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
“If we don’t believe in free expression for the people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.”
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.
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:
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.
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.
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 RCMPtrying 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.
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.”
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
He’s doing it for the clicks
He’s doing it for the clicks
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.
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!
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.
The following images were taken from the office of MPP Laurie Scott’s office upon amending the minimum wage bill.
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.
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.
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
Watch the True North Initiative recap the events of Omar Kadhr:
Watch CBC episode on Omar Khadr:
Dear everyone who claims there is no culture war going on and everything is a conservative conspiracy, why is CBC choosing to interview a convicted terrorist who fought alongside a terrorist organization responsible for killing hundreds of Christians every year? A terrorist who pleaded guilty to murdering an american medic and injuring another american soldier?
Why, out of 365 days in a year, does CBC choose EASTER sunday to hold this interview with this terrorist? Is there a place and time to hold this conversation? Sure. I don’t like it but sure. But EASTER SUNDAY? from now on anyone who wants to cite any CBC article to me, you can expect me to simply refer you to this as my response. CBC is completely morally bankrupt at this point as far as I’m concerned.
I can appreciate the exploration of grey areas but this is pretty black and white to me. I have no problem seeing what’s obviously wrong with this. But I’m not surprised by it. And this is why it’s clear to me that the CBC should no longer receive federal subsidization. Let their ideas face the free market and see if anyone will support their trash out in the real world alongside all the other media.
how is this not a direct assault on Christians? and a slap in the face to all of our veterans? You want to talk about dreaming of an ordinary life? Why don’t you ask that of the widow and children of the medic HE MURDERED? Just when I thought the Omar Khadr affair couldn’t stoop any lower, CBC proves me wrong. Wow. Defunding the CBC just became a huge voting issue for me.
“Terrorism works better as a tactic for dictatorships, or for would-be dictators, than for revolutionaries.”
― Christopher Hitchens
In a few months I will have been attending church for a year now. But I haven’t admitted this to any of my close friends. There’s just so much stigma attached to church-goers that I worry that it will actually damage my friendships. I’ve justified keeping it to myself by trying to form good arguments to defend why I would do such a thing. Aimed at challenging the stereotypical preconceptions and typical tropes against Christianity.
But I think this also may just be an excuse to hide behind my own embarrassment. Which, I think, comes from a place of insecurity. I never grew up with any religious upbringing and I used to be that guy who mocked religious people as brainless cultists. Sam Harris would’ve been proud. So I feel like a complete imposter when I find myself sitting in a pew.
That being said, there I find myself, watching an easter play about Jesus saving us. So how did I get here? I never grew up with any religious upbringing. I’ve never studied the bible before now nor have I ever attended any sort of Catholic school. I grew up on Star Trek, The Next Generation. They were having conversations around AI, finite resources, authoritarianism, democracy, genocide, racism, social hierarchies, trauma, foreign aid, foreign conflict, and so much more. Hell, if Picard broke the prime directive I lost sleep! What if their interference changed that civilization forever?
It represented a future where we truly transcended all the petty issues which hold us back. All of Earth was united by what was the greater good for humanity as a whole. Though the planet united under one federation it didn’t stand in the way of national pride or prevent the celebration of individuality and local culture. People got to choose their career paths out of sheer self interest and for pride in serving humanity. Secular values could unite where our individual differences could divide.
We would be a shining example of diversity, inclusion and equality. And because of our values we would shock the universe by our adaptability and our ability to outpace other planets who did not share the same ethics. We had the ability to look to our past as it truly was and learn from it. Exploration of Earth came with it colonization that could reap dramatic consequences to foreign peoples in foreign lands. From this we would establish the prime directive, the law against intervening with any underdeveloped planets. And instead the exploration was focussed more on the pursuit of knowledge and truth than that of conquering and assimilation.
Finally, the utopia was here. This vision of the future would be the basis of my optimism as I grew up. And then 911 happened. And it would set in motion a series of events that would, I believe, take us to our current culture war which threatens the future of the entire western world. A war that, if lost, will make the burning of the library of Alexandria look like a dumpster fire by comparison. And here I sit, pondering how we got here from when Gene Roddenberry dreamt up his grand dream.
Watch Inspirational speeches of Star Trek:
The reality is he took for granted the actual complexities around what a meaningful life represents. He dismissed the narratives of the Bible as “the dark ages of superstition”. Roddenberry underestimated the narratives in the Bible which provide a framework to guide us through life. It is ancient wisdom which provides a context from which we can discern reality. Truths that predate science. Symbols and interpretations which can provide helpful perspective.
