Denmark has until now been spared the worst excesses of the culture war underway in America, but the Rubicon has been crossed. Fort Sumter has been fired upon. The Archduke has been assassinated.
I had actually thought Denmark had a stronger immune system. I thought we might have some kind of natural immunity to the mass psychosis infecting America. We do not. Public library drag shows for kids have reached the shores of our fair archipelago.
“Kid-sized drag entertainment.”
That’s part of the program for the children’s culture night on Friday 17 March at Frederiksberg Main Library.
The library will celebrate diversity at the cultural night, and in connection with that the library invites 6-12-year-old children to a drag queen show. The children also have the opportunity to explore a drag queen’s wardrobe and apply make-up.
What’s “diverse” about a drag show? It’s men caricaturing women. Drag isn’t about biological men who suffer from body dysphoria and want to be actual women, it’s a pseudosexual clown show. Ever seen a drag queen with a flat chest and mousy hair, wearing jeans, a tee-shirt, and sensible shoes? Of course not. And yet not all women have D-cup breasts. Not all women slather on makeup like housepaint.
The event is inspired by author Renee Toft Simonsen’s book “The Kids from Silver Street.” The book is about four orphans who live alone, but who meet Miss Nelly. Miss Nelly is a man with a skirt, high-heeled boots, and razor stubble.
Inspired by this book, Frederiksberg’s Main Library invites you to the “Miss Nelly show” with drag queens Diana Diamond and Di Di Cancerella. The library itself calls it “kid-sized drag entertainment.”
The children can also explore Miss Nelly’s wardrobe and put on make-up “nice, crazy, or dangerous,” the library writes about the event.
Not just a drag show, then: an interactive drag show. Whee!
The library tells Berlingske that the event is about “unpacking literature and its message of love, inclusiveness and security.”
The library’s own description of the event is here. The program note says that from 6 to 8 pm, children aged 6-12 can “Experience fantastic costumes, music and kid-sized drag entertainment with Diana Diamond and Di Di Cancerella.”
That’s all it says about the drag show.
The library also tells Berlingske:
Neither the book nor the library’s dissemination of it is about the sexualization of children. It’s basically about the fact that it’s okay to be the way you are—regardless of how you are. And then it’s a heartwarming story about four orphans who find love and security in a family with two fathers.
Plenty of kids have two fathers these days. Having gay parents has nothing to do with drag, unless you’ve got it in your damn fool head that families headed up by male homosexuals consist of one gay man who dresses up as the daddy and one who dresses up as the mommy (but keeps forgetting to shave).
Anyway, criticism isn’t being directed at the book or at its dissemination by the library: it’s focused on the idea of drag shows for kids as young as six.
The library is shocked, shocked! that people have suggested that in making makeup and costumes available to the kids the library is encouraging children to experiment with drag.
There is the opportunity to be made up, fine, crazy or dangerous, just like in the Zoo. There is also the opportunity to go exploring in Silver Street 104 and in Miss Nelly’s wardrobe, which contains a large number of different costumes for children.
Oh, like the zoo. My own kids loved getting made up at the zoo. The face painters there were very talented: I remember when Eldest’s face was so convincingly painted as a lion that she scared herself in the mirror. I remember Youngest being made up as a beautiful butterfly. And all kids love playing dress up: where’s the harm? What’s the big deal?
So. . . why not cancel the draq queens and just have a fun day of make up and dress up play?
Oh, right: because the event is inspired by the book about stubble-cheeked Miss Nelly, the gay transvestite.
I really don’t understand this sudden urgency to expose kids who are still struggling with the alphabet to men prancing around as caricatures of women. What’s the end game here? What’s the goal? I mean, “love, inclusiveness, and security” is a pretty wide net. It’s not a message that can only be communicated with drag shows.
And yet that’s what seems to be happening. You’re either down with the kiddie drag shows or you’re against love, inclusiveness, and security.
So here we go.
Meanwhile, TV2 News apparently got their marching orders from their American overlords.
Their headline is “Well-known TV host sparks a wild uproar after new allegations about the storming of Congress.”
The photo they chose to lead the story is probably all you need to see to know where TV2 News comes down on Tucker Carlson:
Carlson’s “new allegations” are that the Biden Administration and its January 6 star chamber have misrepresented the events of that date to the American people.
This, TV2 News wants us to know, is itself a misrepresentation. Their lede is blunt, misleading, and wildly provocative—I’m going to leave one original word of Danish in there along with its two most common English translations to try and convey a sense of the nuance:
Trump has immediately demanded the release of all the oprører (rebels, insurgents) from January 6. His party colleagues call it “bullshit” and “dangerous.”
Oprører is not generally used in the context of protesters (demonstranter) or even rioters (uromagere). It is most often translated as “rebels” or “insurgents.”
