All across the Western world, governments are at war with the ordinary people. Don’t be fooled into thinking that their disastrous and destructive decisions are the result of stupidity, cowardice in the face of political correctness, naive optimism, or whatever. Nobody is this incompetent for real. Nobody with even the slightest understanding of cause and effect would be making these insane decisions, with the expectation that they’ll actually work out well. No, what we are seeing is a deliberate and conscious decision to ruin the lives of the people that they are supposed to represent and protect. It is important that we all remember this fact, for if things ever start turning around, and they try to pretend that they always meant well. They’ll need to answer for their crimes against us.
A five-year-old Christian girl placed in foster care with a Muslim family has been ordered to go and live with her relatives.
Why was she not allowed to live with her relatives in the first place? Surely that would be the logical thing to do, if they really cared about the wellbeing of the child. Of course, we know damn well that they don’t care about the wellbeing of little white English girls at all. They’ve allowed untold thousands of them to be raped by Muslim men, and then they deliberately forced this child to live with a Muslim family, putting her at similar risk, rather than doing the sane thing and letting her live with relatives. Remember what I said already. Nobody is this incompetent. Any idiot would know that it would be better for a child to live with relatives if for whatever reason, they can’t live with their immediate family. This was deliberate.
The move follows reports that the young girl was being encouraged to speak Arabic in a foster family where English is rarely spoken.
Why are these people even in Britain? They’re not integrating. They choose their own language and culture over that of the country they immigrated to. How does Britain benefit from their presence?
The girl, whose identity is being protected, was reportedly taken to back to her grandmother’s after a judge ruled she should stop living with her current foster family.
Should have been brought to her grandmother’s in the first place.
According to The Times, the girl was being encouraged to abandon Christian traditions and values in favour of Muslim ones.
And of course we know that if the reverse happened, that being, if a Christian family tried to force convert a Muslim child, there would be outrage.
Tower Hamlets Council, the authority responsible for handling the girl’s foster care, denied that the family did not speak English.
A council spokesman said she had been placed in an ‘English-speaking family of mixed race’ and that there ‘inaccuracies’ in reports published.
Yes and we can trust the word of the British authorites. It’s not as if they ever lie at all, or ignore the wellbeing of children when it comes to dealing with the Muslim community. Well except for all the times when they do exactly that, of course.
Social services bosses at the council said staff have ‘always been working towards the child being looked after by a family member’.
Why does this even take any effort at all? Surely it’s just common sense that a child is in better hands with their own family, and this should be the default, rather than something to work towards. There’s no logical reason to hand a child over to a family of strangers, especially one of a vastly different cultural and racial background, unless the real aim was for the child to suffer.
‘We would like to give more details but we are legally restricted to do so,’ a council spokesman said in a statement.
“There are powerful people who don’t want us exposing the truth. Go back to your alcohol, your premier league football, and your Kardashians. You can trust us to make the important decisions, while you distract yourselves.”
‘Tower Hamlets Council has the welfare of children at the heart of what we do.
The decision to choose foster carers for a child is based on a number of factors including cultural background and proximity to promote contact with the child’s family and the child’s school in order to give them as much stability as possible.
“Cultural background is one of the factors we take into account.”
*Proceeds to send child to a family with a completely different cultural background.*
‘We have always been working towards the child being looked after by a family member and we continue to do so.’
Again let me ask, why is this something to “work towards”? Why isn’t it the default?
A spokesman for the Judicial Office said Judge Khatun Sapnara had re-examined the case at a family court hearing on Tuesday and decided she should live with her grandmother.
Too little, too late. The poor child has already suffered unnecessarily.
So we’re all well aware of what happened in Spain, but apparently Spain wasn’t the only European country to be “culturally enriched” lately. I would just like to offer my heartfelt condolences to *checks sheet of paper*.. ah yes, Helsinki and Berlin. Much like what happened the night before in *checks sheet again*… Barcelona, yes, these are terrible tragedies, but we must not allow them to change how we think. Diversity is our greatest strength afterall, and attacks like these must not divide us. Our diversity is what unifies us. Yes, division equals unity. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
HELSINKI/BERLIN: In two separate incidents of stabbings on Friday, two people were killed and six injured in the Finnish city of Turku, while another man was hacked to death in the western German city of Wuppertal.
The Finnish Police shot one suspect in the legs and arrested him. Security forces wrote on Twitter that police were “looking for other possible perpetrators”.