Nietzsche proclaimed that God was dead and in his estimate he believed that we would need to produce our own new system of values from which society could function. But there’s this odd assessment from people in today’s society that the only rule we need is just simply to just ‘be good’. ‘Care’. Because if we all just agree to love instead of hate then we will never have differences or disagreements. While being totally naive to the fact that we almost ended the world in the 20th century over our philosophical and ethical disagreements.
The point I’m trying to make is that secular values may claim to consist of logic, empathy and reason but people widely believed that the enlightenment was a breaking off from religion however it ignorantly dismisses the foundation religion provided which influence logic, empathy and reason. With a Christian context the basis for logic, empathy and reason was nested in virtues the Bible impressed upon us. The sovereignty of the individual, the discipline to identify the vices that make us weak and relationship building that allowed us to be better neighbours, family members, spouses, friends, colleagues, etc. Through this foundation our logic would be sound, our empathy wouldn’t be misplaced and our reason would remain reasonable. Without that foundation the only thing we have is self interest.
Logic, empathy and reason is not presented to us by a world of objective truths, it is concluded based on the motivations of our worldview. Or the ideology from which we subscribe. And this means we do not live in a world of objective truths, we live in a world of narratives and we map out the world by projecting those narratives onto it. I can pick up a tree branch and depending on the circumstance that branch can be firewood. Or it could be a weapon. Or a tool. Maybe it can be all three but is it equally all three despite the circumstances around it?
We underestimate how subjective logic, empathy and reason are. Some of the best work documenting this, I feel, is Jonathan Haidt’s The Righteous Mind and I think Amy Chua’s Political Tribes also offers a lot of great insights into this. Globalists hold different values than nationalists, liberals hold different values than conservatives, socialists hold different values than capitalists. Adolf Hitler was a nationalist but so were other people George Washington, Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela. Socialism has resulted in the deaths of millions of people but that’s not to say incorporating certain socialist concepts can’t be beneficial, such as universal healthcare or variations of it.
This is why the cake of utopia was always a lie. There are certain differences between cultures and ethnicities around Earth that make it impossible to unite under one single umbrella. In this post truth world there’s no way we would ever achieve a united earth federation like that from Star Trek. But that’s not to invalidate Roddenberry’s dream. His vision of the future may not be exactly as he foresaw but it serves as blueprints towards building whatever is next to come. If we can manage to survive today’s culture war and whatever comes from it’s fallout.
Watch Mark Osborne’s short “MORE”:
But going back to how I, personally, found myself on this path today. I grew up in a relatively significantly dysfunctional household. However compared to how the majority of how everyone else grew up I am reluctant to even acknowledge it as really much of a deviation from norm. I am no historian but I’d gamble that families have never been more dysfunctional today than ever before. Children are growing up in single parent households where they reach adulthood without having even seen a two-parent household. The rate of fatherhood was better in slavery times than they are today. Despite all the incentives and welfare programs that were put in place to make poor families stronger.
We are anti-fragile beings who can adapt to whatever tragedy comes our way but it’s malevolence that traumatizes us, destroys us. Without a foundation to assist us with reacting to the malevolence of the world we are vulnerable to disaster fatigue. Without inspiration we can become bitter and cynical about this malevolent world. Because life is suffering. If you have nothing to offset your suffering you can easily slip into apathy and nihilism. The kind of apathy that places you behind the wheel of a vehicle after too much to drink and ends with wiping an entire family off the face of the Earth. The kind of nihilism that finds you bringing a gun to school or workplace. Misery loves company it’s far easier to tilt the world towards hell than it is to tilt it away. It’s easy to find a devil behind a transformation like this. And we all hold the capacity for evil like this.
I used to be the champion of the grey area argument. I prided myself on my centrism. Socially liberal and fiscally conservative. A man’s man with a soft side. But now I see a society obsessed with the grey area. Where all rules are oppressive and must be torn down to mean nothing. Everything must be open ended and all variations of the truth must be valued as an equal truth. Like in today’s gender debate. Where radical leftists actually believe that biological sex does not exist. To the point where Twitter will now ban you for misgendering an individual and doctors are being compelled to not specify the sex on the birth certificate of newborns.
