Art is the process of articulating order out of chaos.

Another YouTube channel I’ve been enjoying over the last 2 years is Jonathan Pageau. I am not the artistic type. I am colour blind and tone deaf but I appreciate art. I see artists as people with the gift of internalising the chaos of the world and utilizing it for their own expression. they manifest a type of order out of the chaos they attempt to articulate through their art. That’s why I feel art is important. So society can identify themes and patterns within its own culture. Art that can celebrate what the culture triumphs or to expose what a culture tries to hide from. These are important things to break us free of our own filters and censors and routines which can hold us back as individuals or as whole communities. But it seems like art in the West, at least how it appears to me, is becoming far more ideological and political. Movies have probably been the most glaring for corruption. Movies feel like for the most part they have stopped expressing the chaos of the world and have reduced the work to mere projections of a political narrative. And the narrative seems to be along the lines of “the world is a 0 sum game of power struggle. The entire world is made up of only oppressed and the oppressors.”

And apparently the answer isn’t reform, it’s simply replacement. Not to stop the tyranny but to replace the tyrant. Not to broaden boundaries but to eliminate boundaries all together. And, to me, in an attempt to portray women in nontraditional roles, in the ambition of inclusiveness, movies now subvert femininity from females. Movies seem to now all agree that in a world of power femininity is weak. i disagree. Both that femininity is synonymous with weakness but also that the entire world is just a ridgid power struggle. I also believe that peace is no achieved through power. And those desperate to attain power are not interested in peace. And we should all appreciate the implications of that.

A woman doesn’t need to win an arm wrestling match against a man to exert power over him. We can all agree identity is a complicated thing and the roles we take in society shouldn’t be defined by anyone other than ourselves. But that’s not to say we shouldn’t play our role in society. And boundaries do matter. It brings structure and stability not only to our families and our communities but to our own individual lives. The role you play out will likely reflect the relationships you have. And that’s what we need to be focussed on, relationship building. A relationship is not a power struggle, unless it’s a toxic relationship. A good relationship is a negotiation between give and take.

The world isn’t a power struggle between oppressed and oppressor. It’s a dance of compromise so when we are able to compliment one another opportunities open to us. Your identity does not belong to a group. You are a sovereign entity and you own your unique identity. Your sexuality does not dictate who you are, your income level does not dictate who you are, your political preferences do not dictate who you are, your ethnicity does not dictate who you are. Correlation does not necessarily equal causation. Labels are useful to a degree when you are attempting to articulate your thoughts and feelings but a label is not a membership.

Who you are as an individual is for more complex than mere orientation. There is an intrinsic divinity deep within us all that separates us from every other known species. Only humans can articulate the difference between a stone, a boulder and a mountain. A weed, a flower, a tree. A puddle, a lake, an ocean. We literally create reality through our observations. We don’t live in a world of things, we create things when we assign value onto them, building reality itself. This is what resonates with us when we find ourselves staring at art, trying to understand why it strikes us so deeply.

I think this is the shred of truth behind all this post modern concepts of social constructs and the dissolving of boundaries. It may be true that society constructs and assigns roles to individuals like the way an ant colony delegates to it’s worker ants. But I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why we’d be better off without these boundaries and these roles we’re meant to play out. This is why I’ve come to the conclusion that secularism is doomed to fail. That there’s no coincidence that the vast majority of these neo-marxist activists are also atheists. Because it’s less about whether or not God is some dude chilling in the clouds above and more about whether or not you can have a functioning society when you have removed and discarded an ideal. There is no such thing as a secular greater good. Because we all play out worship and the concept of the sacred. it’s ingrained in our DNA. Just watch people lining up for the latest NIKE pop up store or the latest iphone and you tell me there isn’t some form of worship going on there. We all do it. However God is the only thing that’s perfect and righteous that’s worthy of worship. He represents the greatest Ideal. And we seek redemption because the great ideal shames us all. The same way the strong shame the weak, the beautiful shame the ugly, the smart shame the stupid. Not people but characteristics. Some of which are out of our control but all represent a better life if we can attain it.

This is what Nitsche lamented when he proclaimed that God was dead and that we all had blood on our hands that won’t wash off. If you remove the one shared sacred ideal that is manifest as God then we can’t help but look to others for worship. And all the things we regard as sacred inevitably reveal themselves to be hollow and fake. Why do people achieve celebrity status? Did they dictate those terms to us or did we project it onto them? Celebrity politicians, chefs, musicians, actors, etc etc. We seek them out so we can partake in worship over their guidance just to inevitably be let down by any one of numerous scandals that come out. Because they’re just human like us. Why wouldn’t they be flawed, like us? Because we’re looking for God in them, but we’ll never find it. And this makes us cynical about society as a whole because we are too stubborn to admit when we are wrong.

I am not one to really be quoting scripture or speaking about God as though I know him. I never grew up with faith and was an atheist for most of my life. But seeing what secularism produces has forced me to admit that I was wrong. I am on my own journey to build a relationship with God and come to know him. But what I see now is the value in what God represents. Not just the greatest ideal but a way of life. By building a better relationship with God we also build better relationships with those around us. The virtues of the bible quickly become a compass to guide you through life.

I do believe the bible contains truisms about humanity that we fail to identify in ourselves. And I believe when it is applied properly God’s truth allows you to see past your own biases. It allows you to truly choose the path in life that actually leads you to a destination, rather than wondering through the fog of secularism. It’s only when you have purpose in your life that you actually have a destiny. And without a purpose you devolve into utter despair and drag everyone around you down with you. This is true with addicts, if you really want to be saved, you turn to God. That’s true for all of us at every stage in life but only more prominent to those at rock bottom.

It was Shakespeare who wrote “all the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players. They have their exits and entrances. And one man in his time plays many parts.” I have always found that line profound and deeply true. But as I continue to observe how things have been playing out I think a better analogy is that the world is really just one big game. To where men and women are the players. With each one playing it’s own role. I say game because there’s a phenomena that plays out with games. In order to open opportunities you must first set restrictions. You must first build boundaries and everyone must abide by a set of rules. Otherwise the game cannot function. No one claps for a game without any rules.

Look at chess. You first draw eight of vertical lines on a board. then eight horizontal lines criss crossing those vertical lines. Then you end up having 64 spaces from which you can utilize to navigate your chess pieces. You have pawns, rooks, bishops, knights, a queen and a king. These pieces all have their own unique functions. Every piece plays a role in achieving the objective of checkmating the opposing team’s king. These simple boundaries may seem arbitrary but it’s by creating these restrictions that you open up millions of opportunities of combinations, maneuvers, tactics and overall strategy that has inspired thousands of books written time analyzing the game. But the game is only fun when everyone respects the rules. You can apply this to most games.

To relate today’s culture to chess, people are now questioning the rules and boundaries of society. Trans issues, race issues, gender issues, age issues, we are living in an era re-evaluation. Which, don’t get me wrong, is necessary. Nothing and no one is above scrutiny. Maybe we could re-engineer the game of life to shrink the inequalities of our minorities. But is it possible to actually achieve true equality? What does actual equality even mean? These are extremely significant changes that are being posed and it’s true that some changes may be dangerous but no change at all may be grave. But there’s a hysteria that’s been bred into today’s youth where they think if it doesn’t happen overnight the actual world will actually end. And that’s not a healthy mindset when seeking to implement change.

That’s like saying why should rooks and knights be different from pawns? Why does the victorious outcome revolve around the king solely? Why are pawns sacrificial? All valid critiques but the answer isn’t to just turn everyone into pawns. Or to turn everyone into kings. The game just wouldn’t function. The game just wouldn’t be fun. The game would lose it’s purpose. And no one would want to play it out. And that’s what’s at stake in attempting to level the game of life. It’s also fair to callout when rules are not being followed. When outside sources manipulate the game to dispossess the players. Capitalism is under assault because there are forces at play like vulture capitalists who aren’t playing by the rules. That kind of corruption doesn’t just hurt people, it brings the entire game into question. That’s fair.

However there’s no coincidence that feminist champions like Emma Watson are lonely failures, referring to themselves as “in a relationship with themselves”. An attempt to yet again change the rules to hide from the utter failure they’ve become. Feminism has always aimed at tearing down barriers and in many ways you can wisely argue that certain barriers needed to be torn down. Maybe doing so actually opened opportunities for women for the better. But an entire generation of men and women who can’t interract is not good for society. An individual can only be dispossessed for so long before they lash out. Incels are not good for society, whether male or female. Also those who find themselves walking through life literally without any friends. It’s reaching epidemic levels. We are in a relationship deficit that needs to be addressed and not be pointing fingers at one another.

These identity group alignments are hurting society. But it is in our DNA to be tribal creatures. That’s what brought us to become social creatures. But there are good, healthy tribes and there are bad, cultish, toxic tribes. The problem with tribal groups is that a mob can reduce any great individual to a mindless patsie for bad ideas. Otherwise good people actively participate in riots. Social media has only hurt our ability to form relationships but even worse it has no forgiveness over interactions. Social media really has revolutionized the way we can interact together but the problem is when it becomes weaponized for political purposes.

