kinsey Institute), is very influential to sex education at universities and K-12 schools… so much so that there has been a statue erected in his honor in front of the Indiana University.
One of the critical pieces of work I came to while investigating into the background of Alfred Kinsey, is a very disturbing video expose’ on Kinsey’s work. (I think this video was produced in the mid 1990’s, as the speaker in the introduction portion of the video makes reference the not so well-known congressional investigation that was taking place during that time; that reference being to a congressional investigation that exposed the history of radiation testing on human subjects. That too is a very dark and disturbing history that exposes child abuse and deserves a great deal more attention).
The video below and the books and articles written by Dr. Judith Risman reveals the flaws in the research data Kinsey used and the subsequent flawed conclusions drawn from them. More importantly, they also bring attention to the extremely disturbing research Kinsey included in his data on table 34 in his book, “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male”.
In Hank Green’s video, he makes a very short statement saying that there is some “controversy over Kinsey’s work”. That statement, as you see when you watch the video above and follow the links I provide on this matter, is extremely diminishing to the concerns being levied against Kinsey’s research and, thereby, misleading to the viewer… primarily children. As pointed out in the video, Table 34 shows clearly that Kinsey’s research was either being illegally and grotesquely performed on children as young as 5 months old, (directly by Kinsey or indirectly by his fellow researchers/ interviewees), or, if not actually performed or obtained through direct research or interviews with abusers, leaves the data wildly subjective or outright fraudulent. (If you think about it, while devastating to the effort of responsible sex research and education, fraudulent data is actually the much better case scenario… as this would suggest hundreds of children were not actually being horrifically abused).
As sexual education curriculum uncritically relies on such work to produce their “age appropriate” educational materials, while leaving so much of its controversial findings and methods uninvestigated and unresolved, it should be the case that all parents and teachers are concerned about the content being offered in their schools concerning sex and sex education. As well, it would probably even be more appropriate to be concerned about what is being offered outside of the traditional brick and mortar schools on educational websites such as “Crash Course”.
Here is an interview I came across with the author of the book “You’re Teaching My Child What?”. In it she offers a counter perspective on sex education and how it is not using the latest research to inform what is being taught to children about sex.
Excerpt from this interview:
“We have a wealth of new science that’s omitted from sex ed. For example, in the past decade our understanding of the teen brain, and how it reasons and makes decisions during moments of high stimulation has grown tremendously. We didn’t know until recently that the brain area that is responsible for making rational, thought-out decisions, the area that considers the pros and cons and consequences of decisions, is immature in teens. The circuits aren’t complete; the wiring is unfinished. Sex educators insist that, like adults, teens are capable of making responsible decisions, they just lack information about sexuality and access to contraceptives. So the way to fight sexually transmitted infections and teen pregnancies, these authorities argue, is to provide teens with information and contraceptives, and teach them skills like how to say “no” and how to put on a condom. But current neuropsychological research does not support this stance. We know now that teens’ poor decisions are likely due not to lack of information, but to lack of judgement. And there is only one thing that will bring that: time.”
Youre teaching my child what? PETER JOHN MITCHELL- interview with Miriam Grossman, MD
A little more about “Crash Course”….
This is the sociology section of “Crash Course“, primarily presented by their “sociologist(?)”, Nicole Sweeney. (I was unable to come up with a specific background on Nicole Sweeney. I found nothing informative about her educational background in sociology and can’t speak to her expertise in this field).
What I did review was this video, SEX & SEXUALITY: CRASH COURSE SOCIOLOGY #31 which included a very small mention about how sociologists are careful not to consider certain acts that we perceive to be sexual as being sexual. The example she provides is what is culturally practiced and consider “normal” and not sexual by the Sambia tribe in Papua New Guinea. (The following snip from the video in the link above is found at 7:26 minutes into the video.)
I assume the video above is directed at school age children, perhaps in jr. high & high school, (gauging by her tone and the phrases she uses). Whatever the case, I think this casual mention of such a practice would be shocking to most viewers, and certainly to children. While it is arguably unfair to take this very small section of the video above and focus on it out of context, I focus on this because of its potential to direct attention to such a practice that highlights abuse of children and seeks to normalize it. Regardless of the disclaimer she makes about cultural misperceptions, I would argue that it is a topic to be avoided in a “Crash Couse” for kids on sexuality. There is a good chance that some of the far too-numerous school age children in this country, who are being sexually abused, would find this as normalizing of the abuse they are being subjected to… an abuse that, like is the case with this tribe in Papua New Guinea, IS SEXUAL and IS ABUSIVE! I would also argue that, just like the long-standing cultural practice of genital mutilation of women, practiced by some tribes in Africa and elsewhere (a practice that is being properly perceived as extremely inappropriate), this is no different. The male children in this tribe were (are?) being horrifically abused regardless of cultural context.
