A piece titled State Education Superintendent Eric Mackey, ADPH’s Scott Harris connected to radical ‘sexual education’ organization is what they’re mostly talking about. They’re worked up about the Alabama Campaign for Adolescent Sexual Health and especially a resource, under Parents/Caregivers please understand, named Amaze. Now, I’m not sure how things were organized or labeled when the original hit piece was written over a week ago. Now, however, the URL is explicitly containing ‘parents.” Possibly that’s something added in or changed to reduce the ability of the reactionary types to carry on quite as easily. For what it’s worth, they’ll find something else. They always do. It’s a never-ending exercise with these types.
The post is mostly just clips from an online tool-generated transcript I edited as best I could and some brief commentary. Maybe it’ll do some good to have this out there. For the record, I don’t care what anyone believes as to faith or ideology until it appears such might matter as to public policy they’re pushing or how such shapes their public activity. I’m generally OK with people of pretty much any faith bringing that to the public square and want to try to be respectful of varying beliefs or perspectives.
With that said, I’m going to share stuff these three said. THEY put this stuff out. There’s been money behind what the Alabama Policy Institute has always done and that likely applies here too. Part of the problem about the Alabama Policy Institute, something media outlets here seem determined to ignore, is that there’s murky money in the mix. With these new donor-advised funds especially, this 501(c)(3) can be an effective tool (with a tax deduction to boot!) for messaging ‘on the down low’ to get done. I’ve no idea where these three might fall on any spectrum or continuum as to ‘true believers’ or ‘performers.’ My guess is that it’s more toward the former than the latter. I expect one and perhaps two would especially be among the ‘true believer’ types. No worries either way. And why would this mere bag of protoplasm think they have any understanding of what’s right and proper anyways?
Please do let me know if this post does you any good or if you have any suggestions on ‘what is to be done.’ My guess is that sunlight might help some. My main worry is that stuff like this slop gets out there and can influence susceptible minds. And sure, it might be those legit outlets and people with wider reaches getting after them would just drive traffic their way. It might be best to just hope any damage they might do is minimal. Damned if I know. Let’s get started.
1:00ish … Brian Dawson. CEO of 1819 news and host of this here podcast. Today I’m joined by an Alabama Unfiltered host. With a guest co-host, because I’m gonna need her help. She specializes more in the area that we’re going into with education, with work. She does it local. Miss Alison Sinclair is here to help me out. …
Specializes? Huh? She’s never taught that I’m aware of, no education classes, etc. And no, I’m not endorsing credentialism or acting like just because you learned stuff on your own that you’re an idgit. Believe me, with so much specialization now there are incredibly educated people who can seem like absolute morons. And yes, a parent or citizen or civilian or whatever undeniably has a role in how our schools are trying to get everything they’re tasked with handled. It’d just be better it seems to me if there was less carrying on and going way, way, way past ‘dabbling.’ Sinclair’s LOCAL Alabama effort is up to something it seems to me. It’d be really good to figure out if any funding is afoot, whether or not some scheming is happening, etc. And don’t even get me started with some of the mischief that various education ‘reform’ and similar outfits get up to.
1:28 Dawson – Craig is one of the best reporters we have here at 1819 News and he is coming in to join us to talk a little bit about this story, Craig. Thank you so much for coming in and your diligence to do hard work and have. People hate your guts for doing it. …
Hate his guts? I’m aware of criticism. This piece for instance. Part of the critique was how Monger didn’t call up the Alabama Campaign for Adolescent Sexual Health. And there’s more to follow about an apparent rush to get said story out and their celebration of the traffic or buzz it received.
2:40ish Dawson- All right, so uhm, you know, I think what’s interesting is we dropped this story on Saturday. It’s a football Saturday in Alabama, no less, right? Which is your, you usually don’t want to drop a story on a football Saturday in Alabama. However, this thing got legs. It started going around real quick shaking things up because it’s absolutely egregious and we’ll jump into the egregiousness of it. But it created quite a crap storm, and now …
Yup, “a crap storm” was created. As per that Alabama Political Reporter piece from Josh Moon, “Because nothing gets the clicks over at the right-wing propaganda websites like stories proclaiming public school administrators are discussing sex in some form with young children. And second on the outrage list are any stories that can attack people (i.e. doctors with functioning brains) who were in favor of COVID mitigation measures.”
4ish Dawson – And so, but the people that make up the state that they’re supposed to be serving as public servants with, would that be a better way of saying it? OK, so, so those people, we call them Alabamians. They’re not real big fans of this stuff. It’s being foisted upon us, probably through federal dollars and federal grants. I don’t know. That’s an assumption. Craig will fill us in on all that. …
4:45ish Monger – Yeah, well, they they’ve actually been around for a minute, but they started as the Alabama campaign to prevent teen pregnancy.
4:53ish Dawson – I have this weird thing I mean, I feel like I can solve. If they’re not having sex, they don’t get pregnant. Did you guys know that?
5ish Monger – That they actually according to the Alabama Campaign for Adolescent Sexual Health Abstinence only programs are rooted in white supremacy, homophobia, transphobia.
5:14ish Dawson – There it is again more proof of my, you know, allegations. …
Beats me what Dawson’s allegations are but I’m afraid it’s Bircher-level stuff. Proof? Dawson’s idea sounds swell in practice. But kids tend to be horny. And not always up to speed about sex stuff. That’s why organizations like Amaze are out there trying to do what they do. Or you can think they’re up to mischief. As to what people in Alabama are fans of, I’m not so sure they’d be against this approach if it were explained to them in an honest way. And Craig never did fill us in on the federal dollars or grants. At the end, they admitted they’d not planned performance out. Oh well.
6:45ish Monger – So I began by reaching out to Dr. Mackey’s people and to Dr. Harris’s people, just trying to get some information about their involvement. And it developed that I wouldn’t be able to talk to them within, you know, any reasonable amount of time. But you know, I have editors, I have all this good stuff. I have obligations and so. We dropped the story. I didn’t make the decision to drop it on the Redneck Sabbath, but that’s just…
7:16 Sinclair – I was shocked. I was surprised it did so well. I guess everybody said their tailgates. Maybe it worked in your favor. And they’re like, Oh my gosh, have you read? This this just dropped.
