Regardless

25/09/2025

If we truly believe that the traditional family is the cornerstone of society, we must protect it, and the children at its heart, when it comes under threat.

12/09/2025

𝐏𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐒𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐂𝐚𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐬

I'm disappointed by the smear campaign against a good man's work and name. This post (https://www.facebook.com/OccupyDemocrats/posts/pfbid0c8BQt37Jca6Bymmp6bNfqbxUfJBtXbFaRixsGViCYucGTYhAAajmzr6ab4z8zBahl) by Occupy Democrats is one such example.

Here is the evil "hit list" described in the post: https://www.professorwatchlist.org/

Explainer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7EvCsL_2WM

𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐭𝐡: 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐫 𝐖𝐚𝐭𝐜𝐡𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚 “𝐡𝐢𝐭 𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭.”
It was a public database of professors’ OWN public statements and activities that TPUSA deemed to be advancing radical ideologies in the classroom. The post by Occupy Democrats calling this a “digital hit list” loads the language to suggest violence, when in fact it was about accountability and exposure, not physical harm.

𝐅𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭, 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐨𝐧 𝐩𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐜𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐜 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐦.
Civil society groups on all sides keep similar lists:
The Southern Poverty Law Center runs its “Hatewatch.”
Progressive activists maintain “boycott lists.”
Journalists build dossiers on think tanks and churches.

𝐆𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐭 𝐛𝐲 𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭
Second, yes, it is sad that Patton received vile, racist, and threatening messages. Those acts are sinful and probably criminal, and they should be condemned outright.
But blaming Charlie Kirk personally for every email or voicemail a supporter sends is guilt by association. No evidence has been provided that Kirk ever encouraged violence, doxxing, or harassment.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐨𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐢𝐬𝐧'𝐭 𝐢𝐭?
Third, when the left mobilises online outrage campaigns that pressure employers, schools, and publishers, it is framed as “accountability.” When the right uses similar tools, it is reframed as “violence.”
Cancel culture mobs on the left have forced firings, book bans, and speaking cancellations over far less than what professors often say in class.
If Patton believes that online pressure = “terror,” then she must also be willing to condemn her side’s boycotts, shaming campaigns, and firings. Otherwise, it’s a partisan outrage asymmetry.

𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐯𝐚𝐠𝐮𝐞 𝐇𝐚𝐠𝐮𝐞
Fourth, notice how Patton’s statement leans heavily on generalities: “legions of professors,” “terrorised,” “some left academia.”
Few specifics are provided: What exact statements landed her on the list? Were they academic scholarship or political activism? What evidence shows Kirk “normalised violence”? Generalities are persuasive rhetorically, but they evade scrutiny. A serious rebuttal asks: What exactly did she say that merited censure, and was it fair to characterise it as “speaking truth to power”?

𝐎𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐚𝐭𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠.
Fifth... the leap from “a watchlist exists” to “Charlie curated a culture of violence” is unsupported.
He regularly stressed ideas and debate, not physical harm. The Watchlist itself was essentially a media strategy, not a militia directive.
Suggesting that his murder was “violence coming full circle” is chilling, because it edges into justifying political assassination.

A public list of professors’ own words is not a hit list, it’s political accountability, no different from SPLC’s Hatewatch or left-wing boycott campaigns.
If Patton was listed for academic research, let’s see it. If it was for inflammatory political commentary, then that’s fair grounds for public scrutiny.

Professor Watchlist is a project of 501(c)3 non-profit Turning Point USA. The mission of Professor Watchlist is to expose and document college professors who discriminate against conservative students

09/09/2025

𝐄𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐔𝐩 𝐀𝐭 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐝 𝐁𝐚𝐫

A 14-year-old, sec three student was issued an ISA restriction order after self-radicalising from a mishmash of extremist inputs.

He absorbed left-wing anti-Zionist rhetoric rooted in Critical Theory’s oppressor/oppressed binaries, mixed in far-right anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, layered on Islamist jihadism, and topped it off with hyper-s*xualised incel ideology.

By April this year, he had pledged allegiance to ISIS, endorsed violence against “Zionists,” and identified as an incel (involuntary celibate).

𝐋𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐂𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐲

The media reporting would like to drown you in a litany of ideological labels, giving the impression that this 14-year-old was confused by competing worldviews. But if you look closely, the dominant value set is leftist in character.

The central frame was Critical Theory: oppressed vs oppressor, Palestine vs Israel, capitalism as oppression, “Zionists” as enemies, women as obstacles. This simplistic binary provided the backbone. Onto that framework, old-school far-right anti-Semitism grafted conspiracy theories about Jewish control. Jihadist extremism then offered the glamour of holy struggle. Finally, incel subcultures presented an identity shaped by s*xual grievance.

