Welcome to The Bridgehead!

Jonathon Van Maren

A bridgehead is defined as “a strong position secured by an army inside enemy territory from which to advance or attack.” In today’s culture wars, a bridgehead of truth and common sense is exactly what we need. As Ronald Reagan once said, “When you’re outnumbered and surrounded and someone yells ‘charge,’ any way you’re facing you’ll find a target.”The Bridgehead Radio Program does just that, bringing you cutting edge news, interviews, and insights from the frontlines of the culture wars, and engaging in a sweeping discussion on human rights. Featuring renowned authors, commentators, politicians, intellectuals, historical figures, and more, The Bridgehead talks truth and common sense in a culture where it is badly needed. Featuring conversations with everyone from Peter Hitchens, Mark Steyn, Joel C. Rosenberg, and Gavin McInnes to Rwandan genocide survivor Immaculee Illibagiza, Holocaust survivor and Anne Frank’s step-sister Eva Schloss, and Nazi-hunter Efraim Zuroff, Bridgehead host Jonathon Van Maren takes a hard look at where our culture is and where we need to go.


Jonathon Van Maren is a popular speaker and writer who has been published in The National Post, The Times of Israel, The Jewish Independent, The Hamilton Spectator, LifeSiteNews and elsewhere, and has been quoted and interviewed by many prominent national publications as well as a wide variety of television and radio shows.

 

Read more

Prominent gay rights activist says the LGBT movement wants to “persecute orthodox Christians” (and other stories)

By Jonathon Van Maren

A few important stories for your consideration:

***

I was planning to write a long-form essay on the James Younger story, which you might remember was the tragic case of the Texas boy who found himself being treated as a girl by his mother. His father opposed his mother’s “social transitioning,” and a court eventually awarded joint custody of the boy to both parents. A massive outcry from politicians and across social media was a key factor in ensuring that James Younger would not simply be turned over to his mother to be transitioned into a female, and almost immediately thereafter, he chose to begin attending school dressed as a boy rather than a girl. We live in truly insane times. After reading this phenomenal piece by Madeleine Kearns, “The Tragedy of the Transgender Child,” I thought I’d simply refer everyone to her work. It is a truly brilliant and comprehensive analysis not just of the Younger case, but of the situation writ large.

***

There has been much media moaning about the length of the lineups for sex change surgeries in Western countries, especially as transgenderism has become something of a social contagion (as Dr. Lisa Littman put it.) A recent essay from Wired.com describes how increasing numbers of people are taking the situation into their own hands and flying to places like Thailand and India, where clever entrepreneurs are taking advantage of the latest Western phenomenon to make a bit of money. One group of Indian clinics is now offering all-inclusive packages for your sex-change trip, replete with accommodation, surgery, and sightseeing trips in between. In price, these packages can range up to and over twenty-five thousand dollars, which is apparently substantially cheaper than a medical transition would cost in the West.

***

According to FOX News, the decades-long tradition of military members being able to put Bible verses on their dog tags is coming to an end. Despite the fact that many service members and their families treasure this practice, Mikey Weinstein, founder and president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, complained to the Department of Defence and stated that this practice “poisons the constitutionally-mandated separation of Church and State.” As a result, military officials have called for a halt to the practice. Combat veterans blasted Weinstein, noting that these Bible verses were often an enormous comfort during their darkest times under fire. Weinstein, of course, doesn’t care about such things. This isn’t about the soldiers.

***

Andrew Sullivan, a gay rights activist who was for several decades one of the most articulate voices advocating for same-sex marriage (he is himself gay), is an eloquent writer and the author of books such as Virtually Normal: An Argument About Homosexuality. In recent years, he has expressed his growing alarm at the totalitarian tendencies of the LGBT movement and their war on religious liberty. This week, he summed up his view of the situation when he tweeted out an article criticizing Mayor Pete Buttigieg’s history of volunteering with the Salvation Army. “The gay left hates and wants to persecute orthodox Christians, however much good they do,” Sullivan wrote. “And they’ve taken over the movement.”

That’s not a social conservative columnist or a Christian blogger saying that. That is a prominent gay rights activists who spent decades making the case for same-sex marriage.

***

On that note, this column by Michael Dougherty in the National Review, “Trump is Incidental to the Culture War,” hits the nail right on the head. Dougherty explains that Trump isn’t driving the culture wars, but rather that the support of religious conservatives for his presidency is a product of the fact that, as Ezra Klein wrote recently, that they “believe they’re being routed in the war that matters most: the post-Christian culture war. And they see themselves as woefully unprepared to respond with the ruthlessness that the moment requires.” To put it bluntly, religious conservatives believe that the Left is more of a threat to their communities and the country than any of Trump’s blunderings are, and the Democrats keep doing everything they can to affirm the veracity of this view.

***

Despite the consistent deterioration of the situation in North America, it is always essential that we keep things in perspective. For example the Christian Post is reporting that 629 Christian women and young girls from Pakistan have been sold as brides to men and China, with many of them suffering abuse and forced prostitution as a result:

To compile the list, investigators looked at Pakistan’s border system which digitally records travel documents at national airports. The list covers the marriages of 629 women and girls that took place between 2018 and April of this year. Investigators believe that all were sold by their families. An unnamed official who spoke with the AP explained that selling women as brides to Chinese men is a “lucrative trade.”

“The Chinese and Pakistani brokers make between 4 million and 10 million rupees ($25,000 and $65,000) from the groom, but only about 200,000 rupees ($1,500), is given to the family,” he said, according to the AP. Another unnamed official spoke of frustration regarding the investigation, noting that antitrafficking efforts have slowed while the trade is believed to be getting worse.

China, of course, is suffering from a huge shortage of females due to their One Child Policy, which has been used to target and kill millions of girls in the womb.

Read more

How the media is using Andrew Scheer to target social conservatives

By Jonathon Van Maren

The most popular story in the Canadian media right now is the ongoing civil war within the Conservative Party, and the primary reason it is so popular is that it is a conflict that is almost entirely of their own creation. Every few minutes or so, another breathless column or breaking news item announces that another Conservative analyst or obscure Harper staffer has come out to state the obvious—that Andrew Scheer performed poorly in the last election—followed by the aggrieved conclusion that Scheer must go. Alternatively, NDP leader Jagmeet Singh is being treated as if he is one of the winners despite the fact that he managed to cut his party’s caucus in half, reducing the NDP to a sad rump of its former self.

Overnight, it has become the conventional wisdom, consistently stated as fact, that Andrew Scheer lost the election because he had a social conservative track record. Peter Mackay called it a “stinking albatross” around Scheer’s neck. In many ways this is not remotely surprising, and during the Election Night Livestream that I co-hosted with Alissa Golob and Scott Hayward, I predicted that this would happen. Red Tories and social liberals inevitably accuse social conservatives of ruining their electoral chances, even though a slim majority of the Conservative caucus now holds pro-life views. How the Conservative Party is to build a majority by offloading the part of their base that actually shows up—and cannot be coaxed over by the Liberals and the NDP—is never explained.