One killed in stabbing in western Germany, attacker on the run
Police confirmed that one man was stabbed to death and another injured in Wuppertal, adding that the attacker was still on the loose.
Police in Germany said they were hunting for one or more assailants, but could not immediately provide more information about the circumstances of the attack
The stabbing happened at around 1245 GMT in the city’s Elberfeld area.
Both the incidents come a day after 14 people were killed in twin terror attacks in Spain.
You know, I haven’t been posting a whole lot recently, because as I mentioned, I’m somewhat burned out on everything that has been happening. I know that there were a couple of incidents in France recently for example, that I didn’t even bother writing about. The fact is, these sorts of incidents are nothing unusual anymore. They happen on a damn near weekly basis at this point, and if you add in all the other types of “enrichment”, such as acid attacks, rapes, Muslim grooming gangs etc, you’re pretty much seeing multiple events taking place all over Europe every single day. It’s impossible to discuss them all, let alone think of anything original to say about them each time.
However, these three separate attacks all followed closely on the heels of the incident in Charlottesville, when a quote, unquote, “white supremacist”, plowed his car into a crowd of “peaceful counter-protesters”, killing one in the process. I think it makes an interesting comparison to see the reaction in the mainstream media and on social media to the Charlottesville incident, and then to compare it to the reaction to the typical Islamic terror attacks, like the three most recent ones.
First of all, lets just give a little background context as to what was actually going on in Charlottesville. In the past few years in America, there has been this obsession on the far left, with tearing down monuments and symbols associated with the Confederacy, because they consider these monuments to be a glorification of slavery, and therefore consider them to be “racist” and “oppressive”.
However, there are a lot of other people who don’t consider these monuments offensive, but rather consider them a part of their heritage, and are against their removal. People like this are worried about a possible slippery slope occurring. If these monuments are offensive because of their association with slavery, then what’s to stop people from later finding other icons of American history offensive? Afterall, George Washington himself was a slave owner, so whose to say that these unhinged lunatics won’t eventually be calling for Mount Rushmore to be blown up, and for everything named after Washington, including their capital city no less, to be renamed to something “less offensive” and “more inclusive”? Indeed, as this video from Mark Dice shows, some already are making these demands.
So people who actually take pride in their history and their heritage, and who have realised from experience that these hate-filled lunatics will never be satisfied and will only keep pushing for more, had decided that enough was enough, and that they were going to protest against the planned removal of these monuments. So they organised a march to protest this and even went through the proper channels and obtained a permit. However, the city attempted to revoke this permit. This decision was appealed and a federal judge ruled that revoking the permit would be a violation of the protesters first amendment rights, thus over-ruling the decision of the city’s officials.
So many different groups of people, with many different agendas, united by their common interest in preserving the monuments, turned up to this protest. This did indeed include legitimate white supremacists, KKK, and Neo-Nazi types, but with the way American law works, there’s nothing illegal about having any particular political ideology, no matter how offensive it might be. As long as these groups protested peacefully, there was nothing that could be done to them. Many of them did turn up to the protest armed however, and detractors are citing this as “proof” that violence was their goal all along. However, I don’t believe this was the case at all.
Whenever any groups of white people turn up to protest in favour of their group interests, or attend speeches by people who campaign for them, these events are always attended by Antifa and other groups, who have the intended goal of shutting them down, usually employing extreme violence to do so. Indeed, I’ve discussed this sort of thing before, when the gay, half-Jew, black cock obsessed Milo (whose also apparently a Neo-Nazi, white supremacist), was giving a speech in Berkeley, and Antifa rioted against the event. So knowing that violent Antifa thugs were guaranteed to show up and engage in violence as they normally do, does it not make sense to arm yourselves in anticipation? The weapons weren’t brought in order to start trouble. They were brought as a defensive measure, in preparation for when Antifa did.
So sure enough, Antifa and other violent leftist groups showed up to the event as counter-protesters. Then the police, most likely under the orders of city officials themselves, made the whole situation worse. As I already mentioned, the city had attempted to revoke the protester’s permits, but was over-ruled by a federal judge. However, even though the federal judge ruled that they were allowed to protest, the police decided half way through that the march was “unlawful” and ordered the protesters to disperse. I’ve even heard it suggested that after ordering them to disperse, that the police deliberatelyherded theprotesters righttowards thecounter-protesters, were they were free to take cheap shots at them with baseball bats as they walked by. Indeed, video footage seems to confirm this.
