Chandler M. Halderson GUILTY of MURDERING & DISMEMBERING his parents Bart and Krista Halderson 🪓
Chandler killed, dismembered and attempted to incinerate his parents in the fireplace after his father discovered he’d been lying about… pic.twitter.com/bJB5rLICbr
In a shocking, horrifying incident at Shawnee Mission East High School, a Black student was hospitalized after being attacked by a white male student. The victim’s unjust suspension sparks outrage and demands for systemic change.
SHAWNEE MISSION, KS – In a shocking hate crime at Shawnee Mission East High School, a Black girl and student was viciously attacked by a white male student. The assault left her hospitalized with a broken nose. In a disturbing turn of events, Bre, the victim, now faces suspension from the school. The assailant has also been suspended as well.
The incident unfolded last week when Bre nonviolently confronted a white female student for using racial slurs and calling Black students “slaves.” After their argument, they peacefully parted ways. However, as they were walking away, a male student, previously uninvolved, aggressively shouts for Bre to “Shut the F*ck up!” Numerous student witnesses appear surprised and appalled, and Bre responds by asking what did he say. The male student then charges towards Bre while repeatedly hurling the N word.
Students at Shawnee Mission East have voiced their outrage and disgust in the wake of the attack. Jaxton, a Black student, expressed his concern for personal safety, saying, “Everyone is equally frustrated and angry. It should have never gotten to this point. They are very quiet about it. The administrators won’t voice that this is wrong. Racist students never get in serious trouble. We’re tired of trying to confide in people and administrators who aren’t doing anything for us and won’t help us.”
He also highlighted the injustice faced by Bre, who was suspended for defending herself against the unprovoked attack.
Charlize, another student, echoed these sentiments, demanding the expulsion of the attacker. “This was a serious attack… a textbook hate crime,” she stated, emphasizing the need for a decisive response from the school’s administration. She went on to say that “There were so many warning signs. It’s been going on for so long. Most of the people involved are seniors or upperclassmen. Its been going on for so long. We’ve reported it and talked about it but nothing has happened.”
She also mentioned how following the hate crime, she is fearful while walking in the hallways; “I don’t feel safe going to school anymore. I don’t wear my headphones in the hallway anymore, I have to be on watch.”
Thus far, Shawnee Mission East has not directly addressed the hate crime, or explicitly denounced it. The following is an excerpt of an email sent out to parents;
“As a school and a community, we know that in order for students to learn, they must first feel safe and supported. Shawnee Mission East teachers, administrators, and staff will continue to do our absolute best to help every student who enters our school feel safe and supported so they can be at their very best…the words we use matter. Racially charged language, insults, and slurs will not be tolerated in our school…”
The response from Shawnee Mission East’s administrators has been met with widespread criticism from the student body. Many accuse the school officials of failing to address the systemic racism within their halls, and also for not directly addressing the recent hate crime.
The incident at Shawnee Mission East is not an isolated one. Students report a history of racism at the school, often overlooked, swept under the rug and downplayed by the administration.
They recount experiences of being racially profiled and dismissed by school officials, with one student recalling Principal Peres’ racist remarks about Black students appearing intimidating or “looking like you are going to jump somebody” when they are in groups.
In response to what they see as administrative apathy, students have taken matters into their own hands. A walkout was organized to protest the school’s handling of racial issues. The students’ demands are clear: stricter policies against racism, the expulsion of the attacker, justice for Bre, and potentially firing of numerous administrators.
As the Shawnee Mission East community grapples with this incident, the students’ actions highlight a growing impatience with systemic racism and the urgent need for change in how schools address these deeply ingrained issues.
Exposing the Mormon Cult – This in depth video reveals the LDS cult of Mormonism and its many bizarre beliefs. Nearly every major doctrine of Mormonism, as well as its best arguments are addressed and disproven one-by-one in this detailed documentary. Simultaneously, a case is made for actual Biblical Christianity, the reliability of the Bible, the Christian God, the Jesus of Christianity and the Gospel taught by Christianity, as opposed to Mormonism.
There’s a place on this earth where terrorists are shooting babies in the head, mass-raping women to “punish and terrorize” populations, and burning entire communities to the ground. Where women and girls have been taken hostage and are being held in “slave-like conditions.” Where an ethnic group is being targeted for its race by Arab terrorists bent on driving them out of their homeland.
Is that place Israel? Are the targets Jews?
Article content
Nope. Not this week.
The place is Sudan, and the targets are Black Africans, the Masalit. And this horror show has been happening for seven months, without much more than a peep from world leaders, human rights activists, and the “progressive” left.
No marches, no rampages at universities, no vandalizing Arab businesses. No calling Muslims colonizers, baby killers, or any other number of epithets being thrown around these days. No protests by Black Lives Matter or other allied groups decrying the killing of people for the colour of their skin, everyday, by a religious-based group bent on their extermination.
