Michael Brown's Deceptive Anti-LGBTQ Attacks, Part 9: Keeping The Hate Alive

In addition to his usual hatred of LGBTQ people, the WorldNetDaily columnist throws anti-ESG activism into the mix and continues to be overly concerned about the sex lives of other people.

By Terry Krepel
Posted 7/8/2024

Michael Brown

Think for a moment about the trajectory of LGBTQ+ activism.

Had national leaders said up front, “We look forward to the day when 13-year-old, trans-identified girls can have full mastectomies and young men can compete against young women in sports,” they would have garnered much less support.

Had they said, “We look forward to the day when Christians will be jailed if they refuse to grant gay marriage licenses, and we can’t wait to see drag queens reading to toddlers in libraries,” they would have been rejected outright. And had they been represented primarily by nearly naked men whipping each other at gay pride events, their movement would have fizzled within months.

This was something fully recognized by leading gay strategists. They understood that a change in strategy was needed if they were to change the thinking of the nation. As stated by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen in their watershed 1989 book, “After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the ’90s,” “The gay revolution has failed.

“Not completely, and not finally, but it’s a failure just the same. The 1969 Stonewall riot – in which a handful of long-suffering New York drag queens, tired of homophobic police harassment, picked up rocks and bottles and fought back – marked the birth of ‘gay liberation.’ As we write these lines, twenty years have passed. In those years, the combined efforts of the gay community have won a handful of concessions in a handful of localities. Some of those concessions have been revoked; others may be. We should have done far better.”

So, rather than go on with the strategy of, “We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it,” a new advertising strategy would be employed, one in which gay couples would be presented in more conservative, mainstream ways, even if some of that presentation was dishonest.

As to the gay objection that such ads would “Uncle Tommify” gays, since the ads were lies – in Kirk and Madsen’s words, “that is not how all gays actually look” and “gays know it and bigots know it,” the authors replied, “Yes, of course, we know it, too. But it makes no difference that the ads are lies; not to us, because we’re using them to ethically good effect, to counter negative stereotypes that are every bit as much lies, and far more wicked ones; not to bigots, because the ads will have their effect on them whether they believe them or not.”

In the end, gay activism succeeded by being for marriage – in a radically new form – rather than against it, as the earliest gay activists were, viewing marriage as an outdated, abusive, patriarchal institution.

I recognize, of course, that many gay couples did want to “marry” and that this was not just a strategic ploy. Even so, had the larger goals of radical gay activists been introduced first, the push for gay “marriage” would never have made it to the Supreme Court, let alone resulted in the redefinition of marriage.

Brown, of course, remains heartened that right-wingers like him still hate LGBTQ people:

The only positive is that, given enough time, the radicals on the left or right overplay their hand, resulting in a cultural pushback (or, cultural collapse, requiring a rebuild). In other words, when their full agenda is unveiled, it is still too extreme (or counterproductive) for most (or too extreme to work at all).

That’s one reason the popularity of BLM has faded, one reason the pushback against LGBTQ+ extremism continues to gain ground, and one reason that the intellectual and moral bankruptcies of our universities are being exposed.

As I commented elsewhere, with specific focus on LGBTQ+ activism, the very success of these radical movements will prove to be their undoing.

Brown didn’t explain why it’s “radical” to not hate LGBTQ people.

In his Dec. 20 column, Brown lectured Pope Francis for not hating LGBTQ people, despite the fact that he’s not Catholic and, therefore, has little standing to criticize the pope:

If you have followed my writing and speaking over the decades, you will know that Catholicism has not been a focus of my ministry, either praising it or criticizing it. At the same time, I recognize the important role of the Catholic Church in standing for the sanctity of life and the meaning of marriage. That’s what makes the recent pronouncement of Pope Francis, allowing priests to “bless” same-sex couples, especially distressing. What act of apostasy will be next?

[...]

This is not just a step in the wrong direction. It is theological double-talk, spiritual drivel and a mockery of the Word of God. Surely, faithful Catholics around the world will reject this apostate message. It has no support in Scripture, in divine morality, or in historic Church tradition, whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant.

And so, rather than try to parse the theological nuances of the pope’s statement, which in the end helps no one and harms many, let me be straightforward.

No priest or pope or pastor or spiritual leader can bless something that God Himself does not bless. Their words are empty and void of divine power or authority. They are human utterances and nothing more.