Well there you go: they’re just following the Google stylebook.
The article doesn’t break any new ground in the now white-hot genre of Tucker Carlson bashing: it repeats everything critical being said about Carlson’s airing of the January 6th videos, encloses half of Carlson’s own statements in scare-quotes, and goes out of its way to highlight the objections of the Republican old guard.
Here’s how it opens:
The high-profile TV host Tucker Carlson dropped a “bombshell” this week on his popular talk show on the conservative TV station Fox News .
A “revelation” that, according to him himself, proved that what we have been told about the storm on Congress in the USA on January 6, 2021, is a lie.
The violent attack on American democracy itself was “largely a peaceful chaos,” Tucker Carlson said over surveillance footage not previously shown to the public.
There was no uprising, no riots, he believed. Only peaceful tourists with the exception of a few rotten vessels.
Immediately there was a party for the extreme American right wing on social media. It was the proof many of them had been waiting for, and former President Donald Trump demanded that anyone convicted or charged for their role in the stampede be cleared and released immediately.
I don’t have access to Fox News, but on YouTube I was able to see the opening five minutes of the first show. Follow that link, and you can, too. You’ll notice that he actually opens with the familiar scenes of violence, while delivering the following voiceover:
These are the pictures you’ve seen of January sixth. They’re familiar because they’ve been playing on a loop on every media outlet in America for the last two years. There’s a reason for that. But it turns out that there’s quite a bit of video that you haven’t seen, and that video tells a different story about what happened on January sixth.
Carlson’s point isn’t to deny there was violence, but to illustrate that video that’s been deliberately withheld from the public—and from the defendants and their attorneys—doesn’t align with all the breathless talk of “insurrection!” and “coup attempt!” that we’ve been hearing from Democrats and the media for two years.
You don’t have to agree with him on that, but at least respect your readers enough to represent Carlson’s views accurately… it’s a little weird hearing him accused of misrepresenting things by someone who’s misrepresenting him.
The recordings have been released exclusively to Tucker Carlson by the Speaker of the House of Representatives in Congress, Republican Kevin McCarthy.
In Tucker Carlson’s view, he’s showing them to his many viewers in the name of freedom of speech. The surveillance tapes have been kept hidden from the American people, he believes, and now they must come to light so that the truth can emerge.
Pretty reasonable belief, if you ask me, since it’s provably true: the video has been hidden from the American people. That’s a fact, not a belief. Personally I’d have preferred McCarthy having made it all available online to everyone, but politically I think his choice to give Carlson an exclusive is understandable.
And it’s necessary because the world is full of idiots who think like this:
Part of the story, however, is that the video tapes make up more than 40,000 hours of recordings. Among these, Tucker Carlson has selected the clips that he himself has found relevant to show. According to critics, it is pure cherry picking – where he has carefully selected the clips that fit his agenda.
Exactly as the January 6th Committee did. Right? Wrong. Actually the Committe was even worse: news came out today that not a single member of the Committee ever reviewed the video: they outsourced it to staffers. Those very serious people claiming to be doing such serious work for the American people because otherwise democracy would die—they entrusted the selection of video snippets to play at their hearings to their underlings.
So if Carlson’s editorial bias has to be factored into his presentation, doesn’t that also apply to the Committee?
Among other things, Tucker Carlson showed a number of clips with conspiracy theorist Jacob Chansley, who is also known as QAnon Shaman.
He was the one who barged into Congress with a bare chest, a fur hat with horns and an American flag tied to a spear. He later pleaded guilty to obstruction of Congress and was sentenced to almost three and a half years in prison .
But according to Tucker Carlson, the footage casts doubt on whether he is even guilty.
Because in his video clip, Jacob Chansley appears to be quietly moving around the Capitol accompanied by police officers who, according to Tucker Carlson, “escort” him and others around as if they were tour guides.
The thing is, it doesn’t matter what Tucker Carlson thinks or says. You can see the video yourself. The cops not only accompany Chansley around, they even attempt to open at least one locked door for him. The insurrectionist. Who appears to be nothing but friendly and docile in the video.
Does that mean he’s entirely innocent? No. But at the very, very least it adds some important context, wouldn’t you say? And as Carlson points out, but journalist Emil Færch somehow neglects to mention, these videos weren’t even made available to Chansley’s lawyers.
Next Færch tells us the Tom Manger, the Shief of the Congressional Police, calls Carlson’s accusations “scandalous and false.”
He writes that the officers were outnumbered by the protesters and therefore used “de-escalation tactics” in an attempt to get the protesters to leave the building peacefully.
Manger also accuses Carlson of “cherry-picking.”
