“State Farm tells us they’re a good neighbor, but would a good neighbor target 5-year-olds for conversations about sexual identity?” the narrator says in a video posted Monday by the conservative group Consumers’ Research. “That’s what State Farm is doing.”

Hours after a report about the partnership prompted an online uproar from conservatives, State Farm announced that it was dropping its support of the GenderCool Project, aimed at helping raise awareness around what it means to be transgender, inclusive and nonbinary.



Tips to win:

  1. When you are landing punches – keep punching.

Now is not the time to back down.

  1. When you are in the middle of a fight, don’t start a new fight with another enemy.

Do not expand the fight, keep fighting this fight until you win. The fight is removing the groomers from elementary schools – removing Queer Child Sex Abuse Material (CSAM) from public schools. That’s it, win this fight then you can get into another fight.

State Farm spokesman Roszell Gadson confirmed to The Washington Post on Tuesday that the insurance company had ended its support of GenderCool after it had “been the subject of news and customer inquiries.”

Consider this:

“Conversations about gender and identity should happen at home with parents,” Gadson said in a statement. “We don’t support required curriculum in schools on this topic. We support organizations providing resources for parents to have these conversations. We no longer support the program allowing for distribution of books in schools.”

The Corporate Flak is covering their corporate asses. The real question is, why was State Farm – an insurance company – even involved in such things in the first place?

There should not be corporate tax breaks for giving to NGOs in the first place. If there is money to give to non-profits, it should go to either the consumer in the form of lower prices, or the shareholders in the form of larger dividends.

Allowing corporations to fund NGOs is a huge part of the problem. Why should for-profit corporations, nominally owned by “the public” while in actuality controlled by Oligarchs – the same ones that bribe government officials – be engaged in any “charity” – i.e. “Social Engineering” – at all?

Instead of a tax break, they should pay a tax penalty for ever getting involved in such things.