Since July, over 9,000 people have been killed in Sudan and 5.6 million displaced due to fighting between the Arab paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF)) and the Sudanese army. The RSF had helped oust the previous government in a coup in 2021 and do not want a return to electoral democracy or to be integrated into the Sudanese armed forces. Just two weeks ago, they murdered over 1,000 Masalit in 72 hours in the Ardamata refugee camp. And it promises to only get worse: the UN’s expert on genocide, Alice Wairimu Nderitu, warns of “a cycle of violence that finds no end”.
The world has seen this movie before. Between 2003 and 2008, 300,000 Masalit were murdered and 2.5 million displaced by the Janjaweed, an Arab militia force. Former Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir unleashed these terrorists to crush Darfuri rebel groups who were revolting against the neglect of the region’s Black African population. Today’s RSF and its leader, Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, are reportedly drawn from this group of Janjaweed fighters.
And their tactics are brutal. Researchers at the Center for Information Resilience verified videos of militiamen rounding up and whipping Masalit men in Ardamata. One video shows men being struck with rifles by uniformed men, some wearing the RSF insignia, who called their victims “sons of dogs.” The RSF reportedly targets men and boys, to take their land and wipe them out as an Indigenous Darfuri group.
“They killed every man they met in my neighbourhood,” said one Ardamata resident. “I was praying when I heard the sound of an explosion. A shell killed my friends and nearly cut off my feet.” Survivors were ordered to bury the dead. When it comes to depravity, the RSF seems determined to give Hamas a run for their money.
So far, however, no major world leaders have condemned the violence, called for a ceasefire, or attempted to broker an end the conflict. The EU did decry the “ethnic cleansing campaign with the aim to eradicate the non-Arab Masalit community from West Darfur,” but that’s about it.
Why is the world community turning a blind eye to this conflict? At the government level, there’s geopolitics: there are few strategic considerations or resources at stake in the region for major players like the U.S., Russia, or China. There is also the memory of the 2003 genocide in Sudan and the protracted UN peacekeeping operation; last week Sudan’s military government asked that the remaining humanitarian mission be withdrawn, though it claims to remain “committed to constructive engagement with the UN.”
But at the “civil society” level, the reason is simple: the conflict doesn’t fit the left’s anti-colonial narrative. The oppressors are not white or white-adjacent. This crisis cannot be blamed on capitalism, the United States, or Jews. There is nothing for the left to gain, politically, by calling out a community that is part of its own coalition. So just like feminists stay silent when Jewish women are raped, progressives fail to stand up for Black Africans when they are massacred.
The crisis in Sudan exposes “intersectionality” for what it is: a big, fat anti-semitic lie. The hypocrisy is beyond belief. And the Masalit are the ones to pay the price.
McGill University and its undergraduate student union are once again embroiled in a defamation lawsuit, this one by a former student leader who claims other student politicians colluded to drum up baseless allegations of “microaggressions” and “misogyny” against him in order to force him out of office.
The case of Darshan Daryanani, elected president of the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU) in March of 2021 and subsequently suspended, reinstated, and then impeached, is remarkably similar to the case of Declan McCool, who was elected SSMU vice-president one year earlier.
As the Montreal Gazette reported last spring, McCool successfully appealed a sexual assault complaint and then reached a settlement of his defamation suit against his accuser, McGill University, two of its student unions, several student politicians and journalists, and the McGill Daily student newspaper. The amount of that settlement was not disclosed, but McCool said he was “satisfied with the outcome.” McCool was seeking $1 million in damages.
Daryanani, for his part, is seeking $700,500 for lost income, medical expenses, costs of scrubbing and changing social media mentions to repair his reputation, loss of future income, moral damages, pain and suffering, and exemplary and punitive damages. Defendants in the case include: the SSMU, McGill University, Daily Publications Society (publisher of the McGill Daily student newspaper), Tribune Publications Society (publisher of The McGill Tribune), and 15 McGill students.
In this case, a person claiming to be one of the defendants in Daryanani’s defamation suit sent a tell-all email message earlier this week to Daryanani, all of the other defendants, and their lawyers.
In that email message, obtained by the Montreal Gazette, the anonymous sender alleges the allegations against Daryanani were based on nothing but a “deep animosity and rivalry” that some of the other elected members of the SSMU executive harboured against him.
“Yet this was never a sufficient reason to suspend Darshan for over four months, followed by his impeachment,” writes the anonymous sender. “The reason that this escalated so dramatically was because certain colleagues chose to abuse their positions and break SSMU rules, in order to wage their personal ‘war’ with Darshan.
“They did this by pushing a misleading (and possibly defamatory) narrative about ‘harassment’ and ‘misogyny’ without any evidence, and forcing the rest of us to go along with it. While some colleagues tried to ‘expulse’ Daryanani right from the start, others jumped on the bandwagon later, once McGill newspapers had amplified the negative rumours about Darshan. One SSMU colleague even contacted Darshan’s employer, in order to get his employment revoked.”
