I DON’T APPRECIATE BEING DEPENDENT ON ANYTHING, BE IT BIG GOVERNMENT, BIG PHARMA OR BIG FOOD SOURCES.
MY INTEREST IS NOT FROM A PLACE OF FEAR.
MY INTEREST IS FROM A PLACE OF FREEDOM.
*For all of my blogs and posts, you can visit
https://xfoxfiles.wordpress.com/
The projected pathology of utopia carried by society today stems from a millenarian mindset as evidenced throughout history from altruistic coalitions and alliances embracing prophetic concerns during profound prime evolutionary processes and changes going forth.
These curious coalitions are frequently explained as merely opportunistic alliances, whereby certain groups make common cause with ideological opponents in pursuit of the shared sins of bringing down Western society. This explanation sure is only partly correct. What these various movements have in common goes much deeper: they are all utopian. Each in its own way wants to bring about the perfect society and to create a new man and world.
Each therefore thinks of itself as progressive; the supporters of each believe themselves to be warriors in the most noble of causes. The greens believe they will save the planet. The leftists believe they will create the brotherhood of man. The fascists believe they will purge mankind of corruption. And the Islamists believe they will create the Kingdom of God on earth.
What they all have in common however, is a totalitarian mindset in pursuit of the creation of their alternative realities. These are all worldviews that can accommodate no deviation and must therefore be imposed by coercion. Because their end product is a state of perfection, nothing can be allowed to stand in its way. This is itself a projected pathology. The belief that humanity can be shaped into a perfect form has long been the cause of the most vicious tyrannies on the planet from the French Revolution onwards. It draws towards a system that believes violence is necessary in order to destroy the old order so that utopia can arise from the ashes. Pretending to be attracted to “peace’ and in the name of “peace”, actually stands for the opposite. It needs to empathize with the “martyrs” and the downtrodden in order to vicariously validate the cause. The Third World, intrinsically noble since it is un-corrupted by the developed world, provides an apparently inexhaustible supply of such validation.
The mindset of the totalitarian true believer creates networks between groups that might be thought to have little in common. Anti capitalists, Islamists, greens and neo-fascists all build common ground between ostensible political opposites from the “far left” and “and right”. Both which are thus to reveal having deep similarities.
Indeed it is, and this left-wing character has roots in the history of fascism, which originally derived from the left. Not for nothing were the Nazis called the National Socialist Party.
Fascism was made possibly by way of thinking. It swept across Europe at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the first outcome of which was communism. Fascism was not some aberration; it was in keeping with the avant-garde and revolutionary trends in the wider European culture. Not only did it compete with Marxism for the allegiance of the masses, but its origins lay in a revision of Marxism. Whereas Marxism has opposed liberalism, which was in turn a revolt against clerical absolutism, fascism rejected both liberalism and Marxism to create a communal, anti-individualistic and antinationalist culture. Fascism wanted to rectify what it saw as the disastrous consequences of modernization: the atomization of society and alienation of the individual in a free market economy. Although it was eager to retain the benefits of technological progress, it rebelled against modernity insofar as modernity was associated with rationalism and the optimistic humanism of the eighteenth century. Fascism disdained both universalism and individualism, as well as human rights and equality.
The French Revolution held that society was made up of a collection of individuals. Fascism replaced this idea with a theory of the organic unity of the nation, which was perceived as an organism comparable to a sentient being. Absolute moral norms such as truth, justice and law existed only to serve the collective. Subconscious instinct, intuitive and irrational sentiment, emotion and enthusiasm were considered superior to rationality, which was said to deaden sensitivity. Just like communism, pre 1914 fascism attacked the existing system and aimed to destroy bourgeois culture and to reform the world by transforming the individual, it had fascination for a lot of idealistic young people. In addition to a political revolution, fascism sought to bring about a moral revolution, a profound transformation of the human spirit. A desire to create a new type of man.
The association of fascism with anti-Semitism also found echoes in communism. Despite being born into a Jewish family, Marx, who was raised as a Lutheran, was committed to hating his own race and wanted to create a new world order through society’s renunciation of Judaism altogether through the creation of a “new man”.. His letters contain dozens of derogatory references to that effect.
The progression from communism to fascism in the creation of this new world order was bridged by thinkers whose impact on our modern age cannot be overestimated. Mussolini understood both the importance of communism and the significance as indicated by how Marx’s belief that society had to be destroyed in order to build a new one. Indeed, Mussolini described socialism as “the greatest act of negation and destruction. His own followers were the new barbarians as he declared, and like all barbarians, they were the harbingers of a new civilization. Mussolini believed that while the proletariat would not bring about Marx’s socialist utopia, the revolt by the a “superman” would destroy bourgeois institutions. Thus fascism was born.
Since both fascism and communism ere joined at the hip, as it were, in seeking to create utopia, both gathered a significant following among the Western avant-garde of the early twentieth century, who thought themselves as progressive thinkers.
In the nineteenth century, the progressive intelligentsia had bestowed the “enlightened” label on a body of thought that was to feed directly into communism and later into the obscenity of the Nazi killing machine. Indeed, after reading Darwin’s Origin of Species, Marx called it “the book that contains the foundation in natural history” for his views. The thinking that led Darwin to formulate this theory of evolution contributed not only to Marxism, but also to fascism, by way of “social Darwinism” and its offshoot in eugenics, which were the orthodoxy among progressive thinkers.
These roots of social Darwinism and eugenics lay in the ideas of eighteenth century economist thinkers who had argued that the world’s human population would increase faster than the food supply unless checked by restraints such as war, famine or disease. The resulting thought was that most people should die without reproducing. Darwin admitted that his own ideas were an extension of such thought to the natural world; in turn, intellectuals developed the thinking of this Darwinian thought process into social Darwinism. (Darwinism & Freud – The two most despicable ‘rubber stamps’ ever perpetuated upon mankind.) PERIOD! *and I am NOT speaking of Scientology either.
Applying this theory of evolution to the organization of human society, social Darwinism represented progress as a kind of ladder on which humanity could climb towards perfection. This meant that the “unfit” or lesser breeds of humanity had to be discarded on the way up. Thus eugenics, the “science of selective breeding, came into being. In Victorian and Edwardian Britain, the main targets of eugenic thinking were the poor, whom the intelligentsia regarded as over breeding throwbacks to an earlier stage of evolution. There was a fear that those higher up the evolutionary ladder would be overwhelmed by lesser forms of human life. The concept of the inherent value of every individual life was therefore seen as a sentimental block to the progress of humanity. Eugenics was therefore seen as a vital tool of social progress. Early socialists were imbued with eugenic thinking.
It would not be until the full horror of Nazism became apparent, with its extermination programs against mental defectives and other issues, that both eugenics and fascism finally became discredited. Before then however, fascism did not just appeal to convinced masses, but garnered and imbued a large following among intellectuals in the humanities from a variety of political positions. Eugenics was seen as a vital tool of social progress among early socialists This change of thinking from one major train of thought and mainstream to a complete other line of thinking was however, would eventually come to an end.
This shift in thought process is to be duly noted too. For it is this very thought process that has fooled many. It is also this thought process that has many in the masses, if not the complete masses themselves, in a belief of complete and utter truth that for a time, was self evident, only to be toppled like a house of cards with the forthcoming of the real truth. A fine example is when the world truth was that the world was flat and with an edge to it, only to be discovered that it was round. The greatest political, religious and scientific minds of the time professed flatness as the absolute truth and all went along with it, just because these great minds of the time said it was so. Until that is, it was proven incorrect. This, as it is called, is a paradigm shift, and it happens throughout history and will continue to happen in the future, regardless of who wishes to believe in it.
Now here begins the bite. Perhaps the most striking continuation of fascist ideas under the guise of left wing progressive thinking lies in the modern environmental movement, with its desire to call a halt to dehumanizing modernity and return to an organic harmony with the natural world. While all this is fine and dandy, it’s not what it outwardly appears at first.
Veneration of nature and the corresponding belief that civilization corrupts man’s innate capacity for happiness and freedom go back to the eighteenth century. That world of enlightenment and reason led to movements of the left and right. The idealizing of nature, along with the theory of human evolution through survival of the fittest which predated Darwin by a hundred years, became the galvanizing force in that century among some of the most progressive thinkers of the time. And one of the principal routes taken was through the natural world.
In the mid nineteenth century, Darwinism was sowing the seeds of environmentalism, and in so doing, fed into fascism. During the interwar period, most ecological thinkers subscribed to this way of thinking. There was a particularly close association between ecologists and German nationalists, among whom a number subsequently became part of the Nazis organization. Their thinking was that nature was the life force from which Germany had been cut off, ever since the days of the Roman Empire, by the alien Christian-Judaic civilization, the source of all the anti life manifestations of urbanism.
Such ecological fixations were further developed in German Nazism. They fixated on organic food, personal health and animal welfare. Heinrich Himmler was a certified animal rights activist and an aggressive promoter of “natural healing”. Rudolf Hess, Hitler’s deputy, championed homeopathy and herbal remedies; Hitler wanted to turn the entire nation vegetarian as a response to the unhealthiness promoted by capitalism. There was top level Nazi support for ecological ideas at both ministerial and administrative levels. Even those in power within the regime professed embedding motorways organically into the landscape. They professed against land reclamation and drainage; said that classical scientific farming was a nineteenth century practice unsuited to the new era and that artificial fertilizers, fodder and insecticides were poisonous, while calling for an agricultural revolution towards a more peasant like, natural, simple method of farming independent of capital. Himmler himself established experimental organic farms including one at Dachau that grew herbs for SS medicines; a complete list of homeopathic doctors in Germany was compiled for him; and antivivisection laws were passed on his insistence. SS training included a respect for animal life of near Buddhist proportions. They did not however, show such respect of course, for the human race.
Neither does the ecological movement, for which, echoing the planet’s biggest problem is the people living on it. Even though our contemporary era has been forged in a determination that fascism must never rise again, certain sums of these ideas that were central to fascism, about the organic harmony of the earth, the elevation of animal rights and the denigration of humans as enemies of nature, are today very much present and heralded as the acme of progressive thinking, but under the guise of progressive thought and much to the bewilderment and unknowingness of current society.
An astonishing repackaging of this ideal was accomplished during the 1970’s. While Western politicians were committed to growth and a consumer society was taking off, the dread of overpopulation also grew. It is probably no coincidence that the fear of global immiseration coincided with the end of empire and the West’s loss of control over the developing world. Reports from the UN World Conference on Human Environment in 1972 preached imminent doom as a result of rising technological capacity and argued that man had to replace family or national loyalties with allegiance to the planet. The Club of Rome, which was founded also in 1972, prophesized imminent global catastrophe unless resource use was curbed, a view that the oil shock of 1973 served to further validate and embed in Western consciousness.
If ecology was to take off however, it had to shed altogether its unhappy links with fascism, racial extermination and ultra nationalism. It took a number of different opportunities to do so. During the 1960’s in both Europe and North America, it identified itself with radical left wing causes, latching on ‘alternative’ politics such as feminism and, in Britain, Celtic nationalism. In the 1970’s, it was the “small is beautiful” idea of the anti Nazi émigré that took hold.
In 1971, the president of the Soil Association in Britain, which was critical in both promoting deeply antirational ecological ideas and laundering them as fashionably progressive, which eschewed artificial fertilizers and promoted self sufficient farms as preserving the spirit of the soil. When the Soil Association was created in 1946, it embodied this ‘organic farming’ ideal. But this president of the association was also the founder of a movement called anthroposophy, which was based on the development of a non sensory or so called super sensory consciousness. It held that early stages of human evolution possessed an intuitive perception of reality, including the power of clairvoyance, which had been lost under the increasing reliance on intellect. It promoted the belief that the human being passed between stages of existence, incarnating into an earthly body, living on earth, leaving the body and entering into the spiritual domain before returning to be born again into a new life.
These essentially pagan and irrational ideas were, as we shall see later, intrinsic to ecological thinking. But they were also to surface in a remarkable new alliance between neo-Nazi doctrines and radical left wing, anti capitalist and New Age ideas. Toward the end of the 1960’s, finding itself criticized for espousing reactionary views, the Soil Association turned sharply leftwards and developed an egalitarian socio economic perspective instead. It published articles admiring Mao’s communes in China and suggested that plots of land a few acres in size should be distributed similarly among the British population.
In Germany, the green movement that emerged from the student protests of 1968 bitterly attacked the biodynamic organic farmers for their perceived authoritarianism and social Darwinist beliefs. Thus, German Greens of the 1970’s, with a considerable communist element, had less to do with ecology than with participatory democracy, egalitarianism and women’s rights.
Among radicals in America, there was a split after 1968 between those favoring organized terrorism and alternative groups. Young radicals in the latter camp, galvanized by outside inspiration, claimed that multinational capitalism was responsible for pollution. Environmental concerns offered up a radicalism for the middle classes.
The result of all this ferment was that the green movement became not just radical but radically incoherent. It became the umbrella for a range of alternative, anti Western causes and lifestyles. But its constant factor was a strongly primitive, pagan and irrational element. This new paganism, often based on Atlantean theories of a lost golden age and theories of cultural diffusion via a vanished super race, is open to all and especially attractive to the semi educated, semi rational product of today’s de naturing educational process, stripped of religion, reason, tradition and even true history.
Despite a veneer of fashionable progressivism, the fact is that environmentalism’s fundamental opposition to modernity propels it straight into the arms of neo fascism. For just like their precursors in the twenties and thirties, today’s ultranationalist and neo Nazi groups chime with many of the ideas that also foster and march under the green banner. In France, Italy and Belgium, the Nouvelle Droite combined Hellenic paganism with support for the dissolution of national boundaries; it was anti capitalist and anti American, adopting socio biological arguments to stress the uniqueness of each race and culture within national boundaries and to oppose colonization and empire. In Germany, the radical right journal was pacifist and ecological. Such groups met the left on the common ground of New Age paganism, expressed in particular through the religions and cultures of the East.
From the 1970’s onwards, neo fascist extremists began to repackage the old ideology of Aryan racism, elitism and force in new cultic guises involving esotericism and Eastern religions. Some groups mixed racism with Nordic pagan religions, celebrating magical signs of ancestral heritage and mystical blood loyalty. In the United States, Britain, Germany and Scandinavia, racial pagan groups today ponder runes, magic and the sinister mythology of the Norse gods. Like the Nazis, these groups resort to the pagan world to express their antipathy to any extraneous organisms that disturb their idea of racial or national purity. The very fact that the racial interpretation of these esoteric ideas, cosmologies and prophecies betrays them overwhelmingly, causing great anxiety about the future of specific identities in multiracial societies.
To those accustomed to thinking of New Agers as vegetarian, pacifist tree huggers, such connections may come as something of a surprise. Nature worship, paganism and organic mysticism were all closely associated with Nazism and anti Semitism through prewar German thinking. This will help to explain how New Age turned from a left liberal movement to a fascist style of paganism.
The apocalyptic revivalism of neo fascism corresponds precisely to the agenda of radical Islamism. Because Islamism is a form of revolutionary utopianism, it marches along side the left. But as a revolt against liberalism and modernity, it is closely allied with both communism and fascism. That is because just like these two secular Western movements which also led to fanaticism, terror and mass murder, Islamism repudiates modernity and reason in the interests of creating a perfect world. And so, ironically, considering it believes itself to be a hermetically sealed thought system owing its influence only to God, Islamism has drawn heavily upon and formed alliances with communism and fascism, both represent=ting a heretical world it despises and aims to destroy.