This is not to say that Scheer performed well during the election. Social conservatives were far more frustrated than anyone else, because every time Scheer got asked about the pro-life issue he managed to sound like he’d been pulled over by the cops, didn’t have the right answers to the questions he was being subjected to, and was desperately trying to avoid incriminating himself. It is ironic that Scheer’s inability to speak clearly about his social conservative record has resulted in his being accused of being too socially conservative to be prime minister. Incidentally, if his dodge-and-obfuscate approach to these questions had worked and he’d won, he would be facing none of these accusations, and many of the same commentators would be saying that his intelligent decision to distance himself from the social conservatives put him in 24 Sussex.

The fact is that the media and their Red Tory favorites have sensed an opportunity to alienate social conservatives from their primary electoral vehicle by crafting and promoting the narrative that Andrew Scheer, a scary Catholic who probably does not explicitly approve of gay sex, will not march alongside nude middle-aged dudes in leather, and definitely does not seem comfortable with abortion, is electorally unviable due to these positions. Of course, all of this is convenient extrapolation, but Scheer’s consistent inability to articulate himself clearly and forcefully on these issues has allowed the media to frame him in this fashion with very little pushback. The media knows that if they can kill Scheer’s leadership while claiming that it was his social conservative views that caused his downfall, they can virtually guarantee that no leadership candidate with such views, no matter how understated, can take the reigns of the Conservative Party.

The media’s strategy is so obvious that it would become a bad joke if anyone actually pointed it out. On the heels of Scheer being asked by a reporter if he believed homosexuality was a sin and Angus Reid noting that the media’s framing of Scheer’s views had successfully persuaded many voters that he was a determined theocrat, Mark Bonoski of the Toronto Sun uncovered even more evidence that Scheer was an obvious homophobe. How is it, he thundered, that MP Erin Duncan did not get a shadow cabinet position? Now, you can be forgiven for wondering who Duncan is, because he’s a freshman MP from the safe riding of Stormont, Dundas, and South Glengarry. But more importantly, he’s openly gay, which means that Scheer had a moral responsibility to select this inexperienced fellow to prove to the unpersuadable media that he doesn’t hate gay people. Because Scheer didn’t select him, Bonoski noted darkly, he had instead sent the message that people of Duncan’s sort weren’t welcome in the party.

This has left social conservatives in a very difficult position. Scheer spent most of the campaign distancing himself from so-cons, but the debate surrounding his leadership has become, by design, a referendum on the role of social conservatives in the Conservative coalition. The media sees a weak leader with a so-con record, and is now relentlessly reporting on the impending and supposedly inevitable Ides of March in the hopes that enough Red Tories get the idea and go for it. After all, Scheer is under fire, and most MPs look in the mirror and see a prime minister—so surely, the thinking goes, a few of them will find the temptation to plunge in the knife irresistible. And if Scheer goes down, the media will announce that his fall symbolizes the death knell of social conservative influence in politics.

Social conservatives may be unhappy with Andrew Scheer. But as far as the federal Conservative Party goes, social conservatives should probably remember that in politics, it can always get worse—and if Scheer is brought down over his so-con record and perceived so-con positions, it will have implications for the movement for years to come.

Read more

Why Pete Buttigieg’s false Christianity makes him so dangerous

By Jonathon Van Maren

With the exit of Kamala Harris from the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, America has been given a reprieve from an utterly amoral and narcissistic politician who will do anything it takes to get to the top. I say reprieve only because I’m sure her campaign for the vice presidential nomination is already underway. She is also ruthlessly ambitious: Remember, this is the woman that took Planned Parenthood cash to fund her senate campaign, and while serving as California Attorney General ordered a raid on the home of pro-life journalists who investigated the abortion giant. She also began prosecuting them.

Harris was the candidate that worried me most, but that isn’t saying much. All of the top-tier Democratic presidential candidates have stated that they will fund Planned Parenthood, force taxpayers to fund abortions both in the United States and abroad, and codify abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy into federal law to ensure that Roe v. Wade will live to kill another day even if the Supreme Court decides to overturn the ruling. Pete Buttigieg even suggested that Christians should embrace abortion until birth with a bizarre take on a cherry-picked quote from Scripture.

READ THE REST OF THIS COLUMN AT LIFESITENEWS.COM

Read more

LGBT lessons in the UK are designed to indoctrinate children from the age of five–and Muslim parents are furious

By Jonathon Van Maren

The Daily Mail has just released a report detailing how the LGBT agenda will be implemented in schools right across the United Kingdom, from the age of five onwards. No subject is left untouched, and the indoctrination will be comprehensive:

An LGBT campaign group has issued guidance to primary schools stating that children should be taught about lesbian, gay and transgender issues in every subject from the age of five. Stonewall issued the guidance to coincide with the launch of new relationships and sex education (RSE) lessons that begin next September.

Parents are allowed to remove their children from sex lessons but ones covering relationships are compulsory. Stonewall has suggested that teachers use the LGBT rainbow flag to help children understand the meaning of colours. The group adds that teaching about LGBT people should be ’embedded’ throughout school timetables.

Notice here that LGBT organizations across the West—not just in the UK, but in Canada and the United States as well—are attempting to dodge the question of parental rights in education by ensuring that their ideology will be taught at some point in nearly every subject. That way, children will be inculcated with their values even if vigilant parents pull them out of the explicit LGBT lessons. More:

The campaign group suggested maths questions such as: ‘How many biscuits are left at Fatima and Shanika’s wedding?’ One example lesson plan suggests that pupils aged seven and eight study and Aids memorial quilt in design and technology lessons. The guidance, sponsored by publisher Pearson and the Government Equalities Office from a £1million grant given to LGBT organisations, also suggests that students in religious education lessons be taught about naming ceremonies for those who change gender.

This lesson plan is also a good example of the LGBT campaign’s devious methods: Notice here that the lesbian couple referred to are named Fatima and Shanika, both of which are traditional Muslim girls’ names. The reason for this is simple: British Muslims have been wreaking havoc on the plans of LGBT organizations by mounting effective and vociferous pushback to sex ed programming in UK schools, and in several instances have managed to get these lessons pulled through sustained protest. At least five schools have pulled this programming so far due to the protests of Muslim parents, and it appears that those creating the LGBT lessons have taken special care to craft curriculum that will sound familiar to Muslim children, all the while subverting the values their parents attempt to inculcate at home.

Chief executive of Christian Concern, Andrea Williams, told the Times that Stonewall’s inclusive guidance was disguising a ‘manipulative agenda aimed brazenly at our youngest and most impressionable’. She added: ‘This curriculum is deeply subversive. It should be scrapped.’…Stonewall said: ‘Our new guide, Creating an LGBT-Inclusive Primary Curriculum, is a free voluntary resource for primary school teachers who want to make their classrooms inclusive and accepting of all young people.’

