On Monday, June 8th, a barbarous Sudanese ‘asylum seeker’ named Hadi Alodid attempted to behead a Scotsman named Stephen Ogilvy on a street in Belfast. A group of Northern Irishmen who stumbled upon on the horrific scene dialled 999 and tried desperately to intervene.

Stephen, who is now in a coma, is severely injured. In addition to losing his left eye, he has also sustained severe slash wounds to his face, neck and back. It’s not yet clear what kind of recovery he is expected to make.

On June 9th, the following evening, Northern Irishmen took to the streets and set fire to a number of cars, businesses and homes. At least five people — three civilians and two police officers — were injured in the riots.

Subscribe now

I do not condone violence against innocent people, and my heart goes out to everyone who has been affected by the fires. At the same time, I understand why these men are angry. Their government has completely betrayed them. As if being forced to accept an uncontrolled number of migrants into their communities wasn’t unfair enough, they are also expected to behave politely when those migrants attack them in the most savage and barbaric ways imaginable. This is an inconceivable level of betrayal against the Northern Irish people. Again, I do not condone the riots, but I understand why they are taking place.

This is not the first heinous crime perpetrated by a migrant in Europe, and I’m very sorry to say that it won’t be the last. This problem isn’t going to go away. Unless serious action is taken to reverse uncontrolled mass migration soon, the violence we see today will likely only increase.

My thoughts and prayers are with Stephen Ogilvy and his family. May the trauma of what he has endured be eased, may his physical injuries heal, and may the vile monster who attacked him get the justice he deserves.

Buy me a coffee or a glass of wine

Upgrade to paid

On December 3rd, 2025, 18-year-old Henry Nowak was walking home alone from a night out in Southampton when he was accosted by a 23-year-old Sikh man named Vickrum Digwa. During the altercation, Digwa stabbed Henry five times with an eight-inch Sikh ceremonial knife — once in the face, once in the lungs and then again in his legs as he tried to run away.

Digwa, along with his brother Gupreet, then called the police and lied that they were victims of a racial attack. They did this because they knew that an accusation of racism against a white person would carry more weight than literal murder.

“We just got attacked racially by some white person,” Digwa breathed into the phone.

By the time police officers arrived, Henry was lying on the ground, drowning in his own blood. He said, “I can’t breathe” nine times, and “I’ve been stabbed” four times.

As Henry cried out to police officers for help, Digwa stood over his body and told them that Henry was the one who had assaulted him. He continued to accuse Henry of ‘racism,’ and complained that his left eye was slightly swollen and that his turban had been knocked off his head. (It has since been alleged that Digwa had removed his turban himself before police arrived.) In the meantime, Digwa’s mother, Kiran Kaur, fled the scene with the murder weapon.

Subscribe now

The police did not believe Henry, nor did they help him. After he managed to gurgle out the words, “I’ve been stabbed,” one final time, an officer said flippantly, “I don’t think you have, mate.”

Then, as they forced his arms behind his back, handcuffed him, and read him his rights, Henry’s soul left his body.

It didn’t take long before the police finally realised that Henry was indeed telling the truth. Soon afterwards, a doctor flew in by helicopter to try to resuscitate him, but it was too late. Henry Nowak had died on the cold concrete, handcuffed, as his murderer stood over him muttering false accusations of racism.

Upon realising that Digwa had just committed murder (and that they themselves were accessories to that murder), officers escorted him to the station. Unlike Henry, not once did they put handcuffs on him. In fact, they even took him to the kitchen at the police station so he could choose what he wanted to eat. Hampshire police treated a vile murderer with dignity and grace, and his murdered victim with cruelty and contempt. They made these decisions on the basis of race.

On June 1st, Digwa was sentenced to life in prison with a minimum of 21 years. His mother was also found guilty of “assisting an offender,” and is due to be sentenced on July 17th. As if the Digwa family have not destroyed the Nowak family’s lives enough, they had the gall to continue to lie in court that Henry had been ‘racist’ towards them.

You do not get to come to another continent, murder one of its native people and then cry ‘racism.’ The entitlement of this family is revolting.

The story of Henry’s murder has been publicly known for weeks, but the corrupt media and politicians have largely kept mum about it until now. After weeks of deafening silence, Keir Starmer released a pathetic statement on June 2nd. “My thoughts, I’m sure the thoughts of everybody in the country, are with Henry’s family,” he snivelled. “His life has been stolen. And they are understandably devastated. And that is where I start on this.”

Where you start? Where, dare I ask, Keir, do you end?

It’s no surprise that Starmer, whose administration has permitted the mass migration of millions of people from completely different ethnicities and cultures to flood into the UK in recent years, failed to mention the very obvious and inconvenient fact that race played an integral role in Henry’s murder.

Meanwhile, UK Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, who is ethnically Pakistani, cautioned Brits not to politicise Henry’s murder. “We cannot allow this murder to turn communities against one another,” she said. “We must condemn those who seek personal political profit from tragedy.”

Mahmood has no right to lecture native English people on how they can and can’t feel about their own country being invaded by millions of foreigners — something they never wanted, asked, or voted for. These racial tensions would not even exist in Britain today if the English, Welsh and Scots had been able to exercise control over their own borders in the first place. Accusing those who express righteous anger over Henry’s murder of seeking to gain “personal political profit” is abhorrent.

She continued: “Instead, we must show who we really are in this country. This was a murder: a vile and violent crime. The punishment must be reserved for those who are responsible for the act. We do not believe in collective punishment in this country. Instead, we stand together against an act of pure evil. We condemn those who committed this heinous crime, not all those who share their faith or their ethnicity.”

Interesting. The West had the complete opposite reaction after George Floyd’s death in 2020. White people were collectively punished for that. Overnight, we were branded as inherently racist, aggressively ordered to ‘re-educate’ ourselves, and told that we must pay reparations for past events that we had nothing to do with. We essentially had to apologise for existing. Meanwhile, many in the black community set fire to cars, looted stores, physically assaulted police officers and shot people dead in the street, largely without any consequences.

Leaders all over the West bent the knee in support of the Black Lives Matter movement — including Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner.

When Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy, who is ethnically Guyanese, was recently asked if he would bend the knee for Henry, as he had done for Floyd in 2020, he said, “I think no.”

The hypocrisy is staggering.

Politicians like Starmer, Mahmood and Lammy are trying to paint Henry’s murder as an apolitical tragedy that had nothing to do with race, but it’s obvious that this murder had everything to do with race.

As they frantically stress the importance of treating everyone equally, they simultaneously refuse to criticise the two-tier police system currently plaguing the country. Last year, the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) released a document detailing its “anti-racism commitments,” in which it states that racial equity “does not mean treating everyone ‘the same’ or being ‘colour blind.’”

Huh. Last time I checked, treating people differently based on the colour of their skin is the literal definition of racism.

If you haven’t already noticed, the ‘anti-racism’ movement is, ironically, deeply racist. Anyone who does not see this has been brainwashed into believing that it is impossible to be racist towards white people. This dangerous and inane way of thinking is precisely what emboldens people like Digwa to attack people like Henry in the first place.

Meanwhile, laws like section 139(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 permit Sikhs to carry eight-inch ceremonial knives around the streets of Britain “for religious reasons,” while everyone else is prohibited from carrying even pepper spray to defend themselves. It’s almost as if the UK establishment wants us dead.

Henry’s murder resonates with so many people not just because of its horrific injustice, but also because of its extremely apt and vivid symbolism. A white man who is not believed when he says he was attacked by a non-white man, and then subsequently handcuffed on unsubstantiated grounds of ‘racism,’ is deeply emblematic of the state of Britain today.

We cannot let this story be forgotten — not just for Henry’s sake, but for the sake of all ethnic Europeans who are murdered, raped and assaulted by migrants and their descendants every single day. By now, the list of victims is too long to count.

Rest in peace, Henry Nowak. Your murder will not be remembered in vain.

Buy me a coffee or a glass of wine

Upgrade to paid

Thomas Massie, a Representative for Kentucky’s fourth district, just lost the Republican congressional primary to his zionist opponent, Ed Gallrein. This was the single most expensive congressional primary in American history. It was also arguably the most important.

If you’re not from the United States or you don’t know much about Massie, you’re probably wondering why such a seemingly minor election matters so much.

Well, I will tell you why. It’s because Massie is the only Republican lawmaker who has refused to accept money from AIPAC; he recently exposed the stranglehold that the pro-Israel lobby has over our government; and he voted against the war in Iran. He was also the lead sponsor of the Epstein Files Transparency Act that passed last November, which ordered the Department of Justice to release the files in their entirety. We would not have access to those three million pages today if it hadn’t been for Massie’s perseverance.

Subscribe now

Thomas Massie was the last remaining American politician to openly resist Israel’s control over the United States. He dared to put his own country before a hostile foreign power, and the pro-Israel lobby made it their mission to destroy him.

Once Trump hand-picked the obscure Gallrein to be Massie’s opponent back in October, he began flooding social media with anti-Massie propaganda and even sent Secretary of War Pete Hegseth to Kentucky to campaign against him. The pro-Israel lobby — including AIPAC, the Jewish Republican Coalition, and Jewish billionaires Miriam Adelson, Paul Singer, and John Paulson — then poured roughly $34 million into the campaign to defeat him.

After holding his congressional seat for 14 consecutive years, Massie conceded it last night. As devastating as this defeat was, he handled it with humour and grace.

“I would have come out sooner,” he told the crowd, “but I had to call my opponent and concede. And it took a while to find Ed Gallrein in Tel Aviv.”

If you were ever in any doubt that the United States is occupied by Israel, please let this be your wake up call. We are not a sovereign country, and we haven’t been for a very long time.

As bleak as things seem right now, there is still hope for the future. The overwhelming majority of young voters (specifically, under the age of 56), voted for Massie, while the older generations voted for Gallrein. In a few years’ time, when Millennials and Gen Z voters overtake the Baby Boomers, we might finally get the chance to free ourselves from these zionist-controlled puppets.

Massie’s orchestrated defeat was designed to send a very specific message to every other politician in the U.S.: if you dare to oppose Israel, its lobbyists have the power (and the money) to dismantle your entire career.

But if you think for one second that Massie is going to allow this loss to silence him, think again. I predict that this honest man from Kentucky, along with the America First movement he championed, is just getting started.

Buy me a coffee or a glass of wine

Upgrade to Paid

On Friday, May 15th, the Federal Court in Sydney found Sall Grover guilty of “direct discrimination” because she won’t allow Roxanne Tickle, a man who ‘identifies’ as a woman, to join her female-only app Giggle for Girls. Grover has been ordered to pay Tickle $20,000 plus $100,000 in court costs, on top of her own already massive legal fees.

Grover is being punished for acknowledging the obvious truth — that Mr. Tickle is a man — and for daring to speak that truth aloud.

For reference, this is what he looks like:

This ruling will be remembered as one of the most astonishing betrayals of women and girls in Australia’s history.

Subscribe now

All of this weirdness started back in 2021, when Tickle was denied entry to the Giggle app for the very simple reason that he is a man. In 2022, he lodged two human rights complaints — one against Grover and another against Giggle — citing “gender identity discrimination.” The pair have been embroiled in an exhausting legal battle ever since, which Grover has steadily been losing thanks to Australia’s unhinged gender self-ID laws.

In 2013 (notably under the leadership of Australia’s first female Prime Minister, Julia Gillard) the Sex Discrimination Act was amended to include ‘gender identity.’ Overnight, women and girls lost access to single-sex spaces and ceased to be recognised and protected as a distinct sex class. Odious men like Mr. Tickle have been worming their way into women’s spaces ever since.

Luckily for us, Grover is determined to see this through to the bitter end. She now plans to appeal the ruling to the High Court, although it’s not yet clear whether her appeal will be accepted.

After Friday’s verdict, Grover posted this statement on X:

I am absolutely devastated. Men who claim to be women have more rights than actual women in Australia. It is women who are being discriminated against, not the men who claim to be us. But in a sense, nothing has changed: we will all wake up tomorrow & men will still not be women.

Grover has shown remarkable resolve throughout this entire ordeal, and she will need every ounce of it given the mountain she’s up against.

Because even if the High Court accepts Grover’s appeal and rules in her favour, the fundamental problem remains: women and girls are not legally protected on the basis of sex in Australia. The only way to restore sanity, fairness, and truth to Australian law is to remove the ‘gender identity’ amendment from the Sex Discrimination Act entirely.

While this feels like a mere pipe dream now, we can’t lose hope. In the words of the indefatigable Sall Grover: “The truth eventually wins.”

Buy me a coffee or a glass of wine

Upgrade to paid

Yesterday morning, I awoke to the fantastic news that the Department of Education (DOE) has opened a formal investigation into my Alma Mater, Smith College. The investigation will determine whether Smith, a women’s college, has violated Title IX by admitting men who ‘identify’ as women into its student body.

“An all-women’s college loses all meaning if it is admitting biological males,” said Kimberly Richey, the assistant secretary for civil rights at the Education Department, on Monday. “Allowing biological males into spaces designed for women raises serious concerns about privacy, fairness and compliance under federal law. The Trump administration will continue to uphold the law and fight to restore common sense.”