Go to roughly 51:44 to see the protesters being marched out single file by the police, past the counter-protesters, and watch as the counter-protesters start throwing things at them and hitting them with bats.
So eventually the violence gets to a point were one of the alt-right guys plows through a crowd in his car, injuring many and killing one of them. As soon as this happened, the media leapt on it and started declaring it a “terrorist attack” immediately. However, can we really be certain that this was the case? Terrorism has a very specific definition. It’s about using violence and intimidation in order to pursue an ideological objective. When a Muslim runs over a crowd of people, yelling “Allahu Akbar” while doing so, it’s obvious that his motivation is ideologically based, and therefore fits the definition of terrorism.
The problem is, we can’t be certain that this guy ran over the crowd for ideological reasons, at least not until it is properly investigated. With all the violence and chaos going on, he may simply have done so in a panic, trying to escape from it. Alternatively, maybe he did do it on purpose, but it could have been as a result of road rage, due to the anger he felt from having his car attacked by the counter-protesters. Or maybe it is a genuine terrorist attack and he did so in support of the ideology of white supremacy. The point is, we don’t know yet if it does fit the definition of terrorism, but the media doesn’t care, because they are determined to promote their narrative that “white supremacists” are the most dangerous group of terrorists of all, and in order to do that, they need to have a few examples of white supremacist terrorists.
So Trump comes out and condemns the violence and hatred on both sides, and the media goes into hysteria, because he doesn’t condemn “white supremacists” specifically. As far as the media is concerned, condemning both sides equally, when both sides were engaged in violence (and the other side were the ones who started it no less), is the same thing to them as if he had condoned the white supremacists.
So eventually he does come out and condemn white supremacists specifically, and the media still isn’t satisfied, because he didn’t do it quickly enough, or with enough enthusiasm for their liking. This of course is nothing new. Back during the election campaign, they made a big deal about white supremacists endorsing him, and his apparent “refusal to disavow them”, even though he disavowed them constantly.
So lets look at a few of the double standards we’re seeing on display here.
Muslims constantly commit terrorist acts in white majority countries. The media tries to downplay them as being due to “mental illness” on the part of the attackers. White guy who may or may not be a white supremacist (for all we know, he’s just someone who wants to preserve the statues), runs over a crowd one time. Media instantly claims that it was an act of terrorism, before the facts are even established.
Whenever a Muslim terrorist attack happens, the narrative is always that it’s just a tiny minority who do it, and that it doesn’t reflect Islam as a whole. The media calls for tolerance and understanding towards Muslims, and condemns anyone who speaks out as a “racist” or an “Islamophobe”. White people stand up for their own group interests, peacefully 99% of the time. The 1% of the time were violence does happen and the media condemns every single person with any belief in pursuing white interests, and tars them all with the slurs of “white supremacist” or “Neo-Nazi”, and demands action be taken against them.
Antifa and Black Lives Matter, constantly riot and violently attack people, whose political opinions they disagree with. Media downplays them as being “peaceful protests”, and any violence is from a “small minority, which doesn’t represent the movement as a whole”. White nationalists attempt to have a genuinely peaceful protest, get attacked by Antifa, and then fight back to defend themselves from this violence. They’re all violent thugs, and every member of the movement is bad. There are no good people pursuing white interests. They’re all white supremacists, and they’re all automatically violent, just because of their beliefs, even if they don’t commit any actual acts of violence.
Hillary/Obama/Bernie Sanders supporters, make up the ranks of Antifa and BLM, and are constantly involved in violence. The media doesn’t demand that anyone of them disavow the support of these groups. Meanwhile the media constantly demands that Trump disavows the support of “white supremacists” (ie, anyone who believes that white people have a right to pursue their own political interests), and as the video above shows, they don’t even listen to him when he does disavow their support anyway.
When you look at the reaction to what happened in Charlottesville, you would think the world itself was ending, and that this is one of the worst things to ever happen. Yet, we’ve seen months of violent riots from Antifa groups, months of violent riots from Black Lives Matter groups, and countless examples of Muslim terrorist attacks, including at least three in the past two days alone, and none of it ever generates even a fraction of the outrage that this Charlottesville incident has. This suggests that Charlottesville specifically holds special significance to the media, and the only logical explanation, is that the reason why it holds special significance, is because of the groups involved.
