The War Against Art History: Woke Philistines Seek to Destroy Culture
In the intellectual and cultural arenas of the Western world, a counter-revolution to the burgeoning woke ideology is underway. Yet, the bastions of academic arts have entrenched themselves deep within the doctrines of intersectionality, pushing their agendas with a zeal that borders on the religious. This persistence is partially reshaping the cultural landscape, transforming the zeitgeist into a mere tool for career advancement rather than a beacon of diverse thought. Today’s cultural dialogue is one that is commodified, delivered by way of push notifications on smartphones that signal not groundbreaking ideas but adherence to the latest politically correct trends.
This new norm has cultivated a generation of global philistines—individuals who, though draped in the prestige of academic achievement, are contributing to the degradation of our culture. Since the cultural revolutions of the 1960s, a progressive agenda has been simmering beneath the surface of mainstream acceptance, boldly emerging in times of societal upheaval. At the turn of the century, socialism was thought to be dead, but the financial crisis of 2008, the subsequent Occupy movements, and the continued growth of right-wing politics have only accelerated the resurgence of an intense form of socialism. Despite the general populace’s preference for smaller government and traditional values, these fringe ideologies are now back at the forefront, perverting the essence of public and private life.
The woke assault on cultural institutions
These shifts have particularly marked effects on national and regional identities, leaving societies grappling with the task of navigating a revolution that seeks to remake the very fabric of culture under the pretense of promoting equality and progressive liberalism. Within the halls of Western academia, there is now a significant discord concerning the purpose of museums—a discord that mirrors a broader societal schism. Woke ideology has not just seeped into these institutions; it has seized them, leading to a definitive estrangement from hundreds of years of art history scholarship.
This ideological stranglehold demands a reevaluation and dismantling of historical narratives. What is promoted as an effort to foster a more inclusive and equitable understanding of art history is clearly discrimination against European artists. The tenets of aesthetic appreciation and scholarship have been sidelined, replaced by an agenda that promotes a sanitised, revisionist version of history. The activists behind these movements, under the cover of equity and inclusion, are curiously intolerant of being judged by the rigorous standards of merit that they decry as relics of an oppressive past. They aim not just to supplement but to replace the traditional narratives with those that align with their politically motivated agendas.
When a banana duct-taped to a wall is juxtaposed against a Monet, the underlying absurdity of this cultural revolution becomes starkly apparent. Proponents argue that the presence of art by white artists fails to foster sufficient dialogue. They overlook the fact that museums dedicated to contemporary, indigenous, and ‘LGBT’ art already exist. They disregard the nuanced interplay of historical and contemporary narratives that these institutions typically curate. Cultural relativism has morphed into a tool of hostility and violence, and the old guard is now expected to be admonished as we descend into the regressive Left’s hellscape of ideas. This isn’t inclusivity; it is an ideological purge masquerading as progress, aiming to dismantle the foundations of our most revered cultural institutions and the very essence of humanity.
The public’s negative reaction to these changes has been well noted, but the voices of discontent are drowned out by the louder, more persistent calls of a vocal minority. The elites in charge do not care about feedback; they only care about virtue signalling. Observers like Michael Deacon of The Telegraph have pointed out that today’s modern art exhibitions often come laden with moral lecturing that bears little relevance to the art on display. This highlights the shift in cultural institutions from celebrating art to serving as platforms for political activism.
The Western world needs better culture critics
The “Campaign against Renoir,” which began in 2015, is symptomatic of a broader narrative that seeks to dismantle the respect traditionally afforded to European male artists. This campaign, driven both by a narrative of disenfranchisement and by a narcissistic manifestation of hipster uprising, has been mistakenly elevated to legitimate discourse, illustrating the sway that professionally disgruntled activists now hold over cultural discussions.