It’s gotten so out of hand that it has actually fractured the feminist community to where women who now advocate for women-only spaces are being discredited as “radical feminists” and labelled as “TERFs” (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists). So if you believe we should have a woman-only gym or shelter to protect women who have been sexually assaulted and traumatized by male genitalia then you are being deemed a bigot for simply not qualifying a trans-woman as a legitimate woman and insisting they be segregated based on their genitalia. Some people now actually referring to biological women as “bleeders” in an attempt to be “inclusive” to trans-women. How about you? You ready to sit your daughter down and explain to her that she is a “bleeder”? All in the name of progress.
These ideas are nowhere near as fringe as I would’ve thought. I saw this in my own friends who are all well educated people. Justin Trudeau initiated a new rule at Service Canada where staff are no longer to refer to parents as “mother” and “father” because those terms are now deemed offensive. Yet my friends react to these things with this odd acceptance almost as a way of signalling how accepting and compassionate they are. Compassionate to who, exactly? We ALL have a mother and a father regardless whether or not that relationship extended to our upbringing it was the very product of our conception. This remains true through the animal kingdom. All Mammals have a mother and a father. So how the fuck would that ever not apply to anyone existing on planet Earth today? There is no exception to that rule.
But such is the consequence of conflating subjective identity with biological realty. Because the social construct argument denotes reality itself. Which means legislature accommodating such beliefs are actually legislating law that actually contradicts factual reality. All in the name of appearing progressive by accepting ALL world views. Even though the worldviews you’re attempting to accommodate for actually hold you in contempt and actively seek to cause you direct harm. Because it’s not gay as in happy, it’s queer as in fuck you. Google it.
This virtue signalling doesn’t prevent us from calling our own parents mom and dad. This acceptance of biological fluidity doesn’t prevent us from wearing our girly clothes or guy accessories. It doesn’t prevent us from seeking partners that are identifiably attractive based on their biology. It doesn’t stop women from loving their chick flicks or guys from building their man caves. But we’re expected to constantly contest any form of stereotype that reveals itself to us. As if adopting the progressive narrative has become more important than just living in reality. It’s scary to see the level of self flagellation we will embrace towards seeking the approval of others. Of complete strangers.
We are all expected to condemn masculinity in all it’s forms and deem it toxic but then we turn around and reminisce of our hockey days and how much fun it was scrapping with the opposing team. But we must advocate against exactly these fond memories to the next generation, without a single mindful thought on how shaming and social engineering children for their sex differences would impact their growth into adulthood. Despite the declines we are seeing in sexual relationships, academic success and overall competence among boys growing up today. Warren Farrell documents these declines in his book The Boy Crisis and Christina Hoff Sommers in her book The War Against Boys.
But we put seeking approval above actually improving the quality of life. Above fixing the world. I mentioned 911. After 911 it’s like we awoke to a reality we never really knew existed. I started watching news for the first time and I never stopped. I felt naive and vulnerable that I didn’t know what the Trade Towers were and I wanted to develop a sense of defense by understanding the world around me better. Images of Muslims celebrating the attack filled the news coverage of the day. The assault on America was an assault on the entire western world and, to paraphrase Jordan Peterson, the question wasn’t what fell but what remained standing.
The loss of thousands from that attack would have a ripple affect around the entire world but largely within all of America. Every single American and many Canadians were either directly or indirectly attached to a family who suffered a loss on 911. That tragedy would transform into anger. We needed someone to blame in a situation where those directly involved were already dead and we needed to make sense out of a situation that would never make sense.
We discriminated against people different than us. We mocked and attacked Indian Sikhs when the people who committed the crime were Wahabi Muslims from Saudi Arabia. But that didn’t stop us from calling Sikhs diaper heads or terrorists. Nor did it stop America from doing billions of dollars in business with Saudi Arabia. A large portion of the American public believed that Barack Obama was disqualified to run for president simply by the fact his middle name was Hussein, like Saddam Hussein, and his last name was Obama, similar to Osama (Bin-Laden).
Luckily this alone did not prevent the rest of America from voting for America’s first black president. Twice. But this was right at the same moment the great recession hit the world economy. And in those 8 years of Obama’s presidency we started seeing a cultural shift. As social media grew more powerful and attractive it drew in everyone around the world from all the corners of the internet into one single place where we would now all be faced with one another. Websites like Twitter, Reddit, Facebook, Tumblr, YouTube and Instagram would centralize public discourse.
Now the fringes of the internet like 4chan would be more accessible than ever before with all it’s content, good and bad, constantly being shoved in our faces by trolls and clickbaiters. And all our cleeks and tribes would clash in ways like never before. And for the first time we had to take a hard look at ourselves for how prejudicial and ignorant we ALL are. The fallout of this would spark real world movements like black lives matter and occupy wall street.