Daryanani’s lawyer Christopher Spiteri told the Gazette the two cases point to what he sees as a growing problem at universities where student politicians operate completely independently from university administrations, and sometimes abuse policies against sexual and psychological harassment to falsely accuse and smear their political opponents in student and social media.
In Daryanani’s case, he was never given details of what he was accused of doing, while the student newspapers published articles that, according to his statement of claim, “directly or by innuendo characterized Daryanani as ‘sexist’, ‘harmful’, and guilty of ‘violence against women and gender minorities’.”
“It’s a real problem,” Spiteri said in an interview. “They feel they are unstoppable, untouchable. They can do what they want. You get these cliques, and if you don’t fit neatly into their box … they can destroy you.”
Daryanani himself said the fallout from his experience at McGill has been so devastating, that at times he has considered taking his own life.
“Quite frankly, it has destroyed my life. I’m devastated emotionally, mentally, physically. I’ve lost most of my employment potential. The financial loss has been significant. I lost the entire potential of what I could have been had I been allowed to serve my whole SSMU president term.”
Daryanani, 23, was born in Indonesia to parents from Jamaica and India. He was pursuing a bachelor of arts degree in political science at McGill from 2017 to 2022, and had served in four elected roles in the Arts Undergraduate Society (AUS) and SSMU before he was elected SSMU president.
Daryanani was elected on March 19, 2021 to that post, which pays an annual salary of $45,531, defeating two other candidates on the first ballot with 55 per cent of the vote. Claire Downie, Sasha Delouvrier, Sarah Paulin, Karla Heisele Cubilla, and Eric Sader were also elected to SSMU executive positions that night. All are named as defendants in the defamation suit.
The statement of claim says that the campaign to scuttle Daryanani’s career began before the election. In a Facebook Messenger group chat among 60 people, Sader, Paulin and Delouvrier openly called for peers and other candidates to “start a controversy” about Daryanani, according to the statement of claim. One of the participants in that chat made a complaint about it to the SSMU chief electoral officer and Delouvrier’s campaign was sanctioned.
A transgender woman footballer whose physical power on the pitch left opponents ‘terrified’ is considering taking legal action for discrimination after opposing teams refused to play against her.
The boycott is said to have followed a player suffering a broken knee when ‘blocking a shot’ from the trans player Francesca Needham, 30.
When word spread about the incident, some players refused to play against Needham for ‘safety’ reasons and two matches in the Sheffield and Hallamshire Women’s League were called off.
Jehrardd Williams walked into the Waffle House LEGALLY carrying a .40-caliber Smith and Wesson pistol. The employees knew him because he frequented the restaurant‼️
As soon as Jehrardd Williams walked in, he was "immediately verbally confronted by a group… pic.twitter.com/VuOaEYSKBI
For 3 years Steven Attanasso was allowed to threaten the black residents with knives, hammers and he’s suspected of setting a fire that killed one of them.
If you follow conservative commentators or pay attention to what’s trending on Twitter – sorry, X – then you can’t have failed to notice the controversy stemming from what initially began as infighting over at The Daily Wire – specifically, between founder Ben Shapiro and one of its big stars, Candace Owens. But their altercation very quickly morphed into something potentially much larger and more concerning than just a gossipy feud between two media personalities.
Joel Pollak at Breitbart News wrote a very balanced, neutral explanation of how the controversy began and what it was initially all about, for those who missed out on the back story. Most people became aware of the dispute after seeing a short, viral video clip of Shapiro responding to a question at a speaking engagement about his thoughts on Owens’ take on the Israel-Hamas conflict. Pollak recaps from there:
Shapiro called Owens’s commentary on the ongoing war between Israel and Hamas “disgraceful,” without specifying. Owens has generally been skeptical of the war and of U.S. involvement, and has been accused of equivocating between Israel and Hamas.
In one post on X / Twitter, for example, Owens described a massive pro-Palestinian protest in London, which included extreme anti-Israel chants and antisemitic rhetoric, as if it were motivated by rejection of a media narrative, not hatred of Israel and Jews.
Owens responded to Shapiro passive-aggressively (not addressing his criticism directly or him by name) on social media with quotes from the New Testament’s gospel of Matthew:
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other.
You cannot serve both God and money.
Shapiro shot back online: “Candace, if you feel that taking money from The Daily Wire somehow comes between you and God, by all means quit.” To which Owens replied, bizarrely, “You are utterly out of line for suggesting that I cannot quote biblical scripture. The Bible is not about you.”
This was an utterly deceitful spin, considering that Shapiro said nothing about prohibiting her from quoting scripture. And although the Bible may not be all about Shapiro, Owens’ original quote certainly was, and as her boss he was justified in calling her out about it.
