“Sound of Freedom: the QAnon-adjacent thriller seducing America” thus spake not Zarathustra but Charles Bramesco, a film and television critic living in Brooklyn who writes for the Guardian, a UK, London based newspaper perhaps most famous for being featured in the Bourne franchise as a progressive, whistleblowing warriors of justice in the dark world of political exploitation and manipulation. You can find his review in the Guardian here, https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/jul/06/sound-of-freedom-movie-qanon-jim-caviezel .
Now, for myself as a UK resident but an avid US-watcher, it is always interesting to watch reflections of one another in our ancient and venerable Manchester rag. I spent many years reading the Guardian so the message in Bourne told me exactly what I needed to know of how despicable those American agencies really were. Charles really goes to town over this film, though judging by his profile page on the Guardian, there has not been much that he has actually liked in the cinema with the exception of Marilyn Munroe. Doing that for a living must really suck, I would be tempted to say find something you can actually enjoy but I am sure it works for perks as he has been doing it a while.
Getting to the point, what struck me was the manner of his criticism here which was echoed, at least headline wise, in Rolling Stone, Variety, Slate and Jezebel amongst others in their expert ‘on the pulse of Hollywood’ feature pieces. They all loathed with visceral passion the film and the phrase QAnon-Adjacent was clearly designed to push those conspiracy theorist MAGA loving buttons for all those self-respecting Guardian reading liberals this side of the Atlantic (not the magazine, but the real Atlantic) with the clear message of “do not go and see this film unless you are getting paid to do it (like me)”. There is so much pent-up fury being released in this piece in which the Borg collective of these famous titles seem to echo one another with perfect unanimity that it is worthy of close attention. I need to do some fact-checking of the fact-checkers.
The first piece of invective is of course the headline, not just QAnon but seducing America. Manhattans are walking around in a daze ‘Caviezel is God, Caviezel is God and Ballard is his prophet’. Americans have lost their ever-loving minds; they have ditched their Pride flags and are singing the Star Spangled Banner. They could have gone to watch Dial of Destiny with its $300m USD production cost, the 8th most expensive film ever made, but instead the stupid a*holes, my countrypersons went to watch the $14.5 USD crowdfunded antifilm and affront to Hollywood’s dignity – even folk wisdom tells you that you get what you pay for, so why on Earth would you opt for cotton of 2-yr old Angel Studios when you could have had the silk of Disney? They were so dum that even without the theatres they still managed to get on top and then remarkably get on top again a few days later. There is just no justice for filmmakers in the world, especially with all that “selective framing” of the box office receipts take (yes, ignoring the fewer theatres and the fact that the big studios control the theatres) reveals Sound of Freedom really did take more on America’s July 4th Independence Day from us tyrannical Brits.
This next paragraph is so spectacular I feel compelled to reproduce it in full, this is like Martin Luther texting the Pope:
“Following that money leads back to a more unsavory network of astroturfed boosterism among the far-right fringe, a constellation of paranoids now attempting to spin a cause célèbre out of a movie with vaguely simpatico leanings. The uninitiated may not pick up on the red-yarn-and-corkboard subtext pinned onto a mostly straightforward extraction mission in South America, pretty much Taken with a faint whiff of something noxious in the air. Those tuned in to the eardrum-perforating frequency of QAnon, however, have heeded a clarion call that leads right to the multiplex.”
So, you go and watch this film – you are “Far Right Fringe”. That has a catchy poetic rhythm to it, I suppose people can sing that to one another as they wait in the queues to get in those sold-out showings. I assume that does not even mean “Alt-Right” but beyond the “Alt-Right”, we are talking of “Nazi fascists sending Soros’ Jewish brothers to Auschwitz domestic terrorist” Right. That “red yarn and corkboard subtext”, us poor, uninitiated – it really does pay to be a member of the educated classes of which Charles must include himself at the expense of those sitting in the same cinema with him. Where I really criticise him here is his obvious lack of artistic discernment, Man on Fire was far better an example than Taken.
