A flood of false claims about England’s Cass Review has coursed across social media and the press and among activists and academics. If only they had actually read it.
Thanks to everyone who read my article! Follow me on Substack if you like. I don't publish on there too often, so you won't get hit with a ton of emails or anything. I also tweet a lot about this issue: https://twitter.com/benryanwriter
I keep trying to convince my fellow red pillers of all stripes to stop thinking this is a reasoned debate. The other side has already rejected reason. Get that. The Left/Postmodernism starts by undermining the entire concept of something called 'truth'. Owen Jones is a great example of a feral, left wing loonie liar who simply doesn't care about facts or reason. He's just about power and 'winning' and feeling superior based on his politics. But the likes of WPATH and others give him 'ammo' to fire his lies out into the mouths of his supplicants who care even less about truth. None of them even suspect they are wrong. The only way they will be stopped is if we remove them from power. It may already be too late as they've done so much damage from which there is no recovery. Brace yourself for the coming new Dark Age...
"...stop thinking this is a reasoned debate. The other side has already rejected reason. Get that. The Left/Postmodernism starts by undermining the entire concept of something called 'truth'."
This is just something that nice well-meaning liberals (no sarcasm) just can't wrap their heads around. Our is the Age of Reason, right? Surely all these academics/journalists and other brain workers base their arguments on Reason and respond to Reason. If not....well, the alternative is too terrible to contemplate.
But "It may already be too late as they've done so much damage from which there is no recovery" needs editing (lol) it is already TOO LATE.
The West has been ideologically captured, from New Zealand to Saskatchewan, from the Joint Chiefs to the Boy Scouts from the MOMA to your local coffee shop/gallery etc. The Trojan Horse called Crit Theory was wheeled inside our gates 50 years ago and it's too late now, all the brains that matter have been eaten.
The postliberal future is here and there's no turning back.
Indeed, but they suck at running the world. That's the problem. I'm well aware of both the original materialist Marxist and the likes of Gramsci through to Foucault and Marcuse.
Sadly, most Americans do not realize they live in the world envisioned by Marcuse. I do agree that it's too late for normal politics to turn us back from doom. And I do deeply suspect that just as a pickle cannot become a cucumber, the 'rugged individualism, ingenuity and can-do attitude' Americans were known for around the world can't be recovered once lost.
I sadly got a glimpse of what living in a 'great nation' was like. Born in '62, U.S. products were the best in the world, and we exported everything everywhere. I was raised in the new middle class that emerged after WWII, there was an optimism and energy to Americanism. I also grew up watching the '60s politics and never imagined the effing commies would win here at home. We were so busy fighting the Cold War outside our borders, meanwhile the subversion was grinding away full speed.
I think Vietnam broke the Right. It was not the first crack in the Cold War mythology pf American invincibility. We were willing to throw 80 coups and back murderous authoritarian govts to fight communism around the globe, but here at home we let them take over the entire nation institutionally. But I think leaving and watching it fall made many of us question what we are doing. And it was THE searing hot issue of the late '60s and '70s.
Nixon had a history eas an anti-communist at home, as was Reagan for that matter. He actually forced Marcuse out of the UC university system. But somehow the Vietnam war and the upheaval of the '60s took the fight out of the Right. If I look at the institutions of the Right, I'm kind of embarrassed to point out that the last significant Right wing institution to stand up against Marxism at home was the John Birch Society. Note they were smashed as racists, and that Lee Harvey Oswald's first target was Edwin Walker, a U.S. General who was very influenced by the Birchers and a HUGE anticommunist. Edwin Walker was trying to expose what he claimed was a Communist conspiracy in the fed govt. Of course the Birchers were racists so that really hurt the cause, fully earned.
They similarly snuffed out MacArthur in part for questioning how Marshall let China slip into the clutches of Mao? Fyi, Marshall's predecessor in China was also another raving nutjob anti-communist who claimed there was commie infiltration. It later came out that key parts of our intelligence and comms operations in Asia were penetrated by Communists, Soviet and Chinese at the time. But the idea of questioning Marshall? Fyi, he was a darling of the known commie, Eleanor Roosevelt and that's how he came to the attention of FDR to begin with. His career was not stellar before meeting Eleanor in fact.
I read the recent book on Marshall. Marshall's Mission to China: 1945-1947 and of course this issue is not addressed as so many issues wrt Marxism and Communism are not. The Nationalists are blamed for losing.
Why did I go so long? Cuz I like to, hehe. I may try and turn this into an essay. But I also get that you see the threat clearly, so I'm trying to go back in history and find out when we gave up and let the Marxists overrun us. It looks to me to be the '50s and '60s. McCarthy was a victim as well, there is an amazing, eye opening 100% legit book on it, Blacklisted by History by the eminent late M. Stanton Evans which was only one of his many contributions to anti-communist history.
Any of that align with how you see how we were overrun?
In explaining the history of Marxist infiltration it may be of use to examine the “lure” that readily hooks so many people. I believe that lure is the enabling and fostering of egotism. Truth for the Progressive is relative. It is self-referencing. Mine is as good as yours. Where as being objective, using reason, and being open to challenge your own beliefs is very discomforting. Progressivism also fosters envy and provides excuses for our failures and inadequacies. It is not my fault I didn’t get something. Progressivism also appeals to our vanities. Look at me. Look at the signs in my yard. I am so compassionate. I am so virtuous. Progressivism is appealing because it taps into the baser instincts of humans.
I think we came to the same place by different roads.
I'm more of a Nietzschean here and think everything runs downstream from morality and the Sacred and that old gods don't die until some new god arrives to deliver the coup de grace—which in this case means the senescence of Christianity and Americanism (for lack of a better term) and the rise of the new, vital, strong and young god, Social Justice, which is a particularly potent blend of Protestantism and Marxism.
People like Marcuse were agents of destruction (in the sense that they desperately wanted all our prior dispensations destroyed by any means necessary and that they would call this "liberation" regardless of the result), but they were brilliant when it came to strategy and they were gifted with all the usual zeal and certitude of the fanatic. The winning move here was piggybacking on the Civil Rights Movement (which I consider a second Reformation with its own Martin Luther) and that once they were able to style themselves as Official Defenders of the Oppressed their victory was assured.
