Peter Phillips, a Professor Emeritus of Political Sociology at Sonoma State University and former Director of Project Censored (1996 to 2010), discusses his book, Giants: The Global Power Elite (2018), that focuses upon the concentration of wealth internationally whereby corporations and giant investment firms—multi-trillion dollar investment companies—have the money and power to restrict the parameters of what is possible for legacy news to cover. Elaborating how news is framed by the one-half of one per cent of the world’s population, Phillips notes how those who invest in big media (Comcast, Disney, Time Warner, 21st Century Fox, Bertelsmann, and Viacom/CBS) further protect their profits—to include these same shareholders’ investments in war—whereby news stories are modelled around the narrow parameters of these investors’ financial interests. Philipps considers the repression of news today by the collaborative efforts of intelligence agencies working to protect and expand capital (eg. governments’ “vital interests”) along with the military and political elite within every country. In this way, capital investments are shared among an international gobal elite whereby large companies like Hearst and The New York Times are primarily interested in protecting wealth as they hire public relations firms and adverising agencies—to include the Omnicom Group, WPP, and Interpublic Group—to package and release news whereby “managed news stories that are preempting objective new coverage.”

Kellie-Jay Keen, aka Posie Parker, a British women's right campaigner, and Heather Brunskell-Evans, a feminist academic, discuss the class division within British feminism that has largely pivoted around and taken aim at Keen’s persona and activism. Giving historical perspective beginning with an event to which she had been invited at a Women’s Place UK event in Wales in the Spring 2018, Keen discusses how the manner in which she was disinvited was “libel-proof” where by WPUK effectively issued a statement that slated Keen as a racist without directly using these words. Noting that WPUK operates through “guilt by association,” Keen expatiates how this organisation weaponised the notion that guilt by association is “something that you can actually do to someone.” Keen discusses the events of January 2019 where she was accused of having “collaborated with the far-right” where in fact she and Julia Long undertook political activism to hold a political figure to account for having advocated the placement of a violent male prisoner in a woman’s prison and she had organised a public event for women to come and speak publicly. She observes, “If we start saying that free speech and the right to assemble and the right for free association…are something that the right do, then what does that say about the left? Because it’s not good.” Brunskell-Evans chronicles the purist policing within British feminism warning how this will leave a terrible legacy for future generations because the there is an attempt to frame the split in British feminism as merely “a bunch of women fighting with each other” which eschews what is actually going on. Elaborating how disagreement is part of any healthy liberal democracy, Brunskell-Evans expounds that these leftist feminists’ monstering of Keen has postured itself as disagreement when it is anything but. Brunskell-Evans details how these leftist feminists have engaged in policing and surveillance of thought together with ad hominem and defamatory attacks of Keen in what has been a uniquely authoritarian move in the guise of shutting down free speech and the grassroots movement that Keen facilitates.

Julie Ponesse, author of My Choice: The Ethical Case Against Covid-19 Vaccine Mandates (2021), discusses the field of ethics and role that fear played within the landscape of a global pandemic and how this stalls the ability of humans to understand and process new information, inclines us towards pessimism, and moves society towards a certain level of gullibity of official political narratives that claim to “save” society. In a sharp criticism of what has happened since March 2020, Ponesse analyses how those who supported lockdowns—who believed the official narrative of fear, as a result of which encouraged them to push the narrative, even at times cruelly within their own social and professional circles—are now confronted with the fact that everything they supported and enacted was all a lie, discussing this demographic’s compliance to draconian pandemic responses. Noting how internet culture has already trained a generation to locking themselves down with computers and mobile devices, Ponesse discusses the ways in which public opinion became controlled by big tech and major media across most of the planet manufacturing a homogeneous public health narrative without including any other scientific counterpoints, what Ponnes views as the signal that we were collectively being lied to.