I do believe that a modern civil war is playing itself out. Our elections clearly indicate to us that people are using their votes strategically to wage wars against others, rather than what the votes were intended for. To vote for what you believe in. And that’s muddying the waters of our political parties when people like Trump who are by no means a conservative end up leading the conservative party. Calls for progressivism in a Canadian conservative party full of social conservatism because the Liberal leaders have forced their parties to be so rigid in their ideological niche that people become dispossessed and politically homeless.

Sure, political parties need to adapt to a changing society but we are a society that is built on a foundation of values that we cannot turn our back on. And making a conservative party less conservative and a liberal party less liberal isn’t the answer. The Canadian liberal party has turned their backs on God to embrace secularism. But here we are with a PM who is promoting the sacred ideals of modern feminism as the basis to all his policy making. We fought for the segregation of church and state just to have our highest office indoctrinated by ideology. And it is bleeding over to our institutions all over the country, including our laws.

The diversity, inclusion, equity ambitions are resulting in a mono-culture that is exclusive and engineering disparities as per “positive discrimination” initiatives. Because the ideology is consistent. It believes we live in a tyrannical society and its solution is to merely replace the tyrant. The problem is we don’t have a dictator. There is no man behind the curtain pulling strings to create barriers to access opportunities. It’s no one else’s fault that your life sucks. It’s just your fault. You may have valid grievances and may raise good arguments why some things need to change. But the harsh reality is that you are failing yourself and there are likely way more things wrong with you than there is wrong with society. And you’ll never change a single thing if you cannot change yourself. It starts with you. Then it permeates through your family. And that’s the impact you have within your community. And it’s the collective contributions of communities that shape this country. And the interactions of countries that determine the greater destiny of the world.

Tearing down society only tilts the world closer to hell. Maybe that’s what you want. But ask yourself, deep down, what exactly are you mad at? Yourself? Your family? Your community? Your country? The whole world? Or is it God himself as you generally just loath humanity itself. I believe it’s this dispossession that is what made great societies of the past crumble and die. And if we’re not careful, the exact same will happen to us. If we aren’t aligning ourselves with what’s good for ourselves then we are tilting the entire world towards hell. Until we can replace God with an equal greater good we have no choice but to fall back on the bible and it’s teachings to realign society. If meaning and purpose is what you seek then learn the bible and applies God’s virtues to your own life. Then watch your life improve. And maybe then we can all have a much more productive conversation on what needs to be changed. Until we die and the next generation forgets absolutely everything about history just like we have now. History is absolutely repeating itself and it’s up to us to decide how much bloodshed is acceptable before we’re willing to back away from that cliff’s edge.

We need art to remain organic and come from an honest place of curiosity and the unknown. As long as it’s used to promote politics and preach narratives of self righteousness, I’ll just continue to tune out and keep watching my reruns of Christmas Vacation and the Naked Gun trilogy. I mean, why do you think all these throwbacks to the past are trending now? Because people are so sick of being told how to live and have lost faith in the institutions meant to guide us through life. People want to take the road less traveled, not walk a one way street towards a dead end. That’s not the way the game is played.



Art enables us to find ourselves and lose ourselves at the same time.

-Thomas Merton

We need to talk about Meghan Murphy


Gender Identity: What Does It Mean For Society, The Law and Women?

hosted by: Radical Feminists Unite

CBC: ‘I’m not going to reconsider’: Toronto’s top librarian refuses to bar speaker critical of transgender rights

CBC: Tory ‘disappointed’ in Toronto Public Library for hosting speaker accused of transphobia

CBC: Ontario writers blast Toronto Public Library for booking speaker accused of transphobia

NOW: Toronto Public Library facing Pride ban over Meghan Murphy event

NP: Event featuring Meghan Murphy ignites debate about libraries’ role as forum for free speech

Jonathan Kay: Meghan Murphy, the woman behind trans wars breaking out at the public library

NP: Hundreds protest as Meghan Murphy speaks on gender identity at Toronto library

Barbara Kay: How feminist Meghan Murphy fell victim to progressives’ double standards

Jonathan Kay: The silencing campaign against Meghan Murphy is a disgrace



So who the hell is Meghan Murphy and why is everyone so upset? She’s an academic of women’s studies who writes for the website Feminist Current and others like Vice. Here are some of her works:

Canada’s New Prostitution Bill Is Far From Perfect

Japan Is Still Denying the Sexual Slavery of Chinese ‘Comfort Women’

Prostitution by Any Other Name Is Still Exploitation

It’s time for feminists and the left to support free speech before it’s too late

Women warned you: Yaniv’s human rights case is the inevitable result of gender identity ideology


So tonight was the Megan Murphy event and what looked like about a hundred protestors showed up and held signs that read: “Let us live, no hate in our city, binaries are for computers, Meghan Murphy hates women, fuck the binary, trans rights are human rights, fuck transmisogyny, no platform for hate, our library should be a safe, space not a hate space, turf the terf, no free speech for hate speech, support sisters not just cisters, etc.”


They chanted things like “who’s library? Our Library! Trans right are human rights! Terfs go home! Hey, hey, ho, ho, these terfs have got to go! Trans women are women!” and others. Things got a little tense when the crowd swarmed the back exit when discovering the police were escorting people out the emergency exit. But luckily there were no violence or vandalism that I could see. No altercations between police or attendees.

I am not one who will ever recommend anything that comes out of feminism, regardless what denomination of feminism it comes out of. However I am not prepared to silence anyone, that includes feminists. I warn of the dangers coming out of academia but to suppress anyones free expression is to deny them their civil rights. I would not be defending someone like Meghan Murphy if we weren’t living in the upside down clown world we find ourselves in today but here we are.

Where I do agree with Meghan Murphy is that there is something disingenious going on with this latest trans movement. The thing with Trans people is that, well, they’re transitioning. You know, from man to woman or woman to man. They align on the same binary that the rest of us work with. These activists who seem to find themselves at the helm of every complaint, grievance and (micro)aggression seem to all have something in common. They’re self proclaimed “non-binary”. Which apparently means that they do not fit within biological norms. Even though most of them do.

It appears to me that this is the true defining difference within the LBGT community. The non-binary seem to be a signal of their position that biological sex is a social concept. And all that power junk that’s deeply imbedded in neo-marxism and the socialism rhetoric peddled by the far left. If this is true then Meghan Murphy has every reason to fear these people. Even the modern “feminism book” points out on page 287, “a new type of feminism,” that “cisgender feminists exclude trans women, saying they cannot know what it is to be a woman” and as such are agents of “division”.


So if you believe in biological differences between women and men then you are without a doubt a perpetuator of patriarchy and white supremacy. This is what happens when progress peaks. It progresses until it inevitable progresses backwards. Modern feminism is not the bra-burning, sexual liberation movement that it was for our parents. Today’s feminism is just an extension of socialism and intersectionality. What the protestors are really saying is you’re either with us or against us and if you’re with us then you must swear allegiance to a socialist revolution of the west.

So by default if you stand for womens’ rights, for free speech, for freedom and liberty for all then you are in the conservative camp. Which may be the inevitability for progressivism. I mean, once you’ve accomplished all the things you’ve been progressing towards, you would then seek to preserve those values. When I was younger the issues were of equal rights between the sexes. Gay marriage, equal opportunities, etc. We have that now. Now in order to have pride we find ourselves celebrating pedophilia and beastiality. The LBGT community has become an umbrella party for even the most obscure deviants and once they are under that umbrella you cannot criticise any of them over anything they do at any time. Because fuck you.

Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against trans people. I follow several trans people over social media such as blaire white and I’m personally intrigued around trans people and trans issues. And I am happy that despite all the craziness going on, it’s still never been a better time to be trans. Everyone deserves our respect and trans people are no exception. I’m glad society has become so empathetic towards trans people. And I just hope all this assault on free speech doesn’t actually hurt trans people by painting them all with the same brush. Make no mistake, the non-binary crowd hate you, me and the entire western world and it will never stop. At least not until we begin calling out the callout artists themselves.

So I support Meghan Murphy and I applaud her for having the resilience to take a stand in such crazy times. I also believe that the protestors have the right to peacefully protest, her detractors have the right to call her a piece of shit. That’s all free speech. But no one has the right to prevent the other from talking. If what she has to say is so shit then that’s for others to discern from her speech. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. However these activists need to ask themselves why exactly she’s only gaining more followers. Maybe they’re the ones who are on the wrong side of history.


Oh and Meghan is not the first career feminist who is being utterly defamed and destroyed by cancel culture. Check out these other feminists and you tell me if modern feminism REALLY has womens best interests at heart. What do they all have in common? They’re biological reality is what makes them unique and special. Sounds like what Christians preach. Sounds like conservative traditions. Sounds like women who want what’s best for women should find themselves networking within the Conservative tent.

Conservatives are the only ones who will advocate for you now. Your liberal partners have unpersoned you and exiled you along with the straight white men that you worked so hard to cancel. One says “trans-exclusionary” but another hears “pro-lesbian”. Not everything is so black and white. And we need to be able to make up our own minds about these issues. Under a conservative government you will have the freedom to express yourself. So you choose. Stand with Meghan. Stand with women.


Christina Hoff Sommers

Germaine Greer

Melanie Phillips

Camille Paglia





“If we don’t believe in free expression for the people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.”