What people need to understand, is that none of this is an accident, nor is it a case that the media is simply too “politically correct” and cowardly, to address these issues honestly. No, this is completely deliberate and malicious in its intent. The mainstream media in the Western world, does not exist for the purpose of keeping the population informed about what is actually going on. In fact, it exists for the exact opposite purpose.
In reality, our civilisations have been infiltrated by an enemy that wants to exterminate and replace us all. In order to ensure this extermination occurs, it needs to keep us misinformed and asleep to what is actually happening. As long as we’re unaware, we can’t resist. When Muslim terrorists are constantly killing us, it runs the risk of waking us up, so they deliberately try to downplay what is happening, so that we don’t rise up and demand their removal. When white people protest in favour of our group interests, they deliberately send groups like Antifa and BLM to violently shut us down, and then use their control of the supply of information, to pretend that these Antifa and BLM types are peaceful protesters, rather than the vicious thugs that they really are. When white people come together simply to stand up for our own group interests, against the Muslims who are killing us, or the perpetually offended special snowflakes who want to strip us of our history, they create blatantly false narratives about us, claiming that we’re the violent ones, or that we’re the supremacists, simply for defending ourselves. When we elect a leader who campaigns on representing our interests, and actually tries to do what we want, they use their control of the media to constantly attack him, to destroy his reputation, and to pressure him into disavowing us, in the hopes of creating a divide between him and his base of support.
None of this is an accident. Just think about it honestly. Do you really honestly believe that they could be reporting so much wrong, just by mistake, or that it’s just a coincidence that they always just happen to condemn the right-wing white groups, and defend the non-white and the left-wing groups, no matter which side is the one who is actually in the wrong? No, it’s not a coincidence. It’s done on purpose, because the media is nothing more than a propaganda tool that is under the control of a small and hostile minority, that is at war with the ordinary citizens of their countries.
Now, if only we knew just who that enemy could be.
I haven’t been posting a whole lot recently because I’ve been feeling somewhat burned out from the daily grind of being awake to the sheer insanity that the Western world is living under these days. Sooner or later, it takes its toll on you, and you just need to take a break. Because of this, I have actually missed out on writing about several attacks that have taken place in various European countries the past few weeks. Really, what can I say that I haven’t already said several times already? The formula for when these attacks happen is so predictable at this point, that there’s really not much new that I can say. It always goes something like this:
A report comes out of a bombing/mass stabbing/vehicular attack, in some random European city.
Details about the suspect are kept as vague as possible (unless it’s one of the rare cases were it’s a white guy, in which case, details are reported immediately).
Occasionally, it is reported that the suspect yelled “ALLAHU AKBAR” before attacking. Motivation for attack is apparently “unclear”
Comment sections on articles about the attack devolve into arguments between “racists” who predict that it was a Muslim, and people who are more concerned about condemning these “racist” comments, than about the attack itself.
Eventually, it is revealed that it was indeed a Muslim. Media claim that the attacker was suffering from “mental illness”, just like every other attacker who coincidentally, attacks in the name of Islam.
Media starts talking about how “right wing extremists” (who almost never kill anyone) are the real threat, and that normal Muslims are the real victims, because people are saying mean things about their religious beliefs, and this is apparently much more damaging than being killed.
Nobody learns their lesson, and people continue on like normal, until the next attack happens, at which point, the cycle repeats itself.
Anyway, I wanted to draw attention to the fact that France has experienced yet another attack today, not because there’s anything original or noteworthy about it, but because it happened shortly after a new law came into place in France recently. This law prevents people convicted of actions related to any form of discrimination, including racism, from running for political office in the country.
The problem is that as we all know, the bar for what is actually considered “racism” in most European countries, is pretty low, so low in fact, that often just speaking out about what is happening, can be considered racist. So in other words, if a person actually speaks out about what is happening and wishes to run for political office and implement changes to stop it from continuing, they run the risk of being banned from even doing so. This is a complete violation of democracy, and pretty much makes it impossible anymore for France to even save itself through democratic means. It makes it so that the people will no longer have anyone to choose from, if they want a candidate who will deal with the mass immigration and terrorism that is plaguing their country.
