They had set off to preach the Muslim faith to Moroccans living in Europe, but never returned to the kingdom. Thirteen imams sent by the Moroccan Ministry of Religious Affairs to France, Belgium or Germany for the month of Ramadan ‘disappeared into oblivion’ before returning to the country.
They are holders of a bachelor’s or master’s degree or even a doctorate. They are paid monthly by the Moroccan state to work in their mosque and they had a paid return ticket to Europe to lead the Ramadan prayers there.
To avoid any nasty surprises next year, imams are required to be married and have families before they are sent to Europe. RFI international
Italian Minister of the Environment and Energy Security Gilberto Pichetto says Italy will be returning to nuclear. Screen grab youtube
Italy’s Minister of the Environment and Energy Security Gilberto Pichetto has indicated Rome’s readiness to reconsider nuclear energy.
On May 2, Pichetto told Italian national station Radio 24 that the Government aimed to pass the necessary laws so that, by the end of the current legislative term, the country would be ready to reintroduce nuclear power.
Italy is in particular working to build a legal framework for the deployment of small modular reactors (SMR).
“I’m doing my best. That is the mandate of the Government and Parliament. I am working with a working group that has to deal with the legal framework,” Pichetto said.
“If you want to buy a small modular reactor, there must be a compatible legal framework. We are moving in this direction.”
As yet, there are no such small modular reactors anywhere in the world.
“It’s two, three, four years – the product is not there yet,” Pichetto said.
“There is talk of having the production conditions of these small reactors in place at the end of this decade. It means that in this legislature we have to have everything in place.”
The minister pointed to newcleo, an Italian company working on the design of SMRs.
Pichetto described it as “the most advanced company” in the sector, because it is developing so-called lead-cooled fast reactors, while others abroad still work on water-cooled modules.
The Italian company was already operating with the Italian Government to develop safe, reliable, sustainable small-scale nuclear systems to be deployed outside of Italy, in other nuclear-friendly countries.
Italy is now reportedly planning to have experiments with small modular reactor boxes undertaken in Brasimone in Emilia, according to Italian daily Il Giornale.
The country is among the few nations in the world to have completely abandoned nuclear power after having used it since the 1960s.
Following the Chernobyl accident in 1987 and the subsequent referendum on atomic energy, Italy shut down its nuclear facilities in 1990.
In an effort to reverse the decision, the then-government in 2008 declared the phase-out of nuclear power to be a “terrible mistake, the cost of which totalled over €50 billion” and planned to build 10 new nuclear reactors, which would be able to provide about one-quarter of Italy’s total electricity supply.
But, after the Fukushima disaster in Japan in 2011, where radioactive contaminants were released into the environment, some countries, including Italy, showed strong anti-nuclear sentiments.
As a result, the Italian government put a one-year moratorium on plans to revive nuclear power, despite there having been no reported adverse health effects among Fukushima residents or power-station workers directly linked to radiation exposure from the accident.
In June 2011, a referendum was held on the matter, in which 94 per cent of voters chose in favour of a construction ban.
Now, in search of clean, emission-free and reliable energy production, Italy’s current right-wing Government wants to reverse course.
In particular, the low-carbon footprint and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to meet European and international targets are cited as the main reasons for the shift.
Moreover, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent need for alternatives to Russian gas, Italy found itself heavily reliant on other imports.
In March, The Observatory on Italian Public Accounts reported that Russian gas imports towards Italy were almost wiped out, falling from 30 billion cubic meters in 2019, 40 per cent of that year’s gas consumption, to 2.9 billion or about 5 per cent of 2023 consumption.
Reducing Russian gas imports to zero by this year seems an achievable goal, according to the observatory.
Rockefeller and Pritzker, biggest funders of Joe Biden campaign, are also funding anti-Israel protests (Image: India Today)
The anti-Israel protests at Columbia University have raised several eyebrows as these protests are not only pro-Hamas but also well-funded by billionaires like George Soros. Anti-Israel protesters have been criticising President Joe Biden for months over the American government’s support to Israel.