Smith’s deranged policy of admitting men who ‘identify’ as women began in May 2015, at the end of my freshman year. For 11 whole years, Smith students have not been guaranteed access to female-only dorm rooms, locker rooms, bathrooms or sports teams. This flagrant violation of Title IX has gone unchallenged for so long because everyone is either a) brainwashed into thinking it’s a good thing, or b) too afraid of being called a bigot or a transphobe to stand against it.

Subscribe now

At the time of this policy change, Smith released an infuriating statement claiming that, “In the years since Smith’s founding, concepts of female identity have evolved.”

Um, no. They haven’t. A woman is an adult human female. That fact has been true since the beginning of time, and it will remain true until the end of it.

Smith’s admittance of men not only violates Title IX, but also the last will and testament of its founder, Sophia Smith. Upon her death in 1870, she bequeathed her fortune specifically for:

[…] the establishment and maintenance of an Institution for the higher education of young women, with the design to furnish for my own sex means and facilities for education equal to those which are afforded now in our Colleges to young men.

Sophia Smith could not have been more clear. This institution was to be created for members of the female sex, and members of the female sex only.

Now that the government is holding Smith to account, the mainstream media is throwing a hissy fit. The Guardian accused the Trump administration of “attacking trans people,” and called men who identify as women “trans women.”

First of all, the DOE isn’t attacking anyone; they are protecting women’s sex-based rights. Second, calling these male students “trans women” is deeply disingenuous and misleading because it implies that they are some sort of subset of women, like ‘short women’ or ‘disabled women.’ But ‘trans women’ are not women at all. They are men.

Don’t agree with me? Take a look at this disturbing video, which captures one of the ‘trans women’ in question, protesting at Smith in 2014.

Anyone with eyes, ears and a brain can tell that this person is a man.

This video was actually taken while I was at Smith, during the fall of my freshman year. I was evidently somewhere else, probably either in class or at a coffee shop in town, blissfully unaware of the madness ensuing outside the Campus Centre. Arguably, the worst part about this protest is not the angry man demanding that he be admitted into a women’s college, but the young women standing by his side, cheering him on.

Most of the students at Smith are completely ideologically captured. They are probably all showing up to campus this week with signs that read ‘trans women are women’ and writing opinion pieces for The Sophian on the injustice of the DOE’s investigation.

I imagine Sophia Smith cringing down from heaven as I type.

In addition to breaking the law, Smith is also guilty of medical malpractice towards its students. The Schacht Centre for Health and Wellness throws out gender dysphoria diagnoses like candy, freely distributes harmful gadgets like chest binders, prescribes students cross-sex hormones without requiring any therapy, and writes them referrals for extremely serious, irreversible operations like double mastectomies and genital mutilation surgeries. It also routinely helps students legally change their names to fit their new ‘gender identities.’

You need only look at the so-called health centre’s Instagram page to see how ideologically captured it has become. Its profile photo is the Progress Pride flag, and both the trans and rainbow flags are displayed in its bio.

Needless to say, this is not normal.

Smith is far from the only women’s college to have embraced the lunacy of gender ideology in recent years. Mount Holyoke, which is just a few minutes’ drive from Smith, is even worse. In fact, the only one that hasn’t completely lost the plot is Sweet Briar College, which banned the admittance of men who identify as women in 2024.

Perhaps I am biased, but Smith stands apart to me from all the rest. Some of the most consequential figures in American history have attended Smith, including Sylvia Plath, Margaret Mitchell, Julia Child, Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush, Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan (although I admittedly have some criticisms of the latter two women, which I will explain in a future piece).

It deeply saddens and disturbs me that this once-esteemed institution has fallen to such low levels. Smith now seems to be nothing more than an indoctrination factory that churns out non-thinking, pronoun-badge wearing, perpetually offended liberals.

Say what you want about the Trump administration, but its no-nonsense approach to gender ideology is a breath of fresh air. I am extremely relieved that the DOE is finally intervening on this issue, and I hope it doesn’t stop at Smith. I hope it goes after every single women’s college in America until the problem is solved.

Maybe — just maybe — we can beat this thing after all.

Buy me a coffee or a glass of wine

Upgrade to paid

On Thursday, the street artist Banksy erected this remarkable statue in central London overnight. It depicts a man in a suit — likely a politician — walking off the edge of a precipice, blinded by his own flag.

When I first saw the statue, I immediately imagined that he was carrying the English flag, and I rolled my eyes in annoyance. Of course this famous street artist, who pretends to be anti-establishment but probably secretly isn’t, would make some moronic protest against the so-called ‘far-right.’

Subscribe now

But then I realised that the flag, which bears no emblem, could quite literally be anything. It might just as easily be the Progress Pride, Israeli, Ukrainian, European Union or even “Refugees Welcome” flag. There’s no limit to where your imagination could take it. Once I entertained the possibility that this statue could be about any ideology — especially ones that I oppose — I began to warm up to it.

I’ve since decided that it’s brilliant.

In a way, it doesn’t matter what Banksy’s original intention was. By waving a blank flag, the statue holds a mirror up to us all. Whatever our different belief systems, opinions, and prejudices may be, we project onto it. Ultimately, our interpretations of the statue say more about us than it.

What flag do you see?

Buy me a coffee or a glass of wine

Upgrade to paid

King Charles III was in the United States this week to commemorate the 250th anniversary of our independence from Britain. On Tuesday, he delivered a 30-minute speech to Congress before attending a state dinner alongside Trump, Melania and a weird slew of Fox News hosts, Supreme Court justices and billionaires.

As refreshing as it was to listen to a speech that didn’t repeat the words “great,” “huge,” and “beautiful” every few seconds, I found the King’s remarks depressingly similar to those of every other globalist warmonger. That’s because King Charles is a globalist warmonger.

Many Americans seem to be completely enthralled by him, but if they actually took the time to listen critically to what he says, they would realise that behind the posh English accent, flowery language and fancy clothes is a man who is pushing the same agenda as every other leader in the West — forever wars, multiculturalism, and the ultimate destruction of the countries our ancestors worked so hard to build.

Subscribe now

First, the King vaguely referred to the carnage in Ukraine and the Middle East as “conflict […] which poses immense challenges,” and called the horrors of World War I, World War II, the Cold War and Afghanistan “remarkable endeavours” that the U.S. and Britain have “embarked” upon together.

How delicately put.

He went on to say that all of these “remarkable endeavours” make “our citizens safer for generations to come.”

Oh, sure. We’re all much safer now that thousands of our troops are dying overseas for Israel (again), while millions of asylum seekers flood our shores to rape, murder and pilfer from us on a daily basis. Thanks for keeping us so safe.

As any good warmonger does, Charles also made sure to endorse NATO by invoking the Mossad/CIA-orchestrated false flag attack that killed over 2,000 Americans in a single day and then one million Iraqis in the years following — otherwise known as 9/11.

After waxing poetic about war for several minutes, Charles finally got around to the real reason for his speech. “Today, Mr. Speaker, that same unyielding resolve is needed for the defence of Ukraine and her most courageous people. It is needed in order to secure a truly just and lasting peace.”

And there it is: yet another call to extend the war in Ukraine, because $188 billion of American tax dollars and the deaths of one million Ukrainian men isn’t enough. Of course, the King conveniently failed to mention that NATO expansionism is literally the reason why the war in Ukraine started in the first place. If he held any regard for the truth, he would have been sure to include that fact.

More than anything, Charles proved on this trip that, had he not been born into royalty, he would have made an excellent politician. Anyone who can make war sound like peace is automatically qualified for the job.

The King’s calls to violence were met with multiple standing ovations by the Congressmen and women in the room, many of whom have ironically supported the pathetic ‘No Kings’ protests (organised by Jewish Americans Leah Greenberg and Ezra Levin) that oppose Trump’s democratic election into office. Unsurprisingly, the ‘No Kings’ website mentions neither Trump’s pro-Israel policy nor the genocide in Gaza.

Between endorsing NATO and calling for more carnage in Ukraine, the King made sure to lighten the mood with a few jokes. One he made about British and French colonialism at the state dinner stood out to me the most.

“You recently commented, Mr. President, that if it were not for the United States, European countries would be speaking German. Dare I say that if it wasn’t for us, you’d be speaking French.”

You’re right, your majesty. There aren’t that many German speakers in Europe anymore, but there sure are a lot of Arabic, Hindi, Swahili, Bengali, Yoruba, Urdu, Somali, and Punjabi ones. I wonder why that is. Perhaps it’s because since World War II ended, Europe has been demographically and culturally altered beyond recognition?

While I imagine the life of a king is quite insulated, there’s simply no way he’s unaware of the existential threat that mass immigration poses to the West. He clearly just doesn’t care. As a tool of the zionist-controlled British establishment, Charles has long been a proponent of the multicultural hellscape that is now England. In addition to encouraging refugees to “feel more welcome” in Britain, he also changed his coronation oath to “foster an environment in which people of all faiths and beliefs may live freely.”

Welcoming refugees and embracing different faiths may sound very nice in theory, but in reality it’s quite the opposite. These refugees the King cares so deeply about have been harming native Brits on a catastrophically large scale. And while I have no problem with people practicing different religions (so long as they do not usurp Britain’s parent religion, Christianity), I do have a problem with the supposed Supreme Governor of the Church of England straight-up endorsing Judaism and Islam every chance he gets. If you stand for everything, you stand for nothing. A king, of all people, should know that.

Moral of the story: when a posh English guy with a royal title tells you things, consider his words critically. Otherwise you could end up like every other royalist in Britain — gullible, complacent, and in reverence to a man who doesn’t give a damn about you, your family, or your country.

Buy me a coffee or a glass of wine

Upgrade to paid

On Tuesday, the Scottish Parliament rejected the Assisted Dying bill, which would have legalised doctor-assisted suicide for terminally ill adults in Scotland. Especially given how depressing the news cycle has been lately, this announcement comes as a great relief.

If you’re unfamiliar with the debate around assisted suicide, you might be wondering why I’m happy the bill is now dead (no pun intended). Last year, I published a piece detailing my thoughts on the topic. I have re-published it below.

Although this debate is settled in Scotland (for now), it remains open in England and Wales. A nearly identical bill is now dragging its feet through the English Parliament — but with its April deadline fast approaching and the parliamentary session ending in early May, it’s unlikely to pass.

By rejecting this bill, Scotland proves that it values life over death, and people over profit. In a world that increasingly does the opposite, this stance is both refreshing and welcome.

There is an important bill progressing through Parliament right now. It would legalise assisted suicide for terminally ill patients with a life expectancy of six months or less.

While I empathise with a terminally ill patient’s desire to avoid unnecessary suffering in the final moments of his or her life, this bill sets a very dangerous precedent.

First, there is an obvious financial incentive for the government to euthanise patients. A recent 149-page impact assessment report revealed that if the bill becomes law, the NHS could save £10 million in the first year, rising to nearly £60 million after 10 years. The government is already cutting funding to basic necessities like hospice care, Winter Fuel Payments and disability benefits. Why would it bother to spend more money on keeping people alive when it could just kill them instead?

Second, doctors can be wrong. Just because they predict a patient will live for six months or less does not mean it’s necessarily true. Maria Kelly Foy, a Labour MP for the City of Durham, made this point in an emotional address to Parliament in November 2024.

“My daughter Maria lived her life with severe disabilities and health conditions and since her birth, we were told many times that she might have only six months to live,” Foy said. “She lived for 27 years.”

Beyond the basic ethical concerns surrounding assisted suicide, the bill itself is a recipe for disaster. There would be zero requirement for doctors to inform a patient’s relatives ahead of their scheduled death, and no way for family members to sound the alarm about possible coercion. Doctors would also be free to suggest assisted suicide as an option for minors, who could then go through with it the day they turn 18.

To make matters worse, the majority of the hundreds of common sense amendments proposed during the committee stage have been rejected. These amendments sought to protect vulnerable groups like people with Down’s syndrome, anorexia, and diabetes; implement mandatory palliative care consultations; and require stronger mental capacity assessments to ensure that patients fully understand their decisions.

Across the pond, the situation is much more dire.

Canada legalised assisted suicide — which they sugar coat as “medical assistance in dying” (MAID) — in 2016. As of 2024, over 76,000 Canadians have died from assisted suicide. In December 2024, the Canadian government released a report revealing that 1 in 20 deaths are now caused by euthanasia in Canada.

When MAID was first legalised in 2016, only the terminally ill were eligible to apply. Shockingly, the law was amended in 2021 to include non-terminally ill people. Since then, Canadians suffering from poverty, isolation and homelessness have also applied to be euthanised.

In 2022, Amir Farsoud, a disabled man who faced eviction from his social housing unit and struggled to afford food, applied for MAID. After receiving $60,000 in donations from sympathetic strangers online, he rescinded his application.

“I’m a different person,” Farsoud told CityNews Ottawa in November 2022. “The first time we spoke, I had nothing but darkness, misery, stress and hopelessness. Now I have all the opposite of those things.”

While Farsoud is still alive to tell his story, others are not as fortunate.

In 2019, Alan Nichols, who suffered from depression, applied for MAID. He cited “hearing loss” as his only reason. Shamefully, the Canadian government approved his request, and 61-year-old Nichols was euthanised that same year.