Now, we finally get to that second part of the headline, this QAnon thing. This is a bizarrely American thing, to me “Q” was a Star Trek Voyager character, but to the American he is the prophet of all things Trump who we know has a penchant for “alternative facts”. Caviezel apparently is a believer, I even saw him saying with Ballard right there next to him that the difference between conspiracy theory and fact in the modern US is about six months, how dare he say that! And Charles tells us that Ballard guy might not have worked for Homeland Security, it is all one big conspiracy theory. This is a stellar example of ad hominem insinuation. First, the story is about Ballard, not Caviezel. Caviezel might have an adrenochrome fixation, but Ballard is not guilty by association any more than I must have a fetish for nickers because my wife happens to wear them. Now Ballard has responded directly to this accusation and makes the point that the film was already in the can before ‘Q’ left the lizard colony to corrupt the dwellers of Earth with misinformation and dark speech. He also made the point that those 150 rescued on that leg of the mission depicted in the film are now young adults and will be shortly speaking for themselves; just how is a good liberal like Charles going to spin it, particularly when CBS News in 2014 had its own gratuitous feature on exactly those children and Ballard’s collaboration with the Columbians to rescue them. It was that news piece that peeked the interests of what was then 20th Century Fox to get involved in the independent film project. Disney then buried the film when they bought out Fox and Angel picked the rights up cheap.
The second insinuation is about the dodgy character of Ballard himself, “the DHS can neither confirm nor deny the real Ballard’s employment history”. Well, after all, that is a government run agency that cannot discover who left cocaine in a private part of the most secure building in America! Charles’ expectations are just a bit too high a foreigner like me feels. Now, it took me 15 minutes of checking out the OUR website itself to find a clip of his old boss at the DHS recounting the moment depicted in the film of him resigning for the sake of completing the mission. It was not hard. Doing a You-Tube check on Ballard also comes up with hits of him speaking to the Naval academy, a medical conference, with Tony Robbins who was once chased around the world by politicians, movers, and shakers. The guy has clean sheets. The actress who plays his wife in the film, Mira Katherine Sorvino, was the bona fide ambassador for Amnesty International’s Stop Violence Against Women programme way back in the early 2000s and one of the first to pull off the lid on sex-trafficking. She has been a close supporter of Ballard since 2009. He is who he says he is and those ex-agents and Seals that are around him are doing the business because they believe in his vision.
As an exclamation point that they are not just some wildcard vigilantes, Caviezel’s wife had been watching Narcos and was ringing him every day to check that all Ballard’s 30 ex-Navy SEALS and other ex-CIA agents were there to protect the filming in Columbia. They had all gone AWOL and Jim had to lie on the phone, they were AWOL because the Columbian government had asked them to do a real mission while they were there. It is not hard to find the documentary about what was going on in Haiti, or meet the Utah AG and their partnership with the work. You meet the government leaders, follow the surveillance, learn about the cooperation with the local jurisdiction, the aftercare programmes and the bottom of the barrel brothels that imprison the minors – in fact, they do not help unless there is an aftercare programme for those that are liberate. All these are readily available publicly attested sources that the paid fact-checkers just cannot find.
However, Charles is just plain professionally negligent next. The “stomach-turning opening sequence” was a real-life sequence, and the “implicitly trustworthy woman” was a real woman who had won a national beauty pageant, Kelly Johana Suarez. The parents really did come home to find lights off and children gone. More generally, OUR are perfectly open on what was true and what was not (and why it was not true) in the film here, https://ourrescue.org/blog/sound-of-freedom-based-on-true-story . It is remarkable he does not mention the sets, the lighting, the actual art of the Mexican filmmakers who laboured for 8-years. He does not mention that the film has been a huge hit amongst Hispanics. He does not mention the undisputed facts (if they are disputed it is that they are government figures and thus too low) of 6 million child slaves, 27 million in effective slavery where they do not own their own bodies and at least two million in sex-slavery. It is a public fact that the US is the number one consumer of the child sex market and Mexico the number one provider. The open Southern border really does take on a different perspective which would be far better than rehearsing QAnon fantasies which he has to begrudgingly admit “are absent in the text itself” but there they are, lurking in the shadows to suck in those Americans who are obviously intellectually inferior to our Charles and unable to know when they are being suckered by “the outwardly non-insane enough” – still insane inwardly, but most certainly insane despite the lack of empirical evidence from the film itself.
Charles almost manages some actual discussion of the plot of the film and is forced to compliment Bill Camp, but one paragraph is all we get, and it ends with more QAnon. Here we must divert from the film itself and talk about Caviezel as QAnon, rather than evaluating his claims themselves. The angle brought out in the film is that children who are no longer “fresh”, i.e., sexually exploitable, are then exploited for their organs. All the empirical evidence of this trade is again well documented as medical exploitation of the poor in countries like India and some African countries, and the actual footage of abortion providers in the US bragging about the perks of their trade in reprocessing baby parts from aborted foetuses.