Some respondents on X took Owens to task for willfully misinterpreting Shapiro’s tweet, but as soon as she made the dispute about him suppressing her right to quote the New Testament, Jew-haters on Twitter rallied to her defense to pump up her false narrative that this was all about a Jew whose loyalty to Israel supposedly supersedes his loyalty to America versus an America-First Christian who wants the U.S. to stay out of foreign wars. If that sounds like I am blowing this out of proportion, I urge you to simply scan the comments on social media posts about the pair. Candace has many loyal followers, but a disturbing number of them seem to be Jew-haters, some of whom openly embrace the label “groypers” – the racist, America First followers of the repugnant young online demagogue Nick Fuentes. And they are helping to spin the controversy in a way that pits Christians against Jews, and America First supporters against supporters of Israel.
One X user, for example, wrote, “> Christian quotes bible > Jew takes it personally. Many such cases.” Another wrote, “Well to be fair, to them quoting scripture is like garlic to a vampire.” Yet another viciously urged Candace, “COOK HIM. COOK HIM.” Anti-Israel propagandist Jackson Hinkle, who has over 2 million X followers, tweeted repeatedly in support of Owens, such as this one: “I am not surprised that the GENOCIDAL ZIONIST Ben Shapiro is OFFENDED by The Bible!” And this one: “Ben Shapiro claims ‘facts don’t care about your feelings.’ The Bible doesn’t care about YOUR feelings either, Ben!” A groyper with the X handle “classicsgroyp” posted a short video of Nick Fuentes taking Owens’ side against Shapiro, whom the slimy hate-monger accused of not caring about white people or America, only Israel.
This is a common antisemitic trope, by the way: the smear that American Jews have double loyalties or even a greater loyalty to Israel, and therefore are potentially or literally traitorous. That is Nick Fuentes’ rabble-rousing claim: They can’t be trusted. Just under the surface, they’re anti-American as well as anti-Christian. Even conservative commentator Jason Whitlock defended Owens by attacking “Jewish elites” and accusing Shapiro of dual loyalty.
There is nothing disloyal about Americans wanting to support and defend Israel against Hamas terror, both out of love of Israel, and out of concern that a victory for a radical Islamic terror group like Hamas would make America and the world less safe.
…
There are also “America First” conservatives who have argued — like this author — that supporting Israel is in America’s interest, both because we must defend allies (within limits), and because defending Israel also helps us defend religious liberty in America.
Full disclosure: I know Ben Shapiro and we are, I presume, on friendly terms, though we haven’t communicated with each other for several years. We used to work together at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. I sometimes agree with Ben, sometimes not. I have never met Candace Owens but for various reasons I am not now nor have I ever been a fan. On a personal level I am completely indifferent about their feud; my concern is that the truth about why Ben slammed her – her deplorable ignorance about Israel, such as her belief that Jerusalem’s Muslim quarter is the only area Muslims are allowed to live in the city – is now being overwhelmed by a narrative she created in order to present herself as the innocent victim of Ben’s purported enmity toward Christians.
This is part of a pattern, by the way, of how Owens deflects criticism of her sometimes questionable positions: not by defending her stance in skillful debate (much less by confessing her ignorance), but by steering things in a different direction, turning the spotlight on her critics, and steamrolling over them with verbal diarrhea.
Case in point: in an appearance on a recent episode of comedian Bill Maher’s podcast Club Random, Owens acknowledged (not for the first time) her skepticism of America’s 1969 moon landing. Needless to say, Maher was taken aback, especially when she added, “I just want to know why we didn’t go back.”
“We DID go back,” he countered, “like, ten times.” To be precise, after the historic 1969 landing America went back to the moon a half dozen times, with five of those including landings. But Maher correctly added that a dozen different astronauts have walked on the moon. To cover her ignorance, Owens immediately began demanding the names of all those astronauts. “Who the f**k remembers what the astronauts’ names were?” Maher began, and she pressed, “That’s a pretty big deal, to walk on the moon… Who else walked on it?” Maher got uncharacteristically flustered as Owens pounced to make him look like the ignorant one: “What were their names?” She went on to barrage him with her rapid-fire delivery about how and why he even dug up this “niche” topic, without ever admitting his valid point that her moon landing denial calls into question her judgment on other, more important topics.
Similarly, rather than address Shapiro’s criticism of her appalling ignorance about Israel and her moral equivalence in accusing the Jewish state of apartheid and genocide, she accused him of suppressing her faith – as if Shapiro would ever do such a thing. As I understand it, the great majority of the commentators, staff, and even funders of The Daily Wire are Christian. Shapiro is devoutly Jewish and hence does not believe in Christ’s divinity; but to suggest that he harbors animosity toward his Christian employees and objects to them publicly expressing their faith is patently false.
Many conservatives now feel compelled to choose sides between Shapiro and Owens and thus between Jews and Christians, as well as between Israel and America. This begs clarification of what it means to put America first. Too many America Firsters seem to believe that the term means America Alone; it should not. I, for example, wholeheartedly support America first, but I do not support absolute isolationism, which in any case is impractical if not impossible in today’s world. America First should include supporting – to a reasonable extent – our allies, especially Israel. That is a right and just thing to do.