And here lies the troubling question: what on earth is a 14-year-old doing with s*xual grievance in the first place? At an age when mischief and curiosity should dominate, this teenager was instead grooming his identity through s*xual insecurity. The fixation on “looksmaxxing” and self-worth was wrapped in misogyny and resentment, tied once again to the liberation-style narrative that the system had failed him.

Yes, his worldview was cross-pollinated. But make no mistake—the backbone came from left-leaning liberation rhetoric.

Critical Theory created the frame of grievance into which every other radical strand could be slotted.

𝐂𝐚𝐭𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐢𝐜 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧

How does anyone end up with such a "salad bar" of causes in the first place?

The answer is moral formation... or the lack of it.

When young people grow up with no substantive moral framework, they will cling to causes as substitutes for a moral compass. Every human being has an externalising impulse: it will either be fulfilled in a time-tested framework of responsibility, duty, and service, or it will be cobbled together in a hodgepodge of grievance-based identities.

This 14-year-old’s story is not an outlier.

It is a harbinger of what is to come if we continue to substitute platitudes like “tolerance” and “harmony” for substantive moral formation. Now that those values become hollowed-out and synonymous with relativism and conflict avoidance, they cannot carry the weight of shaping a generation. If we ignore moral formation, and continue to allow for the moral fragmentation we're seeing, we will get more “salad bar” cases: young people cobbling together identities out of grievance, and drifting into danger.

The irony is that Critical Theory, jihadism, and hyper-s*xualisation all promise power, liberation and freedom in some form or another. But the fruit is always the same: radicalisation, bo***ge, and oppression.

The ideologies may differ in branding, but the fruit is the same: radicalisation, bo***ge, and oppression.
That is why we must look beyond the packaging of lofty rhetoric and assess the fruit of the worldviews we adopt, even the ones recommended to us by the professors and universities we trust.

𝐇𝐞𝐥𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐇𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐭 𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧

Parents have a front-line role here. They must be vigilant about their children’s inputs—what ideologies, slogans, and content they are absorbing online and offline. They must teach discernment, encouraging critical thinking that causes kids to ask hard questions rather than parroting slogans like "love is love" and "from the river to the sea". And they must mentor early, stepping in before ideological red flags harden into identity.

The wider public also bears responsibility. We must challenge the false binaries that reduce all of life to “oppressed vs oppressor.” We must encourage young people not to anchor their identities in s*xual self-definition, grievance, or other transient ideologies, but to ground their sense of worth in something enduring, eternal, and transcendent.

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/sporean-boy-14-given-isa-restriction-order-first-self-radicalisation-case-from-mixed-ideologies

21/08/2025

“𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐞-𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐛𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐞𝐬” – 𝐛𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐤𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐨𝐫 𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐜𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐝?

Singapore is being urged to reconsider mitochondrial replacement therapy (MRT), a new IVF technique meant to prevent rare genetic diseases.

But at what cost?
🗓️ Unproven long-term safety
🧬 Irreversible genetic changes
🔬Embryo destruction and eugenics concerns
🫆 Impact on future children’s identity and autonomy

As global headlines celebrate this advancement, this in-depth perspective urges caution before we cross ethical lines that may be impossible to reverse.

Mitochondrial Replacement Therapy (MRT) allows children to be born free from rare but severe genetic diseases. However, this emerging technology—which creates "three-parent babies"—raises profound ethical and safety concerns. As science races ahead, Singapore must act with caution, not just comp...

06/08/2025

“Systemic discrimination.”
For nearly twenty years, that charge has been aimed at Singapore. But is it true?

When we examined every claim, a pattern appeared: commonsense laws, biological realities, and national values were reframed as "injustice".

This isn’t about denying anyone’s dignity or worth. It’s about asking an honest question — are these demands really about equality, or are they special pleading by re-writing the rules for everyone.

This post is a very brief summary of three long-form articles on our website. Each one gets into the weeds of the claims of discrimination, challenging the prevailing narrative that seeks to cast one of the best countries in the world... our home... as a heinous perpetrator of harm and injustice.

Read the full breakdown starting here: https://regardless.sg/part-1-equality-or-special-treatment-breaking-down-pink-dots-scorecard/

31/07/2025

𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐨𝐠𝐚𝐜𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐆𝐚𝐲 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐇𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐨𝐧 𝐖𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐇𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐓𝐫𝐚𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠

In the months and years ahead, surrogacy and same-s*x parenting will be hailed as symbols of love, equality, and freedom here in Singapore. But beneath the surface lies a different logic... one that shares uncomfortable similarities with human trafficking: the commodification of bodies, exploitation of the poor, and the severing of natural kinship bonds for the satisfaction of adult desires.