Furthermore, lost in the thicket is the obvious case that ‘queer histories’ are often entirely fabricated. There is no concrete evidence to suggest that Britain’s Queen Anne was romantically involved with her close friend Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough. Yet, modern narratives frequently portray their relationship as such. This reinterpretation may supercharge a Hollywood storyline, but it overlooks the historically common practice of monarchs having ’favourites’—relationships that, while occasionally romantic, were predominantly platonic and based on political alliance. In Queen Anne’s era, it was typical for rulers to have politically influential favourites like Sarah Churchill, making such relationships far from extraordinary.
These depictions are a form of revisionist history catering to a minority disconnected from broader societal norms. While it is valid to assert one’s right to identify as gay, altering historical narratives to retrofit modern sexual identities where they may not historically belong distorts the past and can be viewed as a tactic of queer subculture propaganda.
Critical gender theory and queer theory argue that the distinctions between male and female, masculine and feminine, as well as heterosexual and homosexual, are social constructs designed to uphold the dominance of traditional gender roles and heteronormativity. This perspective raises profoundly stupefying questions: in representing the human form in art, should we now reinterpret classical sculptures of the female body to include transgender individuals? Should we reinterpret classical sculptures of the male body so as not to upset those with smaller or larger anatomy? Should we revise ancient nude depictions to reflect the fleeting modern ideals of beauty, such as the Hollywood-inspired attributes of the 1990s with bleached blond hair and exaggerated breast implants, or the fluctuating body types popularised by online pornography?
Clearly, allowing pop culture and in-vogue politics to dictate the interpretation of multi-generational aesthetics is ludicrous. No rational approach to art history would endorse redefining historical and cultural works to align with transient contemporary ideologies. Yet, this is occurring within our museums and cultural institutions, affecting the legacies of the greatest artists in history.
These actions not only challenge the integrity of art historical interpretation but also risk undermining the educational role of museums as custodians of cultural heritage. By imposing modern values and political correctness on historical figures and artworks, we risk losing a true understanding of our past and, with it, the lessons that history can teach us about the complexities of human relationships and societal norms.
The ideological encroachment into our cultural institutions represents a profound threat to the integrity of our artistic heritage—a threat arguably greater than many historical challenges faced by Western societies. Facilitated by a vocal minority within the arts and academia, this movement undermines the very purpose of cultural preservation, replacing it with a narrative that prioritises political correctness over artistic merit. The fundamental question remains: will we allow the ideological manipulation of art to redefine our cultural legacy, or will we preserve the integrity and richness of art history against those who seek to politicise and diminish it for their own ends?
The battle for art history is not merely academic; it is a fight for the soul of our cultural identity, demanding that we defend the depth and diversity of artistic expression against those who would flatten it into a monochrome palette of political ideology. This war is about more than preserving past masterpieces—it is about ensuring that future generations can appreciate and understand the true breadth and complexity of human cultural achievement without the temporary concern of contemporary bias.
As we continue to navigate the chaos, it is imperative that those who value the richness of our artistic heritage stand firm and advocate for art that transcends political and ideological boundaries. Exhibitions can clearly exhibit different styles of art, but to tear down masterpieces and uproot permanent collections to appease the protesting, unwashed masses risks destroying the very essence of human life. In this war against art history, it is not just the legacy of the past that we are fighting for but the very future of our cultural identity.
Globalists May Release New Bird Flu Strain In Attempt To Stop Trump, Warns Edward Dowd
Google’s AI Future: No More Sites, Only Google Answers
The internet’s most frequented page is on the verge of a transformation unlike any in its 25-year history.
Last week, at Google I/O 2024, as Liz Reid, Google’s head of Search, gushed on stage about their AI-powered future, one couldn’t help but feel a pang of irony. “Google will do the Googling for you,” she proclaimed, envisioning a future where Google’s AI sifts through the web’s content and spits out neatly packaged summaries, removing the need to visit any websites.

How convenient – for Google, that is.
An ideologically driven monopoly further inserting itself between people and content, filtering out what it thinks you should be allowed to see (and what you shouldn’t) at a level never seen before. What could possibly go wrong?
