Ensuring Big Banks Respect Customers’ Rights

A top banking regulator is taking decisive action to put an end to the era of “debanking,” a practice where big banks deny services to individuals and businesses based on their political beliefs, industry, or ideology. This move comes after numerous instances of banks, including Google, Paypal, and Amazon, cancelling accounts and restricting access to financial services for those who held dissenting views on topics like the origins of Covid-19 and the BLM movement.

Under the Biden administration, several banks were accused of blacklisting entire sectors, such as firearms, and denying services to individuals based on their political affiliations, with a noticeable bias against non-Democrats. However, Jonathan Gould, head of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), has announced that supervisors are now closely monitoring banks to ensure they have ceased these discriminatory practices. This oversight is a direct result of a June executive order issued by President Donald Trump, which explicitly directs banks to refrain from denying services based on industry type or political considerations. Reuters reports that supervisors are working to ensure the largest banks are in compliance with this updated approach, marking a significant shift in the banking sector’s treatment of customers.

The practice of debanking has been shrouded in secrecy, with only specialists openly discussing its implications. However, its effects can be devastating, denying individuals and businesses access to essential financial services without any recourse or appeal. The issue has sparked concern among advocates, including Christian organizations and conservatives, who claim to have been targeted by these practices. Notably, former First Lady Melania Trump has spoken out about her own experience with debanking, revealing that she and her son Barron were victims of this practice in 2021, after her husband left office. The Trump family has been vocal about the concerted efforts to erase their legacy, with Eric Trump sharing his family’s ordeal.

Banks Denying Services Based on Political Views

What is the main purpose of banks?

· Keep money safe for customers

· Offer customers interest on deposits, helping to protect against money losing value against inflation

· Lend money to firms, customers and homebuyers

· Offer financial advice and related financial services, such as insuranceBanks are intermediaries between depositors (who lend money to the bank) and borrowers (to whom the bank lends money)

This should be the scope of all commercial banks. However, debanking is a form of main stream cancel culture and this is what prophecy has told us about cancel culture.  

Debanking: The Nigel Farage Case study

The banking systems were being utilized to exert social and political control, as evidenced by the compliance of Canadian banks with Trudeau’s request to freeze the bank accounts of truckers involved in the Canadian Freedom protests. Banks actively played politics, mirroring the actions of PayPal and other payment gateways, which froze the accounts of journalists. Graham Phillips, an independent journalist reporting from the Donbass in Eastern Ukraine, had his assets completely frozen last year by UK authorities for merely reporting the truth about the conflict. Alina Lipp, a German journalist living in Donbas, was labeled a Russian terrorist and criminally charged by German authorities for her pro-Russian reporting, resulting in the shutdown of her bank accounts and those of her father. In the US, JP Morgan Chase allegedly severed ties with the faith-based non-profit National Committee for Religious Freedom (NCRF) last year, although the bank has since denied doing so due to the organization’s religious and political views. In 2023, Nigel Farage’s bank announced that it was closing his accounts, a decision that came without initial explanation, despite the controversial UK politician having been a customer for 40 years. Since then, Farage had attempted to open accounts at nine other banks but was unsuccessful. Banking discrimination was not limited to political figures like Farage or high-profile journalists, as banks were actively targeting individuals, with the National Australia Bank (NAB) announcing a plan to ‘cut off’ customers accused of being financial abusers, a practice known as ‘debanking’, which involves suspending, cancelling, or denying access to accounts.

Journalists reported that Nigel Farage had his bank account closed by Coutts, a prestigious bank catering to affluent clients, which is owned by the National Westminster Bank, a institution largely controlled by the British government since the 2008 banking crisis. As a prominent figure, Farage was instrumental in the 2016 referendum vote for Britain to leave the European Union, earning him both admiration and detestation from the public. Investigators found that Farage, who had been acquainted with Donald Trump, had voiced opposition to extreme transgender ideology and the pursuit of zero emissions, but had not been implicated in any illegal activities. Despite this, Coutts terminated his account, although the bank acknowledged that Farage had always conducted himself in a polite and courteous manner in his dealings with them.

Bank documents revealed that the institution perceived significant reputational risks in associating with N F, given his high profile and the substantial amount of adverse press surrounding him. Although he had no criminal convictions, his commentary and behaviours were deemed to be at odds with the bank’s purpose and values. The bank took issue with his comments and articles on ESG and diversity and inclusion, which did not align with their views or purpose. One document highlighted N F’s history of contentious actions, including his role in campaigning for Britain’s exit from Europe on stringent terms, his opposition to Covid restrictions, and his revived hostility towards addressing the climate emergency. The document also criticized his stance on “disinformation”, citing specific tweets in which he opposed clamping down on the spread of false information. These findings were compiled into a 40-page dossier, which was the result of extensive research and labour, funded by the bank’s depositors and shareholders, including the government, and were intentionally included in the bank’s files.

