Woke Vs Natural Law

I mentioned briefly in yesterday's post the contradiction that emerged in the US Left after the first phase of the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s. The general abolitionist argument dating from the 18th century was that Africans are fully human and can't, unlike animals, be treated as property. Lincoln's very similar arguments against slavery were always natural-law arguments concerning human rights:

That is the real issue. That is the issue that will continue in this country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be silent. It is the eternal struggle between these two principles -- right and wrong -- throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time; and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity and the other the divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, "You work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it." No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle.

Or more succinctly, at the same link:

I have made it equally plain that I think the negro is included in the word "men" used in the Declaration of Independence.

A problem arises when other movements, seeing the tremendous success of the natural law argument behind first, abolitionism, and then its successor, the Civil Rights movement of the earlier 1960s, attempt to hitchhike on natural law to claim equivalent prestige. This happened beginning in the late 1960s with an assertion of equivalent natural rights for the same-sex attracted, but this fell into something of a gray zone from the start. Natural law theory would in fact suggest that same-sex acts are against nature, but there's a separate question of whether they should be criminal that is much more distant from just natural rights.

The current Roman Catholic pontiff just recently expressed a position that isn't really opposed to Catholic tradition, which itself is generally based on natural law:

“Being homosexual isn’t a crime,” Francis said during an exclusive interview Tuesday with The Associated Press.

Francis acknowledged that Catholic bishops in some parts of the world support laws that criminalize homosexuality or discriminate against LGBTQ people, and he himself referred to the issue in terms of “sin.”

But sin isn't always a crime -- it's a mortal sin to stay away from mass, and it's a mortal sin to cuss in the name of the Almighty, but nobody wants people arrested for those things. If you do stay away from mass or cuss in the name of the Almighty, I'm sure any pastor is delighted to welcome you back if you change your mind and want to stop, which I think is Francis's meaning here. And he's still perfectly clear on transsexualism:

“Gender ideology, today, is one of the most dangerous ideological colonizations,” Francis said in the conversation.

The pope made the comments in a March 10 interview with Argentinian newspaper La Nación — the conversation was translated into English by the Catholic News Agency.

“Why is it dangerous?” he continued. “Because it blurs differences and the value of men and women.”

“All humanity is the tension of differences. It is to grow through the tension of differences,” the pope said. “The question of gender is diluting the differences and making the world the same, all dull, all alike, and that is contrary to the human vocation.”

This is a natural law argument. Transsexualism is against nature, especially if it involves changing our bodies to mimic the other sex via surgery or hormones. (In fact, I think it's a confirmation of natural law that, as some studies are beginning to show, almost nobody wants to have sex with a transgendered person -- they just don't appeal to our natural instincts.) Here's where President Biden's remarks from yesterday are especially sad:

On Transgender Day of Visibility, we want you to know that we see you just as you are: Made in the image of God and deserving of dignity, respect, and support.

We’ll never stop working to create a world where you won’t have to be brave just to be yourself.

In the natural law context, as articulated just weeks ago by the Holy Father, people who want to deny the differences between men and women are pretending both men and women weren't created individually in the image of God, specifically male and female, not as generic unisex beings. President Biden, a nominal Catholic but a man without insight or reflection, approved words written for him that contradict recent statements by the pope himself -- indeed by a pope who is thought in some quarters to be a heteodox liberal.

The overall problem is what happens to a country whose founding principles have been deliberately turned against natural law.

The Trump Indictment And The Starbucks Dilemma

A recent episode of the TV series The Food That Built America covered the rise of the upscale Starbucks brand, in contrast to the middle- and working-class Dunkin' Doughnuts. Howard Schultz, a marketing innovator, was inspired by the atmosphere of Italian coffee shops while he was traveling there and saw an opportunity: the episode didn't put it this way, but in effect, he could create a food experience that would remind his target demographic of their junior year abroad.

Through an indirect path, he took over a small boutique gourmet coffee retailer based in San Francisco and Seattle and turned it into a national brand that fed the narcissism of college-educated gentry and convinced them to pay extravagant prices for cups of coffee by giving everything fancy-schmancy names. But the show left out the rest of the story: the gentry has found itself in a precarious situation. Having once retired rich on the basis of one formula, he returned to find that formula was no longer working:

"We are beginning to close stores," because of safety issues, interim CEO Howard Schultz said in a video posted to Twitter [in July 2022]. "This is just the beginning. There are going to be many more."

Starbucks said last week that it is closing 16 stores over safety concerns. Around that time, Debbie Stroud and Denise Nelson, both senior vice presidents of US operations at the company, outlined the efforts that Starbucks is taking to make stores safer in an open letter.

Workers are "seeing firsthand the challenges facing our communities — personal safety, racism, lack of access to healthcare, a growing mental health crisis, rising drug use, and more," they wrote, adding that "with stores in thousands of communities across the country, we know these challenges can, at times, play out within our stores too."

