The Individual v The Collectivists

I had an interesting experience this week as an adjudicator of a debate between two Catholic universities in Sydney. The topic of the debate was: Politically, We Should Favour Liberty Over Equality. It was an Oxford-style debate, with three speakers on either side of the proposition and ten minutes for each of the six speakers. I was impressed to see these students in their early twenties, engaging with a foundational question that may still be one of the most fundamental facing Western society: is there a trade off between liberty and equality?

The side for the proposition quoted from Patrick Henry’s famous speech given 250 years ago to the Second Virginia Revolutionary Convention meeting at St. John’s Church, Richmond, Virginia on March 23, 1775. No-one wrote a verbatim account of Henry’s speech at the time but William Wort “reconstructed the accepted text” of Patrick Henry’s speech. Henry was arguing, in an appeal to the Almighty Himself, for freedom from British oppression. Here is the final part of Henry’s speech which concludes with the famous words: “Give me liberty or give me death”!

“There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace– but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

What a scene it must have been that day in St John’s Church in Richmond, Virginia!

As I heard the arguments from both sides of the debate, I realised that whether there is a nexus between liberty and equality is an important topic for our times. It was impressive to see the young debaters grappling with ideas about what equality means and whether it is opposed to liberty. Undoubtedly, in the U.S. around the time of the Revolutionary War, this was a major topic of discussion.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War in 1991, we in the West became lazy and we stopped thinking about the importance of liberty. The globalists then gained the upper hand.

President George H.W. Bush spoke about the “New World Order” and the concept of multilateralism, that became a cornerstone of the United Nations and promoted at the U.N.’s Summit of the Future in September 2024.

I have often wondered if there has been promotion of the idea of “multilateralism” by the U.N. because no one can possibly understand what it is? There was even a U.N. Day of Multilateralism in 2024. I suspect that multilateralism means collectivism although the U.N. describes multilateralism in a typically convoluted way:

“It involves adherence to a common political project based on the respect of a shared system of norms and values. In particular, multilateralism is based on founding principles such as consultation, inclusion and solidarity. Its operation is determined by collectively developed rules that ensure sustainable and effective cooperation. In particular, they guarantee all actors the same rights and obligations by applying themselves continuously (and not on a case-by-case basis, depending on the issue handled).

Multilateralism is therefore both a method of cooperation and a form of organization of the international system.”

It sounds like collectivism to me, with the 193 member nations of the U.N. heading toward a collectivist “nirvana”.

The idea of the good of the collective is attractive but sinister. The Australian Human Rights Commission published the results of an important survey of Australians’ reflections on the governments’ emergency restrictions imposed during COVID-19, which were among the harshest and most dictatorial in the world. The complete report is worthwhile reading (link here) but one finding from the survey that startled me was this:

“74% believed the greater good of the community should always be considered before individual rights.”

The finding didn’t give me great confidence in the perspicacity of my fellow countrymen. You don’t have to think too far ahead to understand how this data will give governments the authority to legislate for the “good of the community” when the next pandemic arrives.

Non-Crime Hate Incidents (NCHIs)

The issues around free speech and the rights of the individual have been on my mind over the last months with the publicity given to various “non crime hate incidents” (NCHIs) in the United Kingdom. NCHIs have distracted police in England and Wales for the past few years and police can turn up on people’s doorsteps to investigate reports on social media that may give rise to complaints, and considered a “hate incident”.

The whole concept of NCHIs received prominence when police turned up at the prominent British journalist, Allison Pearson’s house in November 2024, to investigate a social media post that she had since deleted. The post evidently related to criticism of the pro-Palestine marches in the U.K. after the attacks by Hamas on 7 October 2023.

I subsequently discovered that such was the vigour of the police in relation to NCHIs that such incidents were pursued even though real crime was ignored in England and Wales. A report in the online publication Leading Britain’s Conversation in March 2024 stated that:

“Police have failed to solve a single burglary in nearly half of all neighbourhoods across England and Wales in the last three years, new figures have revealed.”

How could this happen? It must be political pressure from the “collective” and a failure to recognise the core concepts of freedom of speech. Of course, it is also the result of a rise in the prominence of social media and the potential for “offence”. I recently heard an interview with a prominent U.S. podcaster who had recently returned from the U.K. and he noted that the people to whom he spoke constantly asked: “Are you allowed to say that?”.

