Watch Philip Defranco discuss the controversy around Jordan Peele’s comments:

Today Jordan Peele found himself in the sunken place of the culture war when he advocated for white genocide. Or so you would think given the reaction of some people online. But such is the state of our polarized, outrage addicted culture. The quote that the clickbait journalism ran with to illicit the backlash was, “I don’t see myself casting a white dude as the lead in my movie.” And with that the culture war exploded in outrage as all the SJWs, Nazis, shitlords and Otherkin converged on their local parks and engaged in a Ron Burgundy style brawl that was so intense that I’m sure we’ll see some popular figures in the new Smash Bros DLC.

Ok, it wasn’t THAT bad. And in fact Jordan Peele went on to say:

“Not that I don’t like white dudes but I’ve seen that movie. It really is one of the best, greatest pieces of this story, is the feeling like we are in this time – a renaissance has happened and proved the myths about representation in the industry are false. The way I look at it, I get to cast black people in my movies. I feel fortunate to be in this position where I can say to Universal, ‘I want to make a $20 million horror movie with a black family.’ And they say yes.”

But in the cesspool that is the twitterverse we, of course, saw a lot of people take the bait. Of course the point of this tabloid was to incite outrage and draw attention and benefit from all the clicks and views propped up by everyone on all sides road raging about it online. Because like the ex girlfriend who stalked me, negative attention is still attention. But we all apparently have yet to truly learn that. And one such poor bastard happened to be someone whose content I enjoy, Jeremy over at TheQuartering (on twitter, youtube, minds, facebook). Jeremy tweeted out the article with the comment, “Imagine saying…’I don’t see myself hiring white dudes’ and being applauded. These times…”

Watch TheQuartering explain the situation around his tweet:

This picked up attention from others online and made its way onto the Philip Defranco show who reported on the controversy. Now I’m just not going to touch on the ouroboros nature of these incidents where journalists produce clickbait, then content creators expose clickbait, therefore effectively taking the bait. Then indie dude, like myself, with nothing better to do shares said click baited click bait to all his friends which only produces further clickbait. BUT there’s a real point to be made through all this noise. Jeremy isn’t wrong. But he’s also not right. And most of us are usually in this boat.

To simply dismiss legitimate claims of racism is only making the situation worse. There is no such thing as ‘reverse racism’ or the ‘false equivalency’ of comparing blacks and whites to black and white situations. But the real question here is was there any real racism that took place here? On the surface it sure looks that way. And let’s not kid ourselves, you replace the word “white” with the word “black” or “latino” or “asian” or whatever and of course it would be a morally wrong thing to say. So if the goal here is equality then we should be striving for nothing less. But is this a racist incident?

I’m about to sound like I work for Patreon but I really think these things need to be observed through a case-by-case basis. And in order to understand the words we really must understand the person. Look at what happened to Kevin Hart. He was fired from hosting the Oscars after online outrage over a tweet from 2011 which read, “Yo if my son comes home & try’s 2 play with my daughters doll house I’m going 2 break it over his head & say n my voice ‘stop that’s gay.'”

Watch Ellen sit down with Kevin Hart to help re-hire him as Oscars Host:

Despite the fact this is something Kevin Hart has already addressed in the past, according to him, this didn’t stop the Oscars from dropping him faster than they hired him. Like Hart said himself in a snapchat reaction to the news, do people actually think that someone can’t grow and learn in 8 years? Do we all just start to view all of history through the critical lense of today’s cultural context? And where exactly are these flawless people? These pure, innocent people, who’ve never made a mistake, that these trolls seem to believe exist. Guess what? They don’t exist. We’re all horrible, flawed monsters navigating our way through the fog of life, just coasting along to whatever solid ground we can find.

Kevin Hart watched a life-long dream crumble beneath him. Even after Ellen sat him down and attempted to get him to fight for his job, the damage had already been done. Not the defamation against him but the damage to his dream. The fun, glamour and social relevance that this ceremony represented to him throughout his life, which he put on a pedestal, all came crashing down with their weak willed, bad faith, reactionary abandon of principal at the first sight of risk.

Oh, and the online trolls then came for Ellen, attempting to reduce probably one of the biggest LGBT icons to “just another white woman”. I’m sorry, Ellen is one of the kindest, sweetest, most positive people we have out there so to try and diminish the reputation and presence she’s earned, only reveals your own ill intentions. Ellen didn’t emerge in a time when your ethnicity and sexual orientation were celebrated in society like they are today. She was the rose that bloomed from the crack in the hard concrete when you lost you’re sitcom for your sexual identity.

But to be real, that’s really all she is to the intersectional community. Just another white woman. How dare she not stay in her lane. These social justice warriors are sadists. Sadists who are addicted to the dopamine hit that a good lynching provides. To me, they’re just as dangerous as these white supremacists advocating for a civil war. So don’t kid yourself, there’s no difference between antifa and those antifa target.

Watch SJW mob surround Tucker Carlson’s home where his wife hid in their closet:

The only thing more pathetic than the boy who cried wolf is the fool who listened to the false claim. And after everything the Oscars represented to Kevin, for them to sell him out so quick to appease a minority, faux-outrage mob of trolls reveals that, to them, he’s really nothing more than their dancing monkey to use for ratings. And once you see it, you cannot unsee it. Good on Hart for not giving THEM a second chance. They don’t deserve him. And so ever further the Oscars spiral into irrelevancy. Because they bent the knee to the social justice mob who aims to run black men out of town in the name of progress. When you don’t stand for anything you’ll fall for everything.

My point about Jordan Peele is just that, context. I wouldn’t describe myself as a Jordan Peele “fan” but I’ve always enjoyed his work. And When I watched “Get Out” I didn’t see the persecution of white people despite the fact literally every white actor in the film was a villain. I empathized with the main lead, believe it or not, despite the fact our skin looks different. Go figure!

But I know I was able to do so because the story and the actors enabled that relationship. When I was presented with the “black boyfriend” narrative it didn’t come across as political propaganda. It felt like cultural relevance. Even if it was a little political. But I was happy to support it given that if this was political, this is how you do it right. Because the concept, the acting, the writing was good. It was something the entire audience could unite under.

Watch Jordan Peele discuss how white audiences reacted to “Get Out”:

The issues he’s talking about are real issues. It’s always been cringey when studios feel the need to cast white actors in place of other ethnic roles like when they cast Christian Bale as an Egyptian. I think there is a real conversation to be had around visible representation in movies and shows. BUT THAT BEING SAID. So much of our content has been used as social justice propaganda that I completely understand people who may be suffering from political fatigue and just groan at every mention of “empowerment” and “dominance position” this versus “power group” that, yadda, yadda, yadda.

There just seems to be this odd idea that the only way to empower someone is to tear someone else down. Like the only way for a white person to be an “ally” is to just SHUT THE FUCK UP. Wow, great. For me, to be honest, I take more offense to the part where he says, “I’ve seen that movie before”. I totally understand push back against that. What is he even saying? Everything Hitchcock made, everything Kubrick made, star wars, lord of the rings, star trek, etc etc etc are all just the same movie because they were made and starred by whites? I have a feeling that Jordan, himself, was really caught off guard with this interview and was baited into saying some stupid crap. Otherwise he needs to invest in a publicist before he opens his mouth.

Be honest with yourself, when you go to a movie do you think to yourself, “I can’t wait to see all the statistically accurate visible representation according to the demographics of the region where the movie takes place,” or do you think to yourself “this movie looks interesting, I want to see what happens,”?

Racism is racism. Period. Whether you’re white or black or whatever. Period. And like Jordan said himself, the reality is he can now turn to a studio and say “I wanna make a movie about black people” and receive funding. That’s progress. So to keep moving forward let’s focus on how to unite audiences, not divide them. The less risk to a studio the less doubt they can have to fund these sorts of projects. And take risks on new up and comers like Jordan Peele.

I just don’t understand why Peele felt he had to even say this at all. He would have meant the same thing by just saying, “I hire who I feel best fits into my story,” and just left it at that. I feel like he was probably baited into weighing in about identity politics and just fell for the bait. Probably an example of someone who surrounds themselves with yes people and gets so caught up with confirmation bias they are lulled into a false sense of security by the wrong people.

But that being said, Jordan Peele is now a Hollywood elite, regardless his roots and so if what we want is true equality then he needs to take the public reaction for whatever it is and deal with it. This is the nature of the Hollywood beast. And he’s a big boy, he can take responsibility for the things he says. I’m sure he’s not losing sleep over what guys like me think. Nor am I losing sleep over shit people like him say. Everything else from everyone else is just playing the outrage game. On both ends of the spectrum. I didn’t really care for “US” but I’m still looking forward to his next one.

It’s easy to see politics everywhere you look these days. But I do think these situations must be evaluated as a case by case basis otherwise we just paint with broad brushes and end up dehumanizing people in the same way as the SJW. We can’t rob people of their individual sovereignty based on surface level evidence that we use to act as judge, jury and executioner. We’re all entitled to our opinions but we also all need to be mindful of when dialogue devolves into rhetoric. Because we’re ALL guilty of that.

Sometimes if we forget to take proper care of ourselves and reconnect with the outside world then our oversaturated minds can easily regurgitate these narratives as we project this rhetoric overtop of otherwise innocent situations. Not that these comments are innocent but I do not believe Jordan Peele is guilty of any wrongdoing.

Dear outrage mobs, this is how you look:

“I’ll say this: The scariest monster in the world is human beings and what we are capable of, especially when we get together.”

– Jordan Peele

Language is power. In the attempt to make reprehensible language more palatable both the extremes of the far-left and far-right have utilized a modified terminology which acts as a cocktail of existing words being twisted into new words to appear more credible at their faux sophistication but also to communicate to a specific audience while leaving the rest of us, who may object to said language, in the fog. The far-right language tends to be more blatant with it’s offense whereas the far-left is more likely to hide concepts behind a frankenstein of “isms” and qualifying prefaces.

My intention here is to help you become more aware of the coded language others may use to manipulate you. If you know someone who engages with a lot of these types of language then this COULD be an indicator that they are becoming ideologically possessed. Good books for them to read to de-radicalize them would be 12 rules for life by Jordan Peterson, Righteous Minds by Jonathan Haidt and Political Tribes by Amy Chua. If they’re not too far gone, these may be books to help pull them away from the cliffs edge.

4chan:

Ok. I feel the need to start here, with this. 4chan has just become such a central point to the culture war that I think anyone who wants the full context to what’s been going on needs to understand 4chan. Most journalists will simply refer to 4chan as the breeding ground of hate. But there’s a lot to this. And people tend to forget what the internet was like before 2016. Meaning people really only started paying attention after Trump won the election. Launching this deranged obsession with censoring and banning everything distasteful.

As much as I’d like to blame Trump for everything I think the real issue here is social media. Facebook and Twitter and these major companies have essentially served to pool EVERYONE in to the same platform where we are all confront with each other at the same time and if it’s anything I’ve learned from the internet growing up is that there’s a reason we form cleeks. Because there certainly are some communities that are just incompatible with other communities. And there’s something liberating in having your own corner of the internet to flee to from the stress of daily life.

And in a world wherever everything you say and do is recorded and saved to a cloud by your smart watch, your online profile, your chat forums, And there’s nothing wrong with that. If we ALL got along and conformed to one centralized community I honestly think we would lose the colour and flavour in the world. Not that I’m trying to defend or apologize for the most deplorable among us but these are not normal people. Don’t fool yourself. This isn’t really a conversation about hate and bigotry. It’s not an “us” vs “Them”. There’s just us. And the real conversation is about mental health. I’d also argue we would lose the ability to innovate as we would all align to the same conventional thinking and doing. Even if we managed to conform to one single entity it would just be a matter of time until a renaissance emerged. Because we are individuals first with individual needs and desires.