I wish I could say the madness ends there, but it doesn’t. Although assisted suicide is not currently permitted for Canadians who are solely suffering from mental health problems, that’s all expected to change on March 17, 2027. From that day onwards, if you’re depressed and living in Canada, your government will happily euthanise you.

This egregious practice is already taking place in the Netherlands, where assisted suicide has been legal since 2001.

Zoraya ter Beek, an autistic Dutch woman who suffered from anxiety, self-harm and suicidal ideation, fell victim to this last year. Despite being in perfect physical health, her application to be euthanised was approved. On May 22, 2024, with the help of the Dutch government, ter Beek ended her life. She was just 29 years old.

Ter Beek was euthanised because she reportedly experienced “unbearable suffering with no prospect of improvement”. But who is able to say there was no prospect of improvement?

One month prior to her scheduled suicide, ter Beek shared her fears about dying with The Free Press. “I'm a little afraid of dying, because it's the ultimate unknown,” she said. “We don't really know what's next—or is there nothing? That's the scary part."

Subscribe now

Some people argue that as long as ter Beek and others consent to being euthanised, then there’s no ethical dilemma. I strongly disagree. Every person who has committed suicide in human history technically ‘consented’ to it. Does that make it okay?

What if you came across a person hovering over the edge of a bridge — would you try to stop them from jumping? What if that person assured you that they had thought about killing themselves for a very long time, considered all of the consequences, and remained confident that this was their only option? Would you then say, “Oh, well in that case, carry on!” or would you still try to save their life?

I have an enormous amount of compassion for people who suffer from suicidal ideation. That does not mean that I will ever condone suicide. I believe it is our duty to prevent suicide from taking place. Not to say, “Be my guest,” and hand them the metaphorical gun, rope or bottle of pills. Whatever happened to protecting people from themselves?

Orlando, a Canadian man and suicide attempt survivor, vehemently opposes MAID’s planned expansion. In a November 2024 interview with Sky News, Orlando explained that if euthanasia had been available when he was suicidal, he would have leapt at the opportunity.

“If it was available earlier, I would have chosen it in 1994. I would have asked for it in 2002. In 2004. In 2008 when I attempted my suicide. In 2012. In 2014. […] I’m alive because it’s not available now and because I failed in 2008. You want the pain to end, right? And the last thing you need is someone in a white coat who says, ‘Well I see it’s kinda rough for you. How about we help you end your life? Would you like that?’”

Orlando concluded by asking the reporter a series of powerful questions: “Now, does that say you’re worthwhile if you hear that? Does that say you have value? Does that contradict that voice in your head or does it reaffirm and confirm it?”

It is a government’s responsibility to care for its citizens. Instead of expanding access to physical and mental health services, providing housing for the homeless and creating employment opportunities, an increasing number of governments are taking the lazy and cost-effective approach of euthanasia. This is morally wrong and it needs to stop.

Arguably the most suicide-obsessed country in Europe is Switzerland, where assisted suicide has been legal since 1941. Popular for its ‘suicide tourism,’ Switzerland attracts visitors from all over the world who wish to end their lives — no terminal illness required.

Switzerland is also where the Sarco pod, a 3D-printed euthanasia capsule, was first used in 2024.

The Sarco pod, which looks like a cross between a spaceship, a Dyson vacuum and a coffin, is designed to kill its users by simultaneously filling up with nitrogen gas and reducing oxygen levels. It was invented by Dr. Philip Nitschke (also known as Dr. Death) and Alexander Bannink. Nitschke is an Australian humanist and the founder of the pro-assisted suicide non-profit group Exit International. Bannink is a Dutch industrial designer. According to Exit International’s website, the organisation “rejects religious-based arguments that a person’s life belongs to God.”

In September 2024, a 64-year-old American woman afflicted by a compromised immune system entered the dystopian death device in a forest in Switzerland. Dr. Florian Willet, the president of the pro-assisted suicide organisation The Last Resort, was the only person present at the time of her death. Willet claimed that the American died in a “peaceful, fast and dignified” way.

However, other accounts suggest that the device malfunctioned.

Willet was reportedly heard saying, “She’s still alive, Philip,” over a video call to Nitschke six and a half minutes after the device was activated. The woman was later found dead with strangulation marks around her neck, which resulted in a police investigation. Willet and several others were subsequently arrested. Although they were later released from police custody, the Sarco pod has been suspended in Switzerland while authorities continue to investigate the circumstances surrounding the woman’s death.

Chillingly, Nitschke has threatened to bring the Sarco pod to Britain if the assisted dying bill passes. “We have a lot of members there, and a lot of UK people following the Sarco project very closely,” he told The Telegraph in November 2024. “There would be a lot of scope. I would be very keen to do that."

Although the assisted suicide movement is primarily gaining traction within Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand, not every western country is on board with it.

In Denmark, assisted suicide has never been legal. In a 2023 report for the Danish government, the Danish Ethics Council concluded that “it is in principle impossible to establish proper regulation of euthanasia.” Concerns about ethics and the impact assisted suicide would have on societal norms were listed among their reasons.

Interestingly, assisted suicide is illegal in Africa and Asia. In China, it’s not unheard of for doctors and families to actually conceal terminal diagnoses from patients. It is believed that speaking openly about a terminal illness could harm the patient's hope and hasten death. I find it very telling that while China prioritises prolonging life and improving its quality, the UK prioritises cutting funds to hospice care and legalising assisted suicide.

We also cannot ignore the social factors driving this. To me, it’s clear that the assisted suicide movement is part of the ever-growing trend to ‘affirm’ absolutely everyone — no matter how grave a threat they may pose to themselves or others.

Given how extreme the left has become in recent years, it wouldn’t surprise me if suicide is one day no longer framed as a tragic event that must be prevented at all costs, but rather an empowering decision that signifies girl-boss levels of independence and autonomy. Anyone who disagrees will be condescendingly instructed to re-educate themselves on the importance of affirming a person’s right to kill themselves.

I’m already starting to see this way of thinking circulate online.

“People are born without their consent, they should have the right to exit this world, when they want to, and with dignity,” one social media comment reads under a post about euthanising healthy young adults. It has 1,708 likes.

While the assisted suicide bill in the UK is only reserved for terminally ill patients as of now, that doesn’t mean there won’t be attempts at expansion in the future. Once society becomes accustomed to the concept of assisted suicide, there’s no telling how far it could be pushed. This is a dangerous slippery slope, and I don’t see it ending well.

It’s obvious that our society is in serious moral decline, and the push to legalise assisted suicide is yet another symptom of it. The decision to either pass or reject this bill will shape the future for generations. I can only hope our leaders choose wisely.

Buy me a coffee or a glass of wine

Upgrade to paid

Last week, the state of Kansas enacted a law that protects single-sex spaces and requires government-issued IDs to list a person’s biological sex (as opposed to their ‘gender identity’). This common sense law would have been universally supported 15 years ago, but because we are living in the 2020s where logic and reason are no longer fashionable, it’s now regarded as ‘far-right extremism.’

Legislation like this isn’t passed because the government ‘hates trans people.’ It’s passed because a society can only function properly if its laws are rooted in the truth.

No one should be allowed to lie on official documents, especially not about something as basic and consequential as one’s sex. All forms of government IDs — including birth certificates, passports, state IDs and driver’s licenses — are supposed to reflect the truth. If they don’t contain factual information, then what’s the point of even having them?

Subscribe now

Equally, men — and especially women — need and deserve access to single-sex public spaces, whether they be bathrooms, changing rooms, locker rooms, or prisons. Denying them that right is demonstrably harmful, immoral and unfair.

These principles are not hard to understand, and have been universally accepted by humanity for thousands of years. So why is it only now socially unacceptable to apply them?

While I do agree with the new law, I think it could have been better enforced. Its biggest flaw is that it doesn’t allow trans-identified people a grace period to update their IDs, which means they have lost certain abilities (like legally driving) overnight. This seems unnecessarily unfair, and it also gives the TQ+ crowd more ammunition to claim victimhood status.

That being said, I’m glad to see that Kansas is restoring common sense to its legislation and I hope that more states will follow.

Buy me a coffee or a glass of wine

Upgrade to paid

Well, Israel has dragged the United States into yet another war in the Middle East. We all knew this was coming, yet now that it’s here I find myself filled with a stomach-churning sense of dread.

To recap: on Saturday morning, we awoke to the news that the U.S. and Israel had bombed Iran (again), killing not only the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei but also 180 elementary school girls. Then Trump got in front of a camera in that pathetic white USA hat to tell us about the “eminent threats from the Iranian regime— a vicious group of very hard, terrible people.”

First of all Mr. President, I think you meant to say “imminent,” not “eminent.” Second of all… what threats? Do you mean the non-existent nuclear weapons that Netanyahu has been saying Iran is on the brink of developing for the last 34 years? Kind of like how he said that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction in 2002?

I’m not exaggerating, by the way. Netanyahu has literally been repeating the same lie for 34 years.

Subscribe now

While addressing the Israeli Knesset in 1992:

Within three to five years, we can assume that Iran will become autonomous in its ability to develop and produce a nuclear bomb.

In his book Fighting Terrorism in 1995:

The best estimates at this time place Iran between three and five years away from possessing the prerequisites required for the independent production of nuclear weapons.

Testifying before a Congressional committee at which he called for the invasion of Iraq in 2002:

The two nations that are vying and competing with each other, who will be the first to achieve nuclear weapons, is Iraq and Iran.

In a U.S. State Department cable from 2009, released by WikiLeaks:

Netanyahu said he did not know for certain how close Iran was to developing nuclear weapons capability, but that “our experts” say Iran was probably only one or two years away and that was why they wanted open ended negotiations.

Speaking at the U.N. General Assembly in 2012:

By next spring, at most by next summer, at current enrichment rates, they will have finished the medium enrichment and move onto the final stage. From there, it’s only a few months, possibly a few weeks, before they get enough enrich uranium for the first bomb.

In a video address during the 12-day war with Iran in June 2025:

If not stopped, Iran could produce a nuclear weapon in a very short time. It could be a year, it could be within a few months — less than a year.

Of course, these are all bald-faced lies. Just as there was zero evidence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction in 2002, there is also zero evidence that Iran is building a nuclear weapon in 2026. In fact, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei condemned the West’s use of nuclear weapons and repeatedly stated that Iran refuses to acquire them because it goes against the tenets of Islam:

Now a few criminal countries which have either used nuclear bombs against other nations or tested them - such as America and France - are telling us what to do. Ten, twelve years ago, France conducted three nuclear tests - in a row - in the ocean. These tests are destructive and they destroy the marine environment. They conducted three dangerous tests. And there was little criticism over this matter in the world and later on, they shut mouths and it was over.

This is while we are not after nuclear tests. We are not after nuclear weapons. And this is not because they are telling us not to pursue these things. Rather, we do not want these things for the sake of ourselves and our religion and because reason is telling us not to do so. Both shar’i and aqli [related to logic and reason] fatwas dictate that we do not pursue them. Our aqli fatwa is that we do not need a nuclear weapon either in the present time or in the future. A nuclear weapon is a source of trouble for a country like ours - I do not want to expand on this matter.

If Trump refuses to listen to the Ayatollah, then you would at least think he’d listen to his own Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard. Last year, she testified to Congress that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons. But because this defied Israel’s twisted narrative, Trump dismissed her testimony. “I don’t care what she said,” he retorted at the time. “She’s wrong.” Cool.

Trump is just as much of a flagrant liar as the Bush administration was in the run-up to the Iraq war. In fact, the similarities between then and now are striking. On Sunday, Trump predicted that this operation in Iran will take “four weeks or less,” which sounds eerily similar to when Donald Rumsfeld claimed that the war in Iraq “certainly wouldn’t last any longer” than five months.

As for American casualties? Why, according to draft dodger Trump, whose own son is safe in New York City, those are just par for the course:

Sadly, there will likely be more before it ends. That’s the way it is likely to be more. But we’ll do everything possible where that won’t be the case.

If Trump was actually doing “everything possible” to prevent American deaths, he wouldn’t be dragging us into another war on behalf of Israel. But like every other western leader, Trump is bought and paid for by Jewish zionists. He is forced to do their bidding under threat of blackmail (hello, Epstein), which is why this war with Iran was sadly always inevitable.

While the United States does not benefit from this war in literally any way, Israel most certainly does. Netanyahu’s goal is regional hegemony, which can only be achieved by weakening, fracturing and dismantling the powers that surround it.

Although many conservatives are rightfully outraged by Trump’s psychopathic foreign policy, others are still under the delusion that regime change in Iran is good because they saw a couple of videos of Iranians celebrating the Ayatollah’s murder.

Charlie Kirk put it best: “Regime change is not like changing the head coach at the Chicago Bears. It’s not how it works. It’s not like a clean transfer. Typically in the Mid East, it’s very messy, creates a quagmire, and then there is civil war.”

But the Iranians chant, “Death to America!”

Yeah, well why do you think that is? Maybe it’s because the U.S. has been violently interfering with and viciously sanctioning their country for the past five decades.

Israel and its pathetic western puppets can try to justify this war as much as they like, but the road to peace is never paved with bombs. War with Iran means that more soldiers will needlessly die, innocent civilians will continue to be bombed, and the refugee crisis in Europe will significantly worsen — all to protect the satanic class of pedophiles who rule over us.