At the event, the tech behemoth unveiled its latest shiny toys – an AI agent named Astra, a potentially reincarnated Google Glass, and something called Gems. Amidst the fanfare, though, there was a glaring omission: any mention of the voices who populate the web with the very work that makes Google’s empire possible.
But the origins of Google’s powerful monopoly and control over much of the internet’s content came a couple of decades ago when publishers and website creators made a deal with a devil whose motto was, at the time, “Don’t be evil.”

“Two decades ago, Google became the darling of Silicon Valley as a scrappy startup with an innovative way to search the emerging internet,” the Department of Justice wrote in its 2020 complaint. “That Google is long gone. The Google of today is a monopoly gatekeeper for the internet, and one of the wealthiest companies on the planet.”
There was a time when newspapers and magazines were kings, when people paid for their daily dose of information. The morning ritual of reading the paper was as sacred as the first cup of coffee. And as for publishers, those subscriptions allowed them to have a direct relationship with their readers and customers, without being influenced by an intermediary.
But as the internet dawned, this once-untouchable industry found itself on the brink of an existential crisis.
The transition was swift and brutal. In the early days of the web, news outlets and publishers thought they saw a digital gold rush, envisioning a future where their reach extended beyond the physical limitations of print. They rushed online, eager to embrace this new medium. Initially, some charged for access, mirroring their print subscription models.
However, it soon became clear that the internet of the time operated on a different set of economics. The vast expanse of free information available online made many people recoil at the idea of paying for original content.

Enter Google. As the internet became the primary source of news, Google’s search engine emerged as the gateway to the web. With its innovative algorithms, Google quickly became the preferred tool for navigating the sprawling chaos of online information. Users could find articles, blogs, videos, and any other content they desired with just a few keystrokes. Google soon amassed a monopolistic 90+% market share in the United States.

But Google’s rise wasn’t just about superior technology; it was also about a business model that would forever change the landscape of online publishing. Google offered a “free” service to users, including the email service Gmail, instead monetizing its platform through advertising, tracking people’s entire digital life, and harvesting people’s most personal data.
Its AdSense program allowed websites to host ads, earning revenue based on user clicks or impressions. For news outlets facing an audience that was, in those days, wanting to avoid putting their payment information online (something alien to today’s internet user) this seemed like a lifeline. Many abandoned subscription models in favor of the ad-supported approach powered by Google.
This shift had far-reaching consequences and we’re all still paying the price for it today. Publishers inadvertently handed over immense power to Google, allowing it to monopolize monetization on the web. As the aggregator of the world’s information, Google became the intermediary between content creators and their audiences. This middleman role allowed Google to amass vast amounts of data on user behavior, preferences, and habits. With this data, Google could offer highly targeted advertising, making it an indispensable tool for marketers and further cementing its monopoly.
As more publishers adopted Google’s ad model, the company’s dominance grew. Google’s invasive tracking ads became ubiquitous, following users across the web, and collecting data at every click.
This allowed Google to refine its ad targeting capabilities, making its platform even more attractive to advertisers. The more advertisers flocked to Google, the more dependent publishers became on the traffic and revenue generated by the search giant.
But this relationship came with its own set of handcuffs. As advertisers pumped money into Google’s ad machine, they began to wield significant influence over the content that was produced.
Advertisers, ever mindful of their brand image, were keen to avoid associating with controversial or sensitive topics. This led to a chilling effect on journalism and website content. Publishers, desperate for ad dollars to stay afloat, started self-censoring, avoiding stories that might spook advertisers. Publishers skirted around controversial topics to stay in business.
For example, publishers don’t want to be critical of Big Pharma if they want to still be paid for their work.
The content became increasingly vapid.
This advertiser-driven censorship wasn’t subtle. Entire sections of news sites were reshaped to be more “brand-safe,” a euphemism for bland and inoffensive. Investigative journalism took a hit, with fewer resources allocated to in-depth reporting that could ruffle feathers. The very essence of what journalism is supposed to be – a fearless pursuit of truth – was compromised in the name of ad dollars and appealing to the masses.