As much as Mr. Farage may not always be right, but the real issue was whether banks had the authority to scrutinize their clients’ views and deny them service if those views conflicted with those of the chief executive. Banks were actively examining the political beliefs of their clients, sparking concerns about their role in society. The chief executive of Coutts’ parent bank, Alison Rose, had explicitly stated that tackling climate change and promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion were central to the bank’s purpose, but it appeared that this diversity did not extend to individuals with conservative views or those with less than $1 million to deposit. Investigations revealed that when Mr. Farage initially announced that Coutts had closed his account, the bank claimed it was due to insufficient funds, but documents obtained by Mr. Farage later proved that the account was closed for purely political reasons. Furthermore, Mr. Farage alleged that nine other banks, acting as a cartel, had refused to open accounts for him, demonstrating a disturbing trend of financial institutions suppressing freedom of opinion.

Bank refuses to open account for parental rights group opposing ‘trans’ surgeries for kids

We also uncovered that another UK-based bank, Metro Bank, had refused to open a business account for a parental rights group, Our Duty, which opposed transgender surgeries for children. The bank’s spokesman attributed the decision to commercial reasons, but the group believed it was due to their political stance. Metro Bank had recently allied itself with pro-LGBT ideology, joining most major UK banks in promoting this cause.

The actions taken against Mr. Farage and the parental rights group served as a warning to the wealthy to conform to the prevailing ideology or risk losing access to their funds. The Canadian government’s introduction of bank bail-in legislation and the potential implementation of a centralized digital currency raised concerns about the erosion of individual freedoms, particularly the ability to control one’s own body and make choices about healthcare, such as vaccine status. With the ability to withhold funds, individuals might be forced to comply with certain requirements, such as taking quarterly vaccinations, in order to access basic necessities like food and housing. As the regulator continues to crack down on debanking, it remains to be seen how this will impact the banking sector and its treatment of customers. One thing is certain, however: the era of debanking is officially over, and big banks are being held accountable for their actions.

The Netflix Boycott: A Market-Driven Reckoning for Corporate Wokeness

There has been recent backlash against Netflix which has sparked a market-driven reckoning for corporate wokeness, with the streaming wars becoming a battleground for ideological conflicts. A growing number of consumers, led by high-profile conservatives, are cancelling their Netflix subscriptions in response to the platform’s increasing promotion of progressive agendas, particularly in children’s content. This boycott has already had a significant impact on Netflix’s valuation, demonstrating the power of consumer sovereignty in a free-market system.

The boycott gained momentum after Elon Musk used his vast social media following to urge his followers to cancel their Netflix accounts, citing the platform’s promotion of transgender themes in children’s programming, including the animated series Dead End: Paranormal Park. Other shows, such as Strawberry Shortcake: Berry in the Big City, which features transgender drag queen characters, and episodes of The Baby-Sitters Club that challenge traditional gender norms, have also sparked outrage. The controversy was further fueled by revelations about the creator of Dead End, Hamish Steele, who has made inflammatory comments on social media, including celebrating the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Conservative influencers have amplified these concerns, framing the content as an attempt to impose “woke” ideology on impressionable young audiences.

This is not an isolated incident, as Netflix has faced similar backlash in the past, including the 2020 controversy over the film Cuties, which was criticized for its sexualized depiction of minors. The company’s reported $7 million donation to Kamala Harris’s campaign in 2024 also alienated some of its subscribers. With executives like former Obama advisor Susan Rice on the board and multi-year deals with Barack and Michelle Obama for content production, it’s no surprise that Netflix’s output has a strong progressive bias. The company’s staff overwhelmingly donates to Democratic candidates, creating an echo chamber that views children as a key demographic in the cultural revolution. As a result, middle-American families, who form a significant portion of Netflix’s subscriber base, are feeling alienated by the platform’s content and values.

From Entertainment to Ideological Propaganda

Netflix has undergone a radical transformation, shifting from a platform that offered family-friendly entertainment and blockbuster hits to one that actively promotes leftist ideology through its content. The driving force behind this change is the pressure exerted by activist executives and Hollywood’s progressive elite, who are pushing the platform to embed their ideology into its programming. This transformation is not subtle; instead, it’s a blatant attempt to prioritize diversity, equity, and inclusion metrics over storytelling, with a disproportionate focus on representation. Netflix’s annual inclusion reports proudly showcase the platform’s “progress” in boosting LGBTQ+ visibility, but this comes at the cost of neutrality, effectively turning entertainment into activism. The most alarming aspect of this shift is the content targeted at children, a form of grooming. This content systematically introduces sexualized themes and gender confusion to impressionable young minds, raising serious concerns about the platform’s intentions. Shows like Dead End: Paranormal Park feature transgender characters in animated adventures, while Strawberry Shortcake: Berry in the Big City incorporates drag queen elements and pronoun lessons, targeting preschoolers. Even seemingly innocuous series like CoComelon have been flagged for subtly integrating “they/them” narratives, effectively normalizing fluid identities before children can fully comprehend biology or consent. A review of Netflix’s kids’ catalog reveals that at least five programs are pushing transgenderism or LGBTQ+ themes, often without warning parents, and thus exploiting the trust that families have placed in the platform’s “kid-safe” content.