-Noam Chomsky

A follow up on WNTA Greta: A discussion about the environment

greta 1

One of the reasons why I post my blogs to my facebook is because I hope my friends interact with me so I can get feedback and build consensus. Usually people just opt out. But sometimes some get involved. And regardless who’s right or wrong I strongly believe any discussion around these blogs is useful and contribute to positive outcomes. I think there’s a tonne of ignorance around the topic of the environment. On all sides of the debate. I suspect the conversation I had on my facebook is probably similar to other conversations people have had so maybe it would serve useful to someone somewhere if they may learn how to find common ground with others they engage with. If nothing helps maybe you’ll find the videos I shout out here to be as useful as I found them to be.


Me: My take on all of this is that it is absolutely wrong to attack this girl on any superficial level. She is asking for debate, so contend with her ideas. Leave out the comments about her appearance or her gender or age. We can all appreciate young people becoming more engaged politically than ever before. But it is equally as uncivilized to refuse to participate in the debate she is literally asking for. To disqualify any argument or opinion as nothing more than attacking a minor is a lazy response to genuine reaction.

You can’t treat Greta like an adult when she wants to speak and then infantilize her when it’s her turn to listen. The only way we’re going to navigate our way through this culture war is by doing as much listening as we do talking. Questioning climate activism isn’t climate denial and propping up children to take the place of science only hurts climate initiatives. A child can never be the face of the public relations battle for trust. And by hurting real conversations around actual change, we are working against Greta’s ambitions, not towards them.

Trudeau’s blackface isn’t a question about racism but of integrity. The concerns around Greta Thunberg doesn’t actually revolve around the environment. And in hypocrisy the only thing you will ever find is comedy and that’s why hypocrisy hurts trust. I disagree with Greta that the environment is our number one issue. Not because the environment isn’t an issue. Because she claims we are doing nothing about it. We are. At least here in Ontario, Canada where we currently have more forestry today than we did two hundred years ago. These issues aren’t solved overnight and as long as you keep demanding they are, we’ll never find a solution.

I disagree with Greta but I do admire her. I am glad people are becoming more engaged with issues that impact our daily lives. I just hope Greta can live a happy life. You know how it goes, childhood celebrities never ever develop any issues into their adulthood.


Friend 1: Having more forestry here in Ontario for one doesn’t help the REST of the world, let alone even all the damage done to just our province. Our world is literally at a point of no return, at this point everyone needs to stop taking this personally and start thinking about the future. Who the fuck cares about money, politics, global issues, the economy, etc if we aren’t going to have a planet we can even live on most likely within our lifetime.

Maybe we have done a few things, but not enough. A call to action is needed.


Me: i guess pointing fingers and screeching is the best approach for the environment then. All hail Greta! this is why so many people look at progressivism as a cult. because there is no questioning, there is no pursuit of truth, there is just conformity.

ok. if I had my choice of who I would make the face of climate initiatives I would choose Bjorn Lomborg. Now I know what you’re thinking, “but he’s just a white male! I want the 16 year old autistic girl!” lol i’m kidding, just poking the bear. but Lomborg has written many books on environmentalism since something like 1998. But back around 2015 the UN wanted to set some climate goals so it took proposals from the global community. They ended up with something like 170 proposals. But instead of prioritizing the list and determining which goals were most attainable, most efficient and most effective, their emphasis was on just making sure everyone had equal say in the proposal process. because to prioritize one goal over another would be to discriminate. Shout out to the woke equity crowd. That’s the much desired equality of outcome hard at work.

unfortunately what that means is while doing some good everywhere you’re failing to do the most good in the right places. He asserts that the best way to tackle the environment as a whole would be to address global poverty and extreme poverty. he demonstrates that for a billion dollars you can save a million children a year from malnutrition and disease which translates into them spending more time in school and making more money in adulthood. This helps their community and if we can lift tariffs on trade and expand trade to encompass these communities then we empower the helpless and the vulnerable. This means giving every community the ability to tackle environmental issues around them. If you think poverty isn’t linked to the environment then you need to just watch this short documentary from vice:


Lomborg treats people as problem solving machines so we want to empower as many people as possible. fossil fuel taxes at the end of the day only hurt poor people. back in the 1860s we almost finished whales into extinction for lantern oil in North America and Europe. By using the logic of today’s climate activists they would’ve said hey you need to turn your lights down and use less fat. And that may have helped but it wouldn’t have saved the whales. What did was the discovery of oil. Cheaper, more efficient and better for the environment. A product of human innovation and technological advance. What has always solved every crisis in human existence has been innovation. And we will solve more problems by enabling more innovation.

We don’t actually have infinite resources to tackle these issues. we all agree that asteroids can be a massive existential crisis to us so we spend money on tracking asteroids. But even then we only spend enough to track 90% of asteroids. Because the other 10% is considered just too expensive. That’s not a result of a dude on a yacht in Florida, it’s because sometimes there are just more important and more effective use of resources.

Allan Savory has spent his life working on desertification where grasslands rich with plant life turns to desert. He points out that we all know that desertification is caused by livestock. Mostly cattle, sheep and goats. They over graze the plants, leaving soil bare and giving off methane. Everybody knows this. Except it’s entirely wrong. In Savory’s attempt to turn african farms into national parks. Only when they did the lands turned from lush grasslands to desert. While trying to understand what was going on they ended up killing 40 000 elephants because they thought the elephants were damaging the lands by trampling it with their tusks. The problem got worse.

They discovered that livestock farming actually cultivates grasslands. They act as little gardeners. Their hooves turn the soil, their poop fertilizes the ground and when it rains it stores carbon and breaks down methane. Now it’s not just any farming that will work, he’s developed an approach he calls holistic management and planned grazing. Much of our attitudes towards the environment today will be looked at in the future in the same way we look back to when everyone believed the world was flat. (let’s leave the flat earthers for another conversation).


But listen to what I’m saying. Capitalism, livestock farming and a booming population is good for the environment. Do you think anyone in the cult of progressivism would ever allow anyone to push those ideas? Progressive politics hurts progress. But don’t take my word for it, my grammar is shit. Steven Pinker touches on this in his latest book enlightenment now. He does a chapter on environmentalism and showcases many graphs to give a real context of the problems and contributing factors. By far the largest contributor of emissions is China. There are lots of reasons and that is largely an entire discussion in it’s own right. Yes, we can have both conversations about here at home and about China. But we aren’t having a conversation about China at all. Not even while Hong Kong loses it’s liberty.

The point I’m making is there is real progress to be made but the only thing this neo-marxist, intersectional, pc culture bullshit breeds is self hatred and it’s only goal is to destroy western civilization. It’s embedded itself in feminism, in the LGBT community, in politics, in environmentalism and it’s propped up by governments like our Liberal one here in Canada, over in the UK and through the UN. It only prioritizes initiatives that further it’s political agenda of anti-capitalism, anti-christianity, anti-tradition, etc etc. And there are more than a few people willing to prop up these toxic, regressive ideas. Whether that’s Greta Thunberg using climate alarmism to make people hysterical, or the mainstream media like the new york times or washington post writing editorials fantasizing about the benefits of human extinction.

The culture war is breeding apathy and cynicism and counter-enlightenment sentiments that are regressive, not progressive. We have broadcasters reducing human life to nothing more than the carbon footprint they represent. You can’t minimize the value of human life anymore than that. That’s like saying it’s just not worth buying a house because of the debt it represents. And there is no comparing the value of a house to that of an actual human life. And Greta’s approach to climate change is like looking at people being hit by cars and reducing that entire multi-variable issue to just “let’s get rid of all the cars!” without any discussion over the implications of that. Apathy doesn’t make people want to read books on these issues. It just makes people want to see the world burn.

I don’t blame her for not appreciating the gravity of her words… she’s 16. I blame everyone around her propping her up. She should have some kind of TV show or youtube channel or participate in some kind of group. That would foster a healthier dialogue and be more inviting to others to get on board. Probably healthier and safer for her too. Right now all that I see with Greta is people getting off on the self flagellation of her harsh critique. Collective Munchausen. It’s not healthy.

I said I admired Greta for caring about real world issues and wish more people were engaged. But with the insanity that’s being peddled by activist based narratives, people are largely better off just ignoring it all and just living their lives. I’m not saying i’m “right”. This isn’t an issue about right or wrong. These are not two opposing sides of good and evil. It’s just about truth, dialogue and a path forward. And a defence for enlightenment values and the sacred foundation that our western world was built on.


Friend 1: Lol dude I seriously don’t care. You have written 4 comments to my one.

Typical right wing, takes everything personally. I’m not even a liberal, I just care about my planet surviving more than I care about you.


Me: lol there’s nothing personal here. I appreciate your willingness to engage. that’s all i’m doing. is engaging. I care about the environment too. I think i’ve demonstrated that here. Nothing I’m talking about here is conservative or right wing. But it’s interesting that that’s the only way you’re able to frame this discussion. so is it really the environment we’re talking about or is this just more liberal vs conservative, good vs evil, right vs wrong, black vs white populism that’s tearing society apart? I posted here to talk about the environment, that’s what i’m doing.

yeah i mean i dunno why you keep thinking i’m taking personally a discussion about the environment. I really dunno what to say at this point. this is a complicated issue and needs more than a handful of sentences. But it needs to be one we all better educate ourselves about first of all. Me included. Because the problem is there are multiple options to consider but it’s super hard to build consensus around which approach is the best and most effective. Because we just don’t have the ability to implement ALL possible options to address climate change.