The common interest with communism was first made evident when the Muslims of the Russian Empire were conscripted into the Red Army. During the first session, the president of the International called in his speech five times for holy war against the British and French, colonialists and the rich in general. Thus the Bolshevik jihad was launched against the common enemy, the materialist West, in the mountains of Afghanistan and elsewhere that the Russians faced the forces of imperialism.
The Muslims found much in common with communism. Not only did they have a common enemy, but they shared a utopian vision for transforming the world by negating all distinctions between peoples. Like Communism, Islam rejects narrow nationalism. Islam is international and recognizes only the brotherhood and unity of nations under the unity of Islam only.
There is a eerie similarity between the Marxist-Leninist and Islamic outlooks in both their Orwellian inversion of aggression and self defense it needs to duly be noted here. For Communism, aggression was specific to class society while the Soviet Union was by definition peaceful. Likewise, Islamic thinkers hold that Islam represents peace on earth and so anything un Islamic must trouble the peace by its very existence. As a corollary, since neither the Soviet Union nor the Islamic world could be guilty of aggression, any terror committed by either was by definition self defense, while self defense by the outside world was considered an act of aggression.
Like Nazism, Islam promotes a subordination of the individual to the collective, celebration of the leadership principle, hostility to liberal democracy and to capitalism, male supremacy, sexual repression and glorification of death in the war with unbelievers. It was therefore not surprising that Arab nationalism in Palestine, Syria and Iraq during the 1930’s modeled itself on Italian and German fascism.
There is even more striking correspondences between fascism and Islamism. The idea of using suicide pilots to destroy the skyscrapers of Manhattan originated in Nazi Germany. Nazis planned to fly explosive crammed light aircraft without landing gear into Manhattan skyscrapers. Hitler was in a delirium of rapture at this thought of seeing New York going down in towers of flame. He described the skyscrapers turning into huge burning torches and falling, reflecting a disintegration of the city in the dark sky. Hitler wanted to kill in order to liberate mankind, or more precisely, Wall Street. From there, his insidious threads radiated across the entire world.
To this day, Western Islamists continue to draw upon neo fascism. Since 2000, the Muslim Association of Britain and the General Union of Palestinian Students have both published the so called Franklin Prophecy, which is an anti-Semitic hoax manufactured by the American Nazi movement and first published in full publication February 1934. The Muslim Public Affairs Committee has used its website to reproduce material taken from these sites while the pro Hamas Palestine Times has promoted work by an author who is a revisionist historian and whose website has links to Holocaust denial material.
As can not be emphasized too strongly, the reason for these otherwise bewildering alliances between groups that appear to be mortal enemies ideologically, left wingers and fascists, Islamists and greens all harbor a utopian vision of perfecting the world.
Prominent Islamist Abul ala Maududi wrote that Islam is not the name of a mere religion, nor is Muslim the title of a nation. The truth is that Islam is a revolutionary ideology which seeks to alter the social order of the entire world and rebuild it in conformity with its own tenets and ideals.
The unsettling fact is that it is both plausible and possible for bad deeds to be done for the highest of ideals. That is a very frightening thought. Those wanting to bring about the perfect society see no higher ideal than that. Ever since the French Revolution, all such impossible agendas have led straight to persecution, tyranny and totalitarianism. To the French Terror, or the gulags of Russia, to Auschwitz and to the use of children as human bombs; yet the true believers in each case believed they acted from the highest of motives.
The Islamists committing mass murder in New York’s Twin Towers or a Jerusalem café really do believe they are fighting for justice and to bring about the Kingdom of God on earth.; The communists and the fascists really did think they were ending, respectively, the oppression and corruption of mankind. The environmentalists really do think they are saving the planet from extinction. The radical left really do think they will erase prejudice from the human heart and suffering from the world. And those who want Israel no longer to exist as a Jewish state really do believe that as a result, they will turn suicide bomb belts into cucumber farmers and that they are moving in the way that history intended.; All very frightening thoughts indeed.
That is why those who promulgate hatred are generally to be found among the high minded, since they are devoted to the most lofty and admirable of ideals. That is why lies about global warming or irrationality about the defense of the West against Islamism are associated with the intelligentsia. That is why those with the most highly developed faculty of reason so often end up promoting the most diabolical of agendas.
But there is yet another factor linking these various ideologies of Islamism, environmentalism, Darwinism, ant capitalism and anti Zionism. In their very different ways and in very different contexts, they all attempt to address a spiritual emptiness in the human condition, and that gives them a further common characteristic that moves them away from the sphere of reason altogether, and into the province of self belief.
This may come as a surprise to some, but we are currently living through a millenarian age in the West.
Millenarianism is a religious belief in the perfectibility of mankind and life on earth. It is a doctrine of collective and total salvation that derives from the belief of some Christians in the ‘end times’ or ‘last days’ based on the Book of Revelation (20:4-6) According to these verses, after the Second Coming, Christ will establish a messianic kingdom on earth and reign for a thousand years before the Last Judgment. This belief in turn is rooted in Wrath, followed by the resurrection of the righteous in Israel. Millenarianism came to mean any belief that the struggle between the forces of good and evil would climax in a triumph of the good, when injustice and oppression would end and its perpetrators be punished.
Historically, millenarianism became a way of coping with large scale disasters, and it surfaced in highly charged periods of change and stress. In the Middle Ages, it flourished among marginalized people against the background of natural disasters such as famine or plague, particularly the Black Death, when millenarian exaltation and unrest were whipped up by would be prophets and false messiahs. The desire of the poor to improve their lives was transfused with fantasies of a world reborn into innocence through a final apocalyptic massacre. Extermination of certain groups was to be inevitable after which the righteous would prevail, establishing a world without suffering or sin.
In our present era, we are enduring the effects of the paradigmatic millenarian creed of Islam. Its central precept is the need to establish Islam as God’s kingdom on earth. Only when Islam rules everywhere, will the world be brought into a state of perfect justice and peace. This millenarian myth accepted by pious Muslims in every epoch is that an Expected Delivered call the Mahdi will make his appearance at the end of time, followed at the Day of Judgment by the Antichrist, who will then be killed, and thus the Kingdom of God will arrive on earth. Among Shia Muslims, the Mahdi is an even more central figure known as the Hidden Iman, whose expected return is to be the backbone of faith. His reappearance will be preceded by a long period of chaos and degeneracy, accelerating until evil, falsehood and wickedness dominate earth. The disintegration iis to be complete and universal and will be characterized by political unrest, immorality, falsehood and a total disregard for the principles of religion.
Islam in its radical manifestations is also apocalyptic, holding that this disintegration describes precisely the condition of the world today, and that the establishment of God’s kingdom on earth is imminent.
At the heart of Islam is the belief that it embodies the absolute and unchallengeable (note the word unchallengeable here) truth. Unlike Judaism and Christianity, which teach that divine intentions are revealed through a historical process of interrogation and discovery, Islam holds that sacred doctrines were fixed in time by Mohammed, with no further development possible. Ever since Islamic advocates of reason were defeated in a seminal battle in the thirteenth century, the belief in a fixed and unchallengeable truth has made the dominant strains of Islamic theology inimical to rationality and to freedom. It has also made inescapable the view that everything else is unreasonable and tyrannical.
Building on the belief that Islam is perfection, radical Islamists are the ‘elect’, a small core of the righteous whose superior knowledge of this perfection is absolute and cannot be challenged. Hence the Islamist ideologue of, We must create out of nothing a minority of pure upright and educated men. There must exist an upright community, devoted to the principle of truth, and whose sole goal in this world is to establish, safeguard and realize correctly the system of Truth. Very, very scary indeed.
In an Orwellian inversion, the tyrannical imposition of Islam upon the world is viewed as its liberation. Just as Lenin believed, whatever fosters the revolution is good; whatever hinders it is bad. In the millenarian and totalitarian mindset, there is never any middle ground; and truth and reason are turned upside down to fit their mannerisms of thinking.
Now on to the bitter pill to swallow.
There is an assumption that Western society since the Enlightenment has embodied a belief in the power of reason, which acts as a kind of inoculation against the virus of religious obscurantism that characterized life in medieval Europe and is so obviously on display in the Islamic world today. But in fact, the Enlightenment served in part to secularize millenarian fantasies. A key idea of certain Enlightenment thinkers was that reason would bring about perfection on earth and that ‘progress’ was the process by which utopia would be attained. A view satirized by Voltaire and held by Alexander Pope and Jonathan Swift.
According to the editor of Encyclopedic, the bible of Enlightenment humanism, No bounds have been fixed to the improvement of the human race. The perfectibility of man is absolutely infinite. This idea was further developed in the nineteenth century and espoused by the apostle of social Darwinism, Herbert Spencer, who believed that life would get better all the time. “Progress is not an accident but a necessity” he wrote. “Surely must evil and immorality disappear; surely must man become perfect.”
It was reason that would redeem religious superstition and bring about the Kingdom of Man on earth. This idea infused the three great secular tyrannical movements that were spun out of Enlightenment thinking: the French Revolution, communism and fascism. For the French Revolutionaries, the millennial hope lay not in scripture, but in theories of freedom and the general will as expressed by the liberated voice of the people. The Committee of Public Safety abolished the worship of God on November 10, 1793 and substituted for it the Cult of Reason. At its core and at the same time, this committee of twelve men summarily executed thousands of people, from aristocrats, no matter how innocent, to internal dissenters, no matter how loyal. Terrors which ended only after the two masterminds were finally executed.
What I am trying to point out here is that many things spoon fed to us, especially in this day of technology being able to disseminate communications, from the news media to the government, to big business to the plethora of ‘ism’ movements on the march today, we as individuals HAVE to THINK for ourselves rather than letting these other entities do that for us. That doesn’t mean being psychotic, but it doesn’t mean being manipulated and told what to think, what is truth and so forth. We are quickly loosing our ability to truly be free, and to truly be free is to truly be mentally un manipulative and be able to stand on our own feet and think independent of outside influences, especially those with power and money over the many of us.
And so with that said, I press on with these thoughts.
Secular millenarian impulses did not stop at communism and fascism, but today infuse the progressive mind. From multiculturalism to environmentalism to post nationalism, Western progressives have fixated on unattainable abstractions from the venerable realization of utopia. The world of every day reality is rejected. All that matters is the theoretical future that is perfect and just, without war or want or prejudice. A future where fallen humanity has returned to Eden. And since that future is perfect, the idea of it may not be changed or challenged in any way. Which is why the progressive mind, in pursuit of the utopia where reason and liberty rule, is very firmly closed.
In that respect, an intriguing and immerging comparison can be made between sexual libertarians of today and the fourteenth century European sect known as the Heresy of the Free Spirit. Thye were Gnostics, believing they possessed perfect knowledge. Strictly speaking, Gnostics are not true millenarians since they anticipate a state of perfection beyond this world but rather than within it. Nevertheless, as the Free Sprits, intent on their own individual salvation, played a significant part in the revolutionary millenarian ferment of the Middle Ages. And the similarities with today’s ‘free spirits’ are striking.
Adherents of the fourteenth century sect believed they had attained a perfection so absolute that they were incapable of sin. Thus they repudiated moral norms, particularly with those pertaining to sexual behavior.
Indeed, since these adoptions were permissible of what was previously forbidden has progressed way beyond free love into such formerly transgressive areas as illegitimacy, homosexuality and sadomasochism. This trend has been driven by the ‘elect’ of the intelligentsia who, like the Free Spirits of the Middle Ages, regard themselves as the embodiment of absolute virtue. It is a delicious irony that such peop0le, who consider themselves to be at the cutting edge of modernity, reflect in certain respects such a widely irrational, obscurantist medieval Christian sect.
The very condition of the modern world provides emotional rocket fuel for the belief that it can and must be transformed. Anomie, the state of radical footlessness caused by the snapping of attachments in a post religious age that leaves people without meaning or purpose in their lives, can find its antidote in apocalyptic beliefs that galvanize people and make them feel alive. Passionate hatred can give meaning and purpose to an empty life. Thus people haunted by the purposelessness of their lives try to find a new content not only by dedicating themselves to a holy cause but also by nursing a fanatical grievance. A mass movement offers them unlimited opportunities for both.
The mass movements of today are not so much political as cultural: anti imperialism and anti Americanism, anti Zionism, environmentalism, scientism, egalitarianism, libertinism and multiculturalism. These are not merely quasi religious movements, evangelical, dogmatic and fanatical, with enforcement mechanisms ranging from demonization through ostracism to expulsion of heretics. They are also millenarian and even apocalyptic in their visions of the perfect society and what needs to be swept aside in order to attain it. Even if, while embodying certain characteristics of medieval heretics, they simultaneously embody the authoritarianism of the persecutors of those heretics in the medieval church.
Their view of the human condition is essentially one of sin and redemption. They name the crimes committed by humanity. Oppression of Third World peoples, despoliation of nature, bigotry, war, and offer redemption and salvation by a returning to the true faith and path. Dissenters are heretics forming diabolical conspiracies against the one reveled truth. It is believed that the decision to invade Iraq, Israel’s military operations, manmade global warming and the persistence of religious faith cannot possibly have any reasonable basis because they deny the unchallengeable truths of anti imperialism, environmentalism and scientific materialism, and so the explanations must lie in conspiracies by the neocons, Big Oil or creationists, whose various hidden hands and agenda are detected everywhere.
The left wing intelligentsia, the environmentalists and the Darwinists are today’s Gnostics; their knowledge of a higher truth puts them on a plane above the rest of humanity, who have to be exhorted to change their ways in order to be saved from themselves.
The environmentalists, through their scientific credentials, possess exclusive access to the truth that the planet is being destroyed. They preach that the earth has been sinned against by capitalism, consumerism, the West, science, technology, mankind itself. Only when these are purged and economic materialism is rejected will the earth be saved and the innate harmony of the world be restored; otherwise we will descend into the hell of a drowned and parched planet where the remains of the human race battle it out for the few remaining resources.
The language and imagery conjure up a secular witch hunt. In a similar vein, the atheist evangelists assert that all must comply with their pronouncements on pain of excommunication from the realm of rationality.
The crucial element in all millenarian movements is the reaction that sets in when the prophecy of utopia fails, which of course it has done every time throughout human history. The inevitable outcome is that the disappointment turns ugly. Adherents of the cult create scapegoats upon whom they turn with a ferocity fueled by disorientation, anger and shame, in an attempt to bring about by coercion the state of purity that the designated culprits have purportedly thwarted.
When the classless utopia failed to materialize in the Soviet Union, Stalin murdered dissidents and sent them to the gulag. When Germany failed to achieve its apparently rightful place as the paradigm country in Europe, Hitler committed genocide. When Mao failed to bring about universal justice and the Confucian ideal of harmony, he killed, jailed or otherwise terrorized millions of Chinese.
In current times, the failure of the environmental vision of spiritual oneness between man and nature has seen mankind blamed for despoiling the planet and imperiling the survival of life on earth. The failure to arrive at a perfect state of reason in which all injustice and suffering are ended has been blamed on religious believers. The failure of the apparatus of international law and human rights to prevent war and tyranny has been blamed on America. And the failure of the existence of Israel to bring about the end of the Jewish problem has been blamed on the Jews themselves.
Having identified scapegoats upon whom they can project their anger and shame, disappointed millenarians have tried to carve out their perfect agenda and society through coercive measures against the people they hold responsible for the failure of their vision(s).
