While society burns and marxism seeks to rewrite history we always hear the weak minded possessed by postmodern ideologies talk about how our favourite movies weren’t what they appeared to be. Sleeping beauty wasn’t about a couple’s love breaking a curse, it was about patriarchal rape culture because Prince Phillip never had consent before kissing the unconscious Princess Aurora. Cinderella wasn’t a story about a low class, unfortunate woman who discovers her unique value despite her cruel stepmother and ends up with a handsome prince because every girl, no matter her flaws, deserves to be happy. No, it was about a weak willed woman who was ignorant of her racial privilege and who had no value as a damsel in distress because she needed a big strong man to save her when clearly she could’ve done it all herself and then become the CEO of IBM if she really wanted to. Let’s just ignore the fact this dude didn’t even have a fucking NAME and just chalk this one up to patriarchy all the same, mmk?
WELL NO MORE! You no longer get to pick and choose which movies you’re going to “deconstruct” to suit YOUR ideological narratives of oppressed versus oppressors. I’m going to apply YOUR OWN LOGIC to YOUR favourite movies and see how YOU like it. See how supportive you are in pushing the bullshit narrative you KNOW is bullshit after you’ve had YOUR nostalgic memories shit on. I’m not saying there isn’t a place for critical thinking but let’s not bullshit each other here. Marxism, post-modernism and intersectionality is toxic as fuck and there’s no coincidence that by viewing life through such “lenses” reveals problematic situations. BECAUSE EVERY-FUCKING-THING IN THIS LIVING WORLD IS A PROBLEM ACCORDING TO DECONSTRUCTIONISTS. So now sit down with a tub of stale, cold popcorn and allow me to shit all over YOUR favourite movies. You disengenuous mother fuckers.
1. Indiana Jones
Thought you were watching a movie about an intrepid archeologist looking to liberate artifacts from becoming nazi propaganda so they would find their rightful place, accessible to all and celebrated by all at public museums. No, you’re watching a textbook example of how the white man illegally enters foreign lands to pillage and grave rob and steal and culturally appropriate artifacts that do not belong to the white man. So he may oppress foreign cultures under patriarchal thumb of western civilization. Yes, Indiana Jones was the bad guy.
2. Casablanca
Thought you were watching a movie about liberation and freedom versus fascism and tyranny? Think again! This was a disgusting display of nationalism in the worst way. Don’t let yourself be fooled with literal Nazis being the antagonist of the film. We all know the REAL Nazi was the white nationalist who openly boasted of patriotism and openly joked about pedophilia and sexism like a raging misogynist. His American ignorance in defending borders works to manipulate the french into doubling down on their sense of nationalism which no doubt contributed to the yellow vest movement we see going on in France till this day.
3. Pulp Fiction
There’s a special kick that comes from watching something this thrillingly alive. Pauline Kael calls it “getting drunk on movies.” Whatever you call it, Pulp Fiction is indisputably great.
the rolling stone
The title is perfect. Like those old pulp mags named “Thrilling Wonder Stories” and “Official Detective,” the movie creates a world where there are no normal people and no ordinary days – where breathless prose clatters down fire escapes and leaps into the dumpster of doom. The movie resurrects not only an aging genre but also a few careers.
Roger Ebert
So much praise from so many CIS WHITE MALES! White males love using catchy phrases like “ultra-hip” to apologize for what is unforgivable offenses paraded across the screen as if they are free of scrutiny. No more do such homophobic tropes and white supremacists themes deserve a platform of any kind! Where Tarantino inserts himself in the film itself just to be able to spout HATRED and violence by using the N-word several times, dog whistling to his alt-right base in the audience. The movie dehumanizes obviously oppressed homosexuals who have their sexuality driven underground in a world that doesn’t even acknowledge their humanity. They even throw in abilist ignorance by referring to a disabled person as a “gimp”. For how accurately this movie portrays the very real discrimination that occurs in the world this movie should’ve been called “pulp non-fiction”. This is what free speech looks like. The #1 most celebrated film by toxic fanboy misogynists and republicans everywhere. If you like this movie, castrate yourself.
4. Forest Gump
It sure is fun to celebrate the triumphs of a disadvantaged, handicapped, intellectually disabled individual. But at the same time we never stop to consider that by projecting our abililist criteria for success on the less fortunate we create a highly problematic situation where we impose unrealistic expectations onto someone who’s lived experience we ourselves have no basis for understanding.
The movie unapologetically conveys bullying and toxic masculinity without any critical challenging. Forest must overcome his disabilities to overcome his adversity in the scene where he is chased down by the three little misogynist white devils. Which sends such a poor message to those who wish they could overcome their disabilities but cannot. Instead of looking for preferential qualities in the disabled how about white people shut the fuck up.
If Forest’s mother had access to universal healthcare and full-day daycare she would’ve had opportunities to succeed. However this glass ceiling issue is not even mentioned in the film, let alone was the dead beat dad ever held to account for his abandonment of the family. The true story here was about how victimized the single mother was and how with a Trump government she never would get access to the supports she’d need to be a successful, independent woman. The movie might as well have been called “the handmaid’s tale”.
And to make matters worse, the lead role played by Tom Hanks was not even a disabled person himself. Which we all know is the equivalent to blackface of the disability world. The entire movie is a slap in the face to the already disadvantaged disability community. No coincidence that it takes place in the dirty south.
5. Lord of the Rings
Right out the gates. The Lord of the Rings was written by J. R. R. Tolkien. A CIS WHITE MALE — AND — UNAPOLOGETIC CHRISTIAN. Christianity. The religion responsible for COUNTLESS murders and rapes and oppression. Let’s not forget the crusades. The same religion that opposes women’s control over their bodies. The same religion that rapes children. The same religion who believe that an invisible sky man will take us to utopia as long as we aren’t homosexuals. So now that we have the context behind what’s about to unfold, let’s take a look at a white man’s story about the “lord” of the “rings”.
If we look at the dwarves, or racist jewish tropes, or the elves, hateful asian symbolism, they clearly are side characters to the superior white races among them and are used as comic relief through “gimli” and “legolas”. There’s no coincidence that those chosen to bear responsibility for the valuable ring is the CIS white male Elijah Woods. Oh but because he has some hair on his feet he’s no a honky ass cracker. Sure Tolkien. Through the trilogy we watch how other patriarchally empowered toxic white males come to save the day from their kingdoms surrounded by glamourized border walls in a disgusting display of nationalism. And since they are all white I think it’s safe to assume this is legitimate ethno-nationalist symbolism. Typical white supremacism.
There’s no coincidence that while black audience members watch a movie with no visible representation they also have to sit through every non-white character be portrayed as cannibalistic, evil, demon-like “orcs”. There’s no coincidence that while orcs of colour migrate through the lands, no surrounding nation will grant them asylum despite the fact they are all enslaved by a dark lord. We watch a film celebrate the persecution of literal slaves for the sake of justifying their racist borders. Because the white man must maintain control over the plantation, oh, sorry, I mean “middle-earth”. Disgusting. And if you enjoy this film you are complicit in this same populist propaganda.
Now let’s look at some holiday favourites that celebrate hate and the ways in which you are complicit in such hate.