7:25ish Dawson – Dropping a 2 hour podcast on a Saturday probably doesn’t work, but an article that can be read in like 7 minutes does. And so I think Jeff knew that and we’ve seen we dropped some other stuff on the weekends before that’s performed really well. I feel like our biggest article to date was Andrea Tice, investigative journalist story into the blood clots connected with the vaccines that dropped on a Saturday. And it was, you know, it’s still the number one like to this day. Well, maybe not, I think. Earlier this week, it’s now not the number one trending story after like 7 weeks straight.
8:00ish Sinclair – I feel like this story would have taken off no matter what. You’ve got some prominent names and. A really controversial, difficult subject, and I’ll tell you when I watch the video, which will get to people should be outraged, think that this was going to take off. No matter what. …
9:16ish Monger – And so they they looked at it, and Wayne Reynolds himself has publicly called it a hit piece. My perspective on that is I gave them more time than I would have given anyone else on any other story to get in contact. Sure, there was plenty of question marks and a response and a response from. Doctor Mackey would have made a would have made the story that I did superfluous. It wouldn’t have been necessary, however it. It rolled out the way that it did. And there were. Some questions that needed to be answered. I didn’t know what responsibilities, privileges any of the ex officio board members had. Doing what they were doing and those are questions that they were very much free to answer. They’ve also said that I was sort of furtive, I didn’t. I wasn’t forthcoming about why I was getting in contact with them, that that’s simply not true. I do what I do with anyone, the first the first communique is always ambiguous. Hey, I’d like to talk to so and so about such. Or about something. And then as the deadline encroaches, further and further. Then you get. More specific. So when I talk to Doctor Sibley, specifically over the phone, I said I’d like to talk to Doctor Mackey about his involvement with the Alabama Campaign for Adolescent Sexual Help. I said those words explicitly and it is what it is.
Same thing when. I sent an e-mail to the media people for Doctor Harris now, I’ve since been informed that Doctor Harris is, I believe, out of the country and so that sort of. That is what it is, so I haven’t heard anything back from his people. And the main concern, obviously, and I said this to Wayne Reynolds and he agreed that it was a possibility. The concern with the campaign, this wasn’t a hit piece on Doctor Harris or Doctor Mackey. The concern with the campaign comes in because local school boards have a bare minimum. That they are. Required to teach as far as sex education is concerned. …
Part of the thing here was how indeed it would’ve been superfluous if it played out. And that’s probably why it was rushed. “I didn’t know what responsibilities, privileges any of the ex officio board members had.” And mercy, aren’t they into metrics and trends a heap considering how this 1819 effort is apparently a blank check with no need to generate a return. And yes, that ghoulish story using the freelance coroner talking about blood clots did stay up among the top trending for a long time. These three know their audience. Carry on.
Monger 11:15ish – You have to teach that abstinence is the most effective way to prevent pregnancy and STI’s and AIDs, etc. And that abstinence in school aged persons before marriage is considered a social norm. Those two things which is. Not much. And sexual education, everything else, a local school board is responsible for creating and implementing their own sexual education programs. And when you have local school boards that have this responsibility, they are, they have free rein as long as they maintain those two concepts which can be. You know, if they wanted to, they could throw it in as sort of an aside and then go into any number of other subjects. They are susceptible to influence from campaigns such as the one that we’re talking about and when you go and look at the resources that I put in the article. …
Local boards having broad room. I’d have thought that’s what many of these sorts wanted?
12:05ish Monger – And there’s overabundance I was very limited in what I could put in. There’s a lot, there’s a lot of stuff that you can look into, but the specifically the resources that I provided were to that amaze.com, which is age, which they touted as being for ages 10 through 14.
And they have very explicit cartoon depictions that are meant to educate and it covers everything, educate it, it covers everything from the size of breasts and genitals and masturbation and pornography and abortion pills and gender identity. How to be an LGBTQAI+ ally.12:48 Dawson – I’ll read them. Amazed has several animated videos on dozens of topics such as condom negotiation. Having sex, intimacy and emotions. Does penis size really matter? How to be an LGTQP+ ally. How the boner grows. Being female, male, transgender, or fluid. Abortion with pills – what is it? What are pronouns? Porn is not Sex Ed. …
Again, it’s for folks to use as they see fit. I don’t think there was ever any indication of that stuff being used, even on a case-by-case basis, in our schools. It’d be OK if it was. Discretion. It depends. The whole piece is that certain resources exist on a site. Again, I don’t recall anything about them being used. They’re just there. If anyone wants to use them. Probably a parent or proper adult facing situation where they can use at their discretion. Most assuredly most kids can find plenty of other stuff about sex or whatever else out there on the interwebs if they want to look for it. I understand that pulling out the fainting couches gets traffic and buzz. It’ll get a certain segment stirred up. But this isn’t really anything to get so worked up about.
13:45 Monger – No and that’s true, I joke with Brian saying entire societies have come and gone, empires have come and fallen without having to answer the vast majority of those questions. And from the communications that I’ve received from parents. Which has been a lot. The general consensus is there may be some very unfortunate circumstances in which you may have to introduce concepts to children that you would otherwise not want to this this fallen world that we live in. There are times where you explain uncomfortable things to children, maybe before you would have liked to. Based on circumstances, however, there is from their perspective no reason why you should have a broad overreaching influenced where you need to start introducing these concepts immediately, at always and forever. To this specific group of children.
Again, nobody has said they’re immediately, at always and forever, introducing these concepts.
14:40ish Sinclair – It’s the power of suggestion. It’s why in the checkout line they have all the really good candy bars and all your favorite things.
14:50 Dawson – Would you like fries with that same thing? …
Huh? It’s like you just decide you want to go out and get naked with somebody from watching a cartoon? Or get an abortion? Or decide to be a pansexual? Who are these people?
15:23ish Sinclair – I just don’t. I don’t get it. And so what are they trying? They’re trying to normalize these behaviors in young kids, whether it’s the gender theory, whether it’s sexual activity. This is the last. Thing you know that they need to be thinking about.