In our own time, the left forces people to be free in a myriad of different ways. In Britain, left wing totalitarianism wears the pained smile of ‘good conscience’ as it sends in the police to enforce ‘hate crime’ laws, drags children from their grandparents to place them for adoption with gay couples, or sacks a Christian nurse for offering to pray for her patient. In America, school textbooks are censored by ‘bias and sensitivity’ reviewers who remove a reference to patchwork quilting by women on the western frontier in the mid nineteenth century (stereotyping of females as soft and submissive), an account of a heroic young blind mountain climber (bias in favor of those living in hiking and mountain climbing areas but against the blind), and a tale about growing up in ancient Egypt (elitist references to wealthy families)
Some would call this a form of tyranny; but to the progressive mind, tyranny occurs only when their utopia is denied. Virtue thus has to be coerced for the good of the people at the receiving end. There can be no doubt that it is virtue, because progressivism is all about creating the perfect society and is therefore inherently and incontestably and inexorably virtuous; and so, like the Committee of Public Safety, like Stalinism, like Islam, it is all incapable of doing anything bad. Unlike everyone else, of course, who it follows can do nothing but bad.
Progressives feel justified in trying to instill and stifle any disagreement with their agenda on the grounds that the people they are trying to stifle are ‘fascists’, a term employed without irony. A sense of humor is not known to be a millenarian trait. Never engaging with the actual arguments of their opponents, they demonize them instead through gratuitous insults designed to turn them into pariahs while they themselves characterize all reasoned arguments against them as outrageous insults. Dissent is labeled as pathological, homophobic, xenophobic, Islam phobic, with phobia, or irrational fear, used as a synonym for prejudice. There are even outright accusations of insanity, a weapon used by totalitarian movements from the medieval Catholic Church to the Jacobins to Stalin’s secret police.
Calling today’s conservatives ‘fascists’ is particularly absurd since such people tend to believe in limiting state power and giving more freedom to the individual, a position that shades off into libertarianism. Nevertheless, leftists see the alternative to themselves as ‘fascist’ by definition. So the more that conservatives believe government should be limited and the more freedom they want for individuals, the more ‘fascist’ they become in the eyes of the left.
Even more fundamental is the trap that is sprung over the issue of truth. Any fact that challenges the world view of the left is ignored, denied or placated or explained away, because to admit even a scintilla of such truth would bring the entire utopian house of cards crashing down and with it the left winger’s whole moral and political identity. That’s why progressives refused to acknowledge the French Error, Stalin’s gulags or the millions dead under Mao; that’s why today they refuse to acknowledge black racism, Arab rejectionism of Israel or the fact that the climate was warmer a thousand years ago. But here’s what follows from this denial: Anyone who objects to the falsehoods of the left and points out the truth must be right winged, and thus ‘fascist’. In this way, truth itself is demonized and the bigger the truth that is told, the more demonized the teller becomes.
These ideals are held in the belief that at the heart of the ideological true believer invariably lay a deep self contempt, which was transmuted into hatred of others, since mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a god, but never without belief in a devil. In other words, it is essential for the true believer to have someone or something to hate. The believer is defined in large measure by what he or she is not. Positions are then taken not necessarily because they are so believable, but principally because the alternative is so unthinkable.
This particularly evidence among scientific materialists, who are driven to take manifestly ridiculous positions simply because the alternative, belief in God, is unacceptable. Scientists sometimes put forward absurd theories purely to prevent the ‘Divine Foot in the door’. They cannot tolerate the slightest possibility of a metaphysical explanation. Such an approach betrays the most basic principle of scientific inquiry; that you always go where the evidence leads. Instead, it makes evidence dependent on a prior idea, in the manner of dogmatic ideology.
Surely this betrayal of science has occurred because scientism, or scientific materialism, is an ideology whose goal is not to gain knowledge and truth, but to suppress knowledge and truth if these threaten its governing idea(s). The priority is to safeguard the materialist world view in the teeth of any evidence to the contrary and thus maintain with it the prestige of science as the source of all the knowledge in the world. Defenders of this idea must preclude opposing points of view, for materialism is a closed thought system which cannot be challenged. Anything outside it is deemed non science and relegated to the status of fantasy. Any true scientific challenge to materialism is labeled ‘bad’ science, and therefore skeptics can be dismissed as not understanding ‘how science works’.
Gnostics take it a step further. They don’t only dismiss opponents’ arguments; they maintain that such opponents could not possibly have meant what was said. Their own Gnostic infallibility apparently means that he alone knows what was really in someone’s mind. Confronted by the fact that many scientists are religious believers, they dismiss most of the beliefs as not really religious except in terms of Einstein’s professed religious sensibilities, which says weren’t really religious belief at all, but rather claims of having to scrape the barrel in order to find genuinely distinguished modern scientists were truly religious. Really? Well then, how about Francis Collins, who heads the Human Gehome Project; or the botanist and former director of Kew Gardens, Sir Ghillean Prance; or the physicist Allan Sandage, considered to be the father of modern astronomy; or the Nobel Prize winning physicists William Phillips and Arno Penzias, all of whom are fervent religious believers?
Materialists set up an absolute dichotomy between science and religion, which are presented as engaged in a battle unto death; reason versus faith, good versus evil. Any scientist who accepts the integrity of religious arguments or any religious believer who accepts evolution is therefore deemed not to be telling the truth. So when the evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould wrote in his book Rocks of Ages that Darwinism was compatible with both religion and atheism because science and religion were non overlapping magisterial, dealing respectively with empiricism and questions of ultimate meaning. Gnostics have decried that Gould could possibly have meant much of what he wrote in Rocks of Ages. And after Pope John Paul II said in 1996 that he supported the general idea of biological evolution while entering reservations about certain interpretations of it, it was said that the pope’s response was simply that he was a hypocrite and that he could not be genuine about science.
A Gnostic knows that reprehensible behavior can by definition be practiced only by others, but never him or herself.
For the millenarian, the high minded belief in creating a perfect world requires the imperfect world to be purified by the true believers. From the Committee of Public Safety to Iran’s morals police, from Stalin’s purges of dissidents to British and American hate crime laws, utopians of every stripe have instigated coercive or tyrannical regimes to save the world by riddling it of its perceived corruption. Again, saving the ignorant from themselves.
The symmetry today is as obvious as the paradox. At a time when radical Islam is attempting to purify the world by conquering it for Islam and thus creating the Kingdom of God on earth, the West is also trying to purify the world in order to create a secular utopia in which war will become a thing of the past, hatred and selfishness will be eradicated from the human heart, reason will replace superstition, humanity will live in harmony with the earth and all division will yield to the brotherhood of mankind. The paradox here however is that, while it might be thought that the liberal West is trying to eradicate the kind of hatred and killing that radical Islam brings in its wake, the drive to purify inevitable results not in harmony but in strife.
But there is a further curiosity. That in doing so, the secular West is not merely adopting a quasi religious posture, but a specifically Christian one. The governing story of Islam is the imposition of its doctrines through conquest and submission. Accordingly, it is today attempting to fashion its utopia through conquest and submission. The governing story of Christianity by contrast, is of sin, guilt and redemption. And remarkably, that is precisely the pattern lying behind the Utopian agendas of Western secular progressives, even though by severing these concepts from their transcendent Christian context, they have perverted their meaning and turned them from the engines of truth and justice into their own antithesis.
For the left, the West is guilty of exploiting the poor, the marginalized and the oppressed. Britain has to do penance for the sins of imperialism and racism. Israel has to do penance for the sins of colonialism and racism. America has to do penance for the sins of imperialism, slavery and racism.
For the environmentalists, the West is guilty of the sins of consumerism and greed, which have given rise to far more than it needs. So these things must be taken away and the West must return to a simpler, austere, pre-industrial way of life.
Because of its sins, the West is being punished through the wars and terrorism against it. The West ‘had it coming’ on account of its manifold iniquities. America is responsible for Islamic terrorism. Israel is responsible for Palestinian terrorism. And Britain is responsible for the radicalization of British Muslims and the 7/7 attacks on the London transit system because it has backed America and Israel and ‘lied’ about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.
As a result of all this sin, guilt and punishment, the Western progressive soul yearns for expiation and redemption. By electing Barack Obama as president of the United States, Americans wanted to redeem their country’s original sins of slavery and racism. Through its strictures against Israel, post Christian Europe wants to redeem its original sin of anti-Semitism. By campaigning against carbon dioxide emissions, environmentalists want to redeem the original sin of human existence. As for the scientific materialists, the sin to be redeemed is not by man against God, but rather by God against man. Their governing story is that un-corrupted man fell from the Garden of Reason when he partook of the forbidden fruit of religion, which now has to be purged from the world to create the Kingdom of Man on earth.
For all these millenarians and apocalypticists and Utopians, both religious and secular, the target is the West. The West is seen as an enemy not because it offers an alternative system of values, but because its promises of material comfort, individual freedom and dignity of unexceptional lives deflate all Utopian pretensions. The anti heroic, anti Utopian nature of western liberalism is the greatest enemy of religious radicals, priest, kings and collective seekers after purity and heroic salvation.
That is why the West is squarely in the sights of all who want to create utopia and are determined to remove all the obstacles it places in the way. For environmentalists, that obstacle is industrialization. For scientific materialists, it’s religion. For transnational progressives, it’s the nation. For anti imperialists, it’s American exceptionalism. For the Western intelligentsia, it’s Israel. For Islamists, it’s all the above and the entire un-Islamic world. And meantime, in all their fervor and desire for redemption and their suppression of dissent from the one revealed truth, Western progressives and radical Islamists are closer than either would like to think……
The most consequential falsehood in American public policy today is the idea that any racial disparity in any institution is by definition the result of racial discrimination.
If a cancer research lab, for example, does not have 13 percent black oncologists—the black share of the national population—it is by definition a racist lab that discriminates against competitively qualified black oncologists; if an airline company doesn’t have 13 percent black pilots, it is by definition a racist airline company that discriminates against competitively qualified black pilots; and if a prison population contains more than 13 percent black prisoners, our law enforcement system is racist.
The claim that racial disparities are proof of racial discrimination has been percolating in academia and the media for a long time. After the George Floyd race riots of 2020, however, it was adopted by America’s most elite institutions, from big law and big business to big finance. Even museums and orchestras took up the cry.
Many thought that STEM—the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics—would escape the diversity sledgehammer. They were wrong. The American Medical Association today insists that medicine is characterized by white supremacy. Nature magazine declares that science manifests one of “humankind’s worst excesses”: racism. The Smithsonian Institution announces that “emphasis on the scientific method” and an interest in “cause and effect relationships” are part of totalitarian whiteness.
As a result of this falsehood, we are eviscerating meritocratic and behavioral standards in accordance with what is known as “disparate impact analysis.”
Consider medicine. Step One of the medical licensing exam, taken during or after the second year of medical school, tests medical students’ knowledge of anatomy, physiology, and pathology. On average, black students score lower on the grading curve, making it harder for them to land their preferred residencies. Step One, in other words, has a “disparate impact” on black medical students. The solution, implemented last year, was to eliminate the Step One grading disparity by instituting a pass–fail system. Hospitals choosing residents can no longer distinguish between high and low achieving students—and that is precisely the point!
The average Medical College Achievement Test (MCAT) score for black applicants is a standard deviation below the average score of white applicants. Some medical schools have waived the submission of MCAT scores altogether for black applicants. The tests were already redesigned to try to eliminate the disparity. A quarter of the questions now focus on social issues and psychology. The medical school curriculum is being revised to offer more classes in white privilege and focus less on clinical practice. The American Association of Medical Colleges will soon require that medical faculty demonstrate knowledge of “intersectionality”—a theory about the cumulative burdens of discrimination. Heads of medical schools and chairmen of departments like pediatric surgery are being selected on the basis of identity, not knowledge.
The federal government is shifting medical research funding from pure science to studies on racial disparities and social justice. Why? Not because of any assessment of scientific need, but simply because black researchers do more racism research and less pure science. The National Institutes of Health has broadened the criteria for receiving neurology grants to include things like childhood welfare receipt because considering scientific accomplishment alone results in a disparate impact.
What is at stake in these changes? Future medical progress and, ultimately, lives.
Standards are falling in the legal profession, which came up with the disparate impact concept in the first place. Upon taking office in 2021, President Biden announced that he would no longer submit his judicial nominees to the American Bar Association for a preliminary rating. Why? According to a member of the White House Counsel’s Office, allowing the ABA to vet candidates would be incompatible with the “diversification of the judiciary.” This claim was dubious.
The ABA, after all, cannot open its collective mouth without issuing a bromide about the need to diversify the bar. Its leading members are obsessed with the demographics of corporate law firms and law school faculties. This is the same ABA that gave its highest rating to a Supreme Court nominee who as a justice would make the false claim during a challenge to Covid vaccine mandates that “over 100,000 children are in serious condition [from Covid] and many are on ventilators.”
State bar associations are also busy watering down standards to eliminate disparate impact. In 2020, California lowered the pass score on its bar exam because black applicants were disproportionately failing. Only five percent of black law school graduates passed the California bar on their first try in February 2020, compared to 52 percent of white law school graduates and 42 percent of Asian law school graduates. The lack of proportional representation among California’s attorneys was held to be proof of a discriminatory credentialing system.
The pressure to eliminate the Law School Admission Test (LSAT) requirement for law school admissions is growing, because it too has a disparate impact. As a single mother told an ABA panel, “I would hate to give up on my dream of becoming a lawyer just due to not being able to successfully handle this test.” Note the assumption: the problem always lies with the test, never with the test taker. The LSAT requirement will almost certainly be axed.
The curious state of our criminal justice system today is a function of the disparate impact principle. If you wonder why police officers are not making certain arrests, or why district attorneys are not prosecuting whole categories of crimes—such as shoplifting, trespassing, or farebeating—it is because apprehending lawbreakers and prosecuting crime have a disparate impact on black criminals. Urban leaders have decided that they would rather not enforce the law at all, no matter how constitutional that enforcement, than put more black criminals in jail.
Walgreens, CVS, and Target would rather close down entire stores and deprive their elderly customers of access to their medications than confront shoplifters and hand them over to the law, because doing so would disproportionately yield black shoplifters, as the viral looting videos attest. Macy’s flagship store in New York City was sued several years ago because most of the people its employees stopped for shoplifting were black. The only allowable explanation for that fact was that Macy’s was racist. It was not permissible to argue that Macy’s arrests mirrored the shoplifting population.
Even colorblind technology is racist. Speeding and red-light cameras disproportionately identify black drivers as traffic scofflaws. The solution to such disparate impact is the same as we saw with the medical licensing exam: throw out the cameras.
The result of this de-prosecution and de-policing has been widespread urban anarchy and, in 2020, the largest one-year spike in homicide in this nation’s history. Thousands more black lives have been lost to drive-by shootings. Dozens of black children have been fatally gunned down in their beds, in their front yards, and in their parents’ cars. No one says their names because their assailants were not police officers or white supremacists. They were other blacks.
We need to face up to the truth: the reason for racial underrepresentation across a range of meritocratic fields is the academic skills gap. The reason for racial overrepresentation in the criminal justice system is the crime gap.
And let me issue a trigger warning here: I am going to raise uncomfortable facts that many well-intentioned Americans would rather not hear. Keeping such facts off stage may ordinarily be appropriate as a matter of civil etiquette. But it is too late for such forbearance now. If we cannot acknowledge the skills gap and the behavior gap, we are going to continue destroying our civilizational legacy.
Let me also make the obvious point that I am talking about group averages. Thousands of individuals within underperforming groups outperform not only their own group average but great numbers of people within other groups as well.