This content is not harmless diversity; it’s a predatory ideology that is being forced upon young minds. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and commentator Benny Johnson have strongly condemned this trend, labelling it “demonic” and a “direct assault on childhood innocence.” It sexualizes minors and erodes traditional family structures, highlighting the urgent need for parents to be aware of the content their children are consuming on Netflix and just cancel it completely.

Financial Impact: Early Signs of Erosion

Boycotts are more than just statements of principle – they’re powerful economic tools that can inflict serious damage on a company’s bottom line. Netflix, in particular, relies heavily on consistent subscriber growth to drive its business model, with historically low churn rates of around 3-4% per quarter. However, the recent campaign has thrown a wrench into this delicate balance. Reports are flooding in of a massive surge in subscription cancellations, with estimates suggesting that tens of thousands of users have jumped ship in just the first week alone. The market is reacting swiftly and sharply, with Netflix’s shares plummeting 2.4% in a single session after Musk’s initial posts, wiping out a staggering $15-20 billion in market value overnight. This stark reminder that cultural missteps can vaporize billions of dollars in value is a wake-up call for companies to tread carefully.

While some outlets are reporting a partial rebound in Netflix’s shares, with a 2.19% increase from the boycott’s onset, the volatility is a clear indication of investor unease. Netflix has yet to release its subscriber metrics since late 2024, but the company’s deafening silence on the matter speaks volumes – if there were no significant losses, you can bet they’d be shouting it from the rooftops. The fact that they’re not denying any significant losses suggests that trouble may be brewing, especially if holiday churn accelerates. To put this into perspective, consider the Bud Light debacle, where Anheuser-Busch lost a whopping $27 billion in value after alienating its base with a similar progressive overreach. Netflix, valued at over $500 billion, is not immune to this kind of backlash, especially considering its 280 million global subscribers include a sizable conservative contingent in the US, where family viewing drives retention. If just 5% of these subscribers defect – that’s 14 million users – it could translate to a $1-2 billion annual revenue hit, according to analyst models.

The financial impact of this boycott has been immediate and quantifiable, highlighting the dangers of prioritizing cultural signaling over broad-market appeal. Netflix’s shares, which were trading at around $1,153 in early October, have logged their steepest weekly decline since April, plummeting approximately 5% in a single week amid the boycott’s momentum. This has resulted in a staggering evaporation of market capitalization, with estimates ranging from $15 billion to $25 billion in lost value within days of Musk’s initial posts. Subscriber churn, a perennial concern for streaming giants, has reportedly spiked, with tens of thousands of cancellations logged in the US alone since the campaign gained traction. For context, Netflix ended Q4 2024 with 301.63 million global subscribers, a figure that has driven its revenue to over $33 billion annually. However, even marginal losses – say, 1-2% of its domestic base – could erode $500-700 million in recurring annual revenue, assuming average pricing holds.

Ideological capture erodes trust, invites boycotts, and imperils long-term viability

Corporate America is witnessing this disturbing trend: the more companies push for diversity, equity, and inclusion, the more their shareholders lose. Netflix is a prime example, as its leaders are aggressively pursuing progressive content, including LGBTQ+ representation in kids’ shows and rejecting documentaries that are deemed “too political”. While these decisions are praised by liberals on the coasts, they’re alienating the heartland consumers who drive mass adoption. History is repeating itself – just look at the $1.4 billion in sales that Anheuser-Busch lost in 2023 due to the Bud Light controversy, or Disney’s stagnant valuation after it embraced similar themes. The recent backlash against Netflix on social media, with #CancelNetflix trending and posts getting millions of impressions, shows how the platform is a real-time indicator of public sentiment. This digital uproar is having a tangible impact on trading volumes and short interest, signaling that investors are getting nervous.

The takeaway for investors is clear: cultural risk is financial risk. With Netflix’s forward price-to-earnings ratio hovering around 40x, the company’s growth assumptions are already priced in, leaving little room for error if subscribers start to drop off. While Netflix might be able to weather this storm by cracking down on password sharing or expanding internationally, repeated mistakes could lead to a wave of cord-cutting among budget-conscious families. Savvy investors might want to diversify their portfolios by investing in media companies that aren’t as bogged down by content controversies, or in tech companies that don’t have to worry about offending anyone. The bottom line is that markets reward companies that cater to the average consumer, not those that try to appease niche activists. If Netflix doesn’t get back in tune with its audience, the next viral controversy could turn a temporary slump into a long-term decline. In the world of free enterprise, the customer’s wallet is the loudest voice of all.

