The UK’s National Health Service (NHS) will allow children as young as seven to receive transgender care, according to plans seen by The Telegraph. The plans, which are part of a broader overhaul of the transgender treatment system, have sparked concerns over the potential consequences of early medical intervention on young minds.
Children covered by the services will be offered psychological support and therapy to focus on issues that may have led to feelings concerning their gender, however health experts warn that the new rule could still put children with mental health struggles on a “pathway to medical transition.”
The concerns are amplified by the potential consequences of labeling a child’s difficulties as gender-related, potentially pushing them towards a predetermined path of treatment.
The decision to implement these changes stems from the NHS’ decision to shutter the Tavistock transgender clinic. Dr. Hilary Cass’ review deemed the clinic as unsafe, raising concerns that young individuals were being rapidly pushed into a medical framework without adequate consideration of alternative factors such as autism and mental health.
Similarly, capitalizing “black” into “Black” will somehow improve the lot of this demographic. One might as well do a rain dance to call forth a change in the weather.
Wokeism has taken over much more than merely academia. It has functioned as a tapeworm, also, in Wall Street, Hollywood, high tech, even the military. This DEI virus has seeped into the very warp and woof of our entire society. It is akin to the Chinese Cultural Revolution. An intellectual pox takes over the populace, does its damage (although happily, much less so here than there, at least so far), and then, hopefully, goes back from whence it came; hell, presumably. The first step in eradicating this attack on civilization is to at least be award of the degree of this malignity.
Consider several instances which are pervasive even amongst conservatives. They are amongst the least influenced by this pernicious doctrine, but even they have succumbed to some degree. For example, the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal, no pinko operation, they, continually use the ill begotten phrase, “Ms.” (This eviscerates the distinction between the married and unmarried state for women, and thus tends in the direction of undermining that precious institution).
Thanks for reading Walter’s Newsletter! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Exhibit “A,” the new kid on the block, constitutes spelling “black” with capital letters (e.g., “Black), when the word applies to people, while refusing to do so for whites. It refers to them in the lower-case format. Why oh why would any sensible person do that? Don’t men (I use this word advisedly) of good will wish to demonstrate commonalities, not divergences between the two races? And, yet, it is the rare periodical that refuses to engage in this deleterious capital letter practice.
Why is this harmful, even from the perspective of the “progressives?” (They are not progressive; they are regressive!) One of their main motifs is equality, equity, egalitarianism. They complain, often by far from always justifiably, that white and black people are treated unequally, the latter invidiously. They all too often get the short end of the stick. But in this case, that is exactly what they are supporting: treating the two races differently for no rational reason. Had this practice been started by whites, or conservatives, there would have been complaints to the high heavens that this constituted racism.
Throughout the ages, whenever an empire has begun its inevitable collapse, no country has ever woken up and reversed the process. In every case, the government rides the decline to the bottom.
It’s possible that there’s no location that you like as well as the one you’ve become accustomed to, but, if your home country has entered its decline, it may soon become unrecognizable.
As an increasing number of people realize that their home country is becoming a liability to them, the most common question I hear from them is, “What do I have to do to remain where I am and still be assured that I’ll be able to retain both my wealth and my freedom?”
The simple (and tragic) answer to this question is that there is no such solution. The two objectives are mutually exclusive.
Throughout the ages, whenever an empire has begun its inevitable collapse, no country has ever woken up and reversed the process. In every case, the government rides the decline to the bottom. And, along the way, a series of policies is invariably undertaken to save those in government in the downward rush. These policies are always at the expense of the populace.
Invariably, as the decline worsens, governments drag out the same policies that all other failing empires have implemented before them: Devaluation of currency, default on debt, increased warfare, creation of a police state and, finally, the looting of all those citizens who have even a modicum of wealth.
The question is not whether we like our home country as it presently is, but whether we’re prepared to accept what it’s about to become.
As people become more aware that their government is not only not their friend, but has become their greatest threat, it’s human nature to hope that “it won’t get any worse.”
And, of course, it then gets worse.
The great majority of people don’t actually try to escape until they find that they’re now trapped and cannot escape. (Curbing the outward flow is surprisingly easy for any government to achieve – by implying that those emigrating are enemies of the state. This time around, those attempting to exit will be called domestic terrorists.)