They? They’re? More to follow on the conspiracy stuff. A whole lot to follow. Dawson and Monger get deep into this stuff. Sinclair seemed at times like she was wanting to run. And she can sit next to Amie Beth Shaver when she gets spooled up and not noticeably cringe. Sure, I might be imagining it. But that Monger fellow seemed like a few parts on him had been torqued down way too tight.
15:35ish Monger – Well, I mean and that is certainly the perspective that the general reaction. What’s going on here? It’s pretty ubiquitous, however. This is the mainstream perception of sexual education coming out of academia. This is the mainstream method of sexual education pushed by the American Academy of Pediatrics, for instance, and other institutions that I can name. …
16:04ish Monger – This is the this is the house that Kinsey built. This is the world that we live in. When you have a conception of children as being sexual from birth, which is the mainstream idea coming out of academia, then you need to introduce sexual concepts earlier than most people feel appropriate or normal. So it’s not some cuckoo, banana bird fringe nutjobs that are pushing this this is the mainstream academic conception of how sexual education should be done because it just seemed it’s seen as a natural. They treat sexuality and sex with such flippancy because it is just a simple thing that biological organisms do. When they bump into one another. That is just simply what happens. It’s not something that has. It has transcendental value, yeah, and that is an inherently secular and inherently materialistic perspective, which is why it runs into so much conflict in places where you have. Very much a religious foundation, such as in. Alabama and what used to be our country, yes, yes. …
What? Hang on for more Kinsey stuff. It’s going to matter. As to this, there’s another ‘they’ tossed around. As far as what some kids or young adult might do, there has been I suppose a good bit done as to the ‘getting it on’ idea. I could critique capitalism here but, whatever has pushed such, there’s seemingly some sexualization of younger and younger folks. I read Mary Pipher’s ‘Reviving Ophelia’ when I was still in the trenches teaching. I believe that late capitalism is tough on everybody. And that certainly includes our young folks.
I’m not sure what Monger means by materialistic but possibly he’s nibbling at something. I personally like to toss around the words ‘Mammonism’ or ‘Mammonites’ some lately.
Whatever he/they are up to, I’ve been reading some on how some of pretty much what I was hearing in this podcase was what was being said in the 1920s as to evolution and the changing ideas in that period. ‘Red Dynamite: Creationism, Culture Wars, and Anticommunism in America’ is a really good (free to read online or download) book by Carl R. Weinberg from Cornell Press. I’ve been reading portions in a hard copy.
17:12ish Dawson – I don’t even know where to go from there. I just recorded another podcast right before this one with Doctor Ben Merkel, who’s the President of New St. Andrews, and they’re in Idaho. Idaho is very similar to Alabama in that they’ve got tremendously conservative people in the legislature that just won’t do anything conservative to save their lives. And they’re dealing with one that that’s trying to normalize pornography is telling me about this before we started reporting or maybe we had already started reporting, I can’t remember, but very similar type of curriculum that we’re looking at here that we’re seeing in Alabama, they’ve got one that is basically. It’s like destigmatizing pornography. It’s not a bad thing, right? And they’re trying to do the same thing with pedophiles, right there. Minor attracted persons, their MAPs – minor attracted persons.
17:52ish Sinclair – They just love who they love. That’s the goal of all this is to the normalize all this behavior to normalize that. …
Here’s what seems to be the first thing Dawson (mis)described. Can’t figure our what they’re fussing about on the other. Guess I’ll need to wait until the episode comes out. My guess it’ll be the same old same old. These types can get in a lather is seems about almost anything. The persecution complex can appear to run deep. It often seems to be something they feed on.
18:45ish Dawson – And that that brings on, you know, kind of like in a murder case you have to have something called Mens Rea which which proves intent, right? So if you want capital murder, you need to prove that this person premeditated and desire to take the life of another and then acted on that premeditated and cognizant thought to do. And so it’s, you know, in in in other cases they show Mens Rea and like you know they would be like willful blindness. Well, I didn’t know that was going on. Well, you should have. There’s no there’s no blindness in what they’re doing. If you’re creating a cartoon that’s introducing sexual perversion to children, you were cognizantly doing that. Right. The stuff that Disney is now dipping into with creating. …
Yeah, or maybe they were just trying to possibly help them not get pregnant. Or avoid some scary STD. Or figure out something they were struggling with so maybe they’d not commit suicide, be able to do better in school, or just be happier and healthier. Clearly it’s appropriate to compare them to murderers.
26:10 Dawson – And so, so, like you’re saying, well, I’m not gonna tell them that they can’t, you know, have these conversations with their kids and and again, there’s a line there. You’re right like, in principle, yeah. This is Craig brings it out of me. In principle, there are certain things where it’s like, look, if you wanna teach your kids that stuff that’s different than what I’m teaching mine, that’s fine. But if you’re like, I think my 6-year-old should be having sex with his uncle at that point, no, you don’t get to do that, right? And so, but my point is my my point is, and so what’s happening is we is a. With a society that has roots in goodness, and that goodness comes from God and he gives us instructions in his word. But this proves my point that the myth of neutrality it’s either this one. Or it’s that one. There is no in between. And so what’s happening when you say, hey, no, you actually can’t let your 6 year old go do that or encourage him to do this thing or do this weird perverted thing, we’re gonna say no, you can’t do that. What that means is, in their world, we’re forcing our religion down onto them because we’re saying that there is a line that you can’t cross. And you crossed it. And So what they’re gonna do is they’re gonna flip it because they’re taking our institutions and they’re gonna say, are you teaching your kids about Jesus? And they’re gonna equate US teaching our kids about Jesus as what we would say is a line that you can’t cross. You cross it. Does that make sense?
NOBODY has said a 6-year-old should be having sex with anyone. I can’t even come up with a way that language works as hyperbole. As far as goodness coming from God, that’s fine for Dawson and these two characters or anyone else to believe. I get how traditionalism or universalism or whatever might work here. And at the same time, I’ve read a fair amount of history where some scoundrels were claiming they were saddled up with God and doing really shitty stuff.
27:30 Sinclair – I see what you’re saying, but like. I don’t know, Craig, say something. ….