However a new form of progressive politics would emerge out of these movements. Early in things like #gamergate and later in things like #Metoo. Other more specific moments like when Kathleen Wynne would tell Ontario media that systemic racism did exists and was thriving well. Moments like Justin Trudeau making it mandatory to be pro-choice in order to sit on the Liberal caucus and initiating a gender parity cabinet “because it’s 2015”. By all accounts the data shows that America was left more polarized and prejudicial after Obama’s 8 years in office. Coming up to the 2019 Canadian federal election I would say the same is true for here in Canada after 4 years of a feminist Prime Minister. And this is to not even mention the Brexit vote in the UK or any of the events coming out of the Asylum seeker crisis. And then Donald Trump.
Donald Trump, in many ways, represents a boiling point when everything in our culture just erupted in chaos. In many ways on both sides of the political spectrum. I truly believed that Trumps reputation alone was enough to disqualify him for president so when I saw him win the republican primaries I was stunned and thought this would be a shoe in for Hillary. Not to my pleasure, I have never been a fan of Hillary Clinton. But I believed she was the obvious choice in comparison to Trump, at least. But I was wrong.
And in 2016 after I watched Trump win his presidency when all polls claimed a landslide victory for Clinton, I decided that I was in a bubble and I needed to start doing more listening and looking for my news beyond the usual ABC, CNN, CBC, BBC, PBS, TVO. I came to the realization that ignorance was no longer an old world concept that would die out with the aging generation of yesterday but it was thriving in today’s youth in ways I was blind to. I would seek out truth and call out ignorance wherever I saw it. But to my further shock, the most manipulative, audacious ignorance I would find would actually be on the left-wing. Not the right-wing.
Right-Wing media would report with it’s obvious right-wing bias. This is why I’ve always dismissed Fox News as not actual news because they couldn’t be objective. However other channels like CNN and MNSBC went absolutely bonkers, reporting actual lies on top of a new doubled down left-wing bias like never before. The language I see coming out of those on the left is more dehumanizing than I’ve ever seen before.
And these views really are only from a fringe minority but they are propped up by the left-biased media to create the perception that these are majority views. An effort to kowtow everyone into their respective lanes where they are expected to stay and shut the fuck up. I fell in love with Stephen Colbert when he roasted Bush at the 2006 white house correspondents dinner. Now he is more of an embittered Trump fact checker than anything that passes for comedy. I’ve never seen more vitriol than jokes in comedy than what I’ve seen since Trump won presidency. Which, fair enough, but what is the role of a comedian when they stop being funny? I won’t even address the changes going on in the Comedian world.
This is true with Brexit, it was true with Trump and it was True in Ontario with a super majority conservative provincial government lead by Doug Ford. But the reaction to this was not humility and introspection, it was of doubling down with identity politics and intersectional narratives coming out of academia and political circles. One of the most successful and outspoken proponents against tribalism and ideological possession would have to be Jordan Peterson. He warns about the dangers of equality of outcomes and censoring free speech. And it’s because he’s been so successful in his lecture based world tour he has become the single largest target of fake news hit pieces next to Donald Trump himself.
Jordan Peterson and his book 12 rules for life helped me see the errors in my own thinking. He taught me just because the ideal judged me, that did not mean the ideal was not worth striving towards. To merely condemn it out of my own insecurities would only produce more suffering than it would prevent. And in his 4 part debate with Sam Harris he truly challenged my preconceived notions around both the Bible and of reality itself. This was where, I believed, he proved that in order for us to come to the proper logic, empathy and reason we needed the proper context behind it. That context was best provided by the Bible. Ancient wisdom that was designed to unlock deep truths about ourselves. Thousands of years in refining and interpretation, the Bible was much deeper and thorough than anything drummed up since the enlightenment.
Watch Jordan Peterson on the meaning of life:
I learned that we truly need that context. Or as the marxists call it, the ‘lense’ from which our reality is shaped. Because the reason why smart people buy into stupid, dangerous, regressive ideas are because you can convincingly argue the reasons why. If you live in nothing but grey area then you have no foundation in which to oppose these bad ideas so you are compelled by logic, reason and empathy into submission.