Thus, it is back to form with the vague, unsupported accusation that Ballard founded a paramilitary rescue squad with the group criticised as “arrogant, unethical and illegal by the authorities”. Now, just who are these “authorities”? Certainly not the Utah AG, Ballard’s old bosses at the DHS, certainly not the Haitian authorities (at least the part of the government and judiciary that was not bought which again is real-time documented with real live footage on the OUR site) who had a chronic problem after the earthquake with fake orphanages peddling children to traffickers and sex-tourists; certainly not the Columbian authorities who asked Ballard’s team to actually get involved in an operation even when they were supposed to be on protection duty on the movie set; certainly not Ukrainian Social Services who gave him a list of 10000 children shortly after the war broke out; and they rescued thousands. It would have been far better if Charlie had brought to our attention Ballard’s heroism regarding the sordid details of the radical Dutch political group that actively campaigned to allow children as young as three to consent to full sex (the group was forced underground when even the progressive Dutch could not stomach them) that was busy stocking up orphaned children in the wake of the said conflict. They exposed the international nature of those operations and all the time have a strict ethical code of conduct where they work with the local jurisdictions or the national levels when the local levels are compromised.
Then Charlie gets the most distasteful in the article, he screams “Sound of Freedom pretends to be a real movie, like a “pregnancy crisis center” masquerading as a bona fide health clinic”; it would be interesting to see a discussion between Charles and the Hispanic filmmakers themselves particularly as I have just watched Eduardo Verástegui describe his vision of the “movie” as something designed to move people as modern storytelling and the ethics and the values he wanted to bring into the film. It would surely be uncontroversial to which any decent human being could not find objectionable unless you really were a part of the problem yourself, or you are owned by those who are – you can watch him talk about it in English or Spanish. Others have brought to light the low angle camera work and the empathetic pathos as you experience it from the child’s perspective, it is a fine piece of Art at a fraction of the price of Hollywood.
All this contrasts with the most remarkable accusation of his fellow critic at Rolling Stone that the film was exploitative of the children lying in provocative poses which have barely seconds on the screen for the express reason as Ballard put it that absolutely nothing in the film “would turn on a paedophile”; yet the same Rolling Stone vociferously defended soft-paedo porn Cuties as “misunderstood”. This is despite one extremely astute male reviewer brutally admitting “the entire film left you thinking these are children but look at the blond one, she is so hot” and “I do not care [if you think I am a perv]”; another describing the exquisite camera work of the salacious final dance scene that slides up and down their legs into their (well you can guess the liberating rest – they really owned their sexuality and were empowered; feminist filmmakers rallied to the defence of that visionary coming of age piece of work). Unfortunately, NetFlix marketed it for what it descriptively was, soft-paedo porn, regardless of what was in the enlightened mind of Maïmouna Doucouré. Even giving her the benefit of the doubt, she spectacularly failed not to exploit as she was demonstrating exploitation and her feminist supporters thought she was not exposing exploitation but celebrating her depiction of “its beautiful and sensitive portrayal of the emergent sexuality of young girls”. Oh, the subtext was its main point, but the triumphant final dance scene would suggest the NetFlix executives got into the Director’s chair.
It was probably the same nascent drive that was in the mind of the creator of Aladdin’s sister in the recent Disney movie, she was just too hot to handle; or in the mind of the director of Romeo and Juliet who exploited his child actors to bring us his breakthrough movie. One of those was brave enough to sue over 40 years later just recently to seek redress (no pun intended) after the pressure and manipulation of the profession, “if you are not going to take your top off, I will make sure you never work in this town again”. Hollywood was fascinated by child prostitutes and that breakthrough art, it had nothing to do with selling through sex despite all those testimonies of directors to the contrary who deliberately drop in those sex scenes to those 15-rated movies to create the right atmosphere.