I decided to search through the archives of the UK Telegraph to examine stories published in the last six months on NCHIs. Here is a list of the headlines:

• Time to end the thought police madness;

• We don’t know if NCHIs help fight crime, police admit;

• Leaked dossier reveals Home Office plans to revive NCHIs;

• Police recording ageist comments as NCHIs;

• NCHIs surge in half of police forces..;

• Welsh-English “racist” claims investigated as NCHIs;

• NCHIs dragging police into politics;

• NCHIs are undermining trust in officers;

• Yvette Cooper (U.K. Home Secretary) plans to expand NCHIs.

Some of the challenges related to freedom of speech have come into focus with the recent trial of Hamit Coskun, who fled Turkey because of persecution. Mr Coskun has been accused of posing a threat to public order because he set fire to a copy of the Koran outside the Turkish Consulate. He saw his act as a peaceful protest but the Telegraph reports that Mr Coskun has: “since gone into police protection, was violently attacked by a man during the demonstration who allegedly slashed at him with a knife before kicking him after he fell to the ground.”

Undoubtedly, there would be no police action if someone set fire to the Bible outside Westminster Abbey!

Freedom Is Never More Than One Generation Away From Extincition

President Reagan recogised the danger posed by opponents of freedom and free speech in his inaugural address, on 5 January 1967, as the Governor of California:

“Freedom is a fragile thing and it's never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by way of inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. And those in world history who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again.”

President Reagan’s quote is as important today as it as almost almost 60 years ago, during the period of the Cold War. Reagan followed up with this important question:

“….if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?”

As I was considering this important question from President Reagan, I remembered the important quote from one of the U.S. Founding Fathers, John Adams:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other".

As our leaders embrace multiculturalism, multilateralism, collectivism and the “good of the community”, individual rights and freedom itself will disappear while most of society is looking in the opposite direction. Important self-government and the basis of morality has been ignored.

It seems increasingly difficult for those defending freedom to have their voices heard and unless freedom of speech and the right to offend is protected, our society will descend into a collectivist extinction event as we all hurtle toward the net-zero cliff, sipping vanilla lattes and condemning those who offend us.

Unfortunately, other than President Trump and his administration, there are few in the West who recognise the impending peril.

Articles That Caught My Attention This Week

The Trump-Putin Standoff and The Imminent Invasion of Taiwan

Joel Skousen provides a very helpful weekly newsletter, focused on events in the U.S. and the world in his Word Affairs Brief newsletter. This week he provided analysis of the Ukraine-Russia conflict that Trump had declared about one year ago he could fix in 24 hours. Skousen writes:

“Between last Friday and Sunday Russia launched around 900 drones at Ukraine. Sunday’s launching was the largest attack so far in the war against Ukraine with 355 drones. Then on Monday and Tuesday, Russia fired 60 more drones at Ukraine.

President Trump has been particularly critical of Putin launching missiles and drones just prior to all their “peace talks,” rightly complaining that it shows that Putin “really doesn’t want to end the war.” But after this latest escalation Trump says that Putin “has gone absolutely CRAZY!”

No, he’s not crazy—Putin is ruthless. This is what you’d expect as Russia starts to reconquer the satellite states it allowed to go free after the phony fall of the Soviet Union. ……..

Trump is wrong when he insinuates he could have stopped the war and that it, “should never have happened.” It was always a key part of Russia’s strategy and one of the reasons the Soviets put Russian-speaking people into the borders of Ukraine—in order to have an excuse to invade to “save” the Russians from persecution.

That “something else” to spur Putin to come to the peace table with fewer outrageous demands turns out to be the lifting of restrictions on the use of long range weapons provided by the US and Europe to Ukraine. Aljazeera.com explains how the UK, Germany and France are all lessening the restrictions on long range weapons too.

Germany’s newly elected chancellor, Friedrich Merz, has announced that Ukraine’s Western allies are lifting range restrictions on the weapons they have been supplying to Kyiv. Merz said the policy shift applies to weapons provided by countries including the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and the United States.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov responded, saying any such decision runs “absolutely contrary” to any future peace settlement with Kyiv. So the question is, how might this decision influence future ceasefire negotiations between Russia and Ukraine?