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe

THE U.S. DEPT. OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES REFUTES THE CLAIM OF GENDER AFFIRMING CARE

And now onto our main discussion on the recent war against gender affirming care. To begin with, children diagnosed with gender dysphoria a condition defined by distress related to one’s biological sex or associated gender roles—are increasingly being offered powerful medical interventions. These include puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and, in some cases, irreversible surgeries such as mastectomy, vaginoplasty, or phalloplasty.

Recently, an umbrella review from the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) states that “thousands of American children and adolescents have received these interventions,” despite a lack of solid scientific footing. In addition, while advocates often claim the treatments are “medically necessary” and “lifesaving,” the report concludes “the overall quality of evidence concerning the effects of any intervention on psychological outcomes, quality of life, regret, or long-term health, is very low.” It also cautions that evidence of harm is sparse—but not necessarily because harms are rare, but due to limited long-term data, weak tracking, and publication bias. But, ultimately, the review amounts to a scathing review of the assumptions, ethics, and clinical practices driving gender-affirming care in the US.

“GENDER AFFIRMING CARE” IS BASED ON A DIGRESSION FROM MEDICAL ETHICS

First, at the heart of the HHS critique is a reversal of medical norms. To appreciate this, we would have to consider that in many areas of medicine, treatments are first established as safe and effective in adults before being extended to paediatric populations. However, in the case of gender affirming care, the opposite occurred!

This is to say that despite inconclusive outcomes in adults, these interventions were rolled out for children without rigorous data, and with little regard for long-term, often irreversible consequences. This includes irreversible consequences such as infertility, sexual dysfunction, impaired bone development, elevated cardiovascular risk, and psychiatric complications.

For example, puberty blockers, frequently marketed as a reversible ‘pause,’ actually interrupt bone mineralisation at a critical growth stage—raising the risk of stunted skeletal growth and early-onset osteoporosis. When followed by cross-sex hormones, as is common, the harms multiply. Known risks include metabolic disruption, blood clots, sterility, and permanent loss of sexual function. And yet, many clinics operate under a “child-led care” model, where a minor’s self-declared “embodiment goals” dictate treatment.

However, another issue with the child led model used in gender affirming care (in addition to its existence as a model), is the fact it is not based on any credible science – because children do not have a valid and objectively factual reason to claim gender dysphoria, without influence from environmental factors (i.e. social contagion, or the impact that contaminated food and pharmaceutical interventions have on hormones and biological development). This cannot be stressed enough, there is no such thing as organic gender dysphoria – there literally is no scientific basis for it AT ALL! RATHER, where its normalisation comes from is the intercession of medical science and social politics, meaning that it is the product of medical science being heavily influenced by pressure from those lobbying to make sectors of society bend towards political correctness and the LGBT agenda – thus leading to social contagion!

ARE CHILDREN CAPABLE OF CONSENTING TO LIFE-ALTERING MEDICAL INTERVENTIONS?

This brings us to one of the most critical issues to consider in the discussion on so-called gender affirming care – being child consent. More specifically, we ought to ask: Are children capable of consenting to life-altering medical interventions? Generally, we understand informed consent as meaning more than simple agreement informed consent requires a deep understanding of risks, alternatives, and long-term impact (meaning consequences of a choice or action).

This means that, by definition, children often lack full legal and developmental capacity for medical decision-making – because they do not possess sufficient maturity and mental reasoning or processing capacities to understand the gravity of irreversible decisions, beyond a temporary fixation of an assumed benefit. Therefore, when medical interventions pose unnecessary, disproportionate risks of harm, healthcare providers should refuse to offer them even when they are preferred, requested, or demanded by an under-age patient!

THE DECEPTIVELY CONSTRUCTED “MATURE MINOR DOCTRINE

But, the medical industrial complex that benefits from these procedures created a loophole to this issue on minor consent, through collaborating with lawmakers to form the mature minor or minor consent doctrine in a number of states – starting with vaccination and thus creating precedent for gender transitions. In essence, “Minor consent” – which refers to a child being legally able to consent to vaccinations or other treatments without parental consent – exists in multiple US states. For example, in California, minor consent is legal for some vaccines beginning at age 12, while in New York, there is no set lower age limit for a child to consent to Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccination. Washington State is among the most extreme. The pro-vaccine organisation Vaxteen describes Washington’s “mature minor doctrine” as follows. They state that: In Washington, minors of any age do not need their parent’s consent to receive all healthcare services, including vaccinations. This is called a “mature minor doctrine” and essentially means that if you talk to your doctor/healthcare provider and they decide you are “mature enough” to make your own health care decisions, you can.