I believe it was in the discussion Ballard and Caviezel had with Jordan Peterson as guest on his show, https://youtu.be/rTBGNEliczc (where despite the slander Peterson gets, he is one smart psychologist who taught at Harvard amongst other places) where they talk the sex-addiction profile which has been fed for decades by Hollywood, Epstein Island and the antics of Ghislaine Maxwell. That would have been a great angle to have picked up on as a responsible critic looking to inform the audience. As Ballard noted, she provided the services to clients but none of those transactions has led to any other prosecutions and her incarceration circumstances have been humanely mitigated; but none dare call it conspiracy…Picking up on the criminal psychology and the undercover work, which the film splices the actual real live takedown into the film, would have been great angles to pick up, but what we got was “QAnon adjacent”.
Perhaps we reach the bottom of this very deep barrel when Charlie accuses Caviezel of “messianic” pretensions (yep, he did play Jesus) that he should so much want to create a movement to shine a light on 21st century slavery – I think he should be commended and listening to Ballard talk about it, https://youtu.be/RX7_6SQHQuI you can tell he eats, drinks and breathes a worldwide movement to end it. Charlie in an afterthought realises he should actually indicate he disagrees with child trafficking, rather ironic as he has just described the entire project of Ballard, Caviezel and Co as “this snare of wild-eyed falsehoods” – just what falsehoods? QAnon? – but we have just admitted a few paragraphs ago it never makes it into the text of the film, As Stephen Miller of the Spectator notes, “Sommer is forced to admit later in his review that Sound of Freedom doesn’t actually “depict anything close to QAnon conspiracy fantasies.” That seems like a pretty big detail as it pertains to Tim Ballard and the topic of the film”.
There really is no subtext other than we stand guilty of inaction as good men doing nothing and permitting evil to prosper. On the evidence of the script and the story of the film, alongside Ballard’s public commentary of what is true and what was added for effect (https://ourrescue.org/blog/sound-of-freedom-based-on-true-story ), it is difficult to judge the film as a falsehood designed to put money in the Far Right’s pockets. If we believe Charlie here, “Though we differ on the culprits and causes, everyone agrees that child trafficking is indefensible”, why on Earth would there still be a ratio of 5 DEA agents to 1 anti-trafficking agent and more slaves in the world at this time than anytime in the past? As late as 2014 CBS news was documenting Ballard as a hero and this was exactly the same operation as depicted in the film. People wanted to address the issue then but just what has happened in these intervening years that has caused such a cacophony The problem these reviews demonstrate is this struggle of ideology.
Charlie’s real issue with the film comes down to his ideology and what he perceives as the contra-ideology that wants to burn up everything he holds dear. This is like Trump on the cinema screen, it is 2016 again. Just as I was listening on the radio all those years ago on the way to work when the BBC interviewer interrupted the interviewee who was telling us literally that a Trump victory would spell the end of civilisation (I am not exaggerating), the news came through that he had in fact won. I assume she committed suicide right there and then, blood on the studio floor. But for those who endured the shame, Trump found out the hard way just how rotten the political world was and lots of people love the stink of its decaying corpse, irrespective of nominal party affiliation. A bloodless coup made sure he was ejected at the first opportunity, ironically executed by those who had done a whole series of videos on how vulnerable electronic voting technologies were but that is just another QAnon conspiracy theory?
Unfortunately not, VP Kamala and half a dozen senior Democrats all made videos in the years before the 2020 election showcasing how dangerous electronic voting was and what a threat it posed to the US-democracy if foreign actors got involved. Well, just domestic ones in the end were necessary aided and abetted by investors in the new global hegemony. They had the knowledge and the motive. Unfortunately, demonstrably no longer a conspiracy theory, the Jan 6th insurrection crowd was loaded with federal agents, the Capitol police had received instructions, and Tucker Carlson was ejected from Fox just before the ex-Capitol police chief was to appear on his show to tell what had gone on. If you do you your research, you find all sorts of mitigations have been applied by all kinds of US states to tighten up all the Third World banana republic abuses and rigging schemes that came to light after the 2020 election. It is for another article to tell that fascinating story, other than to say academics did practical demonstrations with the Dominion Voting machines to show how easy it was, not necessarily because the machines themselves or their software is fundamentally flawed but because they are only secure when configured in a rigorous manner. As an IT-professional I absolutely understand ignorance of the hardware and software is the open-door for the bad actor.