I think for one to truly understand 4chan you must first understand sites like newgrounds. See the thing is, the internet has always been a flaming asshole of trolls and shenanigans. If anything it’s only gotten better. But today thanks to social media it’s in our face, forcing us to look at it 24/7 so it’s created the illusion that it’s worse:

Watch the history of newgrounds:

Watch the history of 4chan:

Watch the history of 4chan Boards:

Watch Christopher “Moot” Pool deliver a 2010 TED talk about 4chan:

Watch the Tumblr-4chan wars:

Watch the Triggering of Shia Labeouf; he will not divide us:

Watch Top 10 4chan pranks:

Watch Top 5 scariest 4chan posts:

Top 15 Mysteries solved by 4chan:

Watch Documentary How Anonymous hackers changed the world:

Gamergate:

The Gamergate controversy stemmed from a harassment campaign conducted primarily through the use of the hashtag #GamerGate. The controversy centered on issues of sexism and progressivism in video game culture. Gamergate is used as a blanket term for the controversy as well as for the harassment campaign and actions of those participating in it.

Beginning in August 2014, a harassment campaign targeted several women in the video game industry; notably game developers Zoë Quinn and Brianna Wu, as well as feminist media critic Anita Sarkeesian. After Eron Gjoni, Quinn’s former boyfriend, wrote a disparaging blog post about her, #gamergate hashtag users falsely accused Quinn of an unethical relationship with journalist Nathan Grayson. Harassment campaigns against Quinn and others included doxing, threats of rape, and death threats.

Gamergate proponents (“Gamergaters”) have stated that they were a movement, but had no official leaders or manifesto. Gamergate supporters organized anonymously or pseudonymously on online platforms such as 4chan, Internet Relay Chat, Twitter, and Reddit. Statements claiming to represent Gamergate have been inconsistent, making it difficult for commentators to identify goals and motives. Gamergate supporters said there was unethical collusion between the press and feminists, progressives, and social critics. These concerns have been dismissed by commentators as trivial, conspiracy theories, groundless, or unrelated to actual issues of ethics. As a result, Gamergate has often been defined by the harassment its supporters engaged in. Gamergate supporters have frequently responded to this by denying that the harassment took place or by falsely claiming that it was manufactured by the victims.

The controversy has been described as a manifestation of a culture war over cultural diversification, artistic recognition, and social criticism in video games, and over the social identity of gamers. Many supporters of Gamergate oppose what they view as the increasing influence of feminism on video game culture; as a result, Gamergate is often viewed as a right-wing backlash against progressivism. Industry responses to the harassment campaign have focused on ways to minimise harm and prevent similar events. Gamergate has led figures both inside and outside the industry to focus on methods of addressing online harassment.

Watch PSA Sitch explain the gamergate controversy:

👌🏻 The “OK” hand sign:

Started as a trolling prank on 4chan to trick media into believing this symbol was a nod to white supremacy. The idea being the fingers form a ‘W’ and the hole between the fingers and forearm form a ‘P’, referencing the words “White Power”. Since this is a common symbol everyone from basketball players to chefs to almost everyone else uses, the joke is everything is a white supremacy conspiracy. The media, predictably, ate it up and now those on the left regard the symbol as a modern day nazi salute. The best most recent example would probably be Cathy Griffin referencing the Covington kids on twitter. The prank was so successful that many now use the symbol in memes and in photobombing so much that the symbol has lost it’s irony.

Watch Tim Pool cover Sweden government acknowledging 4chan memes as hate symbols:

Watch Tim Pool cover hate symbols derived from 4chan:

Milk:

Another 4chan prank which has made it’s way on the Swedish government list of hate symbols. Widely received by media around the world that people are using milk to celebrate visible whiteness and white supremacy.

Make America Great Again:

The MAGA hat has become so polarizing that to show such open support for Donald Trump in such a public way is, to the left, a symbol that advocates for intolerance and bigotry. The belief is when Trump says “make America great again” he’s actually saying that minorities and progressivism has made America weak and in order to make it ‘great again’ we must amend equal rights initiatives and disproportionately privilege ‘white men’ over everyone else. Even if what Trump is actually means bringing back jobs to the lower and middle class and improving the economy. This is how it is widely received despite how Trump explains it. It’s more than likely, given how often Trump has made reference to Ronald Reagan that he has taken a note from his 1980 campaign slogan “let’s make america great again”. It’s important to note that Reagan was able to appeal to working class democratic voters and in many ways this is also a Trump tactic.

Today it’s like holding a sign at a homosexual wedding which reads “God hates fagots”. It says immigrants are inherently evil and unwelcome. It says women and minorities do not deserve equal rights to white men. Because this is such an egregious offense, the majority of those who wear it often do so as a method of trolling those triggered by it. But in the context of wearing it at political events or rallies, it’s simply a form of solidarity to support Donald Trump and the policies he’s initiated since taking presidency. Such as support for the wall, moving the American embassy to Jerusalem and Trump’s support for free speech, etc. However to the left, wearing a MAGA hat is the equivalent to waving a Nazi flag and, to an extremely small minority, some do wear it as such.

🐸 Pepe:

this is the emoji form of Pepe the frog. This is such a loaded topic that I really feel a mini 10 minute doc video will be a better way to explain this one:

((())) Triple parentheses (also (((echoes))) or coincidence markers): 

used to highlight those of Jewish or partial Jewish ancestry, as such: (((NAME))). Users of triple parentheses allege that triple parentheses highlight how much control Jews have over the world, which bears close resemblance to the “International Jewish Conspiracy” conspiracy theory. (Or: It’s a convenient way to poison the well by smearing someone or something as Jewish, in a racist appeal to identity.) Nazi blog The Right Stuff calls these cases “coincidences” in which “Jewish surnames echo throughout history”.^[8] The hashtag #Cohencidence (which trended on Twitter for a while) is linked to the idea of coincidence marking, as a portmanteau of the word “coincidence” with the common Jewish surname “Cohen”.^[9]

Intentionally using triple parenthesis around one’s own name (e.g. on Twitter) is sometimes seen as an act of defiance against the alt-right.

13%: Racist dog whistle for African American people.^[10]

56%: Also known as Amerimutt or La Creatura, refers to the claim that the USA is 56% white.^[11]

1488 or 14/88:

a reference to two racist concepts, the Fourteen Words created by white supremacist David Lane (“We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children,” or more rarely “Because the beauty of the White Aryan woman must not perish from the earth”) and 88 (Which originally referenced Lane’s “88 Precepts” but now represents two H’s (8^th letter of the alphabet) to make “HH”, for Heil Hitler.) It is claimed that the 14 words were inspired by a specific sentence from Volume 1, Chapter 8 of Mein Kampf which is exactly 88 words in length, though neither Lane nor his publisher Fourteen Word Press ever claimed this and it is probably a coincidence.

Based:

A compliment to describe someone who is authoritative, reasonable and views situations objectively.

Beta/Cuck(old)/Soy Boy:

Used to describe male feminists, male ‘allies’, males who virtue signal and/or males who subscribe to any ideology which require they engage with self hatred and/or self destructive behaviour. The soy boy is a characterization that all “girly men” likely drink soy milk with the theory that soy contains phytoestrogen and therefore drinking soy raises the levels of estrogen in your body. This then gives men feminine attributes including the possibility of developing breasts, making men more prone to the feminism ideology and other effeminate features like if you feel that you are required to speak on behalf of women. You are a male. Let women speak for themselves. but this boundary confusion between gender identity can be a direct symptom to heightened estrogen via soy milk product. Note: these are rumours and myth not exactly backed up by science. More based on trolling over immutable traits shared between men who “virtue signal” or identify as “allies” or “male feminists” or other such champions of political correctness.

For example. If your avatar display photo depicts you sipping from a mug with large glasses and a single raised eyebrow you likely have higher than usual levels of estrogen as brought about by regular ingestion of soy based product. Most likely soy milk specifically. Other signs could be the desire to let your partner participate in an open relationship while neglecting your sexual relationship in the process. Hence the term cuckold. And personality traits like these make you less of a man, hence the term Beta. If:

• you are less attractive to women than the average male,
• you can be easily killed,
• you have utopian visions of the world while unable to keep your own household and/or bedroom in functional, clean order,
• you still live with your parents as an adult child,
• are prone to participate in self-destructive behaviours or self-flagellation,
• you pursue expediency and struggle with delayed gratification,
• often emotionally immature and unstable at times
• your partner finds better companionship from the dog you share

Chances are you are a beta male. Not intended to be terminology from any one specific scientific journal but more a trolling oriented attempt to measure value from leadership qualities, overall competence and your contribution to your family and society as a whole and place that at the heart of what it means to be a man. Suggesting that if you score low in these categories, a good man you do not make.

Watch Pewdiepie satire on soyboys:

Blood and soil:

one of the rallying cries of the alt-right. It is a translation from the German Blut und Boden, a phrase which originated in German 19^th-century agrarian nationalist-romanticism, and which was adopted by the Nazi Ministry of Food and Agriculture. Under the original Nazis, it indicated then that the original descendants (Blut) belonged to the land (Boden).

Cuckservative: 

a conservative who doesn’t hold ethno-nationalist sentiments on race and immigration. Or: they are a conservative who is cucked instead of based

Feels before reals:

The habit of people to react to a debate or argument by the way they feel about it, emotionally. A criticism without any real critique other than the emotional response it elicits. Or the prioritizing of one’s emotions over objective rationalization. A term influenced in large part by Ben Shapiro’s famous quote, “facts don’t care about your feelings.” And in a small way by Gad Saad’s quote, “fuck your feelings.”

Goy (plural: goyim):

is the standard Hebrew biblical term for a “nation”, but has also acquired the meaning of “someone who is not Jewish” (synonymous with gentile). It is not an inherently pejorative term. The term is used in order to reinforce the idea of an International Jewish Conspiracy.^[73]

Identity politics:

The politicization of identity. In common usage refers to a tendency of people sharing a particular racial, religious, ethnic, social, or cultural identity to form exclusive political alliances, instead of engaging in traditional broad-based party politics,^[1] or promote their particular interests without regard for interests of a larger political group.^[2] In academic usage, the term has been used to refer to a wide range of political activities and theoretical analysis rooted in experiences of injustice shared by different social groups.

It’s also the action of putting emphasis on superficial characteristics such as skin colour, ability or disability and gender are used to artificially restructure the societal hierarchy. If you are a white man then it would be considered politically incorrect to question any claim or accusation made by a black woman. If you are a black woman it would be politically incorrect to question any claim or accusation made by a disabled LGBT person of colour. The politicizing of identity.

Government can participate in identity politics when they introduce a bias into policy making where they essentially create a protected group over all other groups. Like when the Trudeau government put forth motion 103 (referred to the anti-islamophobia motion) where they condemn ‘hateful conduct’ against Islam and Muslims. Despite the data that reveals a rise in anti-semitism and other forms of discrimination that remains prevalent, the Liberal government voted down an amendment which would include all other religions and religious people. Studies are now being done to study Islamophobia while ignoring other forms of hate crimes.

Or when Justin Trudeau produced a gender parity cabinet despite the fact that roughly only 26% of MPs were women. prioritizing identity and visible representation (diversity) over merit. Citing the justification for doing so as “because it’s 2015”. Implying that the concept of meritocracy was old fashion, outdated, obsolete thinking. Also see intersectionality.

Intersectionality:

The term intersectionality was coined by Black feminist scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw in 1989. ”Intersectionality“ represents an analytic framework that attempts to identify how interlocking systems of power impact those who are most marginalized in society. It is widely seen that intersectionality is just a new label for marxism in an attempt to make marxism more palatable.

Watch: Panel discussion on “is intersectionality a religion?”:

Oppression olympics:

The supposed competition for oppression points to determine one’s place on the progressive stack or the intersectional hierarchy. In 1993, the phrase “oppression olympics” was coined by feminist author and activist Elizabeth “Betita” Martínez to challenge the idea of the “hierarchy of oppressions” when addressing inequalities faced by minorities.^[98]

Normie:

used by the right and left to describe those who live conventional lives and often opt out of participating in the culture war. They generally accept mainstream narratives at face value whether that mainstream be the hyper partisan Fox news or CNN, if they follow any news at all. They likely do not participate in online discourse over social media and are generally unaware of cultural developments. Aka they are NORMAL people. A derogatory undertone to describe a person who is considered neutral within the culture war.

