Connect with us

International

New York Times publishes chilling new justification for assisted suicide

Published

5 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Calvin Freiburger

Even happy, healthy lives without major issues can warrant needless ending if they are ‘complete.’

Notorious secular “ethicist” Peter Singer has co-authored an opinion piece in The New York Times positing a chilling new rationale for assisted suicide: the determination that one’s life is simply “complete.”

Princeton psychologist Daniel Kahneman died in March 2024 at age 90. His cause of death was not disclosed at the time, but a year later, The Wall Street Journal revealed that Kahneman had emailed friends the day before to tell them he was traveling to Switzerland to avail himself of the country’s legal physician-assisted suicide.

“I think Danny wanted, above all, to avoid a long decline, to go out on his terms, to own his own death,” WSJ journalist and longtime friend of the deceased Jason Zweig wrote. “Maybe the principles of good decision-making that he had so long espoused — rely on data, don’t trust most intuitions, view the evidence in the broadest possible perspective — had little to do with his decision.”

On April 14, The New York Times published a guest essay by the infamous Singer, a pro-infanticide Princeton bioethics professor, and philosophy professor Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek, who shared that they too knew of Kahneman’s plans and that days before he had told them, “I feel I’ve lived my life well, but it’s a feeling. I’m just reasonably happy with what I’ve done. I would say if there is an objective point of view, then I’m totally irrelevant to it. If you look at the universe and the complexity of the universe, what I do with my day cannot be relevant.”

“I have believed since I was a teenager that the miseries and indignities of the last years of life are superfluous, and I am acting on that belief,” Kahneman reportedly said. “I am still active, enjoying many things in life (except the daily news) and will die a happy man. But my kidneys are on their last legs, the frequency of mental lapses is increasing, and I am 90 years old. It is time to go.”

Singer and de Lazari-Radek argued that this was an eminently reasonable conclusion. “(I)f, after careful reflection, you decide that your life is complete and remain firmly of that view for some time, you are the best judge of what is good for you,” they wrote. “This is especially clear in the case of people who are at an age at which they cannot hope for improvement in their quality of life.”

“(I)f we are to live well to the end, we need to be able to freely discuss when a life is complete, without shame or taboo,” the authors added. “Such a discussion may help people to know what they really want. We may regret their decisions, but we should respect their choices and allow them to end their lives with dignity.”

Pro-lifers have long warned that the euthanasia movement devalues life and preys on the ill and distraught by making serious medical issues (even non-terminal ones) into grounds to end one’s life. But Singer and de Lazari-Radek’s essay marks a new extreme beyond that point by asserting that even happy, healthy lives without major issues can warrant needless ending.

“Instead of seeing every human life as having inherent value and dignity, Singer sees life as transactional: something you are allowed to keep by being happy, able-bodied, and productive — and something to be taken away if you are not,” Cassy Cooke wrote at Live Action News.

Support is available to talk those struggling with suicidal thoughts out of ending their lives. The Suicide & Crisis Lifeline can be reached by calling or texting 988.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Censorship Industrial Complex

In Britain the “Thought Crime” Is Real

Published on

If you’re tired of censorship and surveillance, subscribe to Reclaim The Net.

By

A pensioner faced a raid not for plotting mayhem, but for posting a sarcastic tweet fewer than 30 people saw

It takes a very special kind of madness to send six baton-wielding, pepper-spray-toting police officers to arrest a 71-year-old man in his slippers. But here we are: welcome to Britain 2025, where tweeting the wrong opinion is treated with the same urgency as a hostage situation in Croydon.

Julian Foulkes, once a proud servant of law and order, now finds himself on the receiving end of what can only be described as a full-scale, Kafkaesque raid. His crime? Not drug-dealing, not fraud, not even refusing to pay the TV license. No, Julian questioned a pro-Palestinian demonstrator on X. Because apparently, free speech is now a limited-time offer.

The Curious Case of the Grocery List

The story began in Gillingham when Kent Police decided to deploy what must be half their annual budget to storm the Foulkes residence. Six officers with batons barged into the home of a pensioner who’s spent a decade in service to the very same force now treating him like the Unabomber.

