When bad people are writing hit pieces about you, you know that you’re doing something right. Author Chaya Raichik of Libs of Tiktok fame knows exactly what that’s like.

Chaya is now a children’s book author, having just published No More Secrets: The Candy Cavern, available for purchase on Bravebooks.us.

As I’ve pointed out before, narrative is a valuable tool in communicating important moral lessons. This holds up whether the lesson is delivered to children or adults. While works of fiction have the notable fault of being fictional, and therefore one can make the moral anything they want, it’s still the case that these are valuable in making certain topics easier to approach.

As many of us are becoming increasingly aware, when people ask children to keep secrets, it often to the end of manipulating the child into doing or saying something that they may not otherwise do or say. And because they possess the naivete intrinsic to a child’s state of mind, children can be easily manipulated. Because of this, it’s important that we teach children to speak up when something doesn’t seem right.

While one may read this book and understandably see parallels with the current scandal involving teachers tricking children into going trans, the fact is, this book’s core lesson extends in principle to anyone who would attempt to use “keeping secrets” as part of the grooming process.

I recall from my college days that a sociology professor told the class that one of the ways that a predator can groom a child is by asking them to keep secrets. Oftentimes, it’s something subtle, like letting a naughty word slip, then asking the child not to tell their parents that they said it. If the child does tell their parents, then that’s a sign that that’s the kind of kid that the predator is better off not messing with. Sometimes, the process of grooming involves testing the waters in various ways to determine whether it’s safe to proceed. Predators are often more methodical than they are given credit for.

Similarly, we need to teach our children that if anyone tells them to keep secrets from us, it becomes really important that they share those secrets with us. Because even if that person seems like they might be fun or trusting, that person might be trying to take advantage of them in some way.

Also, big props to artist James Scrawl, whose art in this book is simply adorable.

The forces of depravity and perversity know that they’re going to lose the culture war if they were to only attempt to appeal to adults, who see their ideology for what it is. Because of this, they are pivoting to attempting to appeal to children, whose minds are still pliable, and are therefore easier to take advantage of. We need to teach our children to speak up when something doesn’t seem right.

We also have a duty to teach our children a love for the truth. After all, if our children don’t have a love of the truth in their minds, someone else can come along and fill them up with whatever they want.

Before wrapping this up, I’d like to point out a couple points of contention that leftists have concerning this book. Because, for some reason, it’s leftists who have a problem with a children’s book that encourages behavior that could keep children safe from dangerous predators. Go figure.

Pseudo-intellectuals love using the concept of projection as the “NO U” of psychology, to the point that they actually think it’s clever to point to wanting to keep children safe from predators as evidence that they are a predator.

While it’s no surprise to me that leftists have little respect for human rights, they usually keep their hands closer to themselves than to suggest that someone is subject to illegal search and seizure for raising a concern, just because that concern isn’t favorable to leftism.

I honestly cannot fathom what an ignoramus that a person would have to be to suggest that a person may be guilty of something just by saying that it’s bad to do it. To spell it out: You cannot further a thing by furthering something that is the negation of that thing.

I suspect that weshlovrcm doesn’t actually believe what he’s typing. After all, a person who forms such a stupid thought and internalizes it as a sincere conviction should lack the capacity to purchase a device and a subscription to a telecom company, in addition to whatever else he needed to do to send his message, unless a government-appointed handler set all this up for him.

Which, if that were the case, would only upset me even more, because that would mean that I indirectly paid for him to access the internet.

Not to worry, we know that those ones are a problem, too. However, pointing out that there are predators in different institutions does not mean that we are no longer concerned with the ones in the institution that we are currently discussing.

There is no need for the diversion. Or, there might be, considering that your ilk thinks that calling “projection” is clever, and that expressing concern indicates guilt.

Arbitrary second example, indicating that these people really seem to dislike churches. But here’s the thing: church attendance is not compulsory. People can decide not to attend a church, or any church. And they can decide not to bring their children with them. This contrasts with public education, which in many cases is compulsory.

If you hate churches so much, just don’t go. No one is making you. You may stand to benefit in a huge way if you were to pay attention to the sermon, but if you were to not go, churches would have slightly less problem with wishy-washy bench-warmers whose hearts are not really in it.

I pulled these nuggets off of this page. There’s more, if you care to read them. But if you’re up for smarter reading, here’s a link to purchase Raichik’s new book.