27:39 Monger – On to what he said and back to what I said about what is your standard. You can’t just assume things. If your assumption is that, that children, adults, whomever that they are, merely highly evolved protoplasm in. What is the inherent wrongness of 6-year-old protoplasm having sex with 30-year-old protoplasm? You can’t just assume that wrongness anymore. Materialism is modus operandi within the Academy and that is resulted in this highly ambiguous and flippant discussion and treatment of sexual activity. The whole the whole thing that we’re seeing, like the video that went viral, know if you saw it at the drag show where there?
We’re back to that 6-year-old again. But Monger is, I believe, on his first mention of protoplasm. Or maybe he’d mentioned it earlier. It’s going to be a big theme for him. And I still don’t know what he means by materialism, within the academy or otherwise.
28:25ish Monger – Was the Ariel the mermaid? And the child was gently rubbing the genitals of this ambiguous. The ambiguous, gendered, gendered mermaid. If that is simply a materialistic act between two biological machines. What is the wrongness? ….
The above is a screen cap from something that infamous grifter guy Andy Ngo recently put out. Later the Monger fellow again said something like ‘rubbing the genitals’ when it surely just looks to me someone is just interested in the outfit’s sparklies. Do I think this sort of thing is a bit different and would I take a youngster to see it? Yes. Probably not. But it certainly doesn’t look like what was being described. I understand drag as some sort of art instead of anything that’s necessarily sexual. It’s no big deal one way or the other in my mind. Whatever. If everybody is having a good time and being kind to each other, that’s good. ‘Lighten up Francis.’
And I also can’t help but think of the ‘Bohannan Death March’ that summer of 2001. That’s when I had a couple of Early Modern European History classes with Dr. B. I still suspect she tricked me into signing up so as to make sure the classes would make. I needed the hours even though my focus was mostly US. I ended up loving the classes even though they nearly killed me. Recall something about charivari and similar type releases in the communities serving a purpose. Sort like Carnival or Mardi Gras maybe? Beats me? If the folks doing the performances are making kids happy, then that’s OK in my book. Getting wound up in the latest moral panic is hard for some sorts to avoid. They’re always going to do that sort of thing. Again, some people seem to live for it. And again, where I understand things are often most dangerous for our children is right there in their homes and sometimes even in their churches. I’m just saying.
28:50ish Sinclair – I’m assuming, uh Oh yeah, I’m assuming a certain level of decency and morality. …
29ish Dawson – But that’s because that that decency and morality that you’re assuming is one, is the is the history of our nation and where it was founded at. And two, it’s built into our DNA because we’re created by the creator. So we have both of those at one time. We have both of those things going in our favor in this country. We were a country that acknowledged God as the creator. And so we looked to his word for wisdom and how we should, you know, how we should instruct and participate in the affairs and direct the affairs of men. And when we did that, it was built into our DNA because God created this. And then he tells us how it should work. Well, they can take away our country honoring that. But they can’t take away the fact that God built things a certain way. Right. So they took away a piece of it, and so now they’re really just at war with reality. And reality is God’s reality. And what the word does is it tells us how to order god’s reality. And when you and when you’re and when you synchronize those two, the way that God made things, the way that we that he says we should do things. You actually have harmony between those two. You end up with human flourishing. You get Western civilization. Right, and it’s good and it’s it doesn’t mean that it’s perfect. There’s still holes. There are still elements in a fallen world, however, but when you put those two things together and you acknowledge that God created this world, and he gives us a word, tells us how we should order our affairs, and we do that and we submit ourselves to that there, there becomes human flourishing.
We’re back to how ‘the creator’ has to be involved. God this and God that. Unless there’s God for these types, things crumble apparently. And if that’s how they want to live their life, go for it. Carry on. And they’re welcome to bring pretty much all of that where they want. It’s just when they’re so certain and hardcore about things that they’re getting too much up in my/our business. Such as how Dawson said “how we should, you know, how we should instruct and participate in the affairs and direct the affairs of men.” Under government in a state, sure, there’s going to be others at least somewhat directing our affairs. I’m not all that excited about folks ‘thinking’ like these three doing the directing.
30:20ish Sinclair – So the what we’re talking about, like, it’s really such a big issue, then that means that all these superfluous … Like all these extraneous things that we’re doing, really, we just need to be going and preaching the gospel. And because what you’re talking about is a deep rooted only God can change a heart, Holy Spirit, heart change. …
31ish Dawson – No, no, no. No, no, no. I’m telling you, we’re like, this is like, not planned. We didn’t know what we were gonna say. We just knew that there was this egregious article that was, you know, this egregious topic that we wrote an article on drop on Saturday and it has developments that are coming Monday. But I think this is leading us to a deeper discussion that needs to be had and Craig is one of the few people I know in Alabama that knows how to have it well
31:20ish Monger – I think it’s good that we’re focusing on what the intent. The article was which really was this campaign and their desire to have influence in education. Despite this, the people deciding to think it was a hit that he said it really was more about this particular concept within academia and education. Anyway proceed.
Possibly a bit too honest here. It’s like they’re on some sort of quest or something. Again, they’re talking about ‘within academia and education’ when none of them has worked in either area that I’m aware of. Truly, it’s not nearly as exciting or sinister. Enough straw men to sink a barge sometimes with these types.
31:30ish Sinclair – I don’t even know what I. Was saying except that that I I know it. Doesn’t have to. Be in either or. Like where we drop everything and go, you know, door knocking and visiting to share the gospel. Because media matters. Content matters. You know, like. What we do in the in the, in our day-to-day life, lives matter. But. How do you? How do you? You still have your still in. A fallen world. Yes, this is this is a (crosstalk)
32:05ish Dawson – Jump in and then … so. So the gospel in America has been reduced to how do you get? Your soul into heaven. Right. It’s it’s that’s all it’s about. We’ve reduced it and I actually had a conversation with Ben. About this today. Missions has gotten so big and church budgets have gotten so big and it started pushing. And anytime you have a lot of money flowing into something, you start looking for indicators of success or return on investment, OK? And so in modern missions. People spend, you know, hundreds of millions of dollars sending people over to Africa. Well, how do we know if there’s people being discipled over there? Are we wasting our money? Well, how many professions do you have? How many baptisms? You know? Not an actual observation of the families and seeing if these families are usually so. So the gospel is full or it’s way bigger than just soteriology. Soteriology is, you know, the study of sotare means blood, right? And I forget, I think Latin soteriology is literally the saving of a Sinner. And changing his heart and turning, you know, his heart of stone in the heart of flesh, and then, rather than hating God law. He loves his law. And so that’s the beginning of it and it’s absolutely part of the conversation. But the gospel is full worked and it gets into everything, all of Christ for all of life. And it and it and it touches everything. And so if you have a society, you’re never going to get conversion and not. Until that time comes of an entire society, but. When you base a society and its laws on God’s word and he can go into this, more which you end up having is a society that’s built for human flourishing, and there’s going to be people who rebel against it. You have different ways that, yeah, I’d love to share the gospel with this person, but they’re not listening and they’re just gonna continue to be obstinate and live the way that they’re going to live, OK? Well, you’re not going to participate in this society this way. You know, you could put him in a rehab, you could put him in and whatever. But overarching the society is rooted in God’s word, in the way that things should work.