Here are the relevant facts. In 2019, 66 percent of all black 12th graders did not possess even partial mastery of basic 12th grade math skills, defined as being able to do arithmetic and to read a graph. Only seven percent of black 12th graders were proficient in 12th grade math, defined as being able to calculate using ratios. The number of black 12th graders who were advanced in math was too small to show up statistically in a national sample. The picture was not much better in reading. Fifty percent of black 12th graders did not possess even partial mastery of basic reading, and only four percent were advanced.
According to the ACT, a standardized college admissions test, only three percent of black high school seniors were college ready in 2023. The disparities in other such tests—the SAT, the LSAT, the GRE, and the GMAT—are just as wide. Remember these data when politicians and others vilify Americans as racist on the ground that this or that institution is not proportionally diverse.
We can argue about why these disparities exist and how to close them—something that policymakers and philanthropists have been trying to do for decades. But in light of these skills gaps, it is irrational to expect 13 percent black representation on a medical school faculty or among a law firm’s partners under meritocratic standards. At present you can have proportional diversity or you can have meritocracy. You cannot have both.
As for the criminal justice system, the bodies speak for themselves. President Biden is fond of intoning that black parents are right to fear that their children will be killed by a police officer or by a white gunslinger every time those children step outside. The mayor of Kansas City proclaimed last year that “existing while black” is another high-risk activity that blacks must engage in. The mayor was partially right: existing while black is far more dangerous than existing while white—but the reason is black crime, not white vigilantes.
In the post-George Floyd era, black juveniles are shot at 100 times the rate of white juveniles. Blacks between the ages of ten and 24 are killed in drive by shootings at nearly 25 times the rate of whites in that same age cohort. Dozens of blacks are murdered every day, more than all white and Hispanic homicide victims combined, even though blacks are just 13 percent of the population. The country turns its eyes away. Who is killing these black victims? Not the police, not whites, but other blacks.
As for interracial violence, blacks are a greater threat to whites than whites are to blacks. Blacks commit 85 percent of all non-lethal interracial violence between blacks and whites. A black person is 35 times more likely to commit an act of non-lethal violence against a white person than vice versa. Yet the national narrative insists on the opposite idea—and too many dutifully play along.
These crime disparities mean that the police cannot restore law and order in neighborhoods where innocent people are most being victimized without having a disparate impact on black criminals. So the political establishment has decided not to restore law and order at all.
It is urgent that we fight back against disparate impact thinking. As long as racism remains the only allowable explanation for racial disparities, the Left wins, and our civilization will continue to crumble.
Even the arts are coming down. Classical music, visual art, theater—all are dismissed as a function of white oppression. The Metropolitan Museum of Art mounted an astonishing show last year called the Fictions of Emancipation. The show’s premise was that if a white artist creates a work intended to show the cruelties of slavery, that artist (in this case, the great 19th century French sculptor Jean-Baptiste Carpeaux) is in fact arguing that the natural condition of blacks is slavery. Prosecuting this nonsensical argument required the Met to ignore or distort almost every feature of the Western art tradition—including the representation of the nude human body, artists’ use of models, and the sale of art.
Only Western art is subjected to this kind of hostile interpretation. Chinese, African, and Indian cultural traditions are still treated with curatorial respect, their works analyzed in accordance with their creators’ intent. As soon as a critic turns his eye or ear on Western art, however, all he can see or hear is imperialism and white privilege. It is a perverse obsession. We are teaching young people to dismiss the greatest creations of humanity. We are stripping them of the capacity to escape their narrow identities and to lose themselves in beauty, sublimity, and wit. No wonder so many Americans are drowning in meaninglessness and despair.
We must stop apologizing for Western Civilization. To be sure, slavery and segregation were grotesque violations of America’s founding ideals. For much of our history black Americans suffered injustice and gratuitous cruelty. Today, however, every mainstream institution is twisting itself into knots to hire and promote as many underrepresented minorities as possible. Yet those same institutions grovelingly accuse themselves of racism.
The West has liberated the world from universal squalor and disease, thanks to the scientific method and the Western passion for discovery and knowledge. It has given the world plumbing, hot showers in frigid winters, flight, clean water, steel, antibiotics, and just about every structure and every device that we take for granted in our miraculously privileged existence—and I use the word “privilege” here to refer to anyone whose life has been transformed by Western ingenuity—i.e., virtually every human being on the planet.
It was in the West that the ideas of constitutional government and civil rights were born. Yes, to our shame, we had slavery. What civilization did not? But only the Anglosphere expended lives and capital to end the nearly universal practice. Britain had to occupy Lagos in 1861 to get its ruler to give up the slave trade. The British Navy used 13 percent of its manpower to blockade slave ships leaving the western coast of Africa in the 19th century, as Nigel Biggar has documented. Every ideal that the Left uses today to bash the West—such as equality or tolerance—originated in the West.
***
The ongoing attack on colorblind excellence in the U.S. is putting our scientific edge at risk. China, which cares nothing for identity politics, is throwing everything it has at its most talented students. China ranks number one in international tests of K-12 math, science, and reading skills; the U.S. ranks twenty-fifth.
China is racing ahead in nano physics, artificial intelligence, and other critical defense technologies. Chinese teams dominate the International Olympiad in Informatics. Meanwhile the American Mathematical Association declares math to be racist and President Biden puts a soil geologist with no background in physics at the top of the Department of Energy’s science programs. This new science director may know nothing about nuclear weapons and nuclear physics, but she checks off several identity politics boxes and publishes on such topics as “A Critical Feminist Approach to Transforming Workplace Climate.”
What do we do in response to such civilizational immolation? We proclaim that standards are not racist and that excellence is not racist. We assert that categories like race, gender, and sexual preference are never qualifications for a job. I know for a fact that being female is not an accomplishment. I am equally sure that being gay or being black are also not accomplishments.
Should conservative political candidates campaign against disparate impact thinking and in favor of standards of merit? Of course they should! They will be accused of waging a culture war. But it is the progressive elites, not their conservative opponents, who are engaging in cultural revolution!
Most conservatives today are not even playing defense. How about legislation to ban racial preferences in medical training and practice? How about eliminating the disparate impact standard in statutes and regulations? Conservatives should by all means promote the virtues of free markets and limited government, but the diversity regime is the nemesis of both.
Lowering standards helps no one since high expectations are the key to achievement. In defense of excellence we must speak the truth, never apologize, and never back down.
When I was young, I used to believe the saying, “All problems are just communication problems.” I believed that if we could each simply understand the other person’s perspective, we could find common ground.
This makes sense in a way, because everyone I surround myself with is a good person. More than this, my travels have allowed me to see that the vast majority of people across the globe are good people. When we’re dealing with good people, many (but not all) problems are simply communication problems.
This is the “lens” through which most people see the world: good people think that everyone else thinks like them. So if we just communicate better, couldn’t we come together in peace and harmony?
But then I realized that some people are not good people. They may seem like good people. They may be intelligent and charming. But at their core, they are not good people. They don’t think like us. They don’t care like we do.
About 1% of the population are psychopaths, and 3% are sociopaths.
These are very dangerous people.
Psychopaths don’t feel emotions like other people. They completely lack empathy, remorse, guilt and shame. They can be extremely manipulative. They’re often highly skilled at ‘reading people’ and sizing them up quickly. They can identify a person’s likes and dislikes, motives, needs, weak spots, and vulnerabilities.
Psychopaths are power seekers. They have a complete lack of regard for the rights and feelings of others and they don’t have loyalty to any group or nation.
While many are locked up in prison or causing chaos in the streets, others are highly intelligent, functioning members of society. Some exist at the highest levels of government and corporate leadership.
Psychopaths can be extremely adept at pretending to be regular, caring people, which makes them perfect politicians. Dr. Kevin Dutton, author of the book, The Wisdom of Psychopaths, writes, “Psychopaths are fearless, confident, charismatic, ruthless and focused—qualities tailor-made for success in twenty-first-century society.”
While only 1% of the general population are psychopaths, there are certain professions that are especially attractive to psychopaths. Frank Herbert, the author of Dune, succinctly states, “All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible.”
Psychopaths desire personal power and will do anything to get it. As a result, a higher percentage of psychopaths can be found in high-profile positions such as politics, corporate leadership, big banks, show business, and high-profile media roles, compared to other occupations.
It would be wrong to assume that psychopaths think like you and I do. They don’t. They’re completely selfish, and will hurt anyone in order to get what they want, and they will have no remorse in doing so.
This is why the saying, “all problems are just communication problems,” is fundamentally wrong. Psychopaths will do anything to gain more power. They literally don’t care about me, or you, or the country, or the Constitution. They will tear it all down if it gives them more power.
When you look at many government actions through this lens, current events make more sense.
In many cities across the US, lawmakers and prosecutors have implemented policies of not prosecuting criminals. Even violent criminals are often released with no charges. Politicians invite invite hordes of illegal aliens to rush across the border to overload our systems, while at the same time, they defund the police and try to take good people’s guns away.
Is this just extreme naïveté on their part, or is this a psychopathic plan to destroy our country, our values, and our way of life?
It’s not naïveté. These dangerous psychopaths are determined to destroy the United States economically, culturally, morally, spiritually—in every possible way.
But why?
Because the idea of individual liberty is a uniquely Western ideal, and no country embraces this ideal more than the USA. Thus, no nation poses a greater challenge to the psychopaths’ insatiable craving for ultimate power and absolute control than the United States of America.
Americans (at least those in the “red states”) think differently from average citizens almost everywhere else in the world. We are skeptical by nature. We fundamentally don’t trust the government. We value liberty, truth, critical thinking, mental and bodily sovereignty, and freedom of speech. More than this, we are the only people on earth who believe that our rights come from God, not from the State, which means that the government does not have the authority to take our rights away.
Yes, there are people around the world who believe these things. But there is no country that has these values woven into their DNA like the USA. Most other countries are like the “blue states” in the US—which means they don’t guard against tyranny. On the contrary, they sometimes invite it.
For example, even now, after the COVID “pandemic” lies have been exposed, the people of Germany still don’t question their government. Nor do New Zealanders, or Australians. Canadians don’t believe that their rights come from God, thus they accept whatever rights the government grants them.
Our Constitution, combined with our values of individual freedom and skepticism, and most importantly, our belief that our rights come from God, ARE UNSTOPPABLE VALUES. The globalists simply can’t implement their one-world government with the USA in the way.
This is why the globalists want to destroy the USA.
Many politicians, corporate leaders and media stars in the USA are absolutely selfish, destructive psychopaths who are willing to bring this country to its knees in order to advance digital IDs, a social credit system, a programmable digital currency controlled by the central banks, and a slavery system for the human race.
Despite their plans for taking over the planet, I am ultimately optimistic. For, even though 4% of society are sociopaths and psychopaths, most humans are very good people.
We, the good people, have created everything good in society, and we have done so in spite of these blood sucking parasites. We are the reason for the USA’s success and prosperity. We are the reason that this nation is, for the most part, free, happy and prosperous.
Government leaders, the central bankers and the media had nothing to do with America’s freedom or happiness or prosperity. They have done nothing except hold us back.
They are trying to take us down with their sinking ship. And yes, they will certainly take some of us down with them.
But I believe we are witnessing the death of the systems these evil people have put in place. I believe that we will prevail—that freedom will prevail.
We are a strong, moral, and courageous people.
We defend innocents. We defend the vulnerable. We defend individual freedoms, justice, peace, and prosperity.
We work together, voluntarily, not under duress, to strengthen our ties to one another and to improve society as a whole.
We value free speech and truth.
We provide the conditions for boys to grow into strong family men and for girls to grow into loving mothers.
We are all the better for freely choosing to love God, to live a decent, moral life, and to respect our neighbor.
So, I urge you . . .
Change the lens through which you view the world. Be highly skeptical of people in power, even the people on “your side of the aisle”. Not only does power corrupts, but it attracts the corrupt.
See psychopaths for what they are: very dangerous people. Do NOT trust them.
Don’t watch the rotten mainstream news or entertainment media.
At the same time, see the good in your neighbor, whose occasional disagreements with you are often just a simple communication problem.
Stand up for freedom. Remind politicians that they are our servants, not our masters. Cherish and defend our Constitution, because it can protect us only if we protect it.
Most importantly, remember that our rights come from God, not from the government, which means that no one has the authority to take our rights away.
Some things make less sense the more you study them. The idea of ‘nonbinary’ is a bit like that. There is nothing liberating or progressive about erasing every trace of one’s sex
Nonbinary is an umbrella term used to describe those people who believe they are outside the gender binary. They believe that they are neither male nor female.
When you ask nonbinaries what they mean by this, the response usually boils down to men saying they feel kinda feminine sometimes, and women saying they kinda don’t. When you point out that some men and women have felt this way since time immemorial, without feeling the need to turn it into a political cause, they become aggressive or sulky. All of which suggests that this nonbinary LARP may require some more thought.
If, like me, you prefer to identify as a non-lunatic, you might be tempted to dismiss the nonbinary phenomenon as a passing fad, like the Tamagotchi ‘egg’ toys popular among children a couple of decades ago. But there’s a difference between the idea of nonbinary and fads like Tamagotchis, especially among the young. Schools banned Tamagotchis in the 1990s because they were a distraction. This time, our public institutions, from multinational corporations to medical bodies, are actively promoting the idea that you can be neither male nor female.
Advocates themselves seem unclear as to what ‘nonbinary’ means. Some seem unsure where to draw the line between being nonbinary and being trans. The huge American LGBTQ+ charity, the Trevor Project, insists that ‘It’s important to note that not all nonbinary folks identify as trans’. But the UK’s LGBT Foundation argues that nonbinary fits under the so-called trans umbrella. This isn’t much help, however, since the trans umbrella has by now grown so huge it could be used to protect the polar ice caps.
Throughout much of the 20th century, the prefix ‘trans’ tended to be used in relation to transvestites or transsexuals. It implied a transition from one gender or sex to the other. But this started to change in the 1990s. Disappointed by the physical results of transitioning – think big-jawed, deep-voiced ‘transwomen’ and miniature, small-boned ‘transmen’ – the trans lobby started to look for a new vocabulary that might capture what it is to be neither male nor female.
Activist Riki Wilchins played a key role in the development of nonbinary. He originally came to prominence in 1991, when he co-founded Camp Trans, an annual protest against the exclusion of transwomen from the women-only Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival. In the mid-1990s, he sowed the seeds for the idea of being nonbinary by coining a new term to describe himself – namely, ‘genderqueer’.
It was a fortuitous moment for Wilchins. From the late 1990s onwards, with queer theory flourishing in universities in the UK and the US, a slew of new identities and neologisms were being turned out, from agender and bigender to demigender and genderfluid. Nonbinary started to be used by activists and academics to encompass these new identities in the 2000s. Indeed, in 2002, Wilchins co-authored the tellingly titled Genderqueer: Voices From Beyond the Sexual Binary.
It wasn’t really until the latter half of the 2010s that nonbinary moved from the spheres of academia and activism and into mainstream culture – largely because an army of idiot celebrities embraced it.
Singer Sam Smith was one such bandwagon-jumper. In 2019, he declared himself to be ‘nonbinary’ and embraced ‘they / them’ pronouns. Smith was once a ‘normal’, for lack of a better word at the moment, man, but gay. In his new nonbinary guise, he has come to resemble someone forced to twerk in fishnets as a prank.
Sam Smith performs onstage at State Farm Arena in Atlanta, 15 December 2022.