NPC:

In video games an NPC is a “Non-Player Character”. A bot or program often used to be interacted with within the video game. Your character walks into a building and there are other players around to interact with however there is no real person behind the character, you are interacting with the game software. The characters are programmed to say one or two things or have predetermined dialogue when receiving a quest or task from them. Where one’s actions are not a product of free will but limited to the parameters programmed for it. Also subject to all possible glitches that come along with such programming.

Watch a compilation of glitchy NPCs interactions in the popular game Oblivion:

This is often used to describe the excessive reporting by MSNBC and CNN of the Trump/Russia collusion as “orange man bad”. In other words you don’t really need to listen to what’s actually being said because all conclusions of all panel discussions and all breaking news and all analysis will lead to the same “trump is bad” sentiment. It’s engaging in a debate when you have already determined the outcome of the debate and only intend to steer the conversation towards that conclusion, without honestly contending with other sides of the argument.

An example of NPC culture on the right-wing would be how everything Trudeau ever does is always the worst possible thing. Whether sitting at the dinner table at holidays or sharing thoughts on facebook or engaging in debates using the same overused tropes rhetoric to make the same point they always make that Trudeau is the worst prime minister ever. Whether Trudeau gets a haircut or initiates a non-binding motion, it’s always just further proof that Liberals are ruining the country. They just become a talking head for the opposition.

In terms of ideologies, an NPC is someone who similarly reduces themselves to a mere talking head for the doctrine of the ideology they subscribe to. For libertarians regulation is always the enemy. For free speech absolutists speech always trumps everything else despite how indefensible the speech may be. For feminism it’s that women are always victims at the hands of men despite what studies and data reveal otherwise. For the identity politics crowd it’s the refusal to believe that the very perception of reality does not exist outside of the way they decide it to be, without needing to justify such claims. White men are allowed to have their human rights violated because they are all collectively tainted, guilty and unqualified to hold independent opinions.

The neo-marxists will in one minute claim there is no such thing as biological sex differences and the only reason we even have the conventions around men and women is because as a society we impose such conventions on blank slate babies living in an oppressive world of stereotyping but then in the next minute completely validate one’s desire to transition from one sex to the other. Without any interest of stepping outside of their confirmation bias social bubble, these NPCs remain within the parameters of their programming.

Post-Colonialism:

a term modeled by post-modernism with which it shares certain concepts and methods, and may be thought of as a reaction to or departure from colonialism in the same way postmodernism is a reaction to modernism. The ambiguous term colonialism may refer either to a system of government or to an ideology or world view underlying that system—in general postcolonialism represents an ideological response to colonialist thought, rather than simply describing a system that comes after colonialism. The term postcolonial studies may be preferred for this reason.

Postcolonialism encompasses a wide variety of approaches, and theoreticians may not always agree on a common set of definitions. On a simple level, it may seek through anthropological study to build a better understanding of colonial life from the point of view of the colonized people, based on the assumption that the colonial rulers are unreliable narrators.

Unreliable Narrators:

a narrator whose credibility has been seriously compromised.^[1] The term was coined in 1961 by Wayne C. Booth in The Rhetoric of Fiction.^[1][2] While unreliable narrators are almost by definition first-person narrators, arguments have been made for the existence of unreliable second- and third-person narrators, especially within the context of film and television, although sometimes also in literature.^[3]

(this falls under why lately Shakespeare has been removed from literature studies as through the modern lense that intersectionality provides, Shakespeare’s work is illegitimate material to study given his place of privilege and the lack of his ability to speak to the minority experience. His position of authority was deemed to be falsely appointed to him by those in positions of power and we ought to be observing him as ‘just another dead white man’ within his appropriate place on the social hierarchy.)

Narration: is the use of a written or spoken commentary to convey a story to an audience.^[1] Narration encompasses a set of techniques through which the creator of the story presents their story, including:

• Narrative point of view^[2]: the perspective (or type of personal or non-personal “lens”) through which a story is communicated
• Narrative voice^[2]: the format through which a story is communicated
• Narrative time: the grammatical placement of the story’s time-frame in the past, the present, or the future.

A narrator is a personal character or a non-personal voice that the creator (author) of the story develops to deliver information to the audience, particularly about the plot. In the case of most written narratives (novels, short stories, poems, etc.), the narrator typically functions to convey the story in its entirety. The narrator may be a voice devised by the author as an anonymous, non-personal, or stand-alone entity; as the author as a character; or as some other fictional or non-fictional character appearing and participating within their own story. The narrator is considered participant if he/she is a character within the story, and non-participant if he/she is an implied character or an omniscient or semi-omniscient being or voice that merely relates the story to the audience without being involved in the actual events. Some stories have multiple narrators to illustrate the storylines of various characters at the same, similar, or different times, thus allowing a more complex, non-singular point of view.

Narration encompasses not only who tells the story, but also how the story is told (for example, by using stream of consciousness or unreliable narration). In traditional literary narratives (such as novels, short stories, and memoirs), narration is a required story element; in other types of (chiefly non-literary) narratives, such as plays, television shows, video games, and films, narration is merely optional.

Sometimes the narrator’s unreliability is made immediately evident. For instance, a story may open with the narrator making a plainly false or delusional claim or admitting to being severely mentally ill, or the story itself may have a frame in which the narrator appears as a character, with clues to the character’s unreliability. A more dramatic use of the device delays the revelation until near the story’s end. In some cases, the reader discovers that in the foregoing narrative, the narrator had concealed or greatly misrepresented vital pieces of information. Such a twist ending forces readers to reconsider their point of view and experience of the story. In some cases the narrator’s unreliability is never fully revealed but only hinted at, leaving readers to wonder how much the narrator should be trusted and how the story should be interpreted.

De-Colonization:

the undoing of colonialism, the latter being the process whereby a nation establishes and maintains its domination over one or more other territories. Wikipedia

This is often used by postmodern neo-marxists to justify a form of protest aimed at attacking all aspects of whiteness in society. Everything from the tearing down of historical statues or monuments to changing education curriculum to remove the likes of Shakespeare from study. These are all viewed as forms of decolonization. As the western world itself is founded by racism, sexism, bigotry, and a range of phobias (according to the postmodern neomarxists).

Whiteness: 

the social construction of “whiteness” as an ideology tied to social status. Pioneers in the field include W. E. B. Du Bois (“Jefferson Davis as a Representative of Civilization”, 1890; Darkwater, 1920), James Baldwin (The Fire Next Time, 1963), Theodore W. Allen (The Invention of the White Race, 1976, expanded in 1995), Ruth Frankenberg (White Women, Race Matters: The Social Construction of Whiteness, 1993), author and literary critic Toni Morrison (Playing in the Dark: Whiteness and the Literary Imagination, 1992) and historian David Roediger (The Wages of Whiteness, 1991). By the mid-1990s, numerous works across many disciplines analyzed whiteness, and it has since become a topic for academic courses, research and anthologies.

A central tenet of whiteness studies is a reading of history and its effects on the present that is inspired by postmodernism and historicism, in which the very concept of racial superiority is said to have been socially constructed in order to justify discrimination against non-whites. Since the 19th century, some writers have argued that the phenotypical significances attributed to specific races are without biological association, and that race is therefore not a valid biological concept.^[1] Many scientists have demonstrated that racial theories are based upon an arbitrary clustering of phenotypical categories and customs, and can overlook the problem of gradations between categories.^[2]

Thomas K. Nakayama and Robert L. Krizek write about whiteness as a “strategic rhetoric,” asserting, in the essay “Whiteness: A Strategic Rhetoric”, that whiteness is a product of “discursive formation” and a “rhetorical construction”. Nakayama and Krizek write, “there is no ‘true essence’ to ‘whiteness’: there are only historically contingent constructions of that social location.”^[3] Nakayama and Krizek also suggest that by naming whiteness, one calls out its centrality and reveals its invisible, central position. Whiteness is considered normal and neutral, therefore, to name whiteness means that one identifies whiteness as a rhetorical construction which can be dissected to unearth its values and beliefs.

Major areas of research in whiteness studies include the nature of white privilege and white identity, the historical process by which a white racial identity was created, the relation of culture to white identity, and possible processes of social change as they affect white identity. Other topics among whiteness studies include “Whiteness and architecture” and “Whiteness and education”.

Writer David Horowitz draws a distinction between whiteness studies and other analogous disciplines. “Black studies celebrates blackness, Chicano studies celebrates Chicanos, women’s studies celebrates women, and white studies attacks white people as evil.”^[48]Dagmar R. Myslinska, an Adjunct Associate Professor of Law at Fordham University, argues that whiteness studies overlooks the heterogeneity of whites’ experience, be it due to class, immigrant status,^[49] or geographical location.^[50]

Barbara Kay, a columnist for the National Post, has sharply criticized whiteness studies, writing that it “points to a new low in moral vacuity and civilizational self-loathing” and is an example of “academic pusillanimity.” According to Kay, whiteness studies “cuts to the chase: It is all, and only, about white self-hate.”^[51]

Kay noted the leanings of the field by quoting Jeff Hitchcock, co-founder and executive director of the Center for the Study of White American Culture (CSWAC)^[52] who stated in a 1998 speech:

There is no crime that whiteness has not committed against people of colour…. We must blame whiteness for the continuing patterns today… which damage and prevent the humanity of those of us within it….We must blame whiteness for the continuing patterns today that deny the rights of those outside of whiteness and which damage and pervert the humanity of those of us within it.^[51][53]

Regarding whiteness studies (WS) more broadly, Kay wrote:

WS teaches that if you are white, you are branded, literally in the flesh, with evidence of a kind of original sin. You can try to mitigate your evilness, but you can’t eradicate it. The goal of WS is to entrench permanent race consciousness in everyone — eternal victimhood for nonwhites, eternal guilt for whites — and was most famously framed by WS chief guru, Noel Ignatiev, former professor at Harvard University [sic, Ignatiev was a Ph.D. student and then a tutor at Harvard, but never a professor], now teaching at the Massachusetts College of Art: “The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race — in other words, to abolish the privileges of the white skin.”^[51]

White Privilege:  

In 1974–1975, Allen extended his analysis of “white privilege”, racial oppression, and social control to the colonial period with his ground-breaking Class Struggle and the Origin of Racial Slavery: The Invention of the White Race.^[31][32] With continued research, he developed his ideas as his seminal two-volume The Invention of the White Race published in 1994 and 1997.^[33][34]

For almost forty years, Allen offered a detailed historical analysis of the origin, maintenance, and functioning of “white-skin privilege” and “white privilege” in such writings as: “White Supremacy in U.S. History” (1973);^[35] “Class Struggle and the Origin of Racial Slavery: The Invention of the White Race” (1975);^[31] “The Invention of the White Race,” Vol. 1: “Racial Oppression and Social Control” (1994, 2012);^[33] “The Invention of the White Race,” Vol. 2: “The Origin of Racial Oppression in Anglo-America” (1997, 2012);^[34]“Summary of the Argument of ‘The Invention of the White Race'” Parts 1^[36] and 2^[37] (1998); “In Defense of Affirmative Action in Employment Policy” (1998);^[38] “‘Race’ and ‘Ethnicity’: History and the 2000 Census” (1999);^[39] and “On Roediger’s Wages of Whiteness” (Revised Edition)”;^[40]

In his historical work, Allen asserted that:

• the “white race” was invented as a ruling class social control formation in the late 17th-/early-18th century Anglo-American plantation colonies (principally Virginia and Maryland);
• central to this process was the ruling-class plantation bourgeoisie conferring “white race” privileges on European-American working people;
• these privileges were not only against the interests of African Americans, they were also “poison”, “ruinous”, a baited hook, to the class interests of working people;
• white supremacy, reinforced by “white skin privilege”, has been the main retardant of working-class consciousness in the US; and
• struggle for radical social change should direct principal efforts at challenging white supremacy and “white skin privileges”.^{[27]:pp. 10–11, 34} Allen’s work influenced Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and sectors of the “new left” and paved the way for “white privilege”, “race as social construct”, and “whiteness studies”. He also raised important questions about developments in those areas, and he avoided using the term “whiteness”, using quotation marks when he did.^{[36][27]:pp. 8, 78 n. 187, 80–89}

Laura Pulido writes about the relation of white privilege to racism.

