Daily Wire Is Making a Rival ‘Snow White’ Movie,

Trolling Disney
The conservative media company released a teaser trailer for 'Snow White and the Evil Queen,' starring
YouTuber Brett Cooper, following backlash over Disney's upcoming 'Snow White' starring Rachel Zegler.

Conservative media company The Daily Wire announced it is making a live-

action Snow White movie following right-wing backlash over Disney’s
upcoming live-action Snow White.

Titled Snow White and the Evil Queen, the movie (teaser trailer below) stars
YouTuber Brett Cooper as the princess in a film based on the original Brothers
Grimm fairy tale, which is now in the public domain.
“It’s a story about a princess and a prince, about beauty and vanity, about love
and its power to raise us from death to life,” said Daily Wire co-founder Jeremy
Boreing. “It’s our own adaptation of an ancient fairy tale.” Boreing made the
announcement when launching Bentkey, Daily Wire’s new kids’ entertainment
brand that seeks to take on Disney+ at a time when some conservatives have
grown frustrated with the legacy studio. “It’s taken 100 years to build Disney,”
Boreing added. “We know we aren’t what Disney is today, but we hope in
time we might become what they were, once upon a time: a little studio with
big ideas and the courage to chase them. … While Disney still uses Walt’s
name, they have all but abandoned his legacy.” (Boreing’s statement continued
along those lines.)

Cooper hosts the Daily Wire-produced show The Comments Section With
Brett Cooper. “I was raised on the original Grimms’ Fairy Tales, so I’m
thrilled that we’re bringing this iconic story to life for the next generation!”
Cooper said. “Snow White is such a beautiful character, and I’m honored to be
playing her. Like all the best fairy tales, this is a story with timeless values,
like love, friendship, and kindness, and I can’t wait to share them.”

The move follows Disney’s upcoming live-action remake of 1937’s Snow

White and the Seven Dwarfs generating some culture-war controversy.

First, conservative critics took issue with the casting of Latina

star Zegler (West Side Story) as a character described in the original Brothers
Grimm story as having “skin as white as snow,” and the production changing
the formerly titular seven dwarfs into a diverse collection of magical creatures
of varying sizes and genders.
Then 22-year-old Zegler caused a stir when a flurry of her comments from late
last year resurfaced over the summer that suggested she didn’t like the original
film and that the new movie would take a very different approach to the iconic
character.

“She’s not going to be dreaming about true love,” Zegler told Variety in
September. “She’s dreaming about becoming the leader she knows she can be
and the leader that her late father told her that she could be if she was fearless,
fair, brave, and true.” She previously told Vanity Fair, “People are making
these jokes about ours being the PC Snow White, where it’s like, yeah, it is —
because it needed that.” She told EW the original is “extremely dated when it
comes to the ideas of women being in roles of power and what a woman is fit
for in the world.” And she told Extra TV: “The original cartoon came out in
1937, and very evidently so. There’s a big focus on her love story with a guy
who literally stalks her. Weird. So we didn’t do that this time.”

Then The Telegraph did an interview with David Hand, who worked as a
designer for Disney in the 1990s and whose father (also named David Hand)
was one of the directors of the original film. Hand didn’t directly criticize
Zegler, but unloaded pretty heavily on the new film (which has not yet been
seen by anyone outside the studio, even in trailer form).
“It’s a whole different concept and I just totally disagree with it, and I know
my dad and Walt would also very much disagree with it,” Hand said. He called
it a “disgrace” that Disney is “trying to do something new with something that
was such a great success earlier. … Their thoughts are just so radical now.
They change the stories, they change the thought process of the characters. …
They’re making up new woke things and I’m just not into any of that. I find it
quite frankly a bit insulting [what] they may have done with some of these
classic films. … There’s no respect for what Disney did and what my dad did.
… I think Walt and he would be turning in their graves.”

Snow White and the Evil Queen is coming sometime in 2024. Disney’s Snow
White is set for theaters on March 22, 2024. The studio had no immediate
comment on the Daily Wire project.