As much as a gay couple may be in love, as much as they may revere the traditions of their church (at least, some of the traditions), and as much as they may be models of kindness and loyalty, the fact is that male + male or female + female represents a fundamental violation of the meaning of marriage, not to mention a fundamental violation of the nature and purpose of humanity.

How then, can a priest bless a couple whose very relationship goes against the order and plan of God? And, speaking in particular of two gay men, how can a priest, representing the Lord, bless them when the Lord Himself deems their sexual relationship to be something detestable in His sight (Leviticus 18:22) and when Paul says that those who practice such things will be excluded from the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)?

Yes, Brown had to ignore what the pope actually said about the issue — dismissing it as “theological nuances” — in order to keep his hate alive. Who wants to deal with nuance when there’s hate to peddle? He went on to whine that other churches aren’t hating LGBTQ people to his satisfaction:

Otherwise, no major church leaders are sanctioning adultery or fornication or pornography. But some are sanctioning same-sex unions (or, in more compromised settings, same-sex “marriages”). That is why we respond as we do.

It’s the same thing with LGBTQ+ activism in general.

That activism is affecting children in our nursery schools and young adults on our college campuses. It is everywhere in our society, from social media to the world of sports, and from TV and Hollywood to the business world.

We cannot avoid confronting LGBTQ+ activism and ideology wherever we turn, so we either push back with our own values or we cave in and capitulate.

It’s the same with the pope’s ridiculous pronouncement. There must be a reply.

Then it was back to lecturing the leader of a congregation of which he is not a member:

Really now, is the pope telling us a gay couple can live together, can be emotionally and physically intimate, and can commit to lifelong faithfulness without transmitting a wrong conception of marriage? What is the big difference between the two – other than the obvious fact that two men or two women cannot marry in God’s sight?

In August, I addressed the Church of England’s decision to allow Anglican clergy to “bless” same-sex couples, yet another apostate step made by this rapidly declining faith group.

What will now happen with the Catholic Church?

That is for Catholics to answer, but without question, this could lead to a major rift of sorts, as the strong, conservative elements of the Church will reject this pronouncement outright, whatever the cost. The effects could be seismic. (As I noted in that August article, it is “progressive” Christianity that is dying; the real Gospel is thriving.)

As for the gay Catholic couples who see this as a beacon of hope and a sign of the humanity and compassion of the Church, I don’t pretend to see the world through their eyes, and I don’t claim to understand the pain and the struggle they have endured.

I will just say this, with brokenness, not with triumphalism: I don’t doubt your love for each other. I don’t doubt that part of you really wants to honor the Lord. But I can only tell you the truth. God has a better way, and He never intended you to unite with someone of the same sex.

If you will lay your life before Him, surrendering fully to Jesus as Lord, He will forgive all your sins and give you a fresh new start. Cry out to Him today!

Brown appears to be the broken one who can’t accept there are other kinds of love, so he must spew hate at those people instead. He’s the one who seems to need a “fresh new start” freed of such vicious hate for anyone who’s not exactly like him. If he can’t understand someone else, he should probably just shut up about them.

LGBTQ hate meets anti-ESG

Brown packed a bunch of his personal grievances, unsurprisingly led by his hatred of transgender people — which, of course, he packaged as “wokeism” — into his Jan. 12 column:

For many years, I have been predicting a cultural pushback against the radical left, knowing that, at a certain point, people would say, “Enough is enough.”

I have documented this in particular when it comes to transgender activism, with people as diverse as Joe Rogan, Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins, J. K. Rowling, and Martina Navratilova helping to lead the way.

The Bud Light and Target boycotts have now become cautionary tales, reminding us that your average American does not share these extremist ideas.

That’s why many of these same Americans became outraged during COVID when, for the first time, they became aware of some of the dangerous indoctrination their children were experiencing at school. They too began to speak up and speak out, adding more fuel to the fire of this growing cultural revolution.

That’s why it was no surprise to see a headline in November 2023 announcing that, “Miss Universe judge reveals bankruptcy likely due to ‘outrage’ over transgender organizer.”

If you’re going to feature “transwomen” in a Miss Universe event, you can expect to see some backlash. And that’s why, despite the mega-success of the movie “Barbie,” we frequently hear that, from a business perspective, if you go woke you go broke.

