God forbid I ever hold a view that I was so insecure about I felt the need to engage in coercive affirmation in order to make me feel better about it. 

Welcome to “Pride Month.” We used to call it June. 

This is the month in times past we used to celebrate such wicked conceptions as “Father’s Day.” Now we pause (for a whole month…and large parts of the others) to pay homage to sexual perversity and gender confusion.

The changes that accompany our societal devolution are not surprising. It is the rapidity of it that alarms. When I was in high school in the early and mid-nineties in the Deep South, it was still a time when no one dared come out as “gay” because of the collective scorn it would engender (no pun intended). There was the occasional rumor of one who might be “in the closet,” as the phraseology of the times categorized it. But no one dared step foot from that closet. 

This was a time not far removed from when the American Psychiatric Association still classified homosexuality as a mental disorder. 

But then we were told that subjects were simply “born that way,” and it was, at the least, cruel to suggest that their lifestyle was abnormal, immoral, or chosen. These days, of course, the same crowd will tell us that gender is something that is “fluid,” and young children should in no way be pressured into having to “choose” what sex, or any other demographic, they “identify” with until they’re “ready.” Consistency not being the lunatic left’s strong point. 

Well, we’ve come a long way, baby. 

“Morality” has become a derisive and irrelevant term in a day when all truth is deemed subjective. Acronyms of the left are the new chic. What’s acceptable is what is fashionable and trendy. The cool way to think is whatever was considered unacceptable by those troglodytes of the pre-21st Century, who fostered such things as Christian civilization, wonders of the world, communities carved from the wilderness, the printing press, and men in flight. 

Behold, the new and enlightened 21st Century! Here we welcome those innovative souls on the “right side of history” who have brought us such life-enhancing wonderments as tide-pod challenges, Instagram filtering, endless motion pictures billed as serious works of art based on comic books, "transgender" restrooms, fidget spinners, "reality" television shows, inane TikTok videos, and Joel Osteen. Revel in our evolution!

And corporate America loves it. There was a time when men of honor could “put their money where their mouth is” and cease supporting institutions, people, and businesses that degraded their values. Doing that today is most difficult, as the one we turned to yesterday when boycotting another has embraced the same thing with equal vigor today. 

Garth Brooks burst onto the country-music scene in 1989 amidst the “New Traditionalist” movement in that genre. The kid from Oklahoma competed with the likes of Alan Jackson, Randy Travis, Travis Tritt, and Clint Black for twang fame. 

Then came 1992 and the lead song from his new album. Safely ensconced in superstar status, Brooks released “We Shall Be Free,” where he pandered to the left with lyrics such as “when we all walk hand in hand…when the last thing we notice is the color of the skin…when money talks for the very last time…when there’s only one race,” and, to be all-inclusive to the oppressed peoples of the world, “when we’re free to love anyone we choose…we shall be free.”

This was the true country-music fan’s red flag signifying the charlatan Brooks really was. Since then, with his expanding waistline we have witnessed his obsession for the melodramatic, the quivering lip at every interview, the teary, wide-eyed expression given at every single concert, as if he has never seen a crowd before. Of course, this is that “humble country boy from Oklahoma” who graduated college with a degree in (shocker!) advertising. 

And don’t even get me started with his “Chris Gaines” alter-ego fiasco. If anyone has forgotten about this ridiculous charade, look up the photos on the Internet and see the guy who reminds you of the Goth creeps who used to hang out by the book store, greasy hair hanging in their faces, playing cards, being unemployed, and abstaining from soap and water for as long as possible. 

Four years ago, Brooks was surfing high on the social-justice wave and came out in support of more gun-control measures and support for those pushing it. His views are anathema to many of those who still pay to attend his concerts and buy his music today. 

Which brings a question for the remnant of Christian, traditional, truly conservative people trying to live righteous lives in the midst of wanton violence, heritage destruction, false narratives, and in-your-face, nonstop pornographic propaganda. True, we cannot boycott everything and no one is going to say and do everything that please us. But have we not become overly tolerant? What other group of people would stand idly by, if not actively support, those who so conspicuously support things we abhor? 

And I’m not even talking about where you buy your groceries. I am referring to how we spend our recreation time and money. Most people of my persuasion would tell you they would be willing to sacrifice, if not fight and die, for the things they hold dear. 

Can we really be taken serious, if we are not even willing to sacrifice the things which entertain us?

