by Travis Mateer
Monday night’s City Council meeting is a gift that just keeps on giving.
One particular comment that came early in the evening, and had NOTHING to do with urban camping or homelessness, caught my attention for a number of reasons. Before getting to the video clip, I’ll set up what you’re about to see to emphasize the remarkable exchange that involved FOUR women, three of whom sit on City Council.
The comment was essentially about how Councilwoman, Kristen Jordan, responded to a constituent who had emailed Council about the Women’s Bill of Rights. What makes this comment especially worth watching is the attempt by Gwen Jones to stop the woman from speaking because DECORUM!
To counter this, Jones’ colleague, Sandra Vasecka, issued a Point of Order to ALLOW the comment to continue, claiming it was within the public purview. Without a vote, Gwen Jones allowed the woman to finish her comment. Watch it for yourself:
What’s so controversial and partisan about the Women’s Bill of Rights? I looked, and you can to, because here’s a screen-shot:
The vehemence of Kristen Jordan’s reaction to her constituent is troubling to me, especially the use of the word “pathological”. Using language like this is threatening because it moves the tenor of the conversation from mere disagreement to something that could be actionable. If you think I’m being overly dramatic, then you probably weren’t a member of a group depicted as a threat for not complying with a supposedly necessary medical intervention in the last few years.
If you pull back the lens a bit, the notion of a divine masculine and a divine feminine is NOT incompatible with the Wokesters desire to be anything they want. To back up this assertion, here’s something I found after a few seconds browsing the internet:
During June, we celebrate Pride — a time in which to celebrate, recognize, and validate the LGBTQIA community. This brings the conversation around gender to mind, which currently seeks to rē-define gender roles in terms of a fluid spectrum. Although convention portrays male/female as a dualistic dynamic, speaking experientially, every person’s gender identity exists on a unique continuum.
This notion of transcending the limits of duality in gender is not new. Spiritual traditions have long asserted that all possess divine feminine and divine masculine energies. These universal archetypes correspond to the female energy’s qualities of creativity, receptivity, and flow, as opposed to the male energy’s influence of form, structure, and action. The presence, interplay, and balance of both are crucial in rē-awakening to our realities as spiritual beings.
Though different from gender identity, teachings around divine feminine and masculine energies reveal a long ethereal lineage that recognizes how seemingly contradictory forces can co-exist within. Their balance and integration yield spiritual gifts from balance to transcendence beyond dualism on the journey towards unity consciousness or enlightenment.
If I didn’t lose you with that New Age crap, I’ll probably lose you once I reference this recent interview Tucker did with Andrew Tate. Listen up, boys, if we don’t start doing some serious growing up (my interpersonal skills dropped to high school levels after I stopped drinking), then it’s going to be dudes like Tate and Tucker who redefine masculinity for the emasculated hordes.
Or maybe you’re hoping for that Elon/Zuck cage fight to help our boys see what to shoot for when it comes to male achievement?
If it sounds like I’m an old man having a conversation with myself about a world that’s gone and not coming back, so be it, but tomorrow my post about Matrix Resurrections might make you realize there’s something more esoteric going on between the male/female archetypal combo-deal, rebooted to entangle a new generation into questioning their reality.
Another movie I’ll mention is Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny, the latest iteration of a movie franchise Disney bought and is now destroying. This film could end up being one of Disney’s biggest flops. From the link:
Disney’s Indiana Jones And The Dial Of Destiny was clearly a forced scheme to bring back a favored male hero and replace him with a narcissistic female protagonist that spouts woke rhetoric. It’s the same formula Disney and Lucasfilm have been using with every major reboot for the past several years. But now, it’s beginning to cost them…
Dial Of Destiny has generated a dismal box office of around $250 million, and Disney needs a projected $900 million just to break even (this includes marketing costs). The movie is now on track to becoming one of Disney’s worst flops of all time.
The massive initial cost of making the film ($300 million) crippled Lucasfilm’s chances from the very beginning. The inclusion of notorious woke activist Phoebe Waller-Bridge as the actress slated to take the reins of the franchise didn’t help matters.
Go woke, go broke, is how the saying goes. Are the narrative controllers listening, or is their Transhumanism agenda more important than short-term profits?
If you appreciate what I’m doing here at Zoom Chron, Travis’ Impact Fund (TIF) is one way to support my work, while making a donation at my about page is another.
Thanks for reading!
JC
Travis — I think you know that transgenderism and transhumanism are East and West. They have no relation to one another, unless you consider gender-affirming surgery *per se* to be tantamount to what Huxley (the biologist, not the writer/philosopher), *et al* were talking about when they expounded transhumanism and/or posthumanism. As examination of the origins and premises of transhumanism makes evident, it’s NOT what they were talking about. They were talking about transcending the limitations of ordinary humanity by technological enhancement of the human body, such that, for example, artificial telepathy via brain-implanted radio transceivers and satellites might allow humans to communicate “telepathically,” or that through some kind of artificial memory, one may achieve ‘immortality.’ It’s no surprise that so much great science fiction is premised on transhumanist or quasi-transhumanist futurology, usually more or less dystopian. A lot of it is presently coming to pass. And it is scary.