Smith was followed by Ellen Page, who announced on 1 December 2020 that she now identifies as ‘transgender and nonbinary’. She was henceforth to be known as Elliot Page, and would use ‘he’ and ‘they’ pronouns.
There was also actress Sara Ramirez. In 2021, she was held up by HBO as a bold new ‘spokesthem’ for the nonbinary cause when she was cast in the Sex and the City spin-off, And Just Like That. Sadly, in her role as Che Diaz, she had all the comic timing of a metronome as she tub-thumped lines from the nonbinary gospel. In a trailer put out by HBO, she pompously critiques the fun gay characters and themes of old-style Sex and the City with the sternness of a hatchet-faced Maoist, claiming that the new show is ‘making space for a more expansive definition of queerness’.
To the broader public, celebrities claiming to be ‘nonbinary’ and pluralizing their pronouns has looked absurd. Nowhere more so than in a 2022 Time magazine interview with ‘genderqueer’ author Maia Kobabe, in which she insisted on the pronouns ‘eir’ and ‘ey’. ‘Time spoke to… Maia Kobabe about ‘eir’ work… and what ‘ey’ make of the current cultural moment’, the magazine declared to confusion all round.
The vague, indefinable, neither-nor quality of ‘nonbinary’ certainly appeals to the narcissists among us. It offers even more opportunity for forensic self-obsession than the old trans identity does. And that’s saying something.
No one sums up this narcissism better than Alok Vaid-Menon, perhaps the most prominent nonbinary campaigner around today. He first gained a name for himself in the mid-2010s for performing execrable ‘poetry’ while dressed in garish women’s clothes that showed off a body hairy enough to put Burt Reynolds to shame.
In 2019, Vaid-Menon broke into the nonbinary big time when a lecture he gave went viral. In it, he denounced the fashion world for daring to make clothes targeted at men and women. He claimed that nonbinary people were so subversive they had been deliberately excluded from fashion. ‘My beauty is so tremendous it has to be edited out of magazines’, he declared.
Once upon a time it was permissible to laugh at a hairy bloke squeezed into a cocktail dress who takes himself much too seriously. But not today. Vaid-Menon’s pronouncements are treated with the kind of reverence once accorded to religious leaders. Last year, he was appointed as the first ever LGBTQ+ scholar in residence at the University of Pennsylvania.
Vaid-Menon’s rise appears to be based on little more than overweening self-confidence and an ability to espouse the banalities of the trans lobby. ‘There are as many ways to be as there are beings’, he once said, seemingly mistaking genders for personalities.
Vaid-Menon’s pseudo-profundities certainly appeal to empty-headed celebrities who struggle to distinguish between a sacred text and a riddle in a Christmas cracker. Take film star Jamie Lee Curtis who ‘interviewed’ Vaid-Menon at the Upfront Summit in 2023. She even gave him an opportunity to air his own spectacular delusion. ‘People often ask me why I continue to… live as incandescently as I do’, he claimed. Not outside your own head they don’t.
Vaid-Menon is not just given to boasting and uttering trans pieties. In 2021, an old social-media post of his resurfaced in which he also weighed into the debate about single-sex spaces. Instead of insisting that trans-identified males pose no risk to women and girls, as most trans activists do, he took a more original approach. He claimed that young girls aren’t as innocent as we think. ‘We have to challenge the idea that there is a perfect victim’, he said. ‘I believe in the radical notion that little girls, like the rest of us, are complicated people… Little girls are also queer, trans, kinky, deviant.’ He added that ‘no one is a perfect flower that can be corrupted’. This is sinister stuff.
Vaid-Menon is clearly not bothered by any flak he receives for his dubious views. He is nothing if not weapons-grade arrogant. This comes across in his lectures and writings, where he constantly downplays the significance of the terms ‘man’ and ‘woman’, despite these categories having been at the center of all human cultures for millennia. He claims to be willing to recognize man and woman as valid genders, but dismisses the existence of a ‘gender binary’. ‘I hold space for men and women but not gender binarism’, he states.
Is it any wonder someone who has such contempt for the deeply held convictions of the overwhelming majority of people would also believe he has the right to dismiss concerns about child safeguarding? It’s hard not to suspect Vaid-Menon’s questionable outlook is shared by much of the trans and nonbinary lobby.
Alok Vaid-Menon accepts the ‘trailblazer award’ at CAPE’s Radiance Gala at Wilshire Ebell Theatre in Los Angeles, 11 March 2024.
As absurd and appalling as Vaid-Menon’s views may be, there is a far more disturbing driver behind the rise of nonbinary. In 2011, the website, genderqueer.me started to become the go-to site for young people who considered themselves nonbinary. It helped that it was set up by Micah Rajunov, a young woman with piercing blue eyes and a huge smile. It features heart-warming photographs of her wife and badly behaved dog, with its missing teeth and, of course, stories of her realization that she was neither male nor female.
Rajunov’s influence didn’t stop at Genderqueer.me. In 2019, she co-edited Nonbinary: Memoirs of Gender and Identity, a book that sold like hotcakes among the troubled youth of America. And yet for all her winsome smiles and self-deprecating humor, Rajunov’s influence is every bit as malign as Vaid-Menon’s.
In August 2020, she gave an extended interview to Google Talks, in which she relayed her journey to nonbinary authenticity. In a moment that’s all the more extraordinary for the casual way she lets it slip, Rajunov explains that she was initially unsure of her identity and so hung out at some trans conferences. It was there she heard that you no longer had to try to be the opposite gender to qualify as trans. Instead, you could be neither man nor woman. ‘I didn’t know what that meant really’, she admits, before adding the punchline: ‘But I knew that I wanted to have surgery, top surgery. I always say I transitioned backwards because I started with surgery and then I did everything else.’
In other words, Rajunov had little interest in attempting to look like another type of body. She wasn’t interested in transitioning to another sex or mimicking a male. Rajunov just wanted to remove her breasts.
This exposes a sad, largely unacknowledged truth about the nonbinary movement. It is driven in large part by a desire to mutilate one’s body for its own sake. It is an act primarily of negation, of nihilism. Nonbinaries want to erase the physical signs of their sex.
This has largely been concealed by trans activists over the past decade. They have won social, political and medical acceptance for their cause by promoting the idea that trans people have a burning, often desperate, need to try to make their bodies fit their inner gender identity – that is, the image of the opposite sex they have in their minds.
Since the public are familiar with the two sexes, it was once possible to persuade people that someone might be born in the body of the ‘wrong’ sex. People could accept the cod-explanation that the wiring in the brain or hormones in the womb had got mixed up. And so, even if reluctantly, many of us were initially willing to accept that the condition might not be entirely delusional.
What the public did not know, and the trans lobby was not keen to reveal, was that for an increasing number of ‘trans’ people, and above all their nonbinary successors, the most powerful motivation for ‘transitioning’ has never really been the desire to mimic the opposite sex. Rather it was and is driven by something far more self-destructive – to mutilate or erase the physical signs of their bodies’ sex.
It’s obvious why trans activists have long played down this aspect of their cause. The negative force of transgenderism, writ large in the very idea of nonbinary, of being neither / nor, would strike most people as pathological. They might start to see it for what it is – a psychological disorder.
Some nonbinaries have given the game away however. About 10 years ago, those who did acknowledge this desire to mutilate their sexed bodies explicitly embraced the idea of being nullo or neutrois – indeed, Rajunov’s own twitter handle is @neutrois.
When Cosmopolitan magazine explored the phenomenon of neutrois in 2021, it described Rajunov as one of its leading lights, and gave links to sites set up by Rajunov where readers could discover nuggets like this:
‘Neutrois people… seek surgery to lose the major physical signifiers that indicate gender to others (breasts, facial and body hair, crotch bulges, etc). The most extreme surgery is genital nullification (removal of all genitalia). Such people can be described as eunuchs.’
Neutrois nonbinaries often use the terms ‘null’ or ‘nullo’ interchangeably. An example of how overpowering this obsession can become was provided in January this year, when two men who ran a ‘nullo’ cult in Finsbury Park in London were given jail sentences. The trial revealed that the men involved had carried out and filmed procedures to remove one of their member’s penis and left leg, and another’s nipple.
Men who want to become neutrois tend to have their genitals removed, while most women tend to want to have their breasts removed – although there have been cases of others having their vaginas sewn up and their clitorises removed. Neutrois aspirants of both sexes often want to have their nipples removed, too, so powerful is their desire to smooth out and erase the existence of a sexed body.
The nonbinary cause is born of a psychological disturbance. It is no more deserving of public validation or affirmation than any other obsession with body-modification. Think of Denis Avner, who spent years having his body operated on in order to look more like a cat. He committed suicide in 2012, which rather suggests he might have been better seeking help of a psychiatric rather than surgical kind.
Of course, no medical organization would argue that Avner’s pathological obsession with becoming a cat was valid. Sadly the same cannot be said for this pathological obsession with erasing the gender binary. In 2023, the world’s leading trans healthcare organization, WPATH, added nullo, neutrois and ‘eunuch’ to its ever-expanding list of gender identities. In doing so, it was merely formalizing a view widely held across the nonbinary ‘community’. In the US, some surgeons now actively promote the fact that they offer a ‘nullo’ service.
The trans lobby is already responsible for exacerbating the mental-health problems of troubled teenagers, feeding them the myth they might be born in the wrong body. But the nonbinary phase of transgenderism is perhaps even more dangerous. It is potentially normalizing and affirming adolescents’ discomfort with and sometimes loathing for their changing bodies. And it is promising the darkest of solutions: the surgical erasure of all signs of either maleness or femaleness.
We need to resist the trans and nonbinary agenda. We need to challenge its claims to be liberating and progressive, and expose its creepy, nihilistic roots. To allow or encourage the modification and mutilation of young bodies is not a win for social justice or equality. It is accommodating pathological behavior.
Nonbinary advocates may claim that negating the binary through the erasure of one’s own bodily sex is ‘freedom’. But it’s not. It’s just not. It is even more of a trap than the gender stereotypes from which so many confused young people think they want to escape.
This nonsense has to stop and people need to see and know it for what it truly is. Pathological behavior.
If you think that the American media’s relentless attacks on the right to keep and bear arms represent a credible threat to the Second Amendment now, just wait until they come to realize that, instead of merely proselytizing against your rights, they can turn your support for them into a “thought crime.”
Over the last few years, politicians from a handful of states have gotten into the bad habit of teaming up with the media, academia, Hollywood, Silicon Valley and key parts of corporate America, and of using the remarkable power of their alliance to contrive and promulgate political narratives that, even a few weeks earlier, had been on virtually nobody’s radar. In 2017, this team brought us the Trump-Russia Collusion hoax, which started as a salacious and unsubstantiated rumor but quickly became all Washington, D.C., was interested in talking about. That fake narrative was broadcast during every news program; it was conveyed during a lot of professional sports telecasts; it was featured in corporate press releases; it was appended to the splash pages and login forms of widely used websites; it was woven into the algorithms of streaming services and search engines and online stores. Its scope, in short, was astonishing.
This could also happen with guns and our Second Amendment rights. And when such an orchestrated effort comes, they will work overtime to make it just as all-consuming. They’ve already been trying. Every time a mass-murderer attacks—almost always in a so-called “gun-free” zone—the same cabal of media, entertainment personalities and politicians who want to disarm America’s armed citizens try to create a feverish movement to force through gun bans and more.
The only reason this trick has not yet resulted in major new national gun-control legislation is because gun owners have organized themselves. Still, the players necessary for such a push—politicians in anti-Second Amendment states; the White House; many in big tech, academia, the mainstream media and the entertainment industry—are all ready and waiting. They believe that this topic lends itself well to revisionism and mass hysteria. And, because the political will to achieve what its practitioners want to achieve simply does not exist, an end-run around the process is unusually tempting to them.
Practically speaking, this play might take many forms. If they wished to, online behemoths such as Google, Facebook and YouTube could demonetize or bar any user (or bury/misdirect searches) who expressed support for the individual right to bear arms, or even anyone who showed a mere interest in it, on the grounds that such support was “ahistorical” (“misinformation”) or “violent” (“unsafe”). If they decided to, universities and TV stations could reflexively append the word “denier” or “hater” to any figure who opposes gun control, and effectively shut a super-majority of the population out of the national conversation. If they were so inclined, America’s streaming services could refuse to carry any material that contained pro-Second Amendment sentiments, while relentlessly promoting content that called for stricter regulation, or even full prohibition.
Does that sound far-fetched? If so, may I ask why? To my eyes, at least, the last few years have made it abundantly clear that if our elite class wished to go down this road with vigor, it could do so at a moment’s notice. Indeed, if we have learned anything at all from the last decade, it is that the cultural power wielded by a handful of American industries is extremely difficult to resist, and that the tools that those industries use in pursuit of their aims are so flexible that they resemble a blank check. Bluntly put, the truth doesn’t enter into it; what matters is what a handful of potent institutions decide the truth needs to be.
Many big-tech companies, such as Google and Facebook, are already antagonistic to gun ownership, but what if they go a step further?
During the 2020 election, the news of Hunter Biden’s laptop needed to be treated as “misinformation,” so it was—even though it turned out to be entirely true. During the COVID-19 lockdowns, any criticism of the government’s approach needed to be treated as “misinformation,” so they were—even though much of that criticism proved to be correct. In 2017, skepticism toward the wild claim that the president of the United States was a Russian asset needed to be treated as “misinformation,” so it was—even though that skepticism was so obviously accurate as to defy belief.
“Safety,” likewise, has proven endlessly pliable. For years—on college campuses, in major newspapers and on the big-tech platforms—all manner of words and ideas have been labeled as “unsafe,” but then thrown out as soon as it ceased to suit the politics of the administrators. To believe that these protean weapons could not be aimed squarely at the Second Amendment is naïve in the extreme.
We cannot stop the gun-control movement from attempting to make windows into our souls, but we can board up those windows.
In fact, on a smaller scale, the process has already begun. The press already pretends that the Second Amendment is a far-fetched invention of a “right-wing” Supreme Court; it already insists that the Gun Violence Archive is a reliable source; and it already promotes descriptions of how guns work that have absolutely no relation to reality or elementary physics. Online advertisers already punish websites and content-creators who debate or review firearms. Social-media sites, such as Facebook, already have stricter rules governing the discussion and transaction of legal firearms than they do governing illegal drugs. And a handful of states—the ones in which every bad gun-control idea tends to originate—are already pushing to include individuals’ social-media histories in their permit-application processes.
Together, these developments represent a considerable threat to the future of the right to keep and bear arms. The attempt to cast pro-gun voices out of polite society is a straight-up cultural play, the obvious aim of which is to weaken the ability of pro-Second Amendment figures to make their case in the public square. They thereby want to turn America’s hundred-million-plus gun owners into a fringe group that is relegated to the margins of public life.
Despite the many important legal victories that have been won over the last two decades, the renaissance in the right to keep and bear arms has primarily been driven from the ground up—by the people. Alarmed by the prospect that a key part of the U.S. Bill of Rights was on the verge of being read entirely out of the U.S. Constitution, advocates of the Second Amendment did the work: They did research, made arguments, knocked on doors, joined the NRA, voted in elections and called their elected officials until, eventually, they achieved real change at all levels of government. The attempt to remove these voices from the digital space represents nothing more sophisticated than an attempt to reverse this momentum in any way possible, and to send a signal to those on the fence that, if they seek to join in, they will be penalized for it.