Of course, it is still vague what mature enough would mean, and based on how proponents of child mutilation surgeries have run away from directly addressing the argument that children are not mature enough to make decisions on permanent or temporary health decisions, you can probably deduce that there is no objective metric to measure the maturity of a child.

Well, in an interesting shift in events, even members of the alphabet community are recognizing that there is no basis for informed consent in so-called gender affirming care. For instance, Jamie Reed testified on the 9th of May in Maine in support of bill LD380, which would require parental consent to medicalise a minor. She correctly differentiates between consent and assent, detailing that in medical procedures driven by minors, at best all those children can provide is assent, meaning agreement to allowing the procedure to take place. However, this does not amount to informed consent, because often the children do not know the extent of the changes and harm they are agreeing to. The pendulum is swinging towards common sense.

Based on this concession from even the alphabet people, it further emphasises that supportive parents cannot shield clinicians from ethical responsibility. Especially considering that any children who present for transition also have autism, trauma histories, depression, or anxiety all of which can impair decision-making. Yet clinicians frequently misread a child’s desire to transition as evidence of capacity.

But, once again, there is no such thing as organic gender dysphoria (meaning gender dysphoria that is not influenced by environmental factors). And not only is there no organic gender dysphoria, but the actual mental illnesses that children are struggling with are being ignored, in order to justify the claim of gender dysphoria. There was even a trend (especially among medical professionals) of not questioning the unstable nature of gender dysphoria claims, and rather affirming the so-called transgender children, in the name of compassion. But, Vivek Ramaswamy correctly stated that that trend was based on a false dichotomy, that resulted in the assumption that compassion can only come with affirming gender dysphoria claims.

Ultimately, there is a general consensus that children are not regarded as fully mature beings who are capable of complete expression or legal consent. The reason for this is that children, in all that they progressively learn, do not always fully appreciate the complex concepts (which is why complex concepts are simplified and taught at their level of understanding), and they are also not fully able to appreciate the consequences of actions, even when they are taught those actions are wrong or right: as I’ve said before, this is part of the reason why five year olds do not drive, or why children do not have legal standing to represent themselves in court, or even why it is considered negligent for an adult to leave a child alone near a large body of water. And so, what is claimed to be intuitive knowledge from a child when they claim to be “mis-gendered” can not be regarded as an objective fact. Furthermore, it is to fail the parental or medical duty to care when children are allowed to transition, while making permanent decisions based on temporary feelings.

“GENDER AFFIRMING CARE” REPRESENTS A MORAL PROBLEM IN MODERN MEDICINE AND LAW

Considering that the medical industrial complex has manufactured a doctrine of minor consent to perform mutilation procedures on children despite the irreversible harms, it becomes evident that the problem is not only medical it’s moral. In light of this, in the aforementioned HSS report, the HHS accuses the medical establishment of abandoning its core duty: which is to protect vulnerable patients. The HHS argues that ideology and activism have taken precedence over evidence and caution.

This is to say that the evidence of the benefit of paediatric medical transition is very uncertain, while the evidence for harm is less uncertain. And among the most disturbing trends highlighted in the report is the sidelining of mental health support. Research suggests that most cases of claimed paediatric gender dysphoria resolve without intervention. Yet clinicians continue to proceed with irreversible treatments. Meanwhile, medical professionals have no way to know which patients may continue to experience the claimed gender dysphoria and which will come to terms with their bodies. This means that they perform treatments that aren’t based on a genuinely conceived mandate to care for the patient, but based on a careless disregard for their duty to care! A detransitioner adds to this account..

Well, you’d recall that in light of this, the Supreme Court in the US heard arguments of gender affirming care in December 2024, and indicated that the majority was leaning toward upholding a Tennessee law that restricts so-called gender transition treatments for minors. Now, this case (in essence) decides whether, under the US constitution, states are allowed to outlaw child mutilation in the name of gender ideology. But, now, a few years or even months back, this case would have been inconceivable because it was considered inherently wrong to allow children to consent to irreversible harm, which would be inclusive of the almost irreversible procedures that are conducted of so-called transgender children. Of course, what then happened is that trans activists intimidated people who opposed gender ideology (especially through the incorporation of cancel culture). What also happened is that there were a number of woke activist judges who were co-opted into the court system.

For instance, while the Supreme Court was hearing a case on whether banning the medical transitioning of minors violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause, Justice Sotomayor argued that children denied “gender affirming care” may kill themselves or become drug addicts.

