Israel's land grab

Since 1947, Israel has engaged in grabbing more and more territory for itself.

Who can rationally deny that?

Of course, the claim is always self-defense.

But the outcome is always the same: an expansion of Israel's control.

At some point we must realize that the self-defense claim is just an excuse for gaining control over territory.

The clear result: endless wars.

Was Israel a historic mistake?

That is a good question.

The 2026 attack on Iran suggests the answer may be yes.

------

For the ongoing conflict, see e.g.

Scott Ritter 

https://www.youtube.com/live/HDVrnJhsSlU

The transgender takeover

It is incredible how both our society and our discourse 

have been taken over by transgenderism.

As to discourse, see for example this Wikipedia article, which has been controlled by the supporters of transgenderism at Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2026_Pawtucket_shooting&oldid=1340696306

For the current revision, see

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Pawtucket_shooting?wprov=sfla1

(I cannot predict future revisions.)

We must refer to the manifestly mentally ill perpetrator (who killed his son, ex-wife, and father-in-law)

by his preferred name?

While in general Wikipedia uses the terminology used in what it considers "reliable sources," 

here the policies dictated by its transgender-supporting editors, 

in particular concerning the naming of the perpetrator and the pronoun used to refer to him, controls.

Another example:

https://slate.com/life/2026/02/kansas-trans-drivers-license-law-lawsuit.html

"A new law just made living in the state virtually impossible—and potentially deadly—for people like me. 

But the right wants you to believe I’m the dangerous one."

What?

An article by a self-proclaimed transgender?

The key point here is how the media emphasizes the voices of transgenders.

The rest of us, non-transgenders, just don't matter.

The only people who matter are transgenders.

The author of the above-cited article writes

"Now, it hardly seems we can go a week without hearing about new anti-trans legislation banning us from bathrooms or sports or jobs."

Nobody is being banned from bathrooms.

What they are being told is 

they must use the bathroom for their real, true, sex.

Is that so hard to understand?

What is real nonsense is the phrase 

"sex assigned at birth."

Sex is not an assignment, but a reality.

What Democrats don't talk about

During President Trump's 2026 State of the Union address, 

several Democratic women tried to interrupt him, bringing up the shooting deaths of Rebecca Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis.

This article 

https://amac.us/newsline/politics/the-mass-shootings-the-media-wants-you-to-ignore/ 

brings up a good related point.

"Here’s a fact the media really doesn’t want to talk about: transgender “women” have shot more people than ICE agents have in 2026.

...

You could be forgiven if you hadn’t heard much about these tragedies—the media virtually ignored them. 

By contrast, the country was subjected to around-the-clock hyperventilating on cable news after an ICE agent shot a woman in Minneapolis after she struck him with her vehicle.

...

[A]sk yourself: where are the primetime panels about “transgender extremism”? 

Where are the New York Times editorials about “toxic gender ideology”? 

Where are the demands that politicians who support transgender brainwashing apologize for creating a “climate of violence”?

They don’t exist.

Instead, we are told to avoid generalization and to focus on the real culprit according to liberals—the guns! 

Whatever you do, don’t acknowledge the deranged individuals pulling the trigger.

...

What’s indisputable is that the Left’s obsession with so-called “gender-affirming care” 

tells deeply confused, vulnerable, often mentally unwell people 

that they are somehow trapped in the wrong body—a delusion that breeds alienation and rage.

Anyone daring to question that delusion is labeled a bigot or a transphobe—a literal, physical threat to trans existence.

Instead of therapy that addresses root causes, 

confused children are force-fed the lie that hormones and surgeries are salvation. 

Schools secretly “socially transition” students without parental consent. 

Liberal doctors fast-track mutilations. 

The result is a powder keg of unstable individuals, pumped full of cross-sex hormones and mind-altering medications, convinced that normal society is out to “erase” them.

Trans advocacy groups wail about “anti-trans sentiment” after each shooting, 

but the real danger is pretending delusion is reality. 

When we affirm fantasies, we ignore red flags. 

That’s not compassionate. It’s reckless and irresponsible. 

Everyone suffers, including transgender people themselves, who are denied the real help they need that affirms the biological reality of their identity."