And what high-level contraband did they uncover in this den of danger? Books. Literature. And not just any literature; “very Brexity things,” according to bodycam footage obtained by The Telegraph. One can only imagine the horror. Perhaps a Nigel Farage biography lying next to a battered copy of The Spectator. It’s practically a manifesto.

But wait, it gets better. A shopping list, penned by Julian’s wife (a hairdresser, no less), featured such ominous items as bleach, aluminum foil, and gloves. For those keeping score at home, that’s also the standard toolkit of anyone doing household chores or dyeing hair. But to Kent’s finest, it must have looked like the recipe for domestic terrorism. You half expect them to have called in MI5 to decipher the coded significance of “toilet paper x2.”

Now, this could all be darkly amusing if it weren’t also painfully cruel. While Kent’s squad of crime-fighting intellects were turning over Julian’s life like a garage sale, they rummaged through deeply personal mementos from his daughter’s funeral. Francesca, tragically killed by a drunk driver in Ibiza 15 years ago, had her memory poked through as if it were a bag of potato chips.

An officer was heard stating: “Ah. That’s sad,” before carrying on like she was flicking through junk mail.

After the shakedown came the cell. Eight hours locked up like a mob boss, while the state decided whether tweeting concern about a reported rise in antisemitism qualified as incitement or merely the audacity of having an opinion. It’s hard to say what’s more insulting; the arrest or the mind-numbing absurdity of it all.

A Nation Eating Its Own

Now, let’s not kid ourselves. This isn’t just a Kent problem. This is a snapshot of a country in full bureaucratic freefall. We’ve reached a point where police forces, rather than chasing burglars or catching knife-wielding lunatics, are now busy raiding the homes of retirees over innocuous social media posts.

Julian Foulkes is not a revolutionary. He’s not leading rallies, he’s not printing manifestos in his shed, and he’s certainly not strapping himself to the gates of Parliament. He’s a retired cop who owns a few books, uses X to vent the occasional opinion, and wants to visit his daughter in Australia without being flagged at passport control like he’s smuggling plutonium.

But after hours of interrogation for what the police grandly labeled malicious communication, Foulkes accepted a caution. Not because he believed he’d done anything wrong, he hadn’t, but because the alternative might have been even more grotesque. A criminal conviction. Which, for a man with family overseas, could turn his trips to Heathrow into a permanent no-fly zone.

“My life wouldn’t be worth living if I couldn’t see her. At the time, I believed a caution wouldn’t affect travel, but a conviction definitely would,” he said about being able to visit his daughter.

“That’s about the level of extremist I am… a few Douglas Murray books and some on Brexit.”

He reads. Possibly even thinks. The horror.

The Apology That Barely Was

Kent Police did what all institutions do when caught with their pants around their ankles. They mumbled something vaguely resembling an apology. They admitted the caution had been a mistake and removed it from his record.

And while that’s nice, it rather misses the point. Because they’d already sent a message, loud and clear: Think the wrong thing, tweet the wrong joke, and we might just pay you a visit. It’s the sort of behavior you’d expect in some authoritarian state where elections are won with 98 percent of the vote and the only available television channel is state news. Not the Home Counties.

Foulkes, for his part, hasn’t gone quietly.

“I saw Starmer in the White House telling Trump we’ve had [free speech] in the UK for a very long time, and I thought, ‘Yeah, right.’ We can see what’s really going on.”

He’s not wrong. For a nation so smug about its democratic values, Britain seems increasingly allergic to people expressing them.

He goes further, pulling no punches about the direction his former profession has taken.

“I’d never experienced anything like this” during his time on the force, he said, before diagnosing the whole debacle as a symptom of the “woke mind virus” infecting everything, including the police.

The Tweet That Triggered the Avalanche

The whole affair kicked off in the aftermath of the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel, a day of bloodshed that left 1,200 dead and more than 250 taken hostage. The shockwaves weren’t limited to the Middle East. They rattled through Europe, igniting a fresh wave of pro-Palestinian marches across the continent.

Foulkes, like many watching the news, saw a video of a mob in Dagestan storming an airport reportedly to find Jewish arrivals.