“White privilege [is] a highly structural and spatial form of racism … I suggest that historical processes of suburbanization and decentralization are instances of white privilege and have contributed to contemporary patterns of environmental racism.”^[41]

Writers such as Peggy McIntosh say that social, political, and cultural advantages are accorded to whites in global society. She argues that these advantages seem invisible to white people, but obvious to non-whites. McIntosh argues that whites utilize their whiteness, consciously or unconsciously, as a framework to classify people and understand their social locations. In addition, even though many white people understand that whiteness is associated with privilege, they do not acknowledge their privilege because they view themselves as average and non-racist. Essentially, whiteness is invisible to white people.^[42]

For instance,

“I think whites are carefully taught not to recognize white privilege, as males are taught not to recognize male privilege. So I have begun in an untouched way to ask what it is like to have white privilege. I have come to see white privilege as an invisible package of unearned assets which I can count on cashing in each day, but about which I was ‘meant’ to remain oblivious” (188).^[42]

McIntosh calls for Americans to acknowledge white privilege so that they can more effectively attain equality in American society. She argues,

“To redesign social systems we need first to acknowledge their colossal unseen dimensions. The silences and denials surrounding privilege are the key political tool here. They keep the thinking about equality or equity incomplete, protecting unearned advantage and conferred dominance by making these taboo subjects” (192).^[42]

Watch Jordan Peterson Debunk white privilege:

Male Privilege:

a concept within sociology for examining social, economic, and political advantages or rights that are available to men solely on the basis of their sex. A man’s access to these benefits may vary depending on how closely they match their society’s ideal masculine norm. Wikipedia

Dead White man/men:

there are historical figures such as philosophers like Socrates, playwrights like Shakespeare and founders like Sir John A. Macdonald, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and inventors like Alexander Graham Bell, Bill Gates, Albert Einstein. Through the lense of intersectionality and neo-marxism, these men are all visibly white and therefore placed low on the intersectionality hierarchy as tainted and guilty by association with the crimes and immoral actions of other fellow white men. The idea is that they have risen to prominence as a result of illegitimate privileging by those in positions of power and in doing so they have corrupted their positions and fields of study. And no white man can escape the crimes of the past.

Even if the men mentioned here vary in their ethnicity, these ethnicities are leveled at the feet of their visible identity. ‘Whiteness’ encompasses Jews, Italians, British, Scandinavian and anyone else who “passes” for white in the same logic as a transexual man “passes” for a woman. To classify white historically prominent figures as merely “dead white men” is an attempt to retroactively revoke their positions of power and equate them to the level of living white men today which is the bottom social class as collectively tainted and guilty and unqualified to have opinions. Banning the study of these figures is also seen as an attempt to “decolonize” the current system of oppression which their actions served to prop up. To make way for more “diverse” voices which have more authority.

Like Kylo-Ren said in The Last Jedi, “let the past die. Kill it if you have to.” But no, there is no ‘culture war’ going on. I’m just crazy. And soon I’ll just be another dead white man.

Jim Crow:

Jim Crow laws were state and local laws that enforced racial segregation in the Southern United States. All were enacted in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by white Democratic-dominated state legislatures after the Reconstruction period. The laws were enforced until 1965. Wikipedia

Toxic:

used as a qualifier word to operate as a red flag. A toxic relationship is characterized by insecurity, self-centeredness, mean spiritedness, power struggles over control, abusive in nature or enabling of bad habits, attitudes or codependence. Likewise, the word ‘toxic’ holds the same characterization as it is used to qualify a person or group. To signal to others the nature of that individual or group. Usually used for the purposes of politicizing. An attempt to box an individual or group and isolate them from public discourse as someone to be not listened to and dismissed. I.e. this person only gave Captain Marvel a negative review because they are a toxic troll. Not just any troll. Not someone looking for a laugh trying to prank someone. A toxic troll looking to cause harm by their actions.

Captain Marvel and Brie Larson have started to create a blueprint for how to handle toxic trolls – Vox news

It’s effectiveness comes from it’s broadness. Because it doesn’t point in any one direction as to what the nature of the behaviour is, it serves to signal to others that regardless the accusation, there is credibility. To claim someone is sexist, racist or homophobic you generally are required to cite a reference to this claim to explain the prejudice. By merely calling someone “toxic” you get to indicate that there could be various ways in which this person has displayed prejudice and from there you need only cite something disagreeable rather than offensive and the rest can be left up to others projection to fill in the blanks. A person can leave a comment that based on the marketing and personal views on the movie’s main lead they are not looking forward to said movie. For being negative or disagreeable in general the commenter is now vulnerable to being characterized, if nothing else, as toxic. And is vulnerable to having their dissent censored by website conduct policies seeking to weed out ‘hate speech’.

Toxic Masculinity:

Terry Kupers defines toxic masculinity as “the constellation of socially regressive male traits that serve to foster domination, the devaluation of women, homophobia and wanton violence”.

Watch the Gillette advertisement on toxic masculinity:

Watch Joe Rogan react to Toxic masculinity:

Watch Jordan Peterson answer “what is the solution to toxic masculinity”:

Cultural Hegemony: 

In Marxist philosophy, cultural hegemony is the domination of a culturally diverse society by the ruling class who manipulate the culture of that society—the beliefs, explanations, perceptions, values, and mores—so that their imposed, ruling-class worldview becomes the accepted cultural norm; the universally valid dominant ideology, which justifies the social, political, and economic status quo as natural and inevitable, perpetual and beneficial for everyone, rather than as artificial social constructs that benefit only the ruling class.^[1][2]

In philosophy and in sociology, the term cultural hegemony has denotations and connotations derived from the Ancient Greek word ἡγεμονία (hegemonia) indicating leadership and rule. In politics, hegemony is the geopolitical method of indirect imperial dominance, with which the hegemon (leader state) rules subordinate states, by the threat of intervention, an implied means of power, rather than by direct military force, that is, invasion, occupation, and annexation.^[3]

Hegemonic Masculinity:

part of R. W. Connell‘s gender order theory, which recognizes multiple masculinities that vary across time, culture and the individual. Hegemonic masculinity is defined as a practice that legitimizes powerful men’s dominant position in society and justifies the subordination of the common male population and women, and other marginalized ways of being a man.^[1] Conceptually, hegemonic masculinity proposes to explain how and why men maintain dominant social roles over women, and other gender identities, which are perceived as “feminine” in a given society.

As a sociological concept, the nature of hegemonic masculinity derives from the theory of cultural hegemony, by Marxist theorist Antonio Gramsci, which analyses the power relations among the social classes of a society. Hence, in the term hegemonic masculinity, the adjective hegemonic refers to the cultural dynamics by means of which a social group claims, and sustains, a leading and dominant position in a social hierarchy; nonetheless, hegemonic masculinity embodies a form of social organization that has been sociologically challenged and changed.

Post-Modernism:

a broad movement that developed in the mid- to late 20th century across philosophy, the arts, architecture, and criticism and that marked a departure from modernism. The term has also more generally been applied to the historical era following modernity and the tendencies of this era. Wikipedia

Watch Jordan Peterson explain post-modernism:

Neo-Marxism:

encompasses 20th-century approaches that amend or extend Marxism and Marxist theory, typically by incorporating elements from other intellectual traditions such as critical theory, psychoanalysis, or existentialism. Wikipedia

Watch Jordan Peterson Answer “why is marxism so attractive?”:

Problematic:

constituting or presenting a problem or difficulty. Usually used to red flag a person or content as being inappropriate in nature. Those who use the term will often explain the problematic content or person of being “potentially harmful” which is a notion that subscribes to the postmodern concept that harm extends to feelings beyond mere physical altercation. Where ideas are dangerous and words are violence. i.e. to not use a person’s preferred pronoun would be equated to robbing them of their humanity or attempting to exterminate them.

An example of a person who is often described as “problematic” would be Jordan Peterson, author of 12 rules for life. He has been virtually denounced as hateful and accused of abusing his students but as his book has now passed 3 million copies, the hit pieces have all fallen flat. Because those who oppose him cannot make regular slander stick due to the fact that is isn’t a sexist or racist or a homophobe and if anything he actually works to de-radicalize individuals from extremist ideological views. Making his message to the world a net GOOD rather than a net negative. So it’s much easier to simply rate him and his content as problematic.

Because he will have a conversation with anyone and everyone he has taken photos and had conversations with known counter culture ‘trolls’. Even though he has also been denounced as a jewish shill by the ethno-nationalists, that isn’t enough evidence for the postmodern neo-marxists to dismiss concerns around radicalization. And through this guilt-by-association he is deemed problematic. Even though the accusation is hollow and grounded in deceit it still impacts him to this day as he most recently found himself disinvited from a fellowship collaboration to Cambridge University over a study on the Bible. And his book 12 rules for life has been banned from New Zealand in light of the Christchurch shooting. Despite the fact you can still access Mein Kampf.

Land Acknowledgement:

Land acknowledgements are an ‘honest’ and ‘historically accurate’ way to recognize the traditional First Nations, Métis and/or Inuit territories of a place. They can be presented verbally or visually: think signage, short theatre presentations or simple spoken-word greetings. According to Anishinaabe-kwe Wanda Nanibush, the first curator of Indigenous art at the Art Gallery of Ontario (AGO), land acknowledgements have one goal, regardless of format: They commemorate Indigenous peoples’ principal kinship to the land—and the fact that we have not and cannot be erased from her, our collective first mother. “They’re a starting place to a change in how the land is seen and talked about,” she says. “[They] help redefine how people place themselves in relation to First Peoples.”

Watch Lindsay Shepherd on “why I reject indigenous land acknowledgements”:

Inspired by the 94 recommended calls to action contained in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (now known as the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation, or NCTR), land acknowledgements are a necessary first step toward honouring the original occupants of a place. They also help Canadians recognize and respect Indigenous peoples’ inherent kinship beliefs when it comes to the land, especially since those beliefs were restricted for so long. (as per locallove.ca)

Progressive stack:

A reference to the Intersectionality hierarchy where victimhood is synonymous with virtue by granting the dispossessed a status of “marginalization” whether it be people or society or by extension the universe as a whole as being their oppressor, marginalizing them. Add your ethnicity and sexual orientation or gender identity and these will determine your placement on the social hierarchy of intersectionality. Each oppressed check mark representing another virtue to add to the ‘progressive stack’. This is where “virtue signalling” operates as an attempt to accumulate progressive points by proclaiming all the ways in which you utilize your oppression to grant you authority or perhaps your allyship with the oppressed to score points by proxy.

For example, if you were a disabled, lesbian, trans, muslim whos father is black and mother is native then you are essentially untouchable by anyone and everyone. You could probably commit murder and if not for the courts upholding existing laws against murder this society would simply characterize your actions as using the tools of your oppressors against them. BECAUSE WHAT ABOUT THE CRUSADES!? REMEMBER THE CRUSADES!? NONE OF THEM GOT ARRESTED BY COPS IN 2019, SO CONVENIENT!

Whereas if you are a white man you have the opportunity to choose not to breed and further your ethnic privilege. You can ‘step down’ from your voice in society and use your position of power to prop up minorities. Whether you aid their bid for political office or work with non-profit organizations looking to aid marginalized communities or donate your income to such people, these are various ways in which you can seek allyship. When a protest takes place you are expected to participate and use your position of power to disrupt the status quo, by any means necessary, including the use of force. And thus your progressivism stacks ever higher as you seek to climb out of the social hell from where you were placed in the name of progress.

Real/True Diversity:

often used to characterize diversity of opinion as more valuable than diversity of identity (sex/gender, race, religion, etc). The idea that all have an equal say in the global conversation and that you should be judged by your ideas, words and opinions rather than by superficial characteristics like skin colour and genitalia. Not used to justify or to promote disparities in visible representation within public spaces or workplaces/institutions but often misconstrued by leftists as a dog whistle to white supremacy and as an objection to immigration and minorities.

