Has Orwell’s 1984 become reality?

Published on December 19, 2025December 19, 2025 by EF TeamLeave a comment

George Orwell’s novel, 1984, has in many ways proved to be a blueprint for the globalists, rather than a popular – if somewhat disturbing – piece of fiction.

By Bert Olivier

To some readers it may seem like a rhetorical question to ask whether the narrative of George Orwell’s dystopian novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four (or 1984), first published in Britain in 1949, has somehow left its pages and settled, like an ominous miasma, over the contours of social reality. Yet, closer inspection – which means avoiding compromised mainstream news outlets – discloses a disquieting state of affairs.

Everywhere we look in Western countries, from the United Kingdom, through Europe to America (and even India, whose ‘Orwellian digital ID system’ was lavishly praised by British prime minister Keir Starmer recently), what meets the eye is a set of social conditions exhibiting varying stages of precisely the no-longer-fictional totalitarian state depicted by Orwell in 1984. Needless to stress, this constitutes a warning against totalitarianism with its unapologetic manipulation of information and mass surveillance.

1984-style thought-crime

I am by no means the first person to perceive the ominous contours of Orwell’s nightmarish vision taking shape before our very eyes. Back in 2023 Jack Watson did, too, when he wrote (among other things):

Thoughtcrime is another of Orwell’s conjectures that has come true. When I first read 1984, I would never have thought that this made up word would be taken seriously; nobody should have the right to ask what you are thinking. Obviously, nobody can read your mind and surely you could not be arrested simply for thinking? However, I was dead wrong. A woman was arrested recently for silently praying in her head and, extraordinarily, prosecutors were asked to provide evidence of her ‘thoughtcrime.’ Needless to say, they did not have any. But knowing that we can now be accused of, essentially, thinking the wrong thoughts is a worrying development. Freedom of speech is already under threat, but this goes beyond free speech. This is about free thought. Everybody should have a right to think what they want, and they should not feel obliged or forced to express certain beliefs or only think certain thoughts.

Most people would know that totalitarianism is not a desirable social or political set of circumstances. Even the word sounds ominous, but that is probably only to those who already know what it denotes. I have written on it before, in different contexts, but it is now more relevant than ever. We should remind ourselves what Orwell wrote in that uncannily premonitory novel.

The surveillance state

Considering the rapidly expanding and intensifying, electronically mediated strategies of surveillance being implemented globally – no doubt aimed at inculcating in citizens a subliminal awareness that privacy is fast becoming but a distant memory – the following excerpt from Orwell’s text strikes one as disturbingly prophetic, considering the time it was written (1984, Free Planet e-book, p.5):

Behind Winston’s back the voice from the telescreen was still babbling away about pig-iron and the overfulfilment of the Ninth Three-Year Plan. The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it, moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live—did live, from habit that became instinct—in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.

Before adducing compelling instances of the contemporary, real-world surveillance equivalents of 1984’s ‘telescreen,’ which have become sufficiently ‘normal’ to be accepted without much in the form of protest, and to refresh your memory further, here’s Hannah Arendt, in The Origins of Totalitarianism (New edition, Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich 1979, p. 438):

Total domination, which strives to organize the infinite plurality and differentiation of human beings as if all of humanity were just one individual, is possible only if each and every person can be reduced to a never-changing identity of reactions, so that each of these bundles of reactions can be exchanged at random for any other. The problem is to fabricate something that does not exist, namely, a kind of human species resembling other animal species whose only ‘freedom’ would consist in ‘preserving the species.’

As Italian thinker Giorgio Agamben would say: totalitarianism reduces every singular human being to ‘bare life;’ nothing more, and after having been subjected to its mind-numbing techniques for a certain time, people start acting accordingly, as if they lack the capacity to manifest their natality (unique, singular birth) and plurality (the fact that all people are singular and irreplaceable). The final blow to our humanity comes when totalitarian rule’s coup de grȃce is delivered (Arendt 1979, quoting David Rousseton conditions in Nazi concentration camps, p. 451):