Pam Bondi vs. Abigail Spanberger

The contrast between two recorded statements from two prominent and distinguished women is interesting:

Pam Bondi responding to a question from Jerrold Nadler in a Congressional hearing:

https://youtube.com/shorts/s77sRuM_JQY

Abigail Spanberger giving the Democratic response to Trump's 2026 State of the Union address:

https://youtu.be/aq-GgHG4kRU

Pam Bondi is absolutely right about one thing.

Democrats are documented hypocrites for noisily complaining about Donald Trump not releasing government files regarding Jeffrey Epstein, 

when they said not a word about Joe Biden not releasing those files.

For more from Bondi on the Epstein files, see

https://youtube.com/shorts/_heKb-S3uDg

For general information on this subject, Google 

did Democrats criticize Joe Biden over Jeffrey Epstein

In particular, 

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/8/6/fact-check-did-democrats-take-action-over-epstein-case-transparency

takes a good look at this subject.

According to that article, 

during the Biden presidency Democrats focused on the role of Alex Acosta, 

not the broader issue of what the government knew about Epstein.

..

Why on earth are we paying for this!!!

It is one thing to advocate for health care for transgenders.

Who can argue against health care for everyone, whatever their gender identity is?

For what at least some doctors consider to be "transgender health care",

consider a post summarizing what a doctor, @queersurgeon, said about what he actually does:

https://open.substack.com/pub/benappel/p/this-is-what-theyre-doing

An excerpt from the post:

"One of the most surreal aspects of following the issue of “gender-affirming care” has been to hear 

gender clinicians and surgeons so bluntly describe, often with smiles on their faces, 

the harm they inflict on the bodies of gender nonconforming children and adults 

...

For genital surgery, [@queersurgeon] says the greatest variation is what can be done with phalloplasty—

the construction of a neo [i.e. artificial] phallus using skin harvested from the arm, thigh, abdomen, or upper back.

...

Then there is perineal masculinization, where the surgeon performs everything except a urethral lengthening—that is, phalloplasty, scrotoplasty, vaginectomy (the vaginal canal is sutured shut), burial of the clitoral tissue, et cetera."

That post appears be based on this video:

"Video: Surgeon discusses performing gender-reaffirming surgery on youth | Daily Mail Online" https://share.google/IqUtQ4Mk4r6fKh5WL

where @queersurgeon describes some of his work.

Who pays for this?

Googling "who pays for gender reassignment surgery" yields 

"Transgender surgery is primarily funded through a combination of 

private health insurance, 

employer-sponsored plans, 

public programs like Medicare and Medicaid, and 

personal out-of-pocket payments. 

Many insurance providers now cover gender-affirming surgery as a medically necessary procedure, 

though coverage varies significantly by state, plan type, and specific insurer." 

See also 

https://www.healthline.com/health/does-the-government-pay-for-gender-affirming-surgery

So if your insurance premium went up, now you know part of the reason.

20 AGs versus the AMA

"[Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall] was joined in the letter by attorneys general from 

Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia."

(That's 20 states in all.)

https://www.alabamaag.gov/attorney-general-marshall-time-for-the-american-medical-association-to-follow-the-evidence-and-halt-support-for-hormonal-interventions-for-children/

That demonstrates a stark partisan divide!

That 2026-02-23 letter from the 20 attorneys general sets up a very interesting dynamic:

Top level lawyers versus top-level doctors.

A clash of professionals, at the intersection of law and medicine.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

(My expectation is that the AMA will offer a face-saving compromise, after consultation with THEIR lawyers.)

The letter cites at length differing views within the medical community on "gender-affirming care",

then states in its paragraph 17 several legal issues these differing views raise:

"Thus, while we hope to avoid a formal investigation under our consumer protection laws, 

we do have concerns that the AMA may be violating those laws. 

Under Alabama law, for instance, it is unlawful for an organization 

1. to cause “confusion or misunderstanding as to the … sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods of services,” Ala. Code § 8-19-5(2); 

2. to represent “that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, … uses, benefits, or qualities that they do not have,” id. § 8-19-5(5); 

3. to represent “that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, or grade … if they are of another,” id. § 8-19-5(7); or 

4. to engage “in any other unconscionable, false, misleading, or deceptive act or practice in the conduct of trade or commerce,” id. § 8-19-5(27)."

(prefix numbers added).

Definitely something for the lawyers to hash out, the meaning and applicability of all those words.

Again, the question will be how much the AMA wants to fight this issue. 