The only way to achieve peace in the Middle East (and by extension, the whole world) is to completely neutralise and dismantle Israel. Given that it openly plans to nuke any country that dares stand in its way, this necessary feat is a daunting one.

Buy me a coffee or a glass of wine

Upgrade to paid

The High Court in London has just ruled that the July 2025 proscription of the anti-genocide activist group Palestine Action is unlawful. Of course, anyone with a functioning brain and a beating heart already knew this to be true.

In case you have been living under a rock (or if you live outside the UK), and don’t know what I’m talking about, then allow me to catch you up to speed. Founded in 2020, Palestine Action is a British pro-Palestinian direct action network that opposes Israel’s genocidal, apartheid regime. In June 2025, members of Palestine Action broke into a Royal Air Force (RAF) station and covered two war planes with red pray paint in protest of the UK’s ongoing participation in the Gaza genocide.

While the UK government has no problem blowing up thousands of Palestinian babies, it does draw the line at spray paint. So, Palestine Action was promptly banned and classified as a “terrorist” organisation, on par with groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS. This means that anyone who expresses support for it faces up to 14 years in prison. Splendid.

Subscribe now

Since Palestine Action’s proscription last year, thousands of innocent protestors have been arrested for merely holding signs that state: “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action,” including senior citizens.

Despite the High Court’s long overdue ruling this morning, Palestine Action’s ban remains in place. Shabana Mahmood, the UK’s sorry excuse for a Home Secretary, says she intends to fight the ruling.

“I am disappointed by ⁠the court’s decision ⁠and disagree with the notion that banning ⁠this terrorist organisation ⁠is disproportionate,” she said in a statement. “As a former lord chancellor, I have the deepest respect for our judiciary. Home secretaries must however retain the ability to take action to protect our national security and keep the public safe. I intend to fight this judgment in the Court of Appeal.”

How exactly does proscribing an anti-genocide activist group “keep the public safe”? And why is using a can of spray paint considered terrorism, but carpet bombing thousands of innocent men, women and children considered ‘self-defence’?

By opposing the High Court’s ruling, Mahmood clearly doesn’t have “the deepest respect for our judiciary.” Quite the opposite, in fact. The weirdest part is that she claims to be a supporter of Palestinian rights. I’ve never heard anything more ludicrous in my life.

The fight to free Palestine Action is far from over, but the High Court’s ruling this morning is an excellent first step towards justice. The UK government can push back as much as it wants, but the truth always wins in the end.

Upgrade to paid

Buy me a coffee or a glass of wine

What is a woman?

It’s always baffling to watch trans activists attempt to answer this question. They simply cannot do it. To them, being a woman is both everything and nothing at the same time. It is a feeling, an identity, a way of life — virtually anything but an immutable biological reality.

Society’s bizarre embracement of gender ideology over the last decade has enabled men to colonise womanhood for their own gratification. To be a woman is no longer regarded as an innate state of being, but rather an abstract concept that can be reshaped, appropriated, and violated at will. While there are countless men guilty of doing this, few are as widely known as Dylan Mulvaney.

Dylan rose to fame in 2022 when he began his “Days of Girlhood” series, which documented his ‘transition’ into becoming a ‘girl.’

The first time I saw one of his TikTok videos, Dylan was wearing a pink jumper and red lipstick, excitedly rattling off a list of female stereotypes he performed that day which had supposedly transformed him into a ‘girl’:

Day 1 of being a girl, and I have already cried three times. I wrote a scathing email that I did not send. I ordered dresses online that I couldn’t afford. And then when someone asked me how I was, I said I’m fine, when I wasn’t fine.

I opened the comments section to find thousands of women saying things like, “She’s so brave,” and “I’m so happy she’s living her truth.” Anyone who pointed out that Dylan is a grown man pretending to be a ‘girl’ was promptly shouted down, berated and called a transphobic bigot.

I was so confused. It was as if I had entered an alternate universe where up was down and down was up. How could these women not see that this was a man, and an insanely sexist man at that?

Subscribe now

As time went by, Dylan’s behaviour became increasingly disturbed, and his fans’ support for him even more deranged. When he posted a creepy video mocking period products, they defended him. When he called vaginas “Barbie pouches,” they praised him. When he pranced around in women’s clothing singing “Normalise the bulge” at the top of his lungs, for all I know, they sang with him.

Public support for Dylan didn’t end with his delusional fans. I watched in disbelief as he gleefully accepted “Woman of the Year” awards, modelled women’s sports bras for Nike, and became an unofficial spokesperson for Tampax. He even visited a senile Joe Biden at the White House where they discussed their mutual support for the destruction of women’s sex-based rights and the chemical and physical castration of children — all in the name of love and inclusion, of course.

It’s now been four years since Dylan began his descent into ‘girlhood,’ and I’m sorry to report that he’s still not done telling us about it. Last month, he was cast as Anne Boleyn in the upcoming Broadway production, SIX: The Musical:

For me to be able to step out onto a Broadway stage as Anne Boleyn and perform an iconic historical character’s role in a show that is so rooted in celebrating femininity, I think that’s a miracle.

I struggle to understand how casting a man to play a woman who suffered as a direct result of her sex ‘celebrates femininity.’ The hardships Anne Boleyn experienced in her short life, including her public execution, occurred because she was a natural-born woman. She was beheaded because she failed to bear Henry VIII a son. To Dylan, femininity is a commodity that can be purchased in the form of lipstick, high heels and dresses. To Anne Boleyn, femininity was baked into the very fabric of her being, and it ultimately cost her her life — a life that is now, ironically, being played by a man.

Not only does Dylan’s casting disrespect Anne Boleyn’s legacy, but it also robs an actress of the opportunity to perform on Broadway. The irony is not lost on me that when Anne Boleyn was alive, women were not allowed to act in plays, so female roles were always played by men. How disappointing that society has since come full circle, only this time under the guise of ‘diversity, equity and inclusion.’

The role of Anne Boleyn is far from Dylan’s first acting gig. After graduating from the University of Cincinnati with a BFA in musical theatre in 2019, Dylan was cast in the Broadway production The Book of Mormon. He has since starred in his own off-Broadway solo play, The Least Problematic Woman in the World (ha!), made a guest appearance in the TV show The Buccaneers, and launched a podcast called The Dylan Hour which is marketed towards “the girls, gays and theys.”

In fact, it seems that Dylan’s entire life has been one long chaotic performance. Years before announcing that he was a ‘girl,’ he appeared on The Ellen DeGeneres Show and The Price is Right where he put his pathological need for attention on full display.

But by now, it’s undeniable that Dylan’s biggest and most lucrative role yet has been that of ‘girlhood.’ It’s a role with no fixed script, no salary cap, and no final act. In transforming his life into a never-ending performance art piece, Dylan has unlocked a lifetime of fame, fortune and attention.

I genuinely believe that if women had taken a stand from the beginning and told Dylan the truth — that he is a man, and nothing he ever says or does will change that fact — he would have gotten bored and dropped this act a long time ago. But with millions of dollars in the bank and a constant outpouring of love and approval from his devoted fans, he has very little reason to hang up his costume now.

Upgrade to paid

Buy me a coffee or a glass of wine

It’s been exactly one year since Trump was sworn in as the 47th President of the United States. As he stood underneath the Capitol dome before rows of tech oligarchs, war criminals, influencers and MMA fighters, he made a promise to the American people.

“During every single day of the Trump administration, I will, very simply, put America first.”

In the beginning, many felt hopeful. Every time Trump said or did something outrageous, political pundits would hop onto podcasts and theorise that he was actually a secret genius, and that his latest stunt was part of a cunning plan to achieve the exact opposite of what he appeared to be doing. But as the weeks went by, those arguments grew fewer and fewer. It became depressingly obvious that Trump had no secret plan up his sleeve. He wasn’t putting America first at all. If anything, he was putting it last.

Subscribe now

Before I launch into my critiques of Trump, I first want to offer a bit of nuance. He has done some good things as President, like banning men from women’s sports; rehiring service members who were discharged for refusing the COVID vaccine; ending government DEI programmes; prohibiting child sex changes; reducing the childhood vaccine schedule, and bringing illegal border crossings down to record lows. But unfortunately, these minor victories fail to compensate for the long list of ways he has betrayed his voters.

You can’t put America first without stopping the endless, taxpayer-funded wars the U.S. wages abroad. Despite promising to deliver peace, Trump has brought us closer to World War III than ever before. So far, he has bombed seven countries in his second term, including Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Nigeria and Venezuela. As if this wasn’t bad enough, Trump has also failed to put an end to the proxy war in Ukraine and has sent approximately $12 billion in military assistance to the genocidal state of Israel.

Ironically, many Americans voted for Trump because he was the ‘peace’ candidate — and they had valid reasons to believe this. During his first term in office, Trump started zero new wars. He also has a strong record of opposing the Iraq war. I recently stumbled across this clip from one of the 2016 presidential debates. Trump’s clear-headed, scathing critique of Bush’s unjustified invasion of Iraq is nothing short of remarkable:

We should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilised the Middle East. […] They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none, and they knew there were none.

It’s hard to believe this is the same man currently bombing the Middle East like it’s a recreational sport.

The ‘ceasefire’ in Gaza has turned out to be a complete sham (what a shocker). Trump has made no secret of his plan to transform the rubble, haunted by the souls of hundreds of thousands of murdered Palestinians, into the next Miami, Mar-a-Lago or Las Vegas. Who could forget this AI video Trump posted last February, which is quite possibly the most horrifying and revolting display of egoism, greed and inhumanity ever created?

Trump’s attitude to the Middle East makes sense when you take into account the obscene amount of money the Israel lobby has given him. Since 2020, he has received approximately $230 million from pro-Israel interest groups, including $215 million from Miriam Adelson and roughly $14 million from the Republican Jewish Coalition. In the meantime, Trump has filled his administration with war-hungry zionists like Mike Huckabee, Marco Rubio, Steven Witkoff, Pete Hegseth and Mike Waltz, and routinely violates the First Amendment by censoring Americans who criticise Israel.

Trump’s plan to put America first has not only been hijacked by Israeli interests, but also by his insatiable desire for American expansionism. In the last three weeks alone, Trump bypassed Congress to kidnap Nicolás Maduro and his wife; informed Norway’s Prime Minister that because he didn’t win a Nobel Peace Prize, he no longer feels “an obligation to think purely of Peace”; threatened to strike Iran; and came close to invading Greenland.

Today, he posted this ominous AI-generated photo on Truth Social depicting the United States in total control of Canada, Greenland and Venezuela.

This kind of unhinged behaviour has led some analysts to suggest Congress invoke the 25th Amendment. Given that Trump is approaching 80 and increasingly displaying signs of dementia, this might not be such a bad idea.

Trump’s domestic policies haven’t been much better. He has deported fewer illegal immigrants than Obama did in his first year as President. Instead of just arresting and deporting people who are in the country illegally, ICE has repeatedly made violent, warrantless arrests of U.S. citizens, sometimes detaining them for days on end without the right to call a family member or lawyer.

Meanwhile, as Americans struggle to afford necessities like food, gas, healthcare and rent, Trump gets on TV to claim that “this is the greatest economy we’ve ever had.” He even back pedalled on his promise to prioritise American workers, opting instead to import 600,000 Chinese students and promote the H1-B visa programme. This is because, according to him, Americans simply don’t have enough talent to fill specialised technology and engineering roles. How nice.

Oh — and he still hasn’t released the Epstein files.

We have three years left of Trump’s presidency. I wish I could offer a prediction of what we can expect to happen next, but I can’t. The news cycle has never been faster, more dizzying or more nauseating. At this point, I’m afraid that “America First” is destined to become another version of the American dream — a nice idea in theory, but ultimately unattainable in practice.

Buy me a coffee or a glass of wine

Upgrade to paid

When you think of Minnesota, what’s the first thing that comes to mind? For me, it’s the Mary Tyler Moore Show. Others might say F. Scott Fitzgerald, ice hockey or that warm, endearing upper Midwestern accent. But over the last few weeks, that familiar image of Minnesota has been replaced by an entirely different one — one that is devoid of law, order, and… Minnesotans.

I am, of course, referring to the Somali fraud scandal, which has been unfolding in the state for years but has only recently attracted national attention. When I first heard about the havoc Somalis are wreaking in Minnesota, it almost seemed too absurd to be real. But unfortunately, it is real, and as an American I feel the need to address it.

The scandal dates back to 2020, when Feeding Our Future, the largest nonprofit recipient of pandemic-era government funding, partnered with local businesses and organisations to feed hungry children. They claimed to distribute thousands of free meals to those in need, and in return the government reimbursed them.

Sounds innocent enough, right? Well, there was a slight problem: Feeding Our Future wasn’t using the money to pay for free meals. In fact, it wasn’t giving out free meals at all. Its leaders and partners were pocketing the funds and spending them on luxury cars, extravagant homes, and offshore real estate ventures. There were even reports that a portion was sent to the terrorist group Al-Shabaab in Somalia (more on that later).