Inclusive and accepting of everyone, of course, except for those who hold to the traditional understanding of sexuality and marriage. The point of this curriculum, of course, is to ensure that children of Christian and Muslim parents emerge from the public school system transformed into good secular progressives by their education. Christians, of course, are increasingly despised in the United Kingdom. Muslim parents, however, are throwing a monkey wrench into everything for the LGBT activists, because the primary bearers of the rainbow banner are also enthusiastic campaigners against Islamophobia.

So what happens when a rapidly growing Muslim minority faces off with the secular progressive establishment over the same issues of sexuality that caused the Christians to be so despised? It will be very, very interesting to see how this unfolds over the next few years.

Read more

School boards are steamrolling parents to implement the LGBT agenda for all grades

For those of you who have been following the ongoing brawls between school boards attempting to implement the LGBTQ agenda and the parents who are pushing back, this report by Cathy Ruse, a senior fellow for legal studies at the Family Research Council, is a must-read. It lays out precisely what is unfolding across the United States, how parents are trying to fight back, and how little power they actually have. The frustration and in many cases desperation felt by parents who simply want their children to get an ordinary education is palpable. From The Daily Signal, here are a few excerpts:

I live in Fairfax County, Virginia, which has the 10th-largest public school district in the nation, but I never focused on our public schools. My kids go to Catholic schools, and that was the center of our universe. I never focused, that is, until I heard that the Fairfax County School Board voted to let boys into the girls’ bathrooms. The vote was 10-1. Was there only one sane person on the Fairfax County School Board? I had to find out. So I began attending school board meetings.

And there I saw moms and dads begging the school board to stop threatening their child’s privacy and safety in intimate spaces and on the sports field. They pleaded with the board to stop the pornographic reading assignments. They tearfully asked board members to respect their family’s religious beliefs.

These were my neighbors, fighting to stop their school board from playing sex politics with their children. This shouldn’t happen anywhere in America. I resolved that it wasn’t going to happen in my county, on my watch, without a fight.

Fairfax County, just outside Washington, is the second-richest county in America. But most parents here don’t know that every year, beginning in seventh grade, their children will be taught lessons on “transgender theory.”

How did this happen? It started with a vote in 2015 to add “gender identity” to the Fairfax County school system’s nondiscrimination policy.

You can watch the vote on YouTube. Hundreds of parents, filling the room, occasionally shouting, trying to be heard. You can see the board chairman gavel them down and threaten to kick them out. You can see Ryan McElveen, the sponsor, scolding them, telling them they’re on the wrong side of history.

And you can see board member Elizabeth Schultz, the bravest woman I know, raise her hand alone and vote “no.”

Trans Pressure Groups Target Public Schools

All across the country, pressure groups are getting transgender mandates into public schools by targeting their nondiscrimination policies. Well-funded national groups such as the Human Rights Campaign, the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network, Gender Spectrum, Southern Poverty Law Center, and Advocates for Youth.

They claim students are being harassed and demand that the only way to make schools “safe” is to adopt the total transgender agenda:

  • Open all private spaces to the opposite sex.
  • Let boys compete as girls in sports.
  • Cancel free speech by forcing the use of false pronouns.
  • Teach children that some people are born in the wrong body.

The Fairfax County School Board rushed the transgender policy to a vote with no hearings, no impact study, no public engagement.

They claimed that trans-identified kids were being bullied, and that the nondiscrimination policy must be changed right away.

A Freedom of Information Act request revealed there were no reports of harassment of trans-identified students. Not a single one.

No one wants to see a child in distress, especially a child suffering from sex confusion. But solutions such as dedicating private bathrooms or strengthening anti-bullying policies were shut down.

Because it’s not about bathrooms. It’s not about bullying. It’s about forcing all children and families to change their behaviors, their speech, and ultimately their beliefs to conform to the new government-mandated social orthodoxy.

It’s about power and politics.

Fairfax County public schools don’t use the term sex education, or sex ed, anymore. They call it “Family Life.” And beginning last year, they stopped using the terms “male” or “female” in the context of biological sex. Last spring, the school board voted 10-2 to remove the concept of biological sex and replace it with the term “sex assigned at birth.”

“Sex assigned at birth” is a term pushed by trans pressure groups to support their agenda. You’re not born male or female, someone assigns a sex to you. You can change it later. But students aren’t given any information about the possible health risks and permanent effects involved in hormonal and surgical sex transition. The school board’s curriculum drafters voted 12 times to exclude that information.

The transgender lobby group Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network, or GLSEN, celebrated the change. The group told The Washington Post that Northern Virginia public schools are used as “laboratories” for their transgender policies. What does that make students in the school system? It makes them lab rats.

Another new sex ed lesson voted in by the Fairfax County School Board last year involves a daily sex pill known as PrEP. Pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP, is designed for a particular high-risk population: gay men with multiple sex partners of unknown HIV status. It’s a controversial drug even in the gay community. Even with a 10% failure rate, it lowers the risk of infection enough to encourage some to abandon the use of condoms. Michael Weinstein, founder and director of the AIDs Healthcare Foundation, said PrEP “will cause a ‘public health catastrophe’ by triggering a dangerous increase in risky sex.” And yet the school board voted 10-2 to promote it to students every year, beginning in ninth grade. Even when the drug was not approved by the FDA for their use.

80 Automatic Hours of Sex Ed

The Fairfax County School Board automatically enrolls every child in 80 hours of sex ed without their parents’ permission. Think of the mischief that can be done in 80 hours. Think of all of the real education that’s not being done in those hours.

Here are some examples:

  • Sixth-grade lessons talk of “sexual partners.”
  • Seventh-graders get a lesson with 11 references to “oral sex.”
  • Beginning in seventh grade, students are taught their sex was assigned at birth and about transgenderism as a healthy sexual identity (a lesson repeated each year).
  • Eighth-graders get a lesson with 22 references to “anal sex” and 20 references to “oral sex.”
  • Check out this fake abstinence message for eighth-graders: What are the benefits of abstaining from sexual activity “until in a faithful, monogamous relationship?”
  • 10th-graders get lessons promoting abortion and getting an abortion without telling their parents.
  • In another anti-abstinence message, for 10th-graders, students are asked to consider abstaining from sexual activity “until in a mutually monogamous relationship.”
  • By 11th grade, it’s about choice: “individuals who choose to be sexually active.”
  • 12th-graders are told that whether “to be sexually active is a very personal decision.”

Opting Out Isn’t Easy for Parents

What may come as a surprise is that none of this is required by law. No federal or state law requires Virginia schools to amend their nondiscrimination policies to include transgender identity. The Fairfax County School Board did it because they wanted to. And because they could. Neither is sex education required. The commonwealth of Virginia leaves to each school district whether to teach it.

If a school district does decide to teach sex ed, the commonwealth gives broad guidelines that should be followed, including teaching abstinence before marriage. But the guidelines are a floor, not a ceiling. Even if Fairfax County can be said to meet the basic guidelines, they’ve gone far, far beyond them. In Fairfax County, opting your child out of sex ed is not obvious or easy. This is because of the sheer volume of material and because of the limited, sometimes deceptive lesson descriptions offered to parents—beginning with the name of the program itself.