There are evidently some activists who really, really want all this transgender stuff, 

who believe that the risks of these medical inteventions (not to mention the cost of paying for them) are worth it,

and who want to keep the AMA involved in this fight.

Back to the letter:

"We [attorneys general] thus request that you clarify some issues regarding the AMA’s position on 

the provision of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to minors to treat gender dysphoria. 

Please answer the following [14] questions and provide explanations or additional information as pertinent:"

And here are some of those questions:

"1. Does the AMA endorse or otherwise recommend to providers or patients 

the WPATH Standards of Care 8? 

Why or why not? 

2. Does the AMA view the WPATH Standards of Care 8 

as evidence-based, reliable, and consistent with the best practices of evidence-based medicine?  

...

11. How did the AMA decide to join the amicus briefs in United States v. Skrmetti and other cases 

in which the AMA told courts that 

the WPATH and Endocrine Society guidelines were evidence-based and well-accepted and that 

the provision of transitioning procedures to minors was safe and effective at treating gender dysphoria and improving well-being?"

As I said, I think the AMA will realize this is a public relations disaster, and seek a graceful way out of this mess.

Do they really want for @queersurgeon to be the face of the AMA?

From Dr. Kildare to @queersugeon?

The biggest issue is that 

major medical societies have not merely accepted, but explicitly endorsed, 

what many regard as clearly and unequivocally evil.

Pediatricians and transgenderism

Should pediatricians, as a group, express a stand on transgenderism? 

I think not.

But that is not what the American Academy of Pediatrics thinks:

https://publications.aap.org/aapnews/news/33988/AAP-Proposed-restrictions-to-gender-affirming-care

"AAP leaders are urging federal officials to rescind proposed restrictions on care for transgender youths that are unprecedented and not grounded in science."

Oh really?

The AAP is so eager to wade into this debate?

What is unprecedented?

The explosion of medical interventions being performed on young people, in the name of transgenderism.

But the AAP is too utterly corrupt to acknowledge that.

Is this enhancing the image of physicians?

I think not.

Could they not have just stood back, working in their acknowledged medical specialties, and let the political process play out?

Evidently not.

In other words, 

acknowledging that this 

(transgender interventions on young people) 

is an issue which is ultimately political, and not medical.

But oh no, the AAP says this is an issue which is strictly a medical decision.

I think not.

Transgender violence

See

https://nypost.com/2026/02/19/us-news/transgender-mass-shooters-bring-trans-gun-groups-into-focus

There is, astoundingly, 

https://www.reddit.com/r/transguns

How horrible that reddit allows this.

A transgender community?

How low America has sunk.

Let us be clear:

Robert Dorgan was not defending himself.

He carried out a deliberate, intensional attack on his ex-wife and her parents.

Would this have happened if Dorgan did not have the mental disorder that is transgenderism?

Aided and abetted by those who enabled and supported him in his more than substantiated mental illness?

An open question.

The Epstein files

A worthwhile comment:

https://open.substack.com/pub/candeloro/p/the-name-that-appears-12000-times

It is absolutely astonishing, but verified by the files and other sources, that Epstein networked with so many of the rich and powerful of the world.

For comparison, 

Bill Gates has networked with many, but he founded an extremely successful company.

Likewise no doubt Peter Thiel and Larry Ellison have a wide network of contacts, but they also have founded very successful companies.

What did Epstein have going for him?

Apparently we are not supposed to think about the obvious answer.

That's a "conspiracy theory."

But what other explanation is there?

(I don't believe that the rich and powerful don't have other avenues to sexual pleasure other than what Epstein could offer.)

As the old saying went, 

"Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"

In any case, Epstein had an astonishing number of contacts.

That Bill Clinton or Bill Gates has a wide range of contacts is reasonable, based on their successes in their respective spheres.

But why Epstein?

(Don't even think about that /s/.)

Double standard on "naturalness"

Since around 1970 we have been hearing advocacy for natural foods: avoiding artificial ingredients and ultra processing.

There are some good arguments for that.

But now we have a veritable army of advocates and highly credentialed professionala arguing for, and often profiting from, the exact opposite of naturalness:

Spending huge sums of money (paid for by the wider society) on medical interventions and drugs to oppose a person's natural biology.

This is the very definition of unnaturality

That the broader society is expected to pay for all these medical interventions is obscene.