Speaking at a forum organised by public broadcaster WDR, the German chancellor said, “That means Ukraine can also defend itself by, for example, attacking military positions in Russia,” Merz said. “Until a while ago, it couldn’t … It can now.” “We call this ‘long-range fire’ in jargon, also supplying Ukraine with weapons that attack military targets in the hinterland,” he added.

In November 2024, the US allowed Ukraine to use long-range missiles, such as the Army Tactical Missile System, or ATACMS, to conduct strikes inside Russian territory. Following the US approval, Russian authorities said on November 19 that Ukraine had attacked a “facility” in the border region of Bryansk with six ATACMS ballistic missiles, which have a range of 300km (190 miles).

A day later, Ukraine also fired long-range UK-made Storm Shadow missiles into Russia, according to Russia’s Ministry of Defence. The Storm Shadow missile can hit targets up to 250km (155 miles) away.

Ukrainian President Zelenskyy has consistently urged his Western allies to remove limits on the use of long-range weaponry such as the ATACMS they provide to Ukraine. According to Zelenskyy, granting Kyiv this capability would enable Ukrainian forces to hit targets such as ammunition storage sites, airfields, and command centres far inside Russia.

In response to Russia’s 900 attack drones last weekend, Ukraine returned fire with drone strikes at Russia overnight, following Germany’s recent decision to lift restrictions on Ukraine’s use of long-range missiles. The Epoch Times covers how Trump, ever the optimist in the face of deception and evil, is giving Putin a bit more time to reconsider:

US President Donald Trump said on May 28 that he is giving Russian President Vladimir Putin two weeks to demonstrate a genuine commitment to ending the war in Ukraine, warning that failure to do so could result in tougher action, including sanctions.

Asked by a reporter whether he still believes that Putin “actually wants to end the war,” Trump said he remains uncertain whether the Russian leader is negotiating in good faith—and pledged a tougher U.S. response if it turns out that Putin is insincere.

“I can’t tell you that, but I‘ll let you know in about two weeks,” Trump said. “Within two weeks we’re going to find out ... whether or not he’s tapping us along or not. And if he is, we’ll respond a little bit differently.”

Trump said his special envoy, Steve Witkoff, is leading negotiations with the Kremlin “very strongly” and suggested that Russia appears interested in reaching an agreement.

“[Russia seems] to want to do something, but until the document is signed, I can’t tell you, nobody can,” Trump said.

Trump is right to be skeptical, but I doubt his skepticism will last. Russia has been at this lying and stalling game for decades, and Trump is looking for an easy way out without understanding the underlying deceptions going back decades.

So while Trump is delaying his threat of secondary sanctions against Russia, Russia is using the time to prepare for another major offensive against Ukraine.

One commentator noted the remarkable capacity of the Russian people for suffering. as evidenced for their ability to survive the horrors of the Stalinist period and the slaughter of World War II. Many worry that Trump’s simplistic view of the conflict may lead to escalation and nuclear confllict.

Several commentators have also noted that there has been a toughening of the Russian stance since the three-day visit by President Xi to Moscow on 9th May 2025 for celebrations related to the 80th anniversary of the end to the Great Patriotic War. President Xi joined the leaders of 19 other aligned nations to pay tribute to the Russian people.

Figure 1. President Xi with President Putin and some “mates” at the 80th anniversary of victory in the Great Patriotic War. Source

China has clearly sided with Russia in an attempt to sideline the U.S. Furthermore, China is adding more pressure in relation to Taiwan and the recent exercises seem to be focused on invasion plans. The Robert Maginnis reported this week on nine signs that Beijing’s invasion of Taiwan may be imminent and quoted U.S. Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth:

“U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth issued a stark warning Saturday at the Shangri-La Dialogue security conference in Singapore: China’s military is "rehearsing for the real deal," and a full-scale invasion of Taiwan "could be imminent."

"We are not going to sugarcoat it – the threat China poses is real."

Mr Maginnis concludes his article which outlines the nine signs that the invasion of Taiwan may be imminent, with this analysis:

“The question of whether China will invade Taiwan is no longer hypothetical but a matter of timing and risk calculus. While Beijing continues to deny aggressive intent, the evidence suggests a sustained and deliberate military buildup with the intent to compel reunification—if not peacefully, then by force.

Hegseth’s warning reflects not alarmism, but a sober assessment of escalating realities. These indicators—military drills, strategic deployments, political rhetoric, and infrastructure mobilization—align with historical precedents for pre-invasion posturing.