The next decisive step in the preparation of living corpses is the murder of the moral person in man. This is done in the main by making martyrdom, for the first time in history, impossible: ‘How many people here still believe that a protest has even historic importance? This skepticism is the real masterpiece of the SS. Their great accomplishment. They have corrupted all human solidarity. Here the night has fallen on the future. When no witnesses are left, there can be no testimony. To demonstrate when death can no longer be postponed is an attempt to give death a meaning, to act beyond one’s own death. In order to be successful, a gesture must have social meaning…’

Surveying the present social scene globally against this backdrop yields interesting, albeit disturbing results. For example, Niamh Harris reports that German MEP Christine Anderson and British politician Nigel Farage have both warned that globalists are frantically trying to establish a fully fledged surveillance state ‘before too many people wake up’ to this state of affairs. Anderson – whose caution is echoed by Farage – points to the irony that people are waking up precisely because globalist efforts to hasten the installation of a totalitarian surveillance state are accelerating and becoming conspicuous. Hence, the more the process is ramped up, the louder critical voices become (and protests are likely to occur), and correlatively, the more anxious the neo-fascists become, to close the net around citizens of the world. She warns that:

‘Digital identity [is] not so your life is easier. It’s so government has total control over you.’

‘Digital currency [is] the crème de la crème of all control mechanisms…What do you think is going to happen the next time you refuse to take an mRNA shot? With the flip of a switch, they just cancel your account. You cannot buy food anymore. You cannot do anything anymore.’

Given these warnings, a case in point concerns well-known globalist Tony Blair’s recent attempt to assuage people’s fears about digital ID-systems. Needless to point out, his commendation of the system (because of its ‘amazing benefits’), in conjunction with AI and facial recognition capacity, is disingenuous in the extreme, as is palpably evident from his words (quoted from Wide Awake Media on X):

‘Facial recognition can now spot suspects in real time from live video…[It] helps identify suspects quickly in busy places like train stations and events.’ ‘AI will go even further—spotting crime patterns, guiding patrols and streamlining decisions…This is where technology, like digital ID, becomes critical.’

Wide Awake Media’s laconic comment on Blair’s words (alluding to the already dystopian surveillance practices in the United Kingdom) says it all: ‘Imagine this kind of system in the hands of a government that imprisons people for memes and jokes.’

It requires no genius to grasp that these examples of attempts at furthering the totalitarian agenda of complete surveillance, coupled with inescapable control mechanisms such as CBDCs, are rooted in the structural dynamics of the (no-longer-fictional) society of Big Brother, as evocatively depicted by Orwell more than 75 years ago. Except that – given the advent of the network society of electronically mediated actions and behaviour – such surveillance and control are at a level of efficiency and pervasiveness that Big Brother could only dream of. This is unmistakable when one peruses reports such as this one, which alerts one to the fact that, in Britain today, surveillance technology enables the neo-fascist authorities to identify, arrest, and imprison individuals for so-called ‘crimes’ which echo the thoughtcrimes of Orwell’s 1984, except that, by comparison, they seem trivial to the nth degree. As the article in question states,

Following a number of high-profile arrests for speech-related crimes, Britain is seen as far as the White House as a realm of tinpot, two-tier woke tyranny, where authors of errant tweets can expect to spend more time in prison than sex pests and paedophiles and which commentators and comedians should avoid — lest they be whisked straight from arrivals to a holding cell having offended Left-wing orthodoxies.

Lucy Connolly, a mother and childminder who received a 31-month prison sentence for ‘inciting racial hatred’ over a single (quickly deleted) tweet posted in the wake of the Southport Murders, is just one of many Brits that the state has pursued for such crimes in recent years. British police presently make 30 arrests per day for online speech offences, with many of these treated far more seriously than violent, sexual, or acquisitive crimes. Connolly’s was one of 44 convictions for ‘stirring up racial hatred’ last year…

Those, like Tony Blair, who are trying their best to justify surveillance as being ‘beneficial,’ even go as far as employing Orwell’s terminology to assuage the fears of the public who would be at the receiving end of such vaunted ‘protection.’ In this vein, in 2022 outgoing mayor of New York City, Eric Adams, was reported as claiming that:

Americans will learn to love the Chinese-style surveillance state, according to New York City Democrat Mayor Eric Adams who responded to criticism over increasing the use of facial recognition technology by declaring, ‘Big Brother is protecting you!’