The time to make an exit is when the writing is on the wall, as it is now, but the empire has not reached its final stages of collapse. The exit doors, for the moment, remain open.
Each individual has to weigh at what point he’ll feel that the ever-expanding warfare, increasingly restrictive laws, the increase in police state, etc. have reached the point that the next step in the destruction of “inalienable” rights and confiscation of wealth (by whatever means) would be beyond the pale and make his exit prior to those eventualities.
This, of course, is a major decision. Until now, possibly the greatest decision in a person’s life was to leave home – Mom & Dad – and go out on his own. Now, a bigger decision looms – leaving everything that’s familiar and restarting life in a new country, albeit one that’s more promising than the one he’s leaving.
The next big question then is, “Where to Go?”
Won’t all other countries be pulled down by the collapse of the empire? No, not by a long shot. Whilst many countries are attached to the empire through trade and treaties, much of the world operates almost entirely independently. They are therefore likely to continue on as they have, whilst there is collapse elsewhere. (Remember, even in the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, the further someone lived from the epicenter, the less he was impacted.
In addition, there are some countries that will positively thrive as a result of the collapse. Historically, real wealth does not vanish, it just changes hands. And, at a time when wealth is doing the best it can to escape the collapsing empire, it has to go somewhere.
There’s an old saying that wealth gravitates toward wherever it’s treated best and this is never so true as when an economic crisis exists somewhere. Therefore, wealth will flow to those jurisdictions where taxes are low, regulations are minimal, government is stable and, most importantly, the government understands that they must treat foreign investors well, or they themselves will fail to prosper
Does the silence equal complicity in the unspeakable crime?
Not to be outdone in academia’s woke Olympiad, Allyn Walker, an Assistant Professor at Old Dominion University, has coined the term “minor-attracted person” in order to destigmatize the word ‘pedophile.’
Finally, we must not forget the radical cultural milieu that the film Sound of Freedom is attempting to crash: LGBTQ parades, Drag Queen Story Hour and discussions at the elementary school level about transgender and alternative sexual lifestyles have all come to dominate the national conversation in the United States, and this makes a film that takes aim at child predators actually seem like a menacing thing to a large part of the population.
A new American film that reveals the brutal reality of child sex-trafficking has been greeted with muted enthusiasm from the political left, which begs the question: does the silence equal complicity in the unspeakable crime?
Tim Ballard is an American anti-human trafficking activist, author and founder of the non-profit organization Operation Underground Railroad, an anti-sex trafficking organization. A former special agent at the Department of Homeland Security who now works independently, Ballard’s life’s work is being immortalized in a Hollywood film, entitled Sound of Freedom.
The film, which stars Jim Caviezel in the role of Ballard, leads audiences through the harrowing twists and turns of Ballard’s true life experiences where he works to rescue children from the nightmare of sex slavery. Despite receiving mixed reviews from critics, the film has grossed over $140 million in the United States against a $14.5 million budget, while audience reception has been highly positive, scoring 99% on the Rotten Tomatoes film review site, and for apparently good reason.
According to estimates by the International Labour Organization, there were 24.9 million victims of human trafficking around the world in 2016. Yet for reasons known only to them, the left-leaning media and other institutions appear to be strangely anxious to draw the curtain on the Angel Studios production.
Writing in Variety magazine, Owen Gleiberman observed, “Let’s assume that, like me, you’re not a right-wing fundamentalist conspiracy theorist looking for a dark, faith-based suspense film to see over the holiday weekend. Even then, you needn’t hold extreme beliefs to experience ‘Sound of Freedom’ as a compelling movie that shines an authentic light on one of the crucial criminal horrors of our time, one that Hollywood has mostly shied away from.”
At a time when the question of sexual misconduct inside of the entertainment industry continues to grab headlines, as witnessed by the #MeToo movement, Hollywood’s indifference and even aversion to the subject of pedophilia and child sex-trafficking is strange to say the least. After all, as this cinematic biopsy rightly reveals, there are more people enslaved now, by sex trafficking, than there were when slavery was legal. And while allegations of sexual abuse committed by Hollywood bigwigs (amongst consenting adults) is highly disturbing, even the hint that America’s leading industry could be defending or even participating in child sex-trafficking seriously challenges the limits of moral acceptability.