Subscribe now

You’re probably wondering how an organisation that had been showing early warning signs of fraud since before the pandemic managed to slip by unnoticed for so long.

Well… it didn’t. In 2020, the Minnesota Department of Education grew suspicious of the high number of businesses and organisations applying to partner with Feeding Our Future. But the minute Minnesota officials started asking questions, the fraudulent nonprofit threatened to sue the Department on grounds of racism that would be “sprawled across the news” should they fail to approve new applicants from “minority-owned businesses.” Keep in mind that the year was 2020, when the country was overtaken by the Black Lives Matter riots and everyone’s biggest fear was being called a racist.

As a result, Feeding Our Future was allowed to continue its scam for another two years, until the FBI finally raided it in 2022 and discovered that they had defrauded Minnesotans of $250 million in taxpayer money. So far, 78 people have been charged in the federal fraud case, 72 of whom are of Somali descent.

It turned out that Feeding Our Future was just the tip of the Somali-shaped iceberg. Other fraudulent schemes, including autism therapy centres and housing stabilisation programs, were subsequently shut down by the FBI. As of today, the Department of Justice has charged 98 people in Minnesota with fraud, 85 of whom are Somali. So far, 64 have been convicted. The FBI’s investigation is ongoing, but as of now authorities estimate that Minnesotan taxpayers have been defrauded of $9 billion in total.

Although this issue has been public knowledge for years, most Americans hadn’t heard about it until Thanksgiving last year, when President Trump tweeted out a lengthy tirade against mass immigration, Somali refugees, “retarded” Tim Walz, “sleepy” Joe Biden and Ilhan Omar’s “swaddling hijab,” followed by a memorable White House press conference.

One month later, an even bigger spotlight was cast on the scandal when YouTuber Nick Shirley traveled to Minnesota to expose even more fraud, this time in the form of fake daycares, healthcare companies and transportation services. He was joined by a Minnesotan man named David, who has been tirelessly investigating this for years.

Armed with security, the pair drove around Minneapolis, knocking on the doors of the many businesses David had identified as fraudulent. Each time, they encountered the same problem: the buildings were either locked, vacant, or occupied by one or two hostile Somalis who chased them off the premises.

One of the many sham organisations Nick and David uncovered was a windowless industrial-looking building with a “Quality Learing Center” sign slapped onto the front of it. (No, that’s not a typo on my end. They actually forgot to add the letter ‘n’ to the word “learning.”)

Since it was posted on December 26th, Nick’s video has garnered 3.7 million views on YouTube and 140 million views on X, sending the mainstream media into a frenzy. Conservatives at Fox practically salivated at the mouth over Nick’s coverage of the fraud, while liberals at CNN tried to smear him as a racist, bigoted right-wing extremist for daring to expose it.

Meanwhile, Minnesota politicians attempted to do damage control in a series of interviews and press conferences, which ended up backfiring and making them look even worse. (Let’s be honest: given the enormous scale of this fraud, there is literally no way they didn’t know about it.)

First, there’s Minnesota Governor Tim Walz. In a classic liberal move, he managed to shift the blame from Somalis onto white men, who he seems to think are the epitome of all evil. “To blame [Somalis] and say that they should have been responsible for stopping it, I think that’s a pretty hard reach,” Walz said at a press conference in December. “There’s a lot of white men [who] should be holding white men accountable for the crimes that they have committed.”

So it’s not okay to expect Somalis to hold each other accountable for their real crimes, but it is okay to order white men to hold each other accountable for their theoretical crimes? This is why Walz is so unpopular, and why he announced that he is ending his bid for re-election earlier this month.

Then we have Representative for Minnesota Ilhan Omar. Whenever asked about the fraud, Omar deflects, feigns ignorance and plays the perfect professional victim. “[…] The president oftentimes resorts to very bigoted, xenophobic, Islamophobic, racist rhetoric when he is trying to scapegoat and deflect from the actual failures that he has himself,” Omar said in a December interview with CNN.

Sure, Trump isn’t the most delicate of speakers. But in focusing on his “rhetoric,” Omar is the one deflecting by evading responsibility for the crimes that Somalis are committing on American soil.

Perhaps even more inane than Ilhan Omar and Tim Walz is the Jewish Mayor of Minneapolis Jacob Frey. When interviewed about the fraud scandal, Frey takes the side of Somalis every single time.

It’s been especially heavy for our Somali communities, for immigrants who have decided to make Minneapolis home and are now clearly the target of a Trump administration that doesn’t seem to care about the wonderful benefit that they provide to our city in terms of the economy, the culture. These are people that are baked into the very fabric that make Minneapolis Minneapolis and right now they’re under attack and the bottom line is we gotta stand up for them.

Given that 81% of Somalis are on welfare in Minnesota, I would hardly argue that they provide a “wonderful benefit” to our economy (their multi-billion fraud scandal doesn’t help much either). As for the “culture,” we already have a culture in America. It’s called American culture.

I also fail to understand how Somalis, most of whom have only been in the States for a couple of decades, are “baked into the very fabric” of Minneapolis. Are the Americans whose families have been there for hundreds of years not the very blueprint of that fabric? Should their needs not take priority?

The worst part about these politicians is not their refusal to take responsibility for the fraud, but their disloyalty to the U.S. in favour of a foreign country, which has contributed to the cultural decay of Minnesota.

In 2023, after complaints that the imagery of Minnesota’s state flag was offensive to Native Americans, Walz signed a bill into law creating a commission to redesign the state flag and seal. The new flag looks eerily similar to the Somali flag.

It went from this:

To this:

For reference, this is what the Somali flag looks like:

Minnesotans never voted to change the flag, so it’s no surprise that the majority of them do not approve of it. A 2024 poll found that 52% of Minnesotans prefer the old state flag, 16% want to replace the new flag with a different one, and 6% said they don’t know. Only 24% said they approve of the new design. Does that sound like a democracy to you?

Ilhan Omar, who immigrated to the States from Somalia as a refugee at age 12, has repeatedly demonstrated loyalty to her birth country. In a speech she made in Somali to a crowd of Somalis in Minnesota, Omar referred to the President of Somalia as “our president.”

“Somalia is our home,” she said. “It is home to all the people gathered here. We do not feel that it is far from us. Somalia is our heart. It is in our hearts. We always think about Somalia.”

Meanwhile, this is what she has to say about Americans:

These people are just idiots. […] I’m at the point where it’s become really hard to have an intellectual debate with any of these people because the level of stupidity that they are displaying every single day is frankly embarrassing, not just in Congress but as Americans. And the fact that these people are allowed to say the most ridiculous things tells you that the dumbing of the United States has arrived because how else do we get a Trump presidency again?

In the United States, we are “allowed” to say “ridiculous things” because of a little something called the First Amendment. As a Congresswoman, Omar should know this.

By calling Americans “these people,” Omar proves that she doesn’t see herself as truly American — and frankly, she’s right. Being American is about far more than just holding a passport. Call me controversial, but I don’t believe naturalised citizens should be able to hold public office in the United States — especially ones who openly hate our country, relish in mocking our people and refer to their place of origin as “home.”

Meanwhile, Frey frequently waves the Somali flag, eats Somali food, wears “I Love Somalia” t-shirts and even gives speeches to Somalis in their own language. He has also obstructed federal immigration enforcement by pledging that Minneapolis police would not cooperate with the deportations of illegal Somali immigrants and barring federal immigration operations on city property.

Frey even supported an ordinance allowing the Muslim call to prayer (adhan) to be broadcast across the city five times per day, as early as 3:30 am and as late as 11:00 pm. Not only has this disturbed Minnesotans’ sleep, but it has also left many of them feeling like foreigners in their own country. This problem is also rampant in towns like Dearborn, Michigan.

Somalis in Minnesota comprise a key voting bloc for Frey, which partly explains his obsession with them. In fact, the only reason why he won the last mayoral election in Minneapolis is because he pandered to the Somali clan that his opponent, Omar Fateh, ran against. When American mayoral elections are determined by East African clan rivalries, I think we can all agree that the multiculturalism experiment has gone a step too far.

You’re probably wondering how the people of Somalia, a remote east African country, came to inhabit the Midwestern state in the first place. They began emigrating in 1991, at the start of the Somali civil war. The highest number of Somali refugees entered the country under Obama, totalling 54,000. Today, there are roughly 84,000 Somalis living in Minnesota and 260,000 in the United States.

Since their arrival, most Somalis have failed to assimilate into American society and culture. 58.2 percent of working-age Somalis in Minnesota speak English “less than very well.” This is also true of nearly half (49 percent) of Somalis who have lived in the country for over ten years.

Somalis are also responsible for a significant portion of the crime in Minnesota, including child sex trafficking rings, gang violence, armed robberies, and mass stabbings. This should not really come as a surprise. Somalia doesn’t exactly have the best reputation internationally; in addition to having very high crime rates, it is ranked the second most corrupt country in the entire world, surpassed only by South Sudan.

Last year, Nick stopped Minnesotans on the street to ask how they feel about the ever-expanding Somali presence in their home state. His exchange with this father and son says it all:

As Americans across the country awakened to the chaos Somalis are sowing in Minnesota, another news story broke quietly in the background — so quietly, that it almost went unnoticed: Israel had become the first country to formally recognise Somaliland as an independent nation.

… What?

I confess that when I first heard about this, I had to Google what on earth “Somaliland” is. It sounded like some sort of nightmare alternative to Disneyland (which is already nightmarish enough). It turns out, Somaliland is a self-declared independent state in northwestern Somalia that broke away in 1991, at the start of the Somali civil war. Despite having its own government, currency, and security forces, Somaliland is not internationally recognised.

Israel has a long history of interfering in the region (surprise, surprise). During World War II, Somaliland was one of the many places zionists considered as their potential new “homeland.” Although this idea never came to pass, Mossad has maintained an active presence in Somaliland for years, during which time they built strong ties with senior Somali figureheads in preparation to formally recognise the state.

But why would Israel bother to recognise it? Well, according to Somalia’s President, Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, Israel and Somaliland have worked out a little deal. In exchange for international recognition from Israel, Somaliland has allegedly agreed to three conditions: accept the resettlement of Palestinians onto their land, allow the establishment of an Israeli military base on the Gulf of Aden coast, and join the Abraham Accords.

Although Somaliland has denied this, Dan Diker, the President of the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs, confirmed it:

The Somalilanders did offer to take, I heard, numbers in the hundreds of thousands, if not more. There is, you know, a very active dialogue and discourse going on over that point. But I do think that the Somaliland government would accept, with the proper financial compensation, a number of [Gazans] to relocate either temporarily or permanently.

Establishing a military base in Somaliland would greatly benefit Israel. It’s located on the Gulf of Aden near the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, a key shipping route for oil and trade between Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. It’s also directly across from Yemen, where the Houthis regularly fire missiles at Israel. A base in Somaliland would give Israel a strategic foothold in the Red Sea, along with access to ports and intelligence. This foothold would strengthen if Somaliland formalised its allegiance with Israel by joining the Abraham Accords.

So, what does any of this have to do with the Somali fraud scandal in Minnesota?

Well, I find it interesting that Nick uploaded his viral YouTube video on the same day that Israel recognised Somaliland. Some speculate that the inflated media coverage of the scandal, egged on by Trump, was coordinated by Mossad in order to gain U.S. approval of its new relationship with Somaliland.

According to one Israeli journalist, Mossad did play a role in exposing Somali fraud, and allegedly even told the media that a portion of the stolen money was sent to the Somali terrorist organisation Al-Shabaab (which notably operates out of Somalia, not Somaliland). This completely unsubstantiated claim has caused many Americans to feel even more resentful towards Somalis, who they now not only associate with fraud but also terrorism. By ensuring that Americans view Somalia as a terror-linked failed state, Israel would be more likely to garner U.S. support for its recognition of Somaliland, and by extension any other activity they do in the region.

If this theory is true, then it’s possible that Nick has been collaborating with Mossad — and honestly, this wouldn’t surprise me. Nick has been pushing pro-Israel, anti-Palestinian content for years now. While I appreciate his videos to a certain extent, a lot of them are just more anti-Muslim propaganda for Israel to force-feed Americans.

It’s a game they have played with the West for years: as long as we think Muslims are our greatest enemy, then Israel can continue to do its dirty work behind the scenes. Ever wonder why the majority of Somali refugees immigrated to the States under Obama? It’s because we were bombing them at the behest of Israel, as part of a post-9/11 plan to attack seven majority-Muslim countries. Without Israel’s stranglehold on our government, thousands of Somalis would have never fled to our shores, and the Minnesota fraud scandal might never have even happened.

Minnesotans have every right to be angry with the Somali takeover of their state. They have been pushed out of their communities, defrauded of billions of dollars, and accused of being racist for daring to speak out against it. But it’s also important to consider the bigger picture. We need to ask why this was allowed to happen in the first place, and what our Israeli-occupied government and media stand to gain by distracting us with the story now.

Buy me a coffee or a glass of wine

Upgrade to paid

The days following Charlie Kirk’s assassination felt like a blur. I was sleep-deprived and glued to the news, trying to piece together who might have killed him and why. I couldn’t get the scene out of my head — the cold crack of the gun; the reflexive jolt of his arms as they flinched backwards; the blood that poured like water from his neck.