Meanwhile, Google’s power extended beyond just influencing content. With its monopoly over search traffic, Google had the ultimate say in who gets seen and who gets buried. A tweak in Google’s search algorithm could send a website’s traffic plummeting overnight. More insidiously, Google had the power to delist websites entirely, effectively erasing them from the internet for most users. This wasn’t just theoretical – it happened. Websites that ran afoul of Google’s ever-evolving content policies found themselves blacklisted, their lifeline to the public severed without appeal.
As publishers became increasingly reliant on Google’s traffic and ad revenue, many neglected to build direct relationships with their readers. Gone were the days of fostering loyal audiences through subscriptions and direct engagement. Instead, publishers relied on the fickle whims of search algorithms and social media trends to drive traffic. This detachment from their audience made them even more vulnerable to the whims of Google and corporate advertisers.
The consequences of this abandonment are stark. When Google decides to tweak its algorithm or enforce its content policies, publishers have little recourse. They can be cut off from their audience almost instantaneously. Independent sources, which often rely on niche audiences and controversial content, are particularly vulnerable. Online censorship, whether through de-indexing or ad demonetization, can sever the connection between these publishers and their readers, effectively silencing them.
Many mainstream publishers were happy to play by Google’s rules, as long as the tech giant kept sending them lots of traffic.
But all of that could be about to change. Last week, during the event, Google unveiled a sweeping redesign of its search results page, heavily incorporating artificial intelligence. This new format significantly alters how users interact with search results. Instead of the familiar “10 blue links” dominating the screen, these traditional results now make a fleeting appearance before being displaced by a vibrant AI-generated summary. This change relegates Google’s other links to the depths of the page, often making them nearly invisible.

While Google’s current search results page is far from perfect—cluttered with links from sites that have mastered optimization trickery—the new format represents a radical shift in information retrieval. Some might see these changes as improvements, but they also come with considerable drawbacks.
Google’s idea is that it’s just giving people directly what they want. Liz Reid’s comments underscore Google’s stance: “People’s time is valuable, right? They deal with hard things,” she remarked to Wired. “If you have an opportunity with technology to help people get answers to their questions, to take more of the work out of it, why wouldn’t we want to go after that?”
Google’s trajectory towards this AI-centric model has been evident for years. These tools are convenient for straightforward queries, such as time conversions and quick math, delivering quick answers at the expense of pushing traditional links further down the page. The company has progressively introduced features like the Knowledge Graph and featured snippets, designed to keep users within Google’s ecosystem rather than directing them to external sources. Increasingly, the company has tried to not only keep more of the traffic for itself but also influence more of the conversation surrounding a topic. This was noticeable during the COVID era when Google’s “authoritative sources” messaging was presented to YouTube users when they searched for a related topic. The company forced sources such as The World Health Organization, even when some of that information turned out to be untrue. Those that contradicted the WHO’s claims were buried or deleted.
While some might find comfort in these changes, those who prefer to sift through sources themselves are likely to be dismayed by the relegation of these links.
Google is making it difficult for people to consider investing time, money, and effort in sharing their expertise if their contributions are hidden from those actively seeking information.
When their posts, filled with valuable insights and knowledge, don’t reach an audience, it diminishes the incentive to contribute. Instead of serving their intended purpose of educating and informing others, these posts risk becoming mere fodder for AI.
The situation worsens when ads are added to the mix as the traditional links get pushed further down the page.
Google champions AI’s transformative power in searches, arguing that it justifies the new format. “With this powerful new technology, we can unlock entirely new types of questions you never thought Search could answer, and transform the way information is organized, to help you sort through and make sense of what’s out there,” wrote Elizabeth Reid, VP and GM of Search at Google when the early ideas of this were first unveiled last year. While AI summaries may indeed be useful for some queries, their reliability is questionable.
AI language models are notorious for confidently presenting false information, and the AI Overview feature could exacerbate this issue on a large scale. Google’s current search accuracy is already suspect.
Google has already shown its immense bias within its AI, allowing its particular Silicon Valley ideological bent to show across its AI system Gemini.