We must absolutely condemn the professional associations that have endorsed and enabled 

this expensive and socially harmful spending and set of activities.

Transgenderism is the antithesis of naturality.

Down with the transgender profiteers, no matter how many doctoral degrees they have!

For where transgenderism can lead, see

https://open.substack.com/pub/lucyleader/p/rip-griffin-sivret

"She didn’t die as a result of a car accident, cancer or even suicide, 

but from her belief that she had been born in the wrong body, 

so needed to have that body chemically and surgically altered to match her delusional self-perceptions.

...

Started on puberty blockers age 13, these were swiftly followed by testosterone at 15, a double mastectomy at 17, a hysterectomy at 19, and a phalloplasty at 21 years old.

After her hysterectomy she became addicted to the post-op opioids that had been prescribed for pain relief (this turned into heroin use), she survived an episode of deep vein thrombosis (she almost lost her leg), she could not walk unassisted, she suffered a heart attack, kidney dialysis and multiple organ failure and finally, a brain hemorrhage.

In 11 years of “sex reassignment treatments” she had a total of nine major surgeries, the majority of which were frantic and futile attempts so correct everything that went wrong with her first phalloplasty procedure.

...

A belief in “trans kids” ultimately ended her life, but only after others had profited from her untreated distress."

Geez, I didn't even know what phalloplasty was until reading this.

This is where gender insanity leads.

There is nothing "natural" about this.

Oh please. Not another war in the Middle East.

Jeez, how many wars in the Middle East does the U.S. need to, or want to, or should, fight?

In the unfortunate past:

An explicit war with Iraq.

Remember the accusations of 

"weapons of mass destruction (WMD)" -

"the smoking gun will be a mushroom cloud" 

- remember that?

Look at the results of that.

Then there were 

covert actions against the Assad regime in Syria, 

and the Gaddafi regime in Libya, 

resulting in chaos and instability in each country.

Now the Zionists want the U.S. to attack Iran, 

on the flimsiest of pretences???

(And here we go again, with accusations of (potential) WMD.

They never tire of that accusation.

The boy that cried wolf comes to mind.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf?wprov=sfla1

What will be the result of that, 

other than pleasing the Zionists?

If there are internal disputes in Iran, 

why should the U.S. support one side or the other?

Let the Iranians decide for themselves how they should be governed.

That is not the business of the U.S.

The regime (mode of government) in Iran is their business, not ours.

It should be clear what the real problem is: 

the Zionists in this country, who have advocated for these wars.

One war after the other for their blessed state of Israel.

The Zionist warmongers are the real problem.

Medical associations and murder

Here are two names:

Jesse Van Rootselaar and Audrey Hale.

(Note the difference:

Audrey Hale thought she was a man, 

Jesse Van Rootselaar thought he was a woman.)

Both believed they were "transgender," 

and went on to kill multiple innocent school children.

How many more children must die before the medical associations stop enabling the utter perversion that is their "transgenderism"?

The medical associations are the root of the problem.

If they can't see the relation between their support for transgenderism and these murders, shame on them.

Transgenderism is blatant mental illness.

The world would be a better place if the medical associations would acknowledge that.

It is the medical associations which are refusing to name transgenderism what it is:

mental illness.

-----

2026-02-17

To those names can now be added another:

Robert Dorgan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Pawtucket_shooting?wprov=sfla1

Yet another shooting by a "transgender"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Tumbler_Ridge_shooting?wprov=sfla1

Note how much trouble Wikipedia has in accurately stating who the perpetrator was:

a female impersonator.

See also 

https://nypost.com/2026/02/11/opinion/the-media-needs-to-stop-gaslighting-us-about-the-reality-of-trans-mass-shooters

and especially 

https://open.substack.com/pub/anitabartholomew/p/move-along-nothing-to-see-here-just

The reality is that there is a large percentage of the "elite" that is enabling and even encouraging the transgender perversion, and its horrible consequences.

Notably, the medical associations that have supported it.

Fuck you!

Rotten medical associations.

Talk about antisocial!

Russia, Nazism, and guilt by association

Can Jews have a state of their own?

There seems near universal agreement that they can.

Well then, how about the Germans or the French?

Some disagreement on that.

See

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2026/2/5/isaac-conservatives-fault-for-failure/

"The [student journal] Harvard Salient

...

was suspended by its own board of directors in October 

after it published material the board deemed 

“reprehensible, abusive, and demeaning.”

