By Ryan Thompson, Disruptarian.com

April 10, 2025

In a heart-wrenching interview with Soft White Underbelly, Jeff Younger shares his decade-long struggle against the medical transition of his young son—a battle that exemplifies the growing tension between parental rights and an increasingly aggressive gender ideology.

Younger’s story began when his twin sons were just toddlers. His then-wife, a pediatrician, started telling one of their sons, James, that he was a girl. What followed was a nightmare of family court manipulation, political influence, and the systematic removal of a father from his children’s lives—all because he refused to participate in what he views as harm to his child.

“Imagine you have children that you’re close with, and you’re put in a chair, and a judge brings your children into the room and initially threatens to sexually mutilate them,” Younger describes. “And you have to sit there and remain totally calm in the slow-motion sexual abuse of your child.”

The first alarm bells rang when Younger’s son was only three years old. He recorded a video (now available on YouTube under “Mommy says I’m a girl”) where his young son explained that his mother had told him he was a girl. According to Younger, his ex-wife would put their son in timeout saying, “Don’t be a boy. The monsters only eat boys,” and began socially transitioning him shortly after.

What’s particularly disturbing about this case is that James reportedly never presented as a girl with anyone but his mother. With his father, at church, with friends, he dressed as a boy and used his birth name. When asked why he presented as a girl with his mother, the child reportedly said, “Mommy doesn’t love me if I’m not a girl.”

Most alarming was Younger’s discovery in medical records that his ex-wife and a pediatrician were planning to chemically castrate James at age eight or nine—years before puberty would naturally begin. This discovery launched Younger into a six-year battle to outlaw such procedures in Texas, which he eventually won, though at tremendous personal cost.

The family court system, according to Younger, served as the mechanism through which his parental rights were systematically stripped away. After winning a jury trial for 50/50 custody in 2019, Younger describes how a new judge transferred his case and gradually eliminated his access to his children through a series of manipulative legal maneuvers.

“They give you an order that you can’t follow,” Younger explains about family court tactics. “They try to find out what the father can’t do or won’t do, and then they construct orders which force him to violate the orders, and then they take his kids from him.”

For Younger, the line was drawn at three principles: never hurting his son, never morally miseducating his son, and never letting his resources be used to hurt his son. When supervised visitation required him to use a female name and pronouns for his son—which Younger believes would harm his child—he refused, creating the pretext for further restrictions.

Eventually, the Texas courts allowed his ex-wife to relocate with the children to California, where laws not only permit but in some cases mandate gender-affirming care. While Younger believes his son is currently on puberty blockers, he hopes that recent federal executive action may prevent more invasive interventions like cross-sex hormones.

“Every child that goes onto cross-sex hormones, 100% of them go to surgery,” Younger claims, highlighting the stakes of his continued fight.

The political dimensions of this case are striking. Younger alleges that powerful donors and organizations on both sides of the political spectrum have actively worked to promote childhood gender transitions. He specifically points to Republican mega-donor Paul Singer, founder of the Human Rights Campaign, as a major force behind the movement, explaining why Younger faced such strong opposition even in conservative Texas.

His case reveals how family courts can become weaponized against parents who oppose the medical transition of their children. Court-appointed counselors reportedly asked leading questions of his sons, trying to establish that Younger was “authoritarian,” while his ex-wife’s characterization of him as “misogynistic” was accepted without scrutiny.

Most disturbingly, Younger now faces the prospect of imprisonment for his stance. “The state of California says that I have to pay for the chemical and physical castration of my son as child support,” he explains. “I’m not going to pay that child support. I’m not going to pay anything to hurt my son, and that means I’ll be going to prison.”

Despite the tremendous emotional toll, Younger maintains a remarkable calm and focus on the long game. “No matter what happens to James, there’s nothing that he can do, no mistake he can make that’s so bad he can’t get to heaven,” he reflects, revealing the spiritual foundation that has sustained him.

His approach to managing despair comes from his father’s boxing advice: when everything seems hopeless, just make your situation 1% better. “When I’m down, I just get to work and make the situation 1% better for James,” whether through writing letters, speaking with officials, or advising other parents facing similar situations.