The effort to make workers feel safer could result in more closings, according to Schultz's video, which was first reported by Insider.

This represented a change in policy over a 2018 controversy in which African-American customers complained that they were denied use of the store's tables and restrooms, although they didn't buy the overpriced products on sale there. So the chain responded by virtue signaling and making public an open-restroom policy -- except that public restrooms have increasingly become magnets for all sorts of undesirable activity, including shooting up and illicit sex. So Schultz is now closing stores where the problem is worst, and elsewhere allowing a return to a customers-only restroom policy.

This isn't a good solution, and Schultz seems to be fully aware of the dilemma: he's closing profitable stores on one hand, while he's losing his upscale do-gooder image on the other. This won't work in any long term, and Schultz retired again as CEO just a week ago. The dilemma remains -- how does the upscale gentry accommodate the Lumpenproletariat in an uneasy quasi-alliance while still wanting to feel like they're on junior year abroad?

This brings me back to a point I've been making about Karl Marx here for some time. Just to be clear, I'm a Roman Catholic convert generally aligned with Ven Fulton Sheen and Bp Barron. But as I said a year ago,

I don't disagree with Marx in my view that the objective of the gentry is to make life miserable for the workers. The question has always been precisely how to do this and how far to go. Under the worst despots, the explicit goal is to depopulate them, and this is effectively what's going on in Ukraine, although programs to encourage abortion, transsexualism, and disintegration of families in the more genteel west differ only in degree. As with other worldwide conflicts, each theater has unique conditions.

The particular problem in the US for two generations -- the 1972 election was the tipping point -- has been the disintegration of the New Deal coalition, whereby Franklin Roosevelt forestalled proletarian revolution via an alliance of the Ivy League upper class with the middle and working classes. A major element of the alliance was the alignment of northern wealth with southern segregationist Democrats. The 1960s changed this balance via the Civil Rights movement, with one unintended consequence being the false conflation of middle- and working-class African-American upward mobility with a perceived authenticity among the urban African-American criminal class. This conflation has maintained segregationist impulses favorable to the traditional Democrat agenda, something Scott Adams has most recently discovered.

This quickly led to the success of Nixon's southern strategy, in which the bourgeoisie of both races in the former Confederacy and border states aligned with the party of Reconstruction. The interests of neither the bourgeoisie nor the working class are aligned with Marx's Lumpenproletariat, something even African-American members of the Old Left acknowledged during the Civil Rights years. The 50-year trend since 1972 has been for the working and middle classes to abandon the Democrats, leaving them with a combination of college-educated gentry, the wealthy one-percenters, sexual special pleaders from radical feminists to transsexuals, and the urban criminal class, which now extends to the homeless, the drug addicted, and the mentally ill.

At this point, Democrats, in the process of losing Latins and Asians, can't afford to alienate anyone in the remaining coaltion: the deal seems to be that elderly Democrat stalwarts like President Biden and former Speaker Pelosi can stay in place as long as members of the remaining coalition, especially representatives of the Lumpenproletariat and the sexual special pleaders, have a place -- although the real payoff continues to be to the Ivy League upper class, the entrepreneurial one percent, and the gentry, who are the ones that actually continue to benefit from the alliance.

But here's the problem, which I think Howard Schultz understands in some inchoate way: as Marx understood, the Lumpenproletariat is not a reliable ally -- from his viewpoint, not with the workers, but in general, they're not a reliable ally with anyone, and that definitely includes the one-percenters and the gentry. If you let the street rabble into your restrooms, you get what you deserve.

But let's take a more recent problem, the Trump indictment. I noted over the course of the past week that just about everyone was starting to heave a sigh of relief that maybe the New York grand jury was going to adjourn for a month's vacation without taking any action on Trump -- after all, the case was shaky, and even the Alan Dershowitz gentry had lost faith in it. But at the last minute, just before they went out the door, they indicted.

Well, Alvin Bragg is a politican who identifies with the Lumpenproletariat. His agenda, financed by the one-percenter George Soros, is to treat members of the criminal class with extreme leniency by dropping felony charges and abolishing cash bail. This doesn't affect either the gentry or the one percent, since they live in gated communities or high-security buildings. But it does make their politicians, such as Mr Bragg, unreliable allies.

There seems to be a consensus that the Trump indictment will have unpredictable and likely unintended consequences. As far as we can tell for now, it's driven Trump back up in the polls. There are some people who think the Bragg faction is playing eight-dimensional chess, and giving Trump the nomination will make him an easy target for Biden. But I think it's far too early to make any sure prediction, except that I think the Republicans have learned something over the past few years, while the Democrats have learned nothing.