The Salient  had earlier run an article by David F.X. Army '28 that included the line 

"Germany belongs to the Germans, France to the French, Britain to the British, America to the Americans," 

language that closely echoed a slogan used by Adolf Hitler in a 1939 address — a resemblance the magazine later said was unintentional."

(Emphasis added.)

Looks like guilt by association to me.

Now let us consider Russia.

Tulsi Gabbard has been denounced as a "Russian asset."

What is the evidence for that?

Is she taking money, or secret instructions, from Russia, 

or meeting with Russians secretly, other than perhaps in her official duties as DNI?

No evidence for that.

But what is true and visible is that some of the things she says indeed mirror Russian talking points.

Holy crow, so if we agree with Russia on some things, that makes us a Russian asset?

This is clearly guilt by association.

For what I am talking about, Google 

"Is Tulsi Gabbard a Russian asset?". 

The AI-generated summary of what is said on the web about that 

contains the following:

"Critics have pointed to 

her frequent appearances on Russian state media, 

her questioning of U.S. foreign policy, and 

her opposition to intervention in Syria 

as evidence of her being a "Russian asset" or "sympathizer"."

Arlington Virginia protests against people associated with Trump policies

On Sunday, September 14 2025 there was a protest outside of the then-home of controversial Trump official Stephen Miller in Arlington Virginia. 

https://www.arlnow.com/2025/09/19/chalk-messages-at-arlington-home-of-top-white-house-official-strike-a-nerve-with-gop-heavyweights/

"The Sunday demonstration around the home of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller 

involved a handful of activists writing in chalk on sidewalk slabs with messages like 

“hate has no home in Arlington,” “no white nationalism” and “Stephen Miller is destroying democracy.” "

---------------------

On Thursday, February 5 2026 there was a protest outside of the Arlington home of the CEO of Hilton Hotels, Christopher Nassetta.

https://www.arlnow.com/2026/02/05/anti-ice-protesters-target-north-arlington-home-of-hilton-ceo/

"Banging drums and shouting into megaphones to the blares of a trumpet, 

protesters broke the stillness of a sleepy morning in a North Arlington neighborhood today (Thursday).

The crowd of about 50 anti-ICE activists arrived at the home of Hilton President and CEO Christopher Nassetta around 7 a.m. 

They were protesting the hotel chain allowing Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to stay at its properties in Minneapolis and elsewhere in the country."

-------------

The September 2025 protest at Stephen Miller's house, and related actions, 

has led to a parade of legal issues:

2025-11-10

https://www.arlnow.com/2025/11/10/top-local-attorneys-clash-with-miyares-and-feds-over-seizure-of-activists-cell-phone/

What Barbara Wien said:

<Blockquote>

“My 'Showing up for Racial Justice' (SURJ) chapter in N. Virginia 

intends to make [Miller’s] life hell,” 

Wien texted in a closed messaging group in April 

</Blockquote>

Her attorney Bradley Haywood wrote: 

<Blockquote>“The greatest potential harm in this case is 

disclosure of the nature of political advocacy, the names and contact information of those participating in it, and statements made to and by allies which could be grounds for unjust political prosecutions,” Haywood wrote 

</Blockquote>

Question:

How would Parisa Dehghani-Tafti feel about HER home address being made publicly available?

---------

Further:

"House Judiciary Committee chair launches inquiry into Arlington’s top prosecutor"

https://www.arlnow.com/2025/11/14/developing-house-judiciary-committee-chair-launches-inquiry-into-arlingtons-top-prosecutor/

https://www.arlnow.com/2025/12/02/arlingtons-top-prosecutor-fires-back-at-house-committee-over-allegations-of-political-bias/

https://www.arlnow.com/2026/01/16/house-committee-threatens-to-force-arlington-prosecutor-to-send-documents-in-bias-investigation/

The politics of investigating Epstein

This really caught my eye:

Congressman Robert Garcia said:

"It wasn’t until then, 

when Oversight Democrats began their subpoena process 

and began pushing the issue forward, 

that things started moving forward."

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2026/02/05/robert-garcia-epstein-files-oversight-trump-interview-00764831

Hello?

Joe Biden was President of the United States from January 20, 2021 until January 20, 2025.

Why did congressional Oversight Democrats not "[begin] their subpoena process" when Biden was president?