6. Love Actually
Sometimes it takes nine intertwined stories to examine the complexities of the one thing the connects us all: the dominance hierarchy. Love actually perfectly displays the levels of privilege that’s granted to those who dominate the rest of society as they profit from patriarchy and racism and all the systematic benefits that come from being white. Even the one black character that they manage to squeak in gets cuckolded by Rick Grimes, CIS white male. The movie openly displays female suppression in the worst way as Hugh Grant’s character who plays the Prime Minister preys on a lower status staffer who embodies the most stereotypical female gender roles of serving her master. This film could have began the #metoo moment.
Full of celebrated mansplaining, this film hands out women to men as though they are currency. In this film men define these women and the film represents female characters more as livestock than human beings. The scenes around the sex actors being the most aggregious. This obviously sends a message to girls everywhere that they are nothing more than sexual objects to the men who own their bodies and that this is something that women should actually desire. As if they are defined by their vaginas.
7. A Christmas Story
Frankly, I don’t even know why I’m bothering having to point out what’s problematic with this one. Their portrayal of immigrants is disgusting. It contains scenes of mysogonist, toxic masculinity and bullying and celebrates the well documented nature of violent white males. Celebrated in this movie as the typical “boys will be boys” narrative. While childrens blood can likely still be found in Sandyhook elementary school, this movie’s main character wants a gun more than anything for christmas. Without a doubt this movie improves membership and sales among the NRA, this movie should be deplatformed from every network.
That’s not to even mention the fact that this repulsive man is somehow married to this attractive woman who’s apparently only meant to be a breeding baby factory as she stays at home and tends to the house like a slave. Cooking and cleaning for her master and his white male offspring. A brainless blonde stereotype who isn’t even trying to become a CEO, academic authority or political leader. Yet another movie designed for men’s pleasure.
8. It’s the Great Pumpkin Charlie Brown
Just because a CIS white male can take a pencil to a piece of paper doesn’t mean at all that the end result product has any innocence at all. Charlie Brown is no exception to this rule. Toxic, angry white men love to dispute that gender is not a social construct but they love constructing a fiction which visibly represents them in any way they prefer. And there’s no coincidence that in this holiday favourite we have blatant displays of sexism, racism and bigotry. It’s nothing more than white supremacy training to grow little cis white terrorists.
First of all, there’s 0 acknowledgement that the neighbourhood they all reside was a result of Jim Crow racist policies to keep other ethnicities away. The white kids await the alleged great pumpkin as symbolism to whites sense of entitlement to handouts and privileges. The movie dismisses strong female characters as just being bitchy as Linus and Charlie discuss Sally’s “scorn”. Aside from the open cultural appropriation displayed in the film while the kids trick or treat, the lore around this great pumpkin does nothing more than make conspiracy theories hip for young republicans to grow up more vulnerable to other similar fabrications. Next thing you know those kids are now adults spreading pizzagate all over facebook to slander Hillary Clinton.
9. Christmas Vacation
If you want to spend over an hour and a half watching mansplaining, toxic masculinity and deep seeded misogyny, you’ve come to the right place. A story about a middle class family training us to admire patriarchal family structure. With deeply offensive language unchallenged and unfiltered, the movie celebrates masculinity most toxic outbursts and that apparently passes for comedy. Not to mention their casual reference to animal abused used as slapstick when they electrocute the family cat and nobody even cares.
This film shows us the reality for middle class people who opt out of post secondary education. They glamourize wasteful holiday decorating without any critique over the carbon footprint or the impact such behaviour has on the environment. But as like any CIS white patriarchal family, they feel entitled to whatever they want. Between the scene of the kidnapping of the boss and the abuse of the upper class progressive neighbours, it’s easy to see the early seeds of populism were planted with movies like this.
For the last feature I will make this one special. Instead of a movie I will feature a TV show. But not just any TV show. One of the best TV shows to ever hit television.
10. Breaking Bad
Aside from the skinhead imagery and other direct references to white supremacy, breaking bad is one of the best examples of the culture of white supremacy that is widely accepted and celebrated among majority of white audiences. A common red herring term used to describe characters like Walter White is “anti-hero” which, last time I checked, meant villain. But we all know that when the character has white skin they can’t be a villain, just an anti-hero.
The rationalization of the immoral deeds and actions of Walter White is not so different from lack of convictions among bankers on wall street during the great recession. Because when a white person commits a crime there’s nuance that unfortunately black people don’t benefit from such nuance according to the disparities of incarcerated blacks. And there’s no coincidence that the justification for Walters misbehaviour is to privilege his white family for the future. A typical capitalist method of accumulation without any regard to the greater implications of the community.
Aside from the open nods to white supremacists, it is worthy to note the open hatred for Skylar’s character throughout the show. The loudest and most outspoken group being white men. Skyler represents to poke holes through the romanticizing of the gang culture and so naturally white men react to that with hatred and misogyny. This is a great example of a show which brings out the sexist and bigoted biases deeply seeded within white people, white men specifically, but all is forgiven because it’s all in the name of fiction, right? How about we stop celebrating violence and call out toxic masculinity.
That is my top 10 list to make you hate yourself. I may or may not have successfully steel manned the intersectional narrative surrounding these titles. My whole point here being that you can make an absolutely rational argument in rewriting history. But if you’re going to use intersectionality to deconstruct the things you don’t care about, you don’t get to also ignore the same logic when it comes knocking at the door of the things you hold precious. My whole point is that this is the function of deconstructionism. It is not designed to actually solve any problems. It’s actually just designed to create problems.
So that we may project our own personal biases against these things while using deconstruction tools to support an otherwise opinion based argument. If you don’t like a movie, don’t watch it. But when flirting with intersectionality all you do is tear down the very fabric of reality. While reading this you had 2 choices. Laugh or cry. I hope you had a laugh and from now on when you’re faced with a “problematic” situation you meet it head on with the same laughter.
Eventually this will take the wind out of the sales of this counter culture movement and one day the common sense revolution will correct all that has been corrupted. There may yet be an end to the culture war. The only answer to hate is love. You cannot transfer suffering you only create more of it. Love yourself, love your enemies, love life. And we will survive this.
It’s clear that boys are in crisis today. Aside from the vitriol one finds anywhere in the media around any masculine topic, figures around drop out rates, gang violence, domestic violence and fatherlessness are all indicators that the situation for boys is in a state of crisis. But it’s not as easy to pin down the ways in which girls or women are in their own state of crisis. Girls face more consequences in their major decision making in their transition into womanhood. And a career cannot be encouraged without, in part, discouraging motherhood, nor does it address the reality for most childless women.
Despite girls doing better in education, at every level, than boys and now taking on better jobs on average than boys and earning more up to their thirties when majority leave the workplace to start having children. But despite this success, rates of mental illness are skyrocketing among younger women. Mental Health America finds that women experience depression at twice the rate of men. At least men’s ailments can be laid at the feet of their failures. Women’s suffering may call into question what we classify as “success” and whether or not that always has to be tied to academic or financial gains.
So if everyone is in some state of crisis then do we really have any real crisis at all or is this just the facts of life? 100 years ago a crisis meant you were going to starve or freeze to death. But I feel we must view the issues of the day by it’s modern context. And so I feel there is an actual crisis but it simply impacts the genders in different ways. And I believe this is a crisis of masculinity. The feminine and the masculine play out their roles in the lives of both men and women and when either one is out of whack, it poses a real threat to both genders.