“Love wins!” bray the jackasses. Ironically, they are correct. I’ve read this story, and I know how the book ends. God wins. And God is Love. But “love” is how He defines it. And He is also a God of Judgment and Wrath. 

Glory to God. 

Josh Doggrell

Josh Doggrell

11 Responses

  1. Raymond Olson says:

    Mr. Doggrell–I hope you don’t think there’s anything new about what you describe. You could have written this 50 years ago, making corrections only for time period. Also, where is the inconsistency in the then-and-now examples of “lunatic Left” contentions in your sixth paragraph. Seems to me that the second follows from the first with a certain inevitability.

  2. Josh Doggrell says:

    Mr. Olson, thank you for the feedback.

    I mentioned a couple of paragraphs before the sixth that it was not surprising, but the rapidity of the devolution is what I find alarming.

    Regarding the inconsistency, decades ago the defenders of homosexuality and other forms of sexual deviancy generally told us the subjects were “born that way,” and thus took issue with those of us who characterized any sinful lifestyle as a choice.

    Now, the same crowd defends the same thing by claiming that such things as identity, lifestyle, and even gender are fluid with subjective truth, and we can choose to be whatever we want to be (or “identify” to be).

    I find that to be inconsistent.

  3. Raymond Olson says:

    Mr. Doggrell–You’re welcome. As I recall, both the “born that way” and the identity-lifestyle rationales have existed in tandem. Whether one or the other or still others was emphasized depended pretty much on who was arguing it. Since the objective was equality before the law, all these arguments were ancillary.

  4. Dot says:

    Pride month? You mean it supplants Juneteenth day, a federal holiday signed into law last year by the current administration?

  5. Michael Strenk says:

    “…we can choose to be whatever we want to be (or “identify” to be).”

    We can all be whatever the eggheads, grifters and psychopaths groom and “educate” us to be. Their agenda is so much more perverse than that of the Bolsheviks, who similarly sought to create a new man, that it boogles the mind. There were many among the Bolsheviks and the competing sects of Marxism who sought to do much of what our overlords have been doing, but the Bolsheviks, somewhat reluctantly, punted, knowing that the Russian population, which still had a strong moral sense, would have slaughtered them. We, present company excluded, of course, as a society, are heading down a path that is as perverse as perversity will allow. It took Russia thirty years to almost fully recover its sense of itself, but they were starting at a much higher moral and spiritual level at the end of the Soviet period than we are at, and they had a self to recover, which America, as a whole does not.

  6. William Shofner says:

    The only days in June that my close friends, my family and I recognize as dates for special celebration are: June 3, which is the President’s Birthday (i.e., Jefferson Davis); June 8, which is Independence Day (i.e., the date in 1861 on which Tennessee seceded); and the third Sunday in June, which is Father’s Day. These are our pride days.

  7. Avatar photo Thomas Fleming says:

    To be perfectly candid, I have never liked our Federal holidays, which are mostly in imitation of Jacobin festivals. Independence Day was one thing, 4 July something else. Holidays should be Holy Days, or at least days on which we pay tribute to indispensable heroes whom the nation as a whole has revered. Lincoln is a divisive figure, so is MLK and is Labor Union Day and most of the recently declared Fasti. Tacitus shrewdly observed that Roman laws designed to defend the interests of one part of society and the rest were inherently unjust–as indeed, they are–and holidays that set one ethnic group against another are inherently evil. Columbus si, indigenous peoples no!

  8. Avatar photo Thomas Fleming says:

    PS Confederate holidays, which were designed to honor brave men who did their duty as they saw it, were not at all divisive, and were not perceived as such until the 1960s.

  9. Harry Colin says:

    Our nation has soiled the truly important days – Easter, Christmas, Thanksgiving – while wanting to add ethnic fealty days to beat us over the head with. Since we began to celebrate “President s’ Day” I have tried to ignore it, unless forced to respond to it, in which case I wish someone “Happy Franklin Pearce” or “William Henry Harrison” Day. I’m never sure if the strange reactions that I get are ones of disgust or an illustration that most Americans don’t recognize most presidents before JFK.

  10. Josh Doggrell says:

    Mr. Colin,

    I still stick with “Washington’s Birthday.”

  11. Avatar photo Thomas Fleming says:

    From what I have read it appears that no legall Chang has ever been made and thus the real name is still Washington’s Birthday. One more,illustration of the contempt for law of the USA regime.