I don’t see any inherent conflict in what Manger is saying and what Carlson’s videos revealed. Carlson says they act like tour guides, Manger says they were engaged in de-escalation tactics. Okay. They acted like tour guides because that’s what de-escalation tactics look like. So? Maybe Chansley acted like a docile cosplay weirdo because that’s what peaceful protest looks like. See how that works?
In general, (Manger) believes that Tucker Carlson’s program was “filled with insulting and misleading conclusions” and “conveniently plucked from the quieter moments” between the chaos and violence that Tucker Carlson chose not to show.
Fair enough. But until we see all the video, how do we know that what the January 6th Committee showcased in their star chamber wasn’t conveniently plucking the moments of chaos and violence between the quiet times that they chose not to show?
This goes a little deeper than tomato-tomahto: Democrats have been screeching about THE INSURRECTION for more than two years now, and they could have revealed all the video they wanted whenever they wanted during that entire period… but did not. It was too valuable politically to use as a cudgel against their political adversaries. Four years of “The Resistance!” followed by two years of “The Crushing of the Insurrection!”
Fuck these people.
Færch lionizes Manger a little more before moving on to the Republicans who objected to what Carlson was doing. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, we’re told, thinks Fox News erred in portraying the events in a way that was at variance with Manger’s perspective. Senator Mitt Romney thinks Carlson’s interpretation is “sad” and “dangerous,” and offers his own variant of the “cherry-picking” paradox. (The paradox is that if your beef with Carlson is his editorial selection of content, you can’t defend the editorial selection applied by the January 6th Committee, either.) Senator Thom Tillis is cited as calling the whole thing “bullshit.” Senator Lindsey Graham is quoted as saying that he won’t participate in the whitewashing of January 6th.
Færch also relates the outrage of Democrats, but only cites Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer as calling the broadcast “one of the most disgraceful hours we’ve seen on cable television.” (Which suggests that Schumer hasn’t been watching much television lately.)
But tucked into all that is this bit of journalisming:
A female Trump supporter lost her life and around 150 police officers were injured. Many were traumatized. Two officers took their own lives days after the violent beatings meted out by protesters, and one officer died of a stroke.
First: let everyone who assaulted a cop be prosecuted to the max. Period. No complaints here. No equivocation… just surprise at the rousing support for the welfare of police shown by a party that spent a lot of 2020 defending the people who were attacking cops all over America. More than 2000 cops were injured during the first weeks of the 2020 riots, largely to the indifference of Democrats. Hell, our current Vice President was eagerly bailing the rioters out of jail.
Second: The female Trump supporter didn’t “lose her life.” It wasn’t something she just accidentally misplaced in the crowd. She was shot to death by a Capitol cop.
Third: The officer who died of a stroke, Brian Sicknick, was ruled to have died of natural causes—and his death therefore has absolutely nothing to do with January 6th.
Finally, the suicides… those are tragic. No question. But note how carefully Færch tries to weave the “violent beatings meted out by the protesters” into a causal relationship with the suicides by means of a single preposition: after. Do they not teach the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy in Danish journalism school any more?
And yet Færch, dutifully obedient to his American masters, bundles these irrelevancies and superfluities together to make the violence seem vastly worse than it was. Almost as if he were cherry-picking.
In the end, Færch wraps things up a little weirdly.
First he slides in an insinuation that Tucker Carlson often defends Vladimir Putin, which is a lie—but a very popular left-wing talking point.
Then he talks about the popularity of Carlson’s show, explaining that it’s the second most watched program on American cable television.
In his penultimate paragraph he slimes Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy by informinug us he denied accusations that he’d given the footage to Tucker Carlson in exchange for votes while seeking election to his post. Who made the accusations? On what basis? According to whom? Doesn’t matter. The important thing is he denied them, that filthy denier.
In the very last line of the article we’re told that “(McCarthy) also said that he will release the tapes to the public and other media. He wouldn’t say when.”
I hope he does, and the sooner the better.
Was it all chaos and violence with a few peaceful interludes, or mostly peaceful with sporadic outbreaks of chaos and violence?
It would be valuable to be able to decide for ourselves, and since the American government is answerable to the American people, and not vice-versa, it seems necessary at this point. Put it all out there where everyone can access it: the hobgoblin hordes of both sides will go tearing through it and making the best possible case to support their own interpretation, fierce independents will spend the rest of their lives poring over every frame in the search for absolute truth, and the rest of us can draw our own conclusions based on what comes out of it.
Now that we’ve gone through the entire article—I’ve passed over a few details here and there, but I’m pretty sure I’ve covered all the individual points—do you notice what’s weird about it?
It’s all about the reaction to Carlson’s broadcast.
At no point in the article does Lærch walk his readers through Carlson’s commentary or describe the videos that were broadcast.
What the hell has the left got against letting people make up their own minds?