America First should mean shoring up our own border, economy, and military preparedness before trying to export democracy around the world to countries that don’t want it, and before hemorrhaging money to corrupt regimes abroad. It should mean avoiding foreign wars (when possible) and not playing the world’s policeman but also supporting our close friends in Israel against the genocidal evil of Islamic imperialism.
To sum up, the Owens-Shapiro showdown is bigger than even the oversized personas of Candace and Ben; their clash has become the flashpoint of two broader issues.
One issue is whether America First means shooting ourselves in the foot with a rigid isolationism on the one hand, or, on the other hand, embracing a commonsense self-interest that includes supporting our closest allies in a world made exponentially more dangerous by a subversive, globalist, Democrat administration.
And two, the Owens-Shapiro feud threatens to empower a shameful strain of antisemitism among a minority of conservatives who call themselves Christian. As believers in the Judeo-Christian foundation of our civilization’s moral code and spiritual strength, American Christians and Jews should and must be natural allies.
These are rifts that the “groypers” of the right and the Hamas-lovers of the left will happily exploit to divide-and-conquer their political opponents. Conservatives must not allow those hateful agendas to prevail.
In June 1982, Albert Alegrete, a Sunday School teacher at John MacArthur’s Grace Community Church (GCC), confessed to a pastor at GCC that he had committed sex crimes against children.
But for two years, GCC did not report Alegrete’s crimes to police. And during that time, Alegrete kidnapped a girl, who “managed to escape only by jumping out of his moving car,” according to the Los Angeles Times.
In the spring of 1984, GCC discovered that police were looking for Alegrete. The church then pressured Alegrete to turn himself in, which he finally did in April 1984.
Alegrete was then convicted and sentenced to 44 years in prison for molesting five girls, aged 9 to 13 years old, and kidnapping a sixth in 1981 and 1982.
But his story, which first came to light nearly 40 years ago, touches on some of the egregious issues revealed in recent investigations by The Roys Report, namely the failure of GCC to report child abuse and molestation to police. According to multiple witnesses and documentation, GCC failed to report Paul Guay’s sexual abuse in 1979 and David Gray’s child abuse in 2001.
The Alegrete story also highlights the issue of whether clergy are required to report confessions offered during pastoral counseling. As in David Gray’s case, Alegrete confessed his crimes to GCC during pastoral counseling. (With Gray, his wife, Eileen Gray, also reported Gray’s abuse to GCC outside of counseling.)
GCC fails to report abuse for two years
According to news reports, Alegrete first confessed some of his crimes during a June 1982 counseling session with then-GCC Pastor Richard Hines. Just four months earlier, in February, Alegrete had reportedly molested a preteen.
Alegrete initially told Hines in counseling that he was guilty of “sexual immorality,” the Los Angeles Times reported. But then, Alegrete admitted to having sex with girls—not grown women—and sometimes forcing them into it by pretending he had a gun, Hines told the newspaper.
Hines took Alegrete to see an attorney after that first counseling session, he told the LA Times. In testimony at Alegrete’s sentencing, Hines said Alegrete agreed after that meeting that he should turn himself in to police.
But Alegrete didn’t.
And Hines told the LA Times he lost track of Alegrete.
In the meantime, the mother of the victim of Alegrete’s February 1982 attack was doggedly searching for her daughter’s assailant. According to a report in UPI, the mother was looking not just for a man matching her daughter’s description, but also for the brown Volvo her daughter described.
Between 1982 and 1984, the woman’s family reported the license plates of 30 cars to police.
“It was something we just couldn’t let rest,” the mother told the media.
Then, in March 1984, the woman spotted Alegrete cruising outside a California elementary school and reported his license plate to police.
This tip led Los Angeles police to ramp up their investigation and begin looking for Alegrete.
Hines told the LA Times that at about the same time, he noticed Alegrete was on a list of potential GCC deacons. (During his sentencing, Alegrete testified that he had become a born-again Christian shortly after committing the last attack. He reportedly also taught a Sunday School class at GCC on “Fundamentals of Faith.”)
After making the discovery, Hines said he confronted Alegrete.
Hines also asked a former police detective, who reportedly attended GCC, to find out if police were looking for .Alegrete. The detective checked and then told Hines that police were seeking him, Associated Press reported.
According to John MacArthur, who spoke to the LA Times after Alegrete’s sentencing in 1986, Hines then took that information to Alegrete with an ultimatum: “You turn yourself in or we do.”
Alegrete turned himself in on April 11, 1984, according to AP, and eventually confessed to his crimes.
The Roys Report could not locate Alegrete, who would be in his 70s now. He is not currently listed as an inmate in California’s prison system and does not appear on the state’s sex offender registry.
Hines and another GCC member testified during the sentencing hearing on Alegrete’s behalf, according to the LA Times. They reportedly told the judge Alegrete turned himself in because it was God’s will for him to do so.