Younger’s story represents a growing pattern across the country where parents who oppose the medical transition of their children face severe legal consequences. His case demonstrates how the institutions designed to protect children can be manipulated to override parental concerns when those concerns conflict with prevailing ideological trends.

For parents facing similar battles, Younger’s advice is straightforward: document everything, avoid signing court orders that surrender your rights, and maintain your principles even under extreme pressure. Most importantly, “save James, save thousands of children,” as he puts it—recognizing that his fight extends beyond his own family.

As Parental Alienation Awareness Day approaches on April 25-26, Younger’s story reminds us that children benefit from maintaining relationships with both parents, and that family courts should protect rather than sever these bonds. His ongoing fight—now focused on keeping his son off cross-sex hormones and changing laws in California—represents a father’s refusal to abandon his child, regardless of the personal cost.

In a nation increasingly divided on fundamental questions about human identity and child development, Younger’s case may prove to be, as he puts it, “the Fisher point…the issue which defines all of the other differences.” For parents caught in similar struggles, his resilience offers both warning and inspiration.

Spun Web Technology SMART SEO

By Ryan Thompson, Disruptarian.com

As we approach Parental Alienation Awareness Day on April 25th and 26th, 2025, I find myself reflecting on my own journey through one of the most painful experiences a parent can face. Parental alienation—the systematic effort to damage a child’s relationship with a loving parent—remains largely hidden in the shadows of family court systems worldwide, despite affecting countless families.

The Beginning of My Story

In May 2015, I created an online group dedicated to documenting cases of parental alienation. This wasn’t a random interest or casual advocacy—it was born from my growing fear that the threats I’d been hearing from my then-wife might become reality. “I’ll turn the kids against you if you divorce me,” she had warned during our deteriorating relationship. Despite these warnings, I held onto hope that reconciliation was possible, that the loving relationship we once shared could be restored.

That hope gradually faded as our marriage continued to unravel. Between 2014 and 2020, I filed for divorce three times—first in Idaho, then twice in Hawaii—finally completing the process in February 2020. During this period, my son briefly relocated with me to Seattle for about four months, until the pandemic forced us to change our plans.

When Alienation Takes Root

The true crisis point came when I discovered that my ex-wife had begun painting a distorted picture of me to our mutual friends. Despite my efforts as an engaged father—changing countless diapers, feeding our children, working from home to provide support, and maintaining multiple jobs to ensure financial stability—I was suddenly characterized as “misogynistic” and uninvolved in household responsibilities.

While these accusations were personally hurtful, what truly cemented my decision to proceed with divorce was when she began attributing similar attitudes to our son. She claimed he had refused to clean his room, allegedly saying he “didn’t have to because he had sisters.” When I questioned him about this incident, he denied saying it. Knowing my son’s character—his honesty, his diplomatic nature, his ability to see multiple perspectives—I believed him.

What likely happened was a typical teenage moment of resistance (“No, how about my sisters do it, I’m busy”) that was reframed and weaponized as evidence of developing misogyny. This subtle distortion represents the insidious nature of parental alienation—taking normal childhood behaviors and recontextualizing them to fit a narrative that serves the alienating parent’s goals.

The Transformation

Over time, I’ve witnessed profound changes in my children. My son, once a cape-wearing, energetic boy who embodied traditional “boy” energy, has undergone a significant transformation in his personality and self-expression. My daughter has begun taking testosterone as part of gender-affirming care. While I support my children’s authentic journeys of self-discovery, I cannot help but question the timing and context of these changes, occurring in an environment that I believe has systematically undermined my relationship with them.

The home environment my children now inhabit is significantly different from the one we shared during our marriage. Their stepparent has introduced different values and lifestyle choices than those we had established during our marriage. This isn’t inherently problematic—families evolve and change—but when combined with active alienation tactics, it creates a perfect storm for parental estrangement.

The Broader Context of Parental Alienation

Parental alienation isn’t just about high-conflict divorces or custody battles. It reflects deeper societal tensions about family structures, gender roles, and children’s autonomy. When wielded as a weapon in divorce, it becomes particularly destructive, causing lasting psychological harm to children caught in the middle.