Gas Lighting:

Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation that seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, making them question their own memory, perception, and sanity.Wikipedia

Dog Whistle: 

political messaging employing coded language that appears to mean one thing to the general population but has an additional, different, or more specific resonance for a targeted subgroup. The analogy is to a dog whistle, whose ultrasonic whistling sound is heard by dogs but inaudible to humans.

Watch PSA Sitch explains dog whistling:

Visible Representation:

a reference to visible diversity. If you are a woman watching a movie without any women you do not have representation. If you’re a person of colour before a jury of white people you do not have representation. If you’re a gay person voting for all straight candidates you do not have visible representation. This form of logic is used to explain what many are now calling “barriers to access”. The argument is that a woman is less likely to run for office if the city council is dominated by men. Less people of colour are likely to apply to jobs at a workplace where majority of employees are white. This lack of ‘visible representation’ creates ‘barriers to access’ as it can serve to signal to others that they are not welcome.

This is also considered an example of patriarchy and white privilege by dominating systems and institutions. In other words if you can find an excuse to stop you from getting involved you can then use your own excuse to cite another excuse as to how society is racist and sexist. Not to say there isn’t any validity to this argument worth exploring but visible representation is nothing more than a palatable way of asking for equal outcomes. The process of eliminating all disparities by enforcing all workplaces and institutions to reach a racial and gender parity of employment. See Equity.

Equity:

Equality of outcome, equality of condition, or equality of results is a political concept which is central to some political ideologies and is used regularly in political discourse, often in contrast to the term equality of opportunity. Wikipedia

Watch Jordan Peterson and Jonathan Haidt explain equality of outcome:

Disparities:

a disparity is a form of discrepancy or inconsistency/imbalance. We can observe economic disparities between different regions in the country. We can observe disparities in career jobs. How majority of plumbers are men and majority of nurses are women. Disparities in earnings between employees between gender and ethnicity. Through the lense of post-modern neo-marxists disparities are the basis for their theories on systematic discrimination with regards to things like wage gaps and gender gaps. Often used to argue for equality of opportunity.

The argument being that all disparities represent discrimination or a result of ‘barriers to access’. Instead of entertaining possible multiple variables that could be influencing these disparities the neo-marxists simply chalk these discrepancies up to discrimination. More so to use as evidence of their greater claims of patriarchy, whiteness and western colonial dominance. Rather than attempting to actually address the disparities in question towards finding an actual solution.

Watch Jordan Peterson on whether men and women can ever truly be technically ‘equal’:

Safe Space:

The term safe space refers to places created for individuals who feel marginalized to come together to communicate regarding their experiences with marginalization, most commonly located on university campuses in the western world, but also at workplaces, as in the case of Nokia. Wikipedia

Trigger warning: 

a statement at the start of a piece of writing, video, etc., alerting the reader or viewer to the fact that it contains potentially distressing material (often used to introduce a description of such content).

Watch a panel discussion between Christina Hoff-Sommers, Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying mediated by Peter Boghossian about trigger warnings, safe spaces and academic freedoms:

Libtard:

a derogatory term to characterize liberals as retards.

Snowflake:

argued to originate from the movie Fight Club where Brad Pitt’s character says “You are not special. You’re not a beautiful and unique snowflake. You’re the same decaying organic matter as everything else.” It is a term used to describe a person who is overly sensitive. Often used by conservatives to make fun of liberals. Also used to refer to social justice warriors for their rhetoric around compassion, feelings, trigger warnings and safe spaces.

White Knight:

a pejorative term to describe men who defend women on the internet. Or feel the need to speak for women on women’s issues. Possibly in an attempt to virtue signal their virtues around equal rights. Or to act as an apologist for women. The assumption is that they are looking for a romantic reward in return.^[150][151]

White Genocide:

The white genocide conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theory, generally associated with neo-Nazi, far-right, alt-right, identitarian and white nationalist, supremacist, and white separatist ideologies, … Wikipedia

White Guilt:

the individual or collective guilt felt by some white people for harm resulting from racist treatment of ethnic minorities by other white people both historically and currently in the United States and to a lesser extent in Canada, South Africa and the United Kingdom. Wikipedia

Watch Vice news cover one method of alleviating white guilt:

Watch Lauren Chen Debunk white guilt:

Populism:

Populism is a range of political approaches that deliberately appeal to “the people”, often juxtaposing this group against the “elite”. There is no single definition of the term, which developed in the 19th century and has been used to mean various things since that time. Wikipedia

Social Justice Warrior:

an individual who promotes socially progressive views, including feminism, civil rights, and multiculturalism, as well as identity politics. Wikipedia

SJWs operate in online mobs and tend to operate in coordinated attacks to slander and spam whomever they deem problematic. Anyone who speaks out against political correctness will likely see their social media spammed with threats and accusations. They can also find that the mob has gone to their employer and attempted to get the individual fired.

In some cases SJWs can track down their target’s personal information and DOX them by releasing their personal contact and address information out on the internet for the world to see and for others to use to harass the person in question. In the most extreme cases SJWs will call local police with fake threats which triggers swat teams to respond and infiltrate the targeted person’s home. In one occasion of swatting a person was actually shot and killed by police.

Watch Joe Rogan with Jamie Kilstein about being a reformed SJW:

Watch Blaire White on how she used to be a SJW:

Watch We the Internet TV comedy sketch with a SJW therapist:

Watch exposing social justice with Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay:

Watch Family Guy’s sketch on the SJW mob:

Watch John Stossel on SJW tactics:

Watch interview with Jake Shields about Berkley SJW protesters:

Watch SJW complete takeover at Evergreen college:

Watch Tim Pool discuss social justice has become the left’s “non-theistic religion”:

Doxing:

Doxing or doxxing is the Internet-based practice of researching and broadcasting private or identifying information about an individual or organization. The methods employed to acquire this information include searching publicly available databases and social media websites, hacking, and social engineering. The practice is considered legally as an invasion of privacy. Wikipedia

Swatting:

Swatting is the criminal harassment tactic of deceiving an emergency service into sending a police and emergency service response team to another person’s address. This is triggered by false reporting of a serious law enforcement emergency, such as a bomb threat, murder, hostage situation, or other alleged incident. Wikipedia

Watch 10 streamers get swatted live:

Ageism:

any criticism or negative sentiment that affects young or old people, regardless of validity.

Cisgender:

a term for people whose gender identity matches the sex that they were assigned at birth. Someone who identifies as a woman and was assigned female at birth is, for example, a cisgender woman. The term cisgender is the opposite of the word transgender. Related terms include cissexism and cisnormativity. Wikipedia

Essentialism:

the idea that people, objects, and ideas can be identified based on externally observable features. Although this is empirically true, social justice warriors consider this idea to be problematic.

Ethnocentrism:

Ethnocentrism is the act of judging another culture based on preconceptions that are found in the values and standards of one’s own culture. Wikipedia

Gender binary:

the idea that there are only two genders; male and female.

Gender identity:

a person’s internal sense of gender. This may or may not be in alignment with biological reality.

Hate crime:

legally speaking it is the incitement of violence or the act of violence against an identifiable group based on their religion or ethnicity or sexual orientation. Socially it has been extended to depict statements, opinions and symbols which form of prejudice motivated by some aspect of the identity, such as race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, or disability.

Internalized oppression:

a term used to denounce a member of a group said to be oppressed who deviates from social justice ideology narrative. If a woman comes out in opposition to the Feminist narrative of patriarchy then she is dismissed as having internalized the sexism in a form of self hatred. If a muslim comes to the defense of free speech it is internalized racism in the form of self hatred. If a trans person objects to the push to affirm transition then that is internalized homophobia or transphobia specifically.

Ally:

Varying from white ally, male ally, straight ally, etc. An ally is someone who aligns themselves with the same politics as a group within the culture war. The trans movement or other LBGTQ movements, the black lives matters movement or the Marxist academics, etc. You are an ally in the context that you are not a member of that community but serve to further that community’s agenda. You then support the group financially or otherwise and advocate for that group.

Watch PSA Sitch breakdown what the term Ally really means:

MRA:

a Men’s Rights Activist. A new movement brought about to advocate for men’s issues and often hold meetings to discuss mens rights and to offer a counter narrative to feminist propaganda.

Watch Barbara Kay speak at CAFE conference:

Watch the trailer for the movie “The Red Pill”:

MGTOW:

stands for Men Going Their Own Way. Men Going Their Own Way is a mostly pseudonymous online community of men supported by websites and social media presences cautioning men against serious romantic relationships with women, especially marriage and cohabitation. The community is part of what is more broadly termed the manosphere. Wikipedia

The problem with this movement is they often converse in a bubble of confirmation bias and can result in them commenting or sharing content that can be very dehumanizing to women and does not encourage men to be better people. Some of the most cringey, disgusting videos you can find online are from the MGTOW community. The common theme that I could see is there is a distinct lack of taking responsibility for one’s own actions. All negative outcomes are blamed on women or society’s unfair expectations of men. Any legitimate points they have tends to get lost in their blaming of everyone else for their problems. And the refusal to improve their lives in such a way to embrace healthy relationships in any meaningful way. And this makes them just as negative and ideologically possessed as feminists who dehumanize and attack men.

Watch a MGTOW community member “Turd flinging monkey” on one of his sex toy review:

Incel:

members of an online subculture who define themselves as unable to find a romantic or sexual partner despite desiring one, a state they describe as inceldom. Self-identified incels are largely white and are almost exclusively male heterosexuals. The term is a portmanteau of “involuntary celibates”. Wikipedia

Watch Paul Joseph Watson on the truth about incels:

THOT:

According to Urban Dictionary’s top definition, a “thot is a hoe,” with the plural being “thotties.” Other definitions, however, reveal a little more about how the word itself came to be: “Thot” is actually an acronym that can either stand for “that hoe over there” or “thirsty hoe over there.” Generally Thots are women who use their sex appeal to gain views and likes on video their content creation shared either over youtube or twitch or tiktok. This can include sexual perk tier rewards for donators or subscribers. Some women who participate in camming may use social media platforms to advertise with the intent of luring customers to their official cam channels or an online store to purchase personalized content or products. It’s widely seen as a modern form of prostitution without direct participation in sex with the buyer.

Watch Paul Joseph Watson on THOT patrol:

Watch Philip Defranco on #ThotAudit:

Wamen:

On June 2nd, 2017, PewDiePie uploaded a video titled “How to: Respect Women!”, in which he discusses how to Respect Women. Within two months, the video received upwards of 4.5 million views and 36,400 comments.

On July 10th, PewDiePie uploaded a video titled “Never Say This to a Gamer,” in which he references the “wamen” joke several times (shown below, left). On July 13th, YouTuber Day by Dave uploaded a music remix of PewDiePie’s “How to: Respect Women” episode (shown below, right). Within three weeks, the video received more than 162,000 views and 840 comments.

Mansplaining:

a pejorative term meaning ” to comment on or explain something to a woman in a condescending, overconfident, and often inaccurate or oversimplified manner”. Author Rebecca Solnit ascribes the phenomenon to a combination of “overconfidence and cluelessness”.Wikipedia

Misgendering: 

refer to (someone, especially a transgender person) using a word, especially a pronoun or form of address, that does not correctly reflect the gender with which they identify.

“There’s going to be a lot of people for whom this is going to mean nothing, but for the few it does impact, it means the world,” Facebook software engineer Brielle Harrison told the Associated Press. Harrison, who worked on the project, is in the process of gender transition, from male to female.

Facebook will allow users to select between three pronouns: “him,” “her” or “their.”