So far, for instance, Republicans have learned that if they resort to conventional rallies or demonstrations, they expose themselves to Antifa provocateurs and FBI informants, and they're likely not to use that strategy, even as Trump seems to want them to. On the other hand, Democrat allies -- especially the same Antifa types and sexual deviants -- are likely to continue both systematic riots and indivudual sorties like, for instance, the attack of a radical nudist on Paul Pelosi in his one-percent home, or the transsexual who murdered six at a Presbyterian school.

This will inevitably unite the solid citizens, but it won't have an equivalent effect on the remaining Democrat coalition, primarily because a major component of that coaltion is simply not reliable. As Howard Schultz discovered, you romanticize the Lumpenproletariat at your peril.

Wear A Mask

Amid all the hubbub over the Nashville shooter and the Trans Day of Vengeance, I'm wondering if I'm the only person who recognized that the instructions for those planning to avenge things include "Assemble at SCOTUS -- Wear a Mask -- Bring a Buddy". While there are several variations on this basic sign, and not all contain the "Wear a Mask" instruction, that at least one variation would say this is telling. "Wear a Mask" is so 2022. What message are they trying to send?

I'm sure there will be well-publicized scenes from the demonstration, and we'll just have to wait and see how many people actually turn up in masks. But during the COVID panic, not a few observers noted that ordinary cloth or paper masks had no efficacy in limiting the spread of an airborne virus, Dr Fauci famously reversed his own position on masking, and the refusal of airlines and key transit agencies to continue mask enforcement by the middle of last year marked the end of that particular charade.

Yet the organizers of the 2023 Trans Day of Vengeance are urging attendees to mask up. I can only see this as nostalgia for the atmosphere of the COVID moral panic. COVID skeptics said throughout that the masks were far less a legitimate public health measure than a compulsory visible sign of assent, and it's hard to avoid thinking this is part of the message here: trans activists are with the program, and you'd better be with it, too. Thus we had all the right people scrambling to correct their pronouns:

The mainstream media did an about-face after Nashville police said several hours after the attack that the assailant was transgender, with some outlets issuing statements explaining their initial use of female pronouns as gender-identity advocates blasted them for misgendering and deadnaming the shooter.

“5 times @cnn misgendered. No correction. A mass shooting is horrible. Misgendering does not make anything better,” said a much-retweeted post by the “Karen Lopez” account.

There's an odd inversion going on here. On one hand, the trans rights movement might be seen as yet another stage in the sexual liberation movements that began in the late 19th century and culminated, at least for a time, in the Stonewall riot or Ms Magazine. But that was part of a trend in the 1960s and 70s to let it all hang out -- grow your hair and beard, burn the bra.

Instead, we now have a new generation of the grammar police, rewriting pronoun rules on the fly. In fact, I saw one media outlet so terrified of the new (but as yet entirely uncodified) pronoun rules that it noted that Nashville shooter Audrey Hale went by Aiden, and her preferred pronouns were he/him -- except that the story kept referring to Hale as they/them.

This isn't in fact just one more progression in the march of sexual liberation. Trans activists can't let it all hang out like old-time hippies or bra burners, because, er, the vast majority stop short of the one surgery that matters, male-to-female. In fact, this topic is verboten:

DON'T: Ask "what's going on in your pants?"

It's natural to be curious, but that doesn't mean you should ask. After all, nobody is coming up to you and asking you about your genitalia. "As a common sense and common courtesy, we don't going around asking people about their private parts," Milan says. "You don't ask me, I don't ask you. Just because a person's trans doesn't mean that you can ask them. They're still a human being, they're still a person, they're still a person that lives by the same etiquette standards that we all do, you don't just ask a person about their genitals. It's just rude. Don't do it."

But of course, this allows trans people to finesse the whole question of just how much they believe they're a woman trapped in a man's body or vice versa. This is the opposite of Stonewall, the outcome of which Wikipedia characterizes as seeking

“to create new ‘social form and relations’ that would be based on ‘brotherhood, cooperation, human love, and uninhibited sexuality.”

Instead, we have a new radical trans movement that urges its members to Wear a Mask, while warning even its allies not to ask about genitals. This is not what you see at your typical gay pride parade, which if anything celebrates genitals. Instead, we have a new prudery, a concealment of genitals, an insistence that they don't matter, a new grammar police imposing a whole new unwritten set of pronoun rules, and an endorsement of masking, not under even a pretense of public health necessity, but just masking for its own sake.

As I noted yesterday, there's a growing body of scholarly literature that suggests transsexualism is an entirely separate form of kink from same-sex attraction, and transsexuals have an entirely different agenda. Just what that is is hard to define, but it's there. Here's a piece at the BBC:

I became aware of this particular issue after I wrote an article about sex, lies and legal consent.

Several people got in touch with me to say there was a "huge problem" for lesbians, who were being pressured to "accept the idea that a penis can be a female sex organ".

I knew this would be a hugely divisive subject, but I wanted to find out how widespread the issue was.