So, when he saw a post from an account called Mr Ethical; who, with all the irony the internet can muster, threatened legal action if branded an antisemite, Foulkes couldn’t help himself. He replied:

“One step away from storming Heathrow looking for Jewish arrivals….”

A social media post exchange where Mr Ethical responds to Suella Braverman saying if called an antisemite he will sue, followed by Julian Foulkes commenting about storming Heathrow looking for Jewish arrivals.

That was it. One tweet. One line. No threats. No calls to violence.

Foulkes maintains he’d never interacted with the account before. There was no feud, no history. His post had fewer than 30 views.

And yet, within days, he had six police officers treating his home like a crime scene.

What does this tell us? That we’ve entered an era where satire is indistinguishable from evidence. Where sarcasm is treated like sedition. And where a retired constable who’s paid his dues can still find himself pulled into the maw of state-sanctioned nonsense for a tweet.

So yes, the caution’s gone, wiped clean like it never happened. But the message is still smoldering in the ashtray: think twice before you speak, and maybe don’t speak at all if your bookshelf includes anything more provocative than a Gordon Ramsay cookbook. Because in modern Britain, it’s not always the rapists and murderers who get doorstepped, it’s pensioners with opinions. And if that’s where we’ve landed, then the only thing truly extreme is how far the country’s gone off the rails.

If you’re tired of censorship and surveillance, subscribe to Reclaim The Net.

Continue Reading

Crime

Veteran RCMP Investigator Warns of Coordinated Hybrid Warfare Targeting Canada

Published on

Sam Cooper's avatar Sam Cooper

Central to this strategy is fentanyl—a substance whose reach now extends far beyond Canadian borders.

Fentanyl overdoses. Dirty money flooding real estate. Election interference. Foreign-backed antisemitism igniting across Canadian campuses. These are not isolated crises, warns Calvin Chrustie, a veteran RCMP national security and transnational crime investigator. They are interlinked weapons in an accelerating campaign of hybrid warfare targeting Canada—one that is hollowing out state institutions, fracturing social cohesion, and damaging our alliances. In the view of Chrustie, like other North American experts recently interviewed by The Bureau, adversarial regimes are exploiting Canada’s systemic vulnerabilities to destabilize the country from within, with consequences extending into the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom, Taiwan, Japan, and beyond.

In a sweeping interview with the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, Chrustie laid out a sobering account of how foreign states—chiefly China and Iran—are combining their intelligence capabilities with organized crime networks and proxies such as Mexican cartels to exploit Canadian systems. The Bureau has analyzed Chrustie’s comments and connected them to broader findings in its investigations into transnational crime and state-sponsored influence operations.

At the heart of Chrustie’s warning is a shift in how adversaries like China and Iran operate. No longer relying solely on spies or cyberattacks, they are weaponizing organized crime—leveraging fentanyl trafficking, corruption, and influence operations to destabilize democracies.

“Hybrid warfare is the blending of military and non-military means to weaken or destabilize a target,” Chrustie explained. “For hostile states, transnational crime is a tool—just like cyberattacks or disinformation. China, Russia, Iran, North Korea—the CRINKs—use TOC to raise money, create chaos, and undermine our institutions. TOC is no longer just criminal—it’s geopolitical.”

Fentanyl, in this context, is not only a public health catastrophe but a deliberate weapon.

“It’s about destabilizing communities, overwhelming public services, and hollowing out social cohesion,” he said. “Just like the Soviets used propaganda and the KGB used disinformation, modern adversaries use drugs, money laundering, and crime networks to erode their adversaries from within.”

This erosion now extends beyond physical harms into the social and political realm. Chrustie pointed to radical protest movements and the rise in antisemitic incidents on Canadian campuses as evidence of convergence between TOC and foreign influence operations.

“These aren’t disconnected trends,” he said. “The same threat actors behind fentanyl and money laundering are often involved in radicalization efforts. Iranian networks, for example, have long been tied to money laundering and extremist financing. And those networks are not operating in isolation. They’re aligned with China and the Mexican cartels.”

Chrustie argued that radical activism and identity-based polarization are being amplified not just by ideology, but by illicit foreign-backed financing and digital manipulation. “We’re talking about convergence,” he said. “These networks exploit every vulnerability—from public health to political discourse. Failing to connect the dots between TOC, extremism, and foreign interference means we’re always reacting too late.”