The international community must take this threat seriously. Strengthening deterrence, improving intelligence sharing, and reinforcing Taiwan’s self-defense capabilities are critical to avoiding a regional catastrophe.”

Israel v Hamas

Since the Hamas slaughter of Israeli citizens in the region near Gaza, there has been ongoing analysis of the morality of Israel’s actions compared to those of Hamas, a terrorist group supported by many left wing supporters in the West.

Independent analysis is difficult to find but Douglas Murray has been brave enough to put his head up above the parapet and argue the case for Israel in his book: On Democracies and Death Cults: Israel and the Future of Civilization. I have not read his book yet but have heard various interviews in the U.K. and I was staggered at the media hostility toward Murray and some simple propositions that were hard to argue against. Here is a video of a more sympathetic interview:

I believe that Israel is a critical part of the world to keep in our sight, despite it being a very small country. There is profound spiritual significance in Israel’s presence and survival in a region where enemis surround it. Below is analysis by Amir Tsarfati, whom I have quoted previously in my newsletters. He is a messianic Jew (one who believes in Jesus) and his viewpoint balances many in the West, including here in Australia, where the government is sympathetic to Hamas.

“Hamas is Running Out of Excuses
First it was that the Israelis were slaughtering innocents in Gaza. But then Hamas had to completely recalculate their numbers showing that the innocent Palestinian casualties were stunningly low. In fact, never before in modern urban warfare has there been such a small percentage of civilians harmed. Of course, this doesn’t keep foreign governments, especially those “enlightened” compassionate souls in Europe, from ignoring the facts for their own “genocidal Israeli” narrative.

Then came the accusation that Israel was not negotiating in good faith. But more and more people are coming to the realization that the Palestinians are doing what they always do, they are demanding all or nothing. The rejection of the recent Witkoff plan, which would release half the living hostages and half the dead hostages in return for a 45-day ceasefire, was clear evidence. The Hamas demand is that only ten hostages total be released, five at a time, that a permanent ceasefire is implemented, and that they get to keep all of their arms. Ridiculous demands for a defeated enemy force to put forth.

*Breaking: Just today, a new proposal was put forth by U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff. The demand is for 10 live hostages and 18 bodies of dead hostages to be released in two waves, which is one less live hostage than the previous deal. In return, there would be a 60-day ceasefire, aid would begin again through the UN and not the American companies, and more than 1200 Gazan prisoners would be released. This is a terrible deal, and one that I pray that neither Israel nor Hamas will accept. It is simply another delay tactic allowing for Hamas to regroup and for Israeli opponents of Netanyahu to kick him out of office.*

The third excuse was that Israel was starving the Gazan people by withholding humanitarian aid. But now Operation Gideon’s Chariots has gone into force. While the Israeli military is pushing through the north and central regions of Gaza, four safe humanitarian zones have been opened for civilians seeking to escape the harsh hand of Hamas. Using leaflets, phone calls, texts, and social media, Israel warned the citizenry of the Israel Defense Forces’ intention of pushing through Gaza and eliminating the last vestiges of Hamas and invited the people to find refuge in the safe zones. Many thousands of people have taken the IDF up on this invitation and they are finding all the humanitarian aid they could ever want, all distributed with the assistance of private American firms. This has made Hamas apoplectic, because they have lost control of the humanitarian aid which they had been stealing and selling for profit. They are demanding that people reject the Israeli aid mechanism, and have even stooped to criticizing the plentiful food because some of it is manufactured in Israel.

With the confirmed death of Mohammed Sinwar, Hamas is essentially leaderless. It’s time for them to lay down arms, free the Gazan citizens from their tyrannical reign, and accept their fate. But it won’t happen. These brainwashed terrorists are determined to fight to the last man. Sadly, that means sacrificing the lives of everyday civilians who just want a chance to emigrate to a place where they can find a better, more free life.”

This conflict, like that between Russia and Ukraine, will not be solved any time soon and in fact if it is, it likely points to the emergence of the antichrist!

U.S. Announces Visa Restrictions for Foreigners

“Rubio announces visa restrictions for foreigners 'complicit' in censoring Americans was the headline in a Fox News article following a post on X by U.S. Secretary of State, Marco Rubio and highlighted by Jeff Childers in his substack, Coffee and COVID.