Ultimately, it has been difficult to determine the true scale of the problem because there has been little research on this topic - only one survey to my knowledge. However, those affected have told me the pressure comes from a minority of trans women, as well as activists who are not necessarily trans themselves.

They described being harassed and silenced if they tried to discuss the issue openly. I received online abuse myself when I tried to find interviewees using social media.

Nevertheless, as I discussed yesterday, there are in fact studies that indicate that nobody, male or female, straight or gay, wants to have sex with a trans person. All I can think for now is that this is, if anything, a strange inversion of the traditional idea of sexual liberation.

Natural Law And Trans Pathologies

Yesterday I brought up my struggle as I approached adulthood with the idea of "natural law", which I said, having been raised Protestant, was new to me around the time I went to college. I instinctively associated it with Catholic thought, and at least in a way, I was correct. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,

If any moral theory is a theory of natural law, it is Aquinas’s. . . . For Aquinas, there are two key features of the natural law . . . . The first is that, when we focus on God’s role as the giver of the natural law, the natural law is just one aspect of divine providence; and so the theory of natural law is from that perspective just one part among others of the theory of divine providence. The second is that, when we focus on the human’s role as recipient of the natural law, the natural law constitutes the principles of practical rationality, those principles by which human action is to be judged as reasonable or unreasonable; and so the theory of natural law is from that perspective the preeminent part of the theory of practical rationality.

The school where Audrey Hale, the biological woman who is alleged to have identified as a man, shot her way into and murdered six children and adults on Monday, identifies as Presbyterian. I spent my entire childhood as a Presbyterian and was confirmed in that denomination, and neither Aquinas nor natural law theory was mentioned at all in my religious education, which led to my deep suspicion of both when I began to study philosophy. However, it's probably correct to say that whether Presbyterians formally endorse anything like natural law theory, something like Aquinas's view pervades most Christian belief. Tucker Carlson had a remarkably perceptive take on his show last night, March 28:

The trans movement is the mirror image of Christianity, and therefore its natural enemy.

In Christianity, the price of admission is admitting that you're not God. Christians openly concede that they have no real power over anything, and for that matter, very little personal virtue. They will tell you to your face that they are sinful and helpless and basically absurd. They're not embarrassed about any of this. They brag about it. "That saved a wretch like me" goes the most famous Christian hymn ever written in English.

The trans movement takes the opposite view. Trans ideology claims dominion over nature itself. We can change the identity we were born with, they will tell you with wild eyed certainty. Christians can never agree with the statement because these are powers they believe God alone possesses.

That unwillingness to agree, that failure to acknowledge a trans person's dominion over nature, incites and enrages some in the trans community. People who believe they are God can't stand to be reminded that they're not. Christianity and transgender orthodoxy are wholly incompatible theologies. They can never be reconciled. They are on a collision course with each other.

What puzzles me, though, is that the Covenant School is pre-K through 6, and I doubt that even a Catholic religious education class would get very deeply into sexual function of any sort with children of that age, let alone same-sex attraction or transgenderism -- and a Presbyterian school even less so. And I can almost guarantee it won't bring up either Aquinas or natural law (the last Presbyterian writer I consulted on Aquinas said he treated reason as an idol, and he was also too fat).

And beyond that, I very much doubt that Ms Hale ever studied Christianity very closely as either a child or an adult -- and at age 28, her Christian schooling was almost 20 years behind her. So it may well be that she associated the school with her family or her upbringing in general. I saw another opinion piece that suggested she was trying to hurt her family in doing the shooting, and in fact her family may have been the next set of victims she had in mind.

So what we're looking at is less a specific objection to Christian doctrine, although the most complete expressions of Christian doctrine do say that same-sex attraction and transgenderism are violations of natural law, but instead more of a free-floating resentment of common sense and a troubled conscience, which in her case are only generally related to Christianity. And this likely involves matters beyond just gender identity. Andy Ngo made an interesting point in his interview on the same Tucker Carlson show from March 28:

. . . in my reporting on Antifa for years now, one observation that I notice was that disproportionately the riot arrestees are gender diverse, they don't identify with their biological sex. On some nights it was as high as 20%, magnitudes higher than what the -- what we held on people in the wider American population who are trans identifying.

Separately, Study: ‘Transgender’ Youth at Highest Risk for Violent Radicalization:

It found that “transgender and gender diverse students reported higher support for VR compared to students who identified as women.” In fact, youth who identified as transgender or gender-diverse were at the highest risk for violent radicalization.

The whole question of transgenderism is highly charged politically, which is preventing any sort of dispassionate discussion. Nevertheless, a body of clinical literature is emerging that suggests transgenderism is a separate paraphilia from same-sex attraction.