And then America slept as the Trojan Horse called Crit Theory was wheeled inside our gates and we became possibly the first country to actively fund people who were professed enemies of the country and who worked to demonize and undermine every aspect of liberal society and all our cultural, social and familial ties—one young brain at a time. Liberals had no ability to oppose anti-liberals because they mostly agreed w them and because liberals have been programmed to NEVER SAY NO to any claim made by anyone who claims to be a victim of society, and conservatives (even more unforgivably) scoffed that these kids will learn once they grow up and get real jobs—and now these kids control all our social high ground and have turned their own kids against them!
But really (to try to wrap up) the finishing move here is when, in their post-2016 nervous breakdown, the global corporatists rushed to the altar w the zealots of the New Left, to marry and create the beast that now rules the globe, Social Justice Inc. These two seemingly unlikely spouses bond not over what they love but over what they hate: the nation-state, its citizens, all inherited ties and culture, including our founding documents. The pincer move here is the globalists' belief that borders, nations and communities should be dissolved for the needs of global capital, with their partners in the New Left HR wing pumping out a nonstop barrage of propaganda about the evils and illegitimacy of our society, its history, culture, families (even the sex binary) as racist, oppressive impositions that all Good People know to oppose and attack.
And thus here we are, with the professoriate who've been drooling for decades to dissolve the Old Man/world to create their glorious New Man (or in this case the New They/Them), except now backed by the full funding of the state and the billionaire class.
Ya, we are different pages for sure. I think the reliance on the spiritual/philosophical to describe where we are at is helpful, but is also a huge mistake when looking at political issues and how to fight this battle. You solve political problems with better politics. Currently the 'counter-revolution' is a dumpster fire of nonsense. Plenty of people babbling about God and spirituality and values and philosophy (many incoherently) - while we lose constantly. Also, spiritual/philosophical issues are always divisive and hard to unify around. Stopping these lunatic bastards from destroying Western Civilization is a lot more accessible message, and can be universal for the heterodox vs. philosophical/religious arguments.
The time for meta arguments is past. I won't go out on my knees, and the time to be counted has arrived...
We all come from different places and perspectives and have our own specific strengths, weaknesses, specialties, interests etc—I can't say I'm really a "political" person, I have never marched or donated for a cause (at least not as an adult) and have little interest in (or ability for) doing much more than cultivating my own garden.
The most I can do here, in re the illiberal takeover of our society and culture by neo-Marxist misfits and their rising coalition of the miserable, is to never mouth a syllable of their jargon, to oppose all their lies w simple truths, and explain to anyone who asks why I refuse to flatter the Emperor's New Drag and let them know that what they imagine as a campaign of "compassion" and "tolerance" is their opposite.
Agreed for the most part. But I do encourage you to re-examine seeing the solution as spiritual. Our founders didn't pray their way to our liberty - they spilled buckets of blood and KILLED 10s of thousands of Brits to earn our liberty. Too many heterodox folks today think we are going to automagically 'snap out of it' or something and revert to some state in society they can't really even describe. With respect, I can't see such sentiments as much more than magical thinking.
One of the main functions of religion is to provide moral justification for the actions of the civil government, such as wars, pogroms, enslavement and so on. Your last two paragraphs propose the global corporatists who run the civil economic side have found and developed their new religious partner. Very interesting idea! I like the organic, dynamic feel of this partnership evolving out of certain conditions, then actively shaping cultural trends to serve both sides. It gets especially creepy when AI is added in.
From what I've read the idea of a separation of Church/State would have seemed impossible (if not inconceivable) for most of recorded history, and that everyone from the Egyptian pharaohs to the Roman emperors ruled in a coalition w their priesthoods, where the priests provided divine/holy imprimatur that confirmed the ruler was blessed by the god(s), and where they needed to be (at least ceremonially) consulted for every major decision.
And even when at last along came the separation of Church/State (at least here in the West), this was done in countries where, regardless of the status of priests etc, everyone was more or less a believing Christian and knew only believing Christians, w Christianity being the supporting architecture of these societies, the foundation of morality, education, family, history, governance etc.
Even those of us born in the back half of the last century were born into a Christian world and have lived mostly in a Christian world, so this century's collapse of religious belief and authority might possibly be an historically unprecedented situation. But this vacuum had to be filled (was waiting to be filled) and it makes sense that the globalist owners of the planet would appropriate this strong new belief system, almost like how a giant company buys a smaller company solely for the one transformational product it's invented.
There is a vast difference bw saying (in technocratic language) we've made this decision bc it will increase GDP or boost this sector, and saying (in moralistic language): Join us on the Right Side of History, for we are the compassionate and enlightened leaders of the future, who love the Marginalized and are the embodiment of Justice and Equality, the repository of the Good and True (or some such language).
Once you create a conception of the Sacred, next comes Ingroup v Outgroup, then comes dogma and rituals and priests, and voila! you have an army of devout followers who won't just vote for you, but will devote their lives to the cause, and you have a moral sword and shield, where a priesthood denounces your opponents not for being wrong but for being Evil.
In this (I think) lies the utility and inevitability of the Church/State ruling coalition, which I think mostly comes down to people not just wanting to be right but also to be Good (and recognized as such).
I have a strong interest in keeping church and state as separate as possible.
I share your understanding that the history of Europe and most if not all other civilizations has revolved around power alliances between heads of state and heads of state religions. The political counterpoint has been a recurring struggle by underdog groups to reduce the power of these ruling alliances by forming rebellious civil/religious alliances of their own.
The English Civil War of the seventeenth century was a situation of this type. King Charles I formed a mutually empowering alliance with William Laud, then appointed Laud to be Archbishop of Canterbury. These guys were very repressive and unpopular, providing an opening for the rise of the Parliamentarian movement led by Oliver Cromwell. The Parliamentarians wanted more power for the Parliament and less for the king, and they also favored Calvinism over Anglicanism. I mention this particular situation because you indicated you have knowledge of Calvinism. My father's family was from Wales and all of them were Calvinists.