Brown then dipped into his minor proclivity for racism:

Yet the cultural backlash is broader than this, being ideological as well as economic (although, as a result of failing ideologies, there will be an economic backlash as well).

Think of the exposing of DEI on our university campuses and in big business.

If you cannot hire the most qualified person for a job and must instead fill a quota, how can you survive, let alone thrive?

Why does Brown assume that any non-white person has a job solely because someone “filled a quota” and not because they’re qualified? Why does he assume that only white people are qualified to work? Nevertheless, he continued to belabor the point:

In a battle on X between billionaires Mark Cuban and Elon Musk, Cuban wrote (in a lengthy post), “DEI does not mean you dont [sic] hire on merit. Of course you hire based on merit

“Diversity – means you expand the possible pool of candidates as widely as you can. Once you have identified the candidates, you HIRE THE PERSON YOU BELIEVE IS THE BEST.…

“Even choosing the best basketball player is very much a guess. Which is why the best players weren’t always the first pick in the draft and some go undrafted.

“The reality is that most positions hired in a company don’t have a quantitative metric you can use to hire someone.”

To this Musk responded, “Cool, so when should we expect to see a short white/Asian women [sic] on the Mavs?”

Point taken.

If one counts that as missing the point, sure. After citing some overdone rhetoric at colleges, Brown pushed his point further:

In the same way, more and more businesses are abandoning ESG, recognizing it does not make for good financial success. In the words of Robert Jenkins, head of global research at Lipper, a financial data provider, “ESG investing … entering the final quarter of 2023 continues to be a story of declining flows and assets under management.”

Or as stated more bluntly by Elon Musk, “I am increasingly convinced that corporate ESG is the Devil Incarnate.” (He posted this back in April 2022.) Even the massive investment firm Blackrock announced last year that they don’t say “ESG” anymore since it has become so weaponized by both sides.

The fact is, on many fronts, some of which we have not even touched on here, woke simply doesn’t work – in children’s and adult education; in business development; in raising families; in securing our borders; in reducing crime; in fighting terror; in maintain a modicum of cultural sanity.

And on and on it goes.

These radical leftist ideologies, many of them Marxist based, may look good on paper. But in real life they are an accident waiting to happen. Just give them time.

The fact that Brown must invoke such smears as “Marxist” and “devil incarnate” to attack ESG — which, again, is about not discriminating against non-white people — shows the hollowness and racist-adjacent intent of his argument.

Other people's sex lives

As he has before, Brown returned to obsessing about other people’s sex lives in his Jan. 26 column:

On Jan. 23, I posted on X, “Five days ago @MattWalshBlog wrote, ‘This is now the fourth article in a major media publication in the span of one week pushing “polyamory.”‘ Today, the @WSJ noted that ‘polyamory is having a moment.’ Perhaps this article that I wrote in 2012, called, ‘The Next Sexual Revolution Has Arrived,’ focusing on polyamory, deserves another read?”

That same day, I noticed an article written by Dennis Prager titled, “19 Years Ago, the Los Angeles Times Published a Column on Antisemitism on American Campuses.”

Prager noted that, “I recently came across is a column titled ‘When Young Jews Major in Antisemitism,’ published in 2005 in the Los Angeles Times. When I looked to see who wrote the column, I saw – to my surprise – that I did. I did not recall writing the piece. But it is very much worth reading today.”

He then reproduced his article in full, which gave serious pause for reflection.

Brown began his Feb. 2 column by fearmongering about children allegedly seized by the state in other countries, citing as one example where children of homeschooling parents in Germany were allegedly taken; he failed to mention the fact that homeschooling has always been illegal there). He then ramped up the transphobia and fearmongering:

Back in 2022, the Washington Examiner shared the heartbreaking story of Abby Martinez, “who tried to fight back when a Los Angeles school, county social workers, and an LGBT group sought to transition her confused 15-year-old daughter.

“But once Yaeli Martinez was moved into foster care and later injected with testosterone, the heartbroken mother could only watch helplessly as the girl spiraled into depression that ended when she stepped in front of an oncoming train.

“‘They killed my daughter,’ a tearful Martinez told the Washington Examiner. ‘They had to pick pieces of her off of the track.'”

Brown then dismissed the idea that there is another side of the story — specifically, that the child had suffered from depression for years — because the mother’s story advances his anti-LGBTQ narrative:

You might say, “But there were other factors involved in that story, and the government was looking out for the child’s best interest.”