Blanchard's transsexualism typology is a proposed psychological typology of gender dysphoria, transsexualism, and fetishistic transvestism, created by sexologist Ray Blanchard through the 1980s and 1990s, building on the work of earlier researchers, including his colleague Kurt Freund. Blanchard categorized trans women into two groups: homosexual transsexuals who are attracted exclusively to men and are feminine in both behavior and appearance; and autogynephilic transsexuals who experience sexual arousal at the idea of having a female body.

This theory is reinforced by empirical evidence that shows that neither cisgender nor same-sex attracted people are sexually drawn to transgender individuals.

The current study sought to describe the demographic characteristics of individuals who are willing to consider a transgender individual as a potential dating partner. Participants (N = 958) from a larger study on relationship decision-making processes were asked to select all potential genders that they would consider dating if ever seeking a future romantic partner. The options provided included cisgender men, cisgender women, trans men, trans women, and genderqueer individuals. Across a sample of heterosexual, lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, and trans individuals, 87.5% indicated that they would not consider dating a trans person, with cisgender heterosexual men and women being most likely to exclude trans persons from their potential dating pool.

This is to say that even same-sex attracted people across the board -- we're talking almost 90% of every possible orientation -- won't date trans people. Apparently even among the conventionally gay, trans is just too phony, it doesn't seem to turn anyone's crank. Is this the source of the free-floating resentment that observers are noting among trans people?

For that matter, is this why it's such a key objective in the trans movement to get kids started on hormones and surgery before puberty, which is to say before they can even begin to realize what their sex lives will be like when they become adults?

All I can think are there are lots of questions, and there are limits to what you can do even when you make an effort at violating natural law. We've been in a moral panic, and it's been over more than COVID. We're about done with COVID, but less so with the other stuff.

Remember Dr Koop?

More than a dozen years ago, my doctor told me I needed to start monitoring my blood sugar and changing my diet to keep things within limits. So I did, and my readings stayed within normal parameters for some time, or they did until the COVID lockdowns, masking, and social distancing. Once I was allowed to go back to the doctor -- remember, this activity was proscribed as well -- he began to worry, my numbers were climbing to the point that something might need to be done.

But my diet hadn't changed at all, although given the lockdowns and everything, I wasn't getting as much exercise. In any case, for nearly three years after 2020, my blood sugar readings were wildly erratic, and the doctor was getting more and more worried, although my diet hadn't changed, other than a few foods becoming unavailable due to the pandemic-related supply chain crisis.

Then all of a sudden, the pandemic went away, or more precisely, everyone was catching COVID in spite of everyone having to get vaccines and boosters. For much of 2022, the LA County health department was threatening to reimpose one or another form of closure, social distancing, or masking, until the health director, the notorious Dr Ferrer, finally threw up her hands and told the press and the county supervisors that reimposing restrictions would cost the health department its remaining credibility -- as I chronicled here, the TSA had finally refused to enforce masking at LAX, and Amtrak and Metrolink had refused to enforce masking on trains.

Somewhere right around that time, when all the remaining restrictions went away, the authorities power-washed the social distancing stickers off the sidewalks, and even the most timid barbers and retailers went mask-optional, I think right around the holidays, my numbers suddenly went back to normal.

In fact, over the past several weeks, my numbers have wound up pretty much the best ever, better than when I was 15 years younger. No meds, just the same diet. I think the final influence was that since the holidays, the number of people wearing masks at Sunday mass has gone from maybe 50% to 10%. I haven't been back to the doctor yet, but I'm assuming he'll recognize the results. I think it's generally understood that the public health response to the perceived COVID crisis damaged everyone's health in all sorts of ways yet to be fully quantified, if ever.

Now and then over the period of the pandemic, I've run into YouTube homilies by Fr William Nicholas, a pastor in the Archdiocese of San Francisco, most recently here:

One of his homilies three years ago, after the lockdowns started, made the point that humans aren't meant to have their faces covered, viz, by wearing masks. He didn't use the term specifically, but I think his implication was that this type of general masking was a violation of natural law. Just recently, in fact, we had Pope Francis by implication invoking natural law in the matter of transgender ideology:

“All humanity is the tension of differences. It is to grow through the tension of differences,” the pope said. “The question of gender is diluting the differences and making the world the same, all dull, all alike, and that is contrary to the human vocation.”

Almost simultaneously, the US Catholic bishops issued a statement on medical care that uses hormones or surgery to modify a person's apparent sex:

As such interventions “do not respect the fundamental order of the human person as an intrinsic unity of body and soul, with a body that is sexually differentiated,” the committee states that Catholic health care services must not perform them.

Somewhere around the time I went to college, the term "natural law", which I hadn't heard before (I was raised Protestant) made me shudder. It struck me as part of a whole bundle of Catholic terms like "immaculate conception", "beatitudes", "state of grace", "mortal sin", and so forth, that were simply alien. It took me much of a lifetime to get past all that. But even leaving its religious context aside, the term "natural law" is extremely useful, as in discussing the case of the self-identified transgender woman who killed six people at a Nashville, TN Christian school.