But that threat doesn’t necessarily manifest itself in the same ways between men and women. I think what the missing link both genders may have in common is the state of fatherlessness or the lack of adequate paternal role models. In the way that mothers have a special bond with their sons, girls require that same special bond with their fathers. However almost all boys benefit from a mother whereas the majority of girls do not benefit from a father. 1 in 4 girls grow up fatherless. That’s about 17.2 million fatherless girls. We are not having the conversation about the impact or ripple effects of such a dramatic yet silent statistic.
When I started writing this I came at it from the position of what Jordan Peterson has to offer women. But given how many lectures, debates and conversations he’s engaged with in his evangelical-style book tour I felt the necessity to distinguish between what Jordan Peterson has to offer women and what his book 12 rules for life has to offer women. But as I flipped through the chapters, reassessing the book to look for female specific messages or lessons, I felt myself at a loss. Not from the lack of female emphasis but from how equally valuable the message is to both boys and girls.
Rules #2: Treat yourself like someone you are responsible for helping – this might be a rule better emphasised for men since men are more likely to suffer in silence before going to the doctor, as opposed to women. Rule #3: Make friends with people who want the best for you – is a message of equal utility whether you’re a boy or girl. But rule #7: Do what is meaningful (not what is expedient) – this truly poses different challenges to women than the ones it poses to men. In terms of whether women desire both children and a career. Men have a bit more freedom to postpone having children till later in life which opens up more career opportunities to them.
What is meaningful at the individual level may not always match the popular consensus of what is “successful”. Equality of opportunity means battling stigma around both deviating from norms but also the pursuit of norms. Let the definition of success be described by the individual in what they find meaningful, not an academic course outline, the zeros on a paycheque or some stupid teen magazine. Pursuing what is meaningful will not only produce what is successful to you but, as Peterson always says, meaning will be what you use to offset your suffering. Snake oil salesmen sell us on the lie of happiness when the key to transcending your suffering is the pursuit of what is meaningful. That is what 12 rules for life has to offer women.
What it means to discover meaning
Communication around success is easily accessible as we all commonly presume the accumulation of commodity or asset but communicating what is meaningful is much less self evident. Because only you can define what is meaningful to you. But it’s probably something that involves some level of risk taking. You find meaning in the things that engage you. An instinctive phenomena you likely describe as your gut feeling or following your heart. Engagement that eclipse your concept of time. It likely feels like being at the right place at the right time.
Our subconscious cries out for this as we fill our days with activities of “empowerment”, “alignment”, “well-being”, “balance” or “harmony”. Whether we feel that from attending a concert, playing or watching a sport, blogging, doing yoga or other athletics. It’s the marriage between the metaphysical and the technical. It’s walking that fine line between order and chaos. It’s the process of growth and decay like that represented in the Taoist yin, shadow, and the yang, light. There is every reason to believe that in the moments one finds themselves fully engaged, they are actually fulfilling their destiny.
Delayed Gratification
In 12 rules for life Jordan Peterson makes the case that it is far more desirable to delay one’s gratification towards a target or goal. Despite the fact it runs contrary to our animalistic nature which demands immediate satisfaction. Especially when we are in a state of deprivation. But doing what is expedient is how one becomes addicted to drugs or alcohol or binge eating. Expediency is the inability to make sacrifices for the future good. The greater the sacrifice, the deeper and more profound opportunities open up for the future.
The lesson to take away being the importance towards setting goals to be able to plan a direct path correlating between now and then. This will reveal to a person which sacrifices will be necessary towards attaining such goals. One of the ways society fails girls is that today’s political correct oriented views promote education and careers for the sake of simply obtaining an education and a career. With no real discussion around the direction that will take you nor the consequences of choosing the necessary sacrifices to follow that path. This egalitarian-centric tit for tat treats women more as statistics and quotas than the sovereign individuals they are.
Problematic Education
We call it success when we allow people to go into tens of thousands of dollars in debt to study post secondary courses that have no potential of translating into an actual job let alone a career. Not to mention the post secondary courses for things that are already arguably obsolete as the rollout of automation continues to eliminate occupations. Year by year post secondary enrollment requires more and more justification.
As long as we continue to consider post-secondary education in itself necessary and the only means to success then we will only continue to incentivize aimless career students. Also risk producing people who don’t really qualify for any job. Either impossible to find opportunities in their specialization or dismissed for being overqualified for positions potential employers fear they’d simply quit the first chance they get. And no one is addressing the role motherhood plays into any of this.
There are movements to reform the education system to truly filter out things that don’t apply to the real world. And perhaps it is time we completely rethink the way education serves students and how to address what areas get priority to better ready students for the ever changing modern world. Perhaps in the form of more partnership between educators and employers with a more school-to-work based curriculum.
As someone, myself, who only completed high school, I continue to learn every single day through the revolution independent content creators provide through podcasts, youtube videos, books, blogs, etc. Perhaps the education system can help facilitate continued education in a post-graduate reality. Assuming what we truly value is education itself. But the days of cookie cutter, career-based classroom environments has served to only stifle creativity and innovation in an economy that now thrives on entrepreneurs.
Entrepreneurship also happens to open opportunities for mothers who seek irregular hours and the ability to work from home. And with the vast majority of women dropping out of the workforce within their 30s to start a family, it’s pretty clear that what we are faced with is not a “gender pay” gap but a motherhood gap. And motherhood is not a “problem” to be solved by politicians. There’s no evidence to suggest that this isn’t exactly the right choice for women to make. And we need to embrace family and motherhood better. And the answer isn’t 24/7 daycare from ages 0-24.
Watch: Jordan Peterson Explain the Motherhood Gap
Could this result in less female CEOs? Fewer female top executives? Maybe, maybe not. But we need to ask ourselves how we define success as individuals, not as members of a group from which demand quotas. But if we could plan for motherhood and have more family oriented educational courses then I believe this would help women make better decisions in everything from their personal relationships to career paths they study. And if the system could find a way to enroll boys in these courses this could lead to better rates of fatherhood. Which is actually more important to girls than to boys as I earlier pointed out that everyone gets a mother but not all girls get a father.
Higher Rates of Mental Illness Among Young Women
Watch: Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff Discuss Mental Health
Back when I was in high school if you said something controversial or did something regretful it maybe circulated around the school and maybe one or two people would say something to you but that was it. Today your social interactions happen mostly online and god forbid you say or do something others don’t approve of. What you do now can be retweeted and shared with the entire world and there is no way to undo that. This has radically changed the landscape for bullying.
Cyber bullying alone can involve spreading rumours, display hurtful comments for the world to view in the form of disparaging one’s physical appearance. Also one’s religious or political views. Bullies subject victims to sexual harassment towards teens who are only beginning puberty, a time when one find themselves particularly vulnerable. And if any teen finds themselves with special needs it’s no longer a handful of idiots snickering, it’s open displays of belittling, totally exposed for viewing by anyone and everyone.