The grieving mother would beg to differ, with every fiber of her being. And again, who empowered the state to make these kinds of decisions?

That’s why there’s such grave concern over a growing number of states – 11 as of June 2023 – declaring themselves sanctuary states for trans-identified minors.

“Come here,” they proclaim, “and get the medical care that you need, the care that all those states that are withholding from you. We’ll help you here, even without your parents’ consent.”

And what happens to a trans-identified minor child who makes his or her way to one of these sanctuary states seeking trans-related care, against their parents’ wishes? Does the sanctuary state now have legal authority over that child? Do the parents have a way to get their child back?

These are some of the very real, contemporary legal debates.

Brown also seems uninterested in exploring why Martinez’s child was put in foster care in the first place — perhaps because Martinez hates transgender people so much that she has no problem exploiting her child’s death to promote that hate. He then cited another case of anti-trans parents facing the consequences for hating their transitioning child:

A CFS caseworker came to speak with the teen and inspect the house where Jennifer claimed she drank toilet bowl cleaner and took painkillers in an attempt to take her own life, the outlet reported.

“The teen reportedly showed no related symptoms, and a test at the hospital showed she didn’t consume any toxins.

“But her hospital stay stretched to multiple days, in which staff there noted that Jennifer identified as male and wanted to be called Leo. The parents said they quickly but unsuccessfully objected.

“‘We were very clear to the emergency room staff as well as [CFS] that this goes against our values, morals and our religious beliefs,’ [mother] Krista Kolstad recalled to Reduxx, accusing the hospital of consistently undermining her and her husband’s authority.”

In reality, Kolstad’s insistence on running to right-wing media to spew anti-transgender narratives violated confidentiality orders; the judge in the case noted the “unlikelihood of self-reflection and self-accountability or repentance by either father or stepmother.” The parents also refused to permit the state to send the child to an out-of-state facility for treatment of suicidal thoughts, which tells us that they are putting politics ahead of their child’s well-being.

Brown served up more transphobia in his Feb. 5 column:

The title of this article is not meant to be sensationalistic, nor is it designed as salacious clickbait. Instead, it is a fair and accurate description of a growing (and sickening) phenomenon on TikTok: trans-identified adults telling children about sex-change surgery or simply encouraging these little ones to go fully trans. How can this be legal?

A couple of weeks ago, a colleague sent me a link to a video on Townhall carrying this caption: “Children are being exposed to sex change explainer videos on TikTok from woke trans activists. They claim these surgeries aren’t harmful – and are completely fine to show to children. What is going on?!”

This video, in turn, plays clips from some of these TikTok videos, and the contents are beyond disgusting.

Brown, of course, then went the salacious clickbait route anyway by ranting further about this:

Two years ago, I posted an article titled, “Is China Using TikTok to Control the Minds of Our Children?”

I wrote, “To give a shocking case in point, according to a recent video by Matt Walsh, ‘TikTok Is Making Mental Illness Trendy.'”

Now, TikTok is making irreversible genital mutilation trendy.

Should we be surprised?

Brown offered no evidence the the mere existence of videos makes something “trendy” — but he needs the clickbait, so he’s pushing that dubious association. His hate continued:

It’s hard not to feel outrage just reading these words, especially if you can relate firsthand to what this mother has experienced, and especially when you realize that some of the effects of these hormone treatments may be irreversible.

But to think that children are being encouraged to get sex-change surgery and that a boy might actually think that removing his testicles is no different than eating two cherries takes things even further.

I ask again: How can this be legal?

It’s not illegal for someone to make a video, dude. He went on to cite anti-transgender psychiatrist Paul McHugh without disclosing that that his views have been discredited, touting his claim that he’s “sleeping better at night” because of his right-wing activism. Brown concluded with more sensationalism:

Dr. McHugh’s same question can now be posed to those who run and oversee TikTok: What if you’re contributing directly to the irreversible mutilation of thousands of children? How will you sleep at night?

I would hate to be in their shoes of these social media influencers and their enablers on Judgment Day. God takes it personally when people hurt the children.

But until that Day, let us do what we can to protect our youngsters from these destructive influences while pushing back against the distribution of such videos to minors however we can.

We might just save some lives.

But gender-affirming care does, in fact, save lives. Apparently, Brown would rather see those people dead for the sin of not being heterosexual.