Tech research company Gartner estimated that traffic to the web from search engines will fall around 25 percent by 2026.
Raptive, a company offering digital media, audience engagement, and advertising services warns that upcoming changes to search could spell substantial financial losses for content creators, particularly independents. The company estimates that creators might face a staggering $2 billion in losses, with certain websites potentially seeing their traffic plummet by up to 66%.
This cycle raises concerns about the future of the internet. Google scraped everyone’s content on the open web, monetized it, and is now using it to serve answers to its users with reduced publisher involvement.
Google’s push for “efficiency” could lead to a diluted version of the web, dominated by biased and ideologically-driven AI-generated summaries, devoid of in-depth exploration.
Those most at risk are those independent publishers that were late to the game in building up email subscriptions and direct relationships with readers. More and more publishers could increasingly have to lock up their content just to survive, let alone flourish. The open web is at risk.
The shift towards AI-dominated search results is more than just a technological evolution; it’s a power grab. Google’s transformation from a simple search engine into the ultimate gatekeeper and filterer of information has profound implications. This isn’t just about making searches more efficient; it’s also about control. By prioritizing AI-generated summaries over traditional links, Google is further tightening its grip on what information gets visibility and what gets buried in the digital abyss. It’s a shift that threatens to further undermine independent publishers and erode the diversity of information available to the public. The need for a resilient, independent media ecosystem and independent voices has never been more critical.
Globalists May Release New Bird Flu Strain In Attempt To Stop Trump, Warns Edward Dowd
‘Teach Islam Lessons in German Schools!’ Says President of Teachers’ Association
The president of one of Germany’s largest teachers’ organizations has called for the comprehensive teaching of Islam in public schools across the country.
Stefan Düll, the president of the German Teachers’ Association, told the Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung on Monday that Germans must begin to see Muslims living in the country as a “normal part of society.”
He suggested that the teaching of Islam and its principles in schools across the country would help to control the education of young Muslims and counter any extremist ideology taught by “dubious teachers” in foreign-funded mosques.
“We have to set up Islam lessons under state supervision,” he told the newspaper, adding that the state should look to recruit “appropriately convinced democrats” as teachers of Islamic studies to ensure the religion is being taught in a responsible way.
He said it was the responsibility of the state to “protect all democratic Muslims” from “extremists,” and more focused education within state schools would go a long way in bringing the country together.
“(Parents) repeatedly express their wish that their children receive Islamic instruction under state supervision, preferably at school,” said Düll, a former teacher himself. They want their children to be taught “in the spirit of enlightened Islam with professional support, but not instruction that is controlled by other states such as Turkey or Iran,” he added.
According to Düll, many Germans have a “fear” when experiencing Islamic religious holidays and festivals, and called for a “way of getting to know each other” by celebrating religious festivals together at school.
“Our society has a blind spot here,” he claimed, insisting that greater inclusivity and multiculturalism were needed to harmonize society.
A 2020 study from the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) revealed that 5.5 million Muslims currently live in Germany of which just over half (3 million) are now German citizens. Some 45 percent of all Muslims living in the country originated from Turkey.
Muslims comprise around 6.6 percent of the German population and Islam is now the second-largest religious community in the country after Christianity.
There are an estimated 1 million Muslim students studying in public schools across the country.
Globalists May Release New Bird Flu Strain In Attempt To Stop Trump, Warns Edward Dowd
Almost 50% of Small Businesses Say They’re Not Going to Survive a Second Biden Term
A new RedBalloonand PublicSquarereport reveals that nearly half of small businesses in the United States believe they “definitely” or “probably” don’t stand a chance to survive another four years of Joe Biden presidency.
The survey, which polled 80,000 small businesses, found that 22.4 percent of respondents think they definitely don’t stand a chance to survive another four years under the Biden administration, while 26.2 percent say they’re probably not going survive another Biden term. (Related: ABC news poll: Almost NINETY PERCENT believe Biden isn’t fit to serve.)