34ish Dawson – And everyone the Muslims can live in that society and say, hey, you know what? This is pretty good. They won’t let me throw gay people off buildings like they do back home. But things are pretty good here for us Muslims. The gay guys like, hey, I’m not getting thrown off buildings here. This is pretty good, right? That doesn’t exist in these other societies. The Christian Society is the only one in which other people can participate in the flourishing.
When it flips, the Christians are the first people that need to be gotten rid of.
I don’t think it’s all that common for anyone to get thrown off buildings. In some fundamentalist (ahem!) places it may happen. ISIS was, I believe, doing some of that for propaganda, attention-getting purposes. Dawson sure does seem to like to get out the broad brush on some things doesn’t he? As to the need for metrics, yup. Performativity is also a problem ain’t it. It’s gotten darn difficult to decide about the deeper and more meaningful stuff decades into ‘the neoliberal turn.’
34:30ish Monger – Well, I mean, I would take it in a different thing. Specifically in this in this discussion, whenever I said the assumptions, the assumptions that you cannot make anymore. The radical subjectivity of the world that we live in, where everything is malleable, everything is ambiguous, up and up to and including gender. And any other number of things. That you can name. Where the people who have that initial gut reaction when you see a child groping a transgender mermaid, you immediately have, which is a phrase that no human being should ever have. Right. I’m sorry. To say otherwise. …
35:20ish Monger – However, that initial gut reaction you have what I would challenge anyone to do. What is that? OK, so even for take it out of the controversial social conversations that we’re having now, take something as egregious as rape. As murder looks like, you can’t do that. Right. Let’s remove it. Let’s take it down to its most basal level. You can’t murder. If you believe, as I said before, that we are merely the result of highly random processes of macro and micro evolution, that we are merely highly evolved bags of protoplasm, what is wrong with this bag of protoplasm raping or murdering this other bag of protoplasm? Why are.
36:09ish Dawson – Specifically, when you go ’cause if we’re if our ancestors are animals, go into the animal Kingdom and see how it works, because in the animal Kingdom, giant silverback goes rapes. … You know, other one lion goes rapes, you know, Wolf goes rapes kills. What you see what I’m saying? That is the law in that world and if that’s what you see. Him saying so. And that is the law of the land.
36:30 Monger – There’s a great Instagram page, actually. It’s called Nature is Metal. I don’t know if you know, I follow it. It’s great. It’s horrible things happening in nature, like a like a like a tiger. … Yeah, disclaimer, watch it only if you like cool stuff. The but you see these people follow this page and it’s great. And you see. These animals, just molly wopping one another and eating one another. And that’s just what happens in nature. But we assume some inherent value within us without actually questioning those presuppositions. So going back to the whole gender concept. The reason why? That the Christian concept of the imago day. The image of God. Being implanted or placed on gods, creation is what gives us that unique, that unique position in nature. That’s why we are the dominant life form. That’s why we have more inherent value than the things that we chew with our teeth in order to gain sustenance.
I’m no anthropologist but aspects are adjacent often to some stuff I do know a little about. There’s a good bit in anthropology that’d knock the above apart as to humans. Some of the stuff in biology, an area where I’m perfectly pitiful, also gets mentioned as to cooperation and such. These two guys possibly have a manosphere-level education, watching an Instagram page too, and I’m in no position to argue with that.
37:30ish Monger – And because of that, there also comes a certain John Calvin called it the sensus divinitatis. The sense of the divine, those things within you that you assume are indicative of the Imago Dei from the Christian perspective, and because of that you cannot escape certain realities. The reality of male and female is a created reality. You cannot escape it. It is, it is true. It is ultimately true, which is life. Seems so silly. Whenever it gets challenged. You can apply that to everything else. It’s God’s world, God’s rules. When you start playing chess by monopoly rules, it falls off somewhere. It’s gonna it’s gonna turn chaotic at some point. And that’s what we see when you have radical humanism, radical materialism, radical secularism. What we are seeing are those concepts of complete moral and ontological subjectivity. We are seeing them brought to their reasonable conclusion, which is anything goes. So my statement to anyone who sees the stuff and has a visceral, gut reaction, it’s like, this is horrible. This is evil if you cannot explain. If you do not have a standard by which you can point out that XY and Z is ultimately and truly evil, then you need to just give up. You have no place in this discussion because if you are not placing your presuppositions in their proper sphere then you’re just gonna run across someone who’s like, well, hey, man, that’s just, you know, that’s my choice. Can a chicken cry? It’s what is that the Matt. What’s his name? Matt Walsh is documentary I. Only saw a clip from it. But where the woman was, like, you know, it’s a constellation, but what’s gender? So if you can just assume and say all sorts of silliness, if you don’t have a standard to apply your feelings, your emotions, and your worldview on, then you have really no way to combat any of the silliness that we’re seeing.