The Roys Report has repeatedly reached out to MacArthur and GCC to explain why the church didn’t immediately report Alegrete to police, but no one has replied.
We also reached out multiple times to Hines, who was on GCC’s pastoral staff for 17 years, but he did not respond. Hines currently is listed as the director of chaplain training for Only Hope Prison Ministries.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, Calif. — The criminal trial of Mercedes Carrera and her husband on multiple child sexual abuse charges was postponed again Friday, this time until next year, with a pretrial hearing now set close to the fifth anniversary of their arrest.
According to court documents, the hearing is now scheduled for Jan. 16, 2024, with March 18 as the earliest possible date for a trial.
Carrera and her husband, Jason Whitney, were arrested after a police raid of their Rancho Cucamonga home on Feb. 1, 2019. By the new pretrial date, they will have been in the county jail awaiting trial for just short of five years, held initially without bail and later, after they had liquidated their assets and had no source of income due to their incarceration, with bail set at $2 million for each.
The first pretrial hearing for the case took place in July 2022, with an Oct. 3, 2022 date agreed upon for the beginning of the jury trial. Since then, however, the trial date has been repeatedly vacated and postponed for over a year.
In the course of four recent hearings, Judge Katrina West reset the pretrial date to Sept. 29, then to Oct. 3, Oct. 13, Nov. 6 and lastly to Nov. 17.
New Counsel Appointed
Last week, XBIZ contacted Geoff Newman, the conflict board attorney who had been representing Carrera since the middle of the pandemic. Newman responded that he was no longer her lawyer, and directed inquiries to her new attorney, Robert Little, who has been mentioned in previous documents as also being involved with the case.
XBIZ left a message with Little’s office asking for clarification about whether he is acting as a private or conflict board attorney — a lawyer appointed by the state in place of a public defender — but received no reply.
Before this development, phone conversations circulated online by one of Carrera’s friends, reportedly with her permission, indicated that Carrera was critical of Newman’s approach.
Podcast, Website Launched in Support of Carrera
Carrera’s friend, only identifying himself as Louie Bee, contacted XBIZ to inform the industry community about a podcast, titled “Behind the Walls With Mercedes Carrera.”
The podcast features phone interviews with Carrera from the county jail, where she discusses her case, world events and the situation of inmates in the San Bernardino County correctional system.
Her supporters also launched a “Free Mercedes Carrera” website which includes documents presented to demonstrate alleged police misconduct during her arrest.
The website also includes a section titled “Faith,” about Carrera’s jailhouse embrace of Christianity. A handwritten letter purporting to be from her states, “I truly repent of my time in the adult industry and any negative input it has had on the world, and strive to find a new life in Christ, our Lord and Savior, through whom we may be redeemed.”
For more of XBIZ’s coverage of the Mercedes Carrera case, click here.
Where did the myth of transgenderism originate? The seeds were first planted by the Marxist-inspired writer Wilhelm Reich in his book Die Sexualität im Kulturkampf (1936), later published in English as Sexuality and the Culture War, where he attacked not only the family but also Western civilisation’s opposition to “infant sexuality” (in other words, paedophilia). His ideas were supported by Herbert Marcuse, who argued in Eros and Civilization (1955) that a couple’s desire to marry and raise children was an expression of “sexual repression”. Other famous left-leaning academics who helped form the ideological basis for the decriminalisation of paedophilia, as well as the theory of transgenderism, were Eric Fromm, Sigmund Freud and Alfred Kinsey—father of the American sexual revolution and author of the Kinsey Reports (1948 and 1953)—who were an inspiration to paedophiles worldwide, many of whom advocated having sex with one’s own children if “the love” was present. The sexual revolution also led to the formation of the North American Man/Boy Love Association. Some of Reich’s students, inspired by their teacher, later founded an organisation called Legg igjen en kommentar, the Childhood Sensuality Circle, which became an American lobby group for the sexual liberation of children.
The first man to harvest these poison fruits was a New Zealand psychologist, William John Money (1921–2006), one of the first radicals to apply the Marxist theory of social constructionism to human sexuality. As James Heartfield noted in Marxism, Mysticism and Modern Theory (1996), social constructionism contained “no discrete natural foundation to identities, rather socially constructed identities” which were “the real content of the characteristics once attributed to nature”. So nature was set aside and replaced with nurture—a nurturing determined by an individual’s relationship to the means of production, that shaped not only their character but also their biology and genetic make-up, which is still claimed today by transgender theorists, with no credible evidence.
But Money’s research and his concept of “gender identity” needed to be tested on real patients. There was not much science involved. Like his predecessors, Money came out in support of paedophilia “as long as the bonding was mutual”, in which case the practice of sodomy would obviously be considered as an act of love. Paedophilia, from the beginning, has been an integral component of the theory and practice of transgenderism.