“There is nothing I can afford to do in addition to what I’m already doing. If things don’t change, I’ll be finished,” one business owner said in the report.
Moreover, the findings reveal the precarious state of many small businesses, with 40 percent delaying bill payments and 70 percent putting staffing plans on hold to conserve cash flow.
“It’s been a difficult three years for America’s small businesses,” said PublicSquare CEO Michael Seifert. “While many inside the Beltway may feel like things are good, that isn’t translating to Main Street America – the frontlines of our small business economy.”
Andrew Crapuchettes, CEO of RedBalloon, echoed Seifert’s concerns, pointing to the ongoing struggles with inflation and the fear of stagflation among business owners.
“Just like families all across the nation, many small business owners are now in bill-paying triage,” Crapuchettes said in the report. “All of the government reports and happy talk from Washington, DC, doesn’t change that Americans continue wrestling with inflation, and a majority of small business owners now predict we’ll slip into stagflation.”
Small businesses do not trust Biden due to his low credibility
The RedBalloonand PublicSquarereport reflects a 2023 CNBC survey conducted among 2,000 small business owners.
According to the survey, only 30 percent of small business owners approved of Biden’s policies, while 56 percent stated that they “strongly disapprove” of his handling of the presidency. The respondents acknowledge inflation, regulations and age as contributing factors to their satisfaction, but they also stated that the major reason is the credibility of the president.
Small business owners cite several instances of misleading or inaccurate statements by Biden.
For instance, Biden claims to have created 13.5 million jobs since taking office, including 800,000 manufacturing jobs. However, critics argue that these positions are primarily a recovery from the pandemic-induced job losses rather than new creations. Biden also claims a significant reduction in inflation rates, while small businesses continue to struggle with higher prices for essential goods and services.
Moreover, Biden’s announcement of a $50 million investment in small businesses was really utilizing pre-existing funds rather than new allocations by the administration. The administration also took credit for resolving supply chain disruptions, even though these improvements were attributed to broader economic factors rather than specific governmental actions.
Biden also proposes regulatory measures that view small businesses as hindrances to growth, including increases in minimum wages, overtime regulations and changes in employee classification and unionization processes. He also claims to benefit entrepreneurs of color, despite data showing that the surge in business ownership among minority households predates Biden’s presidency and is influenced by external factors initiated before his tenure.
Furthermore, assertions of record-high new business formations during the Biden administration have been challenged, as these trends were observed before his term and are attributed to broader socio-economic shifts rather than specific policy interventions. In short, the decline in trust among small business owners stems from perceived discrepancies between Biden’s statements and the realities they face onsite.
Visit JoeBiden.news for more stories about Biden’s abysmal performance as president.
Globalists May Release New Bird Flu Strain In Attempt To Stop Trump, Warns Edward Dowd
Surgeon Downplays Risky ‘Gender-Affirming’ Surgeries as an ‘Adventure for Young People’
(LifeSiteNews) — An explosive series of articles published by the Daily Caller News Foundation (DCNF) include videos displaying the shocking callousness of medical professionals providing so-called “gender-affirming” interventions to young patients, some of whom are just 12 years old.
At one point, a surgeon who specializes in genital mutilating “affirming” procedures – i.e., the creation of synthetic organs meant to mimic the genitalia of the opposite sex – declared that this type of surgery is an “adventure for young people.”
Later, the same surgeon said of one of his young patients on whom he had committed a mastectomy, “Why wouldn’t I operate on him if he’s 14?”
The investigative reports by the Daily Caller’s Megan Brock and Kate Anderson reveal a willingness by this new breed of medical professional to accept complication rates resulting from sex-change surgeries of up to 80 percent, a sky-high number normally associated with only critical surgeries meant to avoid impending death, surgeries normally reserved for heart surgery patients with no options left, not young teens and 20-somethings with healthy bodies and their whole lives ahead of them.
And these complications are often of the most gruesome, horrifying kind.
‘The transgender medical industry does not have patients’ best interests at heart.’