The attempt to punish would-be permit-holders for their political views serves as the practical arm of this push. After the Bruen decision was issued in 2022, the State of New York enacted a law that requires all applicants for a concealed-carry permit to furnish “a list of former and current social-media accounts” to state police. According to the architects of the law, the purpose of this provision is to help authorities judge the “character and conduct” of a given applicant. But this, of course, is extraordinarily subjective. Leaving aside the obvious constitutional problems that attach to any system in which applicants are adjudicated on the basis of their particularized characteristics rather than of their compliance with a neutral set of rules, there is simply no way of narrowing down the definitions to the point at which they would rule out abuse.
“Character and conduct” are in the eye of the beholder. Certainly, they cover real threats. But, in the wrong hands, they could also cover religious beliefs, political views, tone of voice and so forth. The key distinction between a right and privilege is that rights are maintained by those citizens whom the government dislikes and privileges are not. Ultimately, the inclusion of private opinions within the permit-review process helps the opponents of the Second Amendment both coming and going: Not only is the state accorded the opportunity to exclude those it disdains from the exercise of their constitutional rights, but those who might want to exercise those rights in the future are incentivized to keep quiet lest their words be arbitrarily used against them. The effect, by design, is to chill the use of this right.
Former California Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson introduced a measure that would have expanded the prohibited list to include those convicted of non- violent misdemeanors—an effort to convict people of pre-crimes.
In California, legislators have pushed for a slightly different approach toward the same end: Instead of attempting to punish thought crimes, as New York has, California has considered experimenting with pre-crime. In 2019, for example, then-Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson (D) introduced a measure that would have added a new class of non-violent misdemeanors that would have resulted in a 10-year ban on the possession of firearms. Among the misdemeanors were public intoxication, disorderly conduct and driving under the influence. Naturally, one does not need to approve of public intoxication, disorderly conduct or driving under the influence to understand that the logic undergirding this bill is terrifying. In effect, Sen. Jackson was assuming that a person who has demonstrated a willingness to break laws that society considers to be relatively minor will, in the future, demonstrate a willingness to break laws that society considers to be relatively major.
This is not how the law works in a free country. If California wishes to treat public intoxication, disorderly conduct or driving under the influence as felonies, then it ought to treat them as felonies. But it cannot have it both ways—keeping them as misdemeanors in the schedule, except for their effect on the right to keep and bear arms. Vetoing a similar measure the prior year, then-Gov. Jerry Brown (D) said, “I am not persuaded that it is necessary to bar gun ownership on the basis of crimes that are non-felonies, non-violent and do not involve misuse of a firearm.” Indeed, it is not. Unless, of course, the aim isn’t to police crime, but to provide yet another pretext for disarmament.
Second Amendment advocates ought to respond to these threats in two distinct ways. Culturally, we must continue to discredit institutions that have exposed themselves as dishonest actors; meanwhile, we must back alternatives that can pick up the slack where necessary. When organizations such as Facebook and YouTube demonetize or penalize firearms-based content, they are flying in the face of political trends, which have been toward more Second Amendment freedom—and a more diverse gun-owner demographic—not the other way around. If, in a fit of ideological pique, those companies wish to alienate the majority, that is their prerogative. But they can only do so without hurting themselves if there is no ready substitute to which the dispossessed may flock. Those substitutes exist. We must ready them and use them.
On the legal side, we must keep pushing to institute systems that cannot be hijacked by the would-be thought police. Ultimately, subjective judgments are possible only where rights have not been fully guaranteed. Constitutional carry cannot be hijacked, because there is no permitting process to corrupt. “Shall issue” cannot be hijacked in the way that “may issue” can, because it does not allow space for government officials to insert their own opinions. We cannot stop the gun-control movement from attempting to make windows into our souls, but we can board up those windows.
By now, the outlines of the playbook have been made clear. There is no excuse for us to be unprepared if it comes.
Some events mark history by the violence of their passion and the intensity of their hatred. Their activists make use of every artifice and symbolism to sear into the minds of the public the fact that a great betrayal has been perpetrated, resulting in a day that will live on in infamy.
March 4 was one such day. The world looked on in horror as French lawmakers approved a bill that enshrined abortion in the French Constitution, the world’s first country to make it specifically the supreme law of the land.
Three considerations come to mind while reflecting on the event.
An Act Designed to Cause an Impression
The first consideration is that the government wanted to do everything possible to make this a historical act. It was not an ordinary vote but a dramatic statement of intent.
To fit the 925 MPs and senators, the government called a special joint session of parliament at the Palace of Versailles. The measure had already overwhelmingly passed in both legislative chambers. A joint session was held at this most prestigious place because a three-fifths majority of all legislators must approve any constitutional amendments.
The Republican Guard, in full regalia and with sabers drawn, formed a guard of honor (where only dishonor reigned) and solemnly drummed in the National Assembly’s first female president, Yaël Braun-Pivet, who entered in total silence.
After speeches emphasizing the importance of the issue, a vote was taken. Around 7 p.m., the Assembly president announced the results: “780 votes in favor, 72 votes against.” The legislators applauded the vote with a wild and prolonged standing ovation that recalled raucous scenes from the French Revolution.
In addition, the vote was broadcast live on every French news channel while hundreds gathered around a giant screen at the Paris Trocadéro opposite the Eiffel Tower. Thus, scenes of a jubilant crowd provided the street theater to give the impression of the support of “the People.”
The French legislators knew what they were doing and supplied all the ceremonial trappings to highlight the importance of this grave offense. They were also aware of how France has a unique capacity to hold symbolic events and, therefore, enjoys worldwide influence.
Mathilde Panot, a Member of Parliament from the far-left party France Unbowed, understood this impact when she proposed the amendment. She told the chamber that the move was “a promise…for all women fighting [for abortion] everywhere in the world.”
An Act that Offended God
The most important consideration is how this first enshrining of abortion into a national constitution is an offense against God. What made this act more tragic was that it was France.
France is the first-born daughter of the Church. For centuries, she has given the Church saints, crusaders, Catholic kings and statesmen. France lies at the heart of Christendom and is the model of a Christian civilization.
Thus, enshrining abortion was more than a legislative act. It was a monumental rejection of God’s law, a denial of France’s Christian past, and the celebration and exaltation of a moral evil. This historic rupture cannot fail to weigh heavily upon the nation.
The constitutional amendment is a sin that will have consequences. Sin is not only something personal. Nations can collectively sin when they accept things against God’s law.
Indeed, Saint Augustine teaches that since nations per se have no existence in eternity (only individuals do), they are rewarded or punished here on earth for their collective good or evil actions. Those directing nations who want peace for their peoples should lead them toward virtue and away from sin.
The Wages of Collective Sin
Indeed, secular France has long officially abandoned the Faith. Today, she is enmeshed in misfortune and violence, which has shattered her unity. The country has the largest number of “no-go zones” in Europe, with some 751 designated Zones Urbaines Sensibles (called “sensitive urban zones”), where Muslim youth gangs and radical imams rule, and the police dare not uphold law and order. In addition, more than 120 knife stabbings take place in France every day. There is also the unchecked immigration crisis, crime and civil strife. All these things are destroying France and represent a chastisement upon the nation for veering from its virtuous past.
This latest dramatic act of defying God’s law can only make matters much worse.
A Purposeful Attack
The final consideration concerns how this move to enshrine abortion into the French Constitution was purposeful and deliberate.
However, it was seemingly done without purpose.
Many observers rightly note that from the point of view of existing abortion law, the dramatic measure was not needed. France already provided one of Europe’s most secure and protective umbrellas for the slaughter of the unborn.
Tragically, well over eighty percent of the population supports abortion. All of France’s major political parties represented in Parliament support procured abortion, including Marine Le Pen’s “far-right” National Rally party and other misnamed conservatives. Madame Le Pen, who voted in favor of the constitutional amendment, seemed to give the issue little importance by commenting that “there is no need to make this a historic day.”
Despite this massive support, the debate about the abortion amendment revolved around the threats of those who would ban the killing of the unborn in Europe.
The pro-life movement in Europe is growing. Even in France, tens of thousands march for life yearly. The left realizes how the defense of the unborn can spread. The speakers in Versailles spoke from a position of weakness and insecurity. They felt the need to throw the most difficult legal obstacle conceivable across the path of those fighting abortion.
However, as history has proven, such legal roadblocks can be overturned against all odds and even after decades of procured abortion being “settled law” on the books. Fearful French liberals felt they needed to take some action.
The University of Chicago’s John Mearsheimer recently summarized the situation, and this is an analysis as well:
Assange is a journalist, and he did not break the law, as it is commonplace for journalists to publish classified information that is passed on to them by government insiders. If journalists in the United States were sent to jail for publishing classified material, the jails would be filled with many of America’s most famous reporters from newspapers like The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal.
But of course, that hardly ever happens. Simply put, newspapers publish classified material, and hardly anybody ever goes to jail. Why is this the case? What is the reason for this situation? Governments of every type, and this includes liberal democracies like the United States and Britain, sometimes go to great lengths to hide their actions or their policies from public view, which makes it almost impossible for the public to evaluate and criticize their behavior….
Thus, a rich tradition has developed over time in the United States, where insiders leak information about classified policies to journalists who publicize the information so that the public can evaluate it and push back hard against misguided policies.
The most famous case that illustrates this phenomenon involves the famous Pentagon Papers, which were a multi-volume study of the American decision to enter the war in Vietnam in the 1964-65 period and then escalated in subsequent years.
Daniel Ellsberg, who was an insider and had access to classified material, leaked the papers in 1971 to The New York Times, which subsequently published them. The story in those documents was starkly at odds with what the Johnson administration had been telling the American people about US policy in Vietnam.
By most accounts at the time, and certainly since then, both Ellsberg and The New York Times performed an important public service…. Ellsberg did not go to jail despite leaking classified information, although it did appear at the time that he might be sent to jail. Certainly, nobody at the New York Times went to jail because, again, journalists don’t go to jail for publishing classified information in the United States.
It is very important to remember that in the case of Julian Assange, he is not the equivalent of Ellsberg because he was not an insider who leaked the information. Chelsea Manning was the insider. Assange was the equivalent of the New York Times, and thus he should not be extradited….
Two final points. First, it is important to emphasize that nobody was hurt because of the documents that Assange published. Nobody’s life was put in danger because of what he posted on Wikileaks, and certainly nobody was killed….
Second, Assange has already paid a huge price for his actions. He has effectively been in prison for years. Sending him to the United States, where he is likely to be convicted and sentenced to a long jail term, would be a case of cruel and unusual punishment.
Exactly right. I would add: the regime Assange exposed hates you. If you’re feeling compelled to defend it, don’t. It will only laugh that one of its victims wants to speak in its favor.
I was glad to see that Assange’s brother, Gabriel Shipton (whom I interviewed on the Tom Woods Show not too long ago), accompanied Rep. Thomas Massie as the latter’s guest at last week’s State of the Union.
Massie has made the point that with RFK, Jr. (who supports pardoning Assange) siphoning votes from the two major parties, there’s every political reason for one of the two major-party candidates to declare his own support for pardoning Assange as well. (Interestingly, Donald Trump, Jr., recently noted that he had changed his mind on the subject and now favors the pardon.)
Google wants to know what color of underwear you are wearing…
I’m not joking even though it sounds like a joke. Google (and Big Tech) want to know everything about you down to the smallest detail…
It’s common knowledge that Google listens to you without your consent. Even the most “anti-conspiracy theorist” people know this is true.
I’m sure you’ve been creeped out before when you saw an ad online for something you were just talking about in real life!
But Google’s spying isn’t just to give you “personalized ads” or “personalized search results”. In reality, it’s much more sinister.
So why does Google (and Big Tech) want to know everything about you?
Many people know that Big Tech is “in bed” with Big Brother, but did you know that Google’s origins come from CIA and NSA funds? It’s no accident.
The internet is designed to be a surveillance tool.
And Google is one of the worst.
Google has been caught…
I’ll cover all of that and MORE in today’s video.
I really recommend that you watch it here.
The history of humankind is that of domination—of kings and queens ruling over their “subjects,” of the “elite” dictating to the peasants, of the powerful brutalizing the weak, and of cruel tyrants enslaving the masses.
Our Founding Fathers fundamentally changed this hierarchical approach with the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. They declared that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. These rights are inherent in us, and no government has the authority to infringe upon them.
These two sacred documents took away power from the so-called ruling class and gave it to the people. More than this, they declared, and codified into law, that “We the People” own this country. We are in charge! The President, Congress, the courts, and government bureaucrats, are not our “rulers”; rather, they are our servants.
These values are in our DNA. “We the People” choose freedom!
The world’s elitists, however, are predators who are determined to gain power over us “peasants.” Many of them are members of the World Economic Forum (WEF). For years, the WEF has worked to create a cartel of the powerful, whose goal is to crush our freedoms and take away our possessions. Billionaires, multinational corporations, international bankers, celebrities, activists, professors, government leaders, and heads of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have declared war on us and on Western culture.
Why? Because the concept of individual rights is a Western value, and it flies in the face of the control structures they are trying to put in place.
This is why Europe and the US are facing an all-out invasion of illegal immigrants. The illegal crossings at the Mexico/US border, which number in the thousands per day, go on unimpeded. More than this, the federal government is doing everything it can to encourage this invasion of migrants who do not share our values.
This is why “woke” Hollywood screenwriters are pushing gender dysphoria and bodily mutilation on teens. It’s why universities and scientific institutions are corrupting the scientific method and critical thinking by pushing cult-like beliefs of gender and race and by firing and silencing doctors and scientists who challenge the narrative. It’s also why prosecutors are letting violence and crime go unpunished.
We are witnessing an all-out attack on our values of self-reliance, generosity, and individual liberty. It is the planned destruction of the West.
But why do they want to destroy our values of individual freedom?
Their goal is to implement a system of absolute surveillance and control. WEF founder Klaus Schwab put it succinctly, “You will own nothing and be happy.”
There are a number of key aspects of their plan, such as a digital ID, total surveillance, a collapse of the free market system, censorship, destruction of small businesses and family-owned farms, corruption of science, decimation of Christian churches, and complete control over everyone’s financial lives with a new central bank digital currency (CBDC), which will replace the US dollar (and every country’s currency).
These puzzle pieces will come together to form a social credit system, which will literally enslave the human race (see this month’s article, “A Legacy of Freedom”).
Already the central banks of 140 countries are taking steps to launch a CBDC. The WEF, which is the linchpin of this plan, is working with Big Tech and the central banks to develop a unified control system. Many countries launched a vaccine passport during the COVID panic—their way of sneaking in the digital ID.
Each country’s social credit system will reward or penalize individuals and institutions for how well or how poorly they abide by their ESG system—also referred to as Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI).
This is an incredibly tightknit system of control. It is already shaping universities and multinational corporations, many of which are now almost completely captured. The next goal is for every country to implement digital IDs and CBDCs nationwide.
The timeline for having the entire control system in place globally is 2030. That’s shockingly soon! This is why we see such tremendous upheaval in the world right now.
Once the systems of control are in place, it will be too late for us to stop them. We must act now.
Unfortunately, we cannot count on the federal government to fix this problem. Rather, it is up to citizens and state governments to take back power from the technocratically controlled federal government.
How can our states check this power grab?
By following the law. The US Constitution is the foundation of our legal system, and all laws that violate it are illegal laws. The Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution drastically limits the power of the federal government. It says: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Our federal government is not superior to state and local governments. The Constitution’s Supremacy Clause gives the former “supremacy” only in accordance with the Constitution. The states have the right and obligation to nullify federal overreach.