Biden has been repeatedly called “Genocide Joe” by the protesters. However, a report by Politico suggests that these protesting groups are being funded by organisations that are pushing for Biden’s re-election as the President of the United States. The list of donors includes Rockefeller and Pritzker along with Soros.
Rockefellers backing anti-Israel protests
Two of the organisations that have heavily funded the protests at Columbia University and other campuses are Jewish Voice for Peace and IfNotNow. Tides Foundation has backed these two organisations which are also funded by George Soros. Earlier, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was among the top donors of this organisation but they no longer provide any grants to it. Furthermore, Politico found no funding for Jewish Voice for Peace and IfNotNow by the Gates Foundation.
Reportedly, David Rockefeller Jr, one of the top donors pushing Biden’s re-election, is on the board of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. Tides Foundation received a USD 300,000 grant from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. In the past five years, the Tides Foundation has given around USD 500,000 to Jewish Voice for Peace. Notably, the organisation describes itself as anti-Zionist.
Tides Foundation also provide financial support to Adalah Justice Project which was involved in the protests at Columbia University. It also supports Palestine Legal which is a legal defence fund to provide legal assistance to “student protesters” who mobilise “against genocide”. Tides has been funding Palestine Legal since 2013 and Adalah Justice Project since 2016.
In a reply to the query by Politico, Sarah Edkins, communications director of Rockefeller Brothers Fund said, “Others Fund noted it cannot support political activity or campaigns and is not involved in the personal political giving of trustees.”
Pritzker links to anti-Israel protests
Biden is also backed by Susan and Nick Pritzker, heir to the Hyatt Hotel empire. A few months ago, they donated USD 6,600 to the Biden Victory Fund and USD 300,000 during the 2020 campaign. They have also funded the anti-Israel protests at the campuses.
Some groups are funded by pro-Biden organisations that are questioning Biden’s decisions regarding Israel but not looking for an alternative to the Biden administration. One such organisation is Solitaire Action which is funded by Pritzkers. A spokesperson of the organisation barn Qaasim said, “A lot of our members are supporting actions that are trying to hold Biden accountable, which is not the same thing as opposing Biden. It’s saying
Another group funded by Pritzker is the Libra Foundation which actively funds small groups in the name of “criminal justice, environment and gender justice”. Climate Justice Alliance, Black Organizing for Leadership and Dignity, Immigrant Defence Project and others have promoted anti-Israel protests. All of these were funded by the Libra Foundation.
Intensified protests by groups backed by pro-Biden organisations
Such donations raise the question if there is any line between liberal causes and Democratic politics. Interestingly, the protests funded by these organisations have become intense. The protesters do not hesitate to take over university buildings and raise slogans that are anti-Semitic.
In short, these organisations fund anything and everything without going into the day-to-day businesses of the groups that receive the grants or subgrants. These funds, in a way, admit to giving money to disruptive organisations that may lead to law and order problems in the country.
Criticism by Democrats
Violent acts of the protesters have attracted a lot of criticism. Politico quoted Elisha Wiesel of the Elie Wiesel Foundation questioning Rockefeller Fund backing Jewish Voice for Peace. Elisha said, “Why [is the Rockefeller Fund] giving significant grants to Jewish Voice for Peace, [which] blamed the horrific Oct. 7 attacks on Israel and the United States rather than Hamas?” Notably, Elisha is one of the Democratic donors and chair Elie Wiesel Foundation. The organisation support anti-genocide work.
Some organisations prefer not to fund groups that are pro-Hamas. Daniel Goldwin, who is public affairs executive director of the Jewish United Fund in Chicago said, “We’re hearing from folks who want to make sure that their dollars aren’t supporting people who are supporting Hamas and shouting antisemitic things. If it’s an organization they’ve been giving to for a long time, we encourage them to call and communicate their concerns.”
Jewish Voice for Peace blame Israel for the October terror attack
Interestingly, the Jewish Voice for Peace blamed Israel for the 7th October terrorist attack. Immediately after the Hamas terror attack on Israel that killed over 1,300 people, Jewish Voice for Peace issued a statement blaming Israel and the US for the attack. The statement read, “The Israeli government may have just declared war, but its war on Palestinians started over 75 years ago. Israeli apartheid and occupation — and United States complicity in that oppression — are the source of all this violence. Reality is shaped by when you start the clock.”
