fox files

The nihilism of nonbinary

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.

Will the Second Amendment Soon Become a Thought Crime?

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.

France Invites Disaster by Becoming the World’s First Country to Enshrine Abortion into Constitution

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.

Help Remove Jesus Bath Mat on Amazon

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.

Satanic Christ Porn-blasphemy at Walmart — Sign Petition

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.

How Panera’s Socialist Bread Ruined Company

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.

What Does Saint Thomas Aquinas Say About Marriage?

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 British High Court will soon decide whether to extradite journalist Julian Assange to the United States, where he will assuredly face a long prison sentence.

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.)

New Video on Google (+ Big Tech’s) Scary Level of Surveillance

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…

• Placing microphones in their devices without letting people know.
• Tracking phones even if you disabled “Location Tracking” and don’t have a SIM card in.
• Storing the unconsensual voice recordings that they gather from their devices for posterity.

I’ll cover all of that and MORE in today’s video.

I really recommend that you watch it here.

An important message for state legislators, governors, and citizens of the USA

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.