That’s why everything in the social justice movement is presented to us in the guise of compassion. More similar to the compassion a mother bear has for her cubs when she has to decide whether you are friend or foe. But compassion nonetheless. So who doesn’t want to look empathetic, caring, kind and ‘inclusive’? But in your submission in guise of your compassion is also consent for a worldview you are now subscribed to. You don’t get to be a mom or a dad in social constructionism. That’s biological essentialism and that’s bigoted. You’re not a bigot, are you? Even if you like to play one at home, the people you propped up will condemn you for doing so.
No one is realizing that if speaking out about these issues represents protest then silence and complicitness is by the same logic consent. And we are dealing with a movement that by design pushes you to the cliffs edge of your comfort zone and only lets up when you push back. Otherwise you will find descending the cliffside and it will be considered consensual. But the problem with arguing with these ideologies is that you as soon as you play the game by their rules you are destined to fail. In their game they decide the rules of engagement. This is how they eliminate the grey area and all forms of centrism. There is no intersection for that.
As a “CIS white male” I am disqualified to have opinions about anything outside the boundaries of “CIS white male” issues. There’s a reason why people seek “allyship” and not membership. Because you do not belong and you will always be the enemy. It’s just a political correct form of racism, discrimination, ignorance and hate. Fascism is something we all agree must be opposed but make it look progressive and it’s just the latest hipster movement. In that is a deep seeded ignorance which is a product of the arrogance that comes from conventional education but with a lack of knowledge about the history of the systems we rely on to function in daily life.
We are born into this world and we only live to a point and the accumulated knowledge and wisdom we obtain in that life dies along with our body. We only trust that the legacy we leave behind can be utilized by the next generation to pick up where we left off to improve the future in the same way for the next generation. Of course society grows, evolves, changes as we also grow, evolve and change as individuals and not all rules of yesterday can work in the society of tomorrow. But in today’s culture war we are faced with a very judgemental ideal and instead of contending with this ideal we are attempting to burn it down. With complete lack of appreciation that you can only hit the big red reset button so many times before there is no recovery. We attempted that enough in the 20th century to prove this point to be true.
When I look down the road to where this all leads us, what the naive utopians see as a renaissance, I see as a cultural collapse. We have a resentment of our father and we are conspiring to erase him. But the truth is we need to journey into the abyss to save him otherwise we will share his fate. I mean that we need to truly understand the history we come from and view that history accurately. In the context that we are those people from our history. We are as capable of the atrocities they committed but also as capable of the miracles they performed. To see yourself as both the nazi camp guard but also as Mother Teresa. That’s the only way to truly understand history. And to appreciate our role in carrying the torch before passing it on.
I believe there is no reasoning, no logic, no empathy without a strong foundation to provide a sufficient context. And so how do I participate in this culture war without becoming the same beast that I am opposing? How do I not find myself slipping into some tribal group of just a different variation of mob justice? This is how the real white supremacists are recruiting. But out of all the ideologues I have noticed that it’s the Christians who seem to be the boldest in their opposition to the SJWs, best at discerning right from wrong and best at drawing clear boundaries around virtues and vices. Though they worship as a tribe, as a community, they operate as individuals.
It’s that acknowledgement that we are all made equal under God that I believe can serve to be the best method of inoculation against this regressive movement of hate and division. The entire structure to intersectionality is predicated on segregating us based on our superficial differences and sorting us out on an artificial social hierarchy where those who are deemed guilty and tainted have no human rights and those higher up the ladder are deemed righteous and operate as a protected class. This movement has been tried and defeated before. It was a sentiment held by the Nazis, the communists, Islamists and it’s always been defeated and it will always be defeated. Because this notion that each human being is not of individual intrinsic value equal to that of the next individual human is just wrong and it always will be wrong. None among us are perfect, therefore there are none among us who are above scrutiny. Period.
Watch a reading an conceptualization of “Tarantulas” by Friedrich Nietzsche:
Fighting this battle as a CIS white male from the bottom of the hierarchy is a fight that has been lost from the start. But as a man created by God, with a destiny of my own, I can refute your reality and invite the dispossessed among you back into the fold through offerings of a meaningful life of love and happiness. Because good Christians love their enemies. Good Christians attract others from the inner peace they radiate outward into the world. Because love will always conquer hate. Seeking the approval of man will only result in conflict whereas seeking the approval of God will only bear fruit.
The utopia is a lie. There are no entitlements in this world other than the guarantee of suffering. And you cannot transfer suffering, you can only create more. And there are a lot of people who are tilting this world towards hell. And I believe this is the only way to correct for what is going wrong. That is what has put me on the journey for deep truth so I can equip myself with the tools I need from the narratives of the Bible to bring peace. The peace can only begin from within so this is where I start.