But here, it seems to me that you have taken an example of one person — a local transgender legislator — to whom you (with some proffered purported corroboration) ascribe adherence to a transhumanist philosophy — and have constructed a huge, rhetorical, Archimedian lever with which to leverage that isolated example of a transgendered person purportedly interested in transhumanism, into an actual, Earth-shaking menace of endless hordes of transhumanists and their purported transgendered fellow travelers. Then, we learn the apparent reason for that:
“If you think I’m being overly dramatic, then you probably weren’t a member of a group depicted as a threat for not complying with a supposedly necessary medical intervention in the last few years.” Well, your claim that you are/were “a member of a group depicted as a threat for not complying with a supposedly necessary medical intervention in the last few years,” I’d have to agree, has a rational, objective, and factual basis.
The incidence of ‘transgenderism’ in the U.S. population ranges from ~2% to ~4%, depending upon how the term is defined. Like ‘homosexuality,’ It’s no longer deemed a mental disorder, and hasn’t been for quite some time. I’m puzzled by the obession some people have regarding the purportedly horrific menace to society presented by 2-4%. It seems to me to be nothing more than bigotry, as it’s devoid of any rational, objective, factual or scientific basis. It’s Cultural War Propaganda. As in the case of the official anti-‘homeless’ rhetoric by the Kalispell City Council, or the young racists who bashed in the head of Mulageta Surah on a Portland sidewalk with baseball bats in front of his family, this sort of demagoguery is relatively effective at motivating Hate-Mongering True Believers to murder their scapegoat(s) of choice.
Wedge issues produce deep divisions. Sometimes, True Believers on both/all sides have at least some quasi-rational basis — often a sincerely held moral (or dogmatic) personally-resonant, self-evident truth — for their choice of camp.
I’d be more likely to characterize as adversaries, not as a conspiracy, opposing partisans on these wedge issues In the manufactured culture war purportedly pitting “wokeness” (as defined by those who never heard of it before it was coopted by whites) against ‘Divine Liberty’ (I don’t know what else to label it; suggestions welcome).
There were ethically, morally, philosophically and scientifically-based, more or less cogent (but often factually inaccurate) arguments on both sides of the razor’s edge that was and is the Public School Anti-Mask-Jab-Test/’Parental Rights’ /Ninth Amendment vs. Louis Pasteur, Jonas Salk, Occam’s Razor, Epidemiology, Vaccinology, Immunology, Virology, and Intervenors Past Federal Government Misconduct, RFK, Jr./Tenth Amendment. You refused, on the basis of sincerely held personal beliefs and principles, to vaccinate your kids against COVID-19. You made a big deal out of that, here. Yes, of course it’s a given that to advocate non-compliance with local, state and federal pandemic control guidelines, will get the ire up of some other parents and public health officials, some of whom were going to consider you a threat.
It (unfortunately) got out that your family was possibly directly affected by your position. This, if I recall correctly (which I may not be), was after you wrote here about how you were not about to permit a health care worker to swab your kids’ nasal passages for purposes of a PCR-based test for SARS-CoV-2, because she (who would not be interpreting the test) did not know the cutoff number of thermal cycles above which results were suspect. (Agian, if I got something wrong, please correct me). You made a big deal about that, also. You often posted inaccurate claims and rejected peer-reviewed study information. A few times, however, your instincts ended up being vindicated in the long run. Just the other day, you went after “materialists” who rely on science. All of that puts you in various camps on hotly debated issues. Accordingly, you have (even among some of the same people) both staunch allies and arch opponents, on each of the hot issues. How does this make you someone persecuted by a transhumanist conspiracy?
As for Councilor Jordan’s response to the “Woman Replacement Theory” conspiracy theorist, it was definitely rude and not likely to win that constituent’s re-election vote. But equating that with dangerous speech likely to produce something “actionable,” is again quite a stretch. What do you mean by “actionable?” As their correspondence is obtainable public information, I presume you mean that the WRT might have a colorable claim of defamation based upon an elected official having, by characterizing a constituent’s exposed a resident to ridicule, and/or a claim that hhe Councilor held that resident in a false light, I don’t know, but like you, suspect that might be so. I’m in no position to criticize someone for a tainted hyperbolic reply sent without benefit of delay for reconsideration & redrafting.
I thought it much worse that acting Chair, Council President Gwen Jones, attempted to invoke the notorious “Rule 4” (“decorum”) in order to shut up the WRT, who had presented herself in an entirely dignified manner, and had an absolute right under all applicable circumstances to publicly complain at a City Council meeting, during general Citizen Comment time, about the treatment she says she received from a Councilor representing her from Ward 6. The 9th Circuit’s Acosta decision remains good law and on the facts present last Monday, the citizen’s First Amendment and MT Const. art. II, [numerous sections] rights would have been unquestionably violated, had Jones not backed down when Sandy Vasecka in effect appealed the ruling of the Chair, in a manner that also clearly implicated those Constitutional rights. I like Councilor Jordan (as well as Councilor Vasecka, for that matter) and as I noted in a citizen comment, it’s getting Consititutionally dangerous these days for a City Council to censor citizen speech on the basis of content.
Expect an internal challenge to Council Rule 4.
You mention percentages for transgenders.
In 2022, Gallup performed telephone surveys of more than 10,000 U.S. adults regarding LGBTQ identification by generation. Here are the results:
Silent generation 1.7%
Baby boomers 2.7%
Generation X 3.3%
Millenials 11.2%
Generation Z 19.7%
So when we are speaking about gender identification, what percentages are correct and accurate? These percentages change from week to week and day to day, if not multiple times a day. Particularly for young people.
If you were on another planet and only watched our (Earth) television you would think 40% of our population have some kind of sexuality disorder 🙂