Research has consistently shown that children benefit from maintaining healthy relationships with both parents after divorce, barring situations of abuse or neglect. Yet parental alienation disrupts this possibility, forcing children to reject a previously loved parent based on manipulated perceptions.

As we recognize Parental Alienation Awareness Day this April 25th and 26th, 2025, we must acknowledge that this issue transcends political divides. It’s not about conservative versus progressive values, but about children’s fundamental right to love and be loved by both parents.

Moving Forward with Hope

Despite the challenges I’ve faced, I’ve maintained documentation of my experiences—not to dwell on the past, but to preserve the truth for my children. I believe that someday, when they’re older and able to process these complex dynamics, they’ll have access to another perspective on our family story.

I’ve chosen to remain present in their lives, however peripherally I’m allowed to be, rather than remove myself entirely. This decision wasn’t easy. The pain of being systematically pushed out of your children’s lives can feel unbearable. There were times when suicidal thoughts darkened my horizon, but I persisted for one reason: my children might need me someday.

If you’re experiencing parental alienation, know that you’re not alone. The isolation can feel overwhelming, but there are resources available:

• Join support groups specifically for targeted parents
• Document everything—keep a detailed journal of incidents and communications
• Work with therapists who understand parental alienation
• Advocate for parental alienation awareness in your community
• Maintain appropriate boundaries while leaving the door open for reconciliation

The most important thing is to never give up hope. Children grow up. Their understanding evolves. Their capacity for critical thinking develops. What seems like permanent estrangement today may transform into healing tomorrow.

As we mark Parental Alienation Awareness Day this year, I invite you to learn more about this issue, to support affected families, and to advocate for family court reforms that recognize and address parental alienation for what it is—a form of emotional abuse that harms children and parents alike.

For those walking this difficult path: stay strong. Your truth matters. Your love matters. And someday, your children may come to understand that.

Ryan Thompson is the founder of Disruptarian.com, where he advocates for awareness of complex social issues, including parental alienation.

Spun Web Technology SMART SEO

By Ryan Thompson, The Punk Rock Libertarian

In our latest episode of Disruptarian Radio, I sat down with our brilliant Seattle-based political correspondent Alexandra to dissect what many libertarians have been cautiously celebrating: the first 100 days of Trump’s return to office and Elon Musk’s unprecedented role in government. The conversation revealed something that mainstream media consistently misses—beneath the bombastic tweets and media frenzy lies a genuine shift toward libertarian principles that deserves our attention.

The Non-Aggression Foundation

Before diving into policy specifics, we established the crucial libertarian lens through which we’d evaluate these two disruptors: the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP). This cornerstone of libertarian philosophy is elegantly simple yet profoundly revolutionary—no person or group, including government, has the right to initiate force, fraud, or coercion against another person or their property.

As Alexandra brilliantly distilled it: “Don’t hurt people and don’t take their stuff.” This straightforward principle gives us the perfect framework to assess whether Trump and Musk are genuinely advancing liberty or just offering more of the same statist policies in different packaging.

Peace Through Strength: Trump’s Foreign Policy Revolution

Perhaps the most striking libertarian alignment in Trump’s first 100 days has been his foreign policy approach. While establishment politicians from both parties have consistently expanded American military intervention across the globe—with Obama starting or escalating conflicts in seven different countries—Trump has maintained his “peace through strength” doctrine.

Rather than bombing countries into submission, Trump has reopened diplomatic channels with Russia, applied economic pressure on China without military threats, and returned to direct engagement with North Korea. This represents a fundamental break from the military-industrial complex that has dominated American foreign policy for decades.

As Alexandra noted during our discussion, “Trump’s approach is about having the strongest military in the world and using that strength to avoid wars, not start them.” For libertarians who have long advocated for non-interventionism, this shift represents a significant step toward reducing America’s role as “world police” and respecting the sovereignty of other nations.

Economic Liberty: Deregulation and Market Freedom

When it comes to economic policy, Trump’s first 100 days have maintained the momentum from his previous term. His “two regulations out for every new one in” policy has continued dismantling the regulatory state that strangles small businesses and innovation.

What’s particularly notable from a libertarian perspective is how these deregulatory efforts benefit everyday Americans, not just corporate interests. By rolling back restrictive EPA regulations, energy costs have decreased for average families. By reducing the bureaucratic burden on businesses, more capital becomes available for expansion, hiring, and innovation.