The following are the 58 gender options identified by ABC News:

• Agender
• Androgyne
• Androgynous
• Bigender
• Cis
• Cisgender
• Cis Female
• Cis Male
• Cis Man
• Cis Woman
• Cisgender Female
• Cisgender Male
• Cisgender Man
• Cisgender Woman
• Female to Male
• FTM
• Gender Fluid
• Gender Nonconforming
• Gender Questioning
• Gender Variant
• Genderqueer
• Intersex
• Male to Female
• MTF
• Neither
• Neutrois
• Non-binary
• Other
• Pangender
• Trans
• Trans*
• Trans Female
• Trans* Female
• Trans Male
• Trans* Male
• Trans Man
• Trans* Man
• Trans Person
• Trans* Person
• Trans Woman
• Trans* Woman
• Transfeminine
• Transgender
• Transgender Female
• Transgender Male
• Transgender Man
• Transgender Person
• Transgender Woman
• Transmasculine
• Transsexual
• Transsexual Female
• Transsexual Male
• Transsexual Man
• Transsexual Person
• Transsexual Woman
• Two-Spirit

Deadnaming: 

For many — though not all — people who are transgender, undergoing a name change can be an affirming step in the transition process. It can help a person who’s transgender and the people in their lives begin to see them as the gender they know themselves to be. It can also alleviate discomfort that may be associated with one’s old name.

Unfortunately, many people may struggle to adhere to a trans person’s new, affirmed name. In some situations, other people may refuse to acknowledge the change altogether. And in situations that involve government-issued identification, having a legal name that doesn’t align with one’s affirmed name can cause staff and personnel to inadvertently refer to a trans person by the wrong name.

This is what’s referred to as deadnaming.

Deadnaming occurs when someone, intentionally or not, refers to a person who’s transgender by the name they used before they transitioned. You may also hear it described as referring to someone by their “birth name” or their “given name.”

This can occur anywhere in a trans person’s life, from personal relationships to the classroom or workplace. (www.healthline.com)

Cancel Culture:

a term used to refer to the phenomenon of “cancelling” or no longer morally, financially, and/or digitally supporting people—usually celebrities—events, art works such as songs, films or TV shows, or things that many have deemed unacceptable or problematic. It has been defined as “a call to boycott someone – usually a celebrity – who has shared a questionable or unpopular opinion on social media”.^[1] Cancellation often arises in “response to a person’s comments or actions”.^[2]

The term is often used as a hashtag on social media, where it originated from Black Twitter, which is a cultural identity consisting of Black users on Twitter from around the world focused on issues of interest to the black community, particularly in the United States.^[3]The expression “cancelling”, in reference to cancel culture, has been used since 2015, with widespread usage of the expression beginning in 2018.^[3]

Lisa Nakamura, a professor at the University of Michigan, described cancel culture as “an agreement not to amplify, signal boost, give money to. People talk about the attention economy — when you deprive someone of your attention, you’re depriving them of a livelihood.”^[4] Cancel culture has been defined as a “makeshift digital contract wherein people loosely agree not to support a person (especially economically) in order to somehow deprive them of their livelihood”.^[5] Jonah Engel Bromwich from The New York Timesdefines it as “total disinvestment in something (anything)”, often for “transgressing fans’ expectations”.^[2]

The impact of being cancelled ranges from “mostly conceptual or socially performative”, in cases such as the social media efforts at “cancellation” of Kanye West even during the same year as a number one Billboard album, to actually leading to cancellation of shows or activities, as in the cases of “Bill O’Reilly, Charlie Rose, and Roseanne Barr“, who had their TV shows canceled due to public pressure.^[2]

Watch Joe Rogan speak with Sam Harris about cancel culture:

Microaggression:

a term used for brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioural, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative prejudicial slights and insults toward any group. Wikipedia

Patriarchy:

a social system in which men hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property. Some patriarchal societies are also patrilineal, meaning that property and title are inherited by the male lineage. Wikipedia

Rape culture:

a sociological concept for a setting in which rape is pervasive and normalized due to societal attitudes about gender and sexuality. Wikipedia

Shitlord:

a person who engages in problematic speech and/or behavior.

SWERF:

sex-worker exclusionary radical feminism.

TERF:

trans-exclusionary radical feminism.

Believe (All) Women:

This is the feminist concept that women do not lie and that everyone should believe everything that all women say. This expression was popularized during the Jian Ghomeshi trial and from there went mainstream during the Bret Kavanaugh hearings with Christine Blasey-Ford.

Credibly Accused: 

This is the act of challenging the concept of innocent until proven guilty. The way it is used in the context of feminism is that if the accuser is a woman then the accusation is credible enough for the accused to be guilty until proven innocent. Usually used in cases of sexual assault accusations and was a term made most popular during the Bret Kavanaugh hearings with Christine Blasey-Ford.

Watch Tim Pool discuss “credible” accusations:

Victim blaming:

to suggest that people have some responsibility for their own well-being and self-defense.

Xenophobia:

the fear and distrust of that which is perceived to be foreign or strange. Xenophobia can involve perceptions of an ingroup towards an outgroup and can manifest itself in suspicion of the …Wikipedia

Cultural Marxism:

Cultural Marxism can be a controversial term—some assert there’s no such thing, and others use the term as a catch-all for anything they see as undermining society. In short, cultural Marxism is a revolutionary leftist idea that traditional culture is the source of oppression in the modern world. Cultural Marxism is often linked to an insistence upon political correctness, multiculturalism, and perpetual attacks on the foundations of culture: the nuclear family, marriage, patriotism, traditional morality, law and order, etc. Cultural Marxists are assumed to be committed to establishing economic Marxism, in which case their cultural attacks are a necessary preparation for their ultimate goal.

After World War I, some Marxist philosophers felt the need to modify their political strategy. Karl Marx generally saw culture as a secondary concern. His successors realized that culture was, in fact, critical to social change. When a society is willing to criticize its institutions, it is ready to make changes. The result of these ideas was the Frankfurt School, a generic term for Marxist philosophy focused on social criticism and bottom-up change. In particular, the Frankfurt School rejected the idea of absolute truth and promoted aggressive criticism of all aspects of life and society. Some early observers referred to this new approach as cultural Marxism to distinguish it from the earlier, classical forms of Marxism. More orthodox Marxists do not see cultural Marxism as Marxist at all. (GotQuestions.org)

Media report that cultural marxism is a term used by white supremacists as they refute the concept of race and gender being a social construct as a war against Darwinism. Darwinism being their argument to justify race purity in their arguments around ethno-nationalism.

Watch Jordan Peterson explain Postmodernism and Cultural marxism:

Watch Sargon of Akkad discuss cultural marxism trending on twitter:

Socialism:

Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production and workers’ self-management, as well as the political theories and movements associated with them. Social ownership can be public, collective or cooperative ownership, or citizen ownership of equity. Wikipedia

Watch Now This World answer “what is socialism?”:

Democratic Socialism:

Democratic socialism is a political philosophy that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production, with an emphasis on self-management and democratic management of economic institutions within a market or some form of decentralized planned socialist economy. Wikipedia

Watch Bernie Sanders explain ‘democratic socialism’:

Watch Why ‘democratic socialism’ doesn’t work:

Watch Ben Shapiro Debunking 7 ‘democratic socialism’ myths:

Cultural Appropriation:

at times also phrased cultural misappropriation, is the adoption of elements of one culture by members of another culture. This can be controversial when members of a dominant culture appropriate from disadvantaged minority cultures. Wikipedia

Watch the Globe and Mail discuss what is cultural appropriation:

Watch what actual native americans think about cultural appropriation:

Watch Lauren Chen discuss cultural appropriation:

Watch Jordan Peterson and the idea of cultural appropriation:

Regressive Left:

(also formulated as “regressive liberals” and “regressive leftists”) is a neologism and political epithet, used as a pejorative to describe a section of left-wing politics who are accused of holding paradoxical, reactionary views by their tolerance of illiberal principles and ideologies. Other similar terms would be alt-left, radical-left, leftist, far-left, reactionary-left, identitarian-left, authoritarian-left, ill-liberals. Wikipedia

Watch Dave Rubin discuss the regressive left:

Watch David Pakman discuss regressive left:

Final Words

In closing I would like to say that language does change. But there is organic evolution and then there is artificial injection of new terms for the purposes of manipulation and in either way the policing of any language is never a good idea. I am not a free speech absolutist in the sense that I agree with the current limitations on it. From incitement to violence and defamation, etc. But aside from that the idea censoring speech is nothing more than fascism. Our sovereignty begins with our individual self and extends to our property and that extends to our town and region and that extends to our province and country in the greater destiny of the world.

But when people hear those advocate for free speech there’s this weird assumption that advocates are apologizing for or forgiving reprehensible speech and/or behaviour. Obviously there are things people can say that is just indefensible. But I ask you this. Have you ever had a moment of weakness where you’ve found yourself as the one uttering indefensible things? So what do we do about you now? Do you have your right to speech revoked? Do we bar you from access to things online or elsewhere in the world? Even a murder conviction has an expiration date.

In law when someone is convicted of a crime they serve time in prison. This prison sentence represents 2 things. It represents punishment. But it also represents rehabilitation. Because the hope is that once you’ve served your time your second chance will result in you being a productive member of society whose contributions will total a net good for the world. That you will leave behind a legacy that contributes to the greater destiny of the world. The road to redemption is as important as the punishment for the prison sentence for the whole process to represent true justice. Are there those who are irredeemable? I think there actually is. No one wants to see Paul Bernardo back out on the streets. Should we have just killed him? That’s a capital punishment conversation for another day. So I guess we just leave him locked up forever? It may not be the best solution but it’s the best one I believe we have. And that’s at the heart of this whole issue. There isn’t a real solution to this whole hateful conduct stuff. No one wants to defend a neo-nazi’s speech but free speech is still the best of a bad situation.

This isn’t even to consider the NCR cases. Not criminally responsible. Like in January of 2011 when Richard Kachkar stole a snowplow and ran over and killed Sgt. Ryan Russell. Kachkar was found to be not criminally responsible as the incident came about from a “psychotic episode.” And today Kachkar is enjoying his freedom after his release and is doing ‘very well’. Despite, to my knowledge, never actually receiving a diagnosis for whatever his mental illness was exactly. And at the time of his parole hearing Russell’s wife was not even allowed to deliver a victim impact statement because it was actually argued successfully that since Kachkar had been found NCR then no actual crime had been committed. As if Sgt. Ryan Russell had simply died of some kind of oopsie like a fluke skiing incident. And his son, Noah, who was 2 at the time, will grow up without knowing his father and without memories of his father. Kachkar has never apologized to the Russell family. Is this justice?

Watch Sgt. Russell’s widow in a press conference after the NCR ruling:

Watch widow of Sgr. Ryan Russell learning Kachkar has been released:

Now I am in no position to make any determinations over this court case nor am I fit to discuss matters surrounding NCR. But I do feel it’s vital we have checks and balances to advocate for the mentally ill. I just feel we are far from a perfect model in how we handle each case by case situation. And this means there is no existing model that comes even close to how we handle something like online hate and hate incidents. But these people are not normal thinking, normal functioning people. And if we truly want to have a proper conversation around mental health we cannot be ignorant to the things that are uncomfortable to talk about.

As long as the conversation is dominated by forms of punishment we won’t get justice. There is no justice without rehabilitation. And in that there must be a road to redemption for wrong think and bad behaviour. The answer is never going to be to ban groups like the ethno-nationalists. In the age of social media everyone will always have a seat at the table. You can move the table but you’ll never take away their seat. So you want them at the table where we can see them. Because it’s when their conduct gets taken to the street is when we see events like Charlottesville and Christchurch.

Censorship is nothing more than wishful thinking. There’s a reason why Twitter’s attempts to regulate hateful conduct has ended up with them banning anyone who tweets things like “learn to code“. Because none of us are truly righteous. And to leave such power in the hands of any one person or institution to define what is “hate” or “hateful conduct” is only playing with fire. It’s impossible to draw clear boundaries around such a subjective concept. We are all flawed, tainted individuals ripe with vices and limitations.

For crying out loud, there’s a reason that when handed the power to regulate online hate the first person they went after was a comedian, Count Dankula, for a video of his pug giving the Nazi salute. And now the UK is seeing people actually having police come to their door for misgendering people on Twitter. No one person is qualified to make such judgements and so we must assume that anyone with that power will always be the worst person to hold that power. Because to assume any one of does not bear the capacity for the worst atrocities possible is to just be ignorant of 2000 years of history on the planet Earth.