Here’s how these structures align:

1️⃣ Commodification
Trafficking treats people as products for s*x, labour or organs. Commercial surrogacy treats people as products, too. Wombs are rented. Children are conceived, delivered, and handed over just like products. In same-s*x parenting built on third-party reproduction, the child is effectively commissioned, as a product to complete the adults’ desire for a family.

2️⃣ Exploitation of the vulnerable
Traffickers prey on the poor. So do surrogacy brokers. Wealthy couples pay economically desperate women to gestate children, then vanish. The surrogate becomes a service, the child becomes the outcome. And same-s*x couples, unable to biologically reproduce within their union, often rely on this unequal market.

3️⃣ Severing of natural bonds
Trafficking breaks families apart, sometimes through kidnapping, sometimes through sale. Surrogacy and same-s*x parenting do it by intent. The child is separated from at least one biological parent — mother or father — before birth. This violation of biological family bonds is a planned feature of the arrangement.

4️⃣ Contracts over conscience
In both trafficking and surrogacy, what’s contracted often trumps what’s right. A surrogate might be legally bound to give up a child, even if her conscience later protests. Children born from donor gametes may never know their true origins... and and they can’t consent.

Commercial surrogacy and third-party reproduction share the same underlying logic: children become products to be commissioned, grown, and transferred; women are reduced to service providers, their wombs rented like vehicles; and pregnancy itself is stripped of its sanctity, reduced to a contract.

😤“But it’s voluntary,” critics say.
Yes — for the adults. But consent under duress isn't voluntary, and the child gets no say.

😤“But their intentions are good,” others insist.
They may be. But unjust systems don’t need bad intentions. They just need enough people to stop asking questions.

😤“But not all surrogacy is commercial.”
True. But this isn’t about rare exceptions. It’s about a booming global market that depends on erasing parents, outsourcing wombs, and turning children into deliverables.

When you strip away the branding and examine the structure, the parallels are clear. Children deserve to be born to their parents — not bought for someone else’s happiness.

Surrogacy and Same-s*x Parenting rely on human commodification. And it’s time we said so. Loudly.

22/07/2025

𝐀𝐫𝐞 𝐘𝐨𝐮 𝐁𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐆𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐝 𝐁𝐲 𝐘𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐍𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐌𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐚?

The media should be a force for truth, but then, what is truth?

Is it whatever aligns with the latest progressive cause? Or is it the steady ground of time-tested institutions and moral frameworks?

This piece provides a broad analysis of our national broadsheet's approach to LGBT reporting. What we found is a deeply concerning one-sidedness.

Singaporeans should read carefully, not just for what’s said, but for what’s assumed, omitted, and emotionally pre-loaded.
Because once editorial tone becomes indistinguishable from activism, critical thinking erodes and public trust evaporates.

Singapore media’s coverage of LGBT issues has shifted from neutral to affirming, shaping public morality while shutting down dissent.

15/07/2025

Singapore agrees that mums and dads both matter.

So why are LGBT activists pretending that they don't?

This piece exposes how same-s*x parenting campaigns in Singapore unjustly erase what every child needs - their mother and father.

Same-s*x parenting campaigns in Singapore contradict government support for fathers and mothers and challenge societal beliefs on what children truly need.

10/07/2025

Only one way to process your feelings. LGBTQ s*xuality for children. Legitimising vigorous pushes to reshape how we think about marriage, s*xuality and gender with the banner of charity status.

Pink Dot wants you to believe that this is equality.

We examine their claims, and leave you with one question: is Pink Dot's scorecard about equality, or cultural domination?

From healthcare, to media, to the non-profit space, Pink Dot's scorecard seeks not equal treatment, but cultural domination.

09/07/2025

Redefining family. Rewriting policy. Reshaping norms. That's what Pink Dot's "equality scorecard" really seeks.

Pink Dot wants you to believe that the way family, housing, and laws on employment discrimination and end-of-life matters work in Singapore treats LGBTQ individuals unequally.

In Part 2, we show you why that's not the case.

From marriage and adoption to employment, end-of-life decisions, and housing, Pink Dot’s LGBTQ equality scorecard enforces a radical redefinition of family.

09/07/2025

What if not all calls for ‘equality’ are really equal?

08/07/2025

Like things should be treated alike, and unlike things unalike.

You may recall that Pink Dot published an "equality scorecard" last year claiming to show the ways in which the LGBTQ community is still not treated equally.

We unpack Pink Dot’s claims of unequal treatment on 377A, how schools approach LGBTQ issues, and gender identity in Singapore to determine if they're real cases of inequality, or ideological demands dressed up as "equal rights".

On 377A, how schools approach LGBTQ issues, and gender identity, Pink Dot’s LGBTQ equality scorecard confuses special treatment with equal treatment.