I have never watched more than a combined total of 10 minutes of Nick Fuentes and may be entirely horrified by what he says. But I know this from those 10 minutes and from the scores of examples of hatred I’ve heard about him: he does not care what most people think of him.
The working class American male circa 1985 was much like that.
Now that man is a museum oddity. He is an outcast in society and an oddity to be observed from behind the safety of a display case.
I think the thing I like most about Nick Fuentes is that he knows what it means to be free. He can’t be any more hated than he already is. At such a point, one stops caring, and it is beautiful how free one is able to behave at such a point.
The world needs people who will think freely. America, especially, needs people who will think freely. Thought is so stultified. It is better to be free and wrong than to be obediently etched into the system and right.
The thing is, people are seldom right when etched into the system. So, the proverb above, while true, is an unrealistic one since it does not describe the experience of most people. Etched into the system is almost a guarantee that you are going to be wrong. Being free and unencumbered in your interaction with other men gives you the opportunity to be right more often than a coin flip, and to enjoy yourself while you are taking that opportunity.
The thing people hate most about Fuentes — if they are honest with themselves, is that he does not bend the knee to them. He probably has a million ways he bends the knee to others in his life, just like most people, but he has a certain je ne sais quoi required of freedom that says, “I do not care what you think of me. I will continue to say it. I will speak even if no one is listening.”
The thing is, when one lives in such a way, especially in such a stultified era, many are likely to be listening.
To recap — 1.) by not caring, you are likely to live free, 2.) by not caring you are likely to be correct, 3.) by not caring you are likely to have the attention of many others.
It’s really not a bad deal — you accept the opprobrium of people who are harmful to you to care about, while getting the ear of those who will benefit the world by listening to you and living their own free lives.
There was a time not long ago in which this was called being normal.
I have never watched more than a combined total of 10 minutes of Nick Fuentes and may be entirely horrified by what he says. But I know this from those 10 minutes and from the scores of examples of hatred I’ve heard about him: he does not care what most people think of him.
And that probably makes him more free than 1-in-1000 or even 1-in-10,000 Americans.
The number of people waiting for treatment in England has reached unprecedented levels, with a backlog of 7.4 million—about one in eight of the population. Alarmingly, over 371,000 people have been waiting for over a year to receive treatment.
Meanwhile, very little coverage is given to the fact that the lockdown effects killed more people than covid, especially due to delayed treatments from the accumulated backlog. Instead of considering that the NHS’s inability to deal with the healthcare needs of Britain is a flaw in the system, NHS fanatics turn a blind eye.
The day after America celebrated its independence and its founding principles of self-governance and liberty, across the pond, Britain paid tribute to its values of collectivism and statism by commemorating the seventy-fifth anniversary of the National Health Service (NHS). Children’s choirs sang “Happy Birthday” at a thanksgiving church service celebrating the NHS at Westminster Abbey. In attendance were the prime minister and the opposition leader, among others. The notion that the NHS is the closest thing the United Kingdom has to a state religion has never been truer.
However, behind the pomp and pageantry, the NHS is a god that has failed. The reality is that the NHS should be one of the United Kingdom’s biggest shames, as it constantly lets down both patients and staff while placing a substantial burden on the taxpayer.
The number of people waiting for treatment in England has reached unprecedented levels, with a backlog of 7.4 million—about one in eight of the population. Alarmingly, over 371,000 people have been waiting for over a year to receive treatment. The UK has significantly fewer hospital beds, doctors, nurses, CT scanners, and MRI units than the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development average. In addition, the UK has the second-highest rate of treatable deaths in Western Europe. How can anyone believe this system deserves to be eulogized?
Yet the NHS worshippers can’t admit that the system is failing as they hang on to the lie that the NHS is an example of socialism working. Instead, they turn to conspiracies, claiming the NHS is failing because the Tories are purposefully underfunding it to push privatization as a viable alternative. This is far from the truth: NHS funding is at record-high levels, above the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development average.
The argument that the Tories are trying to privatize the NHS has been pushed by mainstream news outlets for over four decades, from the Times in 1980 to the Byline Times in 2023, who claim that this is all a move to transition to a US-style system.