The organisation claimed that Hamas initiated the terror attack killing hundreds of Israelis as the result of “16 years of Israeli military blockade”. The statement did not mention Hamas, the terrorist organisation, but called them “Palestinian fighters”.
While the Biden administration is facing criticism for supporting Israel, there are some Democrats who believe these protests would not affect Biden’s election campaign. Jill Zipin, co-founder and chair of Democratic Jewish Outreach Pennsylvania, one of the Democrats’ backers, claimed foreign policy does not determine the elections. He said, “The protest movement and the encampments probably won’t be an issue in November, but it’s really hard to say because things can change quickly.”
Omar Wasow, a scholar who studies protest movements and their political effects chose the sentiment and said, “If it [the protests] somehow winds down, you see Americans don’t care a lot about foreign policy, and it’s likely to not to play out in the election.”
George Soros funding anti-Israel protests
In a commentary published in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), journalist Ira Stoll emphasised, “Two of America’s largest philanthropic foundations are behind a group that has paid some of the anti-Israel activists for the kind of antics disrupting campuses across the country.”
He pointed out that two of the student activists, namely Malak Afaneh and Craig Birckhead-Morton, who were involved in anti-Semitic protests and subsequently arrested by the police, were ‘youth fellows‘ of the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights.
According to Ira Stoll, the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights pays $2880-$3360 to ‘campus-based fellows’ for 8 hours of work/ week for 3 months. The said work includes campaigning for cutting military, financial, and diplomatic ties of the United States with Israel.
He added that the fellowships were sponsored by ‘Education for Just Peace in the Middle East’, receiving $7,00,000 from Open Society Foundations (OSF) run by George and Alex Soros since 2018. The corporate entity was also given $5,15,000 by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund between 2019 and 2023. “Do the Rockefeller and Soros families want their money to be used to advocate for Hamas’s war aims?” asked Ira Stoll.
OpIndia had earlier reported how ‘The People’s Forum’, which has been at the helm of anti-Israeli protests in the United States, came under the scanner over its financing by Chinese Communist Party (CCP) supporter Neville Roy Singham.
George Soros’s attack on India
Notably, George Soros has been actively propagating to remove Prime Minister Narendra Modi from power. He has been funding multiple organisations in the country to create political instability. Interestingly, in a recent report by the US Sate Department on Human Rights in India, accusations against George Soros were whitewashed as ‘antisemitism’. The Human Rights Practices report read, “Government officials made public statements and released social media posts alleging certain opposition political party figures and diaspora leaders were connected to George Soros, playing on an antisemitic conspiracy theory of an “all-controlling Jewish individual” who was influencing events in the country. On October 6, the BJP’s official X account posted an edited image depicting Rahul Gandhi being controlled by Soros.” While US State Department claim any accusation against Soros is anti-Semitism, the billionaire himself is funding organisations that prominently call themselves anti-Zionists.
A female darts player has forfeited her match against a trans-identified male in a protest of his participation in the women’s category. Deta Hedman refused to play against Noa-Lynn Van Leuven during the Denmark Open quarter-final yesterday.
Hedman, of Whitham, UK, is a three-time WDF World Champion runner-up, and has been a fixture in the women’s darts world since the 1980s, having played in both the World Masters and the Dutch Open amongst her numerous other career highlights.
Hedman’s latest match was the Denmark Open in Esbjerg, where she was due to compete against Van Leuven in the quarter-finals. But Hedman refused to play against Van Leuven, taking a strong stance against male participation in women’s sports. As a result, Van Leuven was sent straight through to the semi-finals.
Just days before the match was due to take place, Hedman took to her Facebook page to denounce trans-identified male inclusion in the women’s category.
“Women & girls deserve to be CHAMPIONS in their own sports,” read a graphic Hedman posted to her page.
Hedman’s forfeiture did not come as a surprise to some, who noted that she had been outspoken on the issue of keeping sports single-sex for a number of years. In 2023, Hedman specifically named Van Leuven in a statement she penned on the issue.
