There is an Arabic proverb that goes something like this:
Once the camel gets his nose in the tent, his body will follow.
Pointing this out might result in a lecture about the “slippery slope” fallacy. Well, it’s not exactly a fallacy if it’s actually the strategy! The Boy Scouts of America are a case study for this.
The BSA is over a century old, a venerable institution that has since then instructed over a hundred million youths in positive values and practical skills. For generations, it’s been a way to connect with nature, a great social opportunity, and a place to have fun.
Things started to get shaky during the 1970s. Scouting was becoming increasingly at odds with the zeitgeist, but I’ll spare you a rant about all that. They tried to adapt and get hip with the times. Unfortunately, the moves turned out to be ill-considered. They survived by going back to the basics, and membership numbers began climbing again.
Today, they face an even greater crisis, and membership levels are below half of their former peak. It’s a little more than just today’s kids who can’t be convinced to drag themselves away from video games.
THE HOMINTERN TAKES AIM ON ITS TARGET
The Boy Scout oath is the following:
On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; to help other people at all times; to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.
That’s in pretty clear language, not a lot of wiggle room there. However, some people didn’t care for the last part of it. Morally straight? Well, we can’t have that, now can we?
BSA has been under tremendous pressure for a long time, and sued nine ways from Sunday. This includes by heavy-hitting outfits like the ACLU. Those folks in particular have some other agendas too. James Baldwin, the ACLU’s co-founder, once said:
I, too, take a class position. It is anti-capitalist and pro-revolutionary. I believe in non-violent methods of struggle as most effective in the long run for building up successful working class power. Where they cannot be followed or where they are not even permitted by the ruling class, obviously only violent tactics remain. I champion civil liberty as the best of the non-violent means of building the power on which workers rule must be based. If I aid the reactionaries to get free speech now and then, if I go outside the class struggle to fight against censorship, it is only because those liberties help to create a more hospitable atmosphere for working class liberties. The class struggle is the central conflict of the world; all others are incidental.
Ain’t that special? Anyway, I digress.
HIGHLIGHTS ON THE TIMELINE OF DESTRUCTION
1980: A young adult from the Bay Area was turned down for an application to the 1981 National Jamboree. His membership had lapsed, but the greater problem was that he was gay. They probably wouldn’t have known about it if he hadn’t come out publically in a newspaper interview. This became the subject of a 1998 lawsuit – a little late to help him get to the jamboree, though.
1990: A scoutmaster got kicked out because he publically came out gay, again via a newspaper article. He sued, of course; it’s the great American tradition! That one went all the way to the Supreme Court. Quite surprisingly, SCOTUS ruled in favor of the Boy Scouts in a 5-4 decision. Did one of the liberal Supreme Court members switch to decaf that day, or take some wicked cold medicine?
2000: BSA adopts a “don’t ask, don’t tell” position. Were they hoping to avoid vexatious litigation?
2013: BSA caves in following all the lawfare and other pressure. They vote to allow openly gay members, though not gay scoutmasters. Will this be enough to take the heat off of BSA?
2015: Openly gay scoutmasters are allowed too. By now, BSA’s membership has been falling steadily across all age cohorts. When BSA abolished their mean and discriminatory policy, for some reason, membership numbers did not rise again. After gay guys were now free to take youngsters and adolescents out into the woods, the membership numbers kept dropping – what a surprise, huh? The Venturers (ages 14-21, formerly Explorers) have fallen the most over time. During the late 1980s, there were over a million; by 2017, there were under 88,000 remaining. Gosh, I wonder what’s up with that?
2017: Girls are permitted to be Boy Scouts too. I have nothing against girls, but don’t they have a parallel institution of their own? (Hint: they sell awesome cookies. Thin Mints for the win!) The decision is controversial, but really, what’s all the fuss about? They’ll just give them condoms.
2017: Transgender boys (girls who believe they’re boys) can join too, but at this point, nothing matters.
2018: BSA contemplates filing bankruptcy.