Some of Cromwell's followers, known to us as the Puritans, came to the British American Colonies around the time of the English Civil War and thereafter. Despite their rejection of the principle of a state religion in England, as soon as they got to the Massachusetts Colony they set up their own ultra repressive theocratic state and tried to impose it on as many other colonies as they could
The Jungian mythologist Joseph Campbell argued that there has also been a recurrent effort by kings to shift the power towards themselves at the expense of the high priests of their state religions. He argues that kings in some early civilizations were sacrificed annually to gain favor from the gods worshipped by those cultures, who were typically fertility deities. The kings eventually were able to replace themselves with other sacrificial victims, human or animal, which was a significant victory over the priests.
The successful efforts of kings to gain power over the priests and the successful efforts of popular movements to take power from them both culminated in our American Revolutionary experiment. At the time of our foundation, memories of state churches and their allied civil rulers were fresh in peoples' minds. Based on my reading of early American records, many colonists and new Americans were resistant to the point of paranoia to any encroachment by the government on their religious practices. At the same time, they continued to fight among themselves over the same Reformation and populist issues that were going on in England and Germany. It is true, as you say, that an overwhelming majority of early colonists were practicing Christians, but they spent enormous energy defining the differences in religious beliefs and practices that existed among them, leading to schisms within cults and creation of new cults with minor differences from the parent groups. The Anabaptist separatist groups in southern Pennsylvania were a case in point.
Now we are in the stage of rapidly increasing consolidated central power based on an alliance between a secular ruling class and a newly formed cult made of "repurposed" elements of Christianity, as you said. There is also an opposition movement of the populist type that is partially connected with the Fundamentalist Christian Church, and a partially separate populist opposition movement connected with Trump. But the new generation of allied civil and religious leadership has already pulled off a coup, and based on previous history their power will gather for awhile, maybe for a long time, before the tide turns again.
Nope. Socialist theorists, Marxist theorists (socialism predates Marx), Postmodernists and Post-Structuralists all start with the assertion that the classical liberal order is insufficient to deliver a just society. The Posties (both) believe reason is nothing more than a structure through which the majority imposes their views.
Conservatives participate in none of this nonsense. The equivalency nonsense is also getting quite old...
Care to offer an actual argument? What is it you claim I'm incorrect about? Are you really so ignorant that you don't realize all the schools of thought I mentioned above start with a rejection of classical liberalism?
My comment was 100% factual, and you admit I'm correct in your answer to my question.
" Are you really so ignorant that you don't realize all the schools of thought I mentioned above start with a rejection of classical liberalism?
No. Why do you ask?"
You agree with my comment, which asserted a number of facts about Marxism, socialism, postmodernism and post-structuralism. Are you claiming that they don't start by rejecting the classical liberal political order as insufficient?
You aren't even cogent, lol. Yet you question me? How bizarre. Try forming an argument. My comment was factually correct in its assertions and you agree with me. Why are you here? What do you want?
Children can no more "consent" to have their healthy breasts and genitalia removed or take puberty blockers than they can
"consent" to have sex with an adult.
Similarly, parents and doctors can no more approve such permanent mutilation simply because a minor child desires it than they can approve pedophilia.
Ultimately society will see the truth and ban the practice as we have banned female genital mutilation. Do people support that practice if the parents consent? I truly hope not
It is monstrous to believe otherwise and those who do will ultimately be held to account for their actions.
Transgenderism owes its remarkable ability to survive evidence based criticism to the fact that it is not a truth-directed but a power-directed system of thought.
Benjamin I have your problem in certain professions contexts, I am the one who reads every page with notes before commencing certain functions. I routinely find that people try to short-cut reading, and it ends up creating 7x - 10x the effort to undo faulty comprehension and rework a program.
You would enjoy the CMMI model for how to develop responses to problems. An ounce of preparation is worth a ton of rework.
You're well-groomed and handsome. I'm sure it's expected that lots of men have sex with you, but take it from me, the first 2000 are just the appetizer. 😈
Oooh, this is one of my favorite things I have read here, thanks.
Owen Jones is an awe and a wonder, isn't he? I generally don't like to denigrate people who disagree with me, but OJ is *awfully* disagreeable. I see why Julie Bindel calls him "Talcum X."
If we take Cass' critics claims at face value, that researchers and doctors motivated by ideological reasons can skew results by determining which studies count and which don't, then we must also conclude both:
1. Researchers and doctors who like the affirming model for ideological reasons can do the same, and there's no reason to take their evidence at face value either,
and
2. The people actually DOING the research could do the same, and even the basic truth and validity of studies themselves have to be called into question.
In other words, if they make it an ideological power game, then we have to assume everything they say is also ideologically motivated for power, and if we go back to a basic eye test, historical, and first principles analysis withouts specific data on this narrow subject, I think we all know where that leads.
Thank you Mr. Ryan, for this careful and rigorous fact checking effort! The backlash from activists is to be expected, and it is unfortunate that so many people follow their lead in situations that require critical thinking and sound reasoning rather than emotionally driven arguments.
I have not yet read the entire Cass Review, but intend to do so "when I have the time." The summary published by the SEGM is very helpful as a substitute. I have brought it to the attention of physicians I know and they have been open to the information and appreciated receiving it.
One thing I have noticed in the criticisms of the Cass Review is a misunderstanding of what is meant by a randomized controlled trial. Critics of the Review often mention that it is impossible or unethical to "double blind" the research design, which they seem to think rules out the use of RCT's in studies of "gender" treatment. This isn't accurate. "Double blinding" means that neither the participants in the trial nor the people who deliver the treatments know which treatment any given participant is receiving. This is often possible to do if the treatment is a drug with no side effects, so that one group of participants receives the active drug and another group receives an inert pill that looks the same. There are many, many situations in which double blinding is not possible to do, as in cancer studies where one group gets radiation and another chemotherapy. Everyone in those studies knows which participants are getting which treatment from the start of the study. These studies are still randomized and controlled.