This shows the desperation of our enemies. They can see that the people are waking up to what they’re doing, and now in their panic to shut us down, their masks have slipped, and they’re showing their true colours. They want nothing less than our complete extermination, and they’ll do whatever it takes to prevent us from stopping it. The problem is, that as JFK himself once said:
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”
France had a violent revolution before, when the people were pushed too far. With democratic options being taken off the table, they might eventually feel as if they have no other choice, but to do it again…
I was always under the impression that the purpose of preschools, was to teach children how to socialise and interact with other children. Turns out I was wrong. The real purpose of them is to be a sort of “reverse conversion therapy”, where heterosexual kids are brainwashed into becoming LGBT.
A University of Michigan instructor recently claimed that preschool classrooms are rife with “heteronormativity” that perpetuates “inequalities related to gender.”
Now just watch as she fails to back this up with any actual meaningful points, instead just relying on buzzwords and personal opinions.
Heidi M. Gansen, a Ph.D. student who teaches sociology at UMich, advanced these claims in a July 14 article that examines the prevalence of “heteronormativity” in a set of nine Michigan preschool classrooms she visited.
And this is why the value of a college education keeps on declining. The fact that a deranged Marxist ideologue like this woman is actually paid to teach people, is absolutely hilarious. Or at least, it would be hilarious, if it wasn’t so tragic. To any unfortunate student who was naive enough to sign up for this class, I just want to wish you good luck trying to pay off your tens of thousands of dollars of student loan debt, especially while working at the one job you’re likely to get, with a qualification such as this.
Defining “heteronormativity” as a culture in which “heterosexuality is always assumed, expected, ordinary, and privileged,” Gansen then argues that the issue is especially important to her research because preschools contribute to the “reproduction of inequalities pertaining to gender and sexuality,” such as gender roles and gendered feelings.
Does all that sound like a bunch of nonsensical, confusing, gibberish to you? If so, then good, that’s exactly the point. It’s supposed to be confusing for the average person to comprehend what this all even means. Basically, this woman is complaining that heterosexuality is presumed to be the “norm” in society, just because the vast majority of people, happen to be heterosexual. Because most people happen to be heterosexual, most other people will naturally presume that others are heterosexual, because statistically speaking, about 96% of people, will be, unless they’re specifically told otherwise. However, she seems to think that this way of interacting with one another marginalises the remaining 4% who aren’t, and therefore, we need to change our natural behaviour, and act as if there’s a 50/50 split between gay and straight people.
“Preschool is a good place to begin this examination, because practices that facilitate heteronormativity in classrooms become more engrained in later years of schooling,” she explains.
It’s a good place to begin the examination, because the best way to brainwash people into accepting your deranged world view, is to target them when they’re young, and their brains aren’t fully developed yet. That’s what it’s really all about. She wants to perpetuate her Cultural Marxist bollocksology, and who better to promote it to than young kids who haven’t yet developed the ability to think critically?
Accordingly, Gansen spent ten months observing childhood behavior at a set of nine Michigan preschools, finding numerous ways in which heterosexuality is “produced” and “enforced” by students and teachers.
Wait, I’m confused. Heterosexuality is “produced” now? But I was under the impression that one of the leading arguments of the LGBT rights lobby, was that you’re “born with your sexuality”, and that you can’t choose or change it. So I don’t understand how she can then make the claim that these teachers are “producing heterosexuality”.
In all seriousness, I’m of the believe that sexuality is determined by a mixture of nurture and nature, rather than just one or the other. I’ve heard it suggested before that both homosexuality and transgenderism is similar to diabetes, in that there’s a “Type 1” and a “Type 2”.
Much like with diabetes, someone with type 1 homosexuality or transgenderism, will be someone who was just born that way. I do believe that there are people who are just naturally born to be gay or transgender, and nothing in the environment will change that. However, just like how people get type 2 diabetes, due to their life experiences, I believe that life experiences in the time before puberty (and by extension, before sexuality has developed) can impact how a person’s sexuality develops. Just look at this study for example:
“Forty-six percent of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation. Twenty-two percent of lesbian women in contrast to 1% of heterosexual women reported homosexual molestation. “
Look at the variance there. 46% of gay men interviewed for the study, claimed to experience homosexual molestation as a child, compared to just 7% of straight men, and there’s a similar variance between the experiences of lesbians and straight women. When looking at information like that, is it really hard to consider the possibility that having such experiences before they reached adolescence, and while their brains were still developing, could have warped their perceptions of sexuality somewhat. As I’ve said, I’m by no means suggesting that every single gay person is someone who was “turned gay from molestation” as a child, as I do believe that plenty of gay people are just born that way, but it’s still something that needs to be acknowledged.