Nevertheless, the truth remains that when compared to not only the United States but also the rest of Europe, the UK continues to exhibit a significant level of statism in its healthcare system. As Dr. Kristian Niemietz, head of political economy of the Institute of Economic Affairs, points out,
No manufacture will invest money in anything new they won’t be allowed to sell in a few years from now.
That means no new engine designs. Or at least, very few. Especially as regards V8s, which is what powers most current trucks. Some will probably continue to be available – in very low numbers, at very high cost (due to their not being “compliant.”). The fines levied by the government will see to that.
The federal regulatory apparat – which has become an unelected legislature – has just decreedthat there will be no new trucks by less than a decade from now.
“Decreed” in italics because that is precisely what has just happened.
No law was passed, but last week, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (note the blasé bureaucratic terminology; it is just an “administration,” ands yet it does a great deal more than merely administering) decreed that by 2032, new vehicles must average at least 58 miles-per-gallon.
As of today, there isn’t single new car available that can comply with this decree. “Comply” in italics to mark the outrageousness of the “administration” of such decrees, which no one in this “democracy” of ours ever had a chance to vote for – or against.
The only car that comes close to being able to “comply” is the Toyota Prius, a small hybrid – and even it doesn’t quite get there.
It averages 57 MPG.
How will trucks “comply” with a federal decree that requires them to average 58 MPG? The answer is – they won’t. Because they can’t. It is a functional impossibility. In order to be a truck, it must be capable of doing work – such as carrying and pulling heavy things. This makes trucks heavier – by a lot – than a small car such as the Prius. As an example, the Ford F-150 (not the electric version) has a curb weight of 4,465 lbs., notwithstanding that its body is made of aluminum. It has a steel frame – onto which the aluminum body is bolted. This is how trucks are laid out because it is the best layout for the type of work people expect trucks be able to do without breaking.
A small car like the Prius has an integrated body and frame – this is called a unibody – and it helps reduce weight; even so, the 2023 Prius still weighs 3,097 lbs. And it is a near-miracle that something that heavy manages to almost “comply” with the federal regulatory apparat’s decree.
But it required a hybrid drivetrain – in a small car – to get it almost there.
The US military may place armed troops on commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz, a move that would significantly raise tensions between the US and Iran, The Associated Press reported Thursday.
The idea would be to protect commercial vessels from being seized by Iran, but it could result in direct clashes between the US and Iranian militaries. The US has been steadily increasing its military presence in the Persian Gulf since Iran seized two tankers earlier this year, which was provoked by the US seizing a tanker carrying Iranian oil.
Using the pretext of sanctions enforcement, the US Justice Department seized the Greek tanker Suez Rajan in April and forced the ship to head for Texas instead of China as the US intended to steal the 800,000 barrels of Iranian oil it was carrying. But according to recent media reports, US companies are hesitant to discharge the oil because they fear reprisal from Iran in the Persian Gulf, and the Suez Rajan is stuck off the coast of Texas.
Five unnamed US officials speaking to AP said that no final decision on placing armed troops on commercial vessels has been made. They said discussions have been ongoing between the US and Gulf Arab nations.
The potential plan would involve US Marines and Navy sailors providing security for vessels that requested it. The US recently announced the deployment of an Amphibious Readiness Group/Marine Expeditionary Unit (ARG/MEU) to the region, which typically consists of about 2,200 Marines and three amphibious warships.
But as Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) has well said: “These products already exist in the free market. Consumers should decide whether the upfront cost of a heat-pump water heater is worth the possible long-term savings. In many cases, the monthly savings never make up for the upfront cost of the equipment.”
What she says may sound good, but the fact is that Republicans have always dictated what Americans can think, such as when it comes to discrimination, or what Americans can smoke when it comes to marijuana, or what Americans can do with their money when it comes to gambling. Examples of their hypocrisy, in fact, are too numerous to mention.
Back in 2007, President George W. Bush signed into law the Energy Independence and Security Act. Among other things, it required greater efficiency for light bulbs, which effectively began the phase-out of the incandescent light bulb, with some exceptions. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has confirmed that it will now proceed with a ban on the manufacture and retail sale of most incandescent light bulbs. The DOE claims that incandescent light bulbs are inefficient and contribute to climate change. Discontinuing them “will save Americans nearly $3 billion yearly and substantially reduce carbon dioxide emissions over 30 years” to the tune of 222 million metric tons, “an amount equivalent to emissions generated by 28 million homes in one year.”