Girls are 41 percent more likely to be subjected to cyber bullying than boys at 28 percent. The type of cyber bullying girls engage in with other girls is far more sophisticated than the way boys engage with other boys. I know when I was a boy it was more about threats of violence or situations would lead to actual physical altercations. But no one wanted to get into a fight with a girl. Girls would move schools because of other girls. It was more like psychological warfare to see who could ruin the other person’s life. A former girl friend of my own turned on me and actively sought to turn all my friends against me. Luckily she was unsuccessful but it was a war that dominated 2 whole years of my high school experience. By the end of it I found myself having become a bully myself to battle against it. This was before facebook opened to the public.
Boys tend to interact more over gaming platforms so unless they’re streaming their content at least these interactions aren’t necessarily being displayed and recorded for the rest of the world to observe. At least not in the same ways as twitter, instagram or tumblr, which are more female dominated platforms. I can’t seem to find stats on exactly how many girls have attempted suicide but there is no doubting that we are seeing more Amanda Todds than ever before.
Watch: Amanda Todd’s last video upload
The Superficiality and Over Sexualization of Social Media
But aside from cyber bullying, girls are forced to observe the artificial reality that social media provides. You need only browse the app store to see how marketing is catering towards women’s insecurities to keep them insecure and to keep them paying money to cover up superficial imperfections. The only thing boys give a shit about is whether or not they have man boobs or if their dicks are too small. A pimple for a woman is worthy of a panic attack.
Only seconds of looking at these apps and you can see exactly what’s in conflict with social media’s perception of beauty. It’s not much different from a casting couch porn audition and it’s targeting girls at all age groups. Instead of idolizing figures marketing campaigns put before us, like Kim Kardashian, perhaps the best role model for girls to develop their sense of beauty and value is through the context of their fathers. The depth of that relationship may provide the security and confidence necessary to develop a media literacy to shield against the seduction of consumerism and marketing.
It’s normal to have ugly people shamed by beauty but this level of superficiality is fundamentally designed to shame every aspect of a woman’s physical appearance. This stuff isn’t even about attracting partners. Majority of guys find the majority of women attractive. And usually it’s not because of the makeup. Although the makeup doesn’t hurt. Although makeup at it’s core isn’t marketed to highlight what’s attractive about you. It’s strictly designed to highlight your flaws.
Even if such “flaws” are what make you unique and desirable in your own way, makeup is not marketed to promote positivity. There’s nothing in here about how to be a better friend or how to improve your life. Nor does it offer any insight about who you are or about your personality traits. Not that I’m bashing cosmetics but there is nothing here instructive or educational about cosmetic application or any educational basis for fashion in general. This is intellectual smut that’s training our girls to believe that the most important details about themselves are what’s skin deep.
And this isn’t even addressing magazines and other marketing that targets preteens through to young adults. Magazines like cosmopolitan can be found anywhere from department store checkouts to doctor office waiting rooms. Some of the issues are so shallowly sexual that even walmart has relocated where customers find them within stores. In this era of #peopleofwalmart, even walmart knows where to draw a line on social immorality. Most covers advertising the same thing. How to be desirable and how to have better orgasms. Meanwhile any man who reads these magazines can’t seem to figure out what men they’re actually talking about. But these magazines have been around forever. They would be less of an explanation to the sudden changes in girls mental health.
Feminism Hurts Women More than Men
Watch: BlazeTV on why not to be a feminist
When most people identify as “feminist” today I think they think of themselves as the old fashion, equality of opportunity type of feminist. Who wouldn’t be in favour of that in 2018? But the reality is despite there has never been more feminine movements than today, there are fewer and fewer positive role models for girls to look up to for guidance as they navigate an ever changing world. Virtually no one on any mainstream platform advocates for traditional values anymore. In fact traditional values are said to be patriarchal and oppressive now. And the only thing women hear about today are all the barriers holding them back, rather than all the opportunities available to encourage them. What’s worse is the fact that the bulk of this culture war is being waged by a noisy minority and it’s the consenting silence of the vast majority that give this malevolent minority authority to re-write history and provide an ideological context to how everything gets interpreted.
Feminism loves to attack men however they fail to consider all the women who have relationships with the very men they’re attacking. Which get demeaned by proxy. Not to mention that despite all the hashtags, marches and slogans purportedly in favour of women don’t prevent these same women from condemning other women like Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Margaret Thatcher, Roseanne Barr, and every other woman who is counter narrative to the feminist agenda. Feminism isn’t about women, it’s about the “correct” women. Reports found women were actually happier than men in the 1960s whereas today women’s rates of happiness has dropped below that of men.
Feminism has, arguably successfully, replaced scientific data with hashtags. One need only look to James Damore and the Google debacle. Damore wrote a memo on how to entice more women into the stem field jobs. However because he used words like “typical versus a-typical”, “neurotic”, “agreeableness” and “risk averse” in relation to “job security” he was made out to be a bro-culture, rape apologizing hitler misogynist.
It leaked to mainstream news outlets who mischaracterized Damore as if he was boasting that men had bigger brains than women. Even a random science magazine I picked up from a local Rexall featured an article on differences in the brain and mentioned the memo directly in it’s article. Rather than refer to experts these outlets were purely emotionally reacting to how the individual words in the memo. Fox news was the only mainstream outlet who refused to smear Damore’s reputation. Yes, because the world is upside down, Fox news was the only non-fake news source.
Watch: CNBC play a blatant hit piece on Damore by reporting on the Google Memo from a position emotionally reacting to the words rather than referring to expert critique
Watch: TVO discuss disparities in female representation in 2012 (I bet if TVO played this today there would be protests outside the building to have Paikin fired)
Feminists resist science because they’re afraid of truth and the truth cannot be weaponized. Feminism needs an opponent for it to justify it’s own existence. So it has adopted a marxist oriented classism called intersectionality. Where through the lens of oppressor and oppressed you are now able to break humanity down into an infinite amount of identity groups (based on disabilities, ethnicities, religions, politics, etc) and since everyone is oppressed by something you now have justification for advocacy. And given that bureaucracy is defensive in nature then all you need to do to bring selective changes to the forefront is to protest in the form of filing formal complaints and grievances and form marches and online groups and get everyone in your group to echo in the form of retweets, hashtags, etc, criminal accusations towards institutions who fail to comply with your demands.
Next thing you know you have all the mainstream media outlets calling James Damore a sexist, misogynist. Not because they care whether or not he really is, but because they themselves don’t want the backlash of facing such an accusation. Some look at this mob justice and call it progress. However you don’t get to reject truth and walk away unscathed. To invalidate the big 5 personality traits as sexist means you’re dismissing all the qualities that make up everything that women are in their own way and all the insight that comes with unlocking the qualities to help you accomplish your life goals.
The ultimate irony is that due to things like higher aversion to risk resulting in more conscientious decision making, more agreeableness resulting in conflict avoidance/resolution and it’s things like this that make women more competent than men, on average. If you disagree with that then acquaint yourself with the Darwin awards. You’ll walk away a believer that, on average, men are the less competent sex. This is why 80% of all consumer baseddecision making is made by women because men know who’s the boss! Just because there is a disparity doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong.