And Greta is actually wrong about most of what she talks about. she’s actually inaccurate when she talks about the facts. Sure we can all get on board with the sentiment of change but we don’t need more ignorance on this issue, we need less.

for example, I think nuclear power is the only real answer. We have the technology now, today. and if we all invest in research we may be able to innovate a way of dealing with the waste and minimize the risks associated with nuclear. that’s a clearly superior alternative to any and all renewables combined.

Renewables all around the world all need to be supplemented in order to supply a sufficient amount of energy to its cities. Most of which are the burning of fossil fuels. but ppl are opposed to nuclear in the same way vaxxers are opposed to vaccines. We misunderstand nuclear the same way we all seem to misunderstand GMOs in our food.

It’s money and resources and politics that is literally the only thing that CAN actually make a difference here. the fact alone that you say this world is at the “point of no return” is pretty fucked up to me. The public figures who peddle this apocalyptic narrative don’t back up anything they say with any scientific explanation. The next time you hear someone use the words “we all know _______ is true” then just do yourself a favour and stop listening. Because what they’re really saying is “i’m hoping you agree with me despite my lack of argument”.

Like politicians in the US calling on a ban to all cows and air planes. Most of the people advocating for change are like Leonardo Dicaprio who use their own private jets. The environment is nothing more than a social trend to a lot of these pseudo intellectuals who are just trying to capitalize on the environment for their own personal branding.

It just breeds ignorance and an unhealthy hysteria, anxiety, helplessness and a sense of impending doom. How hard are you actually willing to work towards a better future if you literally do not believe we have one? There’s actually a trend of young people sterilizing themselves and actually believe they’re helping the environment by doing so. That’s derangement. Would we all still be cheering Greta on if she sterilized herself? It’s like watching everyone drink the kool aid oh but this time it’s ok.

I don’t actually believe the world will end in 12 years and day by day it feels like I’m actually in the minority of those who believe this. While we all sneer at the Jesus folk for preaching their end of days doctrine. Just slap some wokeness on the Bible and we’d ALL be christians apparently.

There’s no harm in Greta caring about these issues and raising awareness to it but I worry if we prop her up for the wrong reasons we could actually hurt the cause more than help it. Like I said, a child cannot be the face of the public relations battle for trust. You wouldn’t take financial advice from a 16 year old so if you believe the environment is more important than money then don’t let a 16 year old lecture you about that either.

but if we really want change we need to look at what EXACTLY would result in the most change and get behind it. Like nuclear. Sorry I used so many words lol I dunno what else to say. 🤷‍♂️


Friend 2: Jesus Jonn no one is going to read all of that. My initial comment with the doctor Phil gif was because the paragraph I quoted makes no sense.

Me: Well I don’t really know what to say at this point lol. The environment is a complicated issue. I’m rambly as fuck and dunno how to condense my thoughts lol. I guess I just need to work on how to communicate better. But I appreciate your participation regardless.
Friend 2: I think the biggest piece of advice I can give is to edit your writing. It looks like you just write it and post. Give it a re-read, fix grammar and spelling problems, tighten areas, just make it presentable.
I almost guarantee that more than half of what you write doesn’t even get read.It’s like if I made a bad song with no effort, and wanted people to listen, or made a terrible movie with no effort and wanted people to watch …. they wouldn’t. Why should they if I didn’t bother to put any effort in?

If you want to ramble on like a crazy person and have nobody listen, that’s fine, but if you want people to listen and take you seriously — put some effort in, edit your writing, organize your ideas, don’t have typos and grammar problems, etc.

Me: i’d have you know i use to write songs for nickleback. well i’m really only writing the blog for myself. I just share it to see if anyone has anything to add about it. or dispute anything. but you’re right, if I expect anyone to read them I should make them easier to read. I try to cram posts in between a busy schedule. But I guess I’m better taking more time to be more precise and end up with a better piece. or i may just be worse at english than those who use it as a second language LMAO

We need to talk about Greta Thunberg

greta 4

Greta Thunberg is a 16 year old Swedish environmental activist who became famous after media coverage of her habit of skipping school to protest the Swedish government to do more about climate change. Since then she’s been hosted by multiple countries to deliver speeches about her activism and embarked on a 15-day sail boat voyage to New York City to raise awareness of climate change.

Her comments stir up reactions from all along the political spectrum. Some cheering her on for her harsh critique and others questioning how much of this is Greta’s idea or if those in her inner circle are using her as a political pawn for their own agenda. Lately conservative pundit Michael Knowles has been banned from Fox News, according to the Washington Examiner, for calling Greta “mentally ill” in a recent interview. This, although not exclusively, has sparked a debate over how one contends with Greta through the conversation she, herself, is trying to initiate. Broadcasters like John Moore and others on newstalk 1010 along with others on the political left have taken the position that to criticise Greta in almost any capacity is nothing more than a personal attack on her and amounts to bullying a minor.


Watch the Washington Post video about Fox News because apparently YouTube’s algorithm will only recommend content through Liberal media:


When black face photos surfaced of Justin Trudeau, liberals experienced cognitive dissonance.  Black face is clearly racist. Justin Trudeau was clearly an ally of racial minorities. But then how could Justin Trudeau wear blackface at multiple occasions and still not be a racist? While some of the same broadcasters and journalists who preach to us on a daily basis that Donald Trump’s racism needs to be called out, for this, they were more than keen to “listen” to what people had to say about it. While Trudeau continues to struggle to get his campaign back on track, those on the political left miss the entirety of what made his black face controversial.

Nobody believes Trudeau is a racist. Has he done or said racist things? Yes, we can now definitively say yes, he has. But is Trudeau a racist? No. He is a hypocrite. And this is something those on the left fail to even perceive. Hypocrisy is the main theme among the leftist movement as a whole. And this is why those on the left cannot understand how anyone could disagree with Greta Thunberg. So any critique of her must only be personal prejudice.

Liberals today just don’t understand anyone who disagrees with them. And contrarianism threatens them because it questions them. Maybe reading a news feed that has been 100% tailored to your individual worldview can have that effect on a person. Rationality threatens the cause and so all dissenting opinions must be suppressed at all costs. That is why instead of answering questions or making arguments they merely slander their opposition. That’s why everyone and everything is racist and bigoted. That is why anyone who disagrees with or disapproves of Greta Thunberg is attacking a minor.

nick sandman.png

Like everything else, we need context. So I think of the Covington debacle. Nick Sandman was the name of a minor who participated in a pro-life rally called the March for Life. He decided to wear a MAGA hat during the event. After the event had wrapped up and Nick gathered with his classmates to wait for their bus to take them back to their school another group of protestors confronted the group of school children. A native group and a group called the black hebrews were also there protesting that day. The MAGA hats being worn by nick and others had caught the attention of these other groups and they converged on the students.

One native protestor who was playing a native drum had noticed Nick and singled him out. He confronted the minor, banging his drum, within inches from Nick’s face. One of the black hebrews captured this image with his phone and uploaded the photo to Twitter. There for the world to see was a MAGA wearing, white man facing off with a native man. Without any context the image quickly became a symbol and it garnered explosive outrage across social media from all regions of the world. It was received as Trumpian racism and ignorance facing off against a community of marginalized, vulnerable individuals. Even if that wasn’t the reality of the situation, it’s how it was communicated.

Since CBC thinks sharing tweets counts as journalism, I will also share with you some hard hitting, in depth, journal-isms. This was some of the fallout that happened over social media regarding Nick Sandman. Remember, Nick was a minor at this time:

covington 9

The highschool had to be shut down for several days because they received multiple threats. The Sandman family experienced a multitude of harassment and had to lawyer up after media decided to feature his face and identity in their news reports. Nick and his family, and the school itself, is still dealing with the fallout of the incident. Twitter, who operates under a self imposed hateful conduct policy, did not ban any of the verified accounts who incited violence or doxing against the students or the school. They have, however, permanently banned Megan Murphy for misgendering Jessica Yaniv. The point is that some of the same people who are condemning people for criticizing Greta today are the exact same people who called for violence against Nick Sandman.

covington 1

Watch Viva Frei break down the WaPo lawsuit dismissal:


I also think about Omar Khadr. He traveled to Iraq, pledged allegiance to the Taliban and after helping build improvised explosive devices he was arrested and pleaded guilty to killing an American medic and blinding another American soldier with a grenade. He was 15 at the time. To us, here in Canada, he would be legally considered a minor. In Iraq he would be considered a full grown man where many that age would be either starting a family or on track to start one. He committed the worst crime possible and did so under the flag of a terrorist group who has called for the deaths of all Canadians.

Omar Khadr now lives in Canada, enjoying ten million dollars given to him from a settlement out of court by the liberal government. But that’s it’s own story not worth glossing over too many details for the sake the of conversation I’m trying to have about Greta here and now. We are also living in such a different world today than the world we lived in before september eleventh. Both in government policy, socially and technologically.