Sall Grover, the founder and CEO of the female-only social networking app Giggle, discusses the Tickle v Giggle federal court case which opened up the conversation in Australia about the right to female-only spaces. Considering how she was legally pursued for making business decisions based on biological reality, Grover elaborates how the Giggle court case perfectly illustrates the larger global situation where women must fight for women-only spaces within the real world where women are being told that if they fail to see men as women, they must endure harassment, the threat of unemployment, public shaming, defamatory campaigns and/or are instructed to undergo re-education. Discussing how the sexism she experienced during her career as a screenwriter in Hollywood prepared her for the gender debate, Grover covers the wider implications of what is being foisted upon women and society at large—especially children. Observing how children over the past five years are being taught that everyone has a “gender identity,” Grover analyses how this political lie has been completely decontextualised from its extremely recent birth: “You could just assume that this has always been taught… [These children] are not being given the context of this which makes it even crueller.”

Dr Phillip Altman, a retired Pharmacologist with expertise in the areas of clinical medical research and pharmaceutical drug regulatory affairs in Australia, discusses his 10 September 2022 lecture to the Australian Medical Professional Society (AMPS) wherein he criticises the science during the COVID pandemic, announcing, “We, the Australian people, have been deceived—we have been lied to.” Altman elaborates on his career working within this sector, reflecting upon the ideological hold that Big Pharma maintains over medical literature and medical thought while also revealing how he was blind-sided by the manner in which the “iconic medical journals” that inform physicians are highly controlled by Big Pharma. Describing Australia’s recent 17% excess death rate, Altman expounds how few are asking for accountability of these deaths and vituperates the misuse of PCR tests during the pandemic, asking, “What’s the point in measuring all those people if they’re not really sick?” Altman confirms that public health policy should have been driven by hospital admissions for COVID-19 which would have allowed for “a more realistic approach” to addressing this virus, instead of one “driven by fear,” adding, “And that was intentional.” Covering the power of the bureaucrats who drove lockdowns and vaccine mandates around the world, Altman confirms how they achieved their “amazing power by using fear…and they will not let go. And they stay silent regarding vaccine mandates: they know that these vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission of infections…The whole world knows that now—even the CDC and the NIH, they’re saying it. They’ve had to admit now.”

Katherine Deves, an Australian lawyer who ran as a Liberal candidate for the seat of Warringah in the 2022 Australian federal election, discsusses how her campaign was in part derailed by her views on gender identity. Framing this ideology as a religon where the god is the “curated identity” of the self, Deves like the gender identity cult to “Revenge of the Losers” where people who never had friends at school “have accumulated social capital online” to command public opinion. Accounting for the civil and criminal sanctions in Australia imopsed upon those who do not go along with gender identity, Deves elaborates how “transgender vilification” has been incorporated within the anti-discrimination law in New South Wales where “vilify” can simply be ideological disagreement and where, as Deves notes, even if the accused can sucessfully defend herself from this criminal chargs through the public interest exemption, “the process is the punishment.” Deves also covers how “gender identity” is a protected characteristic at the federal level noting how with recent proposed laws in the state of Victoria, that were anyone not to affirm someone’s “gender identity,” they could potentially be charged with crime. Deves goes on to analyse how this ideology is “so impoverished” that it has affected our cultures where from this movement no art or music is produced, where there is “no singing, no community…no joy.” Deves describes how this ideology has created a socio-political environment of nervousness where the current reality is “merciless, heartless and brutal,” as she exposes how many people irrationally go along with this ideology depsite having no idea what they are conceding until the moment they find themselves “up against it.”

Michael Biggs, a sociologist at the University of Oxford, discusses his foray into gender criticism from his graduate studies in the United States to being told by students to “get educated.” Bigg reports: “I did educate myself but I came away with the ‘wrong’ views.” Sharing his thoughts on the origins of gender ideology, Biggs examines inert facets within feminism where some feminists have maintained that there are no differences between men and women, a posture which inevitably led to the likes of Judith Butler being able to step into this discourse and to further disassociated gender from sex. Covering the history of transsexualism from the 1950s through the 1990s, Biggs considers how this era was a fundamentally male phenomenon with 90% of transsexuals being men and their clinicians were also invariably male (eg. John Money, Harry Benjamin). Conversely, Biggs apprehends an interesting shift from the beginning of this century where not only the majority of those claiming a trans identity have been women, but he observes that it is mostly females (eg. Judith Butler, Stephen Whittle, Ruth Hunt, Nancy Kelly, Polly Carmichael) driving this movement to include the incredible push for institutional and political capture. Biggs also elucidates how the transgender movement of today has nothing to do with the transsexual phenomenon of the second half of the twentieth century. Detailing how the scientific hokum within the literature of gender identity has been successful in elaborating what he calls “idea laundering,” Biggs expounds upon the mechanism whereby articles advancing bad ideas with poor research behind them are incredibly difficult to discredit while, even if one succeds in publishing a critique of a flawed study, the refutation, in all likeihood, will result in the flawed study being cited even more. 