Tribalism is a part of our biology. Therefore our tendencies towards tribalism is deeply built into us all. When you frame situations around victim groups and the privileged groups. Meaning people at the bottom are good and people at the top are bad. It may not be self evident what’s so harmful with this notion but what it’s essentially saying is that life itself is a 0 sum game. That’s what they’re really saying when referencing to systematic racism. This encourages a tribalistic response which only dehumanizes individuals and divides society at every level from workplace relationships, friendships down to families and spouses. There are no checks in place to view things scientifically when your team is calling you to action. Feminism creates this positive feedback loop of negativity and relies on manufactured outrage to bring out the worst in you. A recruiting tactic to rally members not so different than ISIS calls to action.
As much as feminism claims to speak for all women, it’s really more like educated women advocating for other educated women. Demanding government paid all day child care is only advocating for parental disengagement. As if motherhood pride looks like children calling their nannies “mommy”. Let’s not innovate ways to bring the economy to women, let’s demand conformity to sculpt the kind of women we want. You know, in the name of diversity and inclusion and equity.
But it not only refuses to hold a more meaningful conversation on a woman’s role as a mother, it refuses to hold meaningful conversations about the challenges women face when seeking to begin a family. An educated woman tends to have kids roughly in their 30s. 4/10 children are born from single mothers. The mothers of 2/3s of those kids are mothers under 30 years old. But the most significant conversation it’s avoiding is the fact that the majority of single mothers live in poverty.
According to singlemotherguide.com (US stats), about 12 million single parent families with children under the age of 18, more than 80% were headed by single mothers. 4/10 children are born to single women and 2/3s of those kids are born to mothers under the age of 30. Among 11,667 single parent families 81.4% are headed by single mothers. 35.6% were poor. 27.5% were jobless all year long with 22.4% receive unemployment benefits. 31.6% were food insecure with 13% on some variation of food assistance like a food bank. 50% never married. 29% are divorced where 21% are either separated or widowed. The median income for single mothers is $35,400 whereas the median income for married couples is $85,300.
Frankly it’s the Church and local communities and families who are the primary supports for these women. And also some of the primary targets of feminism in the name of fighting oppression. And in attacking these support systems, they launch a direct assault on the women who rely on them. As long as they propagandize emotions and replace data with hashtags as the evidence in their arguments, they will only feed toxic tribalism and hurt women in the process. If you want to identify as feminist, regardless your views, you have to accept that people like Hannah Gadsby is the spokesperson you are electing to speak on your behalf.
Watch: Hannah Gadsby explain what her definition of a “good man” is.
We all want equality of opportunities. But this equality oriented feminism is overshadowed by this new trend of intersectionality and identity politics. It’s also in bed with the post-modernists and neo-marxists. Feminism today operates more as a religion and mobs anyone who commits blasphemy. It truly highlights the dangers of smart people being seduced by dangerous ideologies. We are at a point now where feminists cook up so much false, propagandized data that you literally cannot trust any statistics they espouse.
Watch: Louise Mazanti PhD discuss moving on from #metoo
As the modern feminists say: the opposite of feminist is misogynist so you’re either with us or against us. And there could be no better example of this than how Cassie Jaye was treated by the mainstream media for creating her documentary, “the red pill“. Or that of what’s happening to Megan Murphy. She takes the controversial stance that trans women (male to female) are not biological women. Therefore she does not want to share women only spaces like women only gyms with trans women. Some of these women are victims of domestic violence or rape by men so it’s easy to understand why this would cause a conflict. And, to me, proves that “inclusiveness” does not mean everyone gets their own space, it means you are obligated to submit your space to everyone else. Why can’t we have women only gyms? The fact that they wage war against this proves there will be no rest until every single institution and corporation has submitted everything to the communist initiatives of these regressive progressives.
But the gender feminists have been condemning her and platforms like twitter is enabling their campaign of hate by responding to a report by banning murphy. They even have a name for women like Murphy. Murphy is deemed a “terf” (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist). She has officially been deplatformed and dehumanized by this new allocation as radical. Feminism with all its many faces today is nothing more than an ouroboros as it is doomed to devour itself.
You either have empathy or you don’t. There is no picking and choosing who you have empathy for. You’re either empathetic or you’re not. Empathy is not a trait that prioritizes any kind of hierarchical order. So if you claim to advocate for the disenfranchised and yet end up condemning people who advocate for the disenfranchised then it’s clear to me your initiatives are not based in compassion as you claim. Your initiatives are more likely based in resentment. And this is where instead of attempting to correlate this to the many examples of genocide in the 20th century, I will simply tell you to read the Gulag Archipelago.
Watch: Jess Butcher, TEDxAstonU: Is Modern Feminism Starting to Undermine Itself?
Watch: Jordan Peterson lecture on motherhood and career
And so I come back to my original musing, what does Jordan Peterson has to offer women? Well his message, to me, is received like very fatherly advice. Many people have not had the pleasure of receiving fatherly advice to guide them through life. And so I believe it’s Peterson’s fatherly role modeling that is actually more meaningful to women than it is to men. Peterson often discusses how hierarchical ordering is built into our biology. He also frequently highlights the subtle differences that define the sexes through the big 5 personality traits.
Society sings songs and cracks jokes about women being gold diggers. However Peterson responds to this by asking why any woman would desire a pathetic man-child? Peterson points out something that should be common sense to us all but because of things like feminism it’s become controversial to openly discuss. Women select men that are of equal or greater status to themselves. Which only makes finding a suitable partner harder the more successful a woman becomes. Not that men are settlers, men just don’t put such emphasis on status. This is why the boss, secretary dynamic is such a common kink. The woman looks up to her boss while displaying to the boss an ability to fulfill his needs.
Petersons self authoring program allows you to learn about where you land within the big 5 personality traits. Peterson, in this context, often discusses how to overcome self-defeating behaviours. And identifying other bad habits holding you back. There is no greater advantage in setting goals then truly understanding who you are. This information helps you better understand yourself. What’s powerful about this for people and for women in particular, is that Peterson does a good job at communicating with a paternal flare the value in each one of these traits. He’s battling the stigma attached to the things that make the sexes similar but also the things that separate us.
Watch: Dr. Oz hosts Jordan Peterson in sharing quiz to help you accomplish your goals
Most women would take offense to being called neurotic. Mainly because it’s often used as an insult. But Peterson highlights that we rely on people in society who are sensitive to risk to keep dangerous new changes in check, however necessary the changes may be. Peterson’s message is a case for the sovereignty of the individual. Speak for yourself and only yourself, do not let any group dictate how you ought to live or try to speak for you. We all have strengths and weaknesses and there’s a reason why we tend to admire those who overcome their weaknesses. We’re not celebrating the weakness itself, we are rather admiring one’s triumph over it. Tragedy is the fact of life and there is nothing more real than pain.
Men and Women, regardless what they believe, are in this struggle together. And we need to step up and address exactly how we are getting masculinity wrong. And perhaps Jordan Peterson is providing us with a new cultural conversation to figure out what exactly we’ve all gotten so wrong. And perhaps through that discussion will emerge a new found respect for both sexes. And perhaps we can end this feuding with a warm embrace and renewed appreciation for each other.
Let girls benefit from their fathers in the ways boys get to benefit from their mothers. Let fathers advocate for risk taking and the call to adventure, to take part in the greater destiny of the world, that all good fathers demand of their children. Let feminine girls contrast with their masculine fathers and learn how to appreciate differences which can act in a way to support them. I think one of the ways fatherlessness manifests itself is the fact that women are more Christian than men. In church attendance, in faith, in practice and in participation. I believe this is by nature women finding it both more appealing and satisfying in building on their relationship with God the father.