☕️ LITERALLY ☙ Thursday, May 29, 2025 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠

Rubio wrote:

“For too long, Americans have been fined, harassed, and even charged by foreign authorities for exercising their free speech rights.

••• Today, I am announcing a new visa restriction policy that will apply to foreign officials and persons who are complicit in censoring Americans. Free speech is essential to the American way of life - a birthright over which foreign governments have no authority.”

Childers provided the following useful analysis from a pro-Rubio viewpoint:

“Our enemies have long silenced and punished American speech. This is most clearly seen in the banning of US-based social media platforms, for example. But it’s our allies, such as the European Union, who’ve begun criminalizing speech, recently arresting Telegram’s founder, for example. And they are suing the dickens out of Twitter and Facebook, as two more examples, for violating their stupid online speech codes.

Ironically, George Orwell was British.

Foreign leaders will be desperate to avoid being put on Rubio’s “list” because it doesn’t just block their access to the United States— it publicly brands them as enemies of American liberty. Being sanctioned under a speech-based visa restriction effectively exiles them from the global stage, cutting off face-to-face diplomacy, high-level trade talks, swanky elite conferences, and media platforms that all flow through Washington, New York, and Silicon Valley.

Worse, becoming a diplomatic persona non grata invites political embarrassment back at home, and emboldens the leaders’ rivals to circle like sharks. For a ruling-class technocrat or regulator whose power depends on international status and institutional access, being blacklisted by the U.S. is career poison. The threat of losing that privilege turns the list into a geopolitical electric cattle prod— and Rubio’s message seems clear: if you target American speech, you could forfeit your seat at America’s table.

This is the first time in U.S. history that foreign officials could face personal diplomatic consequences for participating in the global censorship-industrial complex and collectively violating Americans’ constitutional rights.

The move is part of the bigger theme we’ve been tracking — that the Trump administration is reversing the vectors of power, especially on censorship, lawfare, and institutional corruption. Rubio’s visa ban on foreign censors is the next chess move. It’s early, and it was just an announcement, so I don’t want to speculate too much yet about how hard this geopolitical haymaker could land.”

Of course, no Middle Eastern country would allow enemies into their countries to undermine and critique their governments. The U.S. currently has around one million foreign students including more than 300,000 from China. Those seeking to undermine the U.S. will not be permitted to study in the U.S. while those countries opposed to free speech, particularly the E.U. and the U.K. will come into the spotlight.

Once again there will be a battle in the U.S. courts with judges who have shown themselves opposed to the Trump administration’s policies. There will be a fight right up to the Supreme Court and it is difficult to predict the outcome.

RFK Jnr Highlights “Corrupt Medical Journals”

Jeff Childers also highlighted this week the problem, well-known now for some years, of corruption in the publication of scientific papers. Childers has previously highlighted the remarkable quote from the former Lancet editor, Richard Horton who said in 2015:

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.”

Given that Lancet is one of the oldest and most prestigious of the medical journals, Professor Horton’s quote is alarming and should have been taken more seriously.

Mr Childers writes:

“On Tuesday’s “Ultimate Human Podcast,” Kennedy announced, “We’re probably going to stop publishing in the Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, and those other journals, because they’re all corrupt.” The journals, he explained, publish unreproducible studies funded by the pharmaceutical industry. Instead, the NIH plans to make its own medical journals for its various institutes and centers — unless, that is, current journals make “radical” changes.

Haha, Kennedy also called the NIH, CDC, FDA and CMS “sock puppets” for Big Pharma.

Boom.

It must have stung. Neither Stat News nor any of the slew of other stories about Kennedy’s comments, such as the Washington Post’s, could find anyone who shared Kennedy’s point of view— your first red flag for fake news. None of the stories I reviewed (till I got sick of looking) quoted Horton’s now-famous 2015 comment.

Also on Tuesday, NIH Director Bhattacharya nixed a long-standing rulerequiring NIH scientists to get permission from political appointees before they could publish their own studies:

You’d think that “real” scientists would celebrate these kinds of developments. But it’s crickets from the science community. Cowards.

The whole of the medical system is built on a mirage of accountability and sometimes untrustworthy science. During COVID-19 we were repeatedly told to “trust the science” and that the “vaccines” were “safe and effective”. Robert F Kennedy Jnr is commencing to push back against Big Pharma and it won’t be an easy ride for him. We can only hope that truth will prevail.