Random assignment is a necessary first step in studies that use statistical analyses of results. The reason for doing this is that we want the groups of participants be as equivalent as possible at the start of the trial with respect to whatever variables we are measuring at the end. An example of non random assignment is when groups of patients with low back pain are treated either with surgery or conservative care, then evaluated at the end of treatment for degree of improvement in symptoms. In observational studies, the patients are usually sorted by their treating physicians who have reasons for assigning the patients to a more or less invasive type of treatment. If the conservative care group comes out with better results than the surgery group it might be because they were in better shape than the surgery group to begin with.
Another part of an RCT research design is that treatment groups are compared to carefully selected "control groups," which might consist of no treatment or of "treatment as usual." Much of the research on "gender treatment" has been appropriately criticized for not including well chosen control groups. One example of a well controlled study of suicidality related specifically to gender conflicts would be to compare three groups of adolescent psychiatric patients who receive only a course of psychotherapy: one group diagnosed only with "gender distress," a second group with gender dysphoria and three other comorbid condiitons, and a third group with only the latter three conditions without gender dysphoria.
Yes, thanks, I got that point. The "research" that has been published is insufficient to answer any of the critical questions. The main things that need to be done are what Dr. Cass prescribed: a whole lot more research and cessation of the current medical interventions that are not supported by sufficient evidence.
The criticisms coming from the trans activists towards the Cass Review are as usual not based in reason or reality. Not many of them will read the Review, nor will they read your above posted article and change their minds about anything. They have their "lived experience" and resulting "knowledge" of what needs to be done for children affected by gender dysphoria, and they believe that is enough. Nevertheless, your article is very helpful to those of us who are trying to identify, understand and remember what the existing research does or doesn't say about kids who report gender dysphoria. You have also inspired me to read the whole report of the Cass Review, because the excerpts you included in your article were very interesting!
Thank you for your response and your excellent fact checking paper!
Let me know if there are any particular notable insights you gain from reading the whole thing! It's a very interesting document and very readably written.
I got into an argument about this in a forum in 2019, specifically about RCT. There’s really limited ability to conceptualise what RCT is vs double blind, you’ve eloquently clarified here.
When I said that all the literature I had read didn’t have RCT and were all astonishingly biased at almost every level, I was accused of being inhuman to call for RCT as a starting point.
My final response was that before discussion methods to do research I’d advise reading how it works to understand why this was all sad.
The only measurement these tools were taking was establishing a baseline of degree of bias compared to future true studies.
A single effective RCT would invalidate all of these studies in one fell swoop as biased from selection, measurement, observer, confirmation, and survivorship bias.
And not surprisingly, the more unbiased the structure is that we’ve seen, the more there is no effect from interventions.
The fact that the “Dutch Study” changed essential questions from intake to later evaluations, and abandoned certain survey components simply invalides the entire study conceptually without any further work necessary.
I would fire the entire Dutch team, and forbid them from medical science in the future. It’s not cancelling, it’s simply falsifying science.
Thanks for the great response and for the compliment.
I share your frustration with the "gender treatment" research. It is best to design a study that will answer whatever questions are of interest rather than waste everyone's time with dozens of studies that can't. And it certainly isn't rocket science to design a few studies that could address those questions.
Jay Bhatttacharya from Stanford, a medical economist, concocted a study in April 2020 with peoe of Facebook in the bay area to eh tested for covid, and "showed" that a high portion of the population. "already had" COVID. He was intending to prove Covid was nonsense.
So self-selected groups tested positive for covid at a rate that.proved most people already had it. Unfortunately the same was obviously biased, the specificity and sensitivity range could easily produce the observed COVID sample outcome, whotbot anyone having Covod...bad math bad design and a claim.that 80-90% already had it. The math fell apart instantly.
Just.atrocious arithmetic, and lack comprehension of any descriptive statistics. A charlatan.
I predixtied COVID death curves 9 months out with a genetic algorithm I uzed, 92% accurate. Math wasn't hard but just didn't bother to do homeworkd.
The gender care industry is nothing but pure unadulterated evil that wears a white coat. They are chasing the all mighty dollar as they mutilate children I can think of nothing that is as evil as this is.
Well done, Benjamin! The biggest problem is that the critics of the Cass Report have not read it, and in many cases will refuse to do so. They have their minds made up and do not wish to be confused by facts.
"Liberal firebrands" the paid-for-only, 3-part "Cancel Culture" posts says (and anyone who pays for any of that shit does so at her peril).
But why, one can't help but wonder, is this "Liberal firebrands" phrase such an oddly familiar phrase?
And why all are self-described liberals now -- only now -- so seemingly desperate to distance themselves from their chosen politico-economic-ethical views, which were once, not so long ago, perfervidly defended? Why is no responsibility being taken, Dr. Wright, for the logical and pathetically obvious elaboration of this same ideology?
Do you really think you can paint yourself so profoundly into a corner and then escape on pulleys of the unknown?
Thanks to everyone who read my article! Follow me on Substack if you like. I don't publish on there too often, so you won't get hit with a ton of emails or anything. I also tweet a lot about this issue: https://twitter.com/benryanwriter
I keep trying to convince my fellow red pillers of all stripes to stop thinking this is a reasoned debate. The other side has already rejected reason. Get that. The Left/Postmodernism starts by undermining the entire concept of something called 'truth'. Owen Jones is a great example of a feral, left wing loonie liar who simply doesn't care about facts or reason. He's just about power and 'winning' and feeling superior based on his politics. But the likes of WPATH and others give him 'ammo' to fire his lies out into the mouths of his supplicants who care even less about truth. None of them even suspect they are wrong. The only way they will be stopped is if we remove them from power. It may already be too late as they've done so much damage from which there is no recovery. Brace yourself for the coming new Dark Age...