It seems to me like Monger is sort of arguing against himself here. Pick a lane? At least at the start of that when he mentions ‘sense of the divine’ and then the visceral reaction stuff. I’m unsure why humans, at least most of us, have heightened morality. My guess and understanding, as best as my state school education and additional efforts have carried me, is that we’re more evolved and ‘wired that way.’ I don’t know that there’s a God or Gods involved. Maybe? Maybe not? I sometimes think that there’s something which does endure or is greater, higher. But I don’t know. And I don’t think I have to know. Or pick a side or saddle up. I may continue to dabble, read, ponder, etc. But I can likely assure you of this one thing – I doubt I’d want to get anywhere near whatever it is the likes of what Dawson, Monger, or Sinclair are mixed up in. I’d probably take a hard pass on their approach. Others can do what they think is best. However, I encourage you to give these characters a wide pass.
39:30 Sinclair – So how do we as Christians or people that do have that? Compass in that internal Oh my gosh, this is terrible. Continue to fight against. What is increasingly becoming this is the standard this is. I don’t know. I mean, to be honest, this is the collapse of civilization if you look back to the Roman Empire and like, this is it. And as far as the West, I feel like the US is the last stronghold and.
Monger – Italy is looking pretty hot right now.
40ish Sinclair – Actually, Italy. And this is where I. Just go back to you. But God, like, honestly, but God. Civilization as we know it is over.
Whether Giorgia Meloni’s ‘Brothers of Italy’ party is or isn’t fascist isn’t anything I know. What does seem clear is some of their history and that there are several reasons to worry. Whatever Meloni is saying that might be salvageable, or even somewhat solid seeming, becomes tainted it seems to me by the history of how fascism always operates. Early appeals to the working class or the critique of capitalism so many fascists will at least sort of make always gets flipped around into dialed-up state capitalism with an authoritarian, nationalistic, and exclusionary flavor. But yes, I’d been waiting on something like that from Monger or perhaps Dawson.
40:15 Dawson – So, so that needs to be understood. And you need to understand, so we’re the only people who go into a battle like we’re facing in apologizing for our king. Why do we do that? Right, we want a seat at the table with the secularists and humanists and the Communists and the Marxist and the Leninists. We want to seat at that table to talk about how things are gonna be governed. They don’t want to seat at our table. They’ve flipped our table over, spit on our face and told us were stupid and that they’re taking over and we’re begging to have a seat at their table. I don’t think that that’s the way we have our table and it’s the only table and if we. Anyway, we use going to get into it. Bigger, yes, bigger conversation. But the point being is we have to stop apologizing for what we know to be true. The point that I’m trying to drive home. We know that it’s true. We need to stop apologizing. If someone doesn’t want to believe what I believe, that is fine, and they have the ability to do that and they can reject it and they’ll suffer the consequences for it. That’s fine, but I’m not gonna apologize for knowing I know that I’m right. I’m not gonna apologize for being right, and I’m certainly not going to start setting up society or voting for people who are going to set up society for the people at that table, because that table is crazy. Crazyland. This table actually makes a ton of sense, and it’s what it’s what all civilization was built off of was this table
Beyond how Dawson labels everybody else, notice how he’s so certain he’s right and why he’s right. This is where trying to be patient and tolerant with these characters can get tough for me. And spit on their face? Told them they’re stupid? I’m not sure how to address that. I do sometimes think they are stupid. Very stupid. Or at least can get mighty frustrated with their foolishness when it interferes with the larger society trying to get generally agreed upon courses of action carried out. As for flipping anyone else’s table over, I don’t see it. Or at least minimally so. There’s some tension I suppose in some areas where the public intersects the private. At the same time, inside your churches, homes, families, and minds you’re pretty much good to go as to state interference. And for the most part, in this nation most people aren’t going to get up in your business about something as personal as your religious beliefs. Once you cross well over into the political or public sphere, however, your beliefs are available for examination. I don’t see how such can easily be avoided or even agree that it should be.
41:36 Monger – Well, this table has three very fine people sitting around this table, yeah. … You have to give no quarter and no credence to people who cannot give a justification for their perception of truth. Everything apart from an objective sense of a created reality is nonsense you have. You have no basis for truth for right. Outside of a of a world and a universe that was created with those restrictions on it. So going back to my sort of hyperbolic bag of protoplasm example. If 2 bags of Protoplasm who are just simply fizzing with chemical randomness. Are having a discussion in the way that we are, why is your chemical randomness right and my chemical randomness wrong? If you had, if the functions of our minds are something not by a created God in his image, then what is the rightness or the wrong …
42:45ish Monger – … If I have a can of Dr. Pepper and a can of Mountain Dew and I shake them up and crack them open, which one won the argument? That is just as nonsensical as expecting someone who cannot give an accounting for their place in the cosmos. It is that is just as insane as trying … as two people who can’t give an accounting for their place in the cosmos trying to determine the rightness or wrongness in a dispute. …
43:30ish Sinclair – OK, so if my cells see the people that are part of this campaign would say. Uhm, well, your truth is your truth, and my cell truth is my cell truth. But what you’re saying is if somewhere in those separate truths there’s any internal voice of right or wrong then that can’t really be true because like I would say that probably both those cells, clumps, bags of protoplasm would say that killing people is wrong.
44ish Monger – Based on what? By what? By what standard?
44:02ish Sinclair – Well, I don’t think they could say, but I think. They know it. … Because it’s an internal God. We were created. There’s just some. …
44:10 Monger – I if I say I defecate foie gras, I can’t expect you to eat it without giving it a rational explanation. …
44:28ish Monger – Goose liver, fattened goose liver. My, my point is saying, just because I if you assume something I can, you can assume that gender is fluid. You can assume that gender is a concept that doesn’t really apply to human beings. As I do, sex is a far more accurate description. However, you assuming something does not give it value. You have to have some extraneous, some external standard by which you base your assumptions on. And if you don’t have a created cosmos, you have nothing to base those assumptions on….
What in the wide world of sports? Monger is back to those bags of protoplasm. And something about shaking up soda cans. And explaining why you should eat the fattened goose liver he’s able to defecate. I must be getting too old or something. Monger’s apparent position that absent belief in a created cosmos then you’re just assuming stuff and making it up as you go, isn’t new. There’s been a bunch said or written over the ages about why that’s shaky, silly, suspect, etc. If you need to operate out of empiricism, there’s a fair amount of anthropology, sociology, etc. History too has something to say. But I suppose everybody gets to decide the question for themselves.