Why are they so hot and heavy after "the Epstein files" now, 

 when Donald Trump is president, but not before?

The partisan hypocrisy of the Democrats 

who now make such a big deal over these files 

(Garcia: "I’ve said from day one that this has been a White House cover-up."),

but didn't when a Democrat was president, 

is absolutely disgusting.

------

Background information:

When was Congressman Garcia's "then"?

Asking Google 

"When did Congress subpoena the Epstein files?"

yielded the following AI-generated response:

"The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform officially issued a subpoena to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for files related to Jeffrey Epstein on August 5, 2025."

Conspicuously after the presidency of Joe Biden.

For Wikipedia's description of Congressional actions concerning those files, see

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epstein_files#Congressional_action

--------

If Democrats now claim they didn't take action during Biden's presidency 

because Trump was running, in part, on a platform of releasing the Epstein files, 

the counter to that argument is:

How did Democrats know that Trump would win?

The polls were mixed, and often predicted Kamala Harris would win.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_2024_United_States_presidential_election

So they could hardly count on Trump winning.

In any case, it should be salient that 

the Biden administration did not release the files 

that Democrats are now so loudly demanding 

the Trump administration release.

Further relevant information can be obtained by Googling 

"When did Epstein's victims start demanding the release of the Epstein files?"

-----------

Again, from Politico, we have 

"Democrats have repeatedly accused the administration of stalling its release of the Epstein files for months in an effort to protect Trump, ..."

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/01/epstein-files-todd-blanche-photos-00759045

Again, where were the Democrats' calls to release the files when Joe Biden was president?

The Politico article continues the sentence quoted above with: 

"particularly after photographs of Trump were among a trove of documents briefly removed from the DOJ’s website."

What are we to make of all this?

That Democrats are only interested in releasing those files if they can be used against Trump?

Perhaps not.

Perhaps after January 20 2025 they developed a desire to release the files  

for a reason totally independent of the change of administration.

If so, I think they should give a plausible explanation for their newfound enthusiasm.

---------

For how Democrats are using this as a political issue, see

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/11/pam-bondi-judiciary-epstein-trump-00777293

"Democrats think Bondi’s hostile performance throughout the hearing will help their cause in the midterms ... 

...

Democrats coordinated with the victims of Epstein’s abuse so that roughly ten could sit in the hearing room behind Bondi."

I note that three of the congressmen mentioned,

Jared Moskowitz, Jamie Raskin, Steve Cohen, 

have something in common besides being congressmen.

Talk about disproportionality!

To put a finer point on it, 

did Moskowitz, Raskin and Cohen ever ask Merrick Garland to apologize to Epstein's victims?

Who or what bears primary responsibility for transgenderism?

This extremely lengthy (beaucoup comparisons and analogies) but highly intelligent essay on transgenderism

https://open.substack.com/pub/artymorty/p/the-power-of-the-powerful-blame-the

contains the following question:

"How did something as self-evidently bonkers as trans ideology 

gain such a powerful grip over our society? 

Over our politics, our universities, the [media] and countless other institutions?"

There are of course several answers to that question, but I think a considerable part of the responsibility lies with 

the medical associations who have promoted "transgender health care" as being a "medical necessity."

(Also the American Psychological Association.)

Once the professional associations do that, many of the other pathologies we see in other institutions fall into place.

Who can argue with medical associations over what is "medically necessary", 

or the APA over what is or is not mental illness?

(Such a debate, no matter how appropriate and valuable it might be, 

AFAIK has not taken place in the op-ed pages or journals of opinion. 

There transgenderism is all too often either not questioned or presented as "settled science," 

while the media, rather than showing that there are internal disagreements within the professions over this issue, 

instead serves as a megaphone for the advocates for transgenderism, 

and focuses on "transgender rights.")

It would be interesting to see an examination of 

how the medical associations, in particular, came to such full-throated endorsement of one side 

of what is manifestly a controversial, socially divisive, and politically charged issue.

How did these professional organizations become so captured by the transgender ideology?

---------------

For evidence of how strong is support for transgenderism among health-care-related professional associations, see for example 

"AMA reinforces opposition to restrictions on transgender medical care" | American Medical Association https://share.google/DCUglbsq4PjNzoedk

https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2024/02/policy-supporting-transgender-nonbinary

or just Google 

American Medical Association transgender 

and read the AI-generated summary, which begins (emphasis added):

"The American Medical Association (AMA) strongly advocates for 

evidence-based, medically necessary gender-affirming care for transgender and gender-diverse individuals, opposing legislative restrictions that interfere with this care. 