When I was in highschool I did stupid things like ride the top of my buddy’s car and steal street signs. We would make stupid jokes about everything to try and shock one another. Jokes about everything. Back when “edgy” was something that can get you arrested for today, at least in the UK. But those jokes and that behaviour is not online. Even by adjusting our conduct today to match the standards of the day, we are still the subject of scrutiny from anything that can be dug up and exposed today. In today’s climate, context does not matter.

Justin Trudeau can use his “privilege” as an excuse for a “blind spot” to justify his lapse in judgement but I guess for everyone else whos daddy wasn’t prime minister we get no second chances or get out of jail free cards for our mistakes. We get fired. We get banned. We lose our friends. Maybe rightfully so. This is exactly why we need to be extremely careful about our conduct. Because you never know what will come back to haunt you in an uncertain future.

The whole reason why there are publication bans on court cases involving minors is purely to protect the identity of those minors. So nothing can be held against these individuals before they enter adulthood. Where they will be held accountable for their actions. Their actions as adults. But social media has made that an impossible standard because everything we do online is now saved, archived, recorded and sold to anonymous third parties. On a regular basis.

Raising a child in this environment in a way that won’t affect their future is almost impossible. You can’t just cut your child off of technology until they’re an adult. You’d be raising an illiterate mess who is incompatible with almost any workplace they will enter. let alone damage their ability to socialize with others. You also can’t expose your child to everything without scandalising them. The parental tight rope gets thinner and thinner every year. So it’s easy to see how so many people view Greta as a victim.

I do not know Greta and I am not trying to speak on her behalf. I, like most everyone else, is trying to just understand where we stand today as a society. Is Greta a victim of child abuse? Is she being used by those around her? Will everything she says and does be held against her in her future? She has admitted to having aspergers and we know that people’s mental illnesses work against them in job interviews. So I think we can say there is evidence that her inclination to polarize may work against her in certain situations. And I think we can all agree that she’s too young to really appreciate the implications of that. So I think there is actual credibility in peoples concern for her.

Ultimately we will need to wait and see what becomes of young Greta. Where she ends up. If she ends up becoming some politician, this will serve to her advantage. But what if Greta kills herself? Some of us rejoice in hearing her brutal critique of governmental indifference but some also hear a hysterical young girl who has become too cynical about the world in a time when she should be smiling and laughing with friends. Does she at least have a therapist to help her cope with her cynicism, depression and celebrity status? What do you think goes on in the mind of a girl who says, “you’ve stolen my dreams and childhood from me”? Or when she talks about extinction?

There is value and developmental benefit of children having a chance to lead happy, fun, worry-free lives before entering adulthood. That may be too late for Greta and I think we could all agree we would rather our children be competent than just simply safe and you don’t do that by raising a naive child. But I can’t help but feel like some people are using Greta to help them struggle with their world view, is anyone helping Greta struggle with hers?


Watch Emma Gonzalez speech at the “March for our lives” rally:


It also reminds me of David Hogg and Emma Gonzalez. The two main student activists that rose to fame with their appearances after the parkland school shooting. In an interview with 60 minutes Emma Gonzalez mentioned that when they first gave their speech before the Parkland community they had no conceptualization that they were being broadcast for the entire world to see and react to. Now they find themselves thrust into the public spotlight. The whole thing felt coerced to me. A local rally could serve to be a part of the healing process but it’s another thing to have CNN hold a town hall and get children to go on stage and yell at politicians. And then later be given an award for journalism. It’s no wonder so many people are confused about the reality we’re living in.

There’s no doubt that Greta has achieved a certain type of celebrity status and maybe that itself is healing to her. But It sure comes with a boat load of implications that need to be considered. The reality of the situation we are faced with is simple. You cannot enter discourse without expecting there to be discourse. We can all agree that discourse should be civilized and much of it is. But as always you have liberals taking the fringes of discourse and using it to write off the whole conversation.

Regardless how you feel about Michael Knowles referring to her as mentally ill, that is actually what she is. Aspergers is now considered part of the autism spectrum and is in fact a disorder. He didn’t call her deranged or crazy, he called her mentally ill. And it brings into question the conduct of parents of children with mental illness. Parents who seem to have no problem subjecting her to the world stage. I have no doubt if this were regarding a social conservative cause such as pro-life these parents would have their children taken away. You know, like when Kathleen Wynne made it a removable offense for parents to misgender their own children. And made it so teachers must exclude a student’s parents from discussions around sexual identity. And no I can’t find a citation right now so take it or leave it.


Watch Matt Walsh discuss whether climate alarmism is child abuse:


My take on all of this is that it is absolutely wrong to attack this girl on any superficial level. She is asking for debate, so contend with her ideas. Leave out the comments about her appearance or her gender or age. We can all appreciate young people becoming more engaged politically than ever before. But it is equally as uncivilized to refuse to participate in the debate she is literally asking for. To disqualify any argument or opinion as nothing more than attacking a minor is a lazy response to genuine reaction. What it’s actually saying is that their ideas and arguments are above scrutiny. Nothing is above scrutiny. Not even Greta herself.

You can’t treat Greta like an adult when she wants to speak and then infantilize her when it’s her turn to listen. The only way we’re going to navigate our way through this culture war is by doing as much listening as we do talking. Questioning climate activism isn’t climate denial and propping up children to take the place of science only hurts climate initiatives. A child can never be the face of the public relations battle for trust. And by hurting real conversations around actual change, we are working against Greta’s ambitions, not towards them.

Trudeau’s blackface isn’t a question about racism but of integrity. The concerns around Greta Thunberg doesn’t actually revolve around the environment. And in hypocrisy the only thing you will ever find is comedy and that’s why hypocrisy hurts trust. I disagree with Greta that the environment is our number one issue. Not because the environment isn’t an issue. Because she claims we are doing nothing about it. We are. At least here in Ontario, Canada where we currently have more forestry today than we did two hundred years ago. These issues aren’t solved overnight and as long as you keep demanding they are, we’ll never find a solution.


I disagree with Greta but I do admire her. I am glad people are becoming more engaged with issues that impact our daily lives. I just hope Greta can live a happy life. You know how it goes, childhood celebrities never ever develop any issues into their adulthood.




“The Earth is what we all have in common.”

-Wendell Berry

Justin Trudeau is the Trump of the North

Trudeau Black Face

Time Magazine releases a yearbook photo of Trudeau at an “arabian nights” themed gala

Why are we talking about black face? Because it’s 2019. Time Magazine has exposed old yearbook photos which feature Justin Trudeau wearing black face in a gala themed “Arabian Nights”. Turban, robes and all. Now is it distasteful? Yes. Do I really give a shit about a mistake made 20 years ago? No. I do not believe skin colour means anything. I believe culture isn’t skin deep. Our similarities and differences transcend pigment. But by the rules of intersectionality, it’s not my place to have an opinion. It’s my job to shut up and listen. So I will humbly not make this about myself and hold Mr. Trudeau to his own intersectional criteria.

So, what does this mean? Well by the criteria set by the Liberals MP themselves, this doesn’t just make him a racist. This is a dog whistle to white supremacy, therefore it propagates white supremacy therefore Trudeau himself is a white supremacist. And now everyone who has ever taken a photo with Trudeau is now also a white supremacist by proxy due to guilt by association. They expressed these views at a free speech hearing where Liberal MPs told Lindsay Shepherd that because she appeared on a podcast with someone who has been deemed a white supremacist then she herself possessed guilt by association. Also anyone who has been found in a picture with Faith Goldy has also been deemed a white supremacist by association.

But let’s be real. Trudeau isn’t going to be held to that standard. Even if the media does slam him on this, Liberals are just going to shrug this off like everything else Trudeau has done. There is literally nothing that Trudeau could do to prevent his base from endorsing him. Even if they secretly hate him, they will support him. Because we are so entrenched in our hyper partisan tribalism that the ends justify the means and he is just a necessary evil so we can defeat “the enemy”.

Well I hate to break it to you but no evil is ever necessary and there are no actual enemies here. We’re all Canadians. But we are no longer voting on issues or policies. We are using our votes to fight the culture war. The more I watch things unfold the stronger I believe that this is no longer actually a culture war but a full blown civil war. I’m sorry, we are subverting our elections to be used to wage battle against the caricatures we have created out of our own hyperbole. This is a civil war. I just hope it stays within the boundaries of strategic voting and social media shit posting. The best case scenario is we butcher our democracy without butchering each other. I won’t even entertain what the worst case scenario could look like.

Trudeau and Trump may be on polar opposites of the political spectrum but they are both symptoms of the same problem. And in that sense they are the same. Trudeau is our Trump and I’m going to explain to you exactly how. Trump shocked the world when he won the election of 2016 after he had said and done so much that many felt had disqualified his candidacy. Time and time again Trump demonstrates that despite the controversies and the unorthodoxy of his presidency, it only ever seems to empower his base. Likewise, Trudeau has faced scandals, conflicts of interest, controversy and yet nothing seems to disqualify him for anything nor does it appear that Liberal voters are willing to hold him accountable to any degree.