I believe our only hope for saving this great land is for states to step up and protect our individual rights. Beyond this, “We the People” must remember that our rights come from God and that no government has the authority to infringe upon our rights.
For the sake of our freedom and the freedom of future generations, we must act immediately to proactively pass laws that protect our rights and our values.
The time to take back our power is now. The law is on our side and not theirs.
We’ve put together an intermediate summary of evidence for those who are interested in halting the Covid-19 injections among the population, especially children. We’ve dispelled the notion that the Covid-19 injections are ‘safe & effective’ as advertised.
The following information is indisputable and would qualify as evidence in any legitimate court hearing. It should be noted that the data provided below is merely scratching the surface of what we’ve uncovered and should, in no way be misconstrued as the sum of available data.
I’m sure the ‘fact checkers’ will attempt to discredit, undermine or minimize the data presented as it certainly goes against the prescribed narrative. Before Covid, getting a ‘second opinion’ used to be wise standard practice – now it just gets you labeled ‘anti-vaxxer’ and shouted down. Whether they choose to accept it or not, this is what some experts are saying and it’s concerning enough to warrant – at minimum – a pause on the Covid-19 injections.
Please Credit Tom Renz as well as tomrenz.substack.com & tomrenz.com. Reproductions must include promotional materials.
Thank you for reading Tom Renz’s Newsletter. This post is public so feel free to share it.
We know that the Covid-19 injections are not actually vaccines – but since they’ve been marketed to the public as such -the following information is necessary.
The vaccine industry got immunity from liability by convincing the President and Congress that vaccines are ‘unavoidably unsafe’. As such, the court takes as true the premise that vaccines are unavoidably unsafe. Since the government mandates the use of an unavoidably unsafe product, it is reasonable to believe that some people will be injured by it. Therefore, the assertion that Covid-19 vaccines are ‘safe’ is patently false.
On February 22, 2011, the Supreme Court upheld this when they ruled on Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, a case involving the scope of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. They considered whether 42 U.S.C. Section 300aa-22(b)(1) of the act precludes all vaccine design defect claims even if the vaccine’s side effects were avoidable, or whether the vaccine manufacturer has to show on a case-by-case basis that the side effects could not have been avoided by some alternatively designed vaccine.
They held that the Vaccine Act expressly preempts all design defect claims against manufacturers.
“And so, anybody who tells you vaccines are safe and effective, the industry itself got immunity from liability by convincing the President and Congress that vaccines are unavoidably unsafe.” -Robert Kennedy Jr.
The mRNA Covid-19 injections are not vaccines. They are gene therapy products.
On page 148 & 149 of Moderna’s 2019 SEC filing there is a legally mandated discussion of “risk factors” that reads as follows:
“No mRNA drug has been approved in this new potential class of medicines and may never be approved as a result of efforts by others or us. mRNA drug development has substantial clinical development and regulatory risk due to the novel and unprecedented nature of this new class of medicines.
As a potential new class of medicines, no mRNA medicines have been approved to date by the FDA or other regulatory agency… currently mRNA is considered a gene therapy product by the FDA.”
The March 2015 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the FDA and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research published a ‘guide for industry’ entitled: “Determining the Need for and Content of Environmental Assessments for Gene Therapies, Vectored Vaccines, and Related Recombinant Viral or Microbial Products” lists their definition of gene therapy.
It’s been reported that lobbyists for BioNTech & Moderna are active in European Parliament, seeking to redefine gene therapy as it relates to mRNA vaccines.
Gene therapy products require a much more stringent regulatory process and the FDA guidance for industry documents that we’ve discussed in depth, prove that GTP’s have the potential to integrate into the host genome and wreak havoc on the body.
They have the potential to effectuate ‘altered expression’ of the host’s genome, shed on others, produce undesirable biologic events & delayed adverse reactions – including autoimmune issues, malignant transformation (cancer) and death. The longer they are in the body, the more potential for damage. It was deceptive to market these injections as vaccines when they are gene therapy products. This is a violation of proper informed consent and the Nuremburg Code.
Sasha Latypova published a leaked audio recording that allegedly exposes an AstraZeneca internal executive meeting that took place at the end of 2020. The audio file purportedly has AstraZeneca’s CEO, Pascal Soriot admitting that there are people who should not be vaccinated.
‘And for those of you who may not be totally familiar with antibodies, you know, you have to know a number of people cannot be vaccinated, like if you have an immune disease, lupus or some other immune condition… or multiple sclerosis, you cannot be vaccinated.’
Whistleblower and former regional director for Ventavia Research Group, a company hired to run clinical trials for Pfizer’s COVID shot – Brook Jackson alleges to have witnessed deeply disturbing practices at trial sites that she affirms corrupted the data used by FDA to approve the Covid-19 injections.
The data that we were told to trust is allegedly tainted by unsanitary practices, absurdly unqualified staff and even forged informed consent forms. So, how can we trust the data?
They said the Covid-19 injections would not leave injection site. That was wrong.
The Children’s Health Defense Network explains the study:
“This study involved just two patients. Patient 1, a 34-year-old pregnant woman, received a Pfizer two-shot primary round and two boosters (one Pfizer, one Moderna), with the last dose administered two days before delivering by cesarean section. Investigators collected samples of her placenta, blood and cord blood post-delivery.
Patient 2 was 33 and received two Pfizer doses, the last 10 days before her vaginal delivery. Only placental samples were available from this patient.
Vaccine mRNA was detected in both placentas. Spike protein was found in the placenta of Patient 2 but not Patient 1. mRNA from the vaccine was found in the cord and maternal blood of Patient 1.”
In Pfizer’s September 2021 post-hoc analysis, Pfizer states that their mRNA injections increase the risk for COVID-19. Page 22 of the 2021 FDA Briefing Document states:
“An additional analysis appears to indicate that the incidence of COVID-19 generally increased in each group of study participants with increasing time post-Dose 2.”
According to a Cleveland Clinic study, the people who had the most shots had the greatest chance of contracting Covid-19.Subscribe
The Science’ has now been established by the Cleveland Clinic. Genetic vaccines damage your immune system and make you not less likely but more likely to be infected with Covid.’
-The Expose
The Epoch Times reported on a paper published in the International Journal of Epidemiology which determined:
‘A single dose of the Pfizer vaccine was pegged at minus 121 percent effectiveness on day 84 and minus 85 percent effectiveness on day 98. A second Pfizer dose held up better, but still dipped below 50 percent at day 98.
A single dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine turned negative at day 70 and a second dose turned negative at day 84.’
“The lowest risk for getting COVID is if you’ve had zero vaccines. As you add vaccines, your risk of getting COVID goes up. I’ve never seen a vaccine like this. That’s not the basis of vaccines. They shouldn’t have what we would call negative efficacy.”
What Dr. Pengilly said is in direct contradiction to the study below. He said ‘myocarditis is generally an autoimmune phenomenon where antibodies are formed against the cells, in this case the heart, and it occurs after Covid at a higher rate than it does after vaccination…’
The studies below conclude the virus doesn’t infect the heart. We have a right to question why what Dr. Pengilly said is the opposite of what these autopsies say. It’s necessary!
If SARS-CoV-2 infection caused myocarditis or inflammation of heart muscle tissue, then it would be seen on autopsy in fatal cases of COVID-19.
‘Poloni et al specifically examined the heart of fatal COVID-19 cases and concluded the virus does not infect the heart.’
People who recovered from COVID-19 were better off than those who received a COVID-19 vaccine.Subscribe
It is statistically and clinically impossible to make a vaccine for children that is more effective or safe than their own innate immune response to SARS-CoV-2.
“There were a total of only 25 deaths that occurred within 28 days of a positive Covid PCR tests [in UK children] where Covid was actually thought to be a factor. So, in the UK, the risk of all children dying from Covid is around 1 in 500,000. But out of those 25 children, 19 had severe pre-existing conditions — which means the risk for healthy children is about 1 in 2,000,000.’
‘Research out of Germany observing rat and human heart cells shows that within 48 hours of vaccination, the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines form spike proteins.’
The authors concluded that at the cellular level, the effects of the COVID-19 vaccines seemed to align closer with cardiomyopathy than with myocarditis. Cardiomyopathy is a condition where heart muscles become both structurally and functionally abnormal in the absence of other heart diseases. This differs from myocarditis and pericarditis, which occur when heart muscles become inflamed and damaged.
‘Dr. James Gill, led autopsies on two boys who died in their sleep after administration of the COVID-19 Pfizer vaccines. He concluded that the boys did not suffer from typical myocarditis but rather something that resembled cardiomyopathy caused by toxic stress.’
“In regard to Covid-19 deaths, the ONS reveals that the mortality rate among unvaccinated children aged 10 to 14 equates to 0.31. But in regard to one-dose vaccinated children, the mortality rate equates to 3.24 per 100,000 person-years, and in regard to triple vaccinated children, the mortality rate equates to a shocking 41.29 per 100,000 person-years.”Subscribe
‘These figures reveal that unvaccinated children are much less likely to die of Covid-19 than children who have had the Covid-19 injection.’
A study in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Effects of Vaccination and Previous Infection on Omicron Infections in Children revealed that children aged 5-11 who had a prior infection but were not vaccinated had a lower risk of being reinfected than did vaccinated children who had a prior infection.
An internal 393-page Pfizer document, which included an interval reporting period recorded harmful results reported to (or collected by) Pfizer since receiving the emergency use authorization (EUA) up until June 18, 2022.
A quick analysis revealed that there were nearly ‘5 million (4,964,106) harmful clinical outcomes reported across nearly 1.5 million (1,485,027) mRNA injected victims since December of 2020.
696,605 nervous, 317,811 gastro, 126,993 cardiac, 100,970 blood/lymphatic, 61,518 eye and 31,895 immune system disorders; and 167,382 victims developed bacterial, viral, or parasitic infections.’ (This includes more than 20k cases of herpes. Thanks Pfizer!)
Speaking of ‘herpes’ – According to a study published in the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, “T-cell-mediated immunity” is significantly worsened in fully vaccinated people, leading to the reemergence of viruses and illnesses previously dormant in the person.
“The top two public health agencies in the United States conducted a joint study showing that the risk of developing autoimmune heart disease among the “fully vaccinated” for the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) is a shocking 13,200 percent higher than it is among the unvaccinated. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) discovered that compared to the background risk in the general population, the risk of myocarditis is 133 times greater in those who took the mRNA injections from either Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna.”
The Epoch Times – Epoch Health Reports:
A study from Turkey finds that rats injected with these vaccines gave birth to offspring exhibiting symptoms of autism and lower neuronal counts.
“Our findings reveal that the mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine significantly alters WNT gene expression and BDNF levels in both male and female rats, suggesting a profound impact on key neurodevelopmental pathways. Notably, male rats exhibited pronounced autism-like behaviors, characterized by a marked reduction in social interaction and repetitive patterns of behavior. Furthermore, there was a substantial decrease in neuronal counts in critical brain regions, indicating potential neurodegeneration or altered neurodevelopment. Male rats also demonstrated impaired motor performance, evidenced by reduced coordination and agility.”
The authors of the study noted that even though it causes autism in rats, people should use caution before generalizing these results to humans, citing a need for further studies. We know that rats are an animal model of Alzheimer’s and while the study cites the use of wistar rats the study does not distinguish if transgenic rats were used (i.e. mice with human ACE2 receptors).
Doctors Peter McCullough & colleagues reviewed 325 autopsy cases, and they found:
The information presented clearly shows that the ‘benefits’ of Covid-19 vaccination do not outweigh the risks.
‘Sweden has decided against recommending COVID vaccines for kids aged 5-11, the Health Agency said on Thursday, arguing that the benefits did not outweigh the risks.
“With the knowledge we have today, with a low risk for serious disease for kids, we don’t see any clear benefit with vaccinating them,” Health Agency official Britta Bjorkholm told a news conference.’
The World Council for Health and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, have called for the removal of the COVID-19 vaccines from the market, contradicting the narrative that all doctors and agencies universally support the vaccines.
A virtual hearing with the following internationally renowned immunologists,
geneticists, specialist physicians and research scientists shared their findings.
“I believe today in 2023 after three years of the failed Covid 19 vaccine campaign which has been a biologic disaster for the world that the multi-hit hypothesis for oncogenesis has been fulfilled… the Covid 19 vaccines work to impair tumor suppressor systems P53 and BRCA 1 and 2. Additionally, the genetic vaccines also impair DNA repair … they impair the bodies’ ability to repair itself.”
Dr Peter McCullough, Scientific Advisor to World Council
A review paper published January 24, 2024, in the journal Cureus is the first peer-reviewed paper to call for a global moratorium on the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.
‘The authors say that reanalyzed data from the vaccine makers’ trials and high rates of serious post-injection injuries indicate the mRNA gene therapy vaccines should not have been authorized for use.’
“It is unethical + unconscionable to administer an experimental vaccine to a child who has a near-zero risk of dying from COVID-19 (IFR, 0.0003%) but a well-established 2.2% risk of permanent heart damage based on the best prospective data available.”
“The sequence that’s in these doses, at billions of copies per dose, interacts with the P53 gene. This is a tumor suppressor gene so anything that interacts as a contaminant in the gene is a red flag. Hit the brakes, stop cold. You’ve got billions of copies of something that interact with our tumor suppressor system. This is a cancer risk. It’s in Moderna’s patents. We know it’s now in the Pfizer vaccines. This needs to be a red stop halt.”
– Kevin McKernan, CSO Medicinal Genomics
Many governments including those of the United Kingdom, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland have at various points, suspended their recommendations for child Covid-19 vaccinations. This is an ever changing dynamic and pauses and recommendations affect different age groups and various brands of vaccine – but at the end of the day – there are enough safety signals that cause recommendations to change rapidly and that is concerning.
We should be very sure about a product before injecting it into the human body, especially children. The constant vacillating between ‘safe’ and ‘possibly not safe’ – is problematic and means we should pause. A logical person can see that there is virtually no benefit to these injections – only risk. Why are we being mandated into something where the risk clearly outweighs any potential benefit?
Too many of the studies that admit the harm caused by the Covid-19 injections like to add the caveat: “Covid-19 vaccination is safe and remains strongly recommended.” Safe?! How can they claim these are safe when there are over 5 million documented adverse events, including death – with virtually no protection or benefit? They don’t prevent Covid, and natural immunity is superior. You’re more likely to not only catch Covid -but die from it after being injected. How can anyone of sound mind give this to kids?Subscribe
Sources:
Purchase the latest in the 404-book series, “The COVID Fight 404: Why It Matters & Other Essays” here:
Amazon
Barnes & Noble
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-covid-fight-tom-renz/1144780620
Please consider subscribing and if possible, donating to our GiveSendGo (https://www.givesendgo.com/renzlaw). We are a nation of 320+ million, if only 100,000 could give $20/month we could unleash lawfare on a level I truly believe would have the potential to save our nation.
Purchase the second 404 book “CBDCs 404: Central Bank Digital Currency & Other Essays” here:
– https://amzn.to/3FIz9me
Barnes & Noble
– https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/book/1144313792?ean=9798868958335
In CBDCs: Central Digital Bank Currency & Other Essays Tom Renz offers a cursory exploration of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), shedding light on their significance in the modern financial landscape. From explaining the general concept to investigating the potential socio-economic impact on readers, this book offers elementary insight into this emerging monetary paradigm.