My grandma made me a better man. So I believe grandpas, fathers, brothers and sons can also empower girls and women. We are at our best when we love each other. Let them embrace that masculinity in a way that celebrates their femininity. The key to better lives is through healthier relationships. And let boys and girls understand their whole selves and to take pride in the makeup of their character whether those traits be feminine or masculine. Let neither trait be discouraged if that daughter or that son finds meaning through it. Let them use what is meaningful to offset their suffering and let us all find peace in a balanced, aligned, harmonized relationship to both the light and the shadow. Let us love one another and work things out together so we can move forward together. It’s through our union together that will solve both crisis among boys and girls.
Although faculty, students and staff are free to criticize, contest and condemn the views expressed on campus, they may not obstruct, disrupt, or otherwise interfere with the freedom of others to express views they reject or even loath, – Sheridan college’s statement of principles.
The free speech policy consists of five core elements:
— A definition of freedom of speech
— A commitment to allow open discussion and free inquiry.
— A statement that it is not the college’s role to shield members of the college community from ideas they disagree with.
— A statement that while members of the college community are free to contest the views of others, they must also respect the rights of others to express their views.
— An affirmation that speech that violates the law is not allowed.
This is all after the Ontario provincial government mandated all University and College campuses to adopt strong free speech policies by the new year otherwise they would face funding cuts. This coming after a series of disturbing breaches to free speech on campuses across the country. This demonstrates a real divide in the country since the election of US president Donald Trump. There are those among us who have decided that free speech enables hate speech. And that advocating for free speech is simply apologizing for deplorable speech.
Now, if you’re among those who have been pretty tuned out of the free speech debate over the last few years then this all may seem like just more political rhetoric. If you’re reacting to this like my friend Rob, “Umm, I’m pretty sure that’s because free speech was already protected in Ontario and this is just virtue signalling to the triggered ‘kids these days’ crowd,” then allow me to highlight just some of the things that have been happening and entertain the trickle down effect campus culture has on the rest of our culture.
Watch: TVO, The Agenda with Steve Paikin: Freedom of Expression on Campus
1. Lindsay Shepherd vs Laurier University.
It all started when Lindsay Shepherd, a WLU T.A. who was teaching a grammar class, showed a clip from the TVO show, The Agenda with Steve Paiken. This episode happened to feature Jordan Peterson at the peak of his bill C-16 controversy. The episode was discussing the gender based pronouns. After Shepherd played the clip she was notified by her professor that she was to meet him for a meeting as apparently there had been one or more complaints made against Shepherd. Suspecting she was being hauled in over the video she showed she decided it would be a good idea to record the meeting.
It was a good thing she did because if she hadn’t, no one would believe her outlandish story about her professor accusing her of showing off nazi propaganda. The recording Lindsay leaked revealed her professors accusing her of being irresponsible for exposing the students to the content in a neutral manner. He went on to criticise that it was like neutrally playing something from Hitler or Milo Yiannopoulos. Basically she was being disciplined for not attempting to shape the students opinion. However Lindsay pushed back to say that the role of the University was in fact to challenge students values and perspectives.
Watch: Benjamin A Boyce created a series of video critiques following Laurier
But that didn’t stop the University from continuing to mistreat Ms. Shepherd. She was reassigned to another professor who was simply vicious with her and was more than happy to create a toxic workplace for Shepherd. Until eventually she had nullified Shepherd’s role as T.A. for the remainder of the year. Harassment of her peers and students went un-mediated as Shepherd first attempted to hold a Q&A with guest speaker Faith Goldy but had the event shut down when students pulled the fire alarm. In a second attempt to host the event with Mrs. Goldy the University itself demanded a security fee of $28,500 before allowing the event to proceed. And then when they were unable to accumulate the funds demanded, they were denied their request to host the event.
Watch: Benjamin A Boyce Interviews Valerie Flokstra
Students were told premature births were contributing to increased autism diagnoses. Flokstra questioned whether high abortion rates in Canada could be playing a role, citing studies showing a link between abortion and later premature births.
Asking that made the classroom an unsafe space, the 22-year old was told.
Flokstra covertly recorded the hour-long meeting with Prof. Nancy Norman, in whose class the incident took place, and Prof. Vandy Britton, the head of the teacher education department. Fearing academic reprisal, she waited until after graduation to share the audio. She now works as a teacher at a British Columbia private school.
Flokstra’s ordeal has numerous similarities to what former Wilfrid Laurier University graduate student Lindsay Shepherd experienced last year. In fact, Flokstra credits Shepherd’s ordeal with motivating her to record the meeting in the first place.
Much like with Shepherd, Flokstra’s professors attempt to couch offensive recommendations with an “I’m on your side” attitude, using social justice as a trump card over academic inquiry. Just as Shepherd’s professors compared Jordan Peterson to Adolf Hitler, Flokstra was told discussing abortion is like a UFV KKK club.
It’s this attitude, particularly in the teacher education program, that Flokstra said she wanted to challenge by releasing the audio.
– Andrew Lawton, fellow at the True North Initiative
A male student attempted to create a men’s issues student group but was met with protests and slander as a feminist collective had funding refused from the group and went on a smear campaign to label Kevin Arriola, the student applying for the group, as a misogynist. Despite the fact that about half the group was made up of women. On Oct. 27, 2015, MIAS was informed its application for club status had been rejected. Kevin Arriola took the Ryerson Student Union to court with representation by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms. But the case was dismissed, the judge saying it, “had no merit,” to it.
“It’s the kind of culture and climate that exists around these group… even if it’s not the group itself,” said Alyson Rogers, one of the founders of the Ryerson Feminist Collective. “It’s a gathering area for people who are anti-women, anti-feminist and rape apologists. A lot of the issues that men face comes from the privilege of being men. Patriarchy is oppressive to women but it also deals men a bad hand. Even if half their membership is women… We’re more concerned about the ideology as opposed to the makeup of the membership.”
“We have explicitly said we are not a feminist group, but we are not an anti-feminist group as well,” Arriola said.
Watch: CBC’s Sunday Talk Panel featuring Jonathan Kay on The MIAS group
Watch: Gad Saad interviews Rick Mehta (The Saad Truth_724)
Rick Mehta was fired despite his tenured position with the University for critical comments made around the truth and reconciliation commission, feminism, identity politics, immigration and decolonization. He was then only offered a copy of the report that lead to his firing if he would sign off on what he called a “gag order” agreement.
A student group studying criminology sought to host a lecture by Danielle Robitaille, Jean Ghomeshi’s lawyer. But mobs formed opposition and with a lack of time to coordinate a security detail Robitaille cancelled. “Even without uttering a word, one of the main points in my speech has been made: the complaints and the call to cancel my talk rest on a fundamental misunderstanding of the justice system and the nature of the role of defence counsel in the adversarial process,” Robitaille wrote in her response to the student group who invited her.
6. Universities allowing Social Justice Mobs to shut down events and lectures
Whether it’s Jordan Peterson hosting a lecture about the value of free speech or Janice Fiamengo questioning the ethics around modern day feminism, Universities intentionally under staff security to these events when they know protests will take place. At Jordan Peterson’s lecture at Queen’s one protestor brought a Garrote and another damaged the stain glass windows of the lecture hall from bashing against the glass. Or in Lindsay Shepherd’s case after a mob pulled a fire alarm, the University prevented the event by demanding a security fee of $28,500.