The exclusive video footage – obtained by the DCNF via FOIA requests – shows World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) members during a series of 2022 behind-closed-doors panel presentations advocating for pushing experimental medical interventions on young people that can have devastating, irreversible complications.
“The videos reveal WPATH-affiliated doctors advocating for children to undergo risky sex change procedures and even pushing for these treatments [sic] for patients struggling with severe mental health issues,” according to the DCNF. “Several sessions were dedicated exclusively to treating [sic] children and included recommendations for minors to receive puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgeries.”
So-called “sex change” or “gender reassignment” surgery includes procedures to remove and “reconstruct” genitalia and breasts, as well as “feminizing” and “masculinizing” facial surgeries and “body contouring” procedures.
For boys, transgender surgery includes breast implants, castration, and vaginoplasty – surgery to create a replica of female genitalia using penile or bowel tissue.
“Gender reassignment” surgery for girls, known as “phalloplasty,” involves removing their entire reproductive system, including their uterus and ovaries, lengthening the urethra, and constructing synthetic male genitals, often out of tissue from their thigh or forearm.
Girls may also have their breasts removed.
The genital surgeries, of course, irreparably sterilize children and turn them into permanent medical patients who need lifelong follow-up. Research shows that people who undergo such surgeries have a 19-times higher suicide rate than the general population. Girls who undergo mastectomies will never be able to breastfeed their children, if they are even able to have any.
Despite this, the medical professionals in attendance at the event chuckled in unison when a presenter insisted that post-surgical regret is “rare” and ridiculed “the haters” who disagreed. Nevertheless, “it doesn’t matter to us,” said the surgeon, dismissing with a few words those who challenge both the morality and the effectiveness of the experimental medical treatments he performs on young people.
In one disturbing segment, Dr. Alex Laungani, a Mayo Clinic-trained Canadian plastic surgeon, discussed the gruesome complications from “phalloplasty” surgeries, yet simultaneously described the practice as an “adventure.”
“Young individuals (are) ready to embark on the adventure. I tell them it’s going to be an adventure, we’re both together in there, because we have to get to your goals, but there’s going to be a few bumps along the way,” Laungani said.
The “bumps,” however, tend to be enormous.
“There could be delays because of complications – definitely there will be complications. Either it’s stenosis, fistulas, or partial necrosis, wound-healing delays and stuff like that.”
Those medical terms describe horrific, unpleasant negative side effects: “Stenosis” is a narrowing of the urethra; “fistula” describes the formation of a tunnel between the urethra and an adjoining part of the body; and “necrosis” a term for tissue death.
Regarding phalloplasties, Laungani admitted:
It’s a lot to ask, for your body to have the vaginal cavity obliterated, the vaginal mucosa removed, the urethra lengthened, the phalloplasty done with the flap transposed, and then to do everything and then put the penile implant and all that.
It would be a massive rate of infection, it would be more urinary complications, so we stage everything. We do the phallus first, then we work on the urinary tract, and then we do the implants last…
The first night after phalloplasty, I still don’t really sleep well. Because if anything goes wrong, I’ve gotta be fast and act fast so we don’t lose the phallus.
The “gender-affirming” surgeon does not refer to the newly formed appendage as an actual “penis,” but instead calls it a “phallus,” a representation of the male sex organ. In other words, a “fake penis.”
According to the DNCF, “medical professionals from respected organizations such as Do No Harm” argued that “the comments from WPATH-affiliated doctors show that the transgender medical industry does not have patients’ best interests at heart.”
Globalists May Release New Bird Flu Strain In Attempt To Stop Trump, Warns Edward Dowd
Victoria Nuland Says US Must Help Ukraine Attack Targets Inside Russia
Ukraine must be given permission to use American weapons, without restrictions, against Russia according to warmonger Victoria Nuland. Nuland, a former senior Department of State official, believes that the US must allow Kiev to use […]
The post Victoria Nuland Says US Must Help Ukraine Attack Targets Inside Russia appeared first on The People’s Voice.