Adams made the disturbing comments in response to elected officials who expressed concerns that using such technology is turning society into an authoritarian surveillance state.

Not everyone was enamoured of the mayor’s reassurance, however:

Albert Fox Cahn, the head of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, responded by warning that facial recognition technology would be weaponized to crack down on ‘every aspect of dissent’ in the city.

‘These are technologies that would be chilling in anyone’s hands. But to give an agency with such a horrifying record of surveillance abuse even more power, at a time when they face dwindling oversight, is a recipe for disaster,’ he said.

Part of the problem faced by freedom-loving citizens everywhere is the uncritical acceptance by many – although by no means all – people, that constantly changing technology is somehow self-justifying. It is not, as a simple thought-experiment confirms. If someone tells you that, compared to its 18^th-century French Revolution precursor, today there is a much more efficient, ‘electronic guillotine’ available, which terminates a person’s life quickly, humanely, and painlessly, and could solve the overpopulation problem by euthanising people over 60 years of age, should you agree?

Of course not. For one thing, older people have the same right to life as anyone else, and many of one’s most productive, and enjoyable years come after 60. Hence, there is absolutely no ground for accepting or justifying new technology as ‘beneficial,’ simply because it is supposedly ‘more efficient.’

The 1984 playbook

Yet, everyone of globalist persuasion seems to believe that, to persuade the ‘sheeple’ to enter the corral of digital imprisonment, all they need to do is to glorify the technology involved – lying through their teeth, of course. But lest I forget, according to the 1984 playbook, which all and sundry among the globalist neo-fascists seem to have adopted (stupidly believing that no one would notice), everything we have been taught in the world that preceded the attempt to establish their vaunted New World Order, has been turned on its head, so that ‘falsehood’ (lying) has now become ‘truth.’ If this sounds far-fetched, take a look at the globalists’ disingenuous pronouncements through the lens of 1984 (p. 6):

The Ministry of Truth—Minitrue, in Newspeak—was startlingly different from any other object in sight. It was an enormous pyramidal structure of glittering white concrete, soaring up, terrace after terrace, 300 metres into the air. From where Winston stood it was just possible to read, picked out on its white face in elegant lettering, the three slogans of the Party:

WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

The ‘Newspeak’ of today does exactly the same thing, as anyone who frequents the alternative media easily discovers. Hence, if those among us who cherish our freedoms wish to preserve them, we had better be wide awake to any and all the continuing attempts to impose terminal limitations, or should I say, permanent termination, on them, all in the name of putative ‘benefits, safety, and convenience.’ If we don’t, we shall have only ourselves to blame if legislators of various stripes succeed in imposing them on us by stealth.

By Bert Oliver. This article first appeared at Brownstone Institute Brownstone Institute and is reproduced here under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Universal Basic Income: make slavery great again

Published on November 7, 2025November 24, 2025 by EF TeamLeave a comment

The Universal Basic Income future is simply a return to the default of human societies through the ages – feudalism – but without even the relative purpose found in walking behind a plough.

The evil of aimlessness

I once worked in communities supported mainly through a form of Universal Basic Income (UBI). Most money was received from the government for no (or token) work, or from mining royalties, where others worked digging on the communities’ lands. There were walls black and heaving with cockroaches while children slept with dogs on stained mattresses below, and babies covered head to toe in pustular scabies while the mother complained about a sore back. This was not universal, but not uncommon. Other communities that stood out as strong and healthy had people working hard for a living – particularly in roles that reflected their culture – a very different economy.

Men who once worked hard to support families lose the reason to do so when it makes no real difference; when the basics of life and leisure are equally available to those who work for them, and those who do nothing. It is not a political issue, just a human behavioral and psychological one. Removing the need to work and the dignity that striving and succeeding bring, especially before one’s family, leads to inaction, loss of interest in the world, a loss of role (i.e., a loss of dignity), and depression. This is dampened by alcohol or drugs. Wives and children suffer by being beaten up by drunk, frustrated, and drugged men. Having two frequently drunk parents ensures children are malnourished and aimless.