And as for transgenderism, well consider this. In the most gender equal country on the planet, Sweden, the number of children looking to undergo sex changes is apparently doubling each year. Supporters will claim the numbers actually aren’t any higher than they ever were before, but it’s just less taboo now to go public about it, but I’m too cynical to agree. Personally, I believe that there has always existed a very tiny minority of people with gender dysphoria (the type 1s), but what we’re now seeing is a drastic increase in the type 2s, as a result of campaigns to normalise and encourage it. The fact that a country like Sweden of all places, is seeing this increase, only convinces me more that this increase is really a result of environmental stimuli and information that children are being exposed to, while they’re still growing and their brains are still developing.
Anyway, you might be wondering why I went off on that tangent about type 1 and type 2 LGBT people. Well, it connects back to this woman’s comments about schools “producing heterosexuality”. You see, despite the claims they make that all LGBT people are just “born that way”, I believe that they actually know damn well that this isn’t always the case. This woman is angry at schools for “producing heterosexuality”, because she knows that in some cases at least, it is possible to produce homosexuality and transgenderism, and for her own reasons, she wants to encourage that to happen. What her reasons are, I can only speculate. One thing I am certain of however, is that when she complains about “heteronormativity”, it isn’t because she cares about the well-being of any LGBT children.
Playing “house,” for instance, is one area in which Gansen observed “heteronormativity” in the in the preschool setting, noting that only girls would imitate mothers while only boys would play fathers.
Wow. Can you even begin to comprehend? That’s so sick and twisted. Girls role-playing as mothers and boys role-playing as fathers. This is so unfair, because it denies the existence of the millions of girls who become fathers, and the millions of boys who become mothers. Oh wait, I forgot. In real life, “father” is an exclusively male term, and “mother” is an exclusively female term, so that never actually happens.
If a girl asked to be the husband of the household, she would be quickly rebuffed by her peers, Gansen observed, lamenting that “children did not allow cross-gender roles.”
Girls can’t be husbands in real life. Get over it. Besides, while you’re complaining about this, did it ever once occur to you, to consider the feelings of the boy in this scenario? Maybe he doesn’t want to play the wife, and why should he be forced to?
Gansen also cited the reading of “traditional fairy tales,”
Which generations of children grew up hearing, and turned out fine…
engaging in “heteronormative play,”
Which generations of children grew up playing, and turned out fine…
and teachers suggesting that a boy has a “crush” on a girl as other ways in which gender-roles are perpetuated.
Maybe the boy does have a crush on the girl. Seriously, what’s the fucking problem here? These people are obsessed. I can guarantee that if the boy had a crush on another boy, this woman would be celebrating it. It’s just like with their weird desire to completely reverse all gender norms. If a woman chooses the role of a housewife, she’s attacked for doing so. If a man becomes a househusband, it’s celebrated. If a man is highly ambitious and aggressively competitive, he has “toxic masculinity”. If a woman is highly ambitious and aggressively competitive, she’s a “strong, confident woman”. Essentially, men are pathologised for acting like traditional men, women are pathologised for acting like traditional women, but both men and women are celebrated for acting like the traditional version of the opposite gender.
Meanwhile, teachers apparently make similar mistakes when they refer to “same-gender signs of affection or homosocial behaviors as friendly” as opposed to romantic, with Gansen arguing that the teacher’s interpretation of the friendship makes no concession for the fact that some students might be gay or queer.
See what I mean? It’s wrong for a teacher to think that a boy has a crush on a girl, but if the teacher fails to assume that a boy has a crush on his male friend, that’s also wrong.
As a solution, Gansen concludes by outlining “disruptive” approaches teachers can take, which include talking about the legality of gay marriage and showing “acceptance” when students participate in “actions that interrupt heteronormativity.”
A “solution” to a problem nobody ever asked to be solved.
Gansen finishes by complaining that even in the preschools with the most progressive teachers of all the ones she observed, “children still engaged in heteronormative practices with peers,” adding that “these findings demonstrate the importance of teachers actively working to disrupt heteronormativity, which is already ingrained in children by ages 3 to 5.”
Wow if that’s really the case, then how are there any gay people in the world at all?
Campus Reform reached out to Gansen for additional comment on her research, but did not receive a response in time for publication.
Of course not. People like this want to “talk at” us, rather than “talk to”. There’s no point even engaging with her. She should just be ridiculed.