How many parents really understand that declining to opt out of “Family Life” means that their children will get transgender sexuality lessons every year? How many immigrant families–who provide 50% of the school population–learn what their kids are being taught in time to opt them out? Even parents who discover the dangers of Fairfax-style sex ed in time to opt out their kids will find that their child is still getting sex-related lessons. For several years the school board has been shifting lessons out of “Family Life” into other classes such as health or history. This may defeat the “opt out” given to parents by the school board. But it certainly doesn’t defeat the fundamental constitutional right that parents have to direct the education of their children.

Read more

Politician pushing for sex-ed claims that “babies do actually masturbate”

By Jonathon Van Maren

According to the conservative Irish media outfit Gript, the ongoing debate over sex education in that country took a particularly bizarre turn late last month when one progressive politician made a stunning claim. As Gript News described it:

Labour Party Councillor Pamela Kearns shocked attendees at a public meeting about sex-education on Tuesday night when she informed the crowd that “babies do actually masturbate”. The packed meeting, held in Templeogue and open to the public, was organised by LetKidsBeKids, a group of parents concerned about proposals to radically change sex-education in primary and secondary schools.

READ THE REST OF THIS COLUMN AT LIFESITENEWS.COM

Read more

Hungary’s pro-family policies results in marriage boom

Some good news for a change: According to Reuters, Hungary’s attempts to improve their birthrate and strengthen families (I reported on a precipitous decline in their abortion rate earlier this year) is actually working quite well. The Hungarian government is combatting family breakdown through the budget:

A new Hungarian government scheme to promote marriage and childbirth with subsidized loans has already helped produce a boom in weddings, though it is still too early to say whether more babies will follow. Nationalist Prime Minister Viktor Orban has made it a priority to persuade more Hungarians to marry and have children to reverse a population decline. He has introduced a number of tax benefits and other programmes to favor families.

A big new scheme this year offers couples that marry before the bride’s 41st birthday subsidized loans of up to 10 million forints ($33,000). A third of the loan will be forgiven if they go on to have two children, and the entire debt wiped out if they have three. The central statistics office (KSH) said there had already been a 20% surge in the number of people getting married during the first nine months of this year. The number of weddings recorded was the highest over that period since 1990.

“The family incentive programme was launched as of July 1, when various new benefits were introduced … and a precondition is that couples have to be married. So we think this is one of the key explanations,” said Gabriella Geczy, a KSH statistician. In September alone, 29% more couples married than in the same month last year. Hungary saw the most September weddings since 1979.

Earlier this month the government said more than 50,000 couples had so far applied for the new subsidized loans. Whether this year’s newliweds will go on to have more babies has yet to be seen. So far, the birth rate has actually fallen slightly this year, to 1.48 babies per woman, from 1.49.

Hungary, like many other European countries, especially in the formerly communist east, is struggling with a declining birth rate. Orban’s right-wing government is fiercely opposed to immigration.

Other countries—and pro-life groups—should be watching Hungary’s experiment very closely. If a baby boom follows and the abortion rate continues to decline, we should consider adopting many of these policies in our own countries.

Read more

Justin Trudeau’s transgender policies have resulted in women and children locked in prison with male sex predators and killers

One of the trends I’ve written on several times over the last couple of years is that of violent male prisoners identifying as women and being locked up with female prisoners as a result—often with horrifying consequences. In the United Kingdom, this has unsurprisingly resulted in male rapists identifying as female sexually assaulted the unfortunate women who find themselves locked in with sex predators, and more examples continue to crop up. It is an unfortunate but inevitable consequence of society accepting the idea that men can become women simply by saying so—an idea that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has embraced with vigor.

Trudeau’s transgender policies have also put women in danger. According to the Toronto Sun:

There are 200 women behind the 2.4-metre-high barbed-wire fences at the Grand Valley Institute. Most are the products of shattered and abusive homes, violent relationships, drugs and bad choices. Unloved and looking for redemption.

Heather Mason was one of them. She knows the fear curdling inside the Kitchener-area jail and others sprinkled across the country. Stoking that fear has been the arrival of transgender cons with appalling histories of violent sex assaults — and murder. A dozen more are allegedly slated to arrive at Grand Valley.

“It’s bizarre, among their conditions are to not be around women and children. Where are they? Around women and children,” Mason told the Toronto Sun. She outlines the all-stars of the social change movement at the Correctional Service of Canada. Matthew Harks. Tara Pearsall. Fallon Aubee. Tara Desousa. John Boulachanis.

A serial pedophile. A serial sex offender. A contract killer. A child killer. A murderer. These self-identifying transgender jailbirds are dangerous. And the female cons know it. The CSC’s list of requirements to switch from a male prison to a female one are laughable. If these cons hit the jackpot and do end up in a women’s prison, automatically they go to a medium-security jail even though they may have committed heinous crimes.

Tara Desousa was just 17 when she was known as Adam Laboucan and declared Canada’s youngest dangerous offender. They raped and murdered a baby. Mason said that when the notorious P4W closed down in Kingston, CSC realized that women prisoners were (duh) different. Their requirements, the reasons they were behind bars, and the programs to put them back together were specifically designed for women.

All that changed on June 17, 2017, when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau — overcome with righteous virtue signalling — amended Bill C-16, adding “gender expression and identity” to the roster of the Canadian Human Rights Act. “If you speak up or say anything, you’re called ‘transphobic’ or a ‘Terf’ or what you say is ‘hate speech’,” Mason said. “Women are being sacrificed on the altar of political correctness. We are being erased … everything we fought for is being taken away.”

One of the changes that came about in the early 1990s was the recognition that most incarcerated women were there for non-violent drug crimes. Mostly, they were addicts themselves. CSC also recognized that women’s children should play a role in their rehabilitation. Now, Mason said the caged women are terrified to have their children around because of the newly arrived child sex predators.

“It’s sickening that they can get away with putting pedophiles in minimum security units [not at Grand Valley] where the mother-child program are,” she said. The kinder gentler environment does not seem to have tempered the debauchery of a number of violent trans inmates. Baby rapist and killer Tara Desousa — caged at the Fraser Valley Institute in B.C. — reportedly hovers around the mother-child program, according to one inmate. She is violent and very sexually aggressive, Mason said.

“And all of the sex offender programs are not tailored to people who were biologically men,” Mason said. The courts, shelters and jails are filled with broken women, often the victims of sexual abuse at the hands of men who were supposed to protect and nurture them. Now, they have to deal with interlopers who are like-minded with the men who shattered their trust at the beginning of their lives.

Virtue signalling from the PM and the bureaucracy may be fine for Twitter.

In the real world with real victims, not so much.

Of course, Justin Trudeau and his fellow LGBT activists will never both to even address the plight of these women—or deign to mention it. You have to crack a few eggs to make an omelet, and the safety of women and children are simply the price of progress.