This is not theoretical – it is seen all over the world where people of one culture are overrun by those of another, and confined to subservience, economic and societal irrelevance, and handouts. Some people and communities break out of it, usually by finding ways to grow their local economy and achieve some form of self-governance and self-reliance. Breaking out is not common and requires an opportunity, the possibility, to do so.

Our brave new technocratic world

The road much of the ‘developed’ world is currently on is towards UBI, but without that potential for escape. We use this term ‘developed’ in a technological sense – not a human sense – as it denotes technology rather than awareness. UBI will be introduced as a panacea, as artificial intelligence (AI) will replace a lot of jobs. The use of AI is increasing because it can accumulate wealth more reliably than employees. Amazon’s plans to replace humans with robots will not only mean a few hundred thousand human jobs gone at Amazon, but lots more high-street shops boarded up and their employees and owners gone. This is why Amazon is moving to AI and robotics – to increase profit for the few percent who are its beneficiaries by putting competitors out of business. AI may be overplayed or not, but what Amazon is doing will be widely repeated.

The people out of work, by and large, will be city and town dwellers who must obtain their food from shops (or Amazon). They will need to be given money or food vouchers to do this. Governments will provide these because they cannot afford responsibility for abject poverty on a mass scale, and many in government also mean well. People will increasingly rent their housing from Blackstone or a similar corporate entity rather than own it, further increasing their dependence. For a while, some people will play online games or draw pictures and grow token lettuces on their balconies, but knowing this is just window dressing on life. Then they will go the way of the communities in the first paragraph, taking families and communities with them.

Government UBI will happen – it already does to some extent, but the future will see it on a far, far larger scale. It will not be cash handouts but digital currency. This will be a tightly controlled version, as in a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), because the government will claim responsibility for controlling the money it dispenses. CBDC is essentially food vouchers, and intended to be. Your UBI will be yours as long as you use it for what the government allows, within the time they allow.

Well-meaning people are already building the social acceptability for this. Those suggesting now that a virtuous society should prevent food vouchers or unemployment benefits from being used for sugar-based drinks or tobacco believe already that dependent people have lost their right to autonomy. Again, this is not at all theoretical. It is exactly what this form of money is intended for. Most people in society will see its introduction as a good thing, as they are fine with limiting the freedom of others if told that it serves a greater good.

Living as safe as slaves

In countries like Canada, if you protest against the government, you can already lose your right to buy or sell. If you need permission to obtain the basics of life and cannot make your own choices on the pursuit of happiness, and you are punished for questioning those who restrict you, then you are in a master-slave relationship. In time, most people will become, essentially, a slave of the UBI provider, the government. This is the design behind UBI and CBDCs. It is why very rich people, the people who own the AI and robotics that are going to make so much human labor superfluous, see this as an excellent path.

All the above will not seem at all dystopian. Governments will control their populations as part of saving the world (saving the world is important) and will readily convince a majority of the population that being saved is a good idea. We need governments to save us from climate catastrophe by stopping us from travelling, as our children are already told. We need large corporations to save us from pandemics, including those that the same corporations’ laboratories may develop. We need ever more expensive pharmaceuticals injected into us to save us from the scourge of obesity – to save us from our own inability to control our eating. We will certainly need saving from mass unemployment and the inability of a large part of the population to earn their own keep.

Saving people is, after all, the government’s job. As the last few years have shown, convincing populations to indulge in self-harm on the pretext of being saved is much easier than we thought. We will slip back into slavery, into a feudal system, because most people will choose it.

A conversation we are unlikely to have

So, we need to talk about UBI because a lot of people think it is a harbinger of a great future, but it is something else. They think people will somehow flourish when they have nothing much useful to do, when they get money for being obsequious, and there is no compelling incentive to get out of bed in the morning. A temporary social welfare net is what society should do to protect its members and act with decency. UBI – permanent free money for the majority – is something else entirely. It will ensure that the vast majority can never break out of their lot and recover any semblance of the real economic autonomy necessary for societal flourishing.

The UBI future is simply a return to the default of human societies through the ages – feudalism – but without even the relative purpose found in walking behind a plough. Human nature leads us to want to stay on top if we are already there, or wallow in depression if there is no potential for improvement. Depression, drugs, violence, neglect, and repeat – the UBI – CBDC future. This is the orthodox understanding from a public health viewpoint. Social capital is a basic determinant of health and well-being. None of this is controversial; it can just be awkward politically.

