Lately, it seems as if every library and school in America, even those in relatively conservative jurisdictions, is bringing in drag queens to perform for (and train) children. According to Christopher Rufo, this is not just a random cultural occurrence. It is, instead, the result of a deliberate, 40-year-long campaign to bring transvestites and children together in a “site of queer pleasure.” Rufo, along with Libs of TikTok, Matt Walsh, and many other culture warriors is brushing away the rainbows and sparkle to expose the hyper-sexuality behind transgenderism and the way it’s deliberately targeting American children.

Different people have different agendas for doing aggressively trying to insert drag and other non-traditional sexualities—that is, not marriage and family—into mainstream American culture. At a political level, offering an ethos of easy sexual gratification gets votes. At a secondary level, sexualizing children puts them at odds with their families, thereby destroying families and increasing the state’s power. Finally, at a more subtle level, sexualizing children breaks down their sense of personal integrity, leaving them vulnerable to manipulation and control.

Image: Children mesmerized by Drag Queen Story Hour. YouTube screen grab.

Among the shock troops on the ground, though, there’s just one reason to sexualize children, and that’s for sex. It’s really not more complicated than that. However, those trying to “trans” your children have managed to hide this abusive and perverted motive behind phrases such as “gender-affirming care” and, most especially, behind pretty things: rainbows, sparkles, glitter, songs, and dances. As Rufo explains,

The drag queen might appear as a comic figure, but he carries an utterly serious message: the deconstruction of sex, the reconstruction of child sexuality, and the subversion of middle-class family life. The ideology that drives this movement was born in the sex dungeons of San Francisco and incubated in the academy. It is now being transmitted, with official state support, in a number of public libraries and schools across the United States.

Rufo’s analysis begins with “queer theory,” which Gayle S. Rubin, a lesbian activist, articulated in 1984 after immersing herself in San Francisco’s utterly debauched gay subcultures. (Let’s just say that there’s a reason AIDS spread so quickly in San Francisco.) Rubin decided that this subculture deserved to be given respect as a unique institution that was the counterpoint to the dominant narrative of heterosexual marriage and family.

Rubin then dressed the idea up in the language of Marxism, making queer culture a victim of heterosexual cultural oppression. She understood that transforming sexuality would transform America. (Thankfully, Rufo explains most of the Marxist, academic jargon in which all this revolutionary talk is propounded.)

Of course, once you start deconstructing the stable, two-parent, heterosexual family that is the backbone of America, there’s nowhere to go but down to the very bottom of sexual morality:

Where does this process end? At its logical conclusion: the abolition of restrictions on the behavior at the bottom end of the moral spectrum—pedophilia. Though she uses euphemisms such as “boylovers” and “men who love underaged youth,” Rubin makes her case clearly and emphatically. *** These men are not deviants, but victims, in Rubin’s telling.

So, how do you devictimize pedophiles? By making them attractive, both to children (of course) and to society as a whole. Many leftist philosophers, including Michel Foucault, himself a pedophile and the father of queer theory, were on board with the plan.

Drag was the perfect vehicle, especially as it became avant-garde after the Stonewall riots. Before leftists embraced drag queens, they offered overtly sexual performances by and for homosexuals. After, they became trendy and were an opportunity to mock Middle American values.

Inevitably, though, the activists figured out that the best way to effect a complete cultural revolution was to make drag “family friendly.” It began with Hollywood, of course. I have nothing bad to say about RuPaul, about whom I know nothing, but as far as ordinary America was concerned, he was the beginning of dressing up drag in Middle American clothes, not as mockery, but as bait.

There’s so much more there that I cannot possibly distill it for this post. Suffice it to say that I urge you to read Rufo’s essay so that you truly understand that Drag Queen Story Hour and “family friendly” drag shows are anything but “family friendly.” They are, instead, the latest weapon in the American leftists’ endless attack on American stability, affluence, and happiness—and their targets are our children.

(One more thing: If you have any doubt about the agenda, think about the fact that most of these drag queens are abysmal at what they do: They can’t sing, they can’t dance, and many struggle with children’s books. They’re not offering performative value. Their value lies in undermining American mores. That’s all.)