Just 48 hours later, I stayed up late to watch Erika Kirk give her live address. Still in shock over Charlie’s murder, I felt a strange affinity with this woman I knew almost nothing about. I was heartbroken for her, and curious to see what she was like.

But as Erika stood behind the podium, dabbing her right eye and repeating the occasional whispered word under her breath, a sense of unease passed over me. I couldn’t put my finger on what it was exactly. Energetically, something just felt… off.

I pushed this feeling down for weeks because I genuinely wanted to like Erika. But whenever she stepped into public view — from the unsettling video of her caressing Charlie’s dead hands in his casket to her theatrical appearance at his memorial service, flanked by giant golden sparklers — it would rise again, each time stronger than the last.

Subscribe now

The feeling finally came to a head on October 29th, when Erika made a joint appearance with JD Vance at the University of Mississippi. She wore tight black leather pants for the occasion (just your typical grieving widow attire) and made a tone-deaf comparison between her late husband and the sitting Vice President.

“No one will ever replace my husband, no,” Erika said, squinting into the crowd. “But I do see some similarities of my husband in JD, in Vice President JD Vance. I do.”

She might as well have said, “No one will ever replace my husband, but JD Vance sure could give it a try.”

When Erika and Vance hugged onstage shortly afterwards, she cradled the back of his head in her hand. It felt weirdly intimate, and wildly inappropriate.

Yep, there’s no denying it anymore, I thought. Something is seriously off about this woman.

Once I had accepted what had been staring me in the face the entire time, I started doing some digging into Erika’s background — and what I learned only strengthened my suspicions.

Her mother, Lori Frantzve, is the founder and CEO of three defence-related companies: AZ-Tech, E3Tek Group and GTEK. Erika’s father, Kent Frantzve, is Program Research Director at AZ-Tech International, where he consults with the Department of Defence (now known as the Department of War) and collaborates on missile defence systems with US defence company Raytheon, which has a close and long-standing partnership with the Israeli defence industry.

Why is this relevant, you ask?

It’s no secret that in the months leading up to his assassination, Charlie was growing increasingly frustrated with Israel and the zionist lobby in the United States. He endured constant threats and verbal abuse from his many Jewish donors, and even expressed fears that Israel might kill him if he turned against them. Then, 48 hours after he declared that he was leaving the pro-Israel cause in a since-leaked WhatsApp group chat, Charlie was assassinated.

Unlike Charlie, Erika (who is ethnically Jewish) has never wavered on her support for Israel. She frequently praises the genocidal state and has even been photographed hanging out with Benjamin Netanyahu’s son. In any other murder investigation, if the victim had expressed fears that an entity might kill him, and his wife and in-laws are all heavily linked to that entity, wouldn’t they naturally be investigated as suspects?

To add insult to injury, Candace Owens — the only one of Charlie’s friends who has been fearlessly investigating his assassination from the beginning — revealed that Egyptian planes have been following Erika around for years. Want to know the real kicker? Those same planes were also flying in and out of Israel.

Erika was asked about Candace’s investigation in an interview with zionist shill Bari Weiss earlier this month.

“The podcaster Candace Owens,” Bari said, causing the smile to instantly drain from Erika’s face. “At one time, a friend of Charlie’s. At one time, an employee of Turning Point. She has been one of the main peddlers of these conspiracies, and she is making a huge amount of money on it. She is building her business off of these lies. What do you want to say to her and the other people that are putting these lies out into the world right now?”

“Stop,” Erika replied angrily. “That’s it. That’s all I have to say. Stop.”

Calling inconvenient truths “lies” and “conspiracy theories” doesn’t work on the American public anymore, Bari.

Also, Candace is not “building her business” off of anything. She is merely doing the same job she has done for years, which is to host her podcast. If you want to talk about “huge amounts of money,” then perhaps you should also acknowledge the $10 million in donations that Erika has received since Charlie’s assassination in September.

Within hours of his death, Turning Point USA — which Erika is now the CEO of — was selling t-shirts featuring his name, face and death date. Just recently, at AmericaFest, they recreated the crime scene where Charlie was murdered for his fans to take pictures in front of. But we’re supposed to believe that Candace, the only person investigating the truth behind her friend’s murder, is the one profiting off of his death? Yeah, right.

I also find it striking that while Charlie told us, “You better keep asking questions because it’s the only thing that will keep us free,” Erika tells us to stop asking questions about his assassination. Wouldn’t a grieving widow want people to ask questions about her husband’s murder — especially given how clearly fraudulent the FBI’s investigation has been?

In the same interview, Erika asserted that she never flew on the Egyptian planes because she was pregnant for “90 percent of the trips.” But Candace never accused Erika of being on any actual Egyptian planes; she merely said that they were following Erika around — for multiple years, at that. It’s not possible that Erika was pregnant for the majority of that time.

If I was told that Egyptian planes had been following me around for years, I would want that investigated immediately. Erika’s defensiveness suggests she has something to hide.

The latest bombshell Candace dropped is an interview with a special forces veteran named Mitch. He was at Fort Huachuca, a U.S. military intelligence base in Arizona, from September 8^th - 9^th, just one day before Charlie was assassinated. He alleges that while he was there, he saw three notable people: Charlie’s head of security, Brian Harpole; Nevada Congressman Mark Amodei; and… Erika Kirk.

Mitch revealed that he saw Erika when he was checking into the Candlewood Suites Hotel at Fort Huachuca on the evening of September 8th. He noted that she was accompanied by a man who looked like he was ex Special Forces. Mitch later identified the man as Cabot Phillips, who is the senior editor at the uber-zionist media company The Daily Wire. Cabot was friends with Charlie and even dated Erika back in 2017. Bizarrely, Erika has denied that she dated anyone during that time, despite the mountain of evidence proving otherwise.

The following morning, Mitch allegedly saw Cabot leaving a high-level secretive meeting at the intelligence base, along with Brian Harpole and Congressman Amodei. Mitch was later interrogated by intelligence officers for seven hours straight, during which they repeatedly emphasised the next 24 hours, and ordered him not to return to the base within that time.

24 hours later, Charlie was assassinated.

When Candace asked Mitch how certain he is that those were the people he saw, he replied: 95 - 99 percent. “Those are really rare eyes,” he added, referring to Erika.

That’s a very high percentage. Now, could Mitch be mistaken? Possibly. While his presence at Fort Huachuca on September 8th and 9th has been verified, there’s no way for us to know with 100 percent certainty that those were the specific people he saw.

However, I do find it compelling that after Candace’s interview with Mitch aired, Congressman Amodei, Brian Harpole and Erika released their alibis — and all three were immediately debunked. Neither men have addressed the obvious holes in their stories, and Erika has been too busy wearing sequin pantsuits, hosting AmericaFest and endorsing JD Vance for President to address the holes in hers.

When I look at Erika Kirk, I don’t see a grieving widow. I see a deeply disingenuous, untrustworthy woman who is profiting off her husband’s murder. Anyone who still denies that Erika might have been involved in Charlie’s assassination is either part of the cover-up themselves or simply does not want it to be true, so they bury their heads in the sand to avoid it. Given how profoundly dark, unthinkable and evil that possibility is, can we really even blame them?

Buy me a coffee or a glass of wine

Upgrade to paid

The rise of gender ideology over the last decade has resulted in the erasure of women as a distinct sex class. Our boundaries have been consistently violated, our safety put at risk and our voices silenced — all for the benefit of a few men who identify as us.

At its core, gender ideology is a lie, propped up by a series of thought-terminating clichés designed to shut down discussion and discourage people from critical thinking.

We are repeatedly told that ‘trans women are women,’ but this is not true. Trans women are men. The lie that they are women erases what it means to be female by rendering it a mixed-sex category. If you cannot even define what women are, you will never be able to protect them.

We are also repeatedly told that ‘trans rights are human rights,’ but a human right is only a human right if it does not infringe on anyone else’s. It is simply not a man’s right to use female-only spaces. For several years, women have not been able to access bathrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, sports teams, lesbian bars and dating apps — even prisons, breastfeeding support groups and rape crisis centres — without the presence of men who identify as us. Do you know what are human rights? To be protected as a sex class and to have access to single-sex spaces — both of which are being denied to women.

Subscribe now

Since 2015, men who identify as women have been placed in multiple female prisons across several different countries including the US, UK, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. Many of these male inmates have gone on to intimidate, sexually harass, rape and impregnate several of their female inmates. Given that 70% of male inmates who identify as women are locked up for sexual offences or violent crimes, this is hardly surprising.

One of the most disturbing examples of this is Tremaine Carroll. In the 1990s, Carroll was sentenced to 25-to-life in California after he and several other men broke into an apartment, sexually assaulted two teenage girls, kidnapped them and held them for ransom.

In March 2021, three months after California’s Transgender Respect, Agency, and Dignity Act went into effect (which mandates that prisoners be housed based on their gender identity, rather than their biological sex), Carroll — who had exhibited violent and erratic behaviour throughout his prison sentence — abruptly announced that he was a ‘woman.’

By August that year, Carroll was moved to the Central California Women’s Facility, where the female inmates were forced to share their shower rooms, bathrooms, changing areas and bedroom cells with the 6-foot-2, 200 pound man.

In January 2024, Carroll brutally raped a female inmate in the shower. His victim was then transported to the hospital in chains before being strip searched and placed in solitary confinement because Carroll had the audacity to claim that she had assaulted him. Less than 24 hours later, Carroll raped a second female inmate. Tragically, one of his victims was impregnated as a result.

Carroll was finally transferred to a men’s prison in March 2024, where he now awaits trial. As if his victims have not been through enough trauma already, a judge has since mandated that they refer to Carroll by his preferred ‘she/her’ pronouns in court. To force female survivors of rape to address their male rapist as ‘she/her’ is the most vile, sinister form of psychological abuse I think I’ve ever heard of. The worst part is that the judge ordering them to do this is a woman herself.

Cases like this are disturbingly common. It’s important to note that it doesn’t matter whether a male exhibits violent behaviour or not; his mere presence in a women’s prison is an act of violence itself. When female inmates are forced to share intimate spaces with males, their safety, dignity, and privacy are violated every single day. Gaslighting them by insisting that the man with a penis is actually a woman does not change this — in fact, it only makes it worse.

Breastfeeding support groups have been similarly infiltrated by men who identify as women. In November 2024, 94-year-old Marian Tompson, who co-founded the breastfeeding charity La Leche League in 1956, resigned from the board of directors in protest of the inclusion of trans-identified men in their support groups. In her resignation letter, Tompson described the organisation as “a travesty of my original intent,” writing, “This shift from following the norms of nature, which is the core of mothering through breastfeeding, to indulging the fantasies of adults, is destroying our organisation.”

La Leche League board member Miriam Main resigned for the same reasons. In a guest post published on Substack last year, Main explained that the mothers who seek support from La Leche League are extremely vulnerable, and therefore need a safe single-sex space to turn to for support.

She wrote:

I remember feeling a bit miffed that my husband couldn’t stay with me at the first LLL meeting I attended, but it didn’t take long for me to understand why. Women bare all emotionally and physically. They talk about coercive family members, their sex life after having a baby, how they feel about their changing body, the physical sensations they experience, perineal tears and prolapses, pressure to give a bottle, and so many more things. They might be breastfeeding outside the home for the first time, they might have cracked and mangled nipples, they might be struggling or feeling completely exhausted. There are often tears of joy and pain.

It goes without saying that women would not be able to express any of this vulnerability with a man present — no matter how he may identify.

Main first noticed something was wrong when La Leche League began to use gender neutral language to describe innate female experiences and identities. ‘Mother’ became ‘parent,’ and ‘breastfeed’ became ‘chestfeed.’ Anyone who raised concerns about this, the physical safety of the babies being breastfed by men and the psychological safety of the women in the support groups were “ridiculed and abused.”

You’d be forgiven for wondering what on earth trans-identified men are doing at a breastfeeding support group in the first place. The reason is that men who take oestrogen are capable of producing a small amount of liquid during ‘chest feeding,’ which institutions like the NHS have shamefully encouraged them to believe is “comparable” to the real breastmilk that postpartum mothers produce.

Newsflash: it is not comparable whatsoever. In fact, it is straight up child abuse. Babies need to be with their biological mothers, who naturally produce breastmilk that is tailor-made to them. They do not benefit whatsoever from drinking the drug-induced secretions that come out of a man’s nipple. Adult delusions and fantasies should never come before a baby’s needs.

When you take into account that these men likely have autogynephilia, a paraphilic model of gender dysphoria that causes a man to become sexually aroused by the thought or image of himself as a woman, the reality grows that much darker.

Not even our rape crisis centres are safe. Until September 2024, Mridul Wadhwa, a man who identifies as a woman, ran the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre in Scotland. In an interview posted six years ago to YouTube, Wadhwa claimed to be a “feminist” and asserted that the rape crisis centre is a “women only space in the sense that only women work in the centre.”

Well… that’s not true, because Wadhwa is not a woman.

In 2022, a former employee of the rape crisis centre, Roz Adams, was investigated for being “transphobic” after she stated that she believed sexual assault victims have the right to choose the sex of the person who is treating them.