“For many months I’ve struggled with transgenders playing in the women’s world ranked events. I have thought this is wrong since day one,” she wrote. While she stressed that she had no issues with individuals identifying how they chose in day-to-day life, she emphasized that she did not believe men should be playing in female sporting categories.
“I’m not close to Noa-Lynn in darts but in fairness seems a lovely person, at Lakeside I met Victoria Monaghan and must admit she is a right character we had banter and a fair few laughs, but my personal view is trans shouldn’t be playing in women’s ranked events.”
Despite Hedman making her motivation for her forfeiture clear, some sports journalists misrepresented the situation, claiming she had dropped out of the match due to illness rather than her values.
Yesterday, Phil Barrs, a sports presenter for Online Darts, claimed Hedman had informed tournament organizers that she was “in pain and unable to play,” suggesting that Van Leuven’s participation was not the motive for her forfeiture.
But Hedman quickly set the record straight on X, responding: “No fake illness, I said I wouldn’t play a man in a ladies event . Don’t listen to @phillbarrs he knows sweet [fuck all], nor does his reliable source.”
Barrs then quoted Hedman and accused her of being transphobic, going so far as to say that her words “should be addressed by the sporting authorities.”
Having the debate around Trans athletes in Women’s sport is one thing.
But this comment calling a trans woman a man is simply transphobic and should be addressed by the sporting authorities as there should be no place for it. https://t.co/suF9j284JH
Hedman is not the first female darts player to refuse to compete against Van Leuven.
As previously reported by Reduxx, two female darts players from the Netherlands dropped out of the Dutch Women’s Team in response to Van Leuven’s inclusion.
Aileen de Graaf and Anca Zijlstra sent shockwaves through the sport after they both announced their departure in March, with the women no longer wanting to form a team with Noa-Lynn Van Leuven.
Zijlstra issued a statement revealing she would be stepping back after Van Leuven dominated the Women’s Series tournament on March 23, beating Zijlstra 4-0 and seizing the Series Title 2 from Ireland’s Katie Sheldon in the final round.
That same month, Van Leuven became the first “woman” to win a Challenger Tour, seizing a £2,500 cash prize with a victory over former Premier League Darts competitor John Henderson in the quarter-finals.
Senior Italian government officials admonished French President Emmanuel Macron over his “dangerous” and “desperate” rhetoric on the war in Ukraine such as suggesting sending NATO troops into the war.
President Macron, initially one of the leading advocates for peace talks between Kyiv and Moscow, has increasingly become one of the most hawkish voices in the European Union. Over the past week alone, the French leader has suggested arming the EU with nuclear weapons in light of the supposed threat from Russia and doubled down on his suggestion of sending NATO troops into the war if Russia breaks through Ukraine’s front line and Kyiv requests the aid of foreign soldiers.
Macron’s comments have drawn criticism from fellow NATO ally and EU member state Italy, which has flatly ruled out sending Italian troops into the conflict.
The harshest rebuke came from Deputy Prime Minister and leader of the populist League party, Matteo Salvini, who wrote on social media: “Sending Italian soldiers to fight outside the EU borders? Follow the obsessions of some dangerous and desperate European leader like Macron? No thanks, never in the name of the League.”
Meanwhile, in an interview with the Corriere della Sera newspaper, Italian Defence Minister Guido Crosetto said: “I don’t judge a president of a friendly country like France, but I don’t understand the purpose and usefulness of these declarations, which objectively raise tensions.”
“Our position does not change: we have always said that Ukraine needed to be helped in every possible way, and we are doing so, but we have also always excluded direct intervention by our military in the conflict,”
“We will continue to provide aid, as we have done so far, for as long as it is useful and as long as we are able to do so.”
In an interview over the weekend with La Tribune, Macron defended his recent rhetoric as an attempt at “strategic ambiguity”.
Russia decided unilaterally in February 2022 to attack a sovereign state, Ukraine, and therefore not to respect international law, the Charter of the United Nations… It has decided to resolutely become a destabilising power which gives no strategic limits to its action. And President Putin has constantly brandished the nuclear threat.
“Faced with such an adversary, what weakness to draw a priori limits, what weakness! On the contrary, we must remove all visibility from it, because that is what creates the capacity to deter.