Read more

Canadian bioethicist suggests that medical schools should reject pro-life applicants

By Jonathon Van Maren

In the wake of an attempt by Alberta MLA Dan Williams to pass conscience protections for medical professionals—legislation that may have been killed with the help of four of his fellow UCP MLAs—the abortion industry’s favorite bio-ethicist has once again come forward to suggest that conscientious physicians be drive from the profession. From Global News:

A bioethicist is calling for medical schools to eliminate applicants who would oppose providing medical services over objections to them based on their personal beliefs. The call from Udo Schuklenk, a Queen’s University professor and the Ontario Research Chair in Bioethics, comes as the Alberta government grappled with a controversial bill that would have allowed health-care providers to refuse to provide medical care if they object to it on religious or moral grounds…

For Schuklenk, a possible solution to prevent such debates from cropping up at all would be to screen out would-be doctors who say they would object to providing health care on conscience grounds before they even get to medical school. This could be done through a survey or asking medical school applicants outright if they foresee themselves objecting to providing certain types of health care.

“The problems that we are having now that lead to the kinds of legislation they are considering now in Alberta is caused by these sorts of doctors who prioritize their private beliefs, ultimately, over patient well-being,” Schuklenk told Global News. “Medical schools, pharmacy schools should go out of their way to basically eliminate applicants who they know already will not provide these services.”

He also blames medical schools, in part, for the current disagreements over conscientious rights. “Medical schools that don’t look at this issue are failing the public that, ultimately, is paying their bills.”

Schuklenk, of course, appears to have made a classic mistake: Believing that his worldview is so flawless that everyone else should be forced to live their lives in accordance with his beliefs. This is not simply about “doctors who prioritize their private beliefs,” it is about doctors who fundamentally disagree with him about what constitutes good medical care. It should not be shocking to Schuklenk that some doctors feel that lethal injections are not healthcare, or that dismantling human beings in the womb is the violation of one of the two patients involved. Yet it appears to be, because Schucklenk is the sort of ethicist who does not understand ethics, and yet is paid to advocate for the removal of the rights of others.

This is not the first time Schucklenk has cropped up in the Canadian news cycle. Last year, BioEdge reported that he was advocating for the banning of conscientious objection by physicians to abortion on the grounds that it might be murder, which is certainly ironic. While Schucklenk demands that other professionals be forced to act in accordance with his beliefs, he appears happy to ignore nearly all of the relevant facts while doing so.

Read more

Porn is grooming men to become predators–and use “rough sex” as a defence in murder cases

By Jonathon Van Maren

Last week, I noted that a female porn director had come out to warn that pornography was mainstreaming sexual violence in the romantic context, and that the stark rise of choking during sexual encounters is evidence of this. “Face slapping, choking, gagging and spitting has become the alpha and omega of any porn scene,” the director noted, “and not within a BDSM context.”

Indeed, American statistics covered by The Atlantic recently revealed that nearly a quarter of American women feel fear during intimacy as a result of seemingly spontaneous porn-inspired violence, a trend that has attracted increasing attention over the past several years. In response to my column, the alleged comedian Billy Procida (who also hosts the “Manwhore podcast”) angrily tweeted at me that women were “ASKING to be choked,” that “choking is not unhealthy,” and that “you shouldn’t choke someone without learning to do it properly,” a sentence that is six words too long. He didn’t care for my response that this was the sort of thing guys who watched too much porn say.

READ THE REST OF THIS COLUMN AT LIFESITENEWS.COM

Read more

The Democrats are now the party of the rich–and the elites are targeting Christianity

I’ve noted several times on this blog that one interesting element of the current political realignment underway in the United States is the fact that the longstanding (albeit uneasy) coalition between Big Business and social conservatives that made up the Republican base has collapsed, and we are still not entirely aware of what the ramifications will be. Big Business has decided to wrap itself in the rainbow flag, and has been consistently exercising as much economic pressure as possible to stymie the efforts of social conservatives to pass pro-life laws and protect religious liberty. Many large corporations, especially those in the entertainment industry, have declared open war on American Christians and their political efforts.

And so this analysis, by the ever-insightful scholar Darel E. Paul (I had him on my podcast earlier this year to discuss his book From Tolerance to Equality: How Elites Brought America to Same-Sex Marriage, published by Baylor University Press) contains some helpful and interesting information. In his latest essay for First Things, Paul notes that the Democrats are now “the new party of the rich”—and that recent data consistently bears that out. What this all means politically, we’re not yet sure. But this is simply more evidence that the traditional Republican base has permanently fractured, while a new one has not yet taken shape—although Paul has a few suggestions:

In November 2018 the Democratic party reclaimed control of the House of Representatives, thanks to strong gains among the rich. The party won 43 seats from Republicans, 18 of which were among the richest 15 percent of congressional districts nationwide. In twelve different states, the richest House district flipped from Republican to Democrat. In five states, the top two richest flipped. The richest 15 percent of House districts are now represented by 56 Democrats and just 10 Republicans. In 2018, voters in America’s wealthiest counties, cities, and neighborhoods made a decisive turn toward the Democrats, and now America’s traditional party of the left—whether it admits it or not—is the party of the rich.

The November 2019 elections have only accelerated this trend. Democrats claimed majorities in both houses of the Virginia state legislature for the first time since the first Clinton administration. Kentuckians elected a Democratic governor despite supporting Donald Trump by 30 percentage points three years ago. Local elections in the Philadelphia suburbs turned out a big blue wave. And in each case, Democratic victories were built on the support of the richest electoral districts.

In Virginia, Democrats captured both houses of the state legislature for the first time since 1995 and will hold the coveted trifecta—control of the state senate, state house, and governor’s office—for the first time since 1993. Before the 2017 election Democrats held only 34 of the 100 seats in the Virginia House of Delegates. After the 2019 election they will hold 55, and it was the richest districts in the state that made a blue Virginia possible. Of the 21 seats that changed hands between 2015 and 2019, 16 were in the richest half of districts state-wide and 13 were in the richest third. In 2015 Virginia’s 27 highest income districts elected 15 Democrats and 12 Republicans. In 2019 they elected 26 Democrats and 1 Republican. While far less change occurred in the Virginia senate, Democrats also took that house’s last remaining suburban Washington, D.C., Republican seat. At the state level, the very wealthiest Virginia districts are now represented only by Democrats.

The same story played out in the Philadelphia suburbs. Pennsylvania’s four wealthiest counties—Chester, Montgomery, Bucks, and Delaware—ring the city to the north and west. All excepting Montgomery County have long been bastions of Republican party power, but no more. In 2019 a veritable blue wave swept over all four, and Democrats now dominate local government throughout the state’s leafiest suburbs. County commissions in each of these four counties will now be controlled by Democrats, something that hasn’t occurred in Bucks County in thirty-five years and in Delaware County since the Civil War. Chester County Democrats won every county-level race, and both Chester and Delaware Counties elected their first Democratic district attorneys in history.