45:10 Dawson – You know what NAMBLA is. So this is the first time I was ever introduced to anything going in this direction. I read a book by Pat Buchanan called The Death of the West that launched me kind of down my road that that got me here. And I was reading this book and this is 2011, so we’re talking 11 years ago. …
Seems like Dawson has cited Buchanan before as being a big influence. I’m not at all into the nativism but there are facets of Buchanan’s critique I find somewhat solid. It’s really frustrating to me how the stuff that’s worth worrying over and could potentially be addressed with some sensible solidarity gets reliably derailed by the reactionary, religious, ridiculous … types. And sure, Buchanan’s BS doesn’t help here. There’s just too much Nixon and more in the guy I suppose.
45:45ish Dawson – You didn’t know about NAMBLA? So, so it’s literally a lobbying arm and association, right? It’s these fixed, yes, North American Man Boy Love Association. You go back in ancient times, it’s the idea of pedagogy. It’s basically people advocating for the right to have pedagogy in the United States and for it to be federally blessed and legalized. And this has been going on since. I mean, you could probably go up. But I’m not. I’m not Googling that. Yeah, whatever. Do not Google it.
Bless his heart, he kept misusing the word ‘pedagogy.’
46:19 Monger – So, yeah, that’s I didn’t know if NAMBLA was a thing, but again, that’s their assumption. There’s a reason why NAMBLA was as successful as they were is because they made the case that, you know, love is love. I wonder where we where we’ve heard that that slogan before. Love is love. If you can make, you can make a decision. Two, if, uh, if a man and A and an underage boy love one another, why can’t they express that love through physical intimacy? And again, I would ask anyone who ponders these things, why not? Why not? Why is that not OK? And they were pretty successful NAMBLA was? Because when you have the outworking of the sexual revolution and sexual liberation, what you get is this radical subjectivity. There is no standard to pin any sort of sexual ethic, or any ethic for that matter, on. You have nothing to apply it to, yeah?
Seems like Monger had mention ‘radical subjectivity’ somewhere else. Beyond how he can know the TRUTH because of an understanding around a creator, the inclusion of ‘radical’ is notable. We’re back to that slippery slope stuff again I suppose. As to how a standard is agreed upon, a society or community works it out. Sociology, etc. We’ve probably made decent advances in these areas even if plenty of abuses and problems continue. And unfortunately, some of the more dangerous places for children have been some Catholic and other churches, family settings, etc. There’s also the issue of human trafficking as it’s a money maker. These characters kept getting all worked up about NAMBLA yet I don’t believe I heard a SINGLE word about the actual existing problems out there.
47:16 Dawson – Obergefell was the floodgates, OK? And so there was so much resting on Obergefell. So it’s like a dam in that’s holding back all this wickedness and like waters over here and for the people listening on audio only. You don’t get to see my wonderful hand acting I’m doing here, I think. Yes, and so. So pre-Obergefell we did have these, you know, marriage laws that the country had definitely by that time it abandoned its, you know, kind of previous historical Christian ways. However, there is still remnants that allowed our society to stand and structure, and this was the one that the left knew if they could get Obergefell to pass. And again, there’s no doubt that there is gay people who really did want to get married. And they were advocating because they really wanted to be able to get married and if they die or if they were in the hospital, someone to come be able to see them and to get, you know, there’s no doubt that there was a couple of those people, but the majority of it was a radical communist movement, knowing that this was the like the last stronghold before getting this ridiculous perversions that have been foisted upon us in the last decade. If we can get Obergefell, if we can punch through and federally protect something that was not guaranteed in the Constitution as it pertains to sexual relations. If we can federally protect that, everything else is going to come on its heels with the with the same presupposition or argument. Well, if those two can get married, then how come a guy can’t get married to two women? Or a guy get married to two guys? How come a guy can’t marry his cat or his cow or his donkey. How come the North American Man Boy Love Association isn’t allowed to have their thing right? And so once you break that whole, and now the floodgates have. Have, have, have broken, and we’re seeing all kinds of vile, wicked evil. I remember when Obergefell past I was like, Oh no, I knew what this means. I never thought I’d be watching, uh, Matt Walsh documentary and all that stuff was going to be going on.
This is classic Bircher bullshit. It’s essentially the same thing that’s been around from even before the Birchers came along. See that Weinberg ‘Red Dynamite’ book for examples. “… there’s no doubt that there was a couple of those people, but the majority of it was a radical communist movement, knowing that this was the like the last stronghold before getting this ridiculous perversions that have been foisted upon us in the last decade.”
49:25ish Dawson – But one thing before we go that I want to talk about is, is to give Craig more credit. It was all coming and it’s all been something that’s been brewing that these people have been working on for decades and they’re seeing the fruits of their labor. They’ve been they’ve been sowing and now they’re reaping, OK? Money and Kinsey. Talk to us about that. So I’ll say if you’ve ever heard the name Money or Kinsey, it’s probably because you watched Matt Walsh’s documentary ‘What is a woman?’ And if you have not watched that documentary, stop what you’re doing. Go and do whatever it takes to go watch that documentary ’cause you need to watch it. But Craig has been on this, this, this path and has been telling me about Kinsey and Money long before Matt Walsh ever brought it up and I was blown away. Talk a little bit about that preparing yourselves and full disclaimer that what’s about to be talked about is awful and egregious and if children are listening, plug their ears. …
The above and what’s to follow sounds like Judith Reisman-level analysis on Kinsey and Money. Beats me. No telling where this comes from. That Dawson loved Matt Walsh’s ‘documentary’ surprises me not.