Over the past few hundred years, many societies broke free of feudalism. This freedom has been a brief time in the sun. Accepting or rejecting Universal Basic Income as a basis for fixing the rapidly approaching decimation of useful employment will determine whether the sun keeps shining or we return to the oppressive societal default. Slavery, for many, will seem easier than struggling, and far safer. Once dependent, the luxury of struggling may be gone. We need a real conversation before we turn irretrievably down that road. For most, that will probably not happen.

By David Bell. This article first appeared at Brownstone Institute and is reproduced here under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

David Bell, Senior Scholar at Brownstone Institute, is a public health physician and biotech consultant in global health. David is a former medical officer and scientist at the World Health Organization (WHO), Programme Head for malaria and febrile diseases at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND) in Geneva, Switzerland, and Director of Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund in Bellevue, WA, USA.

eSafety Commissioner holds 2,600 records on Christian media group

Published on October 1, 2025November 24, 2025 by EF TeamLeave a comment

The eSafety Commissioner has refused an FOI request by The Daily Declaration after identifying 2,600 records relating to their ministry, revealing the breadth of government tracking of Christian groups online.

The eSafety Commissioner has refused to process a Freedom of Information (FOI) request lodged by The Daily Declaration after identifying more than 2,600 records that would need to be reviewed.

The request, lodged on 2 September 2025, sought documents relating to The Daily Declaration, the Canberra Declaration, and Christian leaders Warwick Marsh, Samuel Hartwich and Kurt Mahlburg, as well as associated social media accounts.

eSafety Commissioner’s response

In a notice issued on 29 September, the Commissioner said the request would take more than 100 hours to process and therefore met the threshold for a “practical refusal”.

“Our preliminary searches indicate there are over 2,600 documents that reference the names and/or social media handles referred to in your request,” the Commissioner’s office wrote, adding that, “processing a request of this size would substantially impact on eSafety’s operations”.

The notice explained that many of the documents are third-party media monitoring reports, automatically generated whenever eSafety is mentioned online. These reports capture public posts and commentary by The Daily Declaration and its leaders when they have posted about, or been tagged in discussions concerning, the regulator.

However, the volume indicates that significant amounts of data have been stored relating to groups active in national debates about faith, family, and freedom.

Thousands of Records Identified

While over 2,600 documents were initially found, the Commissioner estimated around 650 of them may be directly relevant once duplicates are removed. Reviewing and redacting this material would, the office calculated, take more than 100 hours.

Sorting the 2,600 documents to identify relevance would take roughly 30 seconds per file, the office estimated. Preparing a schedule for the 650 potentially relevant documents was estimated at over 32 hours, while reviewing, redacting, and finalising them would require more than 50 hours.

“The documents at issue potentially contain sensitive information which may require consultation with eSafety personnel. Courtesy consultation with other government departments and agencies may also be required,” according to the letter.

“I have therefore calculated it will take more than 100 hours to process your request,” the officer stated, explaining that this would substantially divert resources from eSafety’s other operations.

Next Steps in the FOI Process

Under the FOI Act, Australians can request access to government documents, but agencies may refuse requests deemed too broad or burdensome. In this case, the Commissioner cited precedents where workloads below 100 hours were found to justify refusal.

While the agency invoked resource limits, the large number of documents referencing Christian organisations and leaders underscores the scale at which online commentary is being tracked and stored by government offices in Australia.

Moreover, eSafety’s reliance on the “practical refusal” clause highlights how Australians may be left with little recourse when agencies accumulate vast digital records. While intended as an administrative safeguard, the provision can insulate regulators from scrutiny and, in practice, may even incentivise them to store ever-larger volumes of online data — limiting the very transparency the FOI system was designed to protect.

The notice outlined several options to narrow the request, such as limiting the timeframe to the last 3 months, focusing on documents directly involving The Daily Declaration or the Canberra Declaration, or excluding automated social media reports.

Unless revised by 13 October, the request will be treated as withdrawn, and access to the 2,600 flagged records will remain blocked.