I'm really digging War for the West lately:
"...stop thinking this is a reasoned debate. The other side has already rejected reason. Get that. The Left/Postmodernism starts by undermining the entire concept of something called 'truth'."
This is just something that nice well-meaning liberals (no sarcasm) just can't wrap their heads around. Our is the Age of Reason, right? Surely all these academics/journalists and other brain workers base their arguments on Reason and respond to Reason. If not....well, the alternative is too terrible to contemplate.
But "It may already be too late as they've done so much damage from which there is no recovery" needs editing (lol) it is already TOO LATE.
The West has been ideologically captured, from New Zealand to Saskatchewan, from the Joint Chiefs to the Boy Scouts from the MOMA to your local coffee shop/gallery etc. The Trojan Horse called Crit Theory was wheeled inside our gates 50 years ago and it's too late now, all the brains that matter have been eaten.
The postliberal future is here and there's no turning back.
Cheers!
Indeed, but they suck at running the world. That's the problem. I'm well aware of both the original materialist Marxist and the likes of Gramsci through to Foucault and Marcuse.
Sadly, most Americans do not realize they live in the world envisioned by Marcuse. I do agree that it's too late for normal politics to turn us back from doom. And I do deeply suspect that just as a pickle cannot become a cucumber, the 'rugged individualism, ingenuity and can-do attitude' Americans were known for around the world can't be recovered once lost.
I sadly got a glimpse of what living in a 'great nation' was like. Born in '62, U.S. products were the best in the world, and we exported everything everywhere. I was raised in the new middle class that emerged after WWII, there was an optimism and energy to Americanism. I also grew up watching the '60s politics and never imagined the effing commies would win here at home. We were so busy fighting the Cold War outside our borders, meanwhile the subversion was grinding away full speed.
I think Vietnam broke the Right. It was not the first crack in the Cold War mythology pf American invincibility. We were willing to throw 80 coups and back murderous authoritarian govts to fight communism around the globe, but here at home we let them take over the entire nation institutionally. But I think leaving and watching it fall made many of us question what we are doing. And it was THE searing hot issue of the late '60s and '70s.
Nixon had a history eas an anti-communist at home, as was Reagan for that matter. He actually forced Marcuse out of the UC university system. But somehow the Vietnam war and the upheaval of the '60s took the fight out of the Right. If I look at the institutions of the Right, I'm kind of embarrassed to point out that the last significant Right wing institution to stand up against Marxism at home was the John Birch Society. Note they were smashed as racists, and that Lee Harvey Oswald's first target was Edwin Walker, a U.S. General who was very influenced by the Birchers and a HUGE anticommunist. Edwin Walker was trying to expose what he claimed was a Communist conspiracy in the fed govt. Of course the Birchers were racists so that really hurt the cause, fully earned.
They similarly snuffed out MacArthur in part for questioning how Marshall let China slip into the clutches of Mao? Fyi, Marshall's predecessor in China was also another raving nutjob anti-communist who claimed there was commie infiltration. It later came out that key parts of our intelligence and comms operations in Asia were penetrated by Communists, Soviet and Chinese at the time. But the idea of questioning Marshall? Fyi, he was a darling of the known commie, Eleanor Roosevelt and that's how he came to the attention of FDR to begin with. His career was not stellar before meeting Eleanor in fact.
I read the recent book on Marshall. Marshall's Mission to China: 1945-1947 and of course this issue is not addressed as so many issues wrt Marxism and Communism are not. The Nationalists are blamed for losing.
Why did I go so long? Cuz I like to, hehe. I may try and turn this into an essay. But I also get that you see the threat clearly, so I'm trying to go back in history and find out when we gave up and let the Marxists overrun us. It looks to me to be the '50s and '60s. McCarthy was a victim as well, there is an amazing, eye opening 100% legit book on it, Blacklisted by History by the eminent late M. Stanton Evans which was only one of his many contributions to anti-communist history.
Any of that align with how you see how we were overrun?
In explaining the history of Marxist infiltration it may be of use to examine the “lure” that readily hooks so many people. I believe that lure is the enabling and fostering of egotism. Truth for the Progressive is relative. It is self-referencing. Mine is as good as yours. Where as being objective, using reason, and being open to challenge your own beliefs is very discomforting. Progressivism also fosters envy and provides excuses for our failures and inadequacies. It is not my fault I didn’t get something. Progressivism also appeals to our vanities. Look at me. Look at the signs in my yard. I am so compassionate. I am so virtuous. Progressivism is appealing because it taps into the baser instincts of humans.
I think we came to the same place by different roads.
I'm more of a Nietzschean here and think everything runs downstream from morality and the Sacred and that old gods don't die until some new god arrives to deliver the coup de grace—which in this case means the senescence of Christianity and Americanism (for lack of a better term) and the rise of the new, vital, strong and young god, Social Justice, which is a particularly potent blend of Protestantism and Marxism.
People like Marcuse were agents of destruction (in the sense that they desperately wanted all our prior dispensations destroyed by any means necessary and that they would call this "liberation" regardless of the result), but they were brilliant when it came to strategy and they were gifted with all the usual zeal and certitude of the fanatic. The winning move here was piggybacking on the Civil Rights Movement (which I consider a second Reformation with its own Martin Luther) and that once they were able to style themselves as Official Defenders of the Oppressed their victory was assured.
And then America slept as the Trojan Horse called Crit Theory was wheeled inside our gates and we became possibly the first country to actively fund people who were professed enemies of the country and who worked to demonize and undermine every aspect of liberal society and all our cultural, social and familial ties—one young brain at a time. Liberals had no ability to oppose anti-liberals because they mostly agreed w them and because liberals have been programmed to NEVER SAY NO to any claim made by anyone who claims to be a victim of society, and conservatives (even more unforgivably) scoffed that these kids will learn once they grow up and get real jobs—and now these kids control all our social high ground and have turned their own kids against them!