It’s also clear to me that by now that none of us ever stopped worshipping. I think worship is far deeper ingrained in our DNA than we realize. Even atheists who denounce religion still operate in terms of idolization and engage in the sacred. Only the idols we worship on mass today in the west are things like iPhones and clothes brands. We engage in sacred language as we emphasize on things we view as pure and other things we regard to be tainted or corrupted.
I believe this has also manifested itself in the trend of organic foods, GMO free foods and other dietary quirks. We are desiring purity. This is also evident in how trendy yoga has become. There’s a taste of spirituality to it. Look at Sam Harris, the most outspoken atheist out there next to Dawkins himself. One of the 4 horsemen. Constantly promotes the benefits of meditation. Well what is meditation? What are you actually doing? You don’t believe in a man in the sky by apparently you can connect to the universe by sitting cross legged and square breathing? Get real dude, if this isn’t the biggest case of denial, I don’t know what is.
I truly believe we are a body which requires sustenance, we are a mind which requires stimulation but I now also truly, deeply believe we are also a spirit which also hungers. And the more we deprive ourselves of spiritual fulfillment the more we seek it out. Like desiring a food containing a vitamine you’re deficient in. So instead of eating junk food you’re serving yourself better by eating higher quality food. A baby cries because it’s hungry. If it’s not hungry there is something wrong. This is literally true about us, symbolically true about us and metaphysically true about us.
Just looking at how political parties are treated in the US shows that party membership is synonymous with religious communities. Families are not coming over for holiday dinners over how they voted in the last election. It has devolved into religious warfare. Intersectionality operates just the same. Original sin to the SJWs is the white man and whiteness, colonization and european traditions. You are inherently guilty and tainted if you fit in this identity group membership. If you speak out against the narratives being put forth, if you are Terry Cruz questioning whether or not Liam Neeson is a racist then you are guilty of wrongthink and you are henceforth a heretic until you repent. You spoke out against the group consensus and deviated from your ‘lane’. We all know you must stay in your lane and shut the fuck up. It absolutely has rituals in which people engage. Just look at land acknowledgements.
What we have are two incompatible sacred values in society and until one value system wins the culture war will continue to rage on. And there’s no telling how bad things can get. The grey area is wrong and centrism has no home anymore. So I will look at where I see the persecution and I will identify with the persecuted as God revealed himself to the lowest of man, the sheppard. I believe there is no coincidence that my pursuit of truth has lead me away from secularism and on the path to God.
Watch Jonathan Haidt discuss incompatible values in universities:
However now I have the huge task ahead of me of understanding what it means to build a relationship with God. I don’t think I even really understand what worship is, what that means or what it looks like. I have never prayed, at least not in the way I see others pray. Because I don’t understand what it means to speak with God. But I do know that when I’m watching the sun come up as it beams rays of light through the clouds, it sure feels like God talking to me.
I’ve been really enjoying speaking with members of the church I’ve been attending about what God means to them and how their relationship with God has improved their lives. In a time where I see nothing but self interest and deep narcissism and cynicism about the world, I found myself at church surrounded by people who could not be more grateful for simply having another day on this planet. Grateful for the gift of life and even the trials that life presents us. And the courage to trust God in the face of adversity. It was something that reduced me to tears to witness. It felt like affirmation that this is what’s correct.
On this Easter weekend I reflect on my life and realize that I’m becoming a new version of myself as I follow this path. But part of growing up, part of becoming wise is burning off the dead wood that was your old self. Our life and society itself constantly goes through a state of life, death and rebirth. That is how I see the resurrection to be real. I don’t have all the answers nor do I claim to have. I don’t even understand God and may never really have the capacity to conceptualize God anymore than an ant can conceptualize man.
I do know that I’ve witnessed enough of this natural world to believe there is a design to it. And you simply do not have a design without a designer. Whatever that may be. So my challenge ahead is to embrace this path and solidify my beliefs. And stand in the light wearing my truth in the open unafraid of petty, superficial trials. I went into this to battle conflict, so I can’t allow myself to shy away from it. I seek to do right by all those around me. I will carry my burden and ascend to the city of God where I will take my place in the greater destiny of the world. I encourage you to contemplate on this and at least step outside of your grey area to stand for something. Because if you stand for nothing you fall for everything. Happy Easter.
“He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from off all faces.” (Isaiah 25:8)