It only shows a deep lack of knowledge and understanding around all of these issues so of course the only solution that comes to mind is “well, let’s just ban it.” What do you really know about vaccines? Or about the kind of paranoia that breed conspiratorial thinking? What do you really know about mental health? Or even about language for that matter? Do you think it ought to be left up to YOU to decide what happens with Richard Kachkar? So why do you think you have any right to decide how we handle any of these complex problems?

The internet did not CREATE these people, it just revealed them to us. Violent crimes have not increased over time the media just reports on them more now. This phenomena is, I think, comparable to how everyone from every cleek and tribe coming together to all the same social medias and simply seeing more things they wouldn’t normally be looking for. And instead of simply ignoring the content it’s far more fun to engage in the road rage style outrage. Outrage is fun. I doubt it’s even really about the content itself. So why do we even humour these mobs with reactions? How are they not the very trolls they accuse everyone else of being?

If you’re anything like me you’re an armchair expert at best. Forming mobs to lobby billion dollar corporations to censor and ban public access and discourse is never going to be the answer to anything. EVER. And in the great sweeping movement to ban wrongthink you will inevitably find yourself being visited by the gestapo and by then there will be no one left to speak for you. If social media is a public utility then to ban or censor someone is the equivalent to cutting off their access to potable water and heat.

10 years ago I would’ve called that claim bullshit but in today’s world where the internet tracks and records everything you do and everywhere you go then the implications that come with banning or censoring a person are far greater reaching than simple access to websites. It’s directly tied to our banking, our credit, our reputation, our shopping, our careers, our networking, our research, our privacy and this can even affect our assets. Just throw in some travel restrictions and how is this not the social credit system China has rolled out?

Watch Tim Pool cover a journalist facing hate crime for misgendering:

In Canada all it takes is a marijuana conviction to bar you from entering America. You don’t think this online mob justice can’t affect one’s ability to travel? How about being put on a hate list? No better example exists than that of the Southern Poverty Law Centre. In an attempt to fight “hate” they are defaming many innocent people and have been weaponized as an activist tool.

This is no longer the days of logging off. Even in the real world we are never truly logged off. If it’s not the watch on our wrist uploading our location to the cloud, it’s the GPS in our phones tracking our every move. If it’s not the smart phone listening to everything we say then it’s our various home assistants. If nothing else it’s the security footage at every place we go, it’s the banks keeping track of our credit and spending behaviors, it’s the roomba uploading the schematics of our home to the cloud. It’s google and facebook storing all our search history and website activity.

So how is banning not an act of locking that person up and throwing away the key? It’s actually got farther reaching effects than actual house arrest. And when the internet has deemed you unfit to exist, where is the appeal process? These are not government bodies or police institutions or religious entities. These are billion dollar silicon valley corporations and we’re actually asking them to act as judge, jury and executioner? Really? Every time someone calls for censorship they’re actually calling for the dystopia. Because the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

“Political correctness is America’s newest form of intolerance, and it is especially pernicious because it comes disguised as tolerance. It presents itself as fairness, yet attempts to restrict and control people’s language with strict codes and rigid rules. I’m not sure that’s the way to fight discrimination. I’m not sure silencing people or forcing them to alter their speech is the best method for solving problems that go much deeper than speech.”

― George Carlin, When Will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops? 

I’ve held off on talking about this because even I needed time to let my emotions settle before I could speak to this with clarity. When I heard about the Christchurch shooting I felt sick. Last I heard it was 49 dead. This guy streamed video footage of the attack. and It was like watching a nightmare. These ppl were at their most vulnerable, in their place of worship. they were at his mercy and he showed none. The depth of hell your soul has to be to be able to commit those actions, is almost beyond comprehension.

Each one of those individuals represent much more than just 1 person dead. they represent a (now broken) family, extended family, a job and all the colleagues who worked with them, a circle of friends and a regular patron to all the local shopkeepers. Each life lost will have a ripple effect through all of Christchurch and by extension of ever person it affects, it will ripple out and affect all of new zealand. And every other country around the commonwealth is looking at this knowing it could have just as easily been any one of us, at any one of our own communities. I don’t even know how a community heals from such hell. It’s so bad I don’t even know if it can. But I hope it does. These actions are so insane and so malevolent it’s like looking at the devil himself.

Watch coverage in New Zealand:

https://uw-media.usatoday.com/embed/video/39217807?placement=snow-embed

To make matters worse, it’s so discouraging to see some media reacting to this in a way that I believe this shooter absolutely intended for them to react and baited them into it. As if he got to write the headlines himself. And so this is what’s prompting me to post about this at all. Look. It’s easy to point fingers at others to blame all the various roles you may believe others played in this tragedy. It’s easy to point fingers because we desperately want to make sense out of something that will never make sense. It’s hard to accept something that’s unacceptable. But we don’t have a choice.

The actions of this man are no one’s fault but his own. No one in their right mind would ever, ever, EVER want something like this to ever happen. Literally, the ppl on social media who are spreading the video and spouting racist rhetoric and pushing for civil unrest, these people are literally mentally ill. Not to say they do not bear any responsibility for their actions, I’m saying these are not normal people. They are just as ideologically possessed by extremism as is this insane shooter. I shouldn’t even need to start this post by stating my position on the shooting. But I do need to. because everytime someone calls for calm and peace in moments like this, people jump to assume it’s like you’re apologizing for what happened. I’m saying this guy WANTS us to be fighting with one another. So let’s not give him what he wants. This whole event, beyond the tragedy it was, was clearly a recruiting attempt. And if he can’t win people over to ethno-nationalism by agreeing with ideology then he’ll force you into their camp when everyone else around you pushes you into it.

Watch Tim Pool react to Christchurch:

Watch Lauren Chen react to Christchurch:

There’s a reason this guy stuffed his car with a mass of legal weapons. There’s a reason why he wrote on those guns all those references to other mass shooters and historical battles against muslims. And why his weapon of choice was the already controversial AR-15. Because he wants everyone who’s pro gun control to absolutely lose their shit out of everyone who’s anti-gun control. regardless who’s right or wrong on the gun control issue, if this guy didn’t use guns he would’ve used bombs, if not bombs he would’ve used knives, if not knives he would’ve used chemicals. These murders happened because this nut job chose to murder these people. There is no blanket solution to this problem that would, 1, ever prevent people like this from committing these crimes and, 2, would ever work for everyone.

There’s a reason why this guy chose to give Pewdiepie and Candice Owens and Trump shout outs. He’s trying to sever the political spectrum. He wants to eliminate all fence sitters and moderates and have EVERYONE shouting at each other. He literally wants to spark a civil war. Just like the shooter in Georgia, in Pittsburgh, in Quebec, etc. Pewdiepie is not political. He never has been. But he’s anti-political in a culture war. So he’s always vilified as “problematic” as is so many others who refuse to join the mobs. He also has MILLIONS of people who follow him and so for the media to go after pewdiepie as if he played ANY role in this, you also vilify everyone who follows him. You polarize millions of people.

Read Quillette: After Christchurch, Remember the Victims, But Resist the Urge to Blame

Read Quillette: Banning Evil: In the shadow of Christchurch, Quasi-Religious Myths Can Lead Us Astray

And we all move ever closer to the edge of the cliff. Candice Owens is nothing more than a political contrarian. She doesn’t even make good arguments. But she represents a political divide in the american black community. Fence sitters. And even though Trump inappropriately nodded to white supremacists during the election, that doesn’t at all mean he wants anything like this to happen. I’m all for holding Trump accountable but to suggest he had anything to do with this horrific action, that’s irresponsible. and it only serves to tribalize people to push this narrative that conservatives are evil. Trump clearly does not speak for all conservatives. For fuck sakes he’s just a reality TV hack. So many conservatives came out against him during the election. And there is a huge difference between american conservatives and canadian conservatives and british conservatives, etc etc.

Watch Sargon of Akkad react to Christchurch:

Watch The Quartering react to Christchurch:

Styxhexenhammer666 discuss Evacuations of New Zealand Music Festival:

Watch Ben Shapiro react to Jordan Peterson’s New Zealand book banning:

Watch Gad Saad react to Cambridge University banning Jordan Peterson:

this shooter was not a conservative. despite what the media is telling us. he is an ethno-nationalist. A REAL white supremacist. he condemns conservatism in his manifesto. so to shift the conversation to conservatives is not only inaccurate but it’s literally using this event for your own political activism. The new zealand prime minister did the right thing to call this individual an extremist with an extremist ideology. Rather than attempt to generalize, she focussed on this individual as solely responsible for these actions. It identifies that there is no political home for actions or beliefs like these. And the true issue at hand is exactly extremist ideology. which can occur in any form. So it must be condemned.

I just don’t like the way we use “far-right” or “far-left” terminology because they’re so vague. No one on any spectrum of the “right” would ever approve of anything like this. this guy is a neo nazi. Call it for what it is. But unfortunately because Nazi is the new hip term to qualify ANYONE with a disagreeable opinion, it’s a term that virtually means nothing anymore. so we are reduced to more generalized terms like “far-right”. which isn’t a fraction as effective at communicating exactly what we are talking about. Especially considering the way the media reports everyone on social media with a conservative position as “far-right”.

Tommy Robinson has never been convicted of a hate crime. But now we have the conflation between these two individuals. It’s a language designed to divide and polarize. When one is a political activist and the other is a terrorist. There couldn’t be a bigger difference between the two yet they are both categorized together as “far-right”. and this guy absolutely was a terrorist. he absolutely did aim to terrorize not just this community but the world. and he has succeeded in doing so. it’s just sad to see the media run with this to give his actions round the clock coverage. Like he’s some kind of celebrity.

In terms of further pushes to “deplatform” and ban people on social media, we need to be really careful here. Sure we can just unperson everyone who disagrees with us and we will feel better but this is not like putting an individual in the corner with a dunce cap for 5 minutes and welcoming them back when they’ve learned why they were put there. There absolutely is a culture war waging and as long as it remains online then we will likely be able to avoid an all out civil war. But people need to have a seat at the table to speak freely. We’ve seen the fallout from banning attempts against people like faith goldy and alex jones and it hasn’t done ANYTHING but legitimize their claims and grown their base. And forced them underground and to cater to more hysterical rhetoric because it’s paranoid individuals who give them the most support. Why would they care about being non-partisan or dialing back their inflammatory statements when everyone else seeks to condemn them? so their communications become more polarizing and more contentious to the paranoid community they speak to.

during the last city election Faith Goldy ran for mayor. She was banned from all speaking events, from all media including TVO who dedicated an episode of the agenda to engage with fringe mayoral candidates. Even Bell media refused to air her campaign ad which did not break any laws and despite the fact she was a legitamate registered candidate. There wasn’t anything even controversial in the ad, let alone anything which was in conflict with any standards. So she attempted to sue Bell media and a partisan judge refused to hear the case. After it was thrown out Bell media went after her for $50 000 to cover their lawyer fees. At least this is the story according to Faith, the media won’t even talk about it to be able to verify her account of events. And that’s really the problem here. While big media like Bell virtue signal and liberal hosts like John Moore of newstalk1010 get off on grand standing about how moral they are to condemn her and her views, Faith is getting to run with whatever narrative she wants. They’re not even realizing that she’s become so notorious BECAUSE OF THEM that despite the fact they literally refuse to utter her name while talking about her, EVERYONE KNOWS WHO THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT. And you don’t see a problem there?

Watch #boycottbell video:

Others may feel good about themselves to call her an idiot but she’s actually not. She knew she would never become mayor. That was never really an option, nor do I believe that’s something she ever really wanted. Her shtick now is to sow the seeds of distrust within the mainstream institutions. That’s how she gains more followers. and what better way to force the media’s hand to reveal their bias by running for mayor and watching the partisans literally violate rules because their partisan ideology is more important than journalistic integrity. And they were more than happy to oblige. And when she lost, their gloating didn’t fool anyone. She came in 3rd place, beating out ALL the other fringe candidates with something like 25 000 votes. Without ANY promotion. Without the main streams precious “platform”. If she HAD received invites to debates and events and if Bell media HAD run her ads, she potentially could’ve ended up around the vote count that Olivia Chow received when she finished the last election in 3rd place. Meaning that despite all the attempts to unperson Faith Goldy, despite all the “justified” banning and deplatforming, Faith Goldy today is comparatively as influential as Olivia Chow. Who is a legend in her community.