From Wikipedia:
The full initiation is reported to start with members of the tribe being removed from their mothers at the age of nine.[6] This process is not always voluntary and can involve threats of death.[6] The children are then beaten and stabbed in their nostrils with sticks to make them bleed.[6] In the next stage the children are hit with stinging nettles.[6] The boys are then dressed in ritual clothing and an attempt is made to force them to suck on ritual flutes.[6] The boys are then taken to a cult house and older boys dance in front of them making sexual gestures.[6] Once it gets darker the younger boys are taken to the dancing ground where they are expected to perform fellatio on the older boys.[6]
Conclusion:
As sexual education curriculum uncritically relies on such work to produce their educational materials, while leaving so much of its controversial findings and methods uninvestigated and unresolved, all parents and teachers would be right to be concerned about the content being offered in their schools concerning sex and sex education. This includes what is in the libraries, in their curriculum and otherwise. As well, it would probably even be more appropriate to be concerned about what is being offered on educational websites such as “Crash Course” and certainly through entertainment and social media at large…. for example:
Below is a film by Melanie Martinez that I think most viewers would find to be quite troubling. When we consider the healthcare crisis that is plaguing our school aged children, which is being recognized by the school district of Seattle as being a consequence of tech companies and their numerous social media platforms, I think it is imperative that everyone (hetero, homo, white, black, left, right and everyone in-between) needs to try and wrap their minds around what is going on here. I think we’re all being groomed to be victims and, in one way or another, employed to build this dystopian nightmare. (Vigilant Citizen provides a pretty good review of the video below and Melanie Martinez that is worth checking out).
Vigilant Citizen article conclusion:
K-12 is in perfect continuation with Melanie Martinez’ previous works. Backed with a massive budget provided by Atlantic Records, K-12 hides, beneath layers of cute outfits and an orgy of pastel, a dark and deceptive story filled with powerful symbolism.
Released during the “back to school” time of the year, K-12 is another attempt at schooling children with the agenda of the occult elite. The same exact agenda can be found in other “teen” shows such as Chilling Adventures of Sabrina, which also bizarrely showcased the sexualization of children combined with the message that pseudo-satanism is the best way to fight the patriarchy.
In short, this is all about deception. While it pretends to address issues experienced by children, K-12 actually promotes their sexualization. While it pretends to promote love and acceptance, it actually promotes hate and division between sexes. While it pretends to champion freedom, it is actually a vehicle for social indoctrination.
And that is the only lesson that needs to be learned today. Class dismissed.
Other Articles and Information For Review:
THE SOCIAL CONTAGION OF GENDER DYSPHORIA Dianna Kenny, PhD–
“There are three types of social networks; (i) egocentric (networks assessing a single individual); (ii) sociocentric (social networks in a well-defined social space, such as a hospital or a school); and (iii) open system networks (e.g., globalised markets, social media). Each network consists of nodes (members), ties (between nodes), and measures of centrality, density and periphery or distance between the nodes. Networks with high centrality are the most effective in disseminating information or innovation. A key example is the transactivist lobby that has achieved spectacular success in a short time in changing health care, educational practices and legislation related to transgender individuals. Other characteristics of networks include cohesion (number of connections within a network) and shape (distribution of ties within the network)[2]. There is mounting evidence that the same principles of social contagion apply to and at least partially explain the increase in young people who believe that they are transgender.”
- Lectures in History – Scientific Study of Sexuality in America Liberty University Professor Judith Reisman talked about the cultural and legal impact of Alfred Kinsey’s research on human sexuality
- The interesting perspectives of Camille Paglia:
Environmental Contributors to Sexual Development:
- The Disappearing Male is about one of the most important, and least publicized, issues facing the human species: the toxic threat to the male reproductive system.https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-disappearing-male/
- Influence of electromagnetic pulse on the offspring sex ratio of male BALB/c mice “The sex ratio was examined by PCR and agarose gel electrophoresis. The results of D0, D21 and D28 showed significant increases compared with sham-exposed groups. The serum testosterone increased significantly in D0, D14, D21, and D28 compared with sham-exposed groups (p<0.05). Overall, this study suggested that EMP exposure may lead to the disturbance of reproductive hormone levels and affect the offspring sex ratio.”
Transhumanism:
- Martine Rothblatt-
- From Transgender to Transhuman: A Manifesto On the Freedom Of Form Paperback – May 19, 2011by Martine Rothblatt
Modern Indigenous Perspectives 