“The security of Europeans is at stake in Ukraine because it is 1,500 kilometres from our borders. If Russia wins, the next second, there is no longer any security possible in Romania, in Poland, in Lithuania and not in our country either. The capability and range of Russian ballistic missiles exposes us all.”
“Russian excitement shows that we are right not to close any doors. Otherwise, it means that we agree to renounce an international order based on law and therefore peace and security,” he concluded.
Macron is not alone in ratcheting up the stakes in Ukraine, with UK Foreign Secretary David Cameron saying that Kyiv has the right to use British-supplied missiles and other weapons within the Russian mainland.
“Ukraine has that right. Just as Russia is striking inside Ukraine, you can quite understand why Ukraine feels the need to make sure it’s defending itself,” the former British prime minister told Reuters on Thursday.
Cameron, speaking from Ukraine, also said that the UK would supply Ukraine with three billion pounds ($3.74 billion) in military aid every year for “as long as it takes”.
Our Basic Law founding fathers are turning in their graves! A woman with extreme fanatical-religious views has hijacked a broadcaster’s council chair at the state broadcaster ARD – and broadcaster Hessischer Rundfunk (HR) admits that it can do nothing about her. In Article 5 Paragraph 1 of our democracy bible, the founders of the Basic Law enshrined freedom in reporting by public broadcasters. Now, however, a woman sits on the most important committee of Hessischer Rundfunk who is in favour of abolishing the free democratic basic order. She is in favour of a caliphate! She is in favour of Sharia law! On Monday, Khola Maryam Hübsch (43) shocked viewers on the ‘hart aber fair’ talk TV show with her defence of the caliphate and Sharia law (Islamic penal code), and also played down the demonstration in Hamburg at which a mob of Islamists called for an Islamist empire in Germany.
But Hessischer Rundfunk is powerless! HR spokesman Christoph Hammerschmidt told the newspaper BILD: ‘The membership of the Broadcasting Council is determined by law by the Hessian State Parliament. The appointment and nomination of persons is solely a matter for the organisations named in the HR law.’ Broadcasting Council Chairman Harald Freiling agreed with BILD: ‘The appointment and dismissal of persons is solely a matter for the organisations named in the Hessian Broadcasting Act. Hessischer Rundfunk and the HR Broadcasting Council have no influence on this.’
This is due to the amendment to the broadcasting law in 2016, when the Greens wanted Islamic representatives on the broadcasting council. As a result, the Erdogan-affiliated Islamic organisation DITIB, the Alevi community and Islamist Hübsch’s Ahmadiyya community were able to join the board. This opened the door to Islamist extremism. Incidentally, it is impossible for Nazis and left-wing radicals to move in. The state parliament does not allow such representatives of society. And if, in the most unbelievable case, a representative of other groups, including the Museum Association, Chamber of Crafts, State Sports Association, Youth Ring and DGB, should express radical views, they are immediately removed from the respective organisation.
The Ahmadiyya community, on the other hand, will not be recalling the Sharia fanatic. On the contrary. For the Islamic group, Hübsch is only spreading their common views and their view of Germany and the Western world. The community itself is led by a caliph. Ahmadiyya has already attracted attention with nasty slogans, claiming, among other things, that pork turns people homosexual. They have also distributed misogynistic brochures, demanding that ‘women must obey their husbands’ and wear veils. According to information from BILD, Hübsch has already attracted negative attention on several occasions with her weird views. And can continue to spread them unhindered.
— Tommy Robinson 🇬🇧 (@TRobinsonNewEra) May 1, 2024
This is a marvelous celebration of diversity, but before too very long in shattered, staggering, dhimmi Britain, her days of fun will be over: there will be no more churches to target.
Addressing the New Culture Forum’s 2024 annual conference, Dr. David Starkey explains that Britain cannot be saved without reversing the revolutionary changes New Labour made to Britain’s constitution and institutions between 1997 – 2010.