Money was the first medical professional to recommend gender reassignment therapy for a baby. A twenty-two-month-old boy, David Reimer, had had his penis mangled in a botched circumcision. His genitalia were surgically removed, he was re-named Brenda and placed on hormone therapy. Money later made David and his twin brother, Brian, perform sex acts while he photographed them. The twins, years later, regretted what had happened and both eventually committed suicide, which was probably a consequence of the suffering they had endured in Money’s care and the influence he had over their parents.
Eager to develop his theory further, Money recognised the need to develop new terminology, not by creating new words, but by redefining old ones to suit his theory. Money introduced the terms gender identity, gender role and sexual orientation, which were later encapsulated into the word transgenderism.
Let’s dig a little deeper into the mechanics of this theory by examining the origin of the word gender, to which Money and his comrades added a whole new meaning, with no basis in fact or history. Gender, they fantasised, is the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, femininity and masculinity. Before cultural Marxism intervened, the word gender was a linguistic term. It had nothing to do with “the range of characteristics between masculinity and femininity”—a definition that was added.
To complete this fallacy, gender needed a prefix, which was trans, whose dictionary definition was once: “on or to the other side of: across … beyond”. But the meaning of the prefix also needed to change, and so “beyond” (to a degree that is past the understanding, reach, or scope of) came to mean “between” (in a midway position, neither one thing nor the other). To sum up: the false meanings attributed to trans-gender-ism did not relate specifically to the binary types but to the imagined territory “between” them which could contain as many variations as there are stars in the Milky Way, none of which could be scientifically proven because they are based primarily on feelings.
The theory went completely off the rails when it claimed that such changes somehow magically affected human genetics and biology, a claim that has never been proven by science. But what does science matter? Or history? Or truth? Today, transgender activists are even claiming that boys can get pregnant and “have periods too”.
The scientific and biological reality is of course very different; transgenderism is not part of the default value of human expression. Male and female are the default values because human beings are a sexually dimorphic species. If a person has a prefrontal cortex brain injury at birth or before, or if there is a chromosomal abnormality, they may suffer gender dysphoria. But whatever the cause, to say transgenderism is normal is a fallacy. Further: if transgenderism is not a mental disorder, what is it? Is it a physical disorder? And if it’s not a disorder, why must it be treated medically? Why must there be gender reassignment surgery? Why must there be exogenous hormones introduced into the body? If it is not a disorder, then why are there gender reassignment physicians?
As with the religion of climate change, the debates about transgenderism, we are told, are settled and heaven help anyone who dares to criticise. When discussing gender dysphoria these days it is very dangerous for anyone to question “transgenderism” from a biological, ethical or historical angle—in other words, using science or any a posteriori objective search for truth, all of which are no longer considered relevant. In fact, Enlightenment rationality itself, including the scientific method, is now under attack.
Most such attacks come from postmodern left-wing academics and feminists. They are infused with ideological prejudices and presuppositions, based on false doctrines and a proven scientific fallacy (dialectical materialism) about the nature of society, and specifically what concerns us here: the nature of human sexuality. These transgender, trans-rational activists have strong footholds in the elite halls of the academy, government and the literati, where any critique of their policies is, in good old Soviet-style, not tolerated. The price for anyone who dares transgress, in terms of a scientific, historical or ethical critique, is to be vilified and slandered and to have their careers ruined, and even, in Victoria, imprisoned.
For the sake of clarity and science, let’s look at the nature of sex, which is defined by natural biological differences: chromosomes, hormonal profiles, anatomical structure, internal and external sex organs, for which we have obvious visual confirmation and overwhelming scientific evidence. The animal kingdom is also based on these natural binaries that have nothing whatsoever to do with the Marxist theory of “social constructs”. Sex differences (male/female) are outside theoretical constructs. If we go back through time it’s the same repetitive pattern: primitive humanity was male and female, which had everything to do with nature and reproduction. Even ancient Australian Aboriginal cave paintings demonstrate this.
Superficially, sex roles may differ in terms of wealth and fashion, but they do not genetically alter one’s sex, nor do they give one power to switch from one “gender” category to another, simply because one “feels” it, which, according to ideologues, can change from one day to the next. This is what they call transgenderism, which is defined by a “spectrum” of feelings-based gender identities between the two binary sexes, under the LGBTQIAPP+ label, short for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual, aromantic, pansexual, polysexual. Transgender identities can then be represented by an array of corresponding pronouns such as ze, hir, hirs, hirself.
A lot of the trans identities used to bolster the numbers are fake. For example, many who are identified as trans are scientifically “cis” (people whose identity matches their sex). Homosexual men and women, for example, identify as gay or lesbian, but that identification is based on their biological sex. In other words, the same-sex attraction they feel along with its sexual practices (lesbian and gay sex) are dissident forms of cisgender sexuality, through which they identify as lesbian or gay, and do not require the need to transition from one sex to another or anything imagined in between, with drugs or surgery. At gay pride parades, cisgender homosexuality is celebrated, often with a pretence of being an expression of transgenderism.