This clash of Ideologies is the answer that will help us understand why there is other such an inexplicable and unreasonable desire to shoot down an expose of child trafficking. How else can we reconcile our moral outrage at child trafficking with the NYC Pride Parade singing “We’re here we’re queer and we’re coming for your children!” https://twitter.com/i/status/1672588483649576960 ? This parade was a live sex show for all the family to enjoy and the song itself is a relatively restrained video from the day. We could have shown the naturists handing out candy floss, the blow-up penises and clitorises designed for children to play with in front of the park fountain, the naked bike riders who on any other day of the year would be arrested for exposure, the surveys written in primary school style posing the academic question, “should sex education start in Kindergarten”? (The rainbow-coloured lolly sticks could be put in cups for easy voting – rather disturbingly for the organisers there were actually some sticks in the ‘No’ pot, but it was five to one ‘Yes’).
There is a massive move to get sexually explicit “sex education” material into school libraries. “Gender Queer” was the most controversial in the US where parents trying to speak at school boards about it were censored because reading or showing the material would be unacceptable because it was too explicit and the meetings were broadcast publicly. Yes, quite right, in other contexts this “sex education” material would be classed as illicit literature. Others had paedo-friendly storylines of a schoolgirl having a relationship with a much older person. So, these cannot be discussed in public by adults without censure but are available in “inclusive” school libraries. “Doublethink” was what Orwell called it in 1984.
In our Brave New World, sex is to be presented to children as “empowerment”, an owning of their own bodies, autonomy to make decisions about their own lives. To deny children the opportunity to experiment within the classroom and to become aware of their bodies and their sexuality is to deny the exquisite orgasmic pleasure. Such was the argument of a group of French intellectuals seeking to radically lower the age of consent. Cuties was only offensive to those stuck in the past. Then of course is the introduction of drag queens to primary school story hour in the name of inclusivity and respect in a democratic society. One particular case I have direct knowledge of was that the drag act was allowed access to children without even the mandatory background check that you or I would need to enter a classroom (even though I am a qualified teacher who has previously taught), they even had an explicit website dedicated to all things gay and all things pornographic.
Idealogues within local authorities and schools were falling over each other trying to introduce sexualised content all the way down to kindergarten and to champion Pride marches with no parental right of withdrawal in either case (in the UK parents have a right to withdraw children from say religious lessons or some other lesson that would be a violation of important beliefs), academics are now talking about “pre-kindergarten” sex-ed and “age-appropriate” content – problem is, you would have a 15-certificate on a film for some of that material. National morning shows showcase child drag acts, “family friendly” drag shows for the whole family where young children are encouraged to perform with the gay men dressed as women.
Do we understand how “sex and children” is being normalised and why Sound of Freedom got stuck in the throat when it suggests this sexualisation of children is abuse and exploitation? That it might just make people think that premature sexualisation of children at three years old is actually not a good thing?
My own police service now has a force wide policy that paedophiles are rebranded as “minor attracted persons” MAPS). Just what does that mean? It has a technical meaning which originally distinguished those who just had “paedo-sexual” desires but never acted on them (nicely described here, https://4w.pub/cis-coined-by-pedosexual-researcher/ which also shows how tightly transsexuality is part of this mix), but it is now a sociological category adopted as a mitigation to “destigmatise”, it actually means that these are to be treated as a “protected class” with civil rights and a right to be indulged and respected for what they do and who they are; they should even have “pride” in who they are. I believe gay lawmakers in California have already legitimised what is deemed “consensual” gay sex in contexts that would have previously been considered grooming or exploiting a minor, in situations akin to say a teacher partying with 14-year old pupils and having sex (a case was prosecuted when I was teaching), or a minor present in a night club who has sex with a “consenting” underage patron (again fixed at 14).
My own personal experience with MAPS goes all the way back to the early 90s when I was working nights, I would come home 3am, get some food and this being the UK, there were just 4 channels then and only 1 of those broadcasted at 3am. It was a “gay magazine” where gay people would talk about their lives, living with AIDS (which was a big issue back then) but the paedo-section was always the most shocking to me. The “paedo” struggle for destigmatisation and recognition was always part of the new sexuality movement; it is the language we hear today, “love is love however it is expressed”, “I was born this way”, “nature (or God) has made me this way so it must be okay”, “people just want to be accepted for who they are”. There has always been a kinship between the MAPS and the Left wing of what we now call the “Pride” movement – the “radical” Left hate the family as an oppressive institution of patriarchal power, children need protecting from their parents. California again is blazing the trail for us; parents are to be classed as “child abusers” if they refuse to affirm the “gender identity” of their child. The British “Paedophile Exchange” used to share a postal address with the National Council for Civil Liberties (a British imitation of the ACLU) – see the idea that paedophiles are some kind of marginalised minority suffering from the legacy of oppressive and repressive patriarchal structures?