We are sacrificing our children on the altar of a

brutal, far-Left ideology
The medical profession is crumbling in response to radical transgender activists
JORDAN PETERSON16 June 2022 • 5:00pm
There is good evidence that many ancient societies sacrificed children to their gods. Parents
in ancient Phoenician colonies in Carthage, Sicily, Sardinia and Malta slew their offspring prior to
cremating them, hoping that the gods would hear their voices and bless them.
We are rightly appalled by this, though sometimes I wonder whether we understand child sacrifice
far more than we’d like to admit.

I saw a video the other day featuring an American surgeon bragging that he had performed more
than 3,000 double mastectomies on young women who had paid for gender reassignment,
individuals confused – one might say encouraged – by those who profit from it into believing that
their adolescent emotional trials can be ‘cured’, and happiness reign forever, if they subject
themselves to this brutal practice.
And it is brutal – a process that often includes not only the aforementioned mastectomies but
other appalling surgical processes: orchiectomy (that’s castration, in blunter language), the
removal of the uterus, the demolition of the musculature of the forearm to make what is not a
penis but must be referred to as such – all of that.

For someone purporting to be a physician to perform this on children, to me at least, seems like
something worthy of a prison sentence.

Whatever happened to the doctrine expressed by the ancient language as primum non nocere –
first, do no harm?
The Hippocratic Oath has been replaced by a delusion: a belief that can be summarised as ‘by
blocking the puberty of children, and then surgically altering them, we are only restoring what is
theirs by right. A child’s feelings are the final arbiters of their reproductive destiny, and any
attempt to contest their gender identity risks increasing their proclivity for suicide’.

Lies. Lies. Lies. Then butchery.

Changing standards
Psychologists – those in my own personal field of medicine – have also surrendered to this
groupthink. The American Psychological Association’s ‘Task Force on Guidelines for Psychological
Practice with Transgender and Gender Nonconforming People (TGNC)’ insists that psychologists
and other professional counsellors offer “trans-affirmative” care, starting with such niceties as
displaying “TGNC-affirmative resources in waiting areas”. Practitioners are also asked to examine
“how their language (e.g. use of incorrect pronouns and names) may reinforce the gender binary in
overt or subtle and unintentional ways”.

These guidelines first read like a manual of indoctrination written by Marxist ideologues, and
second like a document designed to undermine and destroy the practice of therapy itself.

But at an alarming rate these ‘guidelines’ have transformed themselves into punitive laws
governing what a psychologist or counsellor may say and think in relation to their clients.

Let me make myself perfectly clear: speaking as a professional, whether in America, Britain, or
anywhere, it is not the place of a therapist to “affirm” or, conversely, to deny, the “identity” of
anyone whom they take into their care. People come to see a therapist, often after long and painful
deliberation, because they are suffering, confused, or both. The job of that therapist is to listen, to
question, and proceed with due caution, neither providing cheap advice (and thereby stealing their
client’s successes or heaping failure upon them) nor assuming special knowledge of the proper
outcome for a given individual.
There is simply no way that I would ever tell an 18-year old woman that she is absolutely correct if
sometimes she feels more masculine than feminine (however that feeling might emerge), and that
if she feels that surgery is the answer then recommend hormones that day. I would instead spend
many weeks, perhaps even months or years, listening to her unwrap her story, using caution as my
watchword, and help her come to some thorough and well-developed understanding of both her
autobiographical history and her destiny.
That is not “affirmation” and neither is it “denial.” How could I possibly dare to do either when
someone has come to me because they are mixed up and desperate – a state of twinned experience
indicating a profound confusion about identity itself?

Radical new guidelines

I am focusing on the American Psychological Association (APA) because it is the body charged
with establishing the norms and ideals for clinical practice in the most populous democracy on
Earth – principles that will, and are, spreading around the West more broadly, including in
Britain. Some of their ‘guidelines’ are appalling enough to deserve dissection:
“Guideline 1. Psychologists understand that gender is a nonbinary construct that allows for a
range of gender identities and that a person’s gender identity may not align with sex assigned at
birth.”
I don’t understand this radical postmodern definition of gender, one that rests on a person’s
“deeply felt” or “inherent sense” of being one sex over another, regardless of biology.