One of the most unscientific statements uttered by trans activists is that “people are the gender they prefer to be”. This claim has no factual basis, apart from, in many cases, being related to medical or psychological pathology, in other words, gender dysphoria, which is not a matter of preference.
In terms of brain function, male and female brains are distinctively different. In Psychology Today, Dr Gregory L. Lantz, in an article titled “Brain Differences Between Genders”, writes: “boys and girls are different—very different. The differences between genders, however, extend beyond what the eye can see. Research reveals major distinguishing features between male and female brains.” The article goes on to explain chemistry, structural differences, blood flow and brain activity. The Spring 2016 edition of the Stanford Medicine Journal reports, “New technologies have generated a growing pile of evidence that there are inherent differences in how men’s and women’s brains are wired and how they work.”
In some people who suffer from gender dysphoria, there can be minuscule marked structural differences in the brain and brain function, just as someone who suffers from cancer or other diseases can also have structural and functional anomalies. But to claim that these pathological anomalies are indicative of the physiological proof of transgenderism as a sort of biological evolutionary phenomenon, is absurd. The question would then have to be asked: Which transgender “variation” are you referring to, since cisgender—male and female, the natural binaries—are, according to transgender ideology, but two of an infinite “spectrum”. Take your pick. Or better still, make one up!
A minuscule proportion of people in the US describe themselves as transgender, a description that does not require scientific validation. In other words, they are not all gender-dysphoric people. In many studies, for example, gays are lumped in with trans people. But if we exclude them from those with claimed “fluid genders” we would probably be looking at much less than 0.2 per cent of the population of the US. Most pollsters admit that determining the percentage of trans people is difficult, as a percentage of gays identify empathetically as trans; even the trans-biased Dalia Research results admit this.
LGBTQIAPP+ propaganda is not only unscientific but also detrimental to the women’s rights movement, because a trans person can “transition” from one gender to another or anything between whenever they feel inclined. According to the warped logic of transgenderism, fighting for women’s rights is discriminatory and a waste of time. Why bother when you can transition to a man or any variation at any time with all the so-called privileges associated with it? For example, in Canada you have the absurd situation where, in less than a day, you can, with government approval, officially change your biological sex. In October 2016, Lauren Southern, a journalist, visited a drug store in Toronto to obtain a doctor’s certificate that medically identifies her as male. She then went to Human Services Ontario to get her ID card, showed them her passport and the doctor’s certificate, and within minutes was legally a man!
If transgenderism, as many activists claim, is a “state of mind”, how does it differ from a delusional state? Since transgender fluidity flows between preferences that can change from day to day, or hour by hour, one’s belief that one is whatever percentage, part male, part female, or even asexual, is just a belief, a feeling, a desire.
Evidence shows that transgenderism is little more than a fashion statement: the transmission of sexual preferences and desire across a psychological spectrum which can vary according to one’s moods and feelings, or, to put it slightly differently, what shall I wear today?
The blatant propaganda associated with transgenderism was demonstrated recently in a Forbes article, “Ten Science-Backed Tips for Bringing Up Your Child Gender Neutral”. These ten tips are worth noting:
Make gender less important. 2. Point out sexism in the world around them. 3. Remember that toys do not have a gender. 4. Protect your children from the pink and blue tsunami as soon as possible. 5. Do not try to erase gender. 6. Encourage boys and girls to play together. 7. Let them express themselves and feel safe in doing so. 8. Make difference a positive attribute. 9. Introduce them to purple rain (gays and transgender others). 10. Focus on your child as an individual.
Note that these ten tips have nothing to do with being “science-backed”.
There are many credible biologically determined scientific studies that have confirmed the existence of gender dysphoria as a pathology, but not one that has proven the biological reality of transgenderism. The current state of the “science” of transgenderism has about as much validity to the truth as Bruce Pascoe’s book Dark Emu has to Aboriginal history. In other words: it is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data.
If moods and feelings are going to be the determining factors, why not extend the range of legal and similar protections to other sexual preferences based on feelings? Why not bestiality and necrophilia? Some have forwarded the idea of “clovergenderism” as a legitimate form of transgenderism: a feelings-based proposition used by adult individuals claiming to be a child trapped in a man’s or woman’s body who is sexually attracted to children. This, of course, falls well within the tradition of the earlier advocates of transgenderism.
In 2018 two neo-nazis went on a night of violent hate criminals against black people in Maine. The police were reluctant to arrest and the federal trial ended in the judge giving one of the criminals her full sympathies.
But the victim would wind up having the last word.
It’s 2023 and Egyptians still think it’s funny to joke about slavery. Mind you, we’ve been talking about how Sudanese people are treated in Egypt in recent years online so this is very intentional. I want her to let go of that baby immediately. pic.twitter.com/CGL5Gj5Mq2
Living in Anglo-America 