The Daily Declaration plans to resubmit the FOI with a narrower scope to secure access to the agency’s data.

By Kurt Mahlburg. This article first appeared at The Daily Declaration and is reproduced here by permission.

Kurt Mahlburg is a husband to Angie, a father, a freelance writer, and a familiar Australian voice on culture and the Christian faith. He is the Senior Editor and a regular columnist at The Daily Declaration. More of his writings can be found at Mercator, Intellectual Takeout, The Spectator Australia, The American Spectator and Caldron Pool.

The Daily Declaration is Australia’s largest Christian news site. We are dedicated to providing a voice for Christian values in the public square. Our vision is to see the revitalisation of our Judeo-Christian values for the common good. We are non-profit, independent, crowdfunded, and we provide Christian news for a growing audience across Australia, Asia, and the South Pacific.

EU turbocharges censorship of conservatives with AI regulation

Published on July 23, 2025July 24, 2025 by EF TeamLeave a comment

Under the latest AI regulation from the EU, tech companies will be forced to censor content from conservative outlets under the guise of stopping ‘hate-speech.’

The EU Commission General-Purpose AI Code of Practice requires AI developers and tech companies to ensure that general-purpose AI models are “safe,” including through censorship of content that is “hateful, radicalizing, or false.”

The new regulation has the potential to turbocharge censorship and social control on all major tech platforms. Along with the notorious EU Digital Services Act, the regulation is expected to lead to new self-imposed automated AI censorship tools across all major technology platforms.

A section of the newly published standards highlights “harmful manipulation” as a specific major risk and appears to define it by reference to populist political narratives against EU transgender policies and mass immigration programs.

“Harmful manipulation” is defined in the regulation as “the strategic distortion of human behavior or beliefs by targeting large populations or high-stakes decision-makers through persuasion, deception, or personalized targeting.” This, the regulation explains, “could undermine democratic processes and fundamental rights, including exploitation based on protected characteristics.” Protected characteristics in the EU context is understood widely to refer to issues such as migration status or sexual orientation and gender identity.

The regulation requires tech companies to first identify a broad set of potential “systemic risks” under the categories of public health, safety, public security, fundamental rights, and society as a whole. Other specific dangers identified in the regulation include “misalignment with human values (e.g. disregard for fundamental rights)” and “discriminatory bias.” Once such risks are identified, AI developers and tech companies must then analyze and mitigate any potential systemic risks by “monitoring and filtering the model’s inputs and/or outputs.”

The standards are a “voluntary tool” designed to show that tech companies comply with the EU’s legislation on artificial intelligence, known as the AI Act. Even though they are only voluntary, companies that adopt the standards will be deemed to comply with the AI Act. “This will reduce their administrative burden and give them more legal certainty than if they proved compliance through other methods,” The EU Commission says.

The standards are predominantly prospective. They are not so much geared toward addressing existing problems in AI models as much as ensuring that future models comply with the standards by design so that the output of AI models conforms to the standards.

The new regulation is in addition to already exhausting censorship measures tech companies are required to adopt under the EU Digital Services Act. The EU Commission already required large tech companies to censor through the Code of Conduct on Disinformation. When it as first adopted in 2018 it was only a voluntary regulation, but it is now binding under the 2025 EU Digital Services Act adopted earlier this year.

The EU Digital Services Act requires large online platforms to censor content in line with the priorities of the EU Commission. The disinformation regulation expressly requires tech companies to censor and promote official EU propaganda through content moderation, demonetization, fact-checking, and counter-information.

U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance criticized the censorship rules of the EU Digital Services Act at an AI Summit in Paris in February this year.

“We feel strongly that AI must remain free from ideological bias,” he said, “and that American AI will not be co-opted into a tool for authoritarian censorship.” He also warned against the EU AI Act and its possible effect on innovation.

By Stefano Gennarini, J.D

C-FAM: The Centre for Family & Human Rights was founded in the summer of 1997 in order to monitor and affect the social policy debate at the United Nations and other international institutions. C-Fam is a non-partisan, non-profit research institute dedicated to reestablishing a proper understanding of international law, protecting national sovereignty and the dignity of the human person.