  • Trump had the Billy Bush tape and the Stormy Daniels affair and God knows what else, Trudeau has the Kokanee grope.
  • Trump initiates a Muslim ban and Trudeau on the opposite end of the spectrum welcomes back Islamic State fighters like Abu Huzaifa al-Kanadi.
  • Trump makes himself a laughing stock while visiting other countries, hurting America’s relationship with other governments. Trudeau gave us the whacky India trip where the Indian government snubbed him for dressing up like a bollywood clown. Despite all the PC culture he spews he had no problem “culturally appropriating” a bunch of ceremonial attire, while actual government officials were just walking around in three piece suits. He brought along Jaspar Atwal who was convicted of attempting to murder an Indian dignitary. And then when he came back to Canada he accused the Indian government of trying to sabotage his trip. That’s not even to mention his strained relations with the Philippines. Not that the garbage issue was his creation but the Philippines did declare war on us over it technically. For whatever that means. But I suppose the UN adores him so there’s that.
  • Trump gets accused of anti-semitism all the time but at least he did what many presidents before him promised to do but never delivered on. He moved the embassy to Jerusalem. Held a vote in support among allied countries and Canada abstained from the vote thanks to Trudeau. On top of that Trudeau’s team brought forth the motion 103 to investigate “Islamophobia”. Opposition moved to amend the motion to include anti-semitism and other forms of hate crimes and the Liberals used their majority power to veto the amendment. Now if I said that this was evidence of anti-semitism your Liberal apologists would call me a conspiracy theorist. But we all know that under intersectionality, in which he adheres to, Muslims are seen as superior to Jews. Jews have white privilege, don’t you know. Since 1942.
  • Trump shocked people when he praised Kim Jong Un but, again, people shrugged when Trudeau openly grieved Castro’s death and delivered an emotional outpour of support on behalf of all Canadians. I guess it’s understandable, Castro never did anything wrong, right?
  • Trump is largely criticised for un-presidential conduct when operating within government. A lot of people argue he’s abusing his powers with all his executive orders. But Trudeau’s Liberals have consistently used their majority power to shut down corruption probes and has now interfered with the RCMP trying to investigate criminal corruption charges. Rob Ford was criticised for turning city hall into a circus with some of his antics. Like the time he stormed through council to aid his brother and fellow councillor Doug Ford, knocking over Pam McConnell. This confirming in most people’s minds that Rob Ford was just the worst. But more shoulder shrugging when Trudeau man-handles two opposition members in the house.
  • Trump’s wall is synonymous with Trudeau’s pipeline.
  • The media has been obsessed with whether or not Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election. However an extensive investigation and report by Robert Mueller failed to link Trump to an indictable offense. At least America got a Mueller report. Trudeau’s Liberals blocked any further probing into the SNC-Lavalin scandal where The Globe and Mail broke a story alleging the PMO had directly and consistently attempted to politically interfere with the attorney general. Allegedly under the direction of the PM himself. After an investigation of the ethics commissioner he found the PM was indeed in a conflict of interest. So I guess at least Trump had plausible deniability if there was any guilt on his part at all. Trudeau actually was guilty of political corruption. So I guess in that sense Trump isn’t as bad as Trudeau.
  • Trump may make up words like covfeffi but Trudeau is a gaf master himself if you manage to catch him in a scrum about exactly the topic he doesn’t want to talk about.
  • Trump cancelled a meeting with the Taliban in light of the 911 anniversary and people called the whole thing disgusting. Don’t get me wrong, I totally understand that. But it’s not like Trump gave a convicted terrorist $10 000 000 in a settlement out of court. Oh that’s right, that was Trudeau’s Liberals who just gave Omar Khadr $10 000 000. The man who was convicted of killing an American medic and injuring another American soldier. Oh, I almost forgot. Trudeau also apologized to him.

Justin Trudeau is the Trump of the north. They have both done things that should absolutely disqualify them but what we see is their base double down, rally around and openly endorse them. He’s just as populist. He campaigned in the last election to end hyper partisanship but the country is more divided now than ever before and political discourse has devolved to witch hunts where social justice is mob justice. The political correctness he peddles is hurting this country. With 311 shootings this year alone in the greater Toronto area all politicians can do is spew more rhetoric around gun bans because even they are afraid to be labelled a racist for suggesting all neighbourhoods may not be equal.

What I see are unprecedented developments from and unprecedented government who is unashamed of how they have disgraced this country and at every chance they get they double down again and again and again. And people just dismiss it. “All politicians are bullshit,” they say. Liberals will vote liberal, conservative will vote conservative and I fear everyone else is just going to stay home and probably watch something 20 years old, when times were simpler and fun.

Justin Trudeau is the worst Prime Minister Canada has ever seen and he has set this country back at least 15 years in regards to unification and what progress use to mean. Of course Trudeau did black face. Of course he’s a bigot. He’s a spoiled trust fund preppy boy who had life handed to him. Identity politics is nothing more than a game to him where attention is the currency of the day, it was never about any actual standards or code of conduct. Voting Liberal in the last election was the biggest mistake of my life and I’ll always regret it. I’ve never been more ashamed to be a Canadian. And the part of all of this that depresses me most is that people seem more concerned over whether or not black face makes a person racist rather than the verified ethical violation by the prime minister of canada. Why? Because it’s 2019.



“Identity politics is a sick game. You don’t play racial, ethnic, and gender identity games. The Left plays them on behalf of the oppressed, let’s say, and the Right tends to play them on behalf of nationalism and ethnic pride. I think they’re equally dangerous.”

– Jordan Peterson

Crowder Vs Maza? Free Speech Vs Censorship? Private Company Vs Public Utility? I don’t know anymore.

M v C


Watch a Mary Ham break down the situation surrounding Carlos Maza and Steven Crowder (4:56):

Watch Phillip Defranco covering the situation:

Watch Tim Pool’s report on the situation:

Watch Tim Pool follow up on of the adpocalypse:

Watch Lauren Chen cover the situation:

Watch Joe Rogan’s reaction to the situation:

CNN business interviews Maza over situation:

Watch 1791 profile Carlos Maza:

Watch 1791 follow up with “The Aftermath”:

Watch Glenn Beck’s reaction to the situation:

Watch Glenn Beck interview Steven Crowder:

Watch Jimmy Dore react to the situation:

Watch David Pakman break down the situation:

Watch Secular Talk break down the situation:

Watch Sargon of Akkad react to the situation:

Watch the Quartering react to the situation:

Watch Ben Shapiro cover the situation:

Watch Steven Crowder in his own words, “I’m not sorry”:


It may be Steven’s right to say whatever he wants but let’s not kid ourselves, there is speech that you just can’t defend. Using the word “fag” on a t-shirt you sell as merch, that’s not a hill worth dying on. Nor is it something I would want to support or sympathize with. He’s used the word fag regularly like in events held with Milo. Youtubers are more than just commentators, they’re role models to their audience. But when you look at what crowder actually says about Maza it’s always in the context of rebuttal.

He’s never said anything remotely close to anything like “this is the problem with the gays” or “people like Maza” or “he’s like this because he’s gay”. No. It’s always been an attack on Maza himself as an individual. And I’m sorry but when you create political commentary content where you’re whole shtick is criticising others, it’s just plain fair game that others are going to react to what you say. What is Maza actually asking for here? And by going after youtube Maza is demonstrating the very mob behaviour and targeting that he claims youtube enables in others. Critics have been parodying each other forever. Crowder denounces all forms of doxing and online bullying. This is not just to formally cover his ass, he knows and makes clear that is is exactly what people like Maza want so they can claim that sweet, sweet victimhood and it plays right into their narrative. Online bullying is never ok and never helps anyone. Crowder understands this and always denounces it. The responsibility of creators for their followers is another conversation.