In January of this year, the commissioner of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), Rich Trumka, floated the idea of a future ban on gas stoves because they can cause indoor air pollution and contribute to climate change. House Republicans, joined by some Democrats, passed a bill recently to “prohibit the use of federal money to regulate gas stoves as a hazardous product” and to “block an Energy Department rule setting stricter energy efficiency standards for stovetops and ovens.”
Even some Democrats couldn’t handle these proposed regulations, like Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), who has often been a thorn in the side of the Biden administration: “The federal government has no business telling me – or any American family – how to cook dinner. That’s why I’m proud to lead a bipartisan bill with @SenTedCruz to ensure Americans decide how to cook in their own homes.”
The DOE is now proposing as well more stringent efficiency requirements for electric water heaters: “The proposal would require the most common-sized electric water heaters to achieve efficiency gains with heat pump technology and gas-fired instantaneous water heaters to achieve efficiency gains through condensing technology.” The new standards will “save Americans approximately $198 billion and reduce 501 million metric tons of harmful carbon dioxide emissions cumulatively over 30 years — roughly equivalent to the combined annual emissions of 63 million homes, or approximately 50 percent of homes in the United States.”
But as Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) has well said: “These products already exist in the free market. Consumers should decide whether the upfront cost of a heat-pump water heater is worth the possible long-term savings. In many cases, the monthly savings never make up for the upfront cost of the equipment.”
The Biden administration is also now targeting dishwashers. The DOE recently published a 255-page document proposing new energy-efficiency standards for dishwashers. The new standards will “save consumers nearly $3 billion in utility bill savings over the ensuing 30 years of shipments and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 12.5 million metric tons.”
But as the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Ben Lieberman pointed out: “By the agency’s own analysis, the proposed rule would save consumers $17 over the life of a standard dishwasher, which it estimates at 15.2 years. That works out to $1.12 per year. Against this miniscule benefit is the very real risk of greatly diminished performance and convenience for consumers.”
In the age of fiat currency, the distinct concepts of saving and investing have become conflated and confused.
Saving is producing more than you consume and then setting it the difference aside.
Investing is allocating capital to a productive business to create more wealth. Investing has more risk—and potential reward—than saving.
Today, however, what most people think of as saving is actually investing.
That’s because most people take the excess of their production over consumption and put it into the stock or bond market.
Most people understand that it’s not optimal to simply hold fiat currency, which the central banks continuously debase. So they put their money into other assets, primarily bonds and stocks.
In other words, fiat currency and inflation have ruined saving for most people. It has forced them further down the risk curve into stocks, bonds, and other investments in a struggle to maintain their purchasing power.
However, there is no guarantee those investments will even keep up with inflation. But suppose they do. They will then be subject to a capital gains tax, even if it’s only a nominal gain, not a real one.
That means savers face the daunting task of not only keeping up with inflation but also outpacing the capital gains tax on the nominal gain just to maintain their purchasing power.
That’s made saving an impossible task for most.
Before the era of easy-to-produce fiat currency, people could simply save in money, which was either gold or a derivation of it.
There was no need for a dentist, construction worker, or taxi driver also to become a hedge fund manager to try to keep their head above water.
That’s how the fiat era monetized stocks, bonds, real estate, and other assets that wouldn’t have otherwise been.
For example, 50 years ago, the market cap of all the gold in the world was roughly equal to the market cap of all the stocks in the world. Today, the market cap of gold is about 10% of the world’s equities.
It’s an indication of how capital that used to be allocated to saving in gold became allocated to the stock market instead.
That doesn’t mean there isn’t a legitimate place for stocks, bonds, and real estate—there certainly is. It’s just that people would use them for investing—or, in the case of real estate, its utility value—and not as savings vehicles.
Bonds in general and Treasuries in particular, became the “go-to” savings vehicles to store wealth in the fiat era.
However, I think that will change soon as bonds will be incapable of storing value in the face of financial repression.
With 2022 being the worst year for Treasuries in American history, the shift away from bonds has probably already begun.
That means a lot of the capital parked in bonds will be looking for a new home that functions as a better store of value.
MCViewPoint 