Psychologically it is indisputably the case that a non-trivial proportion of males have a feminine
temperament (which essentially means that they experience higher levels of negative emotions
such as anxiety and the analogs of pain – grief, frustration, disappointment, depression) and are
more agreeable (compassionate/polite) than typical males, and equally true that a non-trivial
proportion of females have a masculine temperament. But this does not change how, objectively,
professionals should measure a person’s gender.

Psychologists once cared if measurement followed standard practices of validity and reliability. Try
reading, for example, a document published by the APA itself in 2014, where you will learn that a
psychologist worth their salt is obliged to utilise “constructs” (i.e. terms such as “gender”) in a
technically appropriate manner. This means, at the very least, that fundamental attributes must be
measurable and measured properly.

But all that goes out the window when we are discussing the magic of “gender” now, which is
entirely subjectively defined, even though that insistence indubitably contravenes the earlier
standards. But feelings über alles, folks. And it's no joke. Particularly if you’re 15, and have
undergone surgery that makes you incapable of reproducing, often to foster someone else’s sense
of moral superiority or sense of self-attributed “compassion”– a word that increasingly makes me
shudder when I encounter it.
New doctrines
Psychologists are also now adopting the simple-minded and anything-but-revolutionary doctrine
of “intersectionality” without question. And what is that doctrine? Nothing more than the claim
that human beings are characterised by identities that span multiple dimensions. Any given person
has a race, ethnicity, sex, temperament (five dimensions there alone), intelligence level, etc. We’ve
known that forever. It's only become a hot cultural item since fools noted the obvious fact that
minority status might be additive or multiplicative. I hate to even point that out given that anyone
with any sense whatsoever also knew, without any statistical training, that it was possible to be of
Latino extraction, say (or even ‘LatinX’, to use that absurd, demeaning and patronising term) and
female simultaneously.

One cannot question this, however, without fear of being ostracised by one’s colleagues. Note the
chilling wording of Guideline 7:

“Psychologists understand the need to promote social change that reduces the negative effects of
stigma on the health and well-being of TGNC people.”
In summary: if you’re not an activist (and one of our activists) then you better be watching over
your shoulder.

So what should govern my behaviour as a therapist, and your expectations as a client? The answer
to that is: whatever the activists deem a priority at their whim. And remember that in court, folks.
Active malevolence
I’m increasingly ashamed to be a clinical psychologist given the utter cowardice, spinelessness and
apathy that characterises many colleagues and even more so my professional associations. At least
in 20 years when we all come to regret this terrible social experiment I will be able to say “I said no
when they all came to insist that we participate in the sacrifice of our children.” Other
countries, and Britain in particular, must not make the same mistakes as in the US and elsewhere.
I cannot consent to what we are doing. I cannot abide by what have become the doctrines of my
discipline. I believe that the acts of the medical ‘professional’ rushing to disfigure, sterilise, and
harm young people with what are clearly ill-advised, dangerous, experimental procedures cross the
line from ‘do no harm’ to outright harm.

Only if we bury our heads in the sand will sterility, impaired or absent sexual function, complex
reactions to poorly understood hormones, expense – and, intermingled with all that, misery and
confusion – continue for countless young people. We must address the threat posed to the
integrity of the entire education system as indoctrination into the same philosophy that spawned
this surgical enterprise and the APA ‘guidelines’ grows. It threatens general public trust that our
peace and prosperity depends upon.

And, by the way: it will definitely be the case that a disproportionate number of children “freed”
from their gender confusion would have grown up to be physically intact and fully functional gay
adults. Need I point out that this unpalatable fact makes a mockery of any claim that the extended
alphabet world of the LGBTQ+ coterie constitutes a homogeneous and unified “community.”

We have crossed the line from ideological possession to active malevolence – and we are
multiplying our sin (there’s an intersection for you) by attributing our appalling actions to
“compassion”. Heaven help us. Truly.