The push to make previous corporate tax cuts permanent while extending tax relief to middle-class families aligns with the libertarian view that taxation—especially on labor—is fundamentally immoral. As Alexandra powerfully argued, “Income tax is claiming ownership over part of your productivity, your life energy. It’s essentially partial slavery.”

Musk: The Libertarian Disruptor Within

Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of our analysis centered on Elon Musk’s unprecedented role heading the Department of Government Efficiency. Rather than being absorbed by the Washington bureaucracy, Musk has become a wrecking ball to it—identifying billions in wasteful spending while bringing radical transparency to government operations.

What makes Musk’s approach distinctly libertarian is his fundamental questioning of government’s role. As Alexandra observed, “He’s not becoming part of the system. He’s dismantling it from within.” His habit of publicly exposing ridiculous government programs and naming the bureaucrats responsible represents a level of accountability that Washington has never experienced.

Musk’s commitment to free speech principles—demonstrated first at Twitter/X and now within government—further reinforces his libertarian credentials. By exposing how federal agencies pressured social media companies to silence certain voices, he’s confronting one of the most insidious threats to liberty in our digital age.

The Immigration Nuance

Our discussion also tackled the thorny issue of immigration—where libertarian principles often face practical tensions. In an ideal libertarian world, the free movement of people would be as sacred as the free movement of goods. However, as Alexandra articulated, the reality of forced taxation and massive entitlement systems creates a contradiction.

“American citizens are forced—under threat of imprisonment—to pay into systems like Social Security, Medicare, and welfare programs their entire working lives. Then immigrants can immediately access many of these same benefits without having paid into the system,” she explained.

Trump and Musk’s approach to immigration, while not perfectly libertarian, represents a pragmatic recognition of this tension. By prioritizing control over who can access benefits while working toward economic systems that reduce dependency on government, they’re taking steps toward a more sustainable version of immigration liberty.

Direction Over Perfection

Perhaps the most important takeaway from our discussion was the recognition that libertarianism in action isn’t about ideological purity—it’s about direction. As Alexandra persuasively argued, “Liberty isn’t about some kind of perfect purity test that everyone fails. It’s about whether we’re moving toward more freedom or less freedom.”

When compared to historical libertarian figures like Ron Paul or Barry Goldwater, Trump and Musk certainly fall short of ideological perfection. They’re not calling to end the Federal Reserve or abolish income tax outright. But they are consistently pushing against the tide of government expansion when nearly every other political figure is arguing for more state control.

The Path Forward

As we wrapped up our discussion, Alexandra offered a challenge to libertarian-minded listeners who might be skeptical about supporting these imperfect allies: “Politics is messy, and change happens incrementally. So if you care about liberty, support the people moving us toward more freedom, even if they don’t check every box on your libertarian wish list.”

This pragmatic approach to advancing liberty deserves serious consideration. While purists might scoff at the compromises and contradictions in Trump and Musk’s approaches, the direction they’re pushing—toward smaller government, greater individual freedom, and reduced bureaucratic control—represents the most significant advance for libertarian principles in modern American politics.

As we continue monitoring their actions in the coming months, we’ll be watching budget negotiations, regulatory reforms, and bureaucratic restructuring for signs of continued commitment to liberty principles. The resistance from the entrenched administrative state will be fierce, but for the first time in decades, we have powerful figures willing to challenge the status quo and push America toward greater freedom.

In a political landscape where true liberty is rarely on the menu, Trump and Musk are serving up something revolutionary—even if it’s not the perfect libertarian feast some might demand.

Ryan Thompson is the host of Disruptarian Radio and founder of Disruptarian.com, where he covers politics, culture, and technology from a libertarian perspective.

Spun Web Technology SMART SEO

By Ryan Thompson – Punk Rock Libertarian

For my entire adult life before 2024, I had never supported or voted for a Republican or Democrat. Not once. The first time I ever felt confident backing a mainstream politician from one of the two major parties was when Donald Trump ran for office a third time.

Why?

Because, imperfect as he may be, Trump amplifies the world I want to see—for myself and for my children.