Let’s (once again) address this alleged threat of suicide, where children are denied so-called gender affirming care, as also articulated by Justice Sotomayor. I believe that this threat only has an impact because it is not actually analysed. And I do not necessarily blame parents for this: when a parent is told that their child is at risk of ending their life, that easily seems like the worst case scenario and thus has the potential to dilute their concerns about child mutilation, if they do not understand the full extent of the harms that child mutilation also brings. And so, compassion will likely move parents to want to save their children (at least as they are coerced to) – especially if they do not fully understand what the transition would mean for their children.

And so, to address this claim of suicide, let’s look at children (or former children) who are now speaking out against allowing minors to make choices that have an irreversable impact on them. SPOILER ALERT: these children and young adults are advocating hard against allowing minors to make such decisions because they are now dealing with the consequences of having been allowed to make decisions with permanent ramifications on the basis of temporary feelings. This is an excerpt from a documentary titled ‘THE GENDER AGENDA’, produced by the President of Loveworld Incorporated, and available on the Ceflix platform. He documentary zoomed in on cases of minors who were reflecting on having been allowed to make the decision to mutilate themselves.

What is interesting to note, is that children who opted for child mutilation, were actually coerced into it because even they were told they would end their lives if they did not transition! So, it appears that the threat of suicide originated from the medical practitioners who perform these surgeries of distribute the puberty blockers! SECONDLY, if children are not being told that THEY will end their lives if they do not opt for mutilation, they are often already struggling with mental health issues, like depression. Therefore, even in this instance, parents are not risking the lives of their children by refusing to opt for child mutilation – because the depression and mental health issue would exist independent of the option for mutilation or “transitioning”.

Finally, in refuting the suicide claim tha tis used to coerce parents, it is worth noting, especially from the young lady towards the end of the excerpt we just watched from the documentary, that a massive contributor to mental illness or depression is the regret that comes from having undergone the child mutilation processes and then realise that even when you detransition, you may never gain back your biological experiences and privileges, like starying a family. We all watched her weep and lament the sense that she does not think anyone can love her anymore, which I genuinely hope she knows is not true, because even if she was the only person on earth, Christ would have still died for her in his unwavering love for her.

THE GENDER ARE GENDER AS A WEAPON OF POLITICAL MANOEUVRING

But, seeing how gender affirming care has been systematically pushed, we also have to not miss that it has been organised as a political weapon – that is even being wielded by activist judges. And the idea that the gender agenda is a tool of political manoeuvring is not a mere statement or semantics – it really has become utilised in this manner. For instance, those who are proponents of the agenda use it to gain certain privileges or to institute changes in society that are to their favour – no matter how ridiculous. For instance, LA City in June 2024 took down a couple “no U-turn” traffic signs in Silver Lake, California because the signs are anti-LGBTQ. Really, it is almost disturbing how much this is a group that so desperately wants to be “oppressed” or “marginalised”, because that somehow validates their existence.

But, the use of the gender agenda as a political manoeuvering tool is not exclusive to privileges of the change to social standards and law; the gender agenda is now also mechanism for targeting those who dissent to it. In fact, we recently discussed the story of the DOJ’s charge against Dr Ethain Haim in Texas. More specifically, the DOJ unsealed an indictment against Dr Eithan Haim, who last year leaked evidence of cross-sex hormone procedures being performed at a Texas hospital despite the facility claiming to have halted them, with the surgeon facing four felony counts for alleged violations of a medical-records law that could land him in prison for up to 10 years. The DOJ announced on June 17 that it had charged Dr Haim for obtaining protected individual health information for patients who were not under his care, allegedly acting without authorisation and with intent to cause malicious harm to Texas Children’s Hospital (TCH).

We also discussed the fact that, in this case, the controversy actually centers on the fact that the TCH, which the largest children’s hospital in the country, publicly declared in March 2022 that it was halting “hormone-related prescription therapies for gender-affirming services” for minors, citing potential legal and criminal liability after Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton declared that prescription of puberty blockers was “child abuse” under Texas law. And that, however, the documents leaked by Dr. Haim purportedly showed that the hospital continued to perform some “gender-affirming” therapies after the announcement, including one procedure on an 11-year-old three days after it made the declaration. And so, he was actually functioning as a whistleblower against an institution that was breaking the law in this case.

Written y Lindokuhle Mabaso

The left (in particular) constructed the apparatus of cancel culture by combining moral blackmail, weaponised empathy, reputational destruction, and emotional manipulation. Nothing about this speaks of constructive change in society; rather, this culture is a vehicle for self-censorship, in that it fosters a society where people are supposed to be afraid of being different, politically incorrect, or even wrong. Instead of encouraging learning and growth, it pressures people to walk on eggshells, self-censor, and avoid tough conversations.