But really (to try to wrap up) the finishing move here is when, in their post-2016 nervous breakdown, the global corporatists rushed to the altar w the zealots of the New Left, to marry and create the beast that now rules the globe, Social Justice Inc. These two seemingly unlikely spouses bond not over what they love but over what they hate: the nation-state, its citizens, all inherited ties and culture, including our founding documents. The pincer move here is the globalists' belief that borders, nations and communities should be dissolved for the needs of global capital, with their partners in the New Left HR wing pumping out a nonstop barrage of propaganda about the evils and illegitimacy of our society, its history, culture, families (even the sex binary) as racist, oppressive impositions that all Good People know to oppose and attack.
And thus here we are, with the professoriate who've been drooling for decades to dissolve the Old Man/world to create their glorious New Man (or in this case the New They/Them), except now backed by the full funding of the state and the billionaire class.
Thanks!
Ya, we are different pages for sure. I think the reliance on the spiritual/philosophical to describe where we are at is helpful, but is also a huge mistake when looking at political issues and how to fight this battle. You solve political problems with better politics. Currently the 'counter-revolution' is a dumpster fire of nonsense. Plenty of people babbling about God and spirituality and values and philosophy (many incoherently) - while we lose constantly. Also, spiritual/philosophical issues are always divisive and hard to unify around. Stopping these lunatic bastards from destroying Western Civilization is a lot more accessible message, and can be universal for the heterodox vs. philosophical/religious arguments.
The time for meta arguments is past. I won't go out on my knees, and the time to be counted has arrived...
We all come from different places and perspectives and have our own specific strengths, weaknesses, specialties, interests etc—I can't say I'm really a "political" person, I have never marched or donated for a cause (at least not as an adult) and have little interest in (or ability for) doing much more than cultivating my own garden.
The most I can do here, in re the illiberal takeover of our society and culture by neo-Marxist misfits and their rising coalition of the miserable, is to never mouth a syllable of their jargon, to oppose all their lies w simple truths, and explain to anyone who asks why I refuse to flatter the Emperor's New Drag and let them know that what they imagine as a campaign of "compassion" and "tolerance" is their opposite.
It takes all kinds, one step at a time.
Cheers!
Agreed for the most part. But I do encourage you to re-examine seeing the solution as spiritual. Our founders didn't pray their way to our liberty - they spilled buckets of blood and KILLED 10s of thousands of Brits to earn our liberty. Too many heterodox folks today think we are going to automagically 'snap out of it' or something and revert to some state in society they can't really even describe. With respect, I can't see such sentiments as much more than magical thinking.
One of the main functions of religion is to provide moral justification for the actions of the civil government, such as wars, pogroms, enslavement and so on. Your last two paragraphs propose the global corporatists who run the civil economic side have found and developed their new religious partner. Very interesting idea! I like the organic, dynamic feel of this partnership evolving out of certain conditions, then actively shaping cultural trends to serve both sides. It gets especially creepy when AI is added in.
From what I've read the idea of a separation of Church/State would have seemed impossible (if not inconceivable) for most of recorded history, and that everyone from the Egyptian pharaohs to the Roman emperors ruled in a coalition w their priesthoods, where the priests provided divine/holy imprimatur that confirmed the ruler was blessed by the god(s), and where they needed to be (at least ceremonially) consulted for every major decision.
And even when at last along came the separation of Church/State (at least here in the West), this was done in countries where, regardless of the status of priests etc, everyone was more or less a believing Christian and knew only believing Christians, w Christianity being the supporting architecture of these societies, the foundation of morality, education, family, history, governance etc.
Even those of us born in the back half of the last century were born into a Christian world and have lived mostly in a Christian world, so this century's collapse of religious belief and authority might possibly be an historically unprecedented situation. But this vacuum had to be filled (was waiting to be filled) and it makes sense that the globalist owners of the planet would appropriate this strong new belief system, almost like how a giant company buys a smaller company solely for the one transformational product it's invented.
There is a vast difference bw saying (in technocratic language) we've made this decision bc it will increase GDP or boost this sector, and saying (in moralistic language): Join us on the Right Side of History, for we are the compassionate and enlightened leaders of the future, who love the Marginalized and are the embodiment of Justice and Equality, the repository of the Good and True (or some such language).
Once you create a conception of the Sacred, next comes Ingroup v Outgroup, then comes dogma and rituals and priests, and voila! you have an army of devout followers who won't just vote for you, but will devote their lives to the cause, and you have a moral sword and shield, where a priesthood denounces your opponents not for being wrong but for being Evil.
In this (I think) lies the utility and inevitability of the Church/State ruling coalition, which I think mostly comes down to people not just wanting to be right but also to be Good (and recognized as such).
Hope that makes sense!
I have a strong interest in keeping church and state as separate as possible.
I share your understanding that the history of Europe and most if not all other civilizations has revolved around power alliances between heads of state and heads of state religions. The political counterpoint has been a recurring struggle by underdog groups to reduce the power of these ruling alliances by forming rebellious civil/religious alliances of their own.
The English Civil War of the seventeenth century was a situation of this type. King Charles I formed a mutually empowering alliance with William Laud, then appointed Laud to be Archbishop of Canterbury. These guys were very repressive and unpopular, providing an opening for the rise of the Parliamentarian movement led by Oliver Cromwell. The Parliamentarians wanted more power for the Parliament and less for the king, and they also favored Calvinism over Anglicanism. I mention this particular situation because you indicated you have knowledge of Calvinism. My father's family was from Wales and all of them were Calvinists.
Some of Cromwell's followers, known to us as the Puritans, came to the British American Colonies around the time of the English Civil War and thereafter. Despite their rejection of the principle of a state religion in England, as soon as they got to the Massachusetts Colony they set up their own ultra repressive theocratic state and tried to impose it on as many other colonies as they could
The Jungian mythologist Joseph Campbell argued that there has also been a recurrent effort by kings to shift the power towards themselves at the expense of the high priests of their state religions. He argues that kings in some early civilizations were sacrificed annually to gain favor from the gods worshipped by those cultures, who were typically fertility deities. The kings eventually were able to replace themselves with other sacrificial victims, human or animal, which was a significant victory over the priests.