When he exaggerates Maza’s excentricisms, is that homophobia? If you’re someone I don’t like, I might call you a cock sucker. If you were gay but I didn’t know, would I be a homophobe? If I did know you were gay and still called you that, would I be a homophobe? If you subscribe to intersectional doctrine then yes, as a CIS, white male I have no right to criticise anyone above me on the hierarchy. And my insult will be found to be discrimination of some kind. If it’s directed at a gay man, it’s homophobic. If it’s directed at a woman it’s misogynist. If it’s aimed at a “person of colour” then it’s racist. And if it doesn’t comfortably meet the definition of racism then we’ll just call it coded language to dog whistle white supremacy.
In the context of intersectionality, CIS white males will inevitably be found to be guilty and tainted and problematic because that is the status of my identity group. Despite the fact that when I’m using such language, I’m never thinking about the act itself. Nor am I using it to bring about visuals of such acts being performed by the people such comments are targeting. I’m probably just using that language because I think it’ll offend you. And if I’m using that language I probably want to offend you. I’m just intending to piss you off, nothing more, nothing less. But thoughts, actions and the intention around them are irrelevant. If you are not a member of the protected class then you will face the consequences of your actions and cited as an example of things like “genocide”. That all being said… did I have to call the person a cock sucker in the first place? Probably not.
This leads me to an email I sent to Steven Crowder about 2 years ago. I had just created a youtube account to investigate this whole youtube thing after the Trump election and crowder was one of the first channels I discovered. After so long following him closely I felt the need to email him a critique. I wrote to him that I felt he was wrong to use words like Faggot. Even if it is in talking to Milo Yiannopoulos through mutual respect. I don’t recall him ever using the word Nigger but he’s always engaged in real spicy language. I told Crowder that he may have every right to say absolutely whatever he wants but the reality is having an audience makes him a role model as much as he is a comedian or commentator. And his advocacy for conservative values and free speech is noble. But his careless use of spicy language really just makes him look like a bully and that he only wants free speech to be an asshole.
I believe in absolute freedom of expression but free speech doesn’t mean freedom against consequence. However this regulation should always be socially enforced and not legislated into law. The government regulation of speech will always be a gross conflict of interest. If you’re not scared of a liberal telling you what’s acceptable to say or do, try having a conservative telling you what you can say or do. This is not the role of government. Public discourse is best left up to the public. And the amendments we currently have on free speech is already borderline too much but fair enough. Defamation, incitement of violence, etc. Fair enough. People will get in line with their tribes based on what’s socially acceptable to say. This plays out every day as we all self censor over controversial issues.
So I warned Crowder that if he insisted on using, what I have been calling, “indefensible speech” then one day he would be targeted and his arguments would be reduced to  holding him to account for this spicy language. Using words like Faggot isn’t a hill worth dying on. And freedom of individual expression is far too important to be taken down by such shallow defenses. These are words that are so morally powerful they bind and blind people and recruit free speech opposition quicker than any advocacy argument could ever back them off that cliff. And here we are today, Crowder being accused of hate speech. Not because of his “change my mind” segments or his one-on-one interviews or his comedic sketches or his collaborations. It’s over the word fag.
He can be as ‘not sorry’ as he wants, the damage is already done. Not from his base but to his credibility to those sitting on the fence. The more he frames things as “us versus them” and the more he appeals to tribalism the more he contributes to polarization. And that’s why Crowder is in the wrong with this issue. I can play devils advocate for Crowder in this situation and I believe Maza is also wrong and also disingenuous but that doesn’t mean Crowder is right. They’re both wrong for their own reasons. These issues need to be contended with responsibly and with the seriousness they deserve. Crowder is not doing this and no amount of “some of my best friends are fags” style defense will ever make him right.
He’s making money and gaining subs despite his demonetization so if money is the only measure of success then sure, he’s winning. I only see an empty victory. Is Crowder a comedian? Not in the traditional sense of a comedian but if Stephen Colbert, Fallon and Kimmel pass as comedians then Crowder does as well. But their partisanship doesn’t grant them the kind of pass I would grant people like Kevin Hart or Bill Burr, etc. Crowders show is clearly intended to be a political commentary dressed up with entertaining sketches and bits to make it more palatable. That does not exempt him of scrutiny nor has he ever shied away from challenges. Provocation is part of his style and that is aimed at shock value and intended to challenge you. This is also not a defense for indefensible speech.
When I engage in road rage on the highway I don’t stop and think rationally of what the most appropriate wording of outrage would be to use so that I don’t offend my perpetrator. Instead of “dumb bitch” I use “silly goose” and instead of “mother fucker” I say “non-gender-conforming parental guardian consentual fornicator”. Look, I’m not equating delivering a speech to the world to the same standard as road rage but sometimes an emotional reaction can result in impulsive inappropriateness. And as Freud said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
My point is Crowder doesn’t like Maza. Why would he give a shit about Maza’s feelings? Sure, you’re a content creator and you shouldn’t appeal to outrage. And in an ideal world we would all be polite to one another. But Maza does the exact same thing by demonizing those he criticizes. Maza’s advocating for one identity group being a protected class over another identity group. Again, it always comes down to socialism with these guys. Political correctness is just fascism with manners. If social media wants to start promoting some content while censoring other content then how does this not make them a publisher? News media relies on all social media for their reporting now, it’s cited as a publisher source constantly. But everytime they favour one voice over another they are actively in conflict with constitutional rights. You guys want to end discrimination? Then there can be NO protected category of ppl over other ppl. period. Every time any protected class is favoured, all those outside the protected class are discriminated against.

Now as for Maza. All I can say is the guy isn’t real journalism, it’s the exact activist based narrative propaganda that he himself is so critical of. Crowder isn’t fooling anyone by using the word “Figs” instead of “Fags” on his shirt. Maza isn’t fooling anyone by advocating for acosting people with milkshakes isn’t an incitement for violence. I’ll tell you right now if you ever threw a milkshake at me I’d beat the ever living fuck out of you. I have my own hateful conduct policy. Kill me or regret it. So he violates actual laws but you’ll never see it enforced because society is adhering to this social justice rhetoric around protected classes.

I can appreciate that he may call himself a gay wonk and that doesn’t automatically exempt others from scrutiny for engaging him with the same language. I believe the word Nigger is reprehensible and should never be used. However I don’t care when I hear it in a song or in the context of news and the like. But the main point here is that Maza has entered the public domain to target and criticize others. This is his career. He gets paid to do this. This puts him squarely smack dab in the middle of the marketplace of ideas. His ideas and opinions are just as up for scrutiny as those he targets. He, himself, engages in the same demonizing language he’s critical over Crowder using.

He thinks he’s right based on his race and sexual orientation and Crowder is inherently wrong as a measure of his race and sexual orientation. Maza is wrong. He claims Youtube doesn’t care about it’s LGBTQ creators. This is a lie and his calls for protest are all simply aimed at damaging youtube and the creators on their platform. He even admits himself this isn’t really about Crowder. And he chose to do all of this at the same time of a vox walkout and during pride month. It’s calculated, manipulative and disingenuous. His proclamation of victimhood is, in my opinion, purely aimed at harming others. The mainstream hit pieces that have followed reinforce my feeling that this is just another attempt to reclaim lost ground against alternative media.


He’s doing it for the clicks clap

He’s doing it for the clicks clap

He’s doing it for the clicks clap



Watch Philly D cover new main stream media hit pieces:

Watch Tim Pool’s coverage of Media hit piece:

Watch The Quartering react to the media hit piece:

Watch 1791 cover the media hit piece:

Watch Secular Talk cover the media hit piece:

Watch Ben Shapiro’s coverage of the media hit piece:


So in closing, I need to ask. What exactly are we talking about here? Is this just a fight between Crowder and Maza? Well neither knows each other personally and it’s pretty clear that both parties have their own personal agendas behind their faux feud. So this really isn’t a conflict between these two. Is this a conversation about censorship? Maza makes clear that it’s not enough to demonetize creators channels, citing websites like patreon. Youtube has nothing to do with Patreon. Is it not enough to censor a creator? Must there be a collaborative effort to destroy the lives of those we deem ‘problematic’? Youtube can change it’s policies every hour if they want, I don’t think that’s what the issue is really about.

I think this all comes down to the big question of what is social media? Is it a private company that is allowed to ‘hire’ and ‘fire’ anyone they deem harmful to their brand? Is it a publication that produces us with news? Well all mainstream media has no problem citing social media for anecdotes in their work. All media utilize social media for their content to reach far beyond the municipal boundaries of their broadcast. Is social media really just a company that aims at only making money?

Well if social media wants to continue to regulate content then it increasingly fulfills the role of publisher as it guides our attention and calculates it’s recommendations. Maybe a better question is what is social media to us? Internet in general is now considered a basic human right as more people do their banking, communications and coordination through their smart devices or computers. Trying to live without a phone or access to internet truly does present very real barriers to thriving in a society that demands instantaneous communication.

Here are a few other good questions. If you cannot network, plan, promote, advertize or advocate on social media, how does that impact your professional and/or social life? Would you suffer damages by being barred from utilizing social media? What advantages would others have over you if you were not allowed access to social media while running for political office? While others have access to it but you don’t. How would that impact the election of your riding? Better yet, could you ever become president/prime minister without a presence on social media? I don’t think you could run a competitive campaign without some degree of social media activity.

How significant is our online avatar? Is our online presence as significant as our physical self in real life? If you disappeared from social media, would it have a measurable impact on your real life friendships? Could that lead to falling out with certain friends? Your profile, your avatar, your page, your library. Are these personalized home pages shares? Does holding a personal account/home page equate to holding a share within the company if it’s profitability is derived from your account/content? Is there an argument there that your account is a form of equity? Canadian government ruled that points accumulated on reward cards like air miles is a form of equity that is owned by the card holder, not air miles. This after Air Miles attempted to retroactively apply an adjustment to terms and conditions around accumulated points. Government ruled that unconstitutional. They ruled that digital equity could be property. Does my participation on social media produce equity that I should be entitled to?

Are these companies monopolies? What relationship do we have with social media? Is it addictive? Could it be so intrinsic to our functionality that social media can become a symbiotic relationship with us? It may be true that social media are private companies. This also means they are unelected officials regulating the centre of public discourse. So what responsibilities do these companies have in the symbiotic relationship their products have with our lives? Are these platforms an open forum? I don’t have the answers but I think after seeing just how far you can flesh out the significance of social media it tends to feel more like a public utility than merely a private platform. Perhaps how it functions goes beyond it’s intended design. But if it meets the definition of a public utility then we cannot ignore the conversation around civil rights. And if access to these platforms is a civil right then it’s pretty clear the conversation around regulation is far from over and far more complex than it seems.