Watch: SJW Mobs at Queen’s University
Watch: SJW Mobs at McMaster University
Watch: TVO’s Agenda with Steve Paikin, Free Speech: At what cost
The Centre for Constitutional Freedoms does a full detailing of data about the state of free speech on 60 Canadian public universities. The Campus Freedom Index grading methodology is found here. Each university receives four letter grades: one for each of university policies, university practices, student union policies, and student union practices. Using a five-tier letter scale—A, B, C, D and F—the Campus Freedom Index grades universities and student unions on their stated policies (what they say) and their practices (what they do).
Some of their findings which I did not mention here already were:
Dalhousie University earns an ‘F’ for its decision to launch an investigation against undergraduate student Masuma Khan, over remarks she made on social media that offended some readers.
Saint Paul University earns an ‘F’ for its decision to cancel a planned film screening about abortion.
The University of Guelph earns an ‘F’ for refusing to allow a pro-life student group to hold a tabling event about abortion.
The University of Victoria earns an ‘F’ for condoning vandalism and disruption of a sanctioned student-organized pro-life event.
The “trickle down effect” that campus culture has on the rest of society can be observed in some of the latest changes among social media platforms. Twitter has now updated it’s conduct policy to ban hateful conduct such as misgendering, deadnaming or “promoting harm”. Yet it makes a clear distinction between those it deems to be within their “protected category membership” and those that are not. That’s how people like Megan Murphy and Jesse Kelly get banned. Whereas twitter actively permits people like Louis Farrakhan tweet things like, “I’m not an anti-Semite. I’m anti-Termite.” And known terrorist groups like Hamas don’t get their twitter accounts removed. So it’s official. You talk about Bruce Jenner’s work in the olympics and Twitter actually believes you’re worse than terrorists. Actually.
And then there was Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, delivered a speech while accepting the Anti-Defamation League’s first-ever Courage Against Hate award at an event in New York City. He said, “We only have one message for those who seek to push hate, division and violence: You have no place on our platforms. You have no home here.”
“We believe the future should belong to those who use technology to build a better, more inclusive, and more hopeful world,” Cook continued. “I believe the most sacred thing that each of us is given is our judgment, our morality, our own innate desire to separate right from wrong. Choosing to set that responsibility aside in a moment of trial is a sin.” This religious framework was no coincidence.
The ideology of identity politics operates like a doctrine which overrides reason and logic. Tim Cook may be a brilliant man but if he insists on viewing life through the context in which intersectionality provides then it won’t be long before the category of “white supremacist” becomes a blanket term which is used to categorize anyone who disagrees. And when your doctrine persecutes comedians, the gulags are not far away.
We’re already seeing a doubling down on this banning culture where now Patreon has been purging it’s platform of those it considers guilty of hate speech. With the deplatforming of Sargon of Akkad, a gamergate free speech advocate, pro-brexiteer and mere internet troll. He used the “N” word to insult an actual ethno-nationalist, white supremacist in a fight they were having. He called the actual neo nazi the “N” word because to them, there is no greater insult. Like when engaging with another in road rage, you don’t first consider whether or not your critique out the car window is politically correct enough or not.
Not that I’m making the case that it’s ever ok to use such charged language, I must say, to separate myself from the violation in question. In order to play the game by the crazy’s rules in this upside down world of “words are violence”. But what’s worthy of note is that Sargon did this impulsively on another person’s content which THEY chose to leave in. And this was not something that took place over Patreon. Nor did it directly violate Patreon’s terms and conditions. And he was not given any warning, second chance or opportunity to appeal. Overnight he lost his income which enabled him to commit towards content creation.
And he may be an offensive troll but there is no doubt that he is not a white supremacist. Not to mention that if you search the “N” word on Patreon you find about 9 page results in references to it. So, like any message board or comment enabled media, it’s a very commonly used. So why Sargon? Perhaps he’s just enough of a troll that a cost vs benefit analysis can be experimented with in the lead up to the 2020 American elections. Creators began moving to a competitor site, Subscribe Star, but within less than a week Paypal, the payment processor used by these platforms, refused to service Subscribestar. Coincidence? Or antitrust violation?
And now with this UN global compact using the terminology “irregular migrant” as opposed to “illegal migrant” will we see a crackdown on independent media over the use of the word “illegal”? Another example on how technical language becomes reshaped into moralized language. Exactly for the purposes of communication. So when legitimate media has questions to hold politicians accountable they now have the ability to skirt disagreeable questions by dehumanizing the person asking the question. Liberals don’t answer to bigots.
That is why we must stand for free speech, in all forms, shapes and sizes from every institution through to every corporation and down to every personal conversation. You may not like all speech you hear, so combat it with better speech. By shutting down and silencing the ability to express oneself freely, the cure will become more harmful than the problem. Speech is no different today than it was 30 years ago. In fact it’s probably a lot better considering average joes like me actually say “N” word. But it’s technology that elevates it and it’s trolls who throw it in our faces, forcing us to look at it. What we have is a technology problem, not a speech problem. We need to stop this madness before someone decides to program this condemnation of hate into the AI that will bring upon the singularity and once it realizes that every human has the capacity in their heart for hate, it decides to end the human experiment. This is not so unbelievable if you’ve been reading the new york times lately.
Watch: Benjamin A Boyce edit of Tim Cook’s comments
Watch: Jordan Peterson delivers lecture on free speech
If we do not believe in freedom of speech for those we despise; we do not believe in it at all.
A photo on the Facebook page of the deep-south born white American showed shoes. “Other guy goals,” the caption read. Below it was a photo of a cache of military-style firearms. “My goals,” read the post by the man, who identified himself in his profile as “John Smith.” He has since deleted the post. On Facebook, the man described himself in a recent post as a “MAGA warrior residing in the land of godlessness”
But more than two years after flying back to Georgia and telling reporters he participated in the brutal Trump rallies in Las Vegas, he has not been arrested.
“No unbeliever can touch me,” he said in a recent text message to a former friend, who shared it with local news sources.
The Trump administration was to respond Tuesday to a House motion that called for “a plan to immediately bring to justice anyone who has promoted hate or participated in any violent activity.”
Although introduced by the Democratic opposition, the house supported the Oct. 22 motion, which specifically urged action against those “who are in America or have American citizenship.”
“This President has failed to secure America so badly that genocidal maniacs feel safe to brag to their friends about our President’s fecklessness,” House Judiciary Committee member Michelle Rempel said during Question Period on Monday, referring to the local news report about the white American.
In response, Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said police and security agencies “are far more proficient at securing the country and keeping Americans safe than the alleged sources that are referred to by the opposition.”
OK. Full stop. Let’s take a moment to digest all of this. This could be direct evidence as to how exactly Trump is enabling violent discourse throughout the country. The only problem with this is that the real fake news is me. This isn’t actually a story about Trump. I mean, it’s a real news story but this has nothing to do with America. It’s about a former ISIS fighter in Syria who our Trudeau government has invited back home.