Transmania : enquête sur les dérives de l’idéologie transgenre Dora Moutot and Marguerite Stern Éditions Magnus, 2024
The publication of this pink-and-blue book was like a bombshell in France: two women, Dora Moutot and Marguerite Stern, who come from militant leftist feminism, chose to cross the Rubicon and tackle the evils of transgender ideology in all its forms. It was a daring and more than courageous gamble. Courageous, because today, the ideology of transgenderism—for it is indeed one, as the authors set out to demonstrate with conviction—exerts a terror on the mind worthy of Stalinism in its heyday, minus the physical killings. But in the age of social networking and e-reputation, there are symbolic killings that can be extremely violent.
This essay is the fruit of a long road to Damascus for two women who were never predestined to cross over to the ‘dark side’ of the force. Marguerite Stern is a former FEMEN activist, and not so long ago, she was showing off her bare breasts in Notre Dame de Paris. Dora Moutot is the former deputy editor-in-chief of Konbini, a trendy online medium concentrating on what a politically correct way of life should be.
Both convinced and committed feminists, they took the road of conversion when they realised that, in the name of transsexual rights, they were no longer allowed to defend this sympathetic and disappearing population: women. Singled out and stigmatised as TERFs (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists), like J.K. Rowling and so many others, because they refused to accept that a man force-fed hormones and surgery could become a woman, they set out to trace the thread of this Soviet-style madness that would have us see black where we see white (or vice versa).
The result of this fascinating investigation is almost 400 pages long.
The book is not a pamphlet or an easy, vindictive rant, but an in-depth study—with all due respect to those who attack it, and who generally haven’t bothered to open it. As an academic, I was even pleased to find a respectable number of footnotes, without which no book could claim to be ‘serious.’
As a red thread running through their demonstration, Moutot and Stern invite us to follow, with a certain amount of humour, the tragicomic journey of Robert, who chose one day to become Catherine—a fictional figure who gives a concrete face to the delusions of transgenderism. This humorous counterpoint is useful for adding a little levity to a gripping read about a terrifying reality.
Methodically, they go into successive depths on the mechanisms of transgender ideology.
The first part looks at the process of transition or ‘sexual reassignment’ and its logic. With rare patience and pedagogy, Stern and Moutot explain what can lead a married man with a family to believe that he is a woman: the byways he takes, through addictions and personal cracks; the time spent on social media and the messages of enrolment they deliver; the underlying psychiatric problems—for there are many of them.
We can sometimes get lost in the subtleties of the matter: is a transfeminine man, i.e., a man who has become a woman, who loves men but is trying to become a woman, still a homosexual? But can a transfeminine man, i.e., a man who has become a woman, who loves women but is trying to become a woman, be considered a lesbian? I’m sure you had never suspected the existence of such dilemmas.
Confucius maintained that “we must correct our denominations.” “The perversion of the city begins with the fraud of words,” added Plato. We will be grateful to Stern and Moutot for their constant efforts to combat the fraud of language. It is this passion for reality, against all odds, that has led to them being targeted by trans activists—who, in the pursuit of their vindictiveness, are definitely proving the truth of what the authors say: the existence of a new thought police force tracking down gender crimes. No, a man who tries to become a woman never becomes a woman. Stern and Moutot defend the expressions ‘transfeminine man’ or ‘transmasculine woman’, which have the merit of knowing who or what they are talking about.
The accusation of ‘transphobia’ is thrown in their faces all day long. They are greeted with leaflets and tags hammering out ready-made slogans like ‘transphobia kills’. But the touching pages in which the authors recount their encounters with trans people who have been wounded by life are full of a deep compassion that prevents them from being seen as hateful people.
The reader learns a great many fascinating things in this dense essay, which challenges the preconceived ideas that are peddled by conventional wisdom. We discover, for example, that far more women make the transition than the other way around. They reject and despise their female bodies, proof of the terrible malaise of our supposedly liberated society with regard to true femininity. We learn that puberty blockers don’t block anything at all, but rather destroy an in-growth body, because biologically, hormones control much more than just the sexual organs in the human body.
After reading these dense, hard-hitting chapters, you’ll want to compile a little vademecum of irrefutable arguments to be brandished at dinner parties—and there are plenty of them.
Taking hormones will never turn a male-born athlete into a woman: independently of our hormones, more than 3,000 genes contribute to the difference in musculature between the sexes.