“A lie told often enough becomes the truth”

– Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

Apparently beheading the premier isn’t hate.

queens park 2

This week there was yet another protest outside Queen’s park because #fuckford. It will forever be the conservative burden to inherit deficits in the billions, make the unpopular decisions necessary to balance the budget. Then they inevitably find themselves dethroned by tax and spend liberals who go back to running up deficits. We have created a culture in our politics where funding is commensurate with compassion. And unless we’re spending money on it, we don’t care about it.

By the way, ignore the marxist flag donning the hammer and sickle. Marxism is a conservative conspiracy. It doesn’t exist on the left or in academia or anywhere. The marxist lie is a conservative straw man. It’s probably photoshopped, right? PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE IRON CURTAIN!

queens park 1

If teachers experience cuts, the PC government must hate teachers. If healthcare experiences cuts, the PC government must hate doctors and nurses. If cut taxes then this must only mean the PC government loves evil corporations. Are we really making the case that government has been 100% efficient and there is no room at all for cuts of any kind? Are we really arguing that while the rest of us in the private world have to endure the fluctuating risk the economy threatens us with every day, those who work for the government, whose payroll exists off of the taxes we pay, should never have to worry about their job security? Are we really arguing that there is NO wiggle room for innovation  to find efficiencies in government at any level?

What’s been really bothering me since the election is to see the change in Andrea Horwath. The language she’s been espousing has been increasingly unparliamentary and she now has taken a position to simply oppose anything and everything proposed by this conservative government. The latest example was her absolute opposition to free dental care for seniors. I believe Horwath is now in part responsible for an increase in vitriolic anti-government activism we’re seeing unfold.

TVO featured “Ontario’s new political landscape” where a panel reacted to the election results where Brittany Andrew-Amofah of the broadbent institute literally said, “what happened last night was a false majority that can only be produced under a first-past-the-post system.” Keep in mind that the conservatives took 76 seats out of the total 134 seat legislature, the NDP won 40, the Liberals 7 and the Green 1. To form majority a party only needs 63 seats. With 76 seats awarded to Doug Ford’s PC government, I have no problem speculating that even if we had used a different method besides first-past-the-post we likely still would’ve seen a conservative majority.

What Brittany is really saying that unless they have a political party who promotes their ideologies then that government will be illegitimate in their eyes. In the panel discussion Steve Paikin asks Brittany, “Are you prepared to give this guy a chance or do you see job one right now as defeating him?” This was Brittany’s response:

I see job one right now as amplifying the need for progressive movement within our province and also discussing what will potentially be at stake. So the search for efficiencies is a very scary search. Where are we going to be cutting from? Where are the efficiencies going to be coming from? And I think that needs, that deserves interrogation and hasn’t been interrogated enough. When we talk about efficiencies are we talking about social services? Are we talking about the money that is being given to our shelter system?

Steve: Well you do know he’s got a pharma care plan. It might not be as good as the other two parties but he’s got something. He’s got a childcare plan. You may not like it as much as the other two parties but he’s got one. He’s got a mental health spending plan as well. He’s got a transit plan. It may not be –

Steve’s interrupted by Brittany, “as in depth as it probably should be.”

“Or might be,” Steve continues, “but he’s got something to say about these things. Does that help you at all?”

Brittany, “no, because this party has been focussed on talking about efficiencies and talking about cleaning up what’s happening at Queen’s Park. Yes, Wynne has gone wrong and maybe several different areas when it comes to hydro, when it came to a number of different issues but there are a lot of progressive gains that need to continue to be made and that needs to be built upon from when Wynne had left. So I think that’s a risk here and if we’re focussing solely on his (she then performs air quotes) “search for efficiencies” then I don’t know how true those statements are.

Let me remind you that the recording of this episode took place the day after election day. This is her reaction to the conservatives the DAY after election day. What we see here isn’t a realistic critique of job performance or policy legislation, this is her simply disqualifying the new majority government as elected by the people due to nothing more than their political identity. This is what hyper partisanship looks like. She sits there and equates budget cuts to punishment and uses it to fear monger that this government will use their power to punish the weak and marginalized. It’s not a political analysis, it’s a post-modern style deconstruction framed around intersectional narratives. Notice her inability to acknowledge minority group support for Doug Ford and Ford Nation? Because it’s counter narrative, which could never be true, so it’s obviously just lies. Conservative Rhetoric. Misinformation. Fake news. Far-right conspiracies. etc, etc, etc.

This was the rhetoric coming out of those left of the political spectrum the day after election day. The NDP put forth more radical candidates than ever before. Like Laura Kimiker who ran in my riding of Mississauga Center was a self described Marxist and called Poppies war glorification. I’ve greatly respected Andrea Horwath throughout her role as opposition throughout my lifetime watching provincial politics. She’s a veteran in the game and I truly believe she sincerely advocates for truly vulnerable people and for opening opportunities to everyone. However she’s seen how greatly her party benefited from a more populist, radical campaign message and she’s changed her tune to appeal to exactly this populism.

That’s why Andrea Horwath today has no problem openly calling Doug Ford a ‘dictator’. Which if it came from a conservative, would be called a dog whistle promoting violence and hate. So what is it when it’s done on the left? Oh, NOW it’s just free speech. Horwath has the freedom to express any view she wants. And I’m equally allowed to call her a silly fucken hack for choosing to do so. I believe the more she shifts towards the social radical marxist types, the more she will dispossess the grass roots supporters of the parties who just wanted better health care, not a marxist reform. My prediction is once the party is nothing but radicals then this will simply disqualify them and I think we will see more surge in Green support as an alternative to what has been the alternative for decades. I think Green will replace the NDP.


She’s had no problem throwing out slurs, parliamentary disruptions, calls to activism and yet she refuses to take responsibility for how discourse has been changing around Queens park. If you only pay attention to the mainstream news outlets, CTV, CBC, Macleans, etc, you’d believe that the only reason conservatives are surging in support around the country is believe of Facebook fake news and white supremacy. When in reality we’ve seen, in my opinion, more openly hateful protests against conservatives than anyone else.

doug ford 1

The following images were taken from the office of MPP Laurie Scott’s office upon amending the minimum wage bill.

Labour Minister Laurie Scott 3Labour Minister Laurie Scott 1Labour Minister Laurie Scott 2doug ford 2


Several months ago truckers from around the country rallied and drove to Ottawa to show their support for pipelines. They donned yellow vests inspired by french protests against their carbon taxes. They felt Trudeau has turned his back on Albertans and waste billions of dollars and Saudi Oil rather than cycling it back to the Canadian economy. There were online forums where these people organized and shared talking points. Apparently some have shared anti-immigrant sentiments. Faith Goldy and Rebel Media also attended the protest. The media took these details and slandered the entire protest as one of promoting hate and violence. The convoy was portrayed as just a group of white supremacists. The usual slurs aimed at disqualifying dissent and aimed at banning wrongthink.

united we roll

The only point I’m making here is simply this. Populism is increasing as polarization increases. This is not just happening among conservatives but also with liberals. If not more. We all need to hold ourselves accountable at the individual level. But this is just another example of the media’s bias against conservatives. Conservatives simply show up to peacefully protest and they’re labelled racists. But if you’re protesting conservatives, that’s just your civil right. Despite how inappropriate your conduct is.

Like, what exactly are they trying to say here? If you question social justice initiatives you disqualify yourself from public discourse? Well, that seems to be the case from what I’m seeing media wide. You watch how the media treats Scheer or Ford versus how they treat Trudeau and Horwath and it’s easy to see. If you have anything to say about Trudeau’s #welcometoCanada? Guess what, you’re a nazi. Bring a guillotine to Queens Park and behead an effigy of Doug Ford? That’s just you’re civil right.

Do these people have a right to call for the death of politicians? Actually no, that’s incitement of violence. Murder and policy critique are two very different things. If I followed the same logic that the social justice leftists follow then Andrea Horwath would be a Marxist for having posed for pictures with a group who had Marxists among them. However I don’t follow social justice logic so, no, I don’t think Andrea Horwath is a Marxist by association. But when she’s posing next to a skeleton and signs reading #fuckford then I simply have this to ask you. What if roles were reversed and it was Doug Ford protesting an NDP government by posing with skeletons and hashtags #fuckhorwath. All media everywhere would be reporting this as a KKK rally. So if it would be inappropriate to one party, it should be equally condemned on the other front.

queens park 3

But what we’re seeing here isn’t any effort to consider any of that. Even if this conservative government for some reason matched the same policies as the previous liberals and their government mirrored one another, you would still see vitriolic protests. There is nothing this government can do to appease the angry social justice mob. It’s not about the cuts or the budget. It’s about capitalism and hatred. Hatred for everyone who disagrees with the social justice narrative. Feminist narratives of empowering women fall short when conservative female MPPs need to hire security over death threats. It is literally and metaphorically a call for the death of our political system and a call to complete reform to socialism. And while the conservatives come under constant attack on all fronts, they’re tasked with saving this province from itself. Remember this in 3 years when we’re back at the ballot box.

Even Slavoj Zizek himself thinks that political correctness is exactly what perpetuates prejudice and racism. So put that in your Marxist Vape Pens and smoke it 500 metres away from any public entryway.



“one needs to be very precise not to fight racism in a way which ultimately reproduces, if not racism itself, at least the conditions of racism.” – Slavoj Zizek