The Libertarian Volunteerist Ideal

My political philosophy has always been rooted in maximum freedom, maximum accountability, and minimal government coercion. I’ve modeled my views after figures like:

• Ron Paul (the gold standard for liberty-minded governance)
• Peter McWilliams (who fought for personal freedom until his tragic death)
• Barry Goldwater (the original anti-establishment conservative)
• Rand Paul (keeping the libertarian flame alive in the Senate)

On my various YouTube channels (dating back to the mid-2000s), I’ve championed:

1. “Do what you want, pay for yourself.”
   • Not a free-for-all crime spree, but true freedom under the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP).
   • You own your life, your labor, and your property—no exceptions.
2. No unnecessary foreign wars.
   • We have nearly 700 military bases worldwide.
   • We’ve become “Team America: World Police” (thanks, Mike Judge), meddling in regime changes, oil wars, and conflicts fueled by the Military-Industrial Complex.
   • Obama started/surged 7 conflicts in 7 different nations. Trump? Zero new wars.
3. Sensible taxation—but never on labor.
   • If someone owns your labor (in whole or in part), you’re a slave.
   • The IRS is unconstitutional and immoral—it should be disbanded.
   • Without heavy taxation & entitlements, borders become less of an issue (since migration isn’t a fiscal drain).
4. Fiscally conservative, morally liberal.
   • The government shouldn’t fund abortion, transgender surgeries, drag queen story hour, or any other socially controversial activity.
   • Let people live freely—but don’t force others to pay for it.

Trump: The Most Peaceful President in My Lifetime

Say what you will about Trump’s personality—but he didn’t start any new wars. Instead, he practiced peace through strength, engaging diplomatically with rivals (North Korea, Russia, China) rather than bombing them.

Economically, Trump:

• Slashed corporate taxes, boosting business growth.
• Cut regulations, freeing up innovation.
• Expanded the Child Tax Credit, helping working families.
• Implemented reciprocal tariffs (finally fighting back against the 170+ nations that tax our goods).

Elon Musk: Disrupting the Status Quo

Like Trump, Elon isn’t perfect—but he’s a disruptor. He:

• Fights government censorship (freeing Twitter/X from woke corporate control).
• Champions free speech (even when it’s unpopular).
• Rejects ESG nonsense (prioritizing merit over leftist ideology).
• Accelerates human progress (space exploration, AI, electric vehicles).

The Bottom Line

I don’t agree with everything Trump or Musk does (e.g., Trump’s bump stock ban was a betrayal). But in a world where most politicians expand government, start wars, and tax us to death, these two are pushing back—hard.

That’s why, for the first time ever, I’m supporting a mainstream candidate: Donald J. Trump.

Liberty isn’t about purity—it’s about direction. And right now, Trump and Musk are steering us toward freedom more than any other major figures.

Stay free. Stay punk.

— Ryan Thompson
Disruptarian.com | YouTube

Spun Web Technology SMART SEO

In what can only be described as a seismic shift in how the federal government operates, the first 100 days of Donald Trump’s second term have rewritten the Washington playbook. With tech maverick Elon Musk at his side heading the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), the administration has launched what supporters are calling the most aggressive campaign against government waste and fraud in American history.

The DOGE Revolution

The Department of Government Efficiency might have a playful acronym (yes, like the cryptocurrency), but its mission is deadly serious. Under Musk’s leadership, DOGE has approached government spending with the same ruthless efficiency that characterized his private sector ventures. Unlike traditional government oversight bodies that produce reports gathering dust on shelves, DOGE operates with a Silicon Valley mentality: identify problems, implement solutions, and do it at lightning speed.

What makes DOGE fundamentally different is its composition. Rather than staffing the department with career bureaucrats, Musk has assembled a team of engineers, data scientists, and efficiency experts who approach government spending as they would approach optimizing a failing company. The results have been nothing short of revolutionary.

Uncovering the Unbelievable

Among the most shocking discoveries reported by DOGE are cases that would be comical if they weren’t so alarming. Take, for instance, the case of Social Security payments reportedly going to beneficiaries who would be well over 140 years old if they were actually alive. Or perhaps most absurdly, the Small Business Administration loan allegedly approved for a nine-month-old baby.