However, the muddled use of “gender identity” is a part of the problem – gender can be defined in terms of sociological categories or biological categories, and they are distinct senses of the term. The conflation of the two is part of the problem – just because the sociological concept of gender is relatively “fluid” in the sense of the roles of male and female change both within a culture and between a culture, that does not validate “fluid” being applied to biological gender. Someone does not change their biological gender even if they undergo surgeries and hormonal treatments, as those who cease taking their treatments will revert to their biological gender, false vaginas will heal up if allowed to, false penises fall off, with the Mengelite surgical practices often damaging bodies and quality of life as detransitioners have documented.
It is desperately socially irresponsible to market “transsexuality” as legitimate sexuality with an equal status to “cis” sexuality. It conspires to make sexuality a bit like clothing, I can swap them in and out and anything goes, it is part of my creativity and living life to the full. Yet, it is biological nonsense to create a medical label such as “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria”, such is a marketing campaign for those wishing to normalise deviant sex and open up the way for those wanting to exert their will to get what they want out of sex, including sex with children. This is recognised within the radical feminist movement for those now disrespectfully labelled TERFS, Tran Exclusionary Radical Feminists, Genevieve Gluck and Germaine Greer are outcasts from the movement they were once the spokeswomen of for stating the obvious, “Cis women, genetic women, uterus-havers, pregnant people, surrogates — all of these terms are linguistic power plays to assert male dominance over the female sex by dehumanizing us.” Well said, but it is not “male” dominance so much, but it is the ideology that wants to deny there is any objective category as “male” or “female” and as a corollary asserts that all sex, any sex is legitimate and legitimated because I should be free to be me. Thus, sex with children is my thing and who are you to tyrannise over me?
Mixed in with heady mix are legitimate observations about sociological dimensions to adulthood, a hundred years and fifty years ago many children would probably work with their parents almost as soon as they could walk; for all intents and purposes they are adults and can consent. Rites of passage are often as young as 11. Our Holy Mary was probably only 14. Romany grant “married” status to relationships of young teenagers – but they also suffer large problems because of it, where women especially escape abusive situations. Adolescence and teenagers was an invention to cater to the teenage market that emerged in the 1950s. This is said to legitimise other parts of the world which have gringo-friendly sex tourism beeches where within 30 minutes you can have whatever age you like. For many it is just their way of life, Westerners come wanting their children, they can sell them, so they do, their parents had to sell themselves, c’est la vie. The UN has also been quietly (until they got found out) manoeuvring to create a legal framework that establishes a minor’s right to consensual sex; one of the authors of the document noted that it was his experience as a “gay man” which motivated him to write what he did. One way to remove the embarrassment of sex tourism is to make it legal.
So, the big problem with The Sound of Freedom is that it is a direct affront to the second sexual revolution we are calling “Pride” and those film critics, the educated liberals who know their ideology, understand that. It embarrasses them that a filmmaker that does not follow their Hollywood rules or ideology has been successful. This film is made by those who do not share their values and would undo all their “progress” if this turns into a movement. Trump happened and they do not want it happening again which is why absolutely all the stops have been pulled out to try and pin anything, something on Trump whilst giving their own a mere slap on the wrist for what looks to be major money laundering and treasonous influence peddling. It might make people actually think that sexualising children is wrong. It might make them think that the life of children has value – even children in the womb. It might make people think that a sex addiction fed by Hollywood content and actors famous for their advocation of lascivious and concupiscent lifestyles is unacceptable and that goes after their money. It might make them fire their corrupt lawmakers pushing those agendas who cannot bring themselves to strengthen anti-child trafficking legislation despite bipartisan support (the reasons they gave was “[it] unfairly punishes disadvantaged communities” but it is okay to sanction the disadvantaging of trafficked children, see https://www.theepochtimes.com/failure-of-child-sex-trafficking-bill-in-california-assembly-committee-sparks-outrage_5395226.html ); and they might even disinvest from brands making sexual identity a pivot for their brand. There might be some kind of joining of the dots that there is a reason why those advocating for Minor Attracted Persons are the most vociferous in their support of Pride.