It is important to note the rich state-poor state aspect to this partisan story. Democrats are increasingly becoming the party of the rich in the country’s richest urban and suburban areas. Yet even in a relatively poor state like Kentucky, the richest districts are swinging strongly to the Democrats.

In 2015 Kentucky voters elected Republican Matt Bevin as governor by a comfortable margin of nearly 9 points. Four years later and despite—or perhaps because of—President Trump’s strong backing of Bevin, Kentucky voters threw their support to Democratic candidate Attorney General Andy Beshear (because of Beshear’s close margin of victory, Bevin has not yet conceded and an official recount may occur). In the 2015 gubernatorial election, Kentucky’s twelve richest counties all voted Republican. In 2019, however, four voted Democratic. Moreover, the two richest counties in the state by far—Oldham County in suburban Louisville and Boone County in suburban Cincinnati—even though they still voted Republican in aggregate, saw vote swings to the Democrat of over 10 percent each, respectively the second- and third-largest swings in the state. Two other well-off suburban Cincinnati counties—Kenton and Campbell—did flip to the Democrats with the fourth- and sixth-largest vote swings of the election.

All this is part of a great political transformation. Throughout the West, parties on the right are renouncing their former devotion to neoliberal economic policies. As they do so they draw what some would call “populist” voters into their ranks from the working and middle classes. The short-term problem with this electoral strategy is that populist appeals alienate professional- and managerial-class voters that were once such parties’ electoral pillars. In the United Kingdom the upper middle class increasingly bolsters the resurgent Liberal Democrats. In Germany they fuel the rise of the Greens. In the United States they caused the Democratic party’s triumphs of 2018 and 2019.

By backtracking to an agenda of tax cuts, welfare-state austerity, liberal immigration policies, and foreign wars, the Republicans may win back the support of many members of the top 20 percent. But if the party is not to be caught out without its skin like the frog princess in the Russian fairy tale, it should follow the lead of Senators Josh Hawley and Marco Rubio, and transform the party into a working- and middle-class party in pursuit of the common good. A platform oriented around the dignity of work, the restoration of the family, and the bonds of citizenship is unlikely to win back the votes of Orange County and northern Virginia. Reaching out instead to voters of every race and region in need of such a program is the only worthwhile path forward.

Read more

Activists are trying to “reduce stigma” surrounding HIV–by launching an “HIV-positive sperm bank”

By Jonathon Van Maren

A couple of years ago, some of you might remember, California state Senator Scott Wiener of San Francisco sparked outrage by putting forward legislation that would reduce knowingly exposing others to HIV from a felony to a misdemeanor. In other words, withholding the information that you are HIV-positive from the partner you are sleeping with has become no longer a felony in California. The same legislation also applied to those who give blood to a blood bank without disclosing that they are HIV-positive. Wiener himself, unsurprisingly, is HIV-positive, and trumpeted the legislation as a way of “reducing stigma” around those who have this condition.

I’m not precisely sure how hiding this very important information from a sexual partner who might contract that condition as a result of this omission does anything to “reduce stigma”—it seems to me that it might do precisely the opposite. But Wiener’s crude little crusade is nothing compared to how ludicrous New Zealand’s attempt to reduce the stigma round HIV is. According to The Telegraph, the Kiwis have “launched the world’s first HIV positive sperm bank in an effort to reduce the stigma round the virus.”

READ THE REST OF THIS COLUMN AT LIFESITENEWS.COM

Read more

The Guardian called this “the greatest photograph of the 20th century.” A question: Should we be allowed to kill him?

By Jonathon Van Maren

Over at The Guardian, a British newspaper that can be accurately referred to as “pro-abortion,” Charlotte Jansen just published an essay on the famous photographs of pre-born children taken by photojournalist Lennart Nilsson, asking whether the photograph of a baby at 18 weeks gestation is “the greatest photograph of the twentieth century.” It was Nilsson’s photographs that jolted millions of people into the realization that the child growing in the womb during pregnancy was, in fact, one of us:

In April 1965, Life magazine put a photograph called Foetus 18 Weeks on its cover and caused a sensation. The issue was a spectacular success, the fastest-selling copy in Life’s entire history. In full colour and crystal clear detail, the picture showed a foetus in its amniotic sac, with its umbilical cord winding off to the placenta. The unborn child, floating in a seemingly cosmic backdrop, appears vulnerable yet serene. Its eyes are closed and its tiny, perfectly formed fists are clutched to its chest.

Capturing that most universal of subjects, our own creation, Foetus 18 Weeks was one of the 20th century’s great photographs, as emotive as it was technically impressive, even by today’s standards. And its impact was enormous, growing into something its creator struggled to control, as the image was hijacked by the fledgling anti-abortion movement.

In fact, the pro-life movement didn’t “hijack” anything, but rather used the visual evidence of what a baby in the womb looked like to expose the abortion movement’s agenda. Nilsson’s photographs utterly destroyed the myth that the child in the womb was a “clump of cells” or a “parasite” or an alien creature, and as such his photo essays were very damaging for the abortion movement. He introduced us to the children at the center of the debate, and conclusions about abortion—regardless of Nilsson’s intent—were inescapable for anyone with eyes and the capacity for reason.

Charlotte Jansen’s essay in The Guardian attempts to frame the impact of Nilsson’s photographs as an ideological struggle, but really, the reason they ended up being such a powerful tool for the pro-life movement is a simple one. I can easily explain it to Jansen: First, look at these gorgeous photographs of this beautiful child. Now, answer a single question: Can we kill him?

That is what this entire debate boils down to.

Read more

Lecturer’s union representing more than 100,000 university staff says people can “self-identify” their race

By Jonathon Van Maren

We all knew it was coming, and here it is: According to The Telegraph, one major lecturer’s union has declared that people “should be allowed to identify as black no matter what colour they are born.” After all, if your penis doesn’t tell us anything about your sex, your skin color obviously tells us nothing about your race. I’m a bit surprised it took so long for this to take off:

The University and College Union (UCU), which represents more than 100,000 university lecturers and staff, set out its position on whether people should be able to self-identify as different races or genders. In the paper “UCU Position on Trans Inclusion”, it stated: “The UCU has a long history of enabling members to self-identify, whether that is being black, disabled, LGBT or women.”

The union’s stance was criticised by some of its own members as “nonsensical”. Kathleen Stock, a professor of philosophy at the University of Sussex, wrote on Twitter: “I’m still [a] member of UCU but…they make it hard when [they] publish this nonsensical, anti-intellectual propaganda.”

The debate over racial self-identification has become heated in recent years. Last November, Anthony Lennon, a white theatre director who describes himself as an “African born again”, drew criticism for securing public funding intended to help ethnic minorities develop their stage careers. Mr Lennon, 53, who was born in London and whose parents are Irish, won a place on a two-year Arts Council-funded scheme, after a leading black theatre company accepted his claim to be of “mixed heritage”. Trevor Phillips, the former chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, said allowing people to self-identify their race meant members of ethnic minority communities “lost out”.