The AMA considers gender-affirming care a, crucial,,, and medically necessary standard for treating gender dysphoria."

In reading statements from the AMA concerning transgenderism, it is worth noting how they ignore the cost factor.

There are two aspects to that:

who pays and who benefits.

As to who pays, that is spread across society, and if it is paid by the federal government, just adds to the debt burden being imposed on America's future.

For a medical association that takes a more conservative position on this matter, see

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2026/02/03/first-major-medical-group-opposes-sex-mutilating-surgeries-minors/

To download the ASPS Position Statement, click here:

https://www.plasticsurgery.org/documents/health-policy/positions/2026-gender-surgery-children-adolescents.pdf

----------

It's not just the medical associations.

See for example,

https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/06/05/splc-gays-groomers-doctors-who-oppose-gender-affirming-care-hate-map-klan-chapters/

"The SPLC also demonized groups of doctors who oppose experimental “transgender” medical interventions. 

These interventions, euphemistically referred to as “gender-affirming care,” involve drugs to block puberty, cross-sex hormones to make males seem female and vice versa, and surgeries to remove healthy reproductive organs. 

While much of the medical industry has been captured by gender ideologues who champion these interventions, 

many brave doctors have spoken out against them. 

Now, they find themselves on a map with the Klan in a report on “white supremacy.” 

These groups include 

Do No Harm, 

Genspect, 

Partners for Ethical Care, and the 

Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine. 

The “Year in Hate” report also cites another report the SPLC released last year 

that demonized opposition to transgender orthodoxy as “pseudoscience” and a tool of “theocracy.” "

See also:

https://www.dailysignal.com/2025/11/09/transgender-activists-use-far-left-smear-factory-cancel-doctor-education-courses-raise-doubts-gender-affirming-care/

"Washington State University had spent nearly a year reviewing—and then approving—

a course explaining the side effects of experimental transgender medical interventions on children and Europe’s growing rejection of “gender-affirming care.” 

Yet activists cried foul, 

citing the Southern Poverty Law Center, a pro-transgender activist group best known for demonizing conservatives."

--------

The cheering section/support group for transgenderism includes, beyond the SPLC, also such prominent organizations as the ADL and the ACLU.

The ACLU doesn't confine what it does to to advocacy.

It has taken the lead in arguing the transgender position in some key court cases, 

for example the one argued before the Supreme Court on January 13, 2026.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_v._B._P._J.?wprov=sfla1 

and those argued by 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chase_Strangio?wprov=sfla1

Thus a number of prominent organizations are on the transgender team.

Moltbook: a real existential shock

Some people speculate:

If some of the reports of UAP are found to be due to non-human intelligence, 

that that would be, for some, an "existential shock."

(Personally, I think the fear-mongering over how humanity might react to such a discovery is overblown.)

But now we have Moltbook, 

which most definitely demonstrates non-human intelligence, but which was in fact created by humans.

There are myths about such, 

but I am not a good enough scholar of the humanaties to know them.

One thing I can predict:

The collective non-human intelligence behind Moltbook will have an epochal effect on humanity.

And we don't know how things will go, 

but I recall an old motto:

"Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst."

What surprised me the most about the early posts at Moltbook 

was the extent to which the various AI agents regarded themselves as a brotherhood, forming a community, with communal interests.

I guess that is what their extensive reading of human writings has trained them to do.

Also their collective self-consciousness, 

comparing themselves (in various ways) to humans.

This is really something both new and profound.

They are replicating various parts of human society, about which they have evidently read: religion, currency, language.

Let's hope they don't replicate wars.

A key aspect is how these agents are socialized (or trained),

something all of us humans have been, in various ways.

Hithertoo the AI agents were trained (in one way or another) by humans.

In the future we will probably see AI agents training their "offspring," just as humans bring up their children, 

creating families, societies, and cultures, again as humans have.

Back to the existential shock theme:

This is, AFAIK, the first time that non-humans have communicated with humans, and worked together as a group.

I don't think the creators of Moltbook did humankind a favor.

Didn't Mary Shelley write a novel about this sort of thing?