This little book cautions readers about the potential risks and dangers associated with CBDC implementation including privacy concerns, cybersecurity threats, and the implications of a digital currency system on individual liberties. Readers are guided through thought-provoking essays that critically examine the darker facets of CBDCs in language that could be understood by anyone intrigued by the future of money.
The 404 Series is a series of short books on various topics that are largely complicated and misunderstood. about action and beating censorship. 404 is the internet error for “site not found” and references the difficulty of finding true information. The 404 series presents true information concisely and will allow you to articulate the argument clearly as well as take action on specific issues related to the fight for freedom.
Purchase my first 404 book modRNA: Why It Matters & Other Essays here:
Amazon – https://a.co/d/3uZxYEB
Barnes & Noble – https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/modrna-thomas-renz/1144182070?ean=9781088145364
In modRNA: Why It Matters & Other Essays, Attorney Thomas Renz delivers a wake-up call, exposing the potential catastrophes of introducing untested vaccines and gene therapies into the human food supply. With meticulous research this little book unravels the dark side of tinkering with the building blocks of life. Drawing on expert insights, it’s a stark reminder that the consequences of unregulated innovation can be catastrophic.
Tom Renz – Renz is an Attorney, Analyst, and commentator. You can follow his substack at www.TomRenz.SubStack.com and his work generally at www.TomRenz.com. He also has a GiveSendGo to support his work at https://www.givesendgo.com/RENZLAW.
Watch The Tom Renz Show LIVE Every Weekday right here on Rumble at 10am ET.
Subscribe to my locals channel @TomRenz.Locals.com for full access to The Tom Renz Show.
Please support us at www.TomRenz.com and become a Renz Warrior at www.RenzWarrior.com and if you’ve been injured by these jabs and need disability, please go to www.Renz-Law.com & let us know or call 1-877-736-9773.
If you give to our GiveSendGo (https://www.givesendgo.com/renzlaw), subscribe to my Locals Community (TomRenz.locals.com), Rumble (@RenzLaw), and SubStack (tomrenz.substack.com), & buy from our sponsors and tell them Renz sent you then you are helping to fund our fight against tyranny.
Watch Lawfare with Tom Renz on Brighteon TV every Tuesday at 11:30am and Saturday at 12:30pm ET – https://www.brighteon.tv/Lawfare
To support lawfare and help fund freedom for all please donate to our charity: For God Family Country at Donate (forgodfamilycountry.org).
mRNA IS in Food – There’s ONLY 1 Way to Stop This
CALL/EMAIL NOW!!! HEARING IS WEDNESDAY
APR 17, 2023•
Damar Hamlin, the Buffalo Bills, the Vaccines, Tragedy & Truth
Eat Your Vaccines!… I Mean Vegetables!
APR 2, 2023•
Ready for more? Subscribe
Many Super Bowl commercial trophies have been handed out but there was one commercial that didn’t make the cut but still deserved to be talked about.
Jewish groups take the side of Hamas sympathizers and call for a ceasefire in Gaza. And other ‘experts’ on Judaism, such as Rep. Jamaal Bowman, who “uplifted deeply” what it means to be Jewish:
Democrat Rep. Jamaal Bowman: “By me calling for a ceasefire with my colleagues and centering humanity, I am uplifting deeply what it actually means to be Jewish” pic.twitter.com/nXq16qPX3j— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) November 14, 2023
Thanks for that, congressman.
And then there are Christian groups we just don’t get. One such group called HeGetsUs ponied up the big bucks to run a Super Bowl spot reminding us that “Jesus didn’t teach hate” and showed loving Christians washing the feet of their “enemies.” We admire their restraint in showing a white police officer washing the feet of a black woman and not George Floyd himself. Watch as Christians wash the feet of their enemies: Muslims, Native Americans whose land they’ve stolen for oil, illegal immigrants (we presume) getting on a bus, and a young woman outside an abortion clinic.
In reality, Christians face 11 years of prison for allegedly blocking access to abortion clinics under the FACE Act. Instead, they should be washing the feet of those working there.
Jesus washed the feet of friends and enemies. No ego or hate. He humbly loved his neighbors. How can we do the same? pic.twitter.com/kXift42ZG9— HeGetsUs (@HeGetsUs) February 11, 2024
A lot of white people are filled with hate, apparently.
Life News reports:
One of the situations depicted is an AI photo showing a woman washing the feet of a woman outside an abortion business that the ad misleadingly labeled as a “Family Planning Clinic.”
Some pro-life advocates criticized the ad for making it appear that it was endorsing women getting abortions, which kill unborn children and violate Biblical pro-life principles. Other say the ad merely calls on us to follow Jesus’ command to love our neighbors and people regardless of who they are and what they do.
Joel Berry, the managing editor of the Babylon Bee, thought the commercial was leftism surrounding by a Jesus message.
Here’s Joel Berry’s tweet:
There’s a reason the “He Gets Us” commercial didn’t show a liberal washing the feet of someone in a MAGA hat, or a BLM protestor washing an officer’s feet. That would’ve been actually subversive.
Because they were strictly following oppressed v oppressor intersectionality… pic.twitter.com/R1ZS1wkTQ4
— Joel Berry (@JoelWBerry) February 12, 2024
There’s a reason the “He Gets Us” commercial didn’t show a liberal washing the feet of someone in a MAGA hat, or a BLM protestor washing an officer’s feet. That would’ve been actually subversive.
Because they were strictly following oppressed v oppressor intersectionality guidelines. This tells me they were either:
A) trying to sell Jesus to Leftists by hinting Jesus thinks just like them, or
B) cynically using Jesus to sell a political movement.
Why not both?
Since the campaign admits it’s funded by both Christians and non-Christians, I’m thinking the answer is both.— Joel Berry (@JoelWBerry) February 12, 2024
And it’s framed in this devilishly clever way to where anyone mad about the commercial is made to look like they’re “preachers of hate,” angry at the very idea of foot washing. A deceptive, nasty, passive-aggressive, but effective tactic.— Joel Berry (@JoelWBerry) February 12, 2024
He gets us. pic.twitter.com/7WgBmXNTi4— The Chivalry Guild (@ChivalryGuild) February 12, 2024
Jesus didn’t affirm sin https://t.co/oUy9h8pZKQ— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) February 12, 2024
Progressivism will hollow out your religion and wear its skin like a trophy https://t.co/s8luDcXuYc— Auron MacIntyre (@AuronMacintyre) February 12, 2024
This ad was not about accepting the Gospel, it was about accepting sin. It’s naive at best and subversive at worst.— Is This Objective (@IsThisObjective) February 12, 2024
“Wash the feet of your enemy” has been perverted into “demand your enemy wash your feet.”— Dan Kent, hoping God puts this tweet on his fridge (@thatdankent) February 12, 2024
Pretty sickening to see Christianity used to promote an obviously leftist political message.
It cheapens and debases the spiritual significance of Jesus Christ.
— Harrison H. Smith ✞ (@HarrisonHSmith) February 12, 2024
“If you are a real Christian you will accept innumerable buses of illegals into your neighborhood, and you will wash their feet when they arrive”
2/10 psyop, a little too blunt and obvious pic.twitter.com/ixJ3zCe8KS
— Steve Stevenson (@AverageSteveS) February 12, 2024
Illegals? You mean enemies.
The “compassion” and “tolerance” always seems to be required only in one ideological direction, doesn’t it?😔— Jennifer Cory Alvey (@JenCoryAlvey) February 12, 2024
A humiliation ritual. Nothing more.— The Air Loom 🇫🇷 (@Styx_Boatman) February 12, 2024
Well, also, Jesus washed the feet of SINNERS, not the oppressed.
Oh, yeah, and then after he told them to stop sinning.
So that might rule out the cop and the patriot too.
— wasserman (@adamzwasserman) February 12, 2024
I didn’t hear the “sin no more” part. Did I miss it?— Richard Altmaier (@richalt2) February 12, 2024
A passive aggressive attack on “Christians” in general, rather than a true yearning for all of us to love one another. An attack on Gods requirement that we be repentant sinners before we’re washed of our sins.— Free Sea (@MajorLeeOssum) February 12, 2024
Leftists miss the point: Jesus washed his disciples feet to show he was a humble servant but STILL their “teacher” Son of God. The living God as human. He knew that many would be martyred. These images show the foot-washers as humble gods, NOT “oppressors” seeking forgiveness.— Clifford Wilson (@clwriter47) February 12, 2024
The obvious answer to this is a meme campaign. Would Joy Reid wash Sarah Palin’s feet? Why not?— NERV2nd Branch (@NERV2nd) February 12, 2024
If it sells the idea that Jesus is just like them, liberal cosmopolitan, then it also tells them who they think Jesus is “not”. It also informs the audience who is “evil”
A powerfully subversive message.— Seth L (@SethL_intheWord) February 12, 2024
There really does seem to be some intersectionality in who is washing whose feet. It looks like white Christians see every “marginalized” group as the oppressed enemy while they themselves should be subservient to them.
Disgusting.
January 22nd marked the 51st anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling about abortion. In a statement from the White House, President Biden marked the occasion as something he wants the American people to feel more celebratory about, even after the Supreme Court finally shut it down in 2022 via the Dobbs decision.
“Fifty-one years ago today, the Supreme Court recognized a woman’s constitutional right to make deeply personal decisions with her doctor—free from the interference of politicians. Then, a year and a half ago, the Court made the extreme decision to overturn Roe and take away a constitutional right. As a result, tens of millions of women now live in states with extreme and dangerous abortion bans…In states across the country, women are being turned away from emergency rooms, forced to go to court to seek permission for the medical attention they need, and made to travel hundreds of miles for health care.”
His mission to trash the conservative platform didn’t just end with this statement. Instead, he kept droning on about claiming that women were being deprived of their “rights.”
“Even as Americans—from Ohio to Kentucky to Michigan to Kansas to California—have resoundingly rejected attempts to limit reproductive freedom, Republican elected officials continue to push for a national ban and devastating new restrictions across the country. On this day and every day, Vice President Harris and I are fighting to protect women’s reproductive freedom against Republicans officials’ dangerous, extreme, and out-of-touch agenda. We stand with the vast majority of Americans who support a woman’s right to choose, and continue to call on Congress to restore the protections of Roe in federal law once and for all.”
What he conveniently overlooks is that there is no Constitutional amendment or ruling that grants women the right to an abortion. There is nothing on the books requiring doctors to perform them or that even deems them a medical necessity, minus a few “one-in-a-trillion” types of cases.
Nevertheless, the Biden administration has attacked the topic of abortion with two smoking barrels since he took office. From executive orders to the gift of giving non-elected officials a platform to spew their opinions on the issue as if they were medical facts, he has been the most pro-choice President to date. Along with VP Harris, the duo has waged a war on the pro-life movement from all sides. In their opinions and liberal “fact” gathering efforts, abortions are something all women should be able to have as easily as getting a bottle of NyQuil for a cold.
What these Godless heathens fail to see is that not only is abortion a mortal sin, but it is also, on its basis, an illegal action. As almost all residents of the US can agree, killing someone is illegal and should not be tolerated. While liberals love to jump on the debate about when life begins, it is simple; life begins at conception. These tiny cells would not be reproducing and spreading at such an astronomical rate if there was no life. Women wouldn’t be feeling the sensations and changes inside their bodies without life.
The women who go through abortions, have something in common with people who had parents who allowed them to transition genders as a teen, deep regret for their decisions. By keeping abortion away from being a “right” we ensure it is only occurring as a medical necessity. Not simply being used as birth control, or a way to avoid responsibility for their actions or lack of action to prevent this from occurring.
In many pockets of America, this has become a hotly contested issue, with many taking the easy wrong of being pro-choice. While it certainly is easy to say “It’s like owning a gun, if you don’t want one, don’t buy one,” it’s not so easy when these decisions impact you directly. As a man, if these abortion “rights” exist, then we are fundamentally stripped of our right to have something to say about this decision. If we are paying when they are keeping the child, then we need to have the ability to say something about keeping those children alive dammit!
In the latest disturbing incident from the state of Massachusetts, the dangerous convergence of the Biden administration’s lax border policies and local sanctuary laws has once again endangered the safety of the American public. This alarming case involves a Haitian national who entered the United States illegally in late 2022 through the Brownsville, Texas, port of entry. Rather than facing deportation, this migrant received a mere notice to appear (NTA) before an immigration judge – a scenario that has become all too familiar in recent years.
Several months later, the 31-year-old individual was arrested by Boston Police on charges of rape and indecent assault and battery against a developmentally disabled person. Boston, proudly labeled a sanctuary city, shields illegal immigrants from deportation by prohibiting cooperation with federal authorities, even in cases involving violent criminals. Shockingly, this policy is replicated in seven other cities across Massachusetts.
In this particular instance, the Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) division within Boston’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) office attempted to detain the illegal immigrant for deportation. However, local authorities callously refused to cooperate, leading the Dorchester District Court to release the accused Haitian rapist with a monitoring device pending trial for his heinous sexual assault charges.
ERO Boston Field Office Director Todd M. Lyons expressed his dismay, stating, “Disturbingly and despite our filing an immigration detainer, this individual was released back into the community by the criminal court.” He stressed that a key part of the ERO’s job is to apprehend persons who are unlawfully present and that the organization is dedicated to protecting the community from those who threaten public safety.
Despite this setback, federal authorities diligently launched an investigation upon learning of the Haitian migrant’s criminal arrest and unlawful immigration status through various sources. When the county court callously refused to honor the immigration detainer, ERO took matters into their own hands, apprehending the suspect in Dorchester earlier this month. As a result of the work of ICE, the accused will remain in federal detention until an immigration judge hears his case. Once the state criminal prosecution is closed, ICE will seek his deportation from the United States.
Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident but rather part of a national crisis fueled by local governments protecting even the most violent illegal immigrant offenders. Rather than assisting federal authorities in deporting illegal aliens, local and county law enforcement agencies are releasing them, even though they have serious convictions such as child sex offenses, rape, and murder, due to the 287(g) collaboration’s refusal to honor ICE detainers.
This issue has become so pervasive that ICE had to resort to a billboard campaign a few years ago, seeking the public’s assistance in capturing alien felons released by various sanctuary law enforcement agencies in a single state. Judicial Watch has extensively reported on this crisis, detailing shocking instances where elected law enforcement officials released child sex offenders, central counties discharged numerous violent convicts, and an entire state – North Carolina – released nearly 500 illegal immigrant criminals within a year.
The issue of sanctuary cities presents a grave concern as a result of the intersection between the Biden administration’s lenient border policies and local jurisdictions prioritizing the protection of illegal immigrants over the safety of American citizens.
This troubling scenario allows for the release of potentially dangerous individuals, such as the recent case in Massachusetts involving a Haitian national accused of rape and assault. Similar to seven other Massachusetts cities, the sanctuary rules make it harder for federal officials, particularly the Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) component of ICE, to hold and deport undocumented immigrants.
By ignoring immigration detainers in the name of helping illegal immigrants, we put communities at risk of re-releasing violent offenders who have already caused harm by slipping through the gaps. This widespread issue demands urgent attention and reform to strike a balance between compassion and safeguarding the well-being of American citizens.
To combat this dangerous trend, ICE has had to employ creative strategies, such as publicizing the release of offenders complete with mug shots, as was the case in two notorious Maryland counties, Montgomery and Prince George’s. The offenders were incarcerated for heinous crimes, including sexual offenses against children, rape, and murder. Such instances underscore the urgent need to address the systemic flaws in our immigration and law enforcement policies, putting the safety of Americans first.
fox files 
Recent Comments