‘Gender dysphoria’ is not just a matter of hormone treatment. 75% of children who undergo a sexual transition suffer serious psychological problems.
In France, the cost of a transition for a man trying to become a woman is almost €120,000, entirely covered by the public purse under the heading of ‘long-term illnesses’. But describing transgenderism as an illness can lead you to the court. And so on.
The second part sets out to describe what the authors call the transgender ‘crusade’: an all-out assault on education, medicine, marketing, and laws. There is almost nothing to stop it. The obsession with the danger of transphobia, brandished like a banner, would almost make racism seem an authorised opinion today. ‘Transmania’ is an international enterprise with powerful relays, and a major role is played by the United States in this great game of perversion of reality. The good souls can cry conspiracy: nothing that Stern and Moutot put forward is not justified; everything is sourced and supported.
The third part—and you’ll appreciate how the stakes have been progressively raised—asks the fundamental question, the answer to which cannot yet be definitive: why? Why has transgender ideology become so pervasive in our societies that it exerts a form of mental terror on individuals, who feel obliged to acquiesce to a powerfully altered version of reality?
The answer is manifold. It has to do with a demiurgic philosophy that predates transgender madness by many years—the eternal temptation of the creature wishing to replace the creator and shape life to its own liking. Powerful commercial, pharmaceutical, and political lobbies obviously have an interest in this. They alone can’t explain the movement. The authors of this book draw up a convincing outline of the horizon of transgenderism, i.e., transhumanism. It responds to the same temptation to recreate reality in order to free it from material vicissitudes—to the point of imagining beings who could become pure spirits and will use computers to put an end to their necessarily limited corporeal existence. In the end, we’re not far from a form of technological Catharism whose ultimate fulfilment will come when man and woman, creatures of God and his infinite love, cease to exist. The religious argument is absent from the reflection—it was not the purpose of the essay—but the doors are opened by the authors with sufficient finesse to allow it to slip through.
The revelations contained in the book may not be entirely unfamiliar to readers of The European Conservative, which has been tackling the subject of transitions and detransitions for many months now in its columns, following the scandal at the Tavistock clinic, and drawing up an updated inventory of policies on puberty blockers in Europe. But they have the merit of being brought together in one place, in a way that is both precise, detailed, and accessible to the average person. It is particularly recommended reading for parents so that they can detect, before it’s too late, the signs of recruitment to which their children may be subjected via social media such as TikTok or Discord, which recruit new young victims relentlessly.
Since its release, a manner of censorship has been unleashed in France to make the book inaccessible. Booksellers hide it, try to place it at the top of the shelves, or simply refuse to order it. The mayor of Paris banned posters promoting it from the streets. But there are days when Amazon, fortunately, or—even better—ordering directly from the publisher, can get around the pitfalls. As a result, the book is rocketing to the top of the sales charts, despite more or less discrete attempts at social auto-da-fé.
All that’s missing now is an English-language publisher to bring the fruit of Dora Moutot and Marguerite Stern’s salutary work to a wider audience.
We’re all worried about the state of our country, but the ability to discuss our problems in a reasonable and productive manner is eluding us. Part of this disability comes from the fact that (and I’m borrowing from Thomas Sowell here) half of us see life as being “constricted” (his word) by reality and the other half sees the world, sees reality, as malleable, or “unconstructed,” in spite of the pesky failures of their wishful thinking. The fact of the matter is that if we head off in diametrically opposed directions, we’re unlikely to end up next door to each other.
However, if we could talk objectively about our differences, we might, given fair winds and following seas, arrive at livable compromises. But we can’t do that without words, and too many of our most polemic words have turned to glass — fragile, unsubstantial, hard, and cold. Some are words that were created for the purpose of deception and manipulation, others are words that have morphed into their useless state through overuse, or a subtle twisting that renders them empty over time. Since the words in question are the key words in our current miasma, this is a big problem.
Language is a contract we live by. We all agree on what words mean, and yes, we do invent new words — thousands of them; we need to because we keep inventing new things. Yes, we steal words from other languages and mispronounce them until they feel like home. We shift words from one part of speech to another — “party” used to be a noun but now can be a verb likely involving illegal substances. Language always changes.