Central to this strategy is fentanyl—a substance whose reach now extends far beyond Canadian borders. “There’s no denying the scale of fentanyl production in Canada. It far outpaces our internal consumption,” he said. “We know Canadian labs are supplying Australia in large quantities. And we don’t know how much is crossing into the U.S.—because we’re not meaningfully tracking it. That lack of visibility alone is a serious national security concern.”

Seizures at the border are not the solution, Chrustie argued, because they’re not the full picture. “The U.S. has robust systems for this. Canada doesn’t,” he said. “So pointing to low seizures as proof of safety is misleading—it really just tells us what we’re not seeing.”

And what we’re not seeing, he says, includes deeply compromised infrastructure. “They exploit Canada’s weaknesses, especially in places like Vancouver, where strategic assets such as ports, shipping companies and supply chain infrastructure are key hybrid warfare targets,” he said. “The intent is to target North America through Vancouver-based assets, because it’s a lower-risk operating environment.”

The financial flows enabling this system are equally opaque—and equally dangerous. Chrustie cited the HSBC cartel laundering scandal, which led to a $1.9 billion U.S. settlement, as a historic warning that was never heeded. “The same cartel networks that emerged through the HSBC probe are engaged in Canada today,” he said.

“At one point, more encrypted communication companies linked to TOC and terrorist financers were based in Vancouver than anywhere else in the world,” he added. “These platforms were used globally—by cartels, arms traffickers, terrorists, state proxies. That tells you all you need to know about how Canada is perceived by adversaries.”

So why is Canada such a prime target? Chrustie identifies four layers of failure: strategy, structure, systems, and culture.

“We lack a cohesive, public national security strategy,” he said. “Unlike the United States or Australia, Canada doesn’t clearly define TOC as a strategic national threat. We don’t have a single, unified doctrine coordinating our federal agencies—police, intelligence, border services, foreign affairs. And TOC thrives in those gaps.”

“Our institutions are siloed,” he continued. “Policing is on the front line, but CSIS, CBSA, military and CSE aren’t always integrated. Right now, the RCMP is expected to shoulder most of the burden. But that’s unsustainable. We need an all-agency model.”

Canada’s legal and regulatory systems are another weak point. “Our legal system is designed for a domestic, rule-of-law environment. It’s ill-suited to confront global adversaries who don’t play by those rules,” Chrustie said. “Disclosure rules from Stinchcombe, Charter constraints, and evidentiary burdens mean that complex prosecutions often fall apart or never proceed.”

Finally, Chrustie warned that Canadian political culture is its most underappreciated vulnerability. “Canadians are culturally indifferent to national security,” he said. “We’ve taken a maternalistic approach—shielding the public from harsh realities, hoping to avoid panic or xenophobia. But that silence has allowed foreign actors to operate here with little resistance.”

“The historical paternalist approach of governments and bureaucrats—‘we won’t discuss these issues in public, we are the experts’—that thinking is outdated,” he said. “China, Russia, Iran and North Korea are the biggest fans of that mindset.”

Asked what a real solution looks like, Chrustie offered a sweeping and urgent framework: a national strategy naming hostile states and TOC as geopolitical threats; centralized agency coordination; intelligence-led disruption operations with allies abroad; and legal reforms enabling proactive countermeasures.

“We either need carve-outs with enhanced powers for TOC-related and foreign threat investigations—or we rely more on foreign-facing disruption efforts and accept that prosecutions are secondary,” he said.

He also emphasized grassroots engagement. “The solutions are in the communities, not in the siloed offices of governments,” Chrustie said. “We need to engage business leaders, civic organizations, educators, and diaspora communities. We need to build national resilience—not just enforce laws after the damage is done.”

His closing warning was as stark as his opening diagnosis.

“Canada is a saturated and vulnerable target,” he said. “And until we stop treating this as a criminal justice problem and start treating it as an integrated national security emergency, we will continue to lose ground.”

“There is no room for spectators.”

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Invite your friends and earn rewards

If you enjoy The Bureau, share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe.

Invite Friends

Continue Reading

Trending

X