These aren’t isolated incidents. According to information shared by DOGE, preliminary estimates suggest that up to 30% of COVID-era small business loans involved some form of fraud. This represents hundreds of billions of dollars – taxpayer money that essentially vanished into thin air.

The auditing blitz hasn’t stopped at domestic programs. International spending has come under equal scrutiny, with funding cuts to numerous overseas initiatives that, according to the administration, provided little tangible benefit to American citizens.

Real-Time Accountability

Perhaps the most disruptive aspect of DOGE’s approach has been its commitment to radical transparency. When resistance is encountered, issues are broadcast in real-time on social media. This unprecedented level of public accountability has sent shockwaves through a system long accustomed to operating in the shadows.

By publicizing their findings as they happen, Trump and Musk have effectively crowdsourced government oversight, allowing millions of Americans to witness the inner workings of federal spending decisions that were previously hidden behind layers of bureaucracy and technical jargon.

The Silicon Valley Approach to Government

What we’re witnessing is essentially a hostile takeover of government inefficiency. The Trump-Musk partnership has imported Silicon Valley’s “move fast and break things” ethos into the federal government. When waste is identified, funding isn’t reduced after months of committee meetings – it’s cut immediately. When fraud is discovered, criminal referrals aren’t contemplated – they’re filed.

This approach has short-circuited the traditional Washington response mechanism. Before departments can mobilize their political allies and media contacts to defend dubious programs, the programs have already been terminated. It’s government disruption at its most fundamental level.

The Free Speech Renaissance

Beyond government efficiency, Musk’s transformation of Twitter into X has created what supporters view as the last major social media platform committed to genuine free expression. The platform now serves as both a tool for government transparency and a digital town square where ideas can compete without the heavy-handed content moderation that characterized previous eras of social media governance.

This commitment to open discourse has made X the default platform for breaking news about government reform efforts. When DOGE uncovers instances of waste or fraud, X becomes the vehicle through which this information reaches the public, often before traditional media outlets can frame the narrative.

The Establishment Backlash

Not everyone is celebrating these developments. The response from Washington insiders and certain political quarters has been swift and severe. Protests have erupted in multiple cities, with some turning violent. There have been reports of vandalism targeting Tesla dealerships and other Musk-associated businesses.

The establishment’s panicked response suggests that something unprecedented truly is happening. Career bureaucrats, accustomed to weathering administration changes with minimal disruption to their operations, find themselves confronted by an efficiency juggernaut that shows no deference to “how things have always been done.”

The Libertarian Dream Realized?

For those with libertarian leanings, the Trump-Musk approach represents the closest thing to their governmental ideal seen in modern American politics. The administration’s focus on cutting waste, eliminating fraud, reducing foreign expenditures, and promoting free speech aligns perfectly with core libertarian values.

Figures like Ron and Rand Paul, who spent decades warning about government bloat and inefficiency, may view these developments as vindication of their long-held positions. The $400 billion in waste allegedly identified by DOGE represents not just a number, but a concrete example of what small-government advocates have been arguing for years.

What Comes Next?

As the administration moves beyond its first 100 days, the question becomes whether this disruptive momentum can be maintained. Washington’s immune system is powerful, and the forces of bureaucratic inertia have defeated previous reform efforts. The establishment is counting on Americans becoming distracted or complacent, allowing the machinery of government to gradually return to business as usual.

For the Trump-Musk efficiency revolution to succeed long-term, it will require sustained public engagement and support. If citizens remain focused on demanding accountability and celebrating when waste is eliminated, we could be witnessing the beginning of a fundamental restructuring of the federal government.

The Bottom Line

Whether you view these developments as a long-overdue correction or a concerning dismantling of important government functions likely depends on your political perspective. What’s undeniable is that the Trump-Musk partnership has introduced a new paradigm of government operation – one that prioritizes results over process, efficiency over tradition, and direct communication over institutional filtering.

The first 100 days have been characterized by disruption on a scale rarely seen in American politics. If the administration maintains this trajectory, the next several years could reshape public expectations about government performance and accountability for generations to come. For better or worse, the disruptarian revolution in Washington is well underway.

Spun Web Technology SMART SEO