“Sexual violence is about bodies and sexual violence is perpetrated by 98 - 99% male people,” Adams told BBC Scotland. “We need to respect that when people are traumatised by that, their senses are highly, highly alert to the person in front of them.” Needless to say, Adams is right.

Unsurprisingly, Wadhwa does not share Adams’ common sense views. In a 2021 interview with the Guilty Feminist podcast (guilty, indeed), Wadhwa made the following insidious remarks:

Sexual violence happens to bigoted people as well. […] If you bring unacceptable beliefs that are discriminatory in nature, we will begin to work with you on your journey of recovery from trauma. But please also expect to be challenged on your prejudices.

How dare this man accuse traumatised women of being bigoted for wanting and needing single sex facilities, especially post sexual assault? How dare he accuse them of holding “unacceptable beliefs”? Who is he to determine whether their beliefs are acceptable or not?

One rape survivor was so affected by Wadhwa’s words that she wrote an email response to him at the centre, which was published in Adams’ employment tribunal. Here is an excerpt from her email:

I have spent most of the last 24 hours either in tears or trying to hold them in to not alarm my husband or young daughter. […] To hear you are CEO of a Rape Crisis Centre say that I am a bigot because I could not bear to be in the proximity of my husband yesterday let alone a male who is a complete stranger was an absolute punch in the gut. The idea of reframing my trauma to make him, or any male, more comfortable while trying to hold myself together and not descend into that all too familiar dark spiral makes me incredibly angry.

Wadhwa stepped down in September 2024 after Rape Crisis Scotland released a scathing report criticising both him and the centre. It found that Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre did nothing to protect women-only spaces and failed to put survivors’ needs first, which caused them damage as a result. It also found that many women self-excluded from the centre because they felt unsafe to use it, and that Wadhwa had behaved unprofessionally and overstepped in decision-making.

In response to all of this, J.K. Rowling heroically opened a female-only rape crisis centre in Scotland called Beira’s Place. Since its founding in 2022, it has helped thousands of women and girls process and heal from their trauma.

A common claim by trans activists is that men who identify as women will be harmed in male spaces if they are not allowed into female ones. As Susan Smith, the Director of For Women Scotland, says, that’s frankly not our problem.

“If they are at risk in a men’s space, that’s something that men have to start to deal with, because it shouldn’t be up to women to protect men who might be vulnerable,” Smith said in an interview with GB News earlier this year. “There are plenty of men who are vulnerable for all sorts of reasons, not all of them people who identify as being trans. And we’re not human shields for them.”

Smith went on to say that while trans activists complain about having their ‘rights’ taken away, they have had zero sympathy for the women who have had their actual rights taken away for years now because of their extreme and nonsensical activism.

Women finally experienced some vindication on April 16th, when the UK Supreme Court concluded that the definition of the words “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refer to “a biological woman and biological sex.” Despite what some people will have you believe, trans-identified people lost zero rights to this ruling. Rather, women reclaimed their right to same-sex spaces and to protection on the basis of sex under the law.

But since the Supreme Court’s ruling was announced, trans activists have pushed back with nonsensical arguments, violent threats and outright abusive, sexist and misogynistic behaviour.

At a protest in London shortly after the ruling, they held up signs that read “The only good terf is a dead terf” and “Bring back witch burning” (aimed at J.K. Rowling). They also urinated around Parliament Square and even defaced a statue of Millicent Fawcett, the fearless suffragette who campaigned for women’s rights in the 19th and early 20th centuries, by scribbling “Fag rights” over it. How very feminine of them.

No matter how hard trans activists push back against us, we ‘terfs’ will not rest until our sex-based rights are fully restored. Gender ideology demands that we ignore reality, distrust our instincts, and lie to appease a fringe group of people. Women are expected to sit quietly and smile as men invade our spaces, claim our innate female experiences as their own and endanger our physical, mental and emotional wellbeing. And we’ve had enough.

Despite how stubbornly gender ideology has wormed its way into the public’s psyche, I don’t believe it will last forever. An ideology built on lies is destined to fail. It doesn’t matter how sincerely it is believed or how long it is upheld. Sooner or later, the truth will come knocking, and it won’t stop knocking until someone is brave enough to answer the door.

Buy me a coffee or a glass of wine

Upgrade to paid

Freedom of speech does not exist in the UK. Anyone who claims otherwise is either deluded or lying to you.

I wish this was an exaggeration. The reality is that over thirty people are arrested every single day in Britain — more than 12,000 people a year — for simply saying things the government doesn’t like.

Although restrictions on free speech have grown considerably worse in recent years (arrests have increased 121% since 2017), this problem has been slowly building for decades. In 1988, the UK Parliament passed the Malicious Communications Act, criminalising anyone who sends a letter or electronic communication that causes “distress or anxiety.” 15 years later, the Communications Act 2003 extended this to anyone who publicly writes something that causes “annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another.”

By this logic, nearly every single person on the planet should be locked up in prison, including Keir Starmer. He has publicly expressed countless things that have caused me and millions of others distress, annoyance, inconvenience and anxiety. When are the police going to arrest him?

Subscribe now

As if imprisoning his own people for saying mean words wasn’t bad enough, Starmer also gaslights them by routinely claiming that they do have free speech. When speaking to reporters about this, he always gives the same unimaginative and unconvincing response, as if regurgitating a memorised pre-approved script.

“We’ve had free speech for a very, very long time in the United Kingdom and it will last for a very, very long time.”

“We’ve had free speech for a very, very long time here, so we’re very proud of that and we’ll protect it.”

“We’ve had free speech in this country for a very, very long time and we protect it fiercely.”

I’m sure the thousands of people you’ve had arrested for speech violations would beg to differ. Just so you know Keir, repeating a lie over and over again doesn’t make it true.

When the UK government isn’t busy censoring words altogether, it’s distorting the meaning of them to manipulate the public into supporting the criminalisation of innocent people.

Take the word ‘terrorism.’ Since the organisation Palestine Action was proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000 in July, at least 2,094 people have been arrested for showing their support. Are we seriously expected to believe that those who speak out against mass murder and forced displacement are terrorists?

Or take the word ‘hate.’ Women who oppose sharing their locker rooms, prisons, sports teams, rape crisis centres, and breast feeding support groups with males can be arrested under Scotland’s Hate Crime Law for discriminating against trans-identified men. Are women who advocate for their sex-based rights hateful?

Of course, the answer is no. Despite what the government will have us believe, Israel is the terrorist, and the men barging into women’s spaces are the hateful ones.

Because the police can’t arrest everyone, they select their victims at random. At any given moment, any one of us could be next. It is therefore the fear of arrest, rather than the arrests themselves, that causes the majority of self-censorship in this country.

In January, Maxie Allen and Rosalind Levine were arrested in front of their three-year-old daughter at their Hertfordshire home by six police officers. Their crime? Complaining in a WhatsApp group chat about their nine-year-old disabled daughter’s school. Their house was searched and the pair was subsequently detained in a cell for eight hours. After a five week investigation, police concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to charge them, and the case was dropped.

Allen told Sky News: “When you watch the doorbell footage, you think, what are these six police officers doing? What is this operation? Is it a terror cell, is it a drug den they’re about to raid? No, it was two parents in a dispute with the school.”

“We cannot fathom what happened, it doesn’t make any sense. We made a few inquiries, we had a bit of banter on a WhatsApp group, and then we were arrested,” Levine added.

In September, Pete North was arrested in his home at night and detained in solitary confinement for hours because he had posted a meme that said: “F— Palestine. F— Hamas. F— Islam. Want to protest? F— off to Muslim country and protest.”

After being questioned by police, North was released and told he would have to wait until the end of December to learn if charges would be pressed. “The initial trauma of being detained is horrifying in itself, but I now have to live with this hanging over my head three months. That’s the psychological weight they press on you,” he wrote in a Substack post.

Do I agree with the sentiment that North expressed in that meme? No, but that’s irrelevant. True freedom of speech protects the right of all speech – especially when it is disagreeable, especially when it is offensive, and especially when it makes people uncomfortable.

Perhaps the most famous case is Lucy Connolly, an Englishwoman who was arrested and sentenced to 31 months in prison for “inciting racial hatred” because she posted – and quickly deleted – this tweet following the horrific Southport attack last year:

Connolly’s tweet was an emotional response to the rumour that Axel Rudakubana, the son of Rwandan immigrants who brutally murdered three young girls last summer, was an asylum seeker. Connolly deleted the post shortly afterwards — but it was too late. During her time in prison, Connolly was denied food, manhandled by police officers and forced to reside in the prison wing that housed violent, dangerous prisoners. All because of a single tweet.

Meanwhile, despite having thrown a kettle of boiling water at a prison guard in May, Rudakubana enjoys privileges in prison, including a Freeview TV with roughly 25 channels and a DVD player.

Let that sink in: a mother who responded emotionally to the mass murder of little girls is treated worse in prison than the mass murderer himself. This is not normal.

The UK government doesn’t just need to allow their people to speak; it also needs to listen to them. Brits have a right to be angry. Mass migration has caused seismic demographic and cultural changes to the UK (as well as to all of Europe and the Western world) in an extremely short period of time. It seems that every day there is a new story about a migrant stabbing, raping or assaulting people. Meanwhile, women and children are under constant attack by a pernicious ideology; the government is funding both a proxy war in Ukraine and a genocide in Palestine; and nearly one in four Brits are living in poverty.

There’s arguably never been more reason to protest, complain and write offensive social media posts – and yet the government can’t even grant its people that. It takes a special kind of evil to punish your own citizens for speaking out against the harm you yourself have caused them.

Instead of doing something to actually improve the country, this is what the shameful UK government has to say to its people:

As an American, I find this criminalisation of speech utterly shocking. I grew up in a country that protects all speech, no matter how ‘offensive’ it may be. I’m not claiming that the US is some kind of utopia (we have our fair share of problems and the First Amendment is violated far too often), but at least we have a First Amendment.

I was venting about all of this to an American friend recently. After I had finished, she leaned back in her chair and smiled. “I guess it’s true what they say. The longer you spend abroad, the more patriotic you become.”

I think that about sums it up.

By me a coffee or a glass of wine

Upgrade to paid

Last week, Sydney Sweeney finally addressed the American Eagle jeans ad that sent liberals into a spiral over the summer.

In case you’ve forgotten, this is what Sydney said in the ad:

“Genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair colour, personality, and even eye colour. My jeans are blue.”

The script was obviously inspired by the Calvin Klein jeans ad that Brooke Shields did in the 1980s, which also featured a play on the words ‘jeans’ and ‘genes.’ But because liberals are constantly trying to find ways to be offended, they equated Sydney’s acknowledgement of her good genes to… yep, you guessed it: white supremacy. They grew even more outraged when they found out that she is *gasp* a registered Republican. The horror!

Subscribe now

In an interview with GQ Features Director Katherine Stoeffel, Sydney was asked whether she was surprised by the negative reaction.

“I did a jean ad,” Sydney said. “I mean, the reaction definitely was a surprise.”

In the most condescending and passive aggressive way imaginable, Stoeffel continued to press her. “Maybe specifically in this political climate, white people shouldn’t joke about genetic superiority.”

Ma’am, not once has Sydney ever joked about genetic superiority. Did it ever occur to you that you’re just projecting your own preconceived notions onto her?

Much to my relief, Sydney didn’t back down, grovel or perform the typical self-hating white person ritual that liberals expect from her. Instead, she quietly held Stoeffel’s gaze and gave a polite, measured response.

“I think that when I have an issue that I want to speak about, people will hear.”

Well said, Sydney.

Attractive people have good genes. That’s just a fact. If Beyoncé had acknowledged her good genes, no one would have batted an eyelid. But because Sydney did, suddenly she’s a Nazi-eugenicist-white supremacist-fascist (am I forgetting any words?). The double standard is nauseating.

In my opinion, Sydney handled the GQ interview extremely well. She refused to give into the pressure to apologise or feel guilty (because truly, she did nothing wrong) and emerged with her dignity intact. If we’ve learned anything from cancel culture, it’s that apologising only ever makes the situation worse. Once you’ve been condemned by the thought police, nothing you do or say will ever be good enough for them.

Anyway, let’s at least be consistent: if all of this proves that Sydney is a eugenicist, then the same logic must be applied to Michael Scott, the original mastermind behind the ad.

Shall we all cancel him next?

Buy me a coffee or a glass of wine

Upgrade to paid

The systematic destruction of women’s rights in the name of gender ideology is one of the most bizarre and infuriating issues of our time. Few things capture the unfairness of this ideology more clearly than the infiltration of men in women’s sports.

In being forced to compete against — and change in front of — males, female athletes have had their opportunities and safety stolen from them. Contrary to what trans activists claim, it doesn’t matter how many synthetic hormones a man takes or how long he grows out his hair. His wing span, bone density, muscle mass, lung capacity, reflex speed, height and overall strength do not change, which is why males will always have a biological advantage over females in sports.

Trans activists claim that this issue only impacts a handful of female athletes. This is simply not true (and even if it was true, why wouldn’t their feelings and experiences matter?). In October 2024, Reem Alsalem, the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women and Girls, released a report revealing that “by 30 March 2024, over 600 female athletes in more than 400 competitions have lost more than 890 medals in 29 different sports.”