The UCU’s paper also reaffirmed that it supported a “social, rather than medical, model of gender recognition”. A spokesman for the UCU said: “Self-identification is a standard practice in many organisations and the Office for National Statistics says ‘there is no consensus on what constitutes an ethnic group and membership is something that is selfdefined’.”

The interesting thing about our new era of radical autonomy and forced social acceptance of any self-identification, no matter how ludicrous, is that it is displacing and replacing groups that previously had to fight for decades to achieve their rights—rights that are now simply being “named and claimed” by whoever happens to identify with that group. Women fought for private, female-only spaces—and now biological males claiming to be females are forcing their way in, many of them still packing their functioning male genitals. Feminists who protest this and try to tell the press that this is a new manifestation of the patriarchy are shouted down and told they are transphobes and bigots.

And now you have white people claiming to be black people and taking things designated for black people. Since we’ve done away with standards of objectivity, anything is up for grabs, and some people are getting very grabby. I’m sure the Democrats will do precisely what the radical Left tells them to when trans-racialism or whatever they’re going to call it becomes the next big thing, and that’s when we’ll find out just how much of this progressive nonsense the African-American community is willing to put up with.

Read more

Andrew Cuomo’s new New York law could force pro-life charities to hire pro-abortion employees

By Jonathon Van Maren

C.C. Pecknold makes an essential point in the Catholic Herald this month, noting that progressives are now no longer even pretending that they want to live together in society where compromise allows us to live and let live. Rather, they want to force us all to be accomplices to their ever-expanding ideological agenda, or they will attempt to destroy our achievements and drive us from the public square. Exhibit A (for the moment, that is) is what’s going on in New York at the moment:

On November 8, Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York signed into law sweeping new legislation that not only expands access to abortion, and abortifacient drugs, but effectively demands that every crisis pregnancy clinic, hospital, school, faith-based business and church conform to the new secular dogma that abortion is healthcare. Or else.

The so-called “Boss Bill” (SB660) prohibits employers from “discriminating against employees based on the employees’ or dependent’s reproductive health decisions, and to provide remedies for such violations”. The “remedies” the law provides are severe. If a Catholic pro-life pregnancy centre refuses to hire a person who advocates and promotes abortion, or who fires an employee because they do, the new law allows for heavy punitive damages against the charity. It isn’t just bakers anymore.

CompassCare, which runs pro-life crisis pregnancy clinics in the state of New York, has already filed a lawsuit against the state alleging that the law is unconstitutional. The law targets not only conformity to the secular dogma on abortion, but also on contraception, vasectomies, in vitro fertilisation and adoption for LGBT couples. Christianity is in the dock. Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Denise Harle rightly notes what the law means for many Christians: “You are effectively being compelled to undermine your own reason for being.”

The New York legislators could have written exemptions to avoid challenge, but they chose not to. Why? Presumably because they feel that cultural power remains on their side, and that often translates into courtroom wins even when a political win is impossible. The secular dogma lives loudly among those who have reason to believe that they are only ever one Justice Kennedy away from what they want…

The near-constant secular challenge to religious liberty today challenges the very notion of justice. The secular religion aims to overtake the very idea of God by overtaking the law. Our political battles increasingly centre around the courts because the moment the secular dogmatists seize the positive law, they feel they have seized law itself.

These skirmishes are instructive. They reveal that the battle for the republic is between those who hold that positive law must be conformed to their own will, and those who see it as an expression of natural law, an ordinance of reason, which conforms to a transcendent standard, which we can call God.

The rhetoric about every election being “the most important election in our lifetimes”—that was 2016, 2018, and now 2020, if you’re keeping track—gets tiresome, but the reason it rings true for so many people is because they genuinely see the courts as one of the primary lines of defence against a progressive movement gone utterly mad and determined to drag us along with it. Trump’s border wall was important to voters, but to most social conservatives, the judicial firewall he is building that stands between Christian communities and the fanatics who think sex changes for children are the next great Leap Forward is even more important.

Progressives are a law unto themselves, and we all know it. Consider how swiftly and easily aging Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have climbed on board with the entire transgender agenda, made up of ideological requirements that neither of them could have fathomed twenty-five years ago. And yet, they accept all of the new things they are required to believe with barely a blink—because they are rooted to nothing solid. It is only Progress, which must always be moving and never arrives, that drives them, and thus they must be at war with those who still love their roots and do not wish to leave them.

Read more

How the media assists transgender activists in spreading the Big Lie

By Jonathon Van Maren

The Detroit Press is doing precisely what the transgender community wants them to, as evidenced by their recent report on the ease with which people can change their gender on their government identification. As I’ve noted before, media reports these days are so infused with Orwellian terminology that sometimes nothing is at it seems, and one almost needs a translator to understand what these articles are saying. Let’s take a look:

In a major boost to Michigan’s transgender community, it’s going to be a whole lot easier for people to change their gender identity on driver’s licenses and state-issued IDs under new rules Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson announced Monday. 

Effective immediately, people who would like to correct the sex designation on their driver’s license or ID card will now only need to fill out a form, go to a Secretary of State branch to have their photo taken and pay the $9 correction fee for a driver’s license, or $10 for a state ID. They will no longer need to provide a birth certificate, passport or court order, as was required under the old policy for changing the sex-indicator on a driver’s license.

Notice the key phrase there? “People who would like to correct the sex designation on their driver’s license or ID card.” It’s only one word—“correct” versus “change”—but it makes all the difference. The Detroit Free Press is telling its readers that the gender ideology being promoted by the LGBTQ movement is true and beyond dispute, and that a biological male or a biological female can decide to switch sexes—and that society should conform its behavior to affirm their choice.

The rest of the article obediently trots out the various talking points currently being used by transgender activists to ensure that anyone who does not believe gender ideology to be valid is seen as a hateful and even dangerous person, referring to the “trauma” faced by those who have their biological sex listed on their ID rather than the gender they choose to identify with. This, too, is part of the game, as the reporter sends a very clear message to readers: If you oppose this move, you are complicit in violence against trans people, trans suicides, and traumatizing a vulnerable population.

This is how cultural narratives are enforced: Constant repetition of the Big Lie, with not-so-subtle reminders that if you are not on board with the program, you are an awful person and should be relegated to the status of social outcast.

Read more

How Nick Fuentes is trying to smuggle poisonous alt-right ideas into conservatism

By Jonathon Van Maren

It’s been awhile since I wrote about the alt-right, and there’s a good reason for that: After the murder of a protestor at the Charlottesville Unite the Right rally in 2017, the movement (such as it was) seemed to run out of steam. Men like Richard Spencer, with the exception of a bizarre appearance on CNN, seemed to vanish overnight, and the ugly anti-Christian nature of the alt-right increasingly became increasingly clear. These were people trying to resurrect the garbage ideology and junk science that drove the eugenicists nearly a century ago, and as such, they are also very opposed to the pro-life movement, as well. The alt-right had been initially treated by some as an edgy bunch of Gen Zers (and David Duke) who like to trigger the Boomers by trotting out anti-Semitic tropes and racist slurs. As it turned out, they were just sad Jew-haters and bigots who liked to spew vitriol from a fire hose.