And a big part of the problem is the media. On social media, outrage gets clicks, and so instead of providing context or allowing room for change, social media platforms reduce everything to a black-and-white issue. And where a person is considered to be in error (which is often done by a select group of people who assume a monopoly on truth and moral correctness – typically because their political inclinations are popular at the time), well, that person that is deemed to be in the wrong is then subject to ostracism. There is no consideration for growth, and no willingness to forgive. Meanwhile, the wrath of the cancellation mob is also inconsistent—some people get canceled instantly, while others get a free pass depending on public opinion and standing.

Of course, the irony is that this actually hurts accountability, through the encouragement of self-censorship. When people know a single mistake could ruin them forever, they’re less likely to admit when they’re wrong or have real discussions. Instead of a culture that encourages constructive and constant learning, cancel culture punishes and silences. In the end, all we get is a society that’s too scared to speak freely, a media that thrives on outrage, and a world where acting in error is supposed to justify people devising plans to end your livelihood.

Ultimately, “Cancel Culture” is a means of social engineering society to normalise the removal of your right to a fair trial, to normalise anti-free speech legislation, censorship, and the erasure of your perspective. It is thus inherently wrong, regardless of who wields it. And it must be rejected from the left, the right, and from the media.

CANCEL CULTURE DOES NOT MAKE A CONSTRUCTIVE CONTRIBUTION TO SOCIETY

When we observe the loving character of God, and the forgiveness that He has made readily available for us to receive and not even ask for; we inherently understand how essential forgiveness and gracious nature are, when concerned with demonstrating the virtues, excellencies and perfections of the Father. Furthermore, in observing this forgiving and gracious nature of the Father, we can also appreciate that a contrary nature is of the devil. This is a fundamental truth to ingest when discussing cancel culture because it is a culture that is void of virtues such as forgiveness and grace. This culture is built on reducing the nature and character of people to something wrong that they might have done (and oftentimes the definition of what is wrong is highly politicised and subjective to those making the cancellation).

This teaching is incredibly important because it reveals that an incapacity or unwillingness to forgive is a satanic nature. Subsequently, this teaching, therefore, exposes the diabolical origins of cancel culture, which is a culture based on holding people’s alleged errors against them; and essentially making it appear unforgivable to have ever made a mistake.

However, in addition to its satanic origins, culture is also dangerous as it perpetuates a war on free speech. The reason is that part of what happens when a person’s speech is being problematised or a person is being cancelled for their speech, in order to regain social acceptance or political capital in the society, that person has to renounce their convictions, and adopt those that are imposed by the people who cancelled them. In fact, you would have seen people make apology statements or videos (that weirdly always sound the same). But, firstly, the people problematising the speech of others (also known as the woke mob) are not a metric for ethics! They tend to have a propensity towards leftist ideals, and thus celebrate destructive ideals and pursuits, like child mutilation or biological men in women’s sports. Which is why they have never cancelled, say, Lia Thomans for being a biological male competing against women. While Riley Gaines, who is a biological woman who speaks out against having competed against people like Lia Thomas is regarded as a transphobic bigot, who must be cancelled.

Secondly, even in instances where the speech that is being cancelled is wrong, for instances where people make racist or derogatory remarks), cancel culture – given its satanic origins – is not a genuine vehicle for meaningful societal change. This is to say that when people are coerced to renounce certain statements or convictions in order to appease the public, this is often only done to pacify the mob, and not as a result of genuine introspection and a sincere change in how a person thinks. And so, all that cancel culture does is create people who construct pretentious presentations for society. This is why, a lot of times, liberals cannot provide a constructive argument for their alleged convictions, outside generic liberal rhetoric or even ad hominems.

I say all this to say that cancel culture does not play a constructive role in society. It is hinged on reducing people to the wrong conduct they might have done, it lacks forgiveness, and it perpetuates a war on free speech, while failing to provide a vehicle for genuine and constructive social change.

This portion of our discussion also highlights why the X platform is critical; many people are not interested in apologising for their convictions – and this has for the most part been people with Christian and conservative worldviews. And so, on X we’ve had a platform that allows us to speak freely without being subject to censorship of the wrath of the cancel culture mob. And this very nature of X is intrinsic to the vision Musk had for it.

LEST WE FORGET: THE LEFT’S WEAPONISATION OF CANCEL CULTURE

When you hear the phrase “cancel culture,” what immediately comes to mind are multiple examples of people being ridiculed and ostracised, as a part of one of the intolerant products of “Wokeness.” We generally associate cancel culture with being a weapon of the left that has been used to assert its temporary dominance in the academy, the media, and pop culture, society and political discourse at large.

There’s no question that left-wing intolerance is a reality. There’s no question that progressive shame campaigns have been used to destroy reputations and careers. This is the very legacy of cancel culture which is that it was weaponised by the left against those who disagreed with them. In fact, Christains, conservatives and Republicans know this too well. And thankfully, this is being pushed back on in the second Trump administration.