50:20 Monger – Yes, well, uh, I I’m intimately more familiar with Alfred Kinsey’s work, just because I own two books that he wrote the sexual behavior in in human male human female. Money is sort of a more fringe, but he has had influence, he’s less. Prolific, yeah. So what Alfred Kinsey was he was a scientist who specialized in the study of wasps. You heard me right. Wasps. And he at some point, he shifted his focus of study to sexual activity. Within human beings. And he did so in the beginnings by conducting experiments which simply involved a very prurient Voyeuristic activity of observing humans copulating through various stages. Some of some of these copulations occurred in addicts. It was very scientific, very controlled as you can tell, so so it’s too much to get into over the next few minutes, but needless to say, he. And he also involved, by the way, the Research of a of. I I can’t remember. And he relied very much on his experimentation and his observations for developing his And anyway, what Kinsey. Formulated in his in his research was that that children were sexual from birth. From birth. They expressed their sexuality through multiple, multiple avenues and and I believe it’s table 32. If I’m misquoting that, I’m sure I’ll be informed, but in table 32 he listed the number of orgasms that a person experiences from six months, one year up, up, up, up, and goes up in age. And I can’t remember the. Number of orgasms that a 6 month old experiences but he also defines. He also defines A6 month old that they orgasm as crying, thrashing, sneezing, screaming. He gives a number of like definitions of an orgasm, most of which could be used to describe a child while they’re being ravaged, while they’re being. Touched or penetrated in ways that are best left not to the imagination. So he also. Did a tremendous amount of research on prisoners so his his conception of sexuality came from. Parent and voyeuristic. Observations of sex studies, of prisoners, a lot of whom were were were were there for sexual reasons and through Nazi scientists and that has really formulated through the Kinsey Institute, which is still around and still very prolific he has. He has volumes of diaries and journals, a lot of which we can’t have access to for reasons I’m sure I don’t have to explain. But his conception of human sexuality has developed and has become as I. Said the mainstream. That children are sexual. From from birth. And doctor Money was very, very. Much similar in that regard he actually. There’s evidence that he actually did sexually assault some of his patients, whereas there’s none. None conclusively with with Kinsey. But he also is the one who really started pushing the idea of gender as applying to human beings, where whereas gender beforehand was applied to language, we use gender to describe language. There’s every language, really before you have Greek, Latin, the romance languages. All of them have gender. You have feminine, masculine neuter. Anyone who’s ever taken agreed class will tell you how absolutely frustrating that is. We don’t exactly have that in in the English language. We have like actives to clinch it any. I digress. …
57:15 Monger – Yeah, yeah. I mean, and people, there’s people who foresaw this when they when they saw what? They consider to. Sort of be the outworking of the Enlightenment. I don’t have such a grim view of the Enlightenment, I think. I think. You can look at. It from an inherently religious perspective. But people that saw the development of materialism, Chesterton, Shafer, Rushdoony were all people who really you know, Christians who wrote about the future of human civilization. CS Lewis would be another one they saw. Where we are. Not they. They didn’t have the grand detail. They couldn’t have imagined the details of it, but they saw radical subjectivity and radical, and radical selfism as being as being a serious problem for the future. And that’s what we’re living in now. It’s what Carl Trueman points out in his book, I don’t know if you’ve read it The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self. Check it out, it’s very good. …
That Trueman book might not be all bad since he supposedly does use a fair amount of Alasdair MacIntyre. Still, I see where Rod Dreher likes it so I’m immediately worried. I used to regularly try to read Rod. But that guy went around the bend three or four times it seems. Something broke. Bad.
Hourish Dawson – But, let’s just ease up another podcast for typologies. here we go. Anywho, I think this will wrap us up. Hopefully this was. The goal is always to be informative, educational, entertaining and engaging. And I hope. We struck all four. Of those chords here on this podcast. Here for yeah, yeah, me too. We got about halfway through it and I’m like, well, we did not have a plan. And that probably came out so in that. Well, no, but seriously, thank you so much, Craig, for coming in. Thank you for the courage. And doing the real reporting and having people hate your guts and, you know, talk about how bad you are and sending internal emails that disparage you in the company you work for and everything else, but thank you for doing that and know that Craig is an absolute representation of who we are at 1819. We’re going to pursue the truth no matter where it leads, no matter how uncomfortable it makes people. We are going to do that, and we’re doing that because. You know, for the purpose of serving the people of Alabama. Allison, thank you so much for coming in and cohosting on the drop of the hat. A moment’s notice to come in with Craig and I. You had no idea what you were in for. Craig didn’t know what he was in for. By bringing you in here and here we are. So until next time, put your trust in God and keep your powder dry.
That “internal emails that disparage you in the company you work for” caught my eye. As did “know that Craig is an absolute representation of who we are at 1819.” Monger’s mention of Rushdoony too. I actually like some Chesterton. Distributionism certainly has some appeal.
For the few that ever got to this post and the even fewer who might’ve made it to this point, thanks. To read what these characters said is revealing isn’t it? I often think how it’d be great to get transcripts of the many ‘conservative’ radio talkers around Alabama to be able to quickly look through the slop they say. Most are Limbaugh-level ‘conservatives.’ They’re performers doing what Limbaugh and others of that ilk do. Straw men layered onto straw men is their basic move. Get fellow travelers on and keep show safe. It’s a performance. I expect few have read all that much, certainly not apostate types pushing back on Limbaugh-level ‘conservative’ crap. It’s probably parroting what they’ve found out there on the standard ‘conservative’ sites and outlets. They’re doing their part to keep a small segment riled up and distracted. And most everybody has to make a living. One thesis I hold for some of the professional ‘conservative’ characters is that they can be such jackasses because they know exactly what they’re doing. But whatever is happening, every little propaganda effort matters at least some in the bigger picture. That maintenance is critical to the larger project. There’s an effect by having things repeated over and over and over and …
And many people across Alabama and beyond are getting a dose at their churches. Or from their buddies playing golf or fishing or whatever. And that’s possibly at least some of what the partly dark money-funded Alabama Policy Institute is up to with their 1819 News effort. It’s possibly just an updated approach for what this arm of the larger State Policy Network has done for decades. It might be a pilot of some type.
And I still suspect there’s something going on with one or more education ‘reform’ outfits using this outlet to help soften up a segment of the Alabama Legislature and citizenry for a future ‘reform’ initiative.
I’ll eventually get around to writing something on zombie or mutating forms of neoliberalism, looping in the populist forms I’d not sufficiently appreciated or understood until recently, if I’m able. I see at least some of such in what’s afoot here.
That’ll do. Geez! Over 10,000 words. Most were generated with the online tool used to pull the transcript together but still this was a slog. My apologies. If you’re unhappy enough, feel free to dock my pay.
And as always, comments or suggestion are appreciated. Forward. john