Leor Sapir, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, discusses two of his articles on the gender debate—“The ‘T’ Piggybacking on the ‘LGB’” and “Transgender Confusions”—covering the policies around public policy, law, and Supreme Court rulings. Beginning with issues such as “bathroom bill” and prisons, Sapir criticises the central tenet of this movement: no debate. Claiming that we are in the throes of a “public mania,” Sapir goes through many of the contradictions within the trans movement’s arguments such as the claim that the only proper determinant of being a man or a woman is gender, not sex. Noting how the gender movement makes an exception within sports as, at the very least, acknolwdging sex as a reality, Sapir explains how this lobby has no other choice given that the political implications of denying sex would do away with women’s sports entirely. He also demonstrates how this “oppressed minority” has gained pervasive institutional capture within a decade and is anything but “oppressed” as he elaborates the American debate through the gender lobby’s inability to answer basic philosophical and scientific questions. Sapir explores how this movement has managed to build so much momentum “without actually having a coherent philosophical understanding of the human person or without having good scientific evidence for the transitioning of children.”

Norman Finkelstein discusses his forthcoming book, I'll Burn That Bridge When I Get To It: Politically Incorrect Thoughts on Cancel Culture and Academic Freedom (2022, Sublation Media) and the current dilemma within academia today of identity politics. Covering historical examples of people who have been punished by authority for their beliefs, Finkelstein contextualises cancel culture from McCarthyism where ruling elites on the right attempted to silence critics of US domestic policy by deradicalising the US labour movement by ridding it of Communists in addition to the suppression of domestic dissent against US global hegemony which ultimately led to massive and brutal repressions internationally. Finkelstein outlines how the current brand of cancel culture on the left is not state-driven and somewhat milder in its form than in the 1950s, noting how the Democratic Party substituted identity politics for its working-class base. He asserts that identity politics and cancel culture form the party’s reigning ideology which he characterises as a “menace.” Finkelstein elaborates his thoughts on transgender rights observing that “there is a large element of…self-indulgence by people who have a lot of time on their hands and a lot of money in their bank accounts” maintaining that this ideology is more current in elite institutions and graduate schools than at universities frequented by working-class students. He posits that identity politics are elite concerns of the 1% where pronouns—what he frames as “self-absorbed word games”—have captured headlines in the media all invented by “Martha’s Vineyard culture” that is entirely disconnected from “the real lives of real people in the real world.”

Pioneering ecological artist Aviva Rahmani discusses her latest book Divining Chaos: The Autobiography of an Idea (New Village Press, 2022) outlining her political and artistic coming of age in the 1960s in downtown New York, her development as a feminist, and her evolution into an ecoartist who employs a multi-disciplinary approach to take on the current ecological crises. Having worked at the cutting edge of the avant-garde, Rahmani explains the differences between ecoart and land art stating, “Where land artists such as Robert Smithson were using sculptural techniques to stamp their own philosophical comments on the Earth, as my father had, ecoartists are driven by the sense that the Earth desperately requires healing much more than stamping.” Rahmani elaborates how it is imperative that we understand the entire spectrum of change within the natural world without interrupting these spaces as she delves into what she calls “trigger point theory,” a pro-active relationship to change based in the physics of the natural world. Incorporating the diverse disciplines of art, music, law and science, Rahmani views the siloisation of disciplines as part of the problem leading is leading to ecosuicide. Instead, she engages the ecosystem through a trans-disciplinary paradigm whereby knowledge from various fields is brought together in order to address the ecological problems of our day.