2019: As of the end of the year, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints will no longer back BSA, after having been their greatest supporters from the beginning. (Hint: Try to please your friends, not your enemies.) I’m the worst Mormon since Joseph Smith himself, but I don’t cotton to that stuff either. This will be financially devastating, perhaps the last nail in their coffin. Like I keep saying, “Get woke, go broke!”
Some of these later developments surprised even the gay scoutmaster who got canned and sued them all the way to the Supreme Court. As he put it:
As “woke” as I am I still had to wrap my head around it when I first heard: the Boy Scouts of America would be admitting girls.
All of my early childhood sexual experiences were with other boy scouts.
So there’s an adolescent sexual fantasy attached to those memories.
Yeah, the end of an era, isn’t it? One might well ask, what will the future hold? If the organization survives somehow, perhaps they’ll have “Rubba Rubba” merit badges and put Michael Jackson’s “Jesus Juice” into their canteens.
Why did the Boy Scouts have a “no homo” policy? Was that all about being mean and discriminatory? Like, how dare some private organization actually have membership criteria?
Unfortunately, they’ve had a long-standing pedophilia problem. A court case in 2012 forced BSA to release a 20,000 page file documenting sexual abuse cases from 1965-85. There were 1200 incidents, so that averages sixty badtouch cases per year that came to their attention. A major reason they’re on the verge of bankruptcy lately is because they have 140 lawsuits pending, which resulted from scoutmasters who couldn’t keep their hands to themselves.
Granted, in a nationwide organization that once numbered over four million members, it was inevitable that someone would do something wrong, whether it’s misusing funds or far worse things. Still, what did happen was terrible. In fact, “terrible” is quite an understatement.
They did take measures to prevent these serious problems, as best as they could. In that regard, excluding males who admitted to being sexually attracted to other males makes a lot of sense. This goes beyond abstract matters of morality. Simply put, they wanted to keep potential chickenlovers away from the chickens. It’s similar to the “gezeirah” (fence) concept in rabbinical law, where a line is drawn around “gray area” things that could lead to forbidden conduct. Since BSA was an all-male organization, the “no homo” rule would eliminate that problem entirely, so long as everyone followed it. This means that homosexuals should take a hint and find something else to do with their weekends.
Even so, despite best efforts, some kiddy fiddlers got in. BSA’s leaders aren’t mind readers, so they couldn’t determine with 100% certainty who would or wouldn’t be a problem. Their “no homo” policy wasn’t an absolute firewall, of course. Neither were their other measures like background checks, awareness programs, or the “two deep” rule against an adult being alone with a kid. The “no homo” policy does seem rather like asking prospective retail employees, “Do you think you might be even slightly tempted to pilfer our merchandise?” Still, at least it was something, and they could exclude members who outed themselves in newspaper articles and such. They fought to retain their membership rules all the way to the Supreme Court, but surrendered later.
How about the gays themselves? They could’ve set up their own Gay Scouts. It wouldn’t even have been objectionable, so long as age of consent laws were observed. For them, the Gay Scouts could’ve been much more fun than staying at the YMCA or joining the Navy. Everyone would be DTF, with no risk of awkward gaydar failures. However, rather than creating their own institution, they invaded another. Let’s cut the crap – this had nothing to do with a keen interest of theirs about hiking, rafting, and all the rest of it.
It’s hard to escape the conclusion that some characters were pretty enthusiastic about getting gays out into the wilderness with adolescents and youngsters. Were they all about the “hotdogs” and “pasta”? Comrade Harry Hay, the gay activist pioneer, would’ve considered it quite a buffet. Allen Ginsberg would’ve loved a campout with so many young, “dewy-limbed” guys. Even so, I believe most gays know better than to do stuff like that.
There’s something more to it than just that. Why else did the activists make such an effort to force themselves on a group which had traditional morality as one of its precepts? Simply put, they were offended by the “no homo” policy. They wanted to rub BSA’s noses in it and ultimately destroy them. They knew very well that forcing their way in would do exactly that. So the pillow-biting activists are getting their revenge.
Cultural Marxism corrupts everything it touches. This, my friends, is why you should never let the camel get his nose under the tent.