The successful efforts of kings to gain power over the priests and the successful efforts of popular movements to take power from them both culminated in our American Revolutionary experiment. At the time of our foundation, memories of state churches and their allied civil rulers were fresh in peoples' minds. Based on my reading of early American records, many colonists and new Americans were resistant to the point of paranoia to any encroachment by the government on their religious practices. At the same time, they continued to fight among themselves over the same Reformation and populist issues that were going on in England and Germany. It is true, as you say, that an overwhelming majority of early colonists were practicing Christians, but they spent enormous energy defining the differences in religious beliefs and practices that existed among them, leading to schisms within cults and creation of new cults with minor differences from the parent groups. The Anabaptist separatist groups in southern Pennsylvania were a case in point.
Now we are in the stage of rapidly increasing consolidated central power based on an alliance between a secular ruling class and a newly formed cult made of "repurposed" elements of Christianity, as you said. There is also an opposition movement of the populist type that is partially connected with the Fundamentalist Christian Church, and a partially separate populist opposition movement connected with Trump. But the new generation of allied civil and religious leadership has already pulled off a coup, and based on previous history their power will gather for awhile, maybe for a long time, before the tide turns again.
> The other side has already rejected reason.
Both sides have imho.
Nope. Socialist theorists, Marxist theorists (socialism predates Marx), Postmodernists and Post-Structuralists all start with the assertion that the classical liberal order is insufficient to deliver a just society. The Posties (both) believe reason is nothing more than a structure through which the majority imposes their views.
Conservatives participate in none of this nonsense. The equivalency nonsense is also getting quite old...
A meta-question: are your comments ("facts"?) here based on what you believe to be sound, flawless reasoning? Because if you do, I have some bad news.
Care to offer an actual argument? What is it you claim I'm incorrect about? Are you really so ignorant that you don't realize all the schools of thought I mentioned above start with a rejection of classical liberalism?
> Care to offer an actual argument?
Not at this point, but maybe after you answer my question. Do you have an aversion to answering my question?
> What is it you claim I'm incorrect about?
I've made no claim that you are incorrect about anything. You seem to have made a claim that you are correct about something though.
> Are you really so ignorant that you don't realize all the schools of thought I mentioned above start with a rejection of classical liberalism?
No. Why do you ask?
Will you be answering my question? And if not, why not?
My comment was 100% factual, and you admit I'm correct in your answer to my question.
" Are you really so ignorant that you don't realize all the schools of thought I mentioned above start with a rejection of classical liberalism?
No. Why do you ask?"
You agree with my comment, which asserted a number of facts about Marxism, socialism, postmodernism and post-structuralism. Are you claiming that they don't start by rejecting the classical liberal political order as insufficient?
You aren't even cogent, lol. Yet you question me? How bizarre. Try forming an argument. My comment was factually correct in its assertions and you agree with me. Why are you here? What do you want?
Children can no more "consent" to have their healthy breasts and genitalia removed or take puberty blockers than they can
"consent" to have sex with an adult.
Similarly, parents and doctors can no more approve such permanent mutilation simply because a minor child desires it than they can approve pedophilia.
Ultimately society will see the truth and ban the practice as we have banned female genital mutilation. Do people support that practice if the parents consent? I truly hope not
It is monstrous to believe otherwise and those who do will ultimately be held to account for their actions.
Wow, this is great. Thanks for such a thorough piece.
Thanks!
Transgenderism owes its remarkable ability to survive evidence based criticism to the fact that it is not a truth-directed but a power-directed system of thought.
Benjamin I have your problem in certain professions contexts, I am the one who reads every page with notes before commencing certain functions. I routinely find that people try to short-cut reading, and it ends up creating 7x - 10x the effort to undo faulty comprehension and rework a program.
You would enjoy the CMMI model for how to develop responses to problems. An ounce of preparation is worth a ton of rework.
Nice piece. Monkeypox?
I famously made the following typo about monkeypox: "...Monkeypox has overwhelmingly spread through men who have sex with me."
You're well-groomed and handsome. I'm sure it's expected that lots of men have sex with you, but take it from me, the first 2000 are just the appetizer. 😈
Thank you, very helpful! Especially since I haven't made it past page 100 of the report yet.
Oooh, this is one of my favorite things I have read here, thanks.
Owen Jones is an awe and a wonder, isn't he? I generally don't like to denigrate people who disagree with me, but OJ is *awfully* disagreeable. I see why Julie Bindel calls him "Talcum X."
If we take Cass' critics claims at face value, that researchers and doctors motivated by ideological reasons can skew results by determining which studies count and which don't, then we must also conclude both:
1. Researchers and doctors who like the affirming model for ideological reasons can do the same, and there's no reason to take their evidence at face value either,
and
2. The people actually DOING the research could do the same, and even the basic truth and validity of studies themselves have to be called into question.
In other words, if they make it an ideological power game, then we have to assume everything they say is also ideologically motivated for power, and if we go back to a basic eye test, historical, and first principles analysis withouts specific data on this narrow subject, I think we all know where that leads.
Thank you Mr. Ryan, for this careful and rigorous fact checking effort! The backlash from activists is to be expected, and it is unfortunate that so many people follow their lead in situations that require critical thinking and sound reasoning rather than emotionally driven arguments.
I have not yet read the entire Cass Review, but intend to do so "when I have the time." The summary published by the SEGM is very helpful as a substitute. I have brought it to the attention of physicians I know and they have been open to the information and appreciated receiving it.
One thing I have noticed in the criticisms of the Cass Review is a misunderstanding of what is meant by a randomized controlled trial. Critics of the Review often mention that it is impossible or unethical to "double blind" the research design, which they seem to think rules out the use of RCT's in studies of "gender" treatment. This isn't accurate. "Double blinding" means that neither the participants in the trial nor the people who deliver the treatments know which treatment any given participant is receiving. This is often possible to do if the treatment is a drug with no side effects, so that one group of participants receives the active drug and another group receives an inert pill that looks the same. There are many, many situations in which double blinding is not possible to do, as in cancer studies where one group gets radiation and another chemotherapy. Everyone in those studies knows which participants are getting which treatment from the start of the study. These studies are still randomized and controlled.