We no longer live in a time when someone does something wrong in the media, they get fired, and they’re reduced to nothing as a result. We can no longer end people’s careers over their mistakes. Because of the internet and social media, they will ALWAYS find a seat at the table. If they don’t want to, they will never go away. And no amount of money can prevent someone streaming from their basement to simply talk to a webcam. They will always be able to communicate to the entire world. And we need to actually deal with that. not get our rocks off on how good it feels to punish them. If there is NO road to redemption, these attempts to unperson will ONLY radicalize them and everyone else around them. While trust in the institutions decline ever more. So who’s really winning that battle? Newstalk1010 used to be THE VOICE OF THE GTA. Now it’s just another channel on just another app on the app store. just another folder in the portfolio of Bell media, which owns majority of news outlets now. While the rest of the world says “what’s a bell media?” you tell me, who’s winning that war?

It was Faith Goldy who promoted this idea that Kristyn Wong-Tam was in some conflict of interest for owning 28 condos within her ward and that she was using her role as councillor to benefit from and that she’s also secretly a real estate agent or something like that. Well apparently it’s all made up. But that rumour made the rounds everywhere in Toronto. Including at Newstalk 1010 HQ where the rumours were shared with even the show hosts and received as credible. until Wong-Tam had to come out strongly denouncing the claims in (I think) Now magazine. Guess why? Because arrogant partisans refuse to have Goldy on to challenge her claims or to bother fact checking anything she does so the conversation goes on without them.

Read Now Magazine’s article on Kristyn Wong-Tam

And though Wong-Tam won her riding, what if it had done enough damage to cost her the election? John Moore can mock and sneer at Faith Goldy while refusing to use her name, as if he’s leading the conversation? We all know who you’re talking about John Moore. And one day you’ll wake up to the sad reality that now she has more influence than you, Mr. morning talk show host of 20+ years in the industry. It’s the majority of people who don’t know YOUR name. So go ahead, continue your deplatforming. Will you accept any responsibility when the fallout of this partisanship comes to a boiling point? No, it’s never your fault, is it? Your actions never have consequences, like hers. Aren’t we all just so virtuous? Wake the fuck up.

So if you haven’t assumed what my position is by now on censorship, yeah, it doesn’t work. It actually has the opposite effect. Twitter bans Megan Murphy for misgendering. Now the entire world is talking about Megan Murphy. Even if we don’t like what people have to say, even if what they say is racist, bigoted, misogynist, hateful, if someone says something reprehensible, so what? What do you want? Would you feel better to call them an idiot? Go ahead. You’re allowed. The whole point of the marketplace of ideas allows bad ideas to be criticised. Tell all your friends about it. Make fun of the stupid comments together over pizza or something.

Social media is more than just a bunch of corporations. It’s the home where public discourse takes place. It’s where the world goes to network. It’s the publication where we receive our news. It’s the global conversation where we all take part. And our online avatars make it easy to diminish the importance of our role in it. But to ban someone truly is to remove them from society. To exile someone from the rest of the world with no road to redemption or path to move forward you are forcing someone to take their potentially dangerous ideas offline and out onto the street. Where the way to ratio someone with dislikes comes in the form of physical assault. And the only thing preventing this insane culture war from breaking out to a full blown civil war IS the fact we can contend with each other civilly online. Where when we engage in road rage there, the most we can do is report one another. Outside in the real world the worst we can do to each other is Christchurch. So we need to be very fucking careful how we proceed from here.

My advice to you is this:

1. Focus on you and your life. Do what’s right for YOU. Do what you need to improve YOUR life. Clean your home. Go cook an awesome dinner. Find someone close to you in your life and give them a big hug. because we never know just how long our time is on this planet. Despite their differences from you, give that person a big hug and thank them for being a part of your life. And tell the people you love that you love them.

2. Be there for your family. After your big hug play a game together. Go on a road trip. Have dinner together. Go see a movie. Anything to celebrate your relationship and to improve your ties with them. Strengthen your family and/or your closest friends.

3. Do right by your community. Get offline and go volunteer somewhere. Local church or donation centre. Maybe city hall has some public event about to happen and they need someone to help make it happen. Maybe become a part of a local park conservatory group. Or just go pick up the trash from the side of the road outside your neighbourhood or across the street at a local school or park. Invest in the place you call home. Benefit from the meaning and purpose that comes from bearing responsibilities. Be grateful for the place you call home and for the pillow where you rest your head.

The only answer to hate is love. Mob justice and tribalism is not love. and as much as we’d love to, you cannot transfer suffering. You can only create more of it. You cannot make sense out of what happened in Christchurch. Don’t let the shooter get what he wanted. Love your neighbour, despite their differences. All their differences. Only then will we tilt the world away from hell. Go find someone you love and give them a big hug.

Terrorists regard themselves as a vanguard. They’re trying to mobilize others to their cause. I mean, every specialist on terrorism knows that. – Noam Chomsky

Apparently the key to masculinity is being feminine according to TVO. Apparently there is no masculine form of care or communication. It really is amazing how out of touch people have become with boys and boys needs when their view of boys is closer to the definition of a manikin than it is a human being. To suggest that boys are failing because of masculinity is nothing more than an overt expression of hatred towards men. Well, there’s no one better to table a discussion on boys than Nam Kiwanuka herself.

Around the table was Alex Russell, Rachel Giese, Damen Ferries and Tiq Milan. The fact that TED hosted Tiq and Alex really highlights the low standard of qualifying speakers. Where they get up on stage and have a moment of pure narcissism in the form of virtue signalling and progressive propagandism. Without having any intellectual or scientific claims challenged, without being vetted for any credentials before being promoted as an authoritative voice to talk about whatever they want for the world to just accept. You see friends, free speech does live. Only if you talk about the right things. Even I wouldn’t presume to take a stage to talk about science as though I have any authority to do so. But today those with opinions of global warming and patriarchal oppression receive the status of expertise we normally grant to evidence based arguments. The TED stage might as well just change to the SJW stage. But I wouldn’t move to change anything, even if I don’t like it, more voices are always better than less. Because free speech advocacy is defending speech I disagree with. And at least I can use it here to help me understand and debunk.

These are the people who TVO thought would be best suited for a panel about the current boy crisis. To be fair, I’m just surprised their willingness to even acknowledge that there is a boy crisis at all. But like Alex Russell pointed out, “it may be a good thing that there is a bit of a crisis.” As they discussed the dangers of toxic masculinity. Part of the reason why Jordan Peterson has become so famous is because of his unrelenting efforts to push back against these intellectually dishonest lies to push an ideological narrative aimed at nothing less than the deconstruction of western society. The devil truly is in the details.

Peterson addressed toxic masculinity at a Q&A recently while touring through Sweden. An egalitarian crowd looked on, expecting some alt-right rejection of toxic masculinity but then were silenced into a mode of contemplation when he explained that the problem wasn’t a masculine problem, it was a human problem. See, the extreme left wants to eliminate all sex differences because of the harmful nature of stereotyping but they sure don’t like to entertain the idea that women have equal capacity, as men do, for evil in their hearts. But then that would indicate that perhaps femininity may not be the answer to a boy crisis. And we just can’t have that.

It pains me to watch my once beloved TVO spiral further and further down the toilet bowl of post-modern, neo-marxist, 4th wave feminist, rhetoric. But their failings are simply opportunities for others. I’m not here to solve the problem with why boys are failing in society. But what makes this new surge of alternative news media, specifically those who follow the intellectual dark web, is they can facilitate these discussions that the mainstream media out right ignore.

All I can do is speak to my own personal experience growing up. Which was the participation generation where nerds were the new jocks. Self deprecating was the mainstream style of humour and a preliminary form of wokeness was a better judge of where you stood on the social hierarchy where you obtained status by signalling virtues rather than flexing muscles. However that never stopped the girls from going after the most aesthetically pleasing guys. And I lived by this philosophy that you didn’t need toughness to define you as a man. And that all attempts to scale a man’s worth was simply a form of dick measuring. Which usually translated as excuses to dismiss my deep incompetence. Then I decided to take my place at the lower end of the social hierarchy by getting into plumbing. Boy oh boy, did I learn quick how pathetic I was. So often I was tempted to abandon this competitive, physical, tough-guy oriented, foul mouthed, judgemental trade which valued me as very much below average. But I’ve never been afraid to challenge myself. Mainly to feed my self entitlement and ego.

I wasn’t about to let some cave man make me fail at pursuing a simple trade! Then I realized just how complex plumbing actually was. Wasn’t at all like my guidance counsellor made it out to be when he scoffed at the idea of me pursuing a trade. But the challenge didn’t deter me from my desire to succeed, it just made me respect it. Once I respected it, I took it more seriously. And it wasn’t until that one day when I finally did good by my colleagues when they actually congratulated me on my work. Then it happened. There, standing shoulder to shoulder with this group of overtly masculine men, drinking hot coffee while working in -40 degree weather at midnight. I felt like one of the guys. And it felt like having pride for yourself, your team and your responsibilities. And that was it, I was hooked and I never looked back. Now people pay me for my expertise and I’ve completely transformed from the weak man I was to the strong man I am today. But not every man finds his place.

Power isn’t what make men strong, power only leads to tyranny. It’s competence that defines a man as strong. And real “toxic masculinity” comes from weak men, not strong men. And doing nothing but sneering at masculinity and promoting more femininity among boys will not produce strong men. It’s not like these “progressives” don’t know that. This TVO discussion wasn’t about compassion for boys, it was about hatred for men. But what made it so scary was the fact that most of those who participated had a son at home. They need to look themselves in the mirror and ask if they’re raising a boy or a social experiment. And they’ll need to listen very carefully to what answer they get. So this is my plea to anyone who will listen. When we see a narrative from the mainstream, let us work to counter it with truth and leadership. If I could assemble my own panel of experts to talk about masculinity, it would be:

“The equivalent of a woman being treated as a sex object is a man being treated as a successful object.” – Warren Farrell, Author of Why Men Earn More Money, The Myth of Male Power and The Boy Crisis

“Each day is God’s gift to you. What you do with it is your gift to him.” – Pastor T.D. Jakes, Author of He-motions, The T.D. Jakes Relationship Bible and So you call yourself a man?

“No group of women can wage war on men without at the same time denigrating the women who respect those men.” – Christina Hoff Sommers, Author of The War Against Boys, Freedom Feminism and One Nation Under Therapy

And I feel an ideal moderator would be David Fuller of the Rebel Wisdom YouTube channel. Bringing his insights as someone who participates in mens weekend events aimed at transforming, brotherhood and expansion, Fuller would not only bring his interviewing skills to the table to facilitate a useful discussion but use his own experience and insights to add substance to the content. I don’t know if it would be possible to get these four individuals at a table together but I feel a round table panel would function way better than attempting a four-way skype call. Unless He were to do a four part series on the crisis of boys with each speaker individually, but I think getting everyone together would make for a more power conversation.

Let’s be very clear who exactly we’re talking about when we talk about “men”. We’re talking about boys, sons, nephews, cousins, and friends. We are also talking about fathers, step fathers, uncles and grandpas. But we’re also talking about colleagues, bosses, students, teachers, role models, clients, servants and recipients. And we are equally discussing every single person’s relationship with every one of those men. We’re talking about what role masculinity plays in every aspect of our lives in a world that we all have to share. This garbage TVO smear campaign against masculinity didn’t even scratch the surface let alone address the crisis of boys. So share this, get it out there, let’s stand up for boys so some day they can be the men standing up for the boys of their day. The only way to offer women better options than what they have today is to create better men. Behind every great man you will find a great woman. I look forward to the day that behind every great woman is a great man. True empowerment must make us all strong.

“I equate toughness with moral fiber, with character, with principle, with demonstraed leadership in tough jobs where you emerge not bullying somebody but with the respect of the people you led. That’s toughness. That’s fiber. That’s character. I’ve got it and if I happen to be decent in the process, that should not be a liability.” – George H W Bush, 41st President of the United States of America, 1979.