"I hope you realise it’s not a one-to-one ratio,” Riley Gaines said on Piers Morgan Uncensored in March. “In my sport, at our national championships, one male displaced 14,000 women.”

Riley is referring to ‘Lia’ Thomas (formerly known as Will), who competed on the women’s swim team at the University of Pennsylvania in 2022. When he was competing on the men’s team, ‘Lia’ was ranked #462. Once he switched to the women’s team, he magically rose to #1.

“My teammates and I were forced to undress in the presence of Lia —a 6’4 tall biological male, fully intact with male genitalia — 18 times per week,” Paula Scanlan told a congressional committee in 2023. “Some girls opted to change in bathroom stalls and others used the family bathroom to avoid this. When we tried to voice our concerns to the Athletic Department, we were told that Lia’s swimming and being in our locker room was a non-negotiable, and we were offered psychological services to attempt to re-educate us to become comfortable with the idea of undressing in front of a male.”

While Thomas has certainly attracted the most amount of media attention, he is far from the only man to have invaded women’s sports. In April, the UK women’s pool final featured not one but two trans-identified men. That’s a grand total of zero women … in the women’s pool final.

You actually can’t make this stuff up.

Two months later in June, a male high school student in California named AB Hernandez won two gold medals and a silver medal in the girls high jump and triple jump competitions.

That same month, a total of five men who identify as women competed in the US Pro Disc Golf Association (PDGA) Women’s Championships. They took home nearly $5,000 in prize money — money that should have gone to female athletes.

Women and girls are getting physically injured, too.

In 2022, then-17-year-old Payton McNabb was forced to compete in a volleyball game against a boy who identified as a girl. “Neither I nor anyone else on the team agreed with it,” McNabb told IW Features. “We were all just so confused by how it could be allowed, and I guess we just had no idea what to do.”

From the beginning of the match, it was clear that the male player had an advantage over the female players. “We had to adjust our whole lineup and put our biggest hitter in the front row, and even with that, we couldn’t pass the ball back because he was hitting it so hard,” she said. “No one could even get a hand on it.”

After spiking the ball in her direction, the male player knocked McNabb unconscious. As she lay unresponsive on the floor, he — along with his female teammates — stood by and laughed. McNabb suffered from acute head and neck trauma, including a severe concussion that caused vision impairment, long-term brain damage and partial paralysis on the right side of her body. The injury has changed the course of her life forever, and the adults who put her safety at risk have walked away scot-free.

Subscribe now

An increasing number of female athletes are refusing to compete against males entirely.

In April, a female fencer named Stephanie Turner made headlines after she refused to take part in a match against her male opponent, Redmond Sullivan. She received a black card as a result, which is the harshest penalty that exists in fencing.

“It will probably, at least for a moment, destroy my life,” Stephanie told Fox News Digital. “I don’t think that it’s going to be easy for me from now on going to fencing tournaments. I don’t think it’s going to be easy for me at practice. It’s very hard for me to do this.”

Female athletes are being forced into such a horribly unfair position. They have two options: either compete at a disadvantage against male players and risk serious injury, or forfeit the match and jeopardise their entire career and social standing.

Given how severe the consequences are for speaking out, you would think that women like Stephanie are in the minority — but public opinion is largely on their side. A recent survey revealed that 75% of American adults believe that women’s sports should be female-only.

So, if most of us agree that men do not belong in women’s sports, why don’t more people take a stand against it?

For many, the social fallout is the biggest deterrent. Most female athletes would rather suffer in silence than face the inevitable onslaught of bullying, harassment and ostracism that comes from speaking out. The worst part is that the majority of this abuse often comes from other women.

Simone Biles is the most famous example of this. In June, she attacked Riley on Twitter, accusing her of being a “sick sore loser.”

It isn’t women’s responsibility to solve a problem created by men, nor is it Riley’s responsibility to “uplift” a man who cheated his way to the top and repeatedly exposed himself to her and several other women in the locker room. How does Simone not understand that Riley is the victim here, and not ‘Lia’?

In a follow-up tweet, Simone body-shamed Riley by likening her appearance to that of a male’s — inadvertently proving Riley’s point that there are inherent biological differences between the sexes.

Simone concluded her tirade with an apology once it was clear that the vast majority of the public sided with Riley and not her.

One month later, Riley was further vindicated when the University of Pennsylvania reached a Title IX settlement with the U.S. Department of Education. They agreed to adopt biology-based sex definitions in sports, restore titles previously awarded to ‘Lia’ to his female competitors, and issue formal apologies to those affected.

Even so, the abuse against Riley hasn’t stopped. Earlier this week, she challenged Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to a debate. This is how the self-proclaimed women’s rights advocate responded:

The level of sexism here is astonishing. Not only is AOC expecting women and girls to compete against males, but she’s also blaming them for not swimming fast enough when they lose. As Riley herself has stated numerous times, this issue isn’t about who beat whom. It’s about fairness. Why is that so difficult to understand?

Allowing men to compete in women’s sports isn’t kind, inclusive or loving. It is cruel, exclusionary and hateful to female athletes. An entire generation of women and girls is being told not to believe their own eyes, to shrink themselves down and to silence their voices in order to appease the feelings of a few entitled men — or otherwise risk being labelled a transphobe, a bigot and a right-wing extremist.

Let’s be honest: the only extremists here are the ones forcing women to compete against men in sports. The rest of us are just speaking plain old common sense.

Buy me a coffee or a glass of wine

Upgrade to paid

In just a few short years, gender ideology has managed to sink its claws into nearly every aspect of western society. It has convinced otherwise rational people that women do not deserve access to female-only spaces; that children can consent to chemical and physical castration; and that sexual attraction is based on identity, not biology.

One of the most disturbing aspects of this ideology is the harm it causes to innocent children — first through indoctrination, then affirmation, and finally medicalisation.

Activists cry, “Protect trans kids!” But what do they mean when they say this?

To them, ‘protecting trans kids’ means robbing children of their human right to puberty, pumping them full of dangerous and irreversible cross-sex hormones, and surgically mutilating their healthy bodies. These people have no problem admitting that children should not be allowed to smoke, drink or join the army — but make life-altering medical decisions that render them permanently infertile? Sure, why not!

I am actually concerned with protecting children, which means that I acknowledge one fundamentally important truth: children cannot consent to anything.

God forbid we ask why such a huge number of children (disproportionately, adolescent girls) are suddenly experiencing gender-related distress. Attempts to understand the root cause of a person’s dysphoria and to help them feel more comfortable in their body instead of immediately surgically and chemically altering it is regarded as ‘conversion therapy.’

Do you seriously expect us to believe that a child knows who they are? Most adults don’t know who they are.

The human brain does not finish developing until a person turns 25 years old. Until then, the prefrontal cortex — responsible for decision-making, impulse control, working memory, social behaviour and judgement — is not yet fully formed. This is why people under the age of 25 are charged with higher car insurance rates: they are statistically more likely to engage in risky or careless behaviour.

Thanks to the criminally insane gender affirmation model pushed by major medical organisations and pharmaceutical companies, distressed children taken to the gender clinic by their worried parents are immediately affirmed and fast-tracked into taking puberty blockers. Over 90 percent of these children are subsequently prescribed cross-sex hormones, many of whom are then approved for surgeries.

Subscribe now

Doctors emotionally manipulate parents by asking questions like, “Would you rather have a dead daughter or a living son?”, implying that their child will commit suicide if they are not chemically and surgically mutilated. Parents who do not affirm their child’s gender identity often lose custody.

Contrary to popular belief, the effects of puberty blockers — also known as Lupron, the same drug given to chemically castrate sex offenders in prison — are irreversible. In blocking the natural production of sex hormones during the crucial years of puberty, Lupron has devastating and permanent consequences on the body, including infertility, sexual dysfunction, a micropenis in males, brittle bones, stunted brain development, joint pain, intense mood swings, migraines, suicidal ideation, degenerative disc disease, a thinning of the tooth enamel and even fibromyalgia.

Trans activists often try to justify their support of this barbarity by pointing out that children who experience precocious puberty are regularly given Lupron, too. While I personally don’t believe it’s okay to give any child this drug, it’s silly to compare these two groups of children. Those who take Lupron in order to quell precocious puberty still go through puberty at the appropriate age. So-called ‘trans children’ miss this crucial window of development, which they will never get back.

Furthermore, studies show that gender dysphoria resolves in the vast majority of children post-puberty — but they have to actually be able to experience puberty in order to discover this. In preventing this natural process, Lupron denies children the opportunity to outgrow their dysphoria and lead healthy, functioning adult lives.

96 to 98 percent of children who take Lupron progress to cross-sex hormones.

Females who take testosterone experience a permanently deepened voice and enlarged genitals. It also causes severe hair loss, kidney stress and injury, early menopause, pelvic dysfunctions, vaginal atrophy, liver complications, and an increased risk for cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure, and strokes.

Males who take oestrogen are at an increased risk of osteoporosis; blood clots; strokes; breast and thyroid cancer; kidney stones; autoimmune diseases including lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis and systemic sclerosis; as well as general cognitive decline and depression. To top it all off, they have an 80 percent higher mortality risk than men who do not take oestrogen.

Then there are the surgeries.

Activists downplay how severe, irreversible and Frankenstein-like these experimental surgeries are by calling them warm-and-fuzzy names like ‘top surgery’, ‘bottom surgery’ and ‘gender affirming care.’

‘Top surgery’ is a double mastectomy; the surgical removal of healthy breasts (which are organs) from the female body.

Complications from double mastectomies include long-term chest tightness, nerve pain, seroma, scarring, loss of sensation, nipple necrosis, hematoma, and infection. 40 - 60 percent of patients who get double mastectomies suffer from chronic pain.

Girls as young as 14 years old are being given double mastectomies.

‘Bottom surgery’ is genital mutilation. Female patients are given what is called a phalloplasty, or the artificial construction of something that looks vaguely like a penis. Male patients are given what is called a vaginoplasty, or the artificial construction of something that looks vaguely like a vulva.

The complications of both procedures are severe, long-lasting and in many cases, life-ruining. They include partial or total necrosis of the urethra and/or clitoris; infection; life-threatening bleeding; vaginal prolapse; incontinence; loss of sensation; chronic pain; hematoma; rectal injury; hypergranulation and much more.

Children as young as 15 years old are being given ‘bottom surgery.’

The minute a girl turns 18, she is also allowed to have her uterus, fallopian tubes and ovaries removed — all because she says she ‘feels’ like a boy. Victims of these procedures are flung into an immediate and aggressive form of menopause. Complications include an increased risk of heart disease, memory issues, osteoporosis, a decreased sex drive, depression, anxiety, significant blood loss, infection, bladder or bowel damage, ureter damage and even death.

And no, denying a person these life-threatening surgeries will not cause them to kill themselves, as is often the claim. In fact, the opposite is true. People who have undergone ‘gender affirming’ surgery are at an increased risk of suicide.

So, why is gender ideology being pushed so aggressively onto children?

The answer is money.

Big Pharma makes a fortune out of ‘gender affirming care’ — not only from the prescriptions and surgeries themselves, but from the complications they inevitably create. Any person who undergoes medical transition is effectively rendered a patient for life. Their survival is entirely dependant on the medical-industrial complex. In 2024, the Lupron manufacturer AbbVie made a staggering $56.334 billion.

As of now, it’s impossible to know exactly what percentage of people detransition. One peer-reviewed study found that out of 100 detransitioners, 76 percent did not inform their doctors. Moreover, 55 percent felt that they were inaccurately evaluated leading up to their transition and 38 percent believed their gender dysphoria was caused by outside factors like trauma, abuse or a mental health condition.

Corrupt organisations like the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) have openly admitted to suppressing data on detransition because it goes against their false claim that being trans is somehow innate.

If you haven’t already, I highly recommend exploring the “detrans” Subreddit. There, you will find thousands of youngsters whose lives have been ruined by gender ideology. The vast majority of them are young women and girls. At the time I am writing this, it has 58,000 members.

Here is an excerpt from one post written by a 22-year-old woman. It’s titled “what do you do when there’s no hope”:

I'm 22f and was on testosterone from around ages 15 - 19. I never had the chance to be a girl, and I am certain now that I never will. I pass perfectly as a man and I don't have thousands of dollars to turn myself into a mockery of the woman I was supposed to be, even though as of this week I've started being unable to look in the mirror or look at myself naked without completely breaking down. The eating disorder I was diagnosed with when I was 13 was completely ignored by my doctors and parents in favor of putting me on irreversible hormones before I could legally even get a tattoo […] I don't know what to do. I am angry all the time at myself and my family and my doctors. I can't leave the house because I hate being perceived as a man. I quit my job over this and now I'm out of money. Literally all my time is spent grieving and obsessing over the person I was meant to be. My life feels like it's completely over.

This is not care. It’s mutilation. And it needs to stop now.

As detransitioner Luka Hein so eloquently said: “Love is not giving into every whim and only saying ‘yes.’ Love is putting up those boundaries and saying ‘no’ and having to keep someone safe even when they might be upset at you for it. Only saying ‘yes’ and only going down one path and only affirming isn’t love. It’s enabling.”

Buy me a coffee or a glass of wine

Upgrade to paid