WHY CONSERVATIVES ARE BEING ACCUSED OF ADOPTING CANCEL OR “CAPITULATION” CULTURE

Well, while we typically know cancel culture as a by-product of wokeness, and the left’s weaponisation of it, it is something that some conservatives are dabbling in, while the left correctly points this out. In fact, they are calling it “capitulation culture” — which is said to be the parade of companies, financiers, billionaires and politicians who once opposed Trump but now align with him. It is a ridiculous definition, but it has some ground.

For instance, Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Meta, pledged $1 million to the Trump campaign in 2024. Prior to that, Zuckerberg had banned Trump from Facebook after the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. Trump had claimed that Zuckerberg interfered with the election and threatened to throw him in prison. But since the election, Zuckerberg has dined with Trump and announced that Facebook will stop fact-checking user posts. Instead, he’ll allow users to add their own responses to questionable posts.

But, some on the right saw these developments with Zuckerberg and curiously responded that he does not deserve a forgiving Trump response, and should be subject to the same measures that he instituted on society, which is essentially censorship and ostracism. It was the same thing with a comedian who ridiculed CNN’s biased news coverage in January this year. While people on the right were celebrating her willingness to not only tell those typically cancellable jokes, but also make appropriate social commentary, some on the right quickly pulled up the fact that she used to be pro-vaccines and did not even allow people to attend her shows without being vaccinated.

Now, in both these cases, there should be room to concede that there was wrongful conduct from these actors in the past; there may even be a degree of suspicion on what motivated the change in these individuals. But, what the right should not do is assume a monopoly and gate keeping privilege to the truth and patriotic values, such as embracing a response for free speech. For the past decade, the political Right has lamented “cancel culture.” The idea was that the Left unfairly stoked race and gender hysteria to restrict the terms of debate and to cast anyone deemed in violation of the mandated terms into a state of social annihilation. Teenagers who sang along with rap songs have been denied entry into college. Political figures who failed to use the latest euphemisms found themselves cast into the void.

Now, with the second Trump administration, the rules of social annihilation are seemingly being rewritten in real time. The presidential appointments of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Pete Hegseth might have been derailed, or not even attempted, in Trump’s first presidency. Yet, despite the salacious accusations against the two nominees, Senate Republicans held firm and confirmed both men.

Likewise, when left-wing journalists exposed a young DOGE staffer, Marko Elez, for pseudonymous social media posts, including “I was racist before it was cool” and “normalize Indian hate,” Elez resigned in what amounted to preemptive self-cancellation. Elez might have been ironically riding the “edge” of the discourse, violating a taboo for a sense of thrill, but when his identity was revealed, he expected the old penalty. Then something different happened: Elez’s colleagues rallied to his support, with Vice President J. D. Vance arguing that “stupid social media activities should not ruin a kid’s life.” What would have ended with a social death sentence five years ago instead became a short blip. In what was an objectively inspiring display of political and moral leadership, the US vice president rejected the calculus of left-wing cancel culture, demonstrating instead that forgiveness, loyalty, and a sense of proportion should be part of the decision-making process in such controversies. And so, Elez was reinstated.

THE RIGHT CANNOT AFFORD TO BECOME LIKE THE LEFT THAT IT SO STRONGLY OPPOSED

Furthermore, when the left had power over the culture, it had a ready-made answer to the questions of values and power. It proposed intersectionality, critical race theory, and gender cultism as an operating ideology and guide for policing the discourse. If you violated the tenets of those theories in a work chat or a social media post, you placed yourself at risk of social consequences. The New York Times, The Atlantic, or Gawker could ruin a career or delete an individual from polite society by exposing an ideological faux pas. Even ostensibly right-wing institutions often buckled to their demands.

Now that the Right finds itself ascendant, it has the opportunity to provide a better answer to these questions – through fostering and even imposing a forgiving and cooperative culture. Culture is often a way for society to establish a particular hierarchy of values and to provide a way to police the boundaries. And so, the right has an opportunity (especially in the second Trump administration, and the wave of popular right wing parties in Europe) to propose a new set of values that expands the range of acceptable discourse rightward and provides a method for adjudicating the limits. And by adjudicating or policing the limits, this does not require us to invent the wheel, we need simply go back to the fact that free speech is an absolute and inalienable right, and not ostracised people for disagreeing with us, or even spewing hateful remarks about us – all while publishing the truth.

This is literally all it takes to protect our values. From the perspective of practical politics, this will determine how the Right can protect its own members from unjust cancellation attempts and how it can enforce just consequences on political opponents who violate the new terms. Meaning that even in instances where political opponents are vicious liers, who spew deceptive remarks, we would not resort to the left’s tactic of cancelling culture to defend our values and protect those who labour earnestly with us.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso