Search Results

As part of our special series on the U.S. presidential transition period, Sebastian Gorka breaks down the complexities of recent events in Syria, and what the incoming Trump administration’s foreign policy may look like when it comes to NATO, the Middle East, Russia, and China. Watch the video: Gorka will serve as Trump’s deputy assistant and senior director for counterterrorism at the National Security Council. Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and the guest, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times. RUSH TRANSCRIPT Jan Jekielek: Sebastian Gorka, such a pleasure to have you back on American Thought Leaders. Sebastian Gorka: Great to be back. Thank you for having me, Jan. Mr. Jekielek: We’re going to talk about the incredible complexities of Syria today. But before we go there, congratulations on becoming the Deputy Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Counterterrorism at the National Security Council. That’s an elevated role for this position, as I understand it. Mr. Gorka: This is the Byzantine minutiae of White House ranking structures. There are three senior positions inside the White House working for the president. The highest is assistant to the president. That’s, for example, Mike Waltz, the national security advisor. Then there are people at my rank, Deputy Assistant to the President. And in reverse kind of order, because it sounds the coolest, the lowest rank is Special Assistant to the President. These are all abbreviated APs, DAPs, and SAPs. It’s very unusual to have somebody of my rank, a Deputy Assistant to the President, to be a Senior Director in the National Security Council. It doesn’t usually happen. It’s a function of having worked for the President already in the first Trump administration. It gives me a little bit more oomph, if you will, to my position running counterterrorism. Mr. Jekielek: It seems like terrorism is an elevated issue for America in general right now. Could you comment on that? Mr. Gorka: Yes. Sadly, it is for numerous reasons both extrinsically and internally. So what do we have internally? We have four years of a literal open border. The official Biden figures are eight million illegals let into the country in the last four years. Those are the ones that we know of. If you add to that the so-called gotaways, people who never interact with Customs and Border Patrol or DHS at the border, you can probably safely double it. So that’s 16 million people who’ve crossed into America who we don’t know who they are. If only 1% of them are malefactors; jihadis, al-Qaeda, ISIS, al-Nusra, and Hamas, then we’re talking about divisional-size assets. We’re talking about potentially thousands, if not tens of thousands of malefactors. That’s going to be Tom Homan. That’s going to be the border czar. That’s going to be Governor Noem. That’s going to be Kash Patel. We’re going to have to identify these people and then neutralize them, get them out of America. That’s just the domestic counterterrorism threat. Then if we look externally, where to begin? Biden’s surrender of Afghanistan gives it back to the Taliban. It becomes a safe haven once again for jihadis like al-Qaeda. Then we see the disastrous events in Syria. Don’t get me wrong. The Assad regime was 50 years of just bloodthirsty dictatorship. But now who’s taken over? It’s a guy who was part of ISIS. This person who says, oh, I like minorities now. Well, jihadis rarely become moderate, especially after they attain power. There is much for us to do, day one when it comes to the domestic terrorist threat and when it comes to the recrudescence of global jihadism. Mr. Jekielek: The president was saying, let this all play out. What are you thinking about that? Mr. Gorka: What people don’t understand about President Trump’s geopolitical stance, and I tried to explain this in the first administration, is he’s not the extreme of a neo-Buchananite isolationist, this wing of the conservative movement that says, who cares about the rest of the world? Pull down the shutters on the Pacific and the Atlantic. It’s irrelevant. He knows that’s asinine because it didn’t work in 1941 in Pearl Harbor. It didn’t work on September 11th with the al-Qaeda attacks on America. Yet he’s not the other extreme. He’s not a neoconservative interventionist. He doesn’t believe in this ridiculous concept that, you know, you can go to Afghanistan, you can go to Iraq and create democracy at the end of a gun barrel. What he does, and he’s actually approved this term, I coined the description of his foreign policy as surgical strength. He’s not an interventionist, but when you cross a line, for example, Assad’s use of chemical weapons in Syria, he doesn’t talk about red lines. He takes action. He drops 52 cruise missiles on that Syrian air base. When he heard that 300 Russian mercenaries were running around the Middle East, he didn’t say, don’t do that, Putin. He ordered the then Secretary of Defense, to kill them all. And in the Battle of Khasam, he did what no president has ever done since the 1917 October Revolution. Our forces killed hundreds of Russian military personnel in four hours. Why? Because he wasn’t going to invade that country and try and create some kind of, you know, panacea paradise. No, he said, Russia, stop destabilizing this region. Stop threatening our troops. I will come down like the hammers of hell. So President Trump has also, I think that all caps messages with regards to Syria must be put in the context of what the president posted. What was it, 10 days ago with regards to the U.S. hostages who have been taken by Hamas. I met with the families. They gave me this bring-them-all-home bracelet when I met with them last week. They were so gladdened by what the president said. He said in all caps, if our hostages are not returned by the inauguration, quote, capital letters, there will be all hell to pay. On the line between the insane interventionism of the neocons and the ridiculous isolationism of the neo-Buchananites, President Trump is about one thing, peace through strength. Mr. Jekielek: I use that example often about the Russian gray zone, mercenary soldiers, with unclear affiliation in Syria. But once they were gone, there were no more interventions, right? Mr. Gorka: Right. But there are multiple examples of that. So whether it’s a cruise missile attack on Syria, which happened, remember, during the quasi-state visit of Xi Jinping to Mar-a-Lago. And you can see the footage of President Trump, you know, leaning over the dictator of China, saying through the interpreter over the, you know, the best chocolate cake in the world, oh, by the way, I just turned the Syrian airbase into a sheet of glass. That act wasn’t just a message for Assad. That was a message for Beijing. That was a message for Kim in North Korea. That was a message for Putin. You cross the line. We’re not going to talk about threats. We’re just going to take action and leave. The same thing with the MOAB that we dropped on al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, or Qasem Soleimani, the most dangerous terrorist leader in the world, the guy who ran all the proxy threat groups for Iran. What did we do? He had to be recognized by the signet ring that was left on the severed finger after we droned his convoy and took him out when we informed the president he was about to attack upwards of 600 US servicemen in the Middle East. He just said, kill him, and kill him now. Where did we decide to neutralize Soleimani? On the road to the Iraqi prime minister’s offices in Iraq, sending a message that we know what you’re doing in the region, and this is a message for everyone in the region, that we will not countenance people threatening our interests, and we will take action. So it’s this very precise, overwhelming use of force when necessary, but then in the meantime focusing on U.S. national security, the prosperity of America. Mr. Jekielek: You mentioned this interaction with Xi Jinping. Why would President Trump, in a very unprecedented move, invite Xi Jinping to the inauguration. Mr. Gorka: I haven’t discussed this with him, but I think it’s a genius move. I had Gordon Chang on my show to discuss it last week. There are two obvious interpretations. Number one, you’re showing the dictator of the world’s largest communist nation a peaceful transition of power. Hey, this is how it should be. You should have a government that represents the people, and 77 million Americans spoke and they said they don’t want Kamala Harris. They don’t want an extension of Obama through Biden. They want President Trump in office. This is how it’s done. This is how the will of the people is exercised. On top of that, it’s this idea of who’s going to be there? Everybody. Look at the list of heads of state that have already been invited. This is a message that American leadership is back. Recognize it or not at your peril, the old sheriff is back. Either way, it’s a genius move. Mr. Jekielek: Let’s jump to Syria. I’ve heard an analysis that says this is an utter and complete disaster, that Assad was providing stability in the region. Others say that Syria was a client of Iran and Russia, so it’s very good for American interests to have this regime fall. Please give us a broad picture of the complexity of this situation. Mr. Gorka: It is incredibly complex because most of the players or the key players like Jolani, like Assad himself, have switched sides in the last 14, or 15 years or have created new allegiances. When you see Assad in recent years trying to make friends with the Saudi regime, what is the client state of Iran doing making friends with the Saudi regime? Because he was desperate to strengthen and shore up his own government, which was under assault from Free Syria forces. So it is beyond just one 30-minute interview to express the complexities of the situation. But let’s just fix the key points. This regime was truly hellacious. Look at the now-released footage, the drone footage of Hama. It wasn’t enough for Assad’s father in 1982 to kill at least 40,000 Arabs in Hama who were against his regime. Now his son did it again. Hama today, if you look at the latest drone footage, looks like Hiroshima. It looks as if a nuclear bomb had landed. That’s conventional weapons and artillery being used against Syrian civilians. Nobody should shed a tear for this regime falling. Nevertheless, from the Wall Street Journal on down, there are these utterly naive analyses that this new guy may have been al-Qaeda, but he’s a moderate now who’s replaced Assad. That’s sheer lunacy. I’ve been studying the jihadi movement for the last 30 years, from its birth after Mustafa Kemal Ataturk dissolved the caliphate, the establishment of the Ikhwan Muslimin, all the way through to al-Qaeda and ISIS. Since 1924, there’s never been a jihadi leader who has been severing heads on video, like Daniel Pearl, who suddenly becomes moderate and says, oh, today I like Jews and Christians and I will take over this country and we'll be fine now. That’s just ridiculous. The idea that a jihadi changes his clothing, if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you in Connecticut. What we see right now is a country in flux, especially after October the 7th. If you look at what Israel has done in the region, they’ve basically redrawn the map of the region because of their very, very aggressive operations against the worst jihadi organizations, the satrapy proxies of Iran in Hamas, in Hezbollah. And there is a possibility. Now, I’m not going to, you know, predict what President Trump is going to do or Colonel Waltz, the incoming National Security Advisor. But there is a moment of opportunity now to work with our partners and friends in the region. Colonel Waltz, the incoming National Security Advisor, is a Green Beret, the first Green Beret to be elected to Congress. The Green Berets have one saying that defines everything they do, by, with, and through. Through local governments and local insurgencies. Either they’re helping the local governments or they’re helping the resistance movements. That’s the job of the Green Beret ever since, you know, JFK said you will be wearing the Green Beret. So President Trump is not interested in intervention. This is clear. That’s not America First and MAGA is not interested in intervention. But do we want to have a part of the world that has sent terrorists to America to kill thousands of people in one morning in Manhattan D.C. and Pennsylvania. Do we think that region would be good if it was stable? Yeah, probably, but not at the cost of the 82nd Airborne being deployed there. But we have people we can work with and we can assist, whether it’s the IDF, whether it’s Jerusalem, the government of Israel, whether it’s the Kurds. This is the shocking thing. I spoke to one of the greatest experts on the region recently, and I said, I asked a very important question. After the last four years of being deserted by America under Biden, do the Kurds still trust us? And this expert who’s from the region said, yes, they can’t wait for President Trump to come back. Whether it’s the Kurds in the north, whether it’s Israel securing the south, or whether it’s, I mean, let’s be clear here. I mean, this is where it gets into the granularity. There are numerous Arab actors, militias in Syria who are not jihadi and not Assad and just want that country to have a representative government, whether it’s Arab freedom fighters, whether it’s the Kurds, whether it’s Israel, or whether it’s our Gulf state allies. Think about what we did in the first Trump administration with the Abraham Accords. Truly historic. Those nations want the Abraham Accords 2.0. They want to add to the list of nations that are normalizing relations with Israel. So the potential is huge. Mr. Jekielek: There are a few other things that are happening in the region as well. The Druze are going to try seceding from Syria and we don’t know how Israel is going to respond to that. You can imagine they would be interested in that given the reality you just described. Erdogan in Turkey is saying, some of these lands are ours. Seb, what is happening with these issues? Mr. Gorka: The Druze seem to be highly, highly motivated and they could be another potential partner for those who wish to stabilize the region. The question for Erdogan and for Ankara, and I'll leave this to Senator Rubio and the president, is does that nation wish to behave as a decent pillar of NATO? This is the thing. This is a NATO nation. What is the goal of that regime, and does it fit into a collective defense alliance, which is NATO? Those are the questions that they need to answer for themselves and provide credible answers to the incoming cabinet with President Trump. You know, that’s to be settled probably behind closed doors after January the 20th. Mr. Jekielek: Thinking of NATO, there’s a lot of, or I’ve seen a lot of criticism of NATO and, you know, basically, you know, questions about NATO’s value from, you know, from parts of this coalition that elected President Trump and the people coming into office right now? How do you read that? Mr. Gorka: When it comes to President Trump and NATO, the majority of the representations are utterly fallacious and classic fake news. I’ve done a lot of interviews with foreign press agencies in the last few months, especially after the president won. I had the head of a Scandinavian news agency sit in my studio and ask, so is President Trump going to leave NATO? We’ve been in power before. President Trump has been the commander in chief. What did he do then with regard to NATO? He said one very simple thing. Stop freeloading. Stop being deadbeats. Now, I actually, my professional career begins in NATO issues. I had served in the British reserves in the army. As a result of being born to Hungarian immigrants, and refugees from the communist regime, I got a job in the first freely elected post-communist Hungarian government to help that conservative administration join NATO after having left the Soviet bloc. I worked on NATO issues all through the 90s. I ended up as the first Hungarian-British fellow at NATO Defense College in Rome. My thesis was actually about something called the freeloader complex. Now, think of this. 30 years ago, when I cut my teeth on these issues, it was already something that had a catchphrase, the freeloader complex of NATO, meaning there were sizable numbers of members back then who said, America’s going to protect us. We’ve got Article 5. We don’t need to spend on defense, literally being deadbeat members of a club where there are dues to be paid, and the rich member pays your dues because you’re so much of a lightweight. That was a problem 30 years ago. And President Trump knew it. He gave interviews. Go to Oprah in the 80s. See the interviews he gave on China, on NATO. These aren’t things he discovered. These are things he’s been thinking about for decades. Then we came in. I'll never forget when the then-German chancellor came for the first bilateral in Washington. And she met with my then-boss, Steve Bannon, the chief strategist to the president. And she was railing about how Germany takes NATO membership seriously. Why are you berating us? And Steve said, President Trump has just signed this incremental increase to the U.S. defense budget. Just the increment, which is bigger than the whole German defense budget. And you’re telling us you’re serious? The increment is bigger than your whole budget and you’re the richest nation in Europe. So all the president said is, when we came in, less than 30% of NATO nations were meeting their targets, were actually paying the agreed upon 2% of GDP to their defense so that we could have a robust collective capacity. And the president said, that’s inadequate. And because of that art of the deal bargaining, you know, playing hardball, what happened? By the time he left office, that number had, the number of those who were actually paying their dues had gone from 22, 23 percent to more than 60. We'd almost tripled the strength of the alliance by saying, you want to be a friend of ours? Act like a serious alliance member. That’s all the president wants. If you want to be a friend of ours, act like one. Mr. Jekielek: This strategy was very successful. Do you think NATO is important? Mr. Gorka: NATO and its original mission are absolutely more important than it has ever been. Whatever you think about Ukraine, it’s on the border of NATO. Hungary, where I lived for 15 years, shares a border with Ukraine. The Baltic states know very seriously what it means to be invaded and have your sovereignty swallowed up by Moscow. Can America separate itself from an all-out war on the Eurasian landmass? You don’t have to read Spykman or Mackinder, the great geostrategists of the 20th century, to understand that what happens on the Eurasian landmass sooner or later impacts upon the safety and the prosperity of all Americans. That’s not to argue the 82nd Airborne should be parachuting into Vilnius right now. No, it’s to say in an interconnected world where we have jetliners on the internet and we have intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarines and nuclear weapons, things are interconnected. And there are only a few truly geopolitical areas in the world. And the Eurasian landmass is one of them. So the idea that there should be an organization there that plays a role in protecting the integrity of that continent, is probably a good thing for America. Mr. Jekielek: There have been various ideas about what to do with the Western front, which is communist China. One of them was to add to NATO. Another idea is to have another alliance that is firmer. There is increasing interest in this as China becomes more belligerent in the South China Sea. Any thoughts on that? Mr. Gorka: I don’t think it makes sense to say you can just add as many regions as you want to the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance. I think it’s very much a function of World War II and the Cold War, and it makes sense. Again, you’re only serious if you have the capabilities to project power. If you’re talking about defending your doorstep, well, Germany, the UK, and France, surely they should be responsible for stabilizing the continent on which they exist. That makes sense. But how is Finland going to help Taiwan? I’m not sure that kind of geographically makes sense. But with regard to China, let me be very honest. When I arrived at the White House the first time, with my background in counterterrorism, that was what I expected to do. But once you get the clearances and once you read the president’s daily intelligence briefing and you have access to the most powerful intelligence resources in the world, you realize very rapidly that every other threat is totally manageable, whether it’s ISIS, al-Qaeda, whether it’s North Korea, whether it’s Russia, whether it’s Iran. These are all absolutely eminently manageable. Look at ISIS. We had been told by Obama, quote, this is a generational threat we just have to live with, like we just have to suck it up and deal with it. President Trump said, we just have to put up with the resurgence of this brutal caliphate in the Middle East? That’s absolute garbage. He unleashed tier-one operators, JSOC, and everybody else. He got the lawyers out of the way and said, kill them, and destroy the physical caliphate of ISIS. Within a matter of months, that which we had been told would be here for generations ceased to exist. That’s the level of decisiveness that we had, and the capacity that we had to deal with these multiple threats. I was there for the summit in Singapore. We dealt with North Korea. We put them on a track toward some kind of quasi-normalization. We had tariff wars with China that worked incredibly well. Russia did nothing. Think about this. We killed 300 Wagner Group mercenaries working for Putin in Syria. He didn’t even hold a press conference afterward, because he realized, I don’t need to mess with this guy. But China is sui generis, in a category all of itself. This is what I learned from the president and from amazing people like Peter Navarro. There is only one peer competitor we have, which has the will and the capacity to displace us. Don’t just listen to me. Read the primary sources. Go back to the 1990 book, Unrestricted Warfare, by two then-senior PLA colonels who are now generals in the People’s Liberation Army, who write the guidebook on how to take down a superpower like America. Listen to the speeches from the Central Committee, from Xi Jinping, about one belt, one road, how every nation will be either a tributary nation, a satrapy, or defeated. They have a plan. This is not Sebastian Gorka talking. For the 100th anniversary of the revolution in 2048, they wish to be the sole hegemonic power in the world. And China has been working on this for decades now. Whether it’s one belt, one road, whether it’s co-opting the rare earth mineral deposits in Africa, whether it’s investing in various regions close to America in ways that are deemed by the local governments to be very gracious and kind, but are actually about locking those countries into military cooperation with Beijing. Beijing is the primary challenge for America, but the good thing is President Trump fully understands that. Mr. Jekielek: If I may comment on speeches or commentary by influential Chinese, let’s call them policy wonks, I’m thinking about the one, as you’re describing this, of keeping America embroiled in multiple conflicts, at least one with a non-state actor. I know you’re familiar with this. It just sounds, you know, sounds accurate somehow. Mr. Gorka: Well, think of one thing, and this is unclassified. Anybody can verify it for themselves. Fentanyl, illicit drug smuggling into America. It’s killing over 100,000 Americans every year. Let’s put that into context. I did this on my Newsmax show. I decided to try and understand the enormity of the threat of open borders in China. I decided to add up every killed-in-action U.S. serviceman or woman since the cessation of hostilities in 1945. So everyone who’s died in combat in Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, Gulf to Afghanistan. So from 45 to the present. The number was 103,000. 103,000 U.S. servicemen and women have died in combat since 1945. In one year of the Biden administration, and you can find this, it’s on the CDC website. It is buried. It took me a long time to find it. But in one 12-month period, 110,000 Americans were murdered by drug overdoses, mostly fentanyl. We need to wrap our heads around that. More Americans were murdered by drugs in one year than died in combat in uniform in 70 years. And the most shocking part of all is the fentanyl coming in from Mexico is manufactured with precursor chemicals obtained from China. So can you lay the blame at Beijing’s doorstep for 100,000 dead Americans every year? Why are they permitting precursor chemicals to be shipped to Mexico to the cartel lab, which is then turned into, you know, you can call it a chemical agent, if you will, that is killing Americans. These are the unclassified facts of the matter. Mr. Jekielek: With the Chinese providing the pill presses and the money laundering operations and everything else, some logistics. Mr. Gorka: This is revenge for the opium wars. You can read Chinese source documents. This is from their long-term memory of the West for what happened to them under the opium wars. There are few nations that think in long-term strategic categories. China is one of them, with no surprise. This is a civilization that’s been around for millennia. They have long memories in that part of the world. Mr. Jekielek: Back to Syria. China, Iran, and Russia clearly have an alliance today. Mr. Gorka: Of convenience. You need to understand that none of these actors like each other. None of them like each other. These are marriages of convenience. Why? Because fundamentally, they are competitors. China is a competitor for Russia and Russia sees itself as unique and as above all other cultures. Iran is slightly different, but Iran strategically has a very different culture because what is it driven by? It’s not a raison d'etat and rational cost-benefit analysis. It’s actually transcendentally informed. If you believe in the occultation of the eighth imam and the hidden imam and, you know, theocracy is the way to live, you’re not exactly thinking like Machiavelli. So you can’t fully mesh your theocratic interests with the interests of a very rational, you know, cold-blooded communist regime in Beijing, nor a regime in Moscow, which is thinking maybe. I think, yes, he was shaped by his experience in the Cold War and as a colonel in the KGB. But it seems quite clear that what he’s doing is not the rebirth of the Soviet Union, but something prior to that, you know, a proto-imperialist Russia. He’s going back to something even before 1917. These are very different views of the world: Imperialist and Tsarist, Maoist and communist, and then theocratic Islamist. These are marriages of convenience that are temporary relationships. Does it help China to sell equipment to Russia while they’re attacking Ukraine? Sure, they can make money off it. But does China want to dominate Russia in the long term? Absolutely. Just read what they say. Mr. Jekielek: The fall of the Assad regime impacts Iran and Russia significantly, but also it impacts China, which seems to be supporting these regimes financially. Mr. Gorka: It’s clear for Iran that the greatest loss for those various players is the loss to Iran. Syria was like a giant lily pad. The Syrian regime was, to use U.S. military terminology, a forward operating base. And also that landmass of Syria, and I don’t want to get too much into the details here, it was a transit area. It was sending stuff west and south, which was destabilizing the region in the interest of Iran. Let me just leave it at that. So the loss of that transit area, the loss of having that forward operating base in Damascus, is perhaps the greatest loss being suffered by Iran. With regard to Russia, and look, I spent seven years teaching the U.S. military in the JPME, the Professional Military Education System. I always try to explain to them that you can’t put Russia in the same taxonomy as other nation-states. This isn’t just another Westphalian nation-state. You think about the Kremlin as an anti-status quo actor. That’s the best way to understand it. Even if you know the history of the Tsarists and the Okhrana and the KGB and the Leninists, they are anti-status quo actors. Wherever they act, to use the Star Wars term, they want to create disturbances in the force. They want to create eddies in the feng shui of geopolitics that they then can further exploit. Look at their information operations like the Russian RT news agency. What is RT’s motto? It is very interesting. What was their English motto? Ask more questions. It’s never about the truth. Isn’t that interesting? If you’re a journalist, shouldn’t it be about telling the truth, and getting the facts out there? Ask more questions, which means what? Are you just there to confuse people? Yes, absolutely. Look at the way they covered the so-called interference of Russia in the 2016 or 2020 elections. Why were they buying Facebook ads that were anti-Trump and anti-Hillary? Why don’t you pick a side? For Russia, Syria was a very useful platform to continue the eddies in the force in the Middle East and so disrupt an area where they would end up with a warm water port. They could have, you know, their quote-unquote little green men running around the region doing stuff that accrues to the benefit of the Kremlin. That’s the way to think about Iran, China and Russia. Mr. Jekielek: What is China thinking about all of this? Mr. Gorka: I would defer to real sinologists like Gordon Chang and David P. Goldman because I hear from them that the current regime is really paradoxically quite weak. If you look at the purges that are being executed by Xi Jinping, you don’t usually do purges when everything’s hunky-dory. As a result, what are they thinking? Look, what do most dictatorial regimes think about only? Survival is the maintenance of power. I used to teach Kennan’s Long Telegram. It was the most important case study I used to use all the time for my Pentagon students. There’s this one passage in the declassified long telegram that became the article, The Sources of Soviet Conduct. It’s everything you need to know about a dictatorial regime, and even left-wing politics in America today, the Democrats. Kennan, who’s sitting in Moscow and who’s trying to explain the Stalinist regime to the government, says you need to understand what truth means to a communist regime. Truth is that which serves the purposes of the Politburo. End of story. If today the truth is the sky is blue and that helps us, so be it. If tomorrow we have to state the sky is red, but it isn’t, but it accrues power to the Central Committee, well, then the sky is red. Truth is only that which keeps the party in power. We’ve seen this from the Steele dossier to the Mar-a-Lago raid here in America. There is no truth on the Left, only that which gains them power. That’s how you have to think about the situation. I watched Romania collapse live. I was in Hungary and I was watching Ceausescu go out onto the balcony in Bucharest for his anti-Christmas. You know, he always used to say, you know, Christmas was a celebration of Elena and himself because Christianity wasn’t allowed. He’s on the balcony. Outside of Enver Hoxha of Albania, this is perhaps the most brutal regime in the region. So it’s East Germany, Enver Hoxha, and Romania, the worst of the worst. I mean, truly, these are Stalinist regimes 30 years after Stalin died. He stands in this brutal building on the balcony with a huge number of Romanians in the square for this fake Christmas celebration of the Ceausescus. Suddenly, they start chanting down with Ceausescu. The camera zooms in on his face and Elena’s face and they just don’t understand it. The people who love us. The people of this paradise we’ve created in the name of the Romanian worker? They are rejecting us? This is the amazing paradox of the most brutal communist regimes. At the point at which they seem the most powerful, they are in fact the most fragile, and potentially at a point where everything can shatter into millions of shards. Then you can watch the footage of him having to escape off the roof of that building in a helicopter. The military pilot fakes an engine failure and lands on the side of the road. They get picked up by the local military base. Within three days, there’s a show trial and they’re executed on camera. Helena still can’t believe it. She’s screaming, I am the mother of the Romanian people. How dare you? As she is shot in the head. This is the grand paradox of these regimes, that they can go in a moment. Think about November 9th, 1989. Why did the Berlin Wall actually fall down? We can reconstruct what happened. One idiot apparatchik said the wrong thing at a press conference at 10.30 at night, about all East Germans being allowed to travel to the West without an exit visa. He made that up. They asked him, has this had been confirmed by the Central Committee. The guy goes, yes, it’s been confirmed. He was lying. He made it up. Suddenly, like wildfire, the East Germans hear, you are allowed to go to the West. What do they do? They take pickaxes and shovels to the Berlin Wall. The border guard, who’s been shooting people for the last 20 years who are trying to run across the border, says, uh, and doesn’t pick up his rifle. Then we have the historic scenes. With manual tools, people are chiseling down the Berlin Wall 17 months after Reagan stood in front of it and said, Gorbachev, tear down this wall. These are the absurdities. An idiot makes a mistake at a press conference, and within 90 minutes, the Berlin Wall falls. This is why you have to have hope. Sooner or later, even the most vicious communist regimes fall victim to their own fragility. Mr. Jekielek: I wholeheartedly agree with that, Seb. President Trump has picked very good communicators for the roles. Have you thought about that at all? Mr. Gorka: I have because I’m one of the blessed ones who didn’t have to interview for my job. A lot of people had to go to Mar-a-Lago to interview. But even those who didn’t have to interview, I’ve been told, were judged based on footage from the media of how they communicate. The president is the arch-communicator. He’s doing something the likes of which we’ve never seen in American politics, that a rank outsider comes in and shakes up the system with disruptors in his cabinet. Most problems in life, whether it’s the work environment at Epoch Times or whether it’s relations with your wife, what are most problems actually germinate from? Problems in communication. Honestly, most problems begin with problems in communication. We’ve got four years to save not only America but Western civilization from those who hate Western civilization. You need really good communicators to make sure that we succeed. This isn’t hyperbole. Let me be very, very blunt. The most important speech the president has ever given, short from his acceptance victory speech on November the 6th, is the one that Steve Bannon and I helped to frame. No, we didn’t write it. But months before it occurred, the speechwriters, the amazing speechwriters who are still working for him, came to us to consult with us. It’s the president’s speech in Warsaw in the summer of 2017. The first interesting thing is to the president’s credit. The Polish government wanted him to give this speech downtown in one of these ugly government buildings that were built after the bombing of Warsaw. And we said, we want to be outside next to this absolutely gargantuan heroic statue of the Warsaw uprising, where you see these Poles coming out of the sewers with their weapons to take on the Nazis. He wanted to stand right next to that, which is, of course, a headache, right? Because securing it, it’s external, it’s whatever. And finally, the Polish government agreed. Go back and watch this speech. It’s on YouTube. Go back and the last three minutes are the most important things President Trump has ever said in terms of history. He says the following—the most important question of our time is whether or not the West, our civilization, has the wherewithal to defeat those who wish to destroy our civilization. That question still stands. I’ve been saying this for years on my radio show. We must delete the labels, Republican and Democrat, even conservative and liberal. These have no reference anymore. They’re hollowed-out husks because there’s one line that separates American citizens from each other—those who love America and those who think America is a problem. I had a British man on the left on my show, a brilliant guy, Brendan O'Neill, who’s from Spiked, online. He’s their chief political writer. He said this on my show two weeks ago. He was explaining why the guy they called a Nazi for nine years got 77 million votes. He said it’s the same as Brexit, Seb. You’ve got to understand, that tens of millions of people are fed up with being told they can’t love their country. And whether they’re working class, whether they’re white, brown, or black, they want to be allowed to love their country again. And that’s what we’re talking about. What person opens the borders of their country? What person gives literally billions of dollars to a regime in Tehran that every Friday preaches the destruction of America? What nation lords, you know, authors of the 1619 project give them Pulitzer Prizes for a book, for a pseudo-historic garbage that says America’s gene code is racist? What kind of perverse sick person does that? Only people who hate their country. We have to reestablish the government of the people, by the people, for the people. We have to reestablish national sovereignty. We have to understand that the shining city on the hill is America. People have windsurfed over shark-infested waters from Cuba to America. Who does that? Only people who believe this is the apotheosis, the zenith of civilization. It is America, and that’s what President Trump believes. Think about it—this man took a bullet for us. You can argue when he won the election. Was it the mugshot? Was it McDonald’s? Was it the dump truck? People tend to miss a special moment at McDonald’s. For me, it’s the most important moment of the campaign. It’s all cute, shucking the fries into the carton. All very cute. Then the immigrant Indian family rolls up to the takeout window. The husband, with a thick Indian accent, says, thank you for doing this for us. We’re nobodies, Mr. President. The president says, what do you mean, nobodies? Nobody is a nobody in America. The wife, also with a thick Indian accent, from the other side of the vehicle, says to the president, thank you, Mr. President. You took a bullet for us. Then there is a moment that you can’t fake. It’s not from a teleprompter. It’s not from talking points. Watch President Trump. He pauses and says, I guess you’re right. I took a bullet for you. Wow. You only do that if you love America. That’s why working-class people, 20 percent of the black male vote, and 50 percent of the Hispanic vote said, we want to be proud of this country. It’s about our civilization. It’s about America as the pinnacle of that civilization. Mr. Jekielek: As we finish up, what are the key things that you need to do in your role on day one? Mr. Gorka: My job is going to be a reflection, an implementation of what the president wants, what National Security Advisor Michael Waltz wants, very simply put, to protect the innocent and to bring justice to evildoers. It’s really that simple. My field is going to be counterterrorism. The terrorist threat is the personification of evil, and they wish to harm the innocent, whether it’s our American citizens who are still taken hostage by Hamas in the Middle East, whether it’s innocent people at a Christmas party in San Bernardino who were slaughtered by their jihadi colleagues just a few years ago. My priority will be protecting the innocent from evildoers and bringing justice to those evildoers with all of my colleagues. Mr. Jekielek: What happens if those hostages are not given back? They’re still Americans. Mr. Gorka: They will be. The people responsible understand who President Trump is. They are afraid of him, and they should be. Mr. Jekielek: Seb Gorka, it’s such a pleasure to have you on the show. Mr. Gorka: Thank you. The pleasure is mine. God bless. Merry Christmas.

As part of our special series on alternative models of education, I’m sitting down with Michael Fitzgerald, principal of Northern Schoolhouse, a New York private school focused on classical literature and art, immersion in nature, and nurturing strong moral character based on time-tested virtues. “This is the trend in education: ‘It doesn’t matter what you’re reading, as long as you’re reading.’ And I actually disagree with that. I think it’s very important what you’re reading,” Fitzgerald says. “In the end, we want them becoming autonomous people who know how to move themselves well through the world, as truly good people who recognize beauty,” he says. Watch the video: “If you recognize beauty, you can recognize what’s good. And those are highly correlated in the classical world, especially in the Socratic sense. They talk a lot about truth, beauty, and goodness.” Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and the guest, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times. RUSH TRANSCRIPT Jan Jekielek: Michael Fitzgerald, such a pleasure to have you on American Thought Leaders. Michael Fitzgerald: Thanks for having me. Mr. Jekielek: Please tell us about Northern Schoolhouse. Mr. Fitzgerald: Northern Schoolhouse is an elementary school. It’s grades one through five, though some of our sixth graders can stay with us. It’s a part of a larger system called Northern Academy, which was originally a middle school and high school, so it serves grades six through 12. We have rigorous academics doing some wonderful things focused on dance and music and fine arts. We are just a very well-rounded school. I was working at the academy and they asked my wife and I, do you want to start an elementary school? She’s also very forward thinking with education, but with this hard line, traditional emphasis. We started putting some ideas together and came up with Northern Schoolhouse. What makes it special? Especially today, you‘ll get schools that fall into one track or the other. You’ll get these schools that are nature-based, creative, and student-led. Then you’ve got another track that’s what schools might call classical. And I’m talking about private schools mostly. And classical schools are really focusing on maintaining tradition, maintaining spiritual elements, largely Christian. A lot of Catholic schools would call themselves classical. Trying to maintain a focus on beauty and high standards and these sorts of things. But you don’t have a lot of schools that intentionally try to mesh both together. And so our goal was to create a school that was focused on giving the kids the best literature and history and art throughout time. We start Shakespeare in grade one, for instance, with all our kids, but also bringing in this heavy emphasis on self-direction for the students, lots of nature study, being outside as much as possible, and a lot of opportunities for the kids to practice leadership and to kind of step out of the path a little bit. So we call ourselves Creative Classical. So it’s kind of a merging of these two worlds. You don’t really have many schools that exist like this. Mr. Jekielek: I noticed the kids in grade school are memorizing sonnet 65 by Shakespeare. Mr. Fitzgerald: Yes. Mr. Jekielek: I hadn’t heard of that happening before. Mr. Fitzgerald: If I was to say schools should focus on two things, you'd have Shakespeare and math. Those are the things we’re starting as soon as we can with them. And then blending in the heavy nature with it. And so we said, well, we’re starting the school and it’s like, what would our dream school look like? We said, well, we have to have Shakespeare. Plays a center role in the humanities for the last four or 500 years. It draws on everything from biblical stories and Greek and Roman mythology and the contemporary issues of the time and pulls them all in. I’ve been an English teacher and that’s my main background. And oftentimes when you get kids in high school and you’re, okay, well, now’s our Shakespeare unit and they’re all Shakespeare. I never understand this. It’s too hard. So we want our kids from the schoolhouse when they first come, when they come across Shakespeare later on to go, oh, I’ve already studied this. I love this play. I can’t wait to do this. Or as soon as they hear Shakespeare, they go, oh, shall I compare thee to a summer’s day? You know, that’s Sonnet 18. They learned that one as well. But sonnet 65, since brass nor stone, nor earth nor boundless seas. We want the kids saying that as soon as they hear Shakespeare. And actually, when we’re out on trails, they'll start reciting the sonnets together, just ad hoc. Mr. Jekielek: It’s amazing, and it’s beautiful. I haven’t sat down and read Shakespeare in a long time. Mr. Fitzgerald: It’s amazing. It’s so beautiful and thought provoking and insightful and hard. It’s really hard. And so we want to give the kids really hard, challenging things that are completely worthy of their time and worthy of them as humans. We give them Shakespeare instead of Sesame Street, for instance. We don’t have cartoons posted all over the walls. We want to give them the real stuff. Mr. Jekielek: Every school that I’ve been to, including some very innovative schools that I visited in the, over the last few years, always, there seems to be some kind of, I don’t know, like caricatures, cartoons, this kind of, it’s a very different feel that was completely absent from everything I’ve seen. Mr. Fitzgerald: Yes, that’s a major piece in schools. It’s kind of taking kids and thinking, well, they’re kids, and so we better give them kid stuff. But actually, it doesn’t mean we give them adult materials, but we give them things that are fit for humans. Because they are, they’re born people. Charlotte Mason, a great educator from the 1800s, one of her first rules for teaching was to remember that children are born people. And so what do people feed upon the best? They feed upon great ideas, beautiful things. Socrates says the goal of education is to teach kids to identify what is beautiful. And so we have to give them beautiful things. That means what do we have on our walls? We should have the school of Athens. We should have paintings from the Song Dynasty. Other classical pieces that are going to evoke in them a deep sense of reverence for tradition, but also beauty and truth. And these are the things we want the kids to have. And so that’s Shakespeare, that’s poetry from the Tang Dynasty. It’s these really deep things that even if an adult goes and studies to them, they won’t get to the bottom. And so that’s what we need to give to the kids. Mr. Jekielek: There’s a lot of talk about our society infantilizing young adults and even adults in some cases. Could it be that we’re actually infantilizing kids? Does that make sense, given your approach? Mr. Fitzgerald: Yes, it’s interesting, infantilizing kids. It is happening like that. It’s like we want to keep them as kids as long as possible. And I think you see this happening a lot, pushing certain things out of curriculums later on. It’s like trying to protect them because we should protect kids. We should protect them. We should shelter them. And then also as things come up, we want to prepare them with truthful ideas. But what happens is we insulate them so much with childlike things, they have no sense of taste. And if they have no sense of taste, then it’s quite possible they’re going to lose their reverence for tasteful things later on. So we have to give that to them now. Mr. Jekielek: But also challenge them, right? Because that, I mean, the sonnet, of course, in many areas, you know, you’ve been doing a wordsmith program I believe. Mr. Fitzgerald: Yes, a wordsmith program. Mr. Jekielek: That’s a kind of progression, so just explain that idea. Mr. Fitzgerald: Wordsmith is our language studies program for English, along with literature studying literature year-round, deep pieces of literature. But in terms of building their handwriting, their grammar, and their spelling. We call that wordsmith. But even within it there’s five different levels of study starting with the lowest level we call petroglyph and then the highest level level five we thesaurus, which is where we get the word thesaurus. Etymologically, it means treasure chest. It has scroll up to codex, which are the first bound books. Each level of words increases in difficulty. And so students can work at any level that they want to. And the goal is they want to be able to master that level, but they can shoot for any level. On the next step, we’re like, OK, you’ve aced this level. Let’s go to the next highest one to keep, keep pushing them forward and to keep seeing these challenges, not, not as a problem, but as opportunities. Something we talk about with the students a lot is how do you, everything’s going to be a challenge. It’s a question of, is it a problem or an opportunity? Which way do you want to take this? That’s an old idea. That’s not anything new we’re giving the students. These are just really old ideas for humans and connecting them. Mr. Jekielek: You mentioned Socrates as one of the thinkers that’s guiding what’s happening here. Confucius is also another one. Mr. Fitzgerald: Yes, very much. Mr. Jekielek: In fact, those are the two, right? That you kind of make a point of highlighting, if you noticed. Mr. Fitzgerald: Yes. Mr. Jekielek: Please explain that. Mr. Fitzgerald: We have our ancient thinkers who we look directly to, Confucius and Socrates, and another one from the 1800s, a classical educator named Charlotte Mason. She’s well worth discussing as well. But Confucianism is huge. Obviously, the Confucian system touches on everything. How do you dress in the morning? How do you enter buildings? These sorts of things. And of course, this is all about maintaining society, cohesion in society. And so he then talks about education, extensively on education. And now the difference is, when he’s writing in the Zhou dynasty, there was no such thing as elementary schools. Those things don’t exist. So he’s really talking about education for teenagers and young adults who are building their skills to become deeper scholars and public officials and these sorts of things. But it still perfectly applies to if we’re going to have a system of education and we’re going to apply it institutionally, some of the things he has to say still works perfectly for educating children. He talks a lot about maintaining rituals. And so there’s this idea that rules are extremely important in society. But sometimes rules, we don’t necessarily know why we’re following them. We don’t know why we’re doing them. But rituals are this glue that binds people together. Rituals include how do our students enter the classroom? And they don’t get punished for doing it wrong because you’re not breaking a rule. But we remind them constantly, this is how humans interact in the world. You should try this out. Give this a shot. Every morning, they bow to their teachers. This is a great way to bow. You should try this. Or the girls, hey, here’s a way you can curtsy. You can try this. Feel free to try this. This is how we study well. This is how we sit while we’re studying. Oh, here’s a way to write your cursive L. Here’s a way to write your cursive G. That’s one way to do it. These are rituals. It’s not a set way that you have to do it, but it’s based on human interaction. Lots of reminders because that’s how rituals are formed. So, of course, when you have kids getting very out of line and you have to bring in, you bring in discipline, but why are you disciplining them? Not because they broke a rule, but because that’s the wrong way of behaving. That is not helping the group. It’s not helping our little society. We’re a very small school. We only have 30-some kids. So it gives us a lot of leeway to try to work with them, to give them an exceptional education. But it doesn’t happen without conversation, without lots of dialogue. And that’s where the rituals come in. Mr. Jekielek: I’ve also interviewed a number of people doing homeschooling, leading homeschooling efforts, or developing homeschooling materials. Kids that do this often are just not socialized into the mainstream society because of some of the unusual things that you’ve been just describing. How do you respond to that? Mr. Fitzgerald: There are two types of homeschooling. There is homeschooling where you have your child and you sit them down in front of some canned curriculum that’s delivered through a computer. Then you have this traditional homeschooling, which is what schooling was for thousands of years, where the parents are handing down rich learning opportunities to their students in math and handwriting and literature. In the Western society, it would be especially reading the Bible and becoming highly literate. For the East, it would have been studying the Book of Odes. In the Tang Dynasty, it was about a dad teaching poetry to their children. These are highly educated people throughout time. But what happens now is we take these children in some homeschooling situations and plug them down in front of a computer. But many homeschool families, most homeschool families throughout the country are actually, their kids are the most socialized because they’re going out and learning in society. So they’re going out and the kids are the ones calculating the tip, for instance, or the child might be placing the order for all of the family. They’re being socialized. And on top of that, there’s co-ops all around the country. These kids are mixing together with kids of all different backgrounds and all different ages. You don’t have this idea where you have your 13-year-old son or daughter who doesn’t want to associate with an 11-year-old because they’re different ages. They’re mixing with all the children, caring for each other, tending to each other, and helping them learn in these large co-ops that come together. Mr. Jekielek: When it comes to Northern Schoolhouse, it sounds like this approach has influenced your thinking and your development here. Mr. Fitzgerald: Very much. We ourselves have homeschooled for many years. Actually, what was fascinating was we found that in the homeschool communities is where all the most traditional forms of education were held. And it was these sort of really rich learning environments with the best literature. And you had these like second and third graders in these homeschool groups like studying Plutarch. It’s like the mom never knew Plutarch, but she had heard from other homeschoolers that we should be teaching their kids Plutarch. And so they’re giving it to them. It’s absolutely amazing. And those ideas are locked in these homeschool groups, especially homeschool groups that are influenced by Charlotte Mason, who I’ve mentioned. And they’re highly classical, very traditional, very strict with their kids’ learning. And this is why oftentimes if you look at the SAT test scores, for instance, you kind of have three different groups. You have public school. Then you have private schools and they’re about here on their scores. And then you have homeschool groups and they’re up here. So it’s like they outshine even on standardized tests, which those families aren’t using to guide their learning, but they’re giving their kids such rich material that they’re aceing those tests. Like it doesn’t quite make sense, but that’s what the data shows. And so we’re definitely influenced by homeschool ideas in terms of giving the kids the best opportunities to learn, letting them move at their own pace. And exactly what Confucius says, he says, if I open up one corner, I expect the student to go get the other three corners. And because what you open up under that corner should be so compelling. You want more. You don’t quite get it, but you want more. And then as they go to each corner, we might help them just lift it a little bit, but they should get those other three corners. It’s a very homeschooling idea, actually. You give them a little bit that they want to get the rest. Mr. Jekielek: You’re describing something that’s very self-directed, but within a moral framework. Mr. Fitzgerald: Yes, that’s right. It’s very self-directed, but not student-led. Student-led would be this idea that if we were to compare learning to nutrition or learning to eating, then student-led learning would be the students setting the table and eating whatever they want on the table. But in our system, we say we’re teacher-guided, but student-invested. And so what that means is another Charlotte Mason idea. She says the teacher’s job is to set the feast. And she says that whatever the teacher’s job, the parent’s job is to set the table with the best possible learning that we possibly can. And so some of that might be some roast beef over here and some broccoli over here and some grapes over here. I don’t, I’m not actually too concerned with how much broccoli they take or if they’re not taking broccoli yet, because whatever they take on this table, I’ve put it there for them. My job is if they’re taking a little bit of roast beef to encourage them to get to these other things, because whatever I put on here, I’m happy with. If I’m not happy with them taking it, I’m not going to set it on the table. It’s very self-directed because we want them to become self-directed human beings so they can become the leaders of society. Our job is to not just train them to become consumers and to train them to become employees. They need to become employees and they need to be consumers, but that’s not our goal. Our goal is to have them become leaders, leaders of society, to have them become adventurers, interesting, thoughtful, intelligent people. Mr. Jekielek: But what about decent? That’s the word that keeps coming to mind. Mr. Fitzgerald: Yes, I shouldn’t leave decent out there. Good, virtuous, knowledgeable people who can look at a situation and assess it immediately based on what’s right and what’s wrong. And that’s kind of the mark of these being a decent person, a good, morally sound person. And they’re going to have lots of mistakes in that, but our goal is to keep directing them back. This is why, going back to Confucius again, he says that if we lead with coercive regulations, then we will produce students who have no sense of shame and will become evasive. And so if we’re only leading them in this tiny little box and we’re pushing them along with that, then they‘ll become evasive. They’ll hide. They'll hide what they’re really doing when we’re watching them. And as soon as we’re not watching, they are going to do what they really want to do because they have no shame. But instead, if we set the feast for them with the best things possible and allow them to freely interact with those things under our guidance, under our tutelage, he has another section in the Analects. He says, we lead and strengthen, but do not drag. And he says, the goal is to strengthen them. So teaching is you have to constantly be on top of it all the time. But in the end, we want them to become autonomous people who know how to move themselves well through the world as truly good people who recognize beauty. And if you recognize beauty, you can recognize what’s good, and those are highly correlated. In the classical world, especially in the Socratic sense, they talk a lot about truth, beauty, and goodness. Mr. Jekielek: Speaking of beauty, you have this amazing set of four paintings on the wall up near the main room of the schoolhouse. Mr. Fitzgerald: That’s right. They are by a painter named Thomas Cole called The Journey of Life. It’s kind of the journey of life from a person’s birth to their death. It’s four different pieces. The first one is a baby being born and they’re on their little boat sailing through life and they’re very close to their angel who’s entered the world with them. They’re very close to divinity and the divine is clearly illuminated for them and they’re very close to it. The baby’s very happy to be in the world. The next one is they’re entering their youth and in this, they’re sort of being separated from the divine, I suppose, but the divine is still waving them on as if to push them forward. And this youth is now aiming for a larger goal in the sky. And I’ve never been so sure if the goal is real or not, because it’s in the sky. It’s kind of made of clouds. So is it real? Is it necessary? I’m not really sure. And then in the third piece, in manhood, what used to be the youth is now facing hardship. And the waters are boiling over and ferocious and the storm is, it’s dark and black and terrifying. And he’s praying for help. And maybe he thinks he’s been abandoned by the divine. I don’t really know for sure. And then the final painting is the man is now at the end of his life and the divine are slowly coming back down to return him to his home. And the students love this work. And actually we surround them with beautiful artwork everywhere, but they see this and they can all speak, they can all speak well about it and you can go up and ask any one of them and they'll walk you through it Thomas Cole, an 1800s painter from the Hudson Valley. We went and visited his studios last year. The students were so good when we take them out. People who see our students out in public say they’re so well behaved that they can’t even believe it. Mr. Jekielek: There’s a lot of self-control, maybe self-mastery, to use this Confucian idea. It seems to be there at some level, and that’s really important. Mr. Fitzgerald: Yes, right. What’s fascinating about that is a little of my background is also in brain-based education. So neuroeducation, just focusing on how does the brain interact with memory and attention and processing and sequencing. I took everything I'd studied, both on the ground in practical terms, but also philosophically and in terms of the brain as well, and tried to bring that all together into the schoolhouse and try to integrate them all together. This self-control that you mentioned, it’s really so big. There’s this area in the brain, it doesn’t matter what it’s called, but it’s called the anterior cingulate cortex. The anterior cingulate cortex does lots of things, but there are two main things it does. One of them is that it lights up when we’re practicing self-control. Let’s say you were trying to cut down on sugar and you’re out walking and all of a sudden you’re walking and you love ice cream and you’re walking by an ice cream shop and then and then you stop and you think about it you’re like well go get a scoop of ice cream and it could be very tasty and i’ve done a good job recently on withholding from that ice cream and so maybe today’s a good one as soon as you’re fighting with yourself your the anterior cingulate cortex lights up. It sees an increase of blood flow and electrical activity. Can you see it through so you’re practicing self-control and self-restraint? It lights up. Mr. Jekielek: Does that work like a muscle, by the way? Mr. Fitzgerald: It’s like a muscle, but also a little bit different. They call it neuroplasticity. They compare the brain to plastic and it’s constantly reforming and shaping on itself. If the brain loses function in one area, other parts of the brain will take over for it. It’s quite remarkable. This anterior cingulate cortex, the ACC, also lights up. It doesn’t distinguish and it lights up as well when somebody is making a meaningful decision. For instance, if the feast is laid out before them and they have to choose between two or three different options, it lights up. It does not distinguish. Anatomically, it’s the same thing, self-control and making decisions. Sometimes you can see a student who has no self-control in their life, and they have no decisions to make in their life. Mr. Jekielek: They don’t have the opportunity to make the decisions. It’s not presented to them. I see. Mr. Fitzgerald: It’s not presented. This wouldn’t be just like, okay, Jan, where do we want to go out for dinner tonight? You’re just following your desires vs. do you want to go out and have some Italian food tonight? Or do you want to go out and have some Vietnamese food? Which one do you want? Now, those options are placed in front of you and your brain has to zoom in and figure out how it wants to handle this in the same exact way. It does. The brain does not distinguish when you are trying to hold off on ice cream and you walk by the ice cream store and you’re practicing self-restraint. They’ve seen master meditators, for instance, Tibetan monks who can meditate for a day straight. Their anterior cingulate cortices are very well developed, because they’re able just to hold that for so long. They’ve seen it as well with physical trainers, for instance, and they’ve seen it with other folks who have less self-control and they see that it’s largely diminished. Mr. Jekielek: What is the lesson here? Mr. Fitzgerald: The lesson here is the idea that students in their education, it’s the teacher’s job to lay out well-placed opportunities for the students to engage with their learning in meaningful ways. This goes back to the feast idea where we set the table with them to learn. We go back to the wordsmith. Which level of this wordsmith does the student want to go for? I don’t care which one they go for. I just want them to choose one because as soon as they choose, they’re practicing self-restraint. So self-restraint and decision-making are one in the same, but so often we set up the, we completely curate a child’s education from start to finish. We tell them when they’re gonna start, how much of it they’re gonna do, exactly how it’s going to look, when it needs to be done, and if it’s not done they’re gonna be punished, or they’re gonna be rewarded, essentially bribed. They’re gonna be bribed to have it done exactly how it needs to be that whole time. If we want highly self-controlled students, we have to find ways to get them to make decisions, activate the anterior cingulate cortex. When they’re making decisions, they are practicing self-restraint. They'll get very good at both. But if we take away all decisions from them, and I’m not talking about a decision, like do you want to go to school today or not? No, it’s more like, and I use this example all the time. You’re trying to get your kid ready to go to bed and they don’t want to go to bed. Of course, they don’t want to go to bed. What kid wants to go to bed? But it’s not about going to bed or not. It’s about, okay, we need to start getting ready for bed. Do you want to brush your teeth first or put your pajamas on first? Which one do you want? Get them to make a decision moving forward. If we’re reciting Shakespeare, do you want to practice all four lines of the first quatrain or just half the first quatrain? Be surprised. Some kids go for all four, some kids just want two. I don’t care if they memorize two lines. I’m so happy if they memorize two lines. Mr. Jekielek: That’s such a great way to explain setting the framework or setting the feast. Absolutely. Mr. Fitzgerald: That’s what it is. If a kid was just picking grapes the whole time, as the teacher, I need to try and get them over to roast beef. And if not roast beef, then it needs to be some of the chicken or the tofu or some of the beans, some protein. Let me try to get them over this thing. That’s the teacher’s job, to elevate them, to bring them out of this cave that Socrates talks about, the allegory of the cave, and try to bring them up into where there’s more light and more truth. Mr. Jekielek: You don’t have cartoons and you don’t have Dr. Seuss. I have quite fond memories of reading Dr. Seuss and liked it quite a bit. Are you not depriving the kids of this? Mr. Fitzgerald: In my home with my kids, we have Dr. Seuss on the shelves. We’ve read it. I remember reading it as a child, having it read to me and the rhythm, you know, there’s lots of iambic pentameter throughout. It’s very rhythmic and has lots of imagery and it’s fun. it’s silly, but if we have the chance to give the kids a rewritten version for children of Charles Dickens, then we should go with Charles Dickens. And the messages are much deeper, the moral significance of it, the problems that the characters are dealing with in that they’re dealing with in it are just richer and deeper and more beautiful. What we’re really talking about is a school. We have this time. We can either enrich the students, edify their hearts and their souls, or we can entertain them. So the question is, do we want to edify or entertain? What is the objective of school? And if it’s just to have them read any old thing, a lot of teachers, especially English teachers, would not agree with what I’m going to say, which is oftentimes they would suggest, and this is the trend in education, it doesn’t matter what you’re reading as long as you’re reading. And I actually disagree with that. I think it’s very important what you’re reading. So important. We’re so sensitive to language and words. So sensitive that if you even look at a word, you’re not even reading it anymore. You see the word red and you automatically recognize it. It’s like it takes root in our hearts. Words, you’re not even sounding them out anymore. It’s like they become no different than seeing colors and sensing colors. Actually, all the data suggests that you recognize words faster than you recognize colors. Literacy doesn’t just mean that you can sound words out. It means that you’re culturally literate. And so we want our kids to be sensitive to the ideas that are contained in the greats, in the traditional works of art. It’s the same with math. If a kid could understand he can do more than just count beads, then we should start giving him an addition and multiplication and division. We should start teaching him how to factor. We’re not just going to keep giving him beads all the time. Maybe beads have their place in the beginning for counting, but after that we should move on very quickly. Dr. Seuss has its place, but that’s not the goal of education. It’s to enrich their hearts and their minds. It’s to give them what we used to call in the past the liberal arts, to help you become a liberated person who can live freely. You are your own master. You no longer need a master. You’re your own master. That’s the point of the liberal arts. It doesn’t cease to exist just because our children are five or six or 11 or 13 or 14-years-old. This isn’t reserved just for a 40-year-old guy like me. It’s not reserved just for me. And it’s not reserved for college students. It starts with them young. It just looks different for the fifth graders. Mr. Jekielek: With school governance, you talked about an element of culture and this Confucian ideal that we’ve been describing. On the other hand, there’s the actual management of the school. You’ve said that the culture always needs to lead for the school to be effective. Is that correct? Mr. Fitzgerald: Yes, you do. It’s not just for schools, but for any organization, that there’s a certain culture that has to take root. And the culture being, what do we believe as an institution? Are we all on the same page with the vision that we’re moving for, when we might call shared vision? Are we on the same page with that? It’s the mindsets that we hold. It’s the values that we hold. And those will drive our actions. So as a school, we need to have management practices of like, this would be like the, for a school, this might look like the curriculum. It might look like attendance policies. It might look like behavioral practices or how we work with kids whose conduct and behavior isn’t up to snuff. Are there certain things we do? Is there some sort of graduated tier that we look at? These are the protocols of a school, the regulations. But if that’s the primary focus, then that’s what’s going to dictate the culture. And so then you run the risk of having your culture be one that’s a little more mechanical, a little more sterile. It’s just far more institutional. Whereas you need those institutional practices, but what you want, what we want is we want the vitality of the people. We want them to have a growth mindset. We want them to value the opportunity to overcome hardships, but you can’t force somebody to want to overcome hardships. You can’t say you either overcome this hardship well, or I give you an F. It doesn’t work like that. They might pass the, they might pass the assignment with an A, but it doesn’t mean that that, that those lessons have taken root in their heart. There’s a reason why even at Plato’s Academy, the sign over the gate of their gardens that they would go have their lessons in said, let no one enter here who does not know geometry. Geometry for them wasn’t just a test to pass. It was geometry because for Socrates and then later for Plato, his student, math and shapes were proof that there’s some sort of divine essence in the world. There’s no perfect triangle in the world. Yet if we use these symbols that work perfectly, they’re good enough to put satellites orbiting our earth, yet they don’t exist materially. So there’s something about numbers and geometry which point to some other truth that doesn’t exist here. So for them, that was, you know, their own proof for when Socrates wanted to stop messing around with you, he would just, he would just go to numbers. If you say, I only see it if I believe it, Socrates would say, what about the number five? Mr. Jekielek: Watching these kids do what they do, knowing how successful they’ve been in meeting the standards, this is something that might become popular. But on the issues of scale, it’s often much easier for a culture to lead at a smaller scale than a larger one. Mr. Fitzgerald: That’s right. Mr. Jekielek: Have you thought about that? Mr. Fitzgerald: This is a major challenge for schools that want to do anything like what we’re doing, or even if they’re schools that are way more radical, they’re truly radical schools that are student-led. There’s no classical emphasis at all. It’s just kind of willy nilly. They know that even at a larger level, that doesn’t work because at some point you run into this management problem. Whereas the culture side might be more about how effective it is. How impactful is it? The management side, it’s about efficiency. At some point we’re going to run into efficiency. With the schoolhouse, we are really small and we get to do these things. We go on a hike every week. Every Friday we’re on hikes and we offer workshops in everything from archery to bread baking to whatever, whatever it is the teachers want to offer and teach that week. And it’s not obvious to me how we do that right now. If I was to double our size and say we were at 60 to 70 students and then double that one, we’re at 150 students, 200 students. How do we do the things we’re doing at a larger scale? I don’t have the answer to that yet, but as our system becomes more efficient, as those management practices mesh well with the culture that we want, my hope is that those become more obvious. You might just not be able to do all the things we’re doing, all the great things. You have to pick and choose the most powerful ones and then scale up. I don’t know what that looks like yet, but it definitely is something I think about often, because we do have lots of people wanting to come into the school and we can’t accommodate all of them. We choose not to, because otherwise, you have to incorporate things that we don’t yet want to incorporate. Mr. Jekielek: Okay, so you want to do it step-by-step. Mr. Fitzgerald: Step-by-step. Thoughtfully. That’s right. It has to be very intentional and thoughtful and it has to really work. We’re so lucky. We have families that want to be here. We have teachers that want to be here because of what it is that we’re offering and what we’re aspiring toward. We’re aspiring for something that’s really remarkable for our small group. Mr. Jekielek: What could public schools learn from what you’re doing? Mr. Fitzgerald: That’s a really challenging issue because they’re so big. The teachers there, they’re well-meaning. They go into it as an occupation. occupation but it’s really from experience from experience and really what’s interesting is the idea of vocation vocation comes from the Latin root, vocalis, which just means the call, the voice that’s calling you, your vocation. It doesn’t mean occupation, but it really means this thing that’s calling you forward, your calling from God. For a lot of teachers, it is a vocation. It’s something that’s very deep for them. And they want to change the world for the better. And they want to impact kids’ lives. And they remember teachers that did that for them. And that’s what they want to do. If they were to do anything with their size, it would be about looking back to tradition. That’s really where the answer is. Right now, it’s about chopping the curriculum into bits and pieces that are about trying to pull in texts that align with what they think the students really want. Of course, the students don’t want to study Shakespeare. They don’t necessarily want to study Charles Dickens and Jane Austen. It’s hard. But actually those old texts, that’s where the answer is. It’s about going back into tradition, back into the humanities, and bringing those things out to the students. You become more original by going to the origin. I think it’s something more like that. And as you constantly go back to the origin, your work becomes more creative and it becomes more original, even though it’s not what we think of as original at all. You’re just looking at what the ancients did and trying to put your own spin on what they did. What we’re doing today is we’re trying to cut it off. And the curriculums are getting all chopped up because of that and they say it’s more about skills are highly important. But to me, the content is the most important the culture and the content is way more important than the skills. Those really high level skills, those most sophisticated skills, come out of rich challenging content. They have to switch the mindset back to getting to the content, but that’s not always the most efficient because it’s harder to test somebody’s love of the content where it’s much easier just to test the raw skill.So it’s a major challenge. The schooling as we see it today is kind of a recent phenomenon where you have compulsory education laws where everyone has to go to school that are set up by politicians, essentially, with the help of teachers, people who left the teaching profession and now are with departments of education and these sorts of things, and well-meaning people, the great hearts, but again, they run into this culture versus management problem, and that’s it. It’s a challenge. There’s lots of people in the schools. Mr. Jekielek: What is the biggest challenge that you face? Mr. Fitzgerald: It’s related to that problem in that we’ve all gone to school in a certain way. We’ve seen report cards issued in a certain way. We have our own unique report card we issue. We’re not giving the kids letter grades like we’ve all received. They get different forms of feedback. Some of the hard things to overcome are the habits that we bring to understanding. We come with a certain set of notions into schools now because we’ve been raised in those schools. Our parents were, and our grandparents were. They were all raised in the same style of schooling, so we think that’s how schooling always looked. Sometimes it’s about articulating a certain vision and then putting the vision into motion, even if people see it and say, it’s really good. I really love what’s going on, but it still doesn’t perfectly resonate with me because that’s not how I was schooled. Mr. Jekielek: Some people in the educational profession are pushing the boundaries or trying to increase standards. But the removal of letter grades or percentages is associated with the lowering of the standards. Please explain what you’re doing. Mr. Fitzgerald: It can definitely be that way because oftentimes what happens is you take away the letter grades and in the name of taking away the letter grades, you’re making it more student-centered. In that way, to make it more student-centered, the students aren’t going to choose to want to study Shakespeare. I keep mentioning Shakespeare. I just keep going back to Shakespeare. I love it and I just keep going there. But it could be any traditional text. They’re not necessarily going to want to choose to study higher forms of math. An eighth grader isn’t necessarily going to want to choose to study algebra. Like if you leave it up to them, they might not choose that. They'd rather just stick with their multiplication tables. So if you take away letter grades, then you, it also can, it can easily come with students having more say in what they’re learning, which means they’re going to choose to learn the easier things. And in that case, the standards are being lowered. At the schoolhouse, we take away those letter grades. But we’ve simply filled the entire atmosphere with the best things you can learn like many of our kids can recite all of sonnet 65. Mr. Jekielek: Do they feel a pressure to excel? Because there’s this competitive thing which actually can be quite positive. Mr. Fitzgerald: Yes, it totally can be. The way that shows up in our school is with the challenges. Every eight weeks they get a set of challenges that they work through in each one of their core classes. In that challenge, they just simply do the best that they possibly can on the thing, and it incorporates everything they’ve been studying. They'll get it back with feedback, but they won’t get it back with a letter grade. In some of those challenges, like we mentioned, the wordsmith challenge, one kid might go for petroglyphs, which is the lowest. If he’s always going for petroglyphs, our job as teachers is to bring him up to the next level. Like you’re always choosing this one, but let’s try for this one. Whereas some kid might always go for the highest one. And so in that same class, you have different kids sort of mapping onto different goals and it’s our job as a teacher to bring them up. So there still is a competitive value to it. However, most of what we’ve got today in schools is an overly competitive atmosphere. Here’s a great example. We’re teaching these remarkable things in education, even in public schools all around the country. They still have great curriculums. They still have great literature, great history, and challenging math courses. Now, what would happen today if in those schools, you went to those students and you said, we’re going to study this thing today, but you’re not going to be graded. The students’ responses would be, well, why would I study it then? I think that’s right. So they’ve been conditioned and bribed. I don’t use this word lightly. They’ve been bribed to do the work. Then we put all of this emphasis on the letter grade. You’re studying these remarkable works of arts that are part of the human enlightenment to mathematics is unreal. It’s remarkable that we’ve done this. Why do the kids study math? Because they can get an A or they don’t want to get an F. They’ve been bribed into this thing. If you take away the bribe, they’re not going to study it anymore. They’ve been conditioned into studying the thing because they want the end result, not because the thing is valuable for their hearts. Now, that’s not to say that grades can’t be useful. They can be. They can be done well. They can be done really well. But I don’t think they are done well. I think they’re used as the sole means to get kids to learn.and because of that the kids don’t actually care. Not all the time, but by and large don’t care about the stuff they’re learning. We’ve broken our periods down into five so each one of those five we call a tour and at the end of those at the end of each tour the students we help them put on these workshops for the parents. We call it a summit. You’re touring all of this new knowledge. Then we hold these giant presentations. But the parents come in and we and they get about five to seven minutes at each station and the stations are a representation of what the kids have learned and so one of those stations might be the students helping the parents learn how to classify insects or how to identify certain parts of an insect or another one along the insect ones was that they did with a geometric analysis. So they take these different insects and then they draw them and then they start dividing the drawings into all these different symmetrical patterns to see the symmetry that nature is actually built into nature. One the kids had another one comparing poetry to some of the Greek myths that they were doing, like King Midas compared to a Robert Frost poem. It was parents’ job to find the similarities and differences in the poem and in the Greek myth. Some of them are more hands-on. They had some art ones. They had some singing ones where we’re having the parents harmonize, practice singing in thirds, this sort of thing. It’s this feast idea. We set the kids up with the templates and then the kids start bringing ideas to the table on what they want the parents to do. We just help them form these things. The kids are so excited they they even come up to me the very first day of school and they’re like, Mr. Fitzgerald, what’s my summit station going to be? I say, I don’t know yet, you have to give me time. But this is all about building the leadership in them and being able to relay the stuff they’ve learned. They’re so excited about it it’s like that’s the that’s the best assessment right there that’s the best assessment when you see these kids go out there and and take command of a workshop and instructing adults how to do this really rich stuff and they’re the ones walking the adults through it for seven minutes and by the end of it they’re beat because they’ve done 10 workshops seven minutes each. They’re just rotating one after another. It’s really remarkable and very special. They come out of it and they’re just better. They level up every single time. Mr. Jekielek: You talked about Fridays, which are focused on outdoor learning. Please tell us more about that. How does that work? Mr. Fitzgerald: During the week, we have our normal academic lessons, Monday through Thursday. So they get their math lessons and their history lessons and their science lessons. And they get, as we say, we’re classic, we’re nature and the arts. Those are kind of the three main things we aim for. We have time where they’re studying poetry and poetry tea time. So they’re all pouring each other tea and reading poetry with each other. And that’s all happening during the week. Also dance classes during the week as well. That’s Monday through Thursday. Then on Friday, we set all that aside. In the morning, every Friday, we go on a hike. We find trails nearby and go get out on the trails. We study the plants together, identify trees, and if nothing else, just hike to be outside. That has a tremendous impact on kids in terms of their being, either becoming more courageous or having, it helps restrain them a little bit. After all, you can only climb the tree with the branches it’s giving you, or you can only cross the river with the stones it’s offering you. You don’t get to make your own rules. For some kids that are less self-restrained, it restrains them. For other kids, it encourages them to get off the trail a little bit. Then in the afternoon, we set up a series of workshops. And some of these can be more academically based. Some of it might be an extension of a history lesson they’ve been doing, and it’s some hands-on project. I think one they did last, they were building like Greek theater masks. That was a workshop. The workshops can also be archery. Sometimes they’ve made sauerkraut or bread, these sorts of things. So it’s a different mixture and they rotate through all four workshops about 45 minutes and they rotate between them and so we offer four new workshops every week. And so sometimes it’s things like math, baseball, or other board games that are very heavy on logic and reasoning. It’s just a wide mix of things. Sometimes we have people come in, parents, and they’ve offered workshops. We had a parent offer a Rosh Hashanah workshop a couple weeks back for the Jewish holiday. She came in and led the kids through the traditions of that. Mr. Jekielek: How does the school interface with religion? Mr. Fitzgerald: I would say that we’re always encouraging the kids toward the divine the best we can to think about it and ponder it. And it shows up in a lot of the literature that we’re providing with the kids and reading with them. It’s Christmas. We focus on a bunch of stories from the Bible every Christmas. We’re reading right now with them the Buddhist text, Milarepa. We have Buddhist literature about Jataka tales, and ancient texts across the board. We’re trying to encourage the kids toward some sort of understanding that there are these divine elements in the world. It’s fine for us to ponder them and think about them and talk about them. This is where we’re also a little bit different as well. Because usually if a school calls themselves a classical school, they’re usually religious based, especially Christian based, but we’re not. We’re just a private school that exists in society, but it’s very open toward the kids wanting to ponder the deepest questions. If you’re pondering the deepest literature and history and you’re and you’re doing it honestly those lessons are there. You can’t evade them. Mr. Jekielek: Because it’s such a central part of human existence. Mr. Fitzgerald: Right, it’s central. That also comes out when the kids are in nature and seeing these patterns everywhere. They’re seeing that there’s like this perfection that’s outside of our control, that the tree is at once beautiful and more powerful than you. It really puts you in your place. And if you’re put in your place so much and you start to understand your place in the larger scheme of things, some people might call that a spiritual experience. They might call that a glimmer into the divine. So it’s very important that the kids are outside and seeing nature and seeing the colors change. Right now in the fall, for instance, they’re seeing the colors change. It’s like that’s not man-made. or seeing the colors change. It’s like, that’s not man-made. There’s some other thing that’s orchestrating these chemical reactions that’s underneath them. And we don’t have to really even give it a name. The kids, they have a sense of it themselves. So those are the Fridays. It’s a big part of being outside and just forming a community with each other, but in these very structured ways. Again, we are not student-led. We’re a very open, dynamic school, extremely dynamic and flexible, but in no way are we student-centered. We are teacher-guided in everything we do, but we just really want to open up the experiences for the students. That’s how they’re going to become leaders, and we want to educate their imaginations and build the compass for their heart. And though there’s not one set model to do that, but just to give them more. Mr. Jekielek: Please tell us more about this tea and poetry that you do. Mr. Fitzgerald: We have a major emphasis on poetry. I mention it all the time, especially when I’m talking about the schoolhouse. And so what we do is on throughout the week, we'll have these sessions where the students come into our library and we just set out a bunch of great poetry resources for them. It’s all classical poetry. Some of it’s like, some of it might be like other little riddles and things like this from Mother Goose, for instance, things like this. Some of them are very simple like that. Then other ones are Robert Frost, or Emily Dickinson, or Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. These are real poets. We just set out this literature for them and they start perusing through it. At the same time they’re serving each other tea and reading poetry with each other. We have set up a reader’s chair and somebody takes the chair and they read their poem that they picked for the day. We just sip tea and listen to them. It’s a very loose, lighthearted environment. This is also where they will practice reciting their sonnet with each other or whatever new poem we’ve given them. And it’s just a chance to form a community around normal human things, which is serving each other tea and reading poetry and just sitting with each other in this laid-back environment. So it’s at once very fulfilling and rich. And also it’s just pointing to something else that’s bigger than us with the tea and poetry. Let’s just serve each other for a minute. It’s so fun. It’s so wonderful. Again, you’re still dealing with little kids. It’s not like a bunch of adults sitting down with each other and being so perfectly prim and proper. It’s not quite like that. But it’s a great experience, and the kids love it. They look forward to it every week. It’s another one of those dynamic experiences, but rooted in tradition, that we’re trying to give the kids. That’s what it’s about. We can just have poetry tea time. Very simple. Mr. Jekielek: Michael Fitzgerald, it’s such a pleasure to have you on the show. Mr. Fitzgerald: Thank you so much.

“They have young teenage patients showing up at the hospital with vaginal atrophy, uterine atrophy, bleeding pain,” says Canadian journalist Mia Hughes, the author of a 70-page report that scrutinizes a series of leaked internal files from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH). “This is brand new territory. We’ve never done this to teenage girls before. They’re just making it up as they go along. They’re layering other drugs on top of the testosterone to try to cope with the very side effects that the testosterone has caused, never at any point questioning: is it a good idea to give these girls testosterone?” Ms. Hughes says. In this episode, she breaks down what was revealed in these leaked files. Watch the video: “Health care is supposed to improve health, not destroy it,” Ms. Hughes says. Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and the guest, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times. FULL TRANSCRIPT Jan Jekielek: Mia Hughes, such a pleasure to have you on American Thought Leaders here at Dissident Dialogues. Mia Hughes: Thank you so much. My pleasure. Mr. Jekielek: You’ve been talking about the WPATH [World Professional Association for Transgender Health] files, which you published with Environmental Progress. You spent a lot of time putting them together and making sure what you published was correct. Then you’ve spent a couple of months talking about it. What has crystallized in your mind at this point? What are the most important things? Ms. Hughes: There are four points with the contents of the files. First and foremost, these are doctors who know they are harming children. Every time I talk about this one particular part of the report, it makes me rather angry, because it is so obvious that they know they’re harming children. Their panel discussion was leaked, and they’re all talking about children and adolescents. There is a pediatric endocrinologist, and he and his colleagues are talking about the difficulty of speaking to children about puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and the potential loss of fertility that comes with this treatment pathway. It’s a good theory that you talk about fertility preservation with a 14-year-old, but you’re talking to a blank wall. He says, “First of all, it’s difficult because we’re explaining it to children who haven’t had high school biology yet.” Right off the bat, you can see that they know these children don’t understand. Then he says, “When I’m talking to a 14-year-old about fertility preservation, I know it’s like talking to a blank wall. They'll be like, ‘Oh, babies are gross, you know?’” I was once a 14-year-old girl, and I know that that would have been my reaction. Absolutely, for sure, that would have been my reaction. In fact, all the way to my mid-20s that would have been my reaction. Then I hit age 30 It was like somebody flipped a switch inside me. I needed to have a baby right away. I had three children. I was a stay-at-home mother. I was breastfeeding. I was co-sleeping. This part particularly upsets me because they’re taking away from these children that chance to grow and mature and go down a normal developmental path like most people do. They know that they’re doing it, but it doesn’t stop them from doing it. They also know that there’s fertility regret. The doctor says that he sees it in his own patients that come back to him in their 20s when they’ve met someone and they want to settle down. He callously says to them, “Oh, the dog’s not doing it for you anymore, is it?” That means they thought they would always be happy with a dog when they were age 14 and this doctor was sterilizing them. Now, in their 20s, they want to have a baby and they can’t because of what these doctors have done. What is crystal clear in my mind now is they know what they’re doing. They know that there is significant regret. They know that these children don’t understand. Yet, they still do it and it doesn’t stop them from doing it. Speaker A: It’s like talking about diabetic complications with a 14-year-old. They don’t care. They’re never going to die. They’re going to live forever, right? So, I think when we’re doing informed consent, I know that that’s still a big lacuna. We do it, we try to talk about it, but most of the kids are nowhere in any kind of a brain space to really, really, really talk about it in a serious way. That’s always bothered me. But, you know, we still want the kids to be happier in the moment, right? Ms. Hughes: The second point is that it’s crystal clear in my mind this is not healthcare in that you think of healthcare as improving health, which is the point. You go to a doctor because you have something wrong, an illness, and you expect the doctor to improve your health, alleviate your suffering, and maybe heal you. That’s not what this is. You can see that in the conversations in the WPATH files about the harm of cross-sex hormones which are the iatrogenic effects. Iatrogenic means the treatment causes the illness. This is evident when there are conversations about the effect of testosterone on the female body that is not supposed to have large doses of testosterone. They have young teenage patients showing up at the hospital with vaginal atrophy, uterine atrophy, bleeding, and pain. They don’t know what to do about it, because this is brand new territory. We’ve never done this to teenage girls before. They’re making it up as they go along. They’re layering other drugs on top of the testosterone to try to cope with the side effects that the testosterone has caused. They never at any point question, “Is it a good idea to give these girls testosterone?” Nobody ever asks the most crucial question. Healthcare doesn’t destroy health. Healthcare is supposed to improve health, not destroy it. The third point is, like the fertility question, they can’t acknowledge the harms. They see the harms, because they see detransitioners. If you hear how these people talk about detransitioners, it’s so infuriating, because they trivialize their experience. They downplay the trauma and they downplay the harm that they’ve done by calling it another step on the gender journey, or something like that. But then they also try to pass the blame on to the victim. Marci Bowers, the president of WPATH, says that detransitioners have to own and take active responsibility for the decisions that they make, particularly if they are permanent medical decisions. She is completely oblivious to the fact that all of the blame lies on WPATH and the gender-affirming care providers, because WPATH is the group that removed all the guardrails. WPATH is the group that advocated for these young people to have unfettered access to an experimental treatment protocol with no safeguards whatsoever. Then a whole bunch of innocent kids come along and they get harmed, and then WPATH blames the victims instead of looking at themselves and realizing that they are the ones who did all the harm. The last point is, there is no sign of the Hippocratic Oath. The Hippocratic Oath, to cause you no harm, has left the building. It’s not present in WPATH at all. You can mostly see that in the conversations about non-binary surgeries. Most people think non-binary is blue hair and they/them pronouns, but there’s a much more sinister side to it, and that’s the surgical side. They are creating smooth, sexless bodies for nullification. They’re creating second sets of genitals, or customized mastectomy scars, without any concern for the impact on the person’s health. It’s not even an experiment, because nobody is tracking these outcomes or monitoring techniques or patient health. Nothing. There’s no sign of the Hippocratic Oath. Mr. Jekielek: How is it possible that we are here today? In this country, they are still using this approach which is quite different from what’s happening in the UK, especially since the shutting of the Tavistock Clinic and the Cass Review report coming out. People are saying, “My God, what have we done?” There is a moratorium on these types of procedures. We’re not there yet in the United States. In a few states, there is action in that direction. Again, how is this possible? Ms. Hughes: It remains a constant source of amazement to me that the medical world could have been so duped by WPATH. I think it’s because the medical world exists within the wider culture. It is definitely a cultural issue, in that the modern trans rights movement is a civil rights movement like no other. It has infiltrated all layers of society with a very aggressive approach, in that all disagreement is considered bigotry and transphobia that must be viciously punished and swiftly send a message to everyone else. Nobody has ever been allowed to disagree with anything the modern trans rights movement has said. That’s part of why society let this happen. WPATH has done a brilliant job at presenting themselves to the world as a real scientific and medical group. The stunt that they pulled is incredibly impressive. They had a few decades to build it up to when not much was going on and they were very obscure. But then when they rebranded in 2007 as the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, they self-identified as a global leading healthcare group. Mr. Jekielek: Can you go back to its origin, then up to that point in 2007 where WPATH rebrands? Then please tell us what happened next. Ms. Hughes: They started in 1978 as the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association [HBIGDA]. It’s not an easy acronym to remember. Back then, it was a very obscure field of medicine. I would like to think that they were actually pursuing science, or at least attempting to find the best scientific way to help the people who were suffering from what we now call gender dysphoria. Whether or not that’s a real diagnosis is up for debate. But what we can all agree on is that the suffering is real and the pain is real. In the early days, HBIGDA was trying to find a way to alleviate that suffering. I believe they have always been dubious and misguided. But something happened to HBIGDA around the late 1990s, which was exactly the same time that the modern trans rights movement was starting to form and come together. Trans activists started to join HBIGDA. The group’s goals became predominantly political and less scientific. Throughout the first decade of this century, more and more activists joined HBIGDA, and in 2007, they changed their name. They rebranded and they self-identified as a world-leading transgender healthcare group. From that point on, politics ruled the day. The science has always been weak and the evidence has always been weak. But from 2007 onwards, it was all about political goals in that they called it de-psycho-pathologization, which means they decided to reframe gender identity disorder. They decided to reframe transgender as a perfectly natural, healthy state of being. They said, “It’s natural, it’s healthy, it’s to be celebrated. It is definitely not a psychiatric disorder.” They made that decision. In 2010, they made this announcement, “Being transgender is not a mental disorder. It’s not a psychiatric disorder.” After they made that decision, from that point on, you could only affirm gender identity. If somebody said that they were trans, that was great. They said, “Celebrate it. Affirm it. It’s wonderful. It’s brilliant.” The disorder then becomes the distress that you feel because you are transgender, and because your mind and body don’t match. They think you can’t do anything about the mind because that’s innate and it’s to be celebrated. The only thing you can now do is alter the body with hormones and surgeries. From that point on, we have the gender affirmation model. Gatekeeping is transphobic, and safeguarding is transphobic. There should be access to drugs and surgeries on demand for anyone who says they are transgender. But the problem is, this is back in 2010. This was a different landscape. It was still a rare disorder. We still didn’t have the teenage cohort that later came in. This might not have been that devastating if the social contagion had not exploded in the 2010s. The modern trans rights movement was getting ready to unleash the relentless messaging and propaganda that some people can be born in the wrong body. Everybody possesses a gender identity. You can be a boy with a girl brain, or a girl with a boy brain. In 2014, the modern trans rights movement unleashed that messaging upon children and adolescents. When they did that, nobody stopped to question what would happen if we untethered a whole generation of children and adolescents from reality at a crucial stage in their identity development. Nobody asked that question. We now know the answer to the question that was never asked. The answer is that you get a social contagion. You get an epidemic of young people mistaking their normal pubertal woes— the distress of being a teenager, maybe discovering a homosexual identity, maybe being autistic, whatever discomfort and distress they have—as a sign that they are transgender, precisely because of the messaging that the modern trans rights movement is bombarding them with. When that met the WPATH agenda of no safeguarding and unfettered access to hormones and surgeries, when those two things collided, we ended up with a catastrophe. Mr. Jekielek: The WPATH files are obviously highly ideological. How has this become the approach of many important medical associations in the world? Ms. Hughes: That is the remarkable thing, because I can understand why us non-medical people were duped. I can understand why we fell for it, because we don’t know anything about science or studies. But the fact that the entire medical world fell for it completely will never cease to amaze me. It astonishes me, because basically it all stems from WPATH. In 2001, they produced Standards of Care 6. That was the first ideological Standards of Care, their guidelines. You could see the shift when they removed the mental health referral letters. Then Standards of Care 6 influenced the Endocrine Society’s 2009 guidelines. Those guidelines were drawn up largely by WPATH members who were also members of the Endocrine Society. You’ve got overlap and you’ve got crossover already. The Endocrine Society guidelines 2009, are also not based on any science whatsoever. They are based on ideology. The 2012 WPATH guidelines then cited the Endocrine Society guidelines, which cite WPATH Standards of Care 6, so you’ve already got circular citations. They’re citing each other, giving each other legitimacy when in the center there’s an empty shell devoid of anything that looks like science. But from that point on, because you have those three and they look like legitimate guidelines, incredibly, all of the other major medical associations looked to those guidelines and just regurgitated them. They didn’t investigate and ask, “Is what they are saying true?” What they were saying was really remarkable. They were saying that an experimental treatment pathway that can leave adolescents infertile and missing body parts should be the first line of treatment. This can only be described as a period of mass psychosis where large portions of society lost sight of reality. They live in an alternate reality because WPATH and trans activists are so aggressive in punishing anyone who questions them. This mass psychosis can be sustained because nobody is allowed to ask any questions. In the report, I talk about the chain of trust. I got this idea from Dr. Steven Levine, someone I completely adore. He was one of the early members of HIBIGDA. He actually left HIBIGDA in 2002 when he saw that activists were overrunning the group and that they were no longer pursuing science. He says that in medicine there is something called the chain of trust. When you are in med school or you’re a resident or you’re a doctor practicing, you simply do not have time to make sure that every treatment protocol, every drug, and every set of guidelines is legitimate. You don’t have time to research all of the studies, all of the drug interactions, and the FDA approval. You don’t have time for all that. You have to trust that someone above you has done all of the rigorously researched science, and that the information you are being given is the best available science. WPATH has broken the chain of trust in medicine because they present themselves as being a scientific organization. They have standards of care that have hundreds of citations. It all looks legitimate. The busy doctor or the busy med student accepts it because this professional body that looks legitimate says that this is the best way to treat children and adolescents and vulnerable adults. They accept it. But the chain of trust was broken. Europe has now figured that out. They’ve looked at the evidence. They realize, “There’s no evidence at all to support this.” But in North America it’s going to be very difficult for these organizations to admit that they have been duped and that they got this wrong. On an institutional level, it’s going to be very difficult. Mr. Jekielek: Why do you think it will be more difficult for the American organizations than the UK organizations, or Sweden, Norway, and Denmark? Ms. Hughes: In all of the European nations that have pivoted away from the adolescent puberty suppression and cross-sex hormones, they have done so because their own national health boards have spent years examining the evidence and the treatment protocol and found there is no evidence, and you cannot justify doing this to children. They don’t have all of these very powerful medical associations like you do in North America, who took a stand trusting WPATH starting in around 2012. It’s going to be very embarrassing for them to admit their mistake. They have typically vilified their own members who try to speak up. There have been a number of pediatricians inside the American Academy of Pediatrics who spoke up and got vilified for doing so. First of all, you’ve made a terrible mistake, and a lot of people were harmed because you made that mistake. Then on top of that, you vilify the people who tried to warn you that you made that mistake, it makes it even more difficult to then look at the mistake that you made. It is the powerful medical associations that are sustaining this and sustaining WPATH. Europe just doesn’t have that problem. They don’t have these associations. They just looked at the evidence. Mr. Jekielek: Traditionally, the condition was called gender identity disorder. It was more often men who really struggled and eventually might have taken some steps to try to deal with it. But it wasn’t this idea that they were actually transforming themselves into the other sex. Today, it’s mostly younger girls because of this social contagion. There’s this idea that you can transform into the other sex. They really believe that they can become the other sex based on what the adults say. Please tell us about this. Ms. Hughes: Yes. They used to be realistic to a certain extent in this field of medicine. When it was gender identity disorder, the sufferer never believed themselves to be a member of the opposite sex. It was just that there was a deeply felt discomfort with the body. Now, hormonal and surgical interventions are supposed to alleviate that suffering. But you’ve got to understand that there is more than one pathway to developing issues with your gender. The vast majority of men who seek hormonal and surgical interventions are heterosexual men with a paraphilia called autogynephilia, which means they are aroused by the image of themselves as women. But a significant part of that fantasy is actually becoming a woman. It’s not dressing like a woman. It’s not being treated as if you are a woman. It’s actually becoming a woman. That is the fantasy. The autogynephilic men are the ones who shaped the modern trans rights movement. They are front and center in the modern trans rights movement, so that’s where this magical thinking comes from. These men desperately desire, more than anything else in the world, to be women. When they created a rights movement that enabled them to actually become women, they revived the concept of gender identity. They push the idea on everyone that we all have a gender identity and that you can be in a male body, but have a female gender identity. Therefore, you are just as much a woman as your mother. That’s why we are now so detached from reality. It is because these men desperately desire to be women. But the problem with that is children then get the same messaging. That means that a boy is told that he can become a girl. Of course, the boy is going to believe you, because he’s a child. He doesn’t understand the world yet. He’s going to trust what adults tell him. You see this in the case of Jazz Jenny. Have you watched the reality TV show, “I Am Jazz?” Mr. Jekielek: I have not, but I’m aware of the case and some of the medical complications. Ms. Hughes: Right. I'll try to give you a brief recap. This story was filmed for all the world to see. This was about a young boy who liked a sparkly bathing suit, princess gowns, and Barbie dolls, so his mother told him that he was a girl. She changed his name, changed his pronouns, and raised him as a girl. The reality tv show “I am Jazz” starts when Jazz should be in puberty. But he’s not in puberty because they blocked his puberty. That’s the first thing that you see. He is a teenager and his friends are all dating, but Jazz has no feelings, no crushes, and no sexual feelings at all because they blocked his puberty. Then he starts taking estrogen and starts to develop and he looks like a girl because they blocked his puberty and they put him on estrogen. But he can’t date because none of the boys at his high school are interested in dating the girl with the penis. He says that in the show, “None of the boys want to date the girl with the penis.” He puts his life on hold until he can get the surgery to invert his penis and turn it into something that looks like a vagina. He thinks that after he has this surgery he will be a girl just like any other girl and all of his problems will be solved. The surgery was performed by the now president of WPATH, Marci Bowers. It’s botched because he had his puberty blocked and he had to have a far more complicated surgery. It’s botched and he has complications. Then after the fact you see the light go out of his eyes, because you see reality hit. He’s still not the same as the other girls. The boys are still not interested. He tells one boyfriend about the surgery, and the boyfriend actually physically recoils on camera, because an inverted penis is not a vagina. We all know that. But poor Jazz had no idea. Jazz thought that he would be like all the other girls. He was sold a lie by the adults in his life, by the doctors that treated him, and now there’s no going back now. There’s no going back. Mr. Jekielek: This is a heart-wrenching story. What’s happening with the mother here? This whole story is also on camera. Ms. Hughes: When I’m in this debate, and when I’m researching, I try to be as generous as I can with the parents of teenagers who suddenly announce that they’re trans. We cannot place any blame on these parents whatsoever, no matter what decision they make. Jeanette Jennings is something else entirely because she diagnosed her own son. Jazz was displaying very extreme, gender non-conforming behavior. Jeanette Jennings pulled the DSM-IV off the library shelf, found gender identity disorder, diagnosed her own son as suffering from gender identity disorder, and then went and found a therapist that would affirm her son as her daughter. Then she puts him on television. I do not accept that. I do not extend my generosity as far as Jeanette Jennings, because I think she really did make this decision for her son. Perhaps she was trying to alleviate his suffering at that moment. Because when you’re a child and you’re different, that is difficult, no question. However, she made a terrible decision. It is honestly child abuse. Then she made the decision to have it all filmed and broadcast to the world, which brings us back to the social contagion. Because of the reality show “I am Jazz,” there was the Jazz effect. Not only did she do this to her own child, but she also played a major role in triggering the social contagion that has ravaged the adolescent population ever since. “I am Jazz” started broadcasting in 2015. Mr. Jekielek: We started with mostly men and it was rare. Today, we’re in this situation where it’s mostly young girls, and it’s not rare at all. In fact, there has been a hockey stick effect on the graph, and it’s still going up. Obviously, it’s not just the mom or child. There are the producers and other people involved in getting a show like this onto primetime television. Ms. Hughes: First and foremost, they believe in the concept of the transgender child, which I do not. All of the people involved in the making of the show, “I Am Jazz,” believe in this non-existent type of child. If they had a good intention, perhaps it was that if other children are also struggling, and they are transgender, they can see themselves represented in this show. Therefore, that will make their life easier and they will be more comfortable coming out. I think that was the intention, if I give them the benefit of the doubt. However, the problem is that nobody making this show seems to have had any idea of how social contagion works. Richard Dawkins is here at this conference, and we can talk about this based on his understanding of the meme. Way back in the 1980s, Richard Dawkins was talking about the meme, which is like a unit of cultural information that spreads from mind to mind. It goes viral from mind to mind to mind. We are social creatures, so ideas, behaviors, and emotions spread from person to person. They course throughout the social network. The likes of, “I Am Jazz,” the concept of the transgender child, the concept of adolescent transitioning are ideas that seeped into society and spread from mind to mind to mind. What happened back then was a whole bunch of teenagers were struggling. Puberty is no fun for anyone. Then there was this idea that if you hate your body, it could be a sign that you are transgender. Think about the fertile mind. That idea has to land in a fertile mind. There is no more fertile mind than the pubescent mind for the idea that if you hate your body, it could be a sign that you are transgender. Every kid going through puberty probably hates their developing body. What happened is a whole bunch of innocent teenagers interpreted their distress through the lens of gender that was provided to them by, “I Am Jazz,” and by the modern trans rights movement. They came to the wrong conclusion. I see this in every graph for the referrals to gender clinics. There are almost no referrals in 2014. In 2015, when “I Am Jazz” first came out, you see an enormous spike, the inflection point, and then we’re off. We then had an epidemic. The remarkable thing is we’ve seen plenty of social contagions in the past. We’ve had epidemics of anorexia, bulimia, and cutting. In the 1980s, we had multiple personality disorders. Way back in the 19th century, we had hysteria. We’ve had social contagions before, and we understand that teenage girls are typically at the forefront of every social contagion in history. Yet, we failed to recognize this 5,000 percent increase in teenage girls identifying as trans in the space of one decade. We failed to see that that was a social contagion. Again, that is because of this mass psychosis. Society lost touch with reality and believed in this fictional world in which there’s such a thing as a transgender child. Therefore, when the 5,000 percent increase suddenly happened, we were not able to see that. We were all expected to celebrate it because it was all of these transgender children who in times past could never have come out because society was not accepting. Now they can all come out. But that explanation doesn’t work at all. If it is a randomly occurring trait, it has to be randomly occurring throughout the population. It can’t just strike teenage girls predominantly between age 15 and 17, many of whom are lesbian, and many of whom are autistic and have multiple psychiatric comorbidities. That is not how randomly occurring traits present themselves in society. That is how social contagion presents itself in society. Imagine if we had a 5,000 percent increase in middle-aged men suffering from breast cancer. Basically, this was originally a disorder that struck predominantly middle-aged men, and then all of a sudden it’s striking teenage girls. Flip it the other way around. If we had a 5,000 percent increase in middle-aged men suffering from breast cancer, the medical world would investigate this and ask, “What’s the trigger? What’s the cause?” But nobody thought to ask the question, “Why is this happening to these teenage girls?” That’s because of trans activism and the climate of fear that the trans activists created that prevented people from asking even the most basic questions and prevented people from protecting these girls. Mr. Jekielek: Why don’t you believe in the concept of a transgender child? You probably don’t believe in the concept of preferred pronouns either. Please clarify that for us. Ms. Hughes: With the concept of the transgender child, it’s very simple. I believe that being transgender is not something that you are, it’s something that you do. It is a type of person brought into existence by medical technology where you can alter your body with hormones and surgeries. But that is a decision that only an adult can make. Because a child could never possibly understand the lifelong ramifications of sacrificing their fertility, sacrificing their sexual function, and sacrificing their healthy body parts, so a child could never make that decision. Therefore, there cannot be such a thing as a transgender child. Many people think it’s okay to socially transition a child. Like Jazz, you tell a little five-year-old boy that he’s a girl. You give him female pronouns and you give him a female name. They raise the child thinking, “If this is not a transgender child, the child will tell me. The child knows best.” Without understanding the power of social transition, the moment you tell a little boy that he’s a girl, the moment you call him she, and the moment you give him a girl’s name, you lock in that gender identity. There’s no going back for this little boy. You’re untethering him from reality when he’s so young that he doesn’t understand anything about the world yet. He thinks he is a girl and he believes you. We should never socially transition any children, no matter how strong their gender nonconformity is. Children deserve a childhood grounded in truth. Raise your child in reality. Tell your child the truth. Let them know that they’re not transgender. Let them become a fully mature adult, at least to age 25. The brain is not finished maturing until age 25. Then, if there’s still a desire to transition, I still think that there need to be strong guardrails around the treatment pathway, because of how experimental it is, because of the lack of science, and because it’s irreversible and has a very dramatic impact on your functioning as an adult. But it’s a decision that only an adult can make, so therefore there cannot possibly be such a thing as a transgender child. With the pronoun thing, I use accurate sex pronouns at all times. The moment you call a man, “she,” you are suggesting that a man can become a woman. We all instinctively use accurate sex pronouns. We know that she means a woman and he means a man. If you call a man she, you are playing along with this idea that it is possible for a man to become a woman, and it’s not. In my mind, that is not true. The truth matters. I don’t accept their idea of misgendering. But I don’t use accurate sex pronouns to be offensive. I do that because truth matters. The ideology that says a man can become a she is truly one of the most dangerous and harmful ideas in society today. It’s doing immeasurable harm to young people and I will not be a part of this. Mr. Jekielek: In Canada right now, there are people who are working on having both sets of sexual organs or facsimiles developed. I believe the Canadian health system is required, at least in one case, to pay for that. Please explain this for us. Ms. Hughes: Nowhere is there a better example of how far off the rails gender medicine has gone than these two cases in Ontario. In the WPATH files, there are conversations about this type of surgery. Both cases are in Ontario. The first case actually didn’t get that much media attention. It slipped under the radar. It’s about a woman who identifies as non-binary, so she believes herself to be both male and female. She wanted to have the most gruesome of all surgeries called phalloplasty, where they take the skin and the flesh from the woman’s forearm and shape it into an appendage and sew it onto her groin as some sort of pseudo-penis. But usually, when they do that, they have to remove all of the internal reproductive organs, including removing the vagina, the ovaries, the uterus, because there’s a cancer risk, apparently. But this woman, because she identified as non-binary, wanted to have both sets. She wanted to keep her vagina and have the appendage. They initially turned her down and said they wouldn’t pay for it. Then she kicked up a tiny bit of a fuss. They gave in right away and they approved it. That’s it. Case closed. Then that opens the door to other people wanting the same type of surgery. On the flip side, we have a man who identifies as non-binary, but with a feminine dominant identity. He’s non-binary, but somewhat feminine, whatever that means. He wants to keep his penis and have a surgically created vagina. Normally, when they do that, they use the penile tissue. They invert the penis and they use the penile tissue to line the cavity of the pseudo-vagina. But he wants to keep his penis and have a vagina, so he had a vagina made out of a section of his colon. Initially, Ontario Health said, “No, we’re not paying for it,” so he appealed. The basis of his appeal was that forcing a non-binary person to go through binary surgery is conversion therapy under Canada’s conversion therapy ban. Remarkably, the appeal board ruled in his favor. The appeal board quoted WPATH all the way through the ruling. There’s a non-binary chapter in WPATH’s latest standards of care, version eight, and it’s about individually customized bodies. These are surgeries to create individually customized bodies. The Ontario Health Authority looked to WPATH. WPATH says, “Yes, this is medically necessary, life-saving care. Then the Ontario Health Authority insurance appealed one more time. They said, “No, we are not paying for this.” The ruling just came out. The final decision is that, “Yes, it is medically necessary. It’s gender-affirming care.” The Ontario taxpayer must pay for a very mentally unwell man to have a surgically-created vagina using a section of his colon. Just to add insult to injury, we are paying for him to have it done in Texas because we don’t have surgeons that do this ghoulish Frankenstein surgery in Canada. We pay for this man to go down to a very dubious gender clinic in Texas to have it done there. It’s important for people to understand what happens when you never say no to trans activists. Because, the truth is, WPATH is not a medical group. It’s not a scientific group. It’s a group of extremist trans activists. These non-binary surgeries are an example of what happens when you don’t ever say no to them and you let trans activists do whatever they want. This is medicine with no rules. There’s no greater violation of the Hippocratic oath. Mr. Jekielek: If there are no barriers, there is this escalation that you are describing. Ms. Hughes: Of course, what’s next? It’s impossible for me to think about what’s next. What goes beyond the non-binary surgeries? In Quebec, we have that story about a 21-year-old man who had two or three fingers amputated because he didn’t feel like he should have all his fingers. Maybe that’s the next frontier. Mr. Jekielek: Let’s talk about what’s next, but from the other side. In the UK, since the WPATH files came out, we also have the Cass Review report, a very comprehensive look into this whole phenomenon and the lack of medicine around it. How does the Cass Review report intersect with what WPATH has done? Then where do we go from here? Ms. Hughes: My WPATH report came out in March and then the Cass Review report came out in April. The Cass Review report is the culmination of four years of investigation into the Youth Gender Service in London. It is as comprehensive as it gets. It is complete, rigorous, and chock full of systematic reviews and evidence. It’s grounded in real science. Everything that it said vindicates what we said a month earlier about WPATH and how there is no science and this is an unregulated medical experiment on adolescents and children. The Cass Review report was so damning in that Dr. Hillary Cass found that children had been let down. A branch of medicine with absolutely no good quality science to back it up had been placing children on an irreversible treatment pathway with no scientific justification whatsoever. The children had been let down and they were coming to terrible harm. Most of the Cass Review report was very measured and written in very neutral language. But there were a few pages where it really did feel as though they were just taking a shot at WPATH, because they were angry with WPATH. Everything that I explained earlier about the circular citations, the lack of scientific evidence, and that it’s all WPATH’s fault—that is all in the Cass Review report. They did a review of all of the guidelines and they found that there’s no science to them whatsoever. They criticized the complete lack of scientific rigor that went into the formulation of their standards of care. Nothing in the Cass Review report contradicted what I said. Europe has abandoned WPATH. We can say that with certainty now. Europe has pivoted away from WPATH. They do not follow WPATH standards of care, and they’re not afraid to say so. They’re not afraid to criticize WPATH. We now have to bring that spirit to North America. That is the major challenge. I’m in Canada. The Cass Review report got almost no media attention whatsoever. We still have Justin Trudeau, although health is provincial. There are signs that provinces may, one by one, pay attention to the evidence, like with Alberta banning puberty blockers. There’s a line in the Cass Review report where Dr. Cass says, “Some activists wanted the NHS [National Health Service] to practice social justice medicine, but that’s not how the NHS works. The NHS is interested in evidence-based medicine.” We here in North America are still practicing social justice medicine, which is in complete contradiction to all of the scientific evidence. Now, we have to wake up our politicians and our provincial health departments. It’s going to be an uphill struggle. But eventually, this has an end date. Maybe in the U.S. it happens with malpractice lawsuits. Maybe it happens with the two American states that have increased the statute of limitations to 30 years after the child turns 18. If you transition a child, the statute of limitations is open until that child turns 48 years old. That’s the way to do it. You don’t need lawsuits because just the threat of lawsuits makes health insurance companies very uneasy and they typically stop funding the procedure. Perhaps that’s the answer. In the meantime, we must make these medical institutions face up to the harm that they have done, and face up to the mistake that they have made. Mr. Jekielek: Mia Hughes, it’s such a pleasure to have you on the show. Ms. Hughes: Thank you so much. The pleasure’s all mine. Mr. Jekielek: Thank you all for joining Mia Hughes and me on this episode of American Thought Leaders. I’m your host, Jan Jekielek. This interview was edited for clarity and brevity.

“Under Mao’s Cultural Revolution, they can find something you wrote, something you said many years ago, and then demonize you as an ‘oppressor.’ … You lose your job. You go to camps. You go to struggle sessions. Have you seen the struggle sessions in America today? It’s called less whiteness training.” Lily Tang Williams is a survivor of communist China’s Cultural Revolution and now a congressional candidate for New Hampshire’s 2nd district. Watch the video: “I see the writing on the wall,” she says. From statues being toppled to the push for “equity” to people losing their businesses and their careers because they refused the COVID vaccines, America is descending into the same kind of authoritarianism she fled from, Williams says. “I thought I was having PTSD. I would literally wake up in the middle of the night. … This is like the Cultural Revolution all over again.” FULL TRANSCRIPT Jan Jekielek: Lily Tang Williams, such a pleasure to have you on American Thought Leaders. Lily Tang Williams: Thank you for having me. The pleasure is mine. Mr. Jekielek: Lily, let’s start with your early life. It is so important to have these stories. You actually grew up during the Cultural Revolution in China, under the Chinese Communist Party. Let’s start there. Ms. Williams: I was born in Chengdu, which is the capital city of Sichuan Province in southwest China, next to Tibet. My parents were illiterate workers. They worked in a state factory six days a week. People today cannot imagine how primitive the living conditions were. Eight families all worked at my dad’s factory and shared one bathroom, eight families with children. And the bathroom was just a big hole in the ground. It was divided in the middle, so half for the women and half for the men. It was one hole in the ground with two bricks where you can go squat. So, it was very primitive. My parents, because they were poor workers, got very few food coupons. People have no idea that when you live in a socialist, communist country, when the economy is really bad everybody is equally poor. Only when your position is pretty high up in the Communist Party, which is the only party in China, do you get more rationing; from rice, to wheat, to milk powder, to fabrics, to oil, and to sugar. My mom always told me I was a little skinny thing, because I grew up on rice porridge. My mom did not have milk for me, and they were hungry too. So, I grew up on rice porridge. I was a very, very skinny little girl until I went to college at age 17. Because my mom and dad worked for the state factory six days a week, we didn’t have time to do lots of other fun stuff. Life was all suffering and no fun. Every day it was politics. We lived next to a school. At 6:30 in the morning, the loudspeaker come on. Nobody can sleep in. The loudspeaker says, “Get up, go to work, go to school.” And then we sang red songs. I was two years old when Mao’s Cultural Revolution started. My memories started when I was four or five, at the peak of his Cultural Revolution. I was in my grandmother’s neighborhood. My grandmother’s neighborhood had this huge public square. My first memories are of these struggle sessions in the public square with the so-called black classes. In classic Marxist theory, there is the oppressor versus the oppressed. Under oppressor there are five black classes. Under oppressed there are five red classes. I was red. I did not have to go to struggle sessions, but other people were in the black classes. They had to go to struggle sessions, be publicly shamed, and denounce their families and their ancestors. I remember some of them looked so pale, because they got inside the military trucks and were going to get publicly executed. And I got so scared. “Oh, really? Those people are getting shot?” That’s what they told me. So, it was very scary. My childhood memories were just scary chaos. I didn’t understand. I didn’t know the truth. But also, I didn’t know what to think, because they don’t teach you how to think. There is politics in your face every day. And another painful memory I just discovered last year, is somebody committed suicide by jumping into the 20 foot well in my grandma’s neighborhood. Some people said, “Come look, come look.” So, I went there and looked. It was a man’s body floating on top of the water in a 20-foot deep well. I got so scared that I just ran away. But I was told, if you have a tragic childhood memory, then don’t think about it. So, I did not think about it. I didn’t even know who he was. I did not ask questions. I just remember there was no water for a while, because they had to disinfect everything. Last year I started thinking about Mao’s Cultural Revolution being similar to conditions in today’s America. I asked my uncle, “Do you remember that guy in the water well?” He said, “Yes, he was from a black family and committed suicide. He couldn’t handle the struggle sessions anymore.” It’s when people throw rocks at you if you don’t apologize very well, and you don’t denounce your family. They might even send you to concentration camps, or have you executed. So that’s my childhood. I don’t know what else I might discover. Maybe I need to sit down with a therapist to dig into my memories. Sometimes it’s very painful to think about it. Mr. Jekielek: That’s fascinating, because you were actually one of the red classes, which means you were the oppressed. You were the good guys. Ms. Williams: The oppressed, yes. Mr. Jekielek: You were called oppressed in this system that the Chinese Communist Party created. The Chinese Communist Party has this narrative that says it lifted millions of people out of poverty. You hear that again and again as being one of the great successes of China. Indeed, the standard of living, as compared to the Cultural Revolution period, is a lot higher now in China. Ms. Williams: Yes. Mr. Jekielek: How do you respond to that? Ms. Williams: I know the difference, because we lived on food rationing, shared one bathroom, had no privacy, and were just hungry all the time. So, I know the difference. When Mao died in 1976, I was 12 years old. China’s economy was just about to completely collapse. People have no idea. The 40 million peasants who supported the Communist Party were starving to death during the 1950s. In 1978, when Deng Xiaoping came back to power, he wanted to have economic reform. He was not very ideological. He just said, “we will allow some people to get rich.” Basically, he let the peasants grow a little food on their land, which was of course owned by the state. But this was an alternative to the people’s communes, where people had no food to eat, and it was all the communist way. And I heard that in Sichuan the peasants actually started to grow food. They said, “We don’t want to have communes anymore, so here’s your land. Let’s divide it up.” You can give a percentage back to the government, and then you can keep the rest. That gave people an incentive to work hard, because they could keep a portion for themselves. They wouldn’t have to be starving to death. So, this worked very well, and Deng Xiaoping heard about it. There was supposed to be a crackdown, because it was not legal. But he said, “Actually, let them do it. Let’s just monitor it.” Then later, basically, they did this reform. That’s why they did it, because it worked. We had a better harvest, instead of people starving to death under Mao. Then, Deng Xiaoping did more reforms and central planning. Later on, they allowed a little bit of private industry, private business, and private property, all of which was demonized under communism. And then, China boomed. People not only had their food, but they had their condos, and they had their own companies. 600 million Chinese were lifted out of poverty. Not by the party, but by their own hard work, and by their human nature to pursue prosperity and freedom. So, I do not buy into that party narrative. Chinese people are successful all over the world, if you just leave them alone. They know how to do the math. They know how to work hard. They know how to cook, clean, do IT work, and do restaurants. They are prosperous. It’s just human nature, if you just get out the way. So, it’s a little bit free market capitalism, coupled with the decentralization of some economic policies in Beijing that lifted the people out of poverty. I don’t buy their propaganda that gives them the credit. They never give Chinese people and small business people enough credit. The people said, “You know what? We were starving to death. Thanks for getting out of way. Now we can actually feed ourselves and pursue happiness in life.” So, I don’t buy into their propaganda at all. Human beings have a natural desire for freedom and prosperity. People know how to achieve that, if you just leave them alone. Mr. Jekielek: It’s almost like a kind of Stockholm Syndrome. It’s interesting how you frame it. If people are starving to death, and then you create a situation where they’re no longer starving to death, they might be somewhat grateful for that. Ms. Williams: That’s their talking point. And of course, the people would rather have a better life than being hungry all the time, and having no security at all. I supported the economic reforms. When I was in college in the eighties, I wanted to see political reform as well, because I was in law school. Rule of law means you have to have political reform. No matter how rich you become in the economic reform movement, if you don’t have political reform to protect your private property, then you have no guarantees. Look at what happened to today’s Chinese billionaires. There is no guarantee that you will be billionaire forever. You can lose everything overnight. Political freedom and economic freedom have to go together. Mr. Jekielek: Very interesting. I’m going to go back now to this idea. You were part of the red classes, so you were probably a Young Pioneer. You probably participated in all these communist youth organizations. I do know that you were a Communist Party member, and you were serious about that. Please tell me what it was like growing up in these organizations. Ms. Williams: When I was young, the best students in the government schools got nominated by teachers to be Young Pioneers. Actually, I have a story about that. I wanted to become a Young Pioneer so badly, and I was one of the best students. I made 100 percent on all my subjects in academic study. They had 3 criteria; political, academic, and physical. You have to score the best in all those three areas. That means we had a physical education class. You cannot fail that class. We had political education. It’s all about political stuff, and you had to comply. And you can’t be a black child or you would be disqualified from joining Mao’s grassroot organizations for students, the Young Pioneers and the Red Guards. You have to be qualified politically. I made the best grades, so I was confident that I would be the first one to join Young Pioneers. Naturally, I’m a red child as well. No, I did not join. Do you know why? Because my girlfriend reported to teacher that I was too confident. I had told her, “I bet I will be the first one to join Young Pioneers.” I was too confident. My teacher called me into her office to say, “We’re not going to let you join the Young Pioneers, because you are not humble enough, and you are full of yourself.” Basically, I got criticized. I just lowered my head. Then, she continued to say, “This is a collective society. Your individual expression of confidence is a flaw, a drawback. You need to comply. You need to act like everybody else.” I went home very upset. I talked to my parents and they supported my teachers. My parents were not educated. So, I also learned a big lesson at age of seven. I could not trust my friends, and I probably could not even trust family members. During Mao’s Cultural Revolution, you were supposed to whisper, because if your neighbors heard you say something not politically correct, they could report to the authorities. Mr. Jekielek: Not PC, you mean not politically correct, right? Ms. Williams: Yes. Not politically correct can potentially connect you with something like a black family. Who are the black families? They are the rich farmers, landlords, rightists, bad influencers, and counter-revolutionaries. Those are very subjective terms. If you say something that’s potentially against government, or you’re even just complaining about the party, you could be considered revolutionary. So I learned my lesson. I said, “Okay I’m going to join the Young Pioneers. I’m going to keep everything private. I won’t tell anybody anything, and I won’t trust my friends.” And so, I just went to school, made good grades and chanted, “Long live Chairman Mao.” You have to do all that chanting in school. I proved to my teacher that I was good, and I joined the Young Pioneers one year later. In middle school, I joined the Red Guards. In high school, a communist youth is called a youth member. In order to teach in law school after graduating from college, I had to become a party member. So, I went through all those four party groups. Thank goodness I woke up earlier. Mr. Jekielek: Let’s start there. Did you believe in all this? Did you believe in the ideology? When did you start believing, or did you not believe? Ms. Williams: Oh, I believed everything. They controlled the press, all the media, all the TVs, all the radios, and me, of course. My parents generation, and my uncle’s generation were all totally brainwashed. I believed that we needed to eliminate the black classes. They were the enemies of the people, and the enemies of the state. I knew one friend that could not join the Young Pioneers because her grandparents had owned land. I believed it all. How am I going to know the truth? That’s what I heard every day. Political stuff is in your face every day. I was unhappy because I was not the first one that got to join the Young Pioneers. I was such a good student. But I was also not happy that I had learned to be a very cautious, self-censored, and untrusting person. For so many years in school I had chanted, “Long live China, long live the party for another 10,000 years.” When Mao died that was the first time I asked a question in my own head, “How could he die?” Because he had become like my God. I could see him talking to me, smiling at me from up in the sky, behind the clouds. When we had to burn the wood to heat up the wok to stir fry Chinese food, sometimes all of a sudden I could see his face in the fire. All the other religions were demonized. We could not call ourselves Buddhist or Christian. You had to be a believer in Mao and communism. So, how could he die all of a sudden? I thought he would live forever. Like we had said, 10,000 years, and then double 10,000 years. Of course, it was not science, but we also did not learn real science either. They canceled science. Remember, Mao destroyed the old cultural ideas, costumes, and social habits. Everything was supposed to be canceled and destroyed. Why didn’t I know science? It’s like I never even questioned if he was a human or a God? I never even asked that question. Mr. Jekielek: Let’s talk very briefly about the Great Leap Forward. This is one of these bizarre decisions that cost millions of people their lives. It created this extreme poverty that we’ve been talking about. Can you share with the audience about this? Ms. Williams: The Great Leap Forward was Mao, non-stop. It was ne campaign after another; Land Reform, Three-anti, Five-anti. After the 1949 founding of the PRC, he started Great Leap Forward. He wanted to have China’s agriculture output increased to compete with the former Soviet Union. He and Stalin had some conflicts, and it was not a good relationship. He told the peasants how to grow food, to basically grow the crops really close together, so as to increase production. How come central planners know how to grow food, and how can they tell peasants how to grow food? Because all the crops were grown too close, they died. There were also a lot of other bad policies. When starvation start happening in the countryside, the local officials would not tell Beijing, because they were afraid. Remember, all the party leaders were promoted by the higher-ups. If they had bad news, they might lose their job, and they might not get promoted. So, nobody dared to tell the truth. The famine continued to spread, until eventually the central government Beijing knew about it, and they still didn’t do anything. Mao was very much a sociopath. He said, “We have lots of Chinese people.” He once said. “If 10 million or 20 million die, it’s no big deal.” When people kissed his hand crying to say, “I need help for mother,” he never even looked at them. It’s like he had no emotion on his face. Before I was born in 1964, I heard my family talk about the three years of natural disaster. I said, ”What was that?” They said, “People were starving to death and had no food.” But they all blamed it on three years of natural disaster. They still do today, and they don’t even know the truth. How many died? They don’t even know. I found out how many died of starvation after I came to this country and woke up. I started to challenge my past indoctrination, and read the books myself in this country when my English got better. I found out that my whole life in China had been a lie. Mr. Jekielek: How was America portrayed in China through all these years? Ms. Williams: When I read some histories the Great Famine, it was caused by communist policies—by Mao’s policies specifically. Of course, I did not go to K-12 school here. Mr. Jekielek: Now, you’re reading history in a free country like the U.S. But let’s just go back to China for a moment. How was America portrayed, and what was the Chinese Communist Party’s explanation of what America was about? What was the perception? What was your perception of America while you were still in China, before you came here? Ms. Williams: I had no idea. I had no way of knowing the outside world at all. We could not travel. We had no competing news. We were demonized. Actually, we were told to demonize America the whole time, because it was imperialist America. As for the Taiwanese people, we needed to liberate them. They were suffering and starving. I was thinking, but I’m really hungry. How could they be worse off than I am?” I had no idea. I had no idea in of what to think China. We were a totally isolated country. Mr. Jekielek: You were taught to demonize Americans. Why? What was the excuse? Ms. Williams: We would hold our face up and chant, “Down with American imperialism.” If somebody had a family or friend relationship with a Taiwanese or American, then you could be called a traitor. Then you would be called a counter-revolutionary and belong to the black class. The first time I understood what America is all about, is after I went to college in Shanghai when I was 17 years old. I had no idea what Americans thought about Chinese history until I came to this country. It’s a human tragedy how people could just not know the truth at all. Mr. Jekielek: Did you have any friends in the black classes? Ms. Williams: One girl was, because she could never be allowed to join the Young Pioneer. She could never wear the red scarf. She told me, “My grandparents have some land, so they are black class.“ But I went to her apartment and they lived just like us, very poor, very primitive. We suffered the same as them. After the communist takeover, it didn’t matter which class you were from, we all were all equally poor. If you had some property, like some of my friends in the country that were black class, they lost everything. They said, ”The army and communist party marched in and kicked us out and lived in our nice houses.” So, they were just like us, the poor red worker class, except they had to go to struggle sessions. They could not join most organizations. I did not think about this deeply. I just said, “How come you cannot wear the red scarf?” But I also said, “Oh, you guys are bad,” because that’s what I was told. Mr. Jekielek: The red classes were taught to think a certain way about the black classes. And of course you never want to become the black class. This is what I’m trying to get at. Are you saying you perceived these people to be bad? Ms. Williams: Yes, especially because of the the indoctrination in school, and what I saw in the public square. Every day you saw this, and you listened to it. We did not even have TV’s. You were too poor to even afford a movie ticket once in a while. Every day it was on the loudspeaker in the classroom. The teachers would indoctrinate us. Starting in elementary school, every week we had to take what they called moral character education. But actually, it was the political correctness class. Everybody had to go there. Then you were basically listening to the party teachers. All the teachers worked for the government, so they had the same narratives. Actually, and I did not know until years later, for one year my grandmother was identified as potential black class, because her first husband, my real grandfather, died before I was born. When my mom was baby, my grandmother had to marry a second husband, a poor worker. But they wanted my grandmother to confess why the first husband died. Did he die as a counter-revolutionary, killed by the government? Or was he killed, as my grandma claimed, by his own people. My grandfather was the country outlaw leader in the Sichuan Mountains. Mr. Jekielek: Oh. Ms. Williams: Yes. Pretty wild, right? But I had no idea. Maybe that’s where I got some of my brains from. So, she was so nervous and said, “What am I going to do?” She tried to comply, and she went to the struggle sessions. My uncle told me there was somebody poking her in the back every day, “Confess, confess. What did your husband do? How did he die?” After one year of lengthy investigation, they finally closed her case and said, “Okay, your husband died because his own man killed him.” And not because my grandfather was a counter-revolutionary. My whole entire family would have been classified as black class. This is the first time I have actually told this story about my real grandfather that I never met. So, I had a step-grandfather, who was red class. My grandmother was very relieved that we were finally red. My uncle told me that there was one woman that keep poking her. In recent years, I discovered that my grandmother had to suffer in silence for a year in order to protect our family. She complied and went to struggle sessions, and she apologized. But she was smart enough to keep saying, “No, my husband is not a counter-revolutionary. His own man killed him.” She kept saying the same thing all the time. So, they made her write self-criticism letters and all that stuff they want you to do. It was terrible. It sounds similar to today’s situation. Finally, she came out clean. Otherwise, my life might be different today. Mr. Jekielek: Okay. So, obviously, you were very smart. You went up in the ranks, you joined the organizations, and you became a law professor. Please tell me how that happened. Ms. Williams: I wanted to study law in Fudan University in Shanghai. It’s one of the top five Chinese universities. I studied two years for the national entrance exam. I got picked by the department of education to attend law school in Shanghai. The reason I wanted to study law was because I now wanted to search for the truth. Mao actually was a human being and that’s why he died. I realized that. So, who lied to me about him? Maybe we should not rely on men to govern our country. We should have a rule of law society. I wanted to become that person who pushed for this change. I went to law school. Quickly, I became lost again, because they told me law is a tool for the party to govern the masses—it’s the Soviet Union model. It’s not about equality. It’s not about justice or liberty. So, I became a rebellious teenager, even though they had a lot of rules. I went to dancing parties, even though dancing parties were illegal and banned. Dating was banned in my first year in college in 1981. But in 1982, we were going through a cultural renaissance in China. And remember, all talk about political reform was banned. Suddenly, we could wear blue jeans, let our hair down, and go to dancing parties. Guess what I did, as a third-year law school student? I met an American exchange student and he told me about the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. A light bulb came on in my head. For the first time I heard about the concept of individual rights. I said, “Individual rights? Oh, that’s something I can’t even talk about. It’s all collective rights, workers rights, women’s rights, and peasants rights, it’s never individual rights.” He told me, “Lily, you’re Chinese. You have yellow skin and you’re a woman, but you are created by your creator, God, and you have rights. Rights are not given to you by your government, by your party. You exist because it’s your natural right to be you, just by being born.” I just could not turn that off in my head. I said, “Oh, America is so cool.” He told me more about America. And I said, “Well someday, if I have to leave China for a free country, America would be my place to go, the promised land.” And that day came. I became a faculty member. I was one of the five people of the first graduation class of my law school to stay as a law school faculty member. I got one of the jobs to stay in Shanghai. I did not want to go back to Sichuan. It was out west and still backwards. I wanted to stay in Shanghai. That’s where I could meet foreigners, and pick their brains to find out what the world was like outside of China. When I became a faculty member it was probably my third awakening point. You had to become a party member. You had to go to political study every week. We had a communist party committee in our law school in every department, besides your academic dean. When I thought there was no hope for me, I got to come to America. I got to leave China. But I had to change my strategy. You needed to get permission to quit your job. You needed to get permission to apply for your private passport. Otherwise I would be stuck in China. So, I had to change my strategy in order to leave China. That’s why I called it fleeing China. People would say, “You did not flee. You came here legally as a graduate student.” But they have no idea about the suffering I went through to plan my escape. I went to party meetings and proclaimed, “Yes, I support the party.” I became an active supporter and cheerleader again. Then finally, I asked my boss, “May I quit my job and apply for a passport, because I got accepted for graduate school by the University of Texas in Austin, Texas?” I had to ask for permission. He put it off until I had proven myself, and then he okayed it. He had to sign an agreement. Then, I had to sign the agreement to promise to go back to China to serve my country, after I came here to get a masters degree on my own time, and on my own money. I had to find American sponsor. I came over here with only $100 to my name. And I had no family and no friends here. I owed my professor $1,200. I was already in the hole when I first came to this country. In order to get permission to leave China, I had to apply for my passport seven times. You know what? Every time when I went to the Shanghai police station to apply for a passport, they threw the papers back in my face. “Why do you want to go to an imperialist country? You don’t love China anymore? It’s your motherland.” I got this big sermon. I just didn’t say anything. Then I said, “I want to come back and I will serve my country better. I will get a higher degree on my own time and money, but then I'll come back.“ So, you just have to say all those lies. Finally, seven tries later, I got my passport. It took three times at the American consulate to get my visa. People were so excited for me when I got my visa, and the line was so long. They touched my hair, trying to get some of my luck. ”Oh, you got a visa. You already have one foot in the U.S.” Because when you get a visa, that’s your legal ticket to fly out of China. People were so happy for me, and I felt happy too. I came here on May 11th, 1988, two months before my 24th birthday. I had nothing, and was starting all over again. But I was so happy. It was the happiest day of my life. Mr. Jekielek: How was America officially demonized by the Chinese Communist Party and by the teachers? And at age 22 you were a professor? Ms. Williams: That was an exception, though, because when China had just opened up colleges, they needed teachers badly. Mr. Jekielek: I see. Ms. Williams: We were the first law school class to graduate. They needed teachers. So, five out of 60 students all stayed in the same law school to become teachers or work staff. Mr. Jekielek: I see. It was just that particular moment in history. That’s very interesting. Ms. Williams: Yes. Mr. Jekielek: America was being demonized, but there were all these people that were kind of stunned, and maybe jealous that you were going to America; you already had one foot in America. So actually, America really wasn’t that demonized in their minds. Ms. Williams: There was official propaganda demonizing America, demonizing capitalism, and demonizing profits. It’s what traditional communists do. It’s like the youth in our country being taught to demonize profits, rich people, and capitalism. They don’t understand economics and what is the best way to acheive freedom and prosperity. So, there was an official narrative in China. All the educated people like me wanted to escape China and come to America to study, because they wanted to have a better life. I don’t know how many of them went back to China, or how many of them like me were just desperate to get out. And I actually got to stay here. There’s no way I would go back even if I had signed that agreement. If I got my graduate degree and didn’t go back to China, I would be kicked out of the party. I didn’t care about that. Then, they would send my personnel file on to Chengdu. That means I could never even go back to Shanghai, because I would lose my legal residence in the best city in China, the most wealthy international city. That was tough, because that meant I had to make it in America. Otherwise, I would have to go back to Chengdu or somewhere else. So, I came here and said, “Okay, I don’t care how poor I am. I will figure out how to pay my bills, how to learn English, and how to get my masters degree. I will do my best and learn how to stay here.” If you look at the photo of when I first arrived in America at the Austin, Texas airport, I had a big smile on my face. Mr. Jekielek: That’s an incredible story. It’s really an incredible story. Let’s switch gears now. You’re running in the Republican primary for a Congressional seat in New Hampshire. So clearly, you’re someone that has made it along the way. You’ve been vocal about some very disturbing trends that remind you of what you saw in China, what you have experienced, and even some of the same thought processes. Please tell us about this. Ms. Williams: First of all, it took me 20 years in America to get rid of my indoctrinated mind. I did not come here to run for office. I did not come here to get involved in politics. I just wanted to come here for freedom and to have a better life. Everybody, please just leave me alone. I learned English, and I got my degree. I met my husband on the first night. We dated and we got married. We raised three wonderful children. I worked for corporations. I got laid off, and then I started my own business. For 20 years I was busy just living like a typical immigrant, who came here with nothing, and who had to start all over again at the age of 24. So, I wasn’t political. I do not even understand politics. When I woke up in 2008, I noticed some things. There’s something going on in America that I really don’t like. How come government is getting bigger and more intrusive? They’re also using some terms that seem like communist terms, especially when Obama become president. He said, “We have to fundamentally transform America.” Into what country? I came here for America, but they want to transform it. I noticed socialist policies. Today, everybody is talking about equity. How can you have equity or equal outcomes without the use of government force to re-distribute the wealth? How do they do that? Why is everybody from corporations, to universities, to high schools, to our federal agencies, and even our military proudly promoting the word equity? It’s called DEI, but equity is in the middle. I have been educating students as a Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation speaker for five years. I have noticed that our educational system has not really taught our kids history, the horror of communism, and the evils of socialism. Our kids just don’t know history. Maybe that’s why they want equity and they want the socialist policies. They want the free college, free healthcare, and free childcare. They want everything free, because they feel entitled to it. It’s a human right. What’s going on in this country? What are they learning in the classrooms? And even our teachers don’t know history. Our teachers don’t even know about what Mao did to the Chinese people, and how many people died under communism in China. They have no idea. They know a lot more about the Nazis in Germany during WWll, but not much about China. In the last two years, I got even more and more terrified. I see this rise of authoritarianism. We have politicians that want to be tyrants. They want to shut you down. They want to force your business to close in the name of pandemic, and then mandate vaccines and masks. If you don’t comply, you can lose your job and your career. Your business is not essential. You will get a fine if you want to cut people’s hair. Our schools were shutting down. Churches were shut down. I came here for the constitutional rights of every citizen. How come they’re doing this? I saw the toppling down of statues, the changing of names on buildings and schools, and burning and looting. The BLM founder said, “We are trained Marxists.” In Chicago last year, I heard people chanting, “The real solution is a communist revolution.” You can see Antifa marching with all the Soviet Union flags, and they carry big posters of Mao and Karl Marx. I really feel like I’m living through another cultural revolution. Critical race theory demonizes so many people in our country. For what? For being born white and for something you cannot control. America is supposed to be a systemic racist country, just like what the Chinese government will tell me, and will tell their people. But actually, CRT is being taught all over this country right now. Teachers unions want to teach critical race theory in all public school districts. It’s identity politics, like the five red classes and the five black classes under Mao. Now it’s called oppressors versus oppressed. But to me, I have heard this all before. People might not know, but I see the writing on the wall. I see this trend. We are using identity politics to divide citizens and get our citizens to fight each other, instead of being united with each other to solve our country’s problems. I see families were not talking to each other during the shutdown. They would even report their neighbors for having parties in their homes, because they were violating the restrictions. I thought I was having PTSD. I would literally wake up in the middle of night. That’s why I started to dig into my childhood memories of Mao’s cultural revolution. What is going on? How come this is like the cultural revolution all over again? Mr. Jekielek: People will say, “During the cultural revolution, tens of millions of people died. They were killed and died of starvation. That’s not happening here. That’s not the cultural revolution.” Ms. Williams: But they will destroy the “Four Olds,” just like the communists did in China. That’s why we have to hold on to our second amendment rights. We need to exercise our free speech right now. We can’t be silent and afraid to lose our jobs, careers, and businesses. Because if you don’t push back, who will? Who is there to defend our liberty and free speech, protect our children, and unite the country? We don’t want the socialist people and the tyrants to destroy America. What they did during Covid is mind boggling. Do we still have a free world? Why are Western democratic countries copying communist parties tactics and shutdown methods, and trusting their official numbers? In our country, they’re cancelling people on social media because they are not politically correct. If you said or did something 20 years ago, they want to cancel you today. That’s exactly what happened under Mao’s Cultural Revolution. They can find something you wrote, or something you said many years ago. Then, they can demonize you as the oppressor, as the black class. You lose your job. You go to camps. You go to struggle sessions. Have you seen the struggle sessions in America today? It is called “less-whiteness training.” I have a friend in New Hampshire who just got fired because he is a white male in a private school. He refused to go to this CRT training. He was supposed to examine himself and say, “I’m white, and maybe I have a hidden bias. I am inherently racist.” He’s supposed to go with the flow. He said, “No, I have nothing to apologize for. I was born this way. Everyone is born equal in our country, according to the Declaration of Independence. We should not judge people by skin color and by race.” But that’s what they want to do every day. So what is the difference? Chinese were divided by classes, by their political opinions, and by their economic status. Here, it’s by skin color and race. Mr. Jekielek: And by their history, correct? Ms. Williams: Yes. By their history. So, why should people be demonized by their history because they are born white? You cannot control that. You are randomly born into your white family, you cannot control that. To be demonized for what you said and did a long time ago as a child, teenager, or young man is not right. Everybody deserves a second chance. We should reduce racism in this country like we did during civil rights movement, by talking about unity, and talking about not judging people. Like Dr. King said, “Judge people on their character and their merit, but not by their skin color.” We’re actually doing just the opposite. The radical Left is focused on everything being racist. Math is racist in public schools. The advanced placement classes are getting canceled, because they are racist. The children of aging, white Americans of higher economic status are being discriminated against in the college enrollment process by Harvard and by Yale, because there are too many of them. We need to have quotas for somebody who is more oppressed and who has darker skin color. If you are white, you can can be canceled. Cancelling individual merit and meritocracy is also what Mao did during his cultural revolution. Mr. Jekielek: So basically, you’re seeing that anything and everything can be sacrificed in the name of creating this equality of outcome. Ms. Williams: It is also called equity. Mr. Jekielek: And that is what you saw? Ms. Williams: Yes. Mr. Jekielek: In communist China? Ms. Williams: This identity politics is a very typical communist tactic to divide people and get them to fight each other. That’s how you do a cultural revolution. Look at what they are trying to do. America is a systemic racist country. So, what do you want to replace it with? Should we destroy all the old American traditions, values, and institutions? They were making threats to Supreme Court justices. Judicial independence, separation of powers, and rule of law are American traditions, guaranteed by our Constitution. Why should we change that? And replace it with what? It is true democracy, and you want to replace all that? I don’t think so. That is dangerous. We are a constitutional republic. Technically, our country is not really a democracy. It is a constitutional republic, which means you have separation of power, and you can elect representatives and senators. The president has his job in the executive branch. The Supreme Court and the other courts have their jobs. Judicial independence is very important in protecting people’s natural rights. But now they don’t respect that. They will say all the people like us are a threat to democracy. But who are the ones who are attacking our fundamental democratic process? That process is sometimes decided by our independent judiciary. Do those people understand our constitutional republic, or are they just brainwashed? Are the young people, the social justice warriors, just brainwashed? They don’t even understand. For example, right now they only talk about women’s rights on abortion. Then, they want to pack the court. Through this recent Supreme Court justice decision on Roe versus Wade, they are going back to states and let the people of each state vote, and decide through their representatives. Don’t you think that’s more democratic? But no, they don’t want to support that. They want nine Supreme Court justices to codify that. They don’t make sense. Our young people don’t understand history, and don’t even understand our political system. They buy into social media, Left-leaning media, and mainstream media narratives. They don’t come out of their indoctrinated minds to look at alternative media and alternative news sources. They could watch our conversation here today. To me, it is very sad, because it took me 20 years to wake up in this country. I feel it is my duty now to have a conversation like this, tell my stories and get my message out to the whole country. Then our people, especially our young people, can listen to an eyewitness story. Perhaps they will say, “Hey, maybe we don’t want go down this path. Maybe we should have a little bit of independent thinking.” That’s what your big head on your shoulders is for, to think for yourself. If you want to shut people up, then they cannot speak freely, and they cannot think freely. Then, you won’t have solutions by all the smart people in this great country to solve the problems that we face. Right now, our American dream is under the attack. When you talk about inflation and the gas prices, people are having a hard time. Then, you can also be canceled. Our free speech is under attack. Our children are facing massive indoctrination in schools. I don’t know even where those schools got their curriculums. Is it from all the lefty professors somewhere, and from the teachers unions? Parents have to really protect their kids by exercising parental rights. They have to control what their kids are taught. There’s another thing I want to add. During Mao’s cultural revolution, I was not allowed to dress like a girl, look like a girl, or even to date. If you let your hair down, wore pretty clothes, and put makeup on, you could get into deep trouble in school. Right now, they’re pushing transgender stuff onto our school kids. What you do after you’re 18, and you are an adult is your own business. You can pay for your own surgery. What you want to choose is your own business. I respect that. Looking on as a mom of three children, they’re teaching 8 to 9-year-old school kids that it is okay to change their sex forever. In Washington State, they have a bill proposed where a 13-year-old kid can have permanent gender-changing surgery, from boy to girl, or girl to boy, without parental consent. And the insurance company will have to pay for it. What’s going on? Where are the parents? Is that common sense? What if those kids suffer later? Even Bill Maher the liberal said, “When I was eight years old, I wanted to be pirate. I’m glad my parents did not take me seriously and cut one eye out, and make me a pirate.” We need to have some common sense and not push this on children. It’s not age-appropriate. Parents feel like they have no say in what their kids are taught. That is why Florida’s governor passed a bill called the parental rights bill. Then, the Left media indoctrinated all their followers and describing it as the “Don’t Say Gay Bill”. I never saw that word gay mentioned in the bill. But the people who are not informed and who don’t know the truth are being used. Those young people that are used are like I was, and like my uncle’s generation, the Red Guards. Later, we were sent to countryside and reeducated by peasants. So, you can support this, but then later you will be thrown under the bus. It does not end well, it does not end well at all. Mr. Jekielek: One of the hallmarks of communist societies as they progress is that some of the people who are the most fervent supporters very often become the victims of the system. They are the purists, the ones who disagree with the new policy because it isn’t communist enough. That’s something that a lot of people don’t understand. Ms. Williams: Yes. Communists are famous for eating their own. I remember there were lots of people at the beginning of the founding of the PRC (People’s Republic of China) who bought into communism and they were so excited. They supported Mao, and they supported the party. Mao sold it to the peasants. “We will take the land from the land owners, and will give to you.” Of course, the peasants loved to hear that, because they were incited to hate their landlords, and to have this entitlement attitude. “I should have some too! Why do you have so many? I have to work for you.” At the beginning, some peasants said, “But my landlord is kind of nice to me. I don’t want to do this.” No, they want to install hatred in your head. They want you to feel very jealous of your rich landlords. That’s the Marxist agenda. The workers have been exploited, so that the rich people can get rich. So, they supported communism. They all become very active supporters. And guess what? When Mao took over China, he did a land reform. He did kill about one million to two million landowners in the country, and seized their private land. But he did not give it to the peasants. He had a new idea. He change his mind. “For our country and our society to prosper, we need to start people’s communes. The land actually belong to the people, but not to individual peasants.” The land belong to the people, which meant it belonged to the state. It’s a collective concept, but who are the people? People have power. Today in China, they can sell you the land for you to use, and to build, and they make lots of money. What choice did the peasants have? They had no power anymore. Mao didn’t need to rely on them anymore. Then you see what happened. There was the People’s Commune, the Great Leap Forward, and the 40 million peasants starving to death. They could beg, but you had to beg with your pass. You’re supposed to live where your household registration told you to live. If you went to another village to beg, you could get into trouble. You wouldn’t have the papers to travel. You also see scientists, artists, teachers, and intellectuals all supporting communism for the ideal, and what communism represents. It’s all equality, equity, and take what you need. We are all a big family, and the workers rule all this. And guess what happened to those supporters later on, because they criticized, and not even criticized, but just gave feedback about party policies? Remember, Mao had a campaign called, “Let the 100 flowers bloom.” So he invited the college students and the intellectuals to criticize party policy and give feedback on how the party could improve. The campaign asked them, “How are we doing with governing the new China?” They did give feedback, because they trusted. But they were put on blacklists and sent to labor camps. My three uncles were urban youth in the Red Guard generation. Mao said, “Time to go to countryside and be reeducated by the peasants,” because they would have become violent with no school to go to. After all the black classes were eliminated, Mao gained absolute power. He purged his political enemies in Beijing. Liu Shaoqi, the president at that time was put under house arrest and lost power. A general told Mao, ”The young kids are getting violent, and fighting with each other.” So, Mao send them away to countryside. My uncles went there without even finishing high school, without a diploma. They went there for 10 years. They had to threaten the government with a mass suicide attempt in order to get attention. “We need to go back to our homes in the city, because we are suffering.” “You promised. You said we would just come to the countryside for a while, then go back to the city.” So finally, they came back. But their parents had to retire in order to give them a job. Otherwise, they would not have a job and could not come back to the city. And if you married a local girl in the countryside, you could not come back, because your household registration now would be in the countryside. So how do those Red Guards feel today? My uncle’s generation are all in their 60s now, with no skills and no education. Some were smart enough to start a business during the economic reforms, made good money and became rich. But lots of them are retired and they don’t have much. They just live on their little retirement income. Lots of them still don’t think correctly. They don’t know the truth. They talk about their past like, “Oh, it was this and that.” They don’t know what caused it. They just don’t know. My uncle was very, very bitter about it, because he had to go out to the countryside. Out of my three uncles, he was my favorite uncle. He went there at age 17, and came back at age 27. He had to arrange a marriage to marry somebody in the city and he had one child. “What a waste of time,” he said. I witnessed one girl in my courtyard who came home crazy from countryside. All those Red Guards supported Mao. “Yes, my neighbor, Chairman Mao. Yes, let’s go to countryside. We'll get paid government salaries.” Actually, it was hard labor camps. This one girl went there and came back crazy. She was sick. She was blowing bubbles and her eyes were blank. I saw her. Her mom said, “We don’t know what happened to her. She will no longer go back to the countryside.” There’s a movie called “Xiu, Xiu: The Sent Down Girl.” It talks about a Chengdu girl, just like me. She went to Tibet as part of Mao’s “Down to the Countryside Movement.” It was such a tragic story. Such horrible things happened to those little girls and boys. And yes, this is my warning to today’s young people, to the social justice movement, and to the social justice warriors. Please study real history. What really happened to the Red Guards? Mr. Jekielek: What is your message to Americans, based on your experiences? You have obviously painted a vivid picture about your concerns. Please spell it out for us. Ms. Williams: As an immigrant who came here with nothing, America was the promised land. Today, in my eyes, America is the most exceptional country. I don’t know where else I could go where I could have three home businesses, have financial freedom, have a wonderful family, be successful, and be able to run for U.S. Congress. Tell me another country where I can do this. I don’t want people to focus on America’s imperfections and problems. We do have problems. We’re not perfect, but no country is perfect. Can we just be united as American citizens and come up with solutions? We have lots of brilliant people, brilliant minds, intellectuals, and business people. We can solve our problems, if we just stop this division, and stop these communist tactics. Equity, equity. I don’t want another cultural revolution happening here. I don’t want to live in a socialist country. China says it went from a communist to a socialist country. But look at what’s happening in today’s China. People are suffering; lockdowns, no freedom, subject to food rationing, they cannot travel, and the social credit system tracks them. I see the writing on the wall. It’s my duty as a new American citizen to warn people and say, “This is wrong. We are going down this path very fast.” There are lots of elected people into U.S. Congress who are socialist, and who push for socialist policies. People support them, because they want the government to take care of them. For me, I have lived in China, and I have lived two years in Hong Kong. It’s too sad to see what happened to Hong Kong. I want people to rely on their own personal responsibility, nuclear families, extended families, local communities and private charities. Do not rely on government, because government actually has a tendency to overgrow and interfere with our daily lives. When they promise you free stuff, remember, it’s never free. It is always paid for by somebody else. They use their governmental force to tax you, and to redistribute wealth. Now, they’re printing money out of thin air. That is why inflation is so high, and gas prices so high. Their policies are actually destroying our American dream, which to me means freedom and prosperity. My last words to people are, “Let’s be united. Let’s be kind. Let’s be nice to each other and have conversations. If we disagree, let’s disagree respectfully. Then, we can continue with our American way of life. America is the exceptional country. I hope America will stand up for freedom, and for free market capitalism. America is still, as always, the shining city on the hill for freedom lovers all over the world.” Mr. Jekielek: Lily Tang Williams, it’s such a pleasure to have you on the show. Ms. Williams: It’s my pleasure. Thank you for having me. Mr. Jekielek: Thank you all for joining Lily Tang Williams and me, on this episode of American Thought Leaders. I’m your host, Jan Jekielek. This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.

John Ondrasik, also known by his stage name, Five for Fighting, is a Grammy-nominated recording artist who released several number-one hits in the early 2000s, including his single, “Superman,” which became widely known as a 9/11 anthem. “You know, silent majorities become silent minorities if nobody speaks up,“ he says. ”For me, making a record was really how you made a statement.” Mr. Ondrasik is back in the spotlight for his songs about the 2021 Afghanistan withdrawal, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack against Israel. “Many in the music business, particularly with Israel, have historically shamed our industry for all time because they’re afraid to speak out with common sense, moral clarity,” Mr. Ondrasik says. “One thing that I think folks don’t realize, especially on the right, is how critical the arts are to changing culture.” Watch the video: We dive into his songwriting and look at how his music took him to war-torn Ukraine and Israel. We also get an exclusive, unplugged performance of two of Mr. Ondrasik’s hit singles. Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and guest, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times. FULL TRANSCRIPT Jan Jekielek: John Ondrasik, it’s such a pleasure to have you on American Thought Leaders. John Ondrasik: Thank you for having me, Jan. Mr. Jekielek: You’ve written songs about the Afghanistan withdrawal, the Ukraine war, and October 7th. But the song that I remember you wrote back in 2001 was Superman. Mr. Ondrasik: Yes. Mr. Jekielek: It became an anthem of sorts for 9/11. Mr. Ondrasik: It’s surreal sitting here in New York City across the street from Madison Square Garden. Whenever I come to town, I flash back to the Concert for New York. My career was a fluke. I’m a 15-year overnight success. For me, the music business was a grind for a long time, and when we released “Superman,” nobody wanted to play it. It was a piano song and a ballad. This was during the age of Lilith Fair, boy bands, and grunge music, so it was an anomaly. It wasn’t 1977 with Billy Joel and Elton John. It was kind of a miracle that Superman caught on. I was actually in England on 9/11. Like everybody else, I called everybody I knew in New York. I sat there for 10 days. No planes were flying. I finally landed in O'Hare Airport and literally kissed the tarmac to be back in the United States. I didn’t realize that “Superman” had become an anthem, particularly in New York City and D.C., recognizing the heroes of 9/11. Even to this day, I keep in contact with many of the firefighters and their families. But it showed me at a very young age why music can matter. We talk about fame, fortune, hits, and tickets, but that night when I played the concert for New York and saw The Who blow the roof off Madison Square Garden and give all of those people who'd been down at Ground Zero, digging through the rubble, an avenue to release, to cry, to sing, to scream, I saw that night, why music matters. It was seeing how music can move mountains, move messages, give people solace in a way nothing else can. Maybe 25 years later, seeing that song and other songs still connect that way, as a songwriter, it’s very humbling. Mr. Jekielek: I listened to Superman several times on YouTube, and it now has 100 million views. It clearly still has some resonance with the public. Mr. Ondrasik: There are a lot of songs about the character of Superman. I didn’t realize how many there were until I wrote it and put it out. But in my song, Superman doesn’t actually want to be Superman. He doesn’t want to be everything to everybody. Sometimes in life, we feel we have to be the rock, and we have to be everything to everybody. But at the end of the day, we’re all human, we all have fallibilities, we all have issues, and that’s what makes us beautiful. When “Superman” came out, the record company called and said, “John, something really strange is happening with your song. It’s being purchased by adults.” Perplexed, I asked, “What do you mean adults?” They explained, “Older people are buying your song. People in their 30s and 40s.” I said, “Older people?” They confirmed, “Yes, older people.” They meant that it wasn’t just kids buying my song “Superman.” But at the end of the day, it’s important to take care of yourself before taking care of others. This common theme has persisted over the past 25 years. It’s worth mentioning that it’s the only song that lulls my two-year-old to sleep at night. Parents, you’re welcome. Mr. Jekielek: Earlier, we were discussing how your name, Five for Fighting, actually originates from hockey, because you were a hockey fan. You were in Toronto in 1993 when the Toronto Maple Leafs made it to the playoffs. I remember that time vividly. It was my first year of university, and it was a momentous occasion. Mr. Ondrasik: Yes, it was Wayne Gretzky and Doug Gilmore in one of the greatest playoff series of all time. In 1999, the record company felt that the era of the singer-songwriter was fading, so they wanted a band name. I proposed the name Five for Fighting after witnessing a fight during a hockey game. I expected Marty McSorley and Bob Probert to really dislike the name. Surprisingly, they loved it, but I thought they were crazy. It sounded more like someone who should be opening for Metallica. Nevertheless, considering the battles I’ve fought with my songs, Five for Fighting seems appropriate now. Mr. Jekielek: Your causes don’t fit neatly into the political spectrum. Mr. Ondrasik: With my three latest three songs, I hoped each one would be my last. They convey moral messages rather than political ones. “Blood on My Hands” highlights the Afghanistan withdrawal. It’s about the injustice of promising someone support and then abandoning them to terrorists. Leaving your citizens vulnerable to terrorists is indefensible. To me, this is not a political statement, but a logical one. In the case of Ukraine, when Putin invades, as Americans, we should stand in solidarity with those fighting for freedom against tyranny. With the October 7th attack, when people commit acts of violence, rape, pillage, and desecrate innocent lives, it’s unequivocally wrong. There are no justifications. For me, these messages are rooted in morality. I understand that in our tribalistic world, they may be interpreted politically. However, this is how I perceive it. Before performing each song at my concerts, I provide some context. When I discuss “Blood on My Hands” and the withdrawal, I make it clear that if a Republican president had committed the same actions, the song’s message would remain the same, and only the names would change. But in this tribal world, it’s certainly an anomaly. Mr. Jekielek: How do you see yourself in this polarized world? Mr. Ondrasik: I see myself as someone with a worldview who also happens to be a songwriter. We all have opinions, and honestly, it’s a delicate balancing act for me. I’ve always had a distaste for celebrities who use their platform to lecture us about politics as if they are morally superior. Sadly, many in Hollywood engage in this behavior. However, there is a long tradition of songwriting that addresses the world around us, like the protest songs of the 60s. In a way, I see myself as a modern-day protest songwriter, which was never my original aspiration. But seeing how our culture reacts to certain issues, particularly with Israel, and witnessing the fear in the music industry about speaking out with moral clarity, gives me the motivation to say something. Mr. Jekielek: Isn’t that risky? You could get canceled. Mr. Ondrasik: When I wrote the Afghanistan song, almost everyone advised against releasing it due to this current cancel culture. I must admit that I did hesitate. If I were 30 years younger and trying to make a career in music, I don’t know if I would have taken that risk. Fortunately, I’m at a stage in my career where I have some security, and I never really belonged to that crowd anyway. However, 30 years ago, I wrote a song called “The Last Great American” about John McCain and his refusal to leave his fellow soldiers behind in Vietnam. When I released “Blood on My Hands,” there was some backlash, but I also received numerous emails from Afghan veterans who felt devastated by the withdrawal. Some had even contemplated suicide. That song gave them a voice and reassured them that their feelings were acknowledged. The situation is similar with Israel. Millions of Jewish people around the world feel betrayed and abandoned. Especially in the arts, there is a lack of support and moral clarity. But when they hear a song like mine, they feel understood and validated. Music has a unique way of connecting people and expressing emotions that nothing else can achieve. When Israel shared my video for “OK,” I had a small glimpse into what it feels like to be Jewish, even though I am not Jewish myself. One doesn’t have to be Jewish to condemn Hamas. Mr. Jekielek: Or specifically, the events of October 7th. Mr. Ondrasik: That’s really what the song is about—we’re not okay. Something is seriously broken in our society when we can’t make simple statements, when people are afraid to say, “Release the hostages,” without fearing backlash. Even though the surface of my song is about Israel and Hamas, it’s truly about civilization and those who want to tear it down. That’s what you’re referring to as cancel culture, where everyone is so paranoid to say anything. It shows that something is really broken in America. We can see this issue in the media as well. Mr. Jekielek: I often hear a lot about the negative side, and sometimes focus on that too much. I want to hear about the people who have been reaching out to you, like the veterans who say, “Hey, you’ve given me a voice.” Can you tell us about those people? Mr. Ondrasik: The honor of my career has been performing for our troops. Gary Sinise and I go on USO tours. We wouldn’t be where we are today without the support of our military families, veterans, and active military personnel. After our withdrawal, many of my friends were devastated and disgusted. anI spoke with many of them after the song was released. It got so crazy that I even started receiving calls from people trapped in Afghanistan. I worked closely with incredible Green Beret NGOs; Save Our Allies, Project Pineapple, and Project Exodus Relief, who are literally saving lives. Through these operations, I had the opportunity to meet many heroes. Though I didn’t go to Afghanistan, I met with people on Capitol Hill and got to know them. It broke a lot of hearts when General Milley and General Austin said that the Afghanistan situation was a great success. It broke my heart because we expect presidents to sometimes make questionable decisions, but we always thought that the adults in the room, our generals, would say the right thing and be honest with us. When they didn’t, it shattered many hearts and minds. I received thousands of emails from Afghan veterans and veterans in general. I still have conversations with people like Tulsi Gabbard and Green Beret Congressman Mike Waltz about what we can do to help those who are suffering. When you have an impact like that and you see that you’re helping these true heroes, it gives you energy and satisfaction. Whatever negativity comes your way and no matter how people scream at you, it becomes irrelevant over time. For example, if you are performing in Ukraine with a Ukrainian orchestra at a destroyed airport outside of Kiev, in front of the symbol of freedom for Ukraine, the Maria airplane, and talking to these Ukrainians, feeling their energy - realizing that here’s an American who has come from halfway around the world to sing with them about freedom - that kind of stuff is so powerful that the negative stuff just rolls off your back. Mr. Jekielek: Conflicts like Ukraine and Russia are often reduced to geopolitics, but it’s important to remember that real people are involved. Mr. Ondrasik: Yes, of course. Mr. Jekielek: Your point is that these are people fighting for their freedom. Mr. Ondrasik: They’re actually fighting for their survival. Through the arts, we are trying to address this critical civilizational culture war. It’s not just about Hamas vs. Israel. It’s a battle between civilization and those who want to destroy it. Not only is the UN a problem, but also Hamas, Iran, China, and Putin. They are all interconnected. As part of our efforts, we are fostering collaborations between artists from Ukraine, Israel, Iranian dissidents, Palestinian dissidents, Taiwanese dissidents, and Chinese dissidents. The goal is to emphasize that this is all connected. We can look back to Reagan’s axis of evil, and it is still relevant today. If we try to compartmentalize these issues, we are doing ourselves a disservice. There are evil actors who are actively trying to dismantle our Western way of life and the freedom and liberty that we cherish. With music, you have many artists writing about the world around them. You can look back in time and listen to them and get a sense of history. When you listen to music from the 60s, you can better understand that time period. Perhaps the fact that nobody’s writing about these issues says something about the current state of affairs. Furthermore, the fact that many prominent figures in the Jewish community are hesitant to speak about October 7th also speaks volumes. The indoctrination of many young people through platforms like TikTok, and the dissemination of oppressive, woke, and genocidal propaganda by certain artists, also raises concerns about where we are headed. As a parent of two young adults who will inherit this world, I feel it is important for me to be a voice and provide a different perspective, hoping to empower others to speak up. Mr. Jekielek: I remember the music of the 60s, 70s, and 80s. But with just a few exceptions, my interest ends there. Is this a general sentiment, or am I just an old guy living in the past. Mr. Ondrasik: We’re both old guys living in the past. Typically, the music that resonates with you throughout your life is the music you loved during your teenage years or in your 20s. Personally, I like the songwriters from the 70s, like Led Zeppelin and Queen, because that’s the music I grew up with. We tend to have a special connection to the music we discover in our teenage years. That’s what keeps channels like “70s on 7” on Sirius in business. But music has changed. When we were young, we had limited options. We would buy records from the record store, watch a few TV channels, and listen to the radio. Now, with video games, the internet, and platforms like TikTok, there is an overwhelming amount of content vying for kids’ attention. In many ways, music has become just one piece of a much larger media landscape. There are many people who consume music, but very few are true music fans. Of course, the music industry has undergone significant changes. Gone are the days of tour support and developing artists. People tend to forget that Bruce Springsteen didn’t break through until his third record. It’s just not something that happens anymore. Nowadays, we have a short attention span. Very few artists make full albums anymore. For those who are under 40, they may not even know what an album is. These days, it’s all about releasing singles and getting instant gratification. For me, making a record used to be how one made a statement. It was a different approach. Now, as someone who has experienced some success in my career and is now on the other side of it all, I can be a curmudgeon and reminisce about the good old days when we were making music and scoring hits. But things are certainly different now. One thing that often goes unnoticed, especially among those on the Right, is how critical the arts are in shaping culture. My old friend Andrew Breitbart always said that politics is downstream of culture. If you don’t include the arts, which I refer to as soft power, in the culture war, you’re bound to lose. We’re seeing that now. Many on the Left, along with young artists who have been indoctrinated with this oppressor/oppressed wokeism, have large voices and platforms. When there’s no counter-narrative and all the younger generation hears is that ideology, it’s no surprise that many of them fall under its spell. Mr. Jekielek: You brought your guitar with you. Let’s revisit the past here. Mr. Ondrasik: Let’s go back to the future. My daughter Olivia, who is currently in London, graciously allowed me to stay in her apartment. This is her beautiful Taylor guitar. Although “Superman” was originally written on piano, it’s interesting to hear it played on a different instrument. Here’s a little bit of “Superman.” I can’t stand to fly I’m not that naive I’m just out to find The better part of me I’m more than a bird, I’m more than a plane I’m more than some pretty face beside a train And it’s not easy to be me Wish that I could cry Fall upon my knees Find a way to lie About a home I'll never see It may sound absurd, but don’t be naive Even heroes have the right to bleed I may be disturbed, but won’t you concede Even heroes have the right to dream And it’s not easy to be me Up, up and away, away from me Well, it’s all right, you can all sleep sound tonight I’m not crazy Or anything I can’t stand to fly I’m not that naive Men weren’t meant to ride With clouds between their knees I’m only a man in a silly red sheet Digging for kryptonite on this one way street Only a man in a funny red sheet Looking for special things inside of me Inside of me Inside me Inside me Inside of me I’m only a man In a funny red sheet I’m only a man Looking for a dream I’m only a man In a funny red sheet And it’s not easy It’s not easy to be Me Mr. Jekielek: Wow. I’ve heard the term “unplugged” over the years when it comes to music, and it just dawned on me that this is what it truly means. We have Ondrasik unplugged right here. Mr. Ondrasik: Happy Friday and unplugged indeed. Mr. Jekielek: That was fantastic. One line that really resonated with me was, “Heroes get to dream too.” Can you please share how you ended up in Ukraine during the war? Mr. Ondrasik: It was kind of a wild experience, actually. I wrote the song,”Can One Man Save the World?” for Ukraine. I wanted to do something for Poland, because Poland had taken in four million refugees. I had a friend who’s very connected in the State Department. I said, “I got this idea. Let’s sing,”Can One Man Save the World?” with a Polish orchestra.” She called back in a few days and said, “How would you like to go to Ukraine and sing the song with the Ukrainian orchestra?” I said, “How would that work?” She goes, “A million things have to happen, but we could get the orchestra to Kiev for three days. Let me work on it. Start writing the arrangement. Don’t tell anybody. You can tell your wife, but no one else. We need operational security. This has to be like a military mission.” My violin player and I were in the back of the van traveling across the country and arranging the song on our laptops. After the last show, I came off stage and got an email with a plane ticket to Krakow for the next day. I had a long talk with my wife that night and I’m very grateful she let me go. We flew to Krakow and got a car to take us to the border. The guy drove 200 miles an hour getting us there. He didn’t speak a word of English. He pushed me and two members of the production team out the door. We didn’t know what to do, so we started walking the mile to the border. Everybody’s coming towards us, but nobody’s going our way. We got through the border. We were supposed to get a car, but that wasn’t working, because all the gas was being used by the military. Eventually, we got to Lviv and boarded a train with the U.S. Congressmen, Dan Crenshaw and Brian Fitzpatrick. They let us board their train for which I’m forever grateful, and we got to Kiev. Typically, you’re supposed to play underground. You see people performing in the subways because of all the air raids. We were informed that there was a chance we could perform at the Antonov Airport, which has the airplane, Maria, a symbol of Ukrainian independence. It’s on their army patch. Finally, we were allowed to do the performance. We put the quartet in front of this plane that had been destroyed by Putin at the outset of the war. They put me in puddles of jet fuel with blown up tanks. We performed this song and shot this video outside of Kiev. Every member of that orchestra had either had a family member killed, missing, or were on the front lines. My interpreter was an 18-year-old girl who six months earlier was a bartender and now was in the army. They all had this fortitude and stoicism. There was a final point that brought it all together for me. As we were rehearsing the song, I noticed an entourage of people in military garb coming over. It turns out this was the general who approved us to be there. He said, “Thanks for coming. The orchestra got very moved, because he was like their Schwarzkopf, the face of the war. Then through an interpreter he said. “Let me hear the song. You saw the orchestra stiffen and be moved. He was surrounded by these big Rambo-type dudes with sunglasses and AK-47s. We started to play in this setting of a blown-up airport. The orchestra played with vigor, they played with honor, they played with fight, and they played with freedom. Halfway through the song, you could see the general and some of these big Rambo guys putting on their sunglasses because they were starting to cry. I lost it and got very emotional. At the end, when we stopped, there was this silence that probably was four or five seconds, but it seemed like four or five months. You felt the weight of the moment and the weight of what these people were going through. You felt the power of this collaboration. Mr. Jekielek: Please tell us about the Hostage Square performance. Mr. Ondrasik: Hostage Square was also quite intense. I was on another tour and had six days off. Since my song “OK,” has become an anthem for Jewish people worldwide, I received numerous requests to come to Israel. I had been doing press in Israel and the United States. I had five days off and reached out to some friends at the AJC (American Jewish Committee). I have developed friendships with various Jewish organizations, such as Stand With Us. We were able to organize a trip to Israel. Initially, the plan was to meet some IDF (Israel Defense Forces) soldiers at Sheba Hospital, which we did. Additionally, I had been speaking with some hostage families and planned to meet them as well. However, there was no plan to perform at Hostage Square. Then, on a Thursday night, there was a small event for one of the hostage families where they had a casual jam session. They asked if I would play a few songs, and I agreed. It turned out that the leader of the hostage forum, who oversees the entire Hostage Square outreach for the hostage families, was present. She informed me about their regular Saturday night event which is broadcast nationwide, and asked if I would consider performing for it. I said, “Of course.” Mr. Jekielek: Where is Hostage Square located, and what takes place there? Mr. Ondrasik: Hostage Square is in the heart of Tel Aviv. It serves as an outreach forum for the hostage families. The square features a stage for the families and can be seen as a shrine in many ways. Thousands of people gather there every Saturday night, and the event is televised. There are exhibits, including a tunnel that serves as an example of a Hamas tunnel, providing visitors with an understanding of what the hostages endured. As you walk through the tunnel, there are sound effects mimicking screaming. It is a very powerful and moving experience. Right before I performed, they made an announcement that was new to me. They asked everyone to find shelter and cover their heads in the event of a missile attack. Keep in mind, there were 10,000 people present. I was ready to run to my hotel and hide under my bed, but nobody left. Then I performed “Superman,” and, “OK.” It was very moving. It reminded me of the Concert for New York. Literally the distance from me to you, there were people holding photos of their children who were hostages. It reminded me of looking out in Madison Square Garden at those family members who lost loved ones. When I came off and was hugging some hostage families, the coordinator said, “By the way, you need to be in your hotel by 11 pm because it’s very likely Iran is going to attack.” This was about 8:30 pm. My son was with me too. I said, ”You guys heard, right?“ They said, ”Yes, we heard.“ I said, ”Okay, let’s go. We’ve got to go to the hotel right now.” This one guy, David, said, “But John, we have a dinner reservation. I’ve waited two weeks for this dinner reservation.” That’s who these Israelis are. They have a way to find joy in the darkest of times. They have this fortitude where things that would make us cower just roll off their back. I’m like, “Maybe we can at least have dinner at the hotel.” We go to the hotel, and they’re all drinking and talking. I’m looking at my watch, and I run to my room at 10:30 pm and tell my son to get in the room. Of course, at 11 pm, Iran attacks. I call them and say, “All right, guys, they’re attacking, and I’m in the safe room.” They say, “The drones will take eight hours to get here. We’re at the bar.” That’s who they are. It was powerful for me to see the fortitude and attitude and strength of the Israelis, which is similar to the Ukrainians. Americans could learn something from these folks. We’ve lost some of that. Mr. Jekielek: Let’s hear your song titled, “OK.” Mr. Ondrasik: This is a time for choosing, this is a time to mourn The moral man is losing forbidden, lost for long I don′t understand, I don’t understand, how you can look yourself in the mirror I don’t understand, I don′t understand, how did that blood flood your eyes We, we are, we are not, we, we are, we are not OK Yeah, hide behind your babies. yeah, hide behind your kid The Harvard hands has rabies, they′d hold a cost again I don’t understand, I don′t understand, how you can look yourself in the mirror I don’t understand, I don′t understand, how did that blood spill from your eyes We, we are, we are not, we, we are, we are not OK Evil’s on the march, evil’s on the march, time to face the test. Evil’s on the march, evil’s on the march, need every good woman, every good man. We, we are, we are not, we, we are, we are not OK Mr. Jekielek: How did you come up with the lyrics? Mr. Ondrasik: Actually, the words were partially inspired by a speech that Eric Adams, the mayor of New York, gave very early after October 7th. He came out and said, “Something’s really broken. We’re not alright when 24 hours after these atrocities, thousands of people are celebrating in Times Square.” But I really didn’t think about writing a song until we saw the collapse of the media that became, in many cases, Hamas propagandists. Then also, there were the mobs on our college campuses, which we can still see today. It’s not just in our country, it’s all over the world. It’s not just Jewish people who are not okay, it’s all of us. If we don’t take steps to address this, silent majorities become silent minorities if nobody speaks up. People hear the song, “OK” and see the video and they think, “It’s a pro-Israel song.” I say, “The heroine in my video is a Palestinian woman calling out Hamas for stealing the aid. If you really care about Palestinian people, you understand there’s no hope while they’re under the yoke of Hamas.” We have become so consumed with memes and taking sides that we have forgotten the simple concepts of good vs. evil and right vs. wrong. It may sound cliché, but sometimes it really is that simple. Hamas desires to cause harm to both Palestinians and Israelis. If we all understood this and stood up against it, perhaps it wouldn’t happen. However, many institutions have become paralyzed and morally compromised. It will require each and every one of us to fight back and correct our course. Mr. Jekielek: John, this has been absolutely fantastic. Thank you for visiting. Do you have any final thoughts? Mr. Ondrasik: Not to sound too much like a fanboy, but I truly appreciate your mission in not simply pandering to whatever partisan piece will generate likes on any given day. It’s crucial for our nation to return to a point where we are okay. We will never be perfect, but right now we are far from okay. We need to find our way back to being okay, and I believe your mission is honorable. Mr. Jekielek: John Ondrasik, such a pleasure to have you on the show. Mr. Ondrasik: Thank you. This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.

Space has long been considered the final frontier. From the ambitions of Apollo missions to the modern-day developments in SpaceX, humanity has treated space as a realm of boundless exploration and opportunity. However, the dawn of the 21st century has brought a seismic shift in how nations perceive outer space. It is no longer just a domain for exploration; it is now a theater of strategic competition, innovation, and, increasingly, potential conflict. The video “EMP Attacks and Space Warfare—Why the U.S. Must Win Space Race 2.0” underscores this transformation and elucidates the pivotal role the United States must play to maintain its strategic advantage. Greg Autry, a renowned expert in space policy, outlines the vulnerabilities the U.S. faces in space, particularly from adversaries like China and Russia. These threats extend beyond mere competition; they encompass sophisticated weapons systems designed to challenge the U.S.’s dominance in space. To understand the gravity of this competition and its implications, we need to delve into the specific threats, the strategic importance of space, and the policies that can ensure the U.S. secures its leadership in this domain. Watch the video: The Growing Threat of EMP Attacks Electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attacks are not new, but their implications in space warfare have taken on newfound urgency. EMP weapons can disrupt or disable electronic systems, rendering satellites and other critical infrastructure inoperable. Satellites serve as the backbone of modern life, powering everything from GPS navigation to secure military communications and financial transactions. The potential for adversaries to deploy EMP attacks targeting these assets represents a significant national security risk. China, in particular, has been aggressive in its development of space-based and ground-launched EMP capabilities. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) views space as a critical domain for asserting its geopolitical ambitions. By developing the ability to incapacitate U.S. satellites, China could effectively blind America’s military operations and disrupt its economy. This strategy is not theoretical; leaked documents and intelligence reports have confirmed that China considers space dominance a key component of its global strategy. Russia, too, has made strides in developing EMP technology and anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons. These developments are not occurring in isolation; they are part of a broader trend of space militarization that threatens to destabilize the existing order. The U.S., which has long relied on its technological superiority, must now confront adversaries who are rapidly closing the gap. Space: The New Battleground Historically, space has been viewed as a domain of peace and collaboration. The International Space Station (ISS) stands as a testament to what nations can achieve when they work together. However, the militarization of space—spearheaded by China and Russia—has transformed it into a potential battleground. The weaponization of space is not limited to EMP attacks. Anti-satellite missiles, jamming technologies, and cyberattacks targeting space infrastructure have become increasingly sophisticated. China’s 2007 ASAT test, which created a massive debris field in low Earth orbit, was a wake-up call for the global community. It demonstrated that Beijing was not only capable of destroying satellites but was also willing to disregard the long-term consequences of such actions. Russia’s activities in space have similarly raised alarms. The country has tested "killer satellites" designed to approach and disable other satellites. These actions signal a clear intent to challenge the U.S.’s ability to operate freely in space. The implications are profound: losing the ability to access or control space assets could cripple the U.S. military’s operational capabilities and undermine its global influence. Why Space Dominance Matters Space is not just a battleground; it is also the foundation of modern civilization. Satellites enable communication networks, financial systems, weather forecasting, and national security operations. They are indispensable to both civilian and military infrastructure. Losing access to these systems would have catastrophic consequences. Moreover, space serves as a force multiplier for the U.S. military. From precision-guided munitions to real-time intelligence gathering, the military’s reliance on space-based assets cannot be overstated. Without them, the U.S. would lose its technological edge, making it vulnerable to adversaries who are rapidly advancing their capabilities. The economic implications are equally significant. The global space economy is projected to reach $1 trillion by 2040, with industries like satellite manufacturing, space tourism, and asteroid mining driving growth. Maintaining leadership in this sector is not just about prestige; it is about securing economic opportunities and technological innovation. Recommendations for U.S. Policy To address these challenges, the U.S. must adopt a multifaceted approach. The following recommendations outline the steps necessary to secure America’s leadership in space: 1. Invest in Resilient Space Infrastructure The U.S. must enhance the resilience of its space assets. This includes developing hardened satellites capable of withstanding EMP attacks and other threats. Advances in satellite miniaturization and distributed networks can also reduce vulnerabilities. By deploying constellations of smaller, interconnected satellites, the U.S. can ensure that the loss of a single asset does not cripple its capabilities. 2. Strengthen Deterrence and Countermeasures Deterrence is a cornerstone of national security. The U.S. must demonstrate its ability to respond decisively to any attack on its space assets. This includes developing counter-space capabilities, such as systems to neutralize adversarial satellites. Additionally, the U.S. should invest in rapid satellite deployment technologies to replace damaged assets quickly. 3. Promote International Collaboration Space is a global commons, and addressing its challenges requires international cooperation. The U.S. should work with allies to establish norms and treaties that promote the peaceful use of space while deterring hostile actions. Initiatives like the Artemis Accords, which outline principles for lunar exploration and resource utilization, can serve as models for broader agreements. 4. Enhance Space Domain Awareness Understanding the activities of other nations in space is critical. The U.S. must invest in technologies and systems that provide real-time monitoring of space activities. This includes tracking debris, identifying potential threats, and ensuring the safety of its assets. 5. Foster Public-Private Partnerships The private sector has become a driving force in space innovation. Companies like SpaceX, Blue Origin, and others have revolutionized space exploration and infrastructure. The U.S. government should strengthen partnerships with these entities to leverage their capabilities and accelerate innovation. 6. Educate and Train the Next Generation Winning Space Race 2.0 requires a workforce skilled in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). The U.S. must invest in education and training programs to cultivate the talent needed to maintain its leadership in space. - The stakes in Space Race 2.0 could not be higher. As Greg Autry’s insights reveal, the U.S. faces unprecedented challenges from adversaries who are determined to undermine its dominance in space. Addressing these challenges requires a comprehensive strategy that combines technological innovation, international collaboration, and robust deterrence. The United States has a long history of leading in space exploration and innovation. From the Apollo missions to the Mars rovers, it has demonstrated what is possible when vision and determination align. Today, the challenge is not just to explore space but to secure it as a domain of peace, prosperity, and security. By taking decisive action, the U.S. can ensure that it remains a leader in this critical frontier, safeguarding its interests and shaping the future of humanity. Credits and Resources Video Reference : " EMP Attacks and Space Warfare—Why the U.S. Must Win Space Race 2.0 " by Greg Autry, available on EpochTV. Additional Resources : "The Militarization of Space: Threats and Opportunities" – Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) "Space as a Warfighting Domain" – The Brookings Institution "Global Space Economy Projections" – Morgan Stanley Research "Artemis Accords: Principles for Lunar Exploration" – NASA "Private Sector Innovations in Space" – SpaceX and Blue Origin official reports Acknowledgments : Insights and expertise provided by Greg Autry and other space policy analysts featured in the video and related research.

The shares of major health care insurance companies took a fall after President-elect Donald Trump announced he intends to reform the industry and “knock out the middleman.” Among the companies that saw drops in their shares were UnitedHealth Group Inc., CVS Health Corp., and others. Trump’s comments come at an important time, following the recent shooting death of the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, which is an operating division of UnitedHealth Group, the largest single health carrier in the United States. We’ll discuss this story and others, in this episode of “Crossroads.” Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and guests and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.     🔵 Watch the full episode HERE 👇   https://ept.ms/3ZMJnvP Stay Informed. Stay Free. https://www.joshphilipp.com/

The FBI successfully smoked out two agents of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) who were acting on American soil, attempting to bribe and manipulate the IRS into doing China’s bidding. After they were caught, the two men wound up pleading guilty—and just about a week ago, they were sentenced to prison. The story of who these men were, how they got recruited, the plan they were enacting, the specific CCP policy that they were pushing forward—as well as how the FBI was able to ultimately sniff them out and capture them—is fascinating to say the least. And tracking the story, it gives us a glimpse into what the FBI can do at its best, and secondly, the kind of lengths that the CCP will go to in hopes of silencing dissent of any kind. Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and guests and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times. 🇺🇸 Epoch Times $1 Full Access Special Offer: https://ept.ms/RomanSale

The Supreme Court just made a unanimous ruling on a case that will be pivotal in President-elect Donald Trump’s plans for deportations of illegal immigrants. The 9–0 ruling has determined that federal courts cannot review a federal government decision to revoke an immigration visa. This means that if illegal immigrants are up for deportation, they will have a much more difficult time bringing their challenges to U.S. courts. In other news, Daylight Savings Time could soon be over. Trump is saying he plans to bring an end to Daylight Savings Time. We’ll discuss these topics and more, in this episode of “Crossroads.” Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and guests and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.   🔵 Watch the full episode HERE 👇   https://ept.ms/3OWIT17 Stay Informed. Stay Free. https://www.joshphilipp.com/

A large campaign is underway to bring manufacturing and investment back to the United States. The incoming Trump administration is working on incentives for foreign investors and will be using tariffs and low taxes as methods to revive domestic manufacturing. Already it seems to be having an effect. Major investment projects are already being announced, and business leaders are traveling to President-elect Donald Trump’s home at Mar-a-Lago for meetings ahead of the Jan. 20, 2025, presidential inauguration. We’ll discuss this topic and others in this episode of “Crossroads.” Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and guests and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.    🔵 Watch the full episode HERE 👇   https://ept.ms/3OZh4oK Stay Informed. Stay Free. https://www.joshphilipp.com/

Companies are being accused of hiding the dangers of forever chemicals while selling them to the public. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced a new lawsuit on Dec. 11 targeting brands including Teflon, Stainmaster, and Scotchgard. The lawsuit alleges that companies engaged in deceptive trade practices while failing to disclose the dangers of the products. We’ll discuss this topic and others, in this episode of “Crossroads.” Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and guests and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.   🔵 Watch the full episode HERE 👇   https://ept.ms/4gvZQeo Stay Informed. Stay Free. https://www.joshphilipp.com/

In December 2022, the northeastern U.S. was hit by a devastating four-day blizzard. In some areas, the snowstorm dumped several feet of snow in a matter of a couple of hours. This happened during the height of that year’s holiday travel season. The snowstorm knocked out power for more than 100,000 people, it paralyzed most emergency services, it effectively stopped travel in general, and when all was said and done, it left at least 47 people dead. Some of those people died as a result of heart complications, because they over-exerted themselves shoveling snow. However, a significant portion of the deaths were a result of motorists who were trapped in their vehicles for an extended period of time, in freezing temperatures, beyond the reach of any emergency service personnel. These people sadly, literally, froze to death in their cars and trucks. And we’ve seen this sad scenario play out many times before when a natural disaster strikes. People assume, sometimes fatally, that first responders will be able to make it to them and save them from a desperate situation. But unfortunately, that’s not always the case. Sometimes, you really have to be your own first responder. And so in that vein, since we’re heading into the winter season, here are some recommendations on things that you can do to protect yourself and your family. Join host Roman Balmakov on this week’s episode of “Facts Matter.” Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and guests and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times. 🇺🇸 Epoch Times $1 Full Access Special Offer: https://ept.ms/RomanSale