But sometimes it turns on us and this is one of those times. Our wonderful language has fallen into evil hands — hands that intend to divide and conquer, to confuse and disable, to conquer and control.
Let’s take the Left’s tactic and do a bit of dividing and conquering ourselves. Let’s organize these vampire words.
Start with words as weapons. These words are used to humiliate, to ridicule, to accuse. Words like racist, bigot, terrorist. Terrorist, which used to refer to a person willing to blow up buildings to promote a questionable ideology, now refers to parents who verbally object to the sexual grooming of their children. Racist wasn’t even in the English language until the early 1900s and even then, did not carry the negative connotation the word wields today. It wasn’t until the 1930s that the term began to sharpen into the glass shard it is today. Today racist has been turned inside out. Instead of meaning anti-black, it now means anti-white. Another ist that’s doing a backflip is Marxist. Previously negative in the extreme, it is now a badge of collegiate honor. It’s now useless to call someone a Marxist, since the Marxist would only take it as a complement. Closely connected to the ists are the isms. Capitalism, activism, nationalism — spoken with a sneer, as if these terms are deadly diseases.
Other words used to stab people in the back are the phobia words, all of them very recent inventions. It’s interesting that an ancient Greek term used to denote an unreasonable fear of something (like peanut butter — arachibutyrophobia), should be slashed around with such ferocity and with so little evidence. Words like homophobia (as if fear was the source of the moral concern that many have about the gay lifestyle) or transphobia, or xenophobia have only one duty as words -– to cut, to disable, to show disdain.
Other words are relegated to mirror status. They have no real substance of their own — they just reflect whatever fairytale is fashionable. For instance — diversity, which no longer has anything to do with variations or differences, is now used to confuse since those most enamored with the word are the most intense about sticking close with their own kind. Diversity is relegated to skin color, inventive sexual behaviors, and ethnic connections; it is undesirable if dealing with politics or religion. Or choice, which used to mean selection, but now is a code word for killing babies. Privilege is another word that is muddled. Those who bandy about words like white privilege (the very worst kind) are trying to disinherit those who enjoy the same apparent ease that the leftists either envy or enjoy themselves. One wonders what they see in the mirror.
Some words are used to create a brotherhood of victims. Words like oppression. This word isn’t used to refer to 19th-century slavery, but to the mere expression of a disparate point of view. Phrases like safe spaces create a sense of danger from differing ideas — if we need safe spaces, there must be something scary out there — someone might have the audacity to disagree with a poor beleaguered student. Recent neologisms like intersectionality appear to refer to the list of oppressed groups one can lay claim to, useful only if one wants to promote the idea of victimhood.
Some glass words are obvious hideaways — smokey glass — like equity, an obvious offshoot from equality, but with a sinister meaning. Equality, as found in our founding documents, refers to the goal of equal opportunity. Equity wants more — it wants a guarantee of equal outcome. Preference is even sneakier. Everyone wants his preferences known and adhered to. I, for instance, prefer chocolate. However, can a person honestly claim that his/her homosexuality is inborn, and at the same time refer to it as a preference? Another such term is social justice. The truth is that justice is justice — it can’t be improved upon, and justice is, by its very nature, social. Adding the word can only distort the idea of absolute fairness. It’s another smokescreen. These languageistas are up to something sneaky.
Then there are the Frankenstein monster words that have been cobbled together to preclude actual conversation and mutual respect. I think of cisgender — a derogatory term that refers to normal sexual attraction, but it sounds like something deviant and shameful. I am especially offended by the term minor-attracted person, which is deviant, but is pretending not to be.
God gave us language for the purpose of communication, communication of truth. (Interesting sidenote: all languages are structured the same way — all have noun phrases and verb phrases, all use either word order or inflections, all use meaning words and function words. The brain is just hard-wired for language.) When we use this amazing gift to deceive, to attack, to confuse we break the contract for which it was made. Most of what is broken can be fixed, so let us hope this can be, too. If we can’t, reality is about to constrict us in ways we’re not willing to tolerate. “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face… 1Corinthians 12:13a