Random assignment is a necessary first step in studies that use statistical analyses of results. The reason for doing this is that we want the groups of participants be as equivalent as possible at the start of the trial with respect to whatever variables we are measuring at the end. An example of non random assignment is when groups of patients with low back pain are treated either with surgery or conservative care, then evaluated at the end of treatment for degree of improvement in symptoms. In observational studies, the patients are usually sorted by their treating physicians who have reasons for assigning the patients to a more or less invasive type of treatment. If the conservative care group comes out with better results than the surgery group it might be because they were in better shape than the surgery group to begin with.
Another part of an RCT research design is that treatment groups are compared to carefully selected "control groups," which might consist of no treatment or of "treatment as usual." Much of the research on "gender treatment" has been appropriately criticized for not including well chosen control groups. One example of a well controlled study of suicidality related specifically to gender conflicts would be to compare three groups of adolescent psychiatric patients who receive only a course of psychotherapy: one group diagnosed only with "gender distress," a second group with gender dysphoria and three other comorbid condiitons, and a third group with only the latter three conditions without gender dysphoria.
Also note that the Cass Review did not analyze *any* randomized controlled trials!
Yes, thanks, I got that point. The "research" that has been published is insufficient to answer any of the critical questions. The main things that need to be done are what Dr. Cass prescribed: a whole lot more research and cessation of the current medical interventions that are not supported by sufficient evidence.
The criticisms coming from the trans activists towards the Cass Review are as usual not based in reason or reality. Not many of them will read the Review, nor will they read your above posted article and change their minds about anything. They have their "lived experience" and resulting "knowledge" of what needs to be done for children affected by gender dysphoria, and they believe that is enough. Nevertheless, your article is very helpful to those of us who are trying to identify, understand and remember what the existing research does or doesn't say about kids who report gender dysphoria. You have also inspired me to read the whole report of the Cass Review, because the excerpts you included in your article were very interesting!
Thank you for your response and your excellent fact checking paper!
Let me know if there are any particular notable insights you gain from reading the whole thing! It's a very interesting document and very readably written.
I would love to share my reactions to the Review. Thanks for inviting me to do so. I will get back to you!
I got into an argument about this in a forum in 2019, specifically about RCT. There’s really limited ability to conceptualise what RCT is vs double blind, you’ve eloquently clarified here.
When I said that all the literature I had read didn’t have RCT and were all astonishingly biased at almost every level, I was accused of being inhuman to call for RCT as a starting point.
My final response was that before discussion methods to do research I’d advise reading how it works to understand why this was all sad.
The only measurement these tools were taking was establishing a baseline of degree of bias compared to future true studies.
A single effective RCT would invalidate all of these studies in one fell swoop as biased from selection, measurement, observer, confirmation, and survivorship bias.
And not surprisingly, the more unbiased the structure is that we’ve seen, the more there is no effect from interventions.
The fact that the “Dutch Study” changed essential questions from intake to later evaluations, and abandoned certain survey components simply invalides the entire study conceptually without any further work necessary.
I would fire the entire Dutch team, and forbid them from medical science in the future. It’s not cancelling, it’s simply falsifying science.
Thanks for the great response and for the compliment.
I share your frustration with the "gender treatment" research. It is best to design a study that will answer whatever questions are of interest rather than waste everyone's time with dozens of studies that can't. And it certainly isn't rocket science to design a few studies that could address those questions.
Jay Bhatttacharya from Stanford, a medical economist, concocted a study in April 2020 with peoe of Facebook in the bay area to eh tested for covid, and "showed" that a high portion of the population. "already had" COVID. He was intending to prove Covid was nonsense.
So self-selected groups tested positive for covid at a rate that.proved most people already had it. Unfortunately the same was obviously biased, the specificity and sensitivity range could easily produce the observed COVID sample outcome, whotbot anyone having Covod...bad math bad design and a claim.that 80-90% already had it. The math fell apart instantly.
Just.atrocious arithmetic, and lack comprehension of any descriptive statistics. A charlatan.
I predixtied COVID death curves 9 months out with a genetic algorithm I uzed, 92% accurate. Math wasn't hard but just didn't bother to do homeworkd.
> The Canadian Broadcast Company
They'll jump on the tinniest mistake Colin so that should be 'Broadcasting' not 'Broadcast'.
If it's misinformation about Canada, I don't think it counts, per NAFTA.
Yes and also “Corporation,” not “Company.”
Thanks for catching this, we made the edit.
It would have only served to prove that folx who limit themselves to only two sexes really can't get anything right.
Sheesh! Here I am correcting Colin and overlooking that even while I'm being a pedantic perfectionist myself :-(
The gender care industry is nothing but pure unadulterated evil that wears a white coat. They are chasing the all mighty dollar as they mutilate children I can think of nothing that is as evil as this is.
Well done, Benjamin! The biggest problem is that the critics of the Cass Report have not read it, and in many cases will refuse to do so. They have their minds made up and do not wish to be confused by facts.
If they wanted, they could just read the two lit reviews about blockers and hormones. They're only about 7 pages long each!
> They have their minds made up and do not wish to be confused by facts.
This is rarely not true of all Humans.
"Liberal firebrands" the paid-for-only, 3-part "Cancel Culture" posts says (and anyone who pays for any of that shit does so at her peril).
But why, one can't help but wonder, is this "Liberal firebrands" phrase such an oddly familiar phrase?
And why all are self-described liberals now -- only now -- so seemingly desperate to distance themselves from their chosen politico-economic-ethical views, which were once, not so long ago, perfervidly defended? Why is no responsibility being taken, Dr. Wright, for the logical and pathetically obvious elaboration of this same ideology?
Do you really think you can paint yourself so profoundly into a corner and then escape on pulleys of the unknown?
You cannot.
Great to see you at Reality's Last Stand!
Could someone please explain this KiteTrust nonsense that is on X this morning?