The legacy media is struggling to get its head around the incident. According to NBC News,

A sense of “resentment” might have played a role in a 28-year-old’s deadly attack on the private Christian school they once attended, Nashville police said Monday.

. . . The former student is alleged to have left behind writings being studied by local and federal investigators.

“We have some writings that we’re going over that pertain to this date, the actual incident,” Drake told reporters hours after the shooting. “We have a map drawn out of how this was all going to take place.”

He said Hale was transgender.

Officials “feel that she identifies as trans, but we’re still in the initial investigation into all of that and if it actually played a role into this incident,” Drake said.

Another piece notes that a group of trans activists had scheduled a well-publicized “Trans Day of Vengeance” for April 1. While there is no formal connection yet established between the shooter and the event or the group, it

purports to seek revenge for what they term “trans genocide,” a conspiracy theory that claims that transgender people are systemically targeted with violence. However, an examination of FBI statistics by the Daily Wire shows no proof to corroborate this claim. In 2021, only two of the 271 recorded hate crimes against transgender individuals resulted in murder. These figures are substantially lower than those of other groups and insufficient to substantiate allegations of “trans genocide.”

The Nashville police chief did, nevertheless, speculate that "a sense of 'resentment' might have played a role" in the attack.

Another factor that's hard to avoid is that the public health establishment has been hijacked by crazies. The COVID pandemic gave them a foot in the door that allowed them to impose destructive policies on world populations for a period of years. This is in contrast to someone like Dr C Everett Koop, Reagan's Surgeon General, cited as "the only surgeon general to become a household name" due in particular to his campaign against smoking as a public health issue -- under his tenure "smoking rates in the United States declined significantly from 38% to 27%."

Contrast Dr Koop with Admiral Rachel Levine, the first transsexual to do whatever they's been doing:

Wikipedia notes that Dr Koop was the first recent surgeon general to revive the tradition of wearing an admiral's uniform, and here we see that Dr Levine, although they isn't surgeon general, is wearing such a uniform, primarily to hitchhike on Dr Koop's prestige. (It's arguable that they's become a household name, though for different reasons, I suppose.) The problem is that Admiral Levine is a public health authority who's in essence declaring that natural law no longer applies, unlike Dr Koop, whose general public health position appears to have been to avoid doing things that are bad for you.

It's pretty clear to anyone who pays attention that transsexualism brings with it a whole cluster of pathologies. I don't care if it's Trump, DeSantis, or some other Republican, but a major 2024 platform needs to be to get the crazies out of public health. Whether it's COVID or transsexualism, they've been actively promoting things that are bad for everyone.

More On Secret Agent CHS-SA

It looks like the story of multiple FBI informants within the Proud Boys isn't going away. The New York Times interviewed Agent CHS-SA, Jennilyn Salinas AKA "Jen Loh", on Friday -- this version seems to be the same as the Times story, which is behind a paywall. However, I'm posting excerpts out of order. The first is nearly at the end of the story:

Ms. Loh said that she began working with the F.B.I.’s office in San Antonio, Texas in 2018 or 2019 after falling victim to an attack from what she described as activists from the leftist movement antifa. At first, she said, she gave the bureau what she believed was “useful information” on leftist protesters.

Soon, however, she began getting paid for her work. At that point, Ms. Loh, who once served as a top official in an organization called Latinos for Trump, started providing information to the F.B.I. on “any type of domestic terrorism — on the right or the left,” she said.

So OK, as far back as five years ago, she started "working with" the FBI after some sort of episode with Antifa. But then the FBI began to pay her. Now it's not too hard to extrapolate that this probably wasn't a car payment, but it was maybe her morning latte, it was something in any case, and she didn't want to lose it. And "working with the FBI" made her feel important. (Can you say grooming?) So she gradually expanded her role to inform on "any type of domestic terrorism". The piece goes on to say that, apparently during this time, she was "a top official in an organization called Latinos for Trump", which sounds pretty terrorist to me.

Intriguingly, "Jen Loh" does turn up as a self-described Trump supporter in stories here and there during her time as an FBI informer, as here on November 4, 2020, the day after the election:

Police in Washington said they were investigating a stabbing near the White House after a confrontation between Trump supporters and another group in the early hours of November 4.

This footage, livestreamed to Facebook by Texas woman Jen Loh, shows the incident.

Loh said the she was among a group of conservatives, including Proud Boys members, who were walking from Harry’s Restaurant towards the White House when Christian activist Bevelyn Beatty was attacked.

Loh told Storyful that Beatty and a Proud Boys member were both stabbed. Loh said Proud Boys chairman Enrique Tarrio was also present.

Isn't that odd? Here's "Jen Loh", a San Antonio resident, turning up in Washington as a "Trump supporter" in the midst of a violent protest after the 2020 election. This story places "Jen" with some of the same Proud Boys who are now on trial at that event:

On election night [sic] in 2020, Nell was filmed with Tarrio, other Proud Boys including Jeremy Bertino and anti-choice activist Bevelyn Beatty in what appears to be a melee on an otherwise deserted street one block from the White House. The incident was livestreamed on Facebook by Jennilyn Salinas, a far-right activist better known as Jen Loh, who can be heard in the video saying, “Whoa, whoa, hey… Black Lives Matter over here…. Oh shit, they stabbed Bevelyn Beatty right now.”

The first link on that episode above goes on to say of "Jen",

Loh describes herself on Twitter and Facebook as a leading member of right-wing political organizations called ‘American Up’ and ‘Texans United for America.’. She also describes herself on Twitter as a former vice president of Latinos For Trump. That organization confirmed in emails to Storyful that Loh was previously a member, but sought to distance themselves from her, writing: “We have no association with her and do not want our organization name tied to her name.”

Isn't that strange? Latinos for Trump wants nothing to do with this lady, whom we now know, courtesy of the FBI, was an FBI informant. (Remarkably, her Facebook page is still up, and she still lists Latinos for Trump on her CV.) A story behind a paywall in the San Antonio Express-News places "Jen Loh", a San Antonio resident, at a Portland, OR protest in 2019. It teases, "Salinas, who goes by Jen Loh, recorded videos from the middle of crowd in Portland, Ore., at the 'End Domestic Terrorism' rally." So wait a moment. A few moments spent on the web brings up a legend of "Jen Loh", leading right-winger, traveling on somebody's dime to video protests in Portland and Washington, DC.

Maybe the FBI paid her more than just latte money, huh? In fact, it sounds like from 2018 or 2019 or whenever it was, she was quite a busy girl, serving as a "leading member" of Latinos for Trump, American Up, and Texans United for America, posing as a "far right activist", going to protests, and, er, taking videos.

One problem for the FBI is that "Ms Loh" likes to talk about herself, something we've already seen in news stories from 2019 and 2020. She certainly opened up to the New York Times on Friday. At the link above,

In an interview on Friday, Ms. Loh said that she had never spied on the Proud Boys or their lawyers and said that the F.B.I. never asked her any questions directly related to the trial that is now unfolding in Federal District Court in Washington. She also confirmed that she had parted ways with the bureau when she started talking with Mr. Tarrio’s lawyers.

Ms. Loh maintained that while she provided the government information about some of the defendants before the trial began, her interest in their families and legal situations was genuine.

“It’s hard to see people calling me a rat and a fed and things like that,” she said. “I think it’s sad that we’ve gotten so polarized in this country.”

But wasn't she taking video in Washington after Election Night 2020? Was, er, the FBI covering her expenses on that trip? Did she, er, turn over her video footage to her FBI handlers? Isn't it a coincidence that she, by at least two news accounts, was with now defendant Tarrio and several other Proud Boys? But she never spied on the Proud Boys, oh, no. All she did was provide the government information about some of them. What's the fuss all about? We're so darn polarized. Can't we all get along?

Sounds like Latinos for Trump was on to something. It also sounds like there's a lot more to learn. Let's recall, though, that a major activity of the KGB back in the day was to sponsor anti-Soviet organizations among Russian émigrés for the purpose of gaining intelligence -- especially to find out whom to liquidate back home. That the FBI should be infiltrating apparently legitimate political organizations like Latinos for Trump on the pretext of seeking out domestic terrorism is very disturbing.

On the other hand, back in the day, the KGB knew there were flakes and nut jobs it didn't want to touch, like, for instance, Lee Harvey Oswald. In the case of Secret Agent CHS-SA, maybe the FBI needed to study the KGB a little more closely.

Remember, Trump Created Dr Fauci -- And By The Way, Dr Birx

Ed Driscoll at Instapundit quotes a James Taranto piece at the Wall Street Journal behind a paywall:

In April 2020, businesses in Georgia were shuttered by government decree as in most of the rest of the country. [Gov Brian] Kemp was hearing from desperate entrepreneurs: “ ‘Look man, we’re losing everything we’ve got. We can’t keep doing this.’ And I really felt like there was a lot of people fixin’ to revolt against the government.”

The Trump administration “had that damn graph or matrix or whatever that you had to fit into to be able to do certain things,” Mr. Kemp recalls. “Your cases had to be going down and whatever. Well, we felt like we met the matrix, and so I decided to move forward and open up.” He alerted Vice President Mike Pence, who headed the White House’s coronavirus task force, before publicly announcing his intentions on April 20.

That afternoon Mr. Trump called Mr. Kemp, “and he was furious.” Mr. Kemp recounts the conversation as follows:

“Look, the national media’s all over me about letting you do this,” Mr. Trump said. “And they’re saying you don’t meet whatever.”

Mr. Kemp replied: “Well, Mr. President, we sent your team everything, and they knew what we were doing. You’ve been saying the whole pandemic you trust the governors because we’re closest to the people. Just tell them you may not like what I’m doing, but you’re trusting me because I’m the governor of Georgia and leave it at that. I’ll take the heat.”

“Well, see what you can do,” the president said. “Hair salons aren’t essential and bowling alleys, tattoo parlors aren’t essential.”

“With all due respect, those are our people,” Mr. Kemp said. “They’re the people that elected us. They’re the people that are wondering who’s fighting for them. We’re fixin’ to lose them over this, because they’re about to lose everything. They are not going to sit in their basement and lose everything they got over a virus.”

A month ago, I posted a timeline of Trump's early actions on the pandemic.

During March 2020, the hospital ship Comfort was ordered to New York, and the Mercy was ordered to Los Angeles as part of the federal government's initial response to the COVID pandemic. On March 16 of that year, President Trump declared a national emergency, and under the theme "15 days to slow the spread", he endorsed the quasi-national lockdowns ordered by state and local health departments, which famously lasted much longer than 15 days.

If we were simply going to take 15 days to slow the spread, the lockdowns should have ended on March 31. But by then, Trump had ordered the hospital ships to New York and LA, and by just April 7, the US Navy was complaining there weren't enough COVID patients to go around. By April 27, the hospital ships were ordered back to their home ports, having proven completely unnecessary. By April 20, Gov Kemp, if nobody in the White House, had gotten the message. The WSJ piece goes on,

Mr. Trump publicly attacked Mr. Kemp: “He went on the news at 5 o’clock and just absolutely trashed me. . . . Then the local media’s all over me—it was brutal.” The president was still holding daily press briefings on Covid. “After running over me with the bus on Monday, he backed over me on Tuesday,” Mr. Kemp says. “I could either back down and look weak and lose all respect with the legislators and get hammered in the media, or I could just say, ‘You know what? Screw it, we’re holding the line. We’re going to do what’s right.’ ” He chose the latter course. “Then on Wednesday, him and [Anthony] Fauci did it again, but at that point it didn’t really matter. The damage had already been done there, for me anyway.”

There can be no question that, in nearly three years hindsight, Kemp had things right. Interestingly, Kemp was ahead of even Gov DeSantis:

At that point, Florida was still shut down. Mr. DeSantis issued his first reopening order on April 29, nine days after Mr. Kemp’s. On April 28, the Florida governor had visited the White House, where, as CNN reported, “he made sure to compliment the President and his handling of the crisis, praise Trump returned in spades.”

Three years later, here’s the thanks Mr. DeSantis gets: This Wednesday Mr. Trump issued a statement excoriating “Ron DeSanctimonious” as “a big Lockdown Governor on the China Virus.” As Mr. Trump now tells the tale, “other Republican Governors did MUCH BETTER than Ron and, because I allowed them this ‘freedom,’ never closed their States. Remember, I left that decision up to the Governors!”

Of course, Dr Fauci himself takes the line that he was just making science-based recommendations to the president, while Trump is now saying he left things up to the governors. But let's face it, Trump isn't stupid -- if nothing else, he knows how to make money, and he knows how to run for US president as a rank amateur to politics and get himself elected. So why didn't it dawn on him by late March or early April that the predictions of the public health establishment weren't being borne out?

There can be no question that Trump was afraid not just of Dr Fauci, but perhaps even more afraid of Dr Birx. He let them bully him, when he should have been pressing them for actual numbers vis-a-vis the predictions of their models and beginning to hold them accountable.

I've read -- it was a long time ago, and I can't remember who wrote it or where -- that what cost Gerald Ford the 1976 election was the 1975 assassination attempt by former Manson cultist Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme, followed by a second attempt by Sara Jane Moore three weeks later. That two flaky women would be able to come so close to assassinating him was, in the opinion of that writer, a subconscious cue that irreparably damaged Ford's credibility.

I don't necessasrily endorse that view, but when I think of a situation where Dr Fauci, who for his entire career was able to convince people that rather than being gauche, he was actually authentic, and Dr Birx, who was Nurse Ratched in frumpy scarves, were able to convince the country that Donald Trump was an unscientific bumpkin, I've got to think there was some equivalent subliminal prompt, and I do think it cost Trump the 2020 election.

But think about it. Trump was terrified of Dr Birx, I have no doubt. But as soon as someone called her on the family visit she had at Thanksgiving that year, something that was prohibited to the plebs as a potential superspreader event, she skedaddled. Big threat. He could have fired her sooner, on better grounds, I'm sure.

Trump's COVID calls were catastrophic. For now, I'm betting DeSantis is smarter, he's ruthless, and he's even a bit mean. My money's on DeSantis or someone like him.