But now, interestingly, the certain alt-righters appear to be attempting a re-branding. Led by twenty-two year old Nick J. Fuentes, who runs the America First podcast, they are claiming to be the real conservatives who are genuinely standing up for Christianity in America against Conservative Inc. (a term that appears to have replaced “cuck”), and they’ve attracted attention by heading to events hosted by Turning Point USA, a campus conservative outfit run by Charlie Kirk. Kirk, who spends nearly all of his time stumping for the Trumps, has thus found himself the recipient of all sorts of leading questions by “America Firsters” who believe that he and other Conservative Inc. folks (like Dan Crenshaw, of all people) have betrayed Donald Trump’s base on key issues like immigration.

The alt-right’s Fuentes Facelift needs to be pointed out, because although Fuentes is attempting to recast himself as a non-racist, non-anti-Semitic, Catholic, genuinely conservative, patriot version of the alt-right that was roundly rejected over the past several years—a sort of Richard Spencer 2.0—that is what makes him more dangerous. Spencer’s support always had a hard ceiling due to his hostility to Christianity, his opposition to the pro-life movement, and his revealing honesty about what he actually believed. Fuentes, on the other hand, is consciously attempting to make himself palatable to the conservative mainstream, especially those who are frustrated by the Trump Administrations’ failures on immigration and the pervasiveness of grifters in the conservative movement at large.

But my oft-stated view is that we should take these folks at their word, and that when they state their beliefs, we should believe that they mean it. With that in mind, I think it is important—especially as Fuentes gains high-profile supporters such as Michelle Malkin—to review what Fuentes himself has actually said in order to determine whether or not he is actually different in any meaningful way from Spencer and his ilk. Fuentes has been accusing those who have reported on things he has said—publicly, on his podcast—of doing the work of Media Matters and subjecting him to left-wing smear tactics in order to cancel him. But it must be pointed out here that the following statements (much reported on elsewhere, I should note) were not uttered by him in private. These are his publicly stated views.

Fuentes has defended himself against accusations of being a Holocaust denier by claiming that his comparison of the Holocaust to the Cookie Monster baking cookies, in which he expressed his dubiousness that it would be possible to “bake” six million of them in the available ovens, was just an edgy joke. But in another comment on his podcast, he asserted that Hitler killed between 200,000 to 300,000 Jews, rather than six million. The comparison alone is repulsive in the extreme, but it would appear that Fuentes actually believes the talking points promoted by Holocaust deniers despite his own denial. Add to that his use of slurs like “Jewy Jewstein” and referring to writer Matt Walsh as “race traitor” who “works for Jews.” He’s also referred to Walsh’s boss, Ben Shapiro, as a “cookie.” If you want to defend that, go ahead. But I’m going to do Fuentes the service of believing that he believes what he says.

Fuentes has also openly admitted that he believes the alt-right is now a toxic brand due to the actions of people like Spencer and Duke, which is why he now declines to identify with it—despite the fact that he holds a lot of their precise views. It is not the views of the alt-right he has a problem with, it is the people who have ruined the reputation of the movement. He’s also bullish on segregation, noting that “Even if it was bad, who cares?” He goes on to brag that his podcast is doing the hard work of waking people up to what is actually going on. In short, Fuentes is furthering the very views Spencer and the alt-right were trying to mainstream, but portraying himself as an ordinary campus conservative and a good Catholic boy. A brief look at the sorts of things his followers say on his Twitter feed will tell you a lot about the sort of folks he is attracting and the sort of racial rhetoric he is encouraging.

In response to this article, I’m sure I’ll get a host of responses demanding to know whether or not I think Fuentes is always wrong. The answer to that, of course, is that the reason Fuentes is dangerous is that he’s not always wrong. His anti-Semitism and racism—and again, read his own words and judge for yourself whether those words accurately describe his sentiments—are mixed in with plenty of boilerplate conservative talking points on a host of issues. But as I’ve said many times before, those who seek to introduce this sort of poison into the mainstream should be actively prevented from doing so. Fuentes attempts to disguise his views by claiming, for example, that he regrets having attended the Charlottesville Unite the Right rally, and that he’s only joking when he parrots the talking points of Holocaust deniers and racists. Considering the prevalence of this rhetoric throughout his body of work, I frankly don’t believe him. A spoonful of conservatism shouldn’t help the poison go down.

It is more likely, in my opinion, that Fuentes has seen the implosion of the alt-right and the marginalization of those who peddled the poison with alarm, and realized that if he wants his career to have any sort of longevity, he’s going to have to pivot, disavow those he used to run with (there are interviews of him agreeing whole-heartedly with Richard Spencer, for example) and attempt a rebranding as a mainstream, albeit more gritty and “realistic” conservative. His problem is that he’s already put his views out there, over and over again—and if he had actually repudiated them, he wouldn’t be calling Matt Walsh a “race traitor” for working for Ben Shapiro as recently as a few months ago. I’d be interested to hear what he thinks a “race traitor” is and how one becomes such a traitor, exactly.

Fuentes probably wants people to believe that his racist views and anti-Semitic ramblings are youthful indiscretions or edgy jokes or trolling. (A claim made difficult by his condemnation of “race-mixing” during a video in which he was defending himself.) He’s obviously hoping that he can take cover behind the fact that progressives like to call anyone they disagree with a racist, and that thus he can mingle with the innocent and pretend that he, too, has been falsely accused. But unfortunately for him, the mask keeps slipping and the Real Nick Fuentes keeps on popping up like a bigoted jack-in-the-box.

Read more

In the United Kingdom, some teenagers have had up to six abortions

By Jonathon Van Maren

During last year’s abortion referendum in Ireland, debates, discussions, and interviews about abortion were aired nearly nonstop on both radio and television for the last several weeks of the campaign. I was volunteering with the Save the 8th campaign with a few of my colleagues, and watching the animated late-night brawls over abortion was one of the preferred albeit stressful activities of the pro-life activists after a long day of canvassing. But of all the TV appearances I saw, the one that struck me most powerfully was some comments made on the Tonight Show by John McGuirk, one of the spokesmen for Save the 8th.

“My reason for voting no [to abortion] changes on any given day,” he told an uncomfortable-looking panel, “but today it was that I was browsing through the UK abortion statistics for 2016 and I found that eleven babies had lethal injections into their heart in the womb and delivered dead, and the stated reason was that they had a cleft palate. 141 babies had a lethal injection into the heart and were delivered because they were twins and their parents only wanted one child, not two. One of them, last week in Australia actually, there was a story about parents who had one twin aborted because he had a heart defect, and the doctors aborted the wrong one.”

READ THE REST OF THIS COLUMN AT LIFESITENEWS.COM

Read more