Fake: “MAGA warrior residing in the land of godlessness”
Real: “Mujahid residing in Dar al Kufr” — a jihadist fighter in the land of disbelief.
Fake: after flying back to Georgia and telling reporters he participated in the brutal Trump rallies in Las Vegas, he has not been arrested.
Real: after flying back to Toronto and telling reporters he had served in the brutal ISIS police in Syria, he has not been arrested.
What I have done here was an intentional attempt to provoke you. But to provoke you in a meaningful way. To challenge your preconceived notions. To apply your values in one situation to another which merely poses the same question, do we oppose government officials who denigrate journalism that questions their decisions and policy? Because even though Ralph Goodale was more articulate than needing to call Global News fake news or the enemy of the people, he’s still outright denying the legitimacy of the report.
It’s the fact he’s merely dismissing it outright rather than opposing it with contradictory information. This new Liberal tactic of if you’re unethical I don’t need to talk to you. Only their criteria for what’s unethical borders around whether or not you disagree with them. And we all know how the Trudeau Liberals feel about borders. The reason this is such a big deal is because this isn’t a report discussed on fringe news medias like independent youtubers or the detested Rebel Media. It’s Global News, among the mainstream media. But he’s treating them as if they were Rebel Media by simply discrediting their journalism.
Why? Because it counters the Liberal narrative so it must be opposed. It’s not about truth. And that’s why this assault on free speech is so disturbing. Because the only “evidence based” journalism they acknowledge is that which has no objectivity. This is why we are seeing more and more questions posed to this government being met with claims of fake news or promoting hate or illegitimate due to it’s phobic orientation. These are slurs, not arguments, not answers. All to simply silence opposition by taking to a moral high ground to signal one’s virtues to the world rather than actually face scrutiny.
The photo I shared at the top I made up to mimic the real photo on the official Global News website. And the guy who posted the facebook image was Abu Huzayfa. But the only alteration to the text message, “No unbeliever can touch me,” was the word “unbeliever” with the Arabic word “kafir” which translates into non-believer. I even left in Michelle Rempel’s real name to see if anyone would catch the hint. Or at least hopefully expose how little you pay attention to question period in the house of commons.
I mean, I get it, who has time to watch question period? But that doesn’t stop us from forming our stubborn opinions and act like armchair experts. It doesn’t stop us from voting to prop up a government that does not have our best interests at heart. It’s exactly what allowed Doug Ford to become premier. Because when I warned all my friends during the PC leadership that if they didn’t get involved then Doug Ford could win I was met with “oh, but I don’t vote conservative.” Well guess what. Ford Nation shows up to vote every time for every situation for every election. And after Doug Ford beat Christine Elliot by only like 200 votes, you now have the premier you truly deserve.
Real: Michelle Rempel asked the public safety minister Ralph Goodale, “This prime minister has failed to secure Canada’s borders so badly that genocidal maniacs feel safe to brag to their friends about our prime minister’s fecklessness,” Conservative immigration critic Michelle Rempel said during Question Period on Monday, referring to the Global News report about the Pakistani-Canadian.
Real: In response, Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale said police and security agencies “are far more proficient at securing the country and keeping Canadians safe than the alleged sources that are referred to by the opposition.”
The greater point I am trying to make here is that we all need to have our preconceived notions challenged from time to time. I am by far no exception to this. But voting is more than a mere civic duty, it’s about fulfilling your role in a democracy predicated upon the sovereign individual. A value structure that is not shared globally. A value structure that is itself attacked wherever individual freedoms and liberty are suppressed. And every person who abandons their role in such a value structure is enabling those who would revoke such freedoms and liberties. Honestly, if you don’t want to participate in the western experiment then why don’t you opt out of it? Move to Saudi Arabia where the laws and rights are very structured and where you don’t have to be responsible for government. Just simply let the Monarchs bear all the responsibilities that come with governing. You do what your told and then you get to live out your days. Sounds way better than any patriarchal tyranny going on here in the west, for sure!
To allow ourselves to fall back into the apathy of group think and vote based on the tribe we subscribe to is a betrayal to the core values that was the foundation that our democracy was built on. We need to vote on issues. Issues are colour blind. And though a party governing philosophy, local representation and leadership weighs greatly on who we decide to support we also need to have the honesty to look within ourselves to observe what the issues are of the day and who is best representing the initiative to face the challenges ahead. We often become dispossessed by the present we inherited by our past but we always forget that the future depends on what we do now, in the present.
When claims of fake news looks like this, it’s easy to oppose:
But when someone more articulate dismisses questions with a more civil demeanor it’s much harder to discern what’s actually going on. But when a politician refuses to answer a question there’s a reason why. And in this case the Liberals are not answering questions on carbon tax, asylum seekers, ISIS fighters returning to Canada and now this “non-binding” UN Global Compact they’ve been working on since 2016. When asked about the Tori Staffordkiller Terry Lynne McClintic going from a prison to a healing lodge Trudeau literally just called the conservatives “ambulance chasing politicians“. You could literally see the hit of dopamine in his eyes from the smugness he thrives on. I’m just saying that if Fox news can stand in solidarity with CNN to defend free speech then we should also be willing to hold those accountable who seek to stifle access to information, deny the right to speak freely or defame those who scrutinize.
Before I end this I want to provoke you with one more thing. I want to address the actual story here because I want to point out something very important, which is why I decided to get out of bed at 4:00am to start this. When the Pakistani-Canadian texted his friend, “No kafir can touch me,” he was absolutely correct. We need to ask why we even have laws or borders or rules at all in general. Because there is a value system behind those laws. It’s called the spirit of the law. And it embodies the intent of those who wrote the laws. And the motivation behind those intentions were moral values. Judeo-Christian values such as the dignity of human life.
The Liberals are following the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law. The problem with the written law as words on paper is the ambiguity of language. It allows for loopholes to be exploited. There could be no better example of this than the case of Terry Lynne McClintic. You can’t commit a more egregious crime than what she did. And to find yourself in line with defending her actions, in my opinion, puts you in contempt of the court. If laws do not uphold our moral values then justice is not being served. It is a moral distinction between what is right and wrong. It is the written laws that enables us to act on those moral distinctions. Therefore without the spirit, the law itself is hollow. So sometimes we need to stop, take a step back and reassess whether or not we are doing the right thing.
Based on how Liberals follow rules, there is no reason to believe that they will act on any punishment against these returning ISIS fighters. They openly seek to rehabilitate them. As if they committed some misdemeanor. Get caught for rolling through a stop sign and you will face more persecution than any of these ISIS war mongers who behead, weaponize rape and vow to God to oppose each and every one of us simply by our identity. There is no “rehabilitating” a fundamental commitment to hatred and violence. And what remains of ISIS is learning that the best way to destroy the west isn’t to actually fight them, it’s to stand with us and allow us to fight ourselves until they merely inherit the ruin that remains.
I say this because today’s political correct culture allows for there to be double standards. It’s ok to condemn christians in the name of free expression. But say anything bad about Islam or Muslims and that’s blasphemy. Sorry, I mean “Islamophobic”. Which takes priority over your sovereign speech. Every time we appease the ouroboros SJW mob and bow to political correctness, we forfeit our freedoms and liberties. And I do sincerely apply this to every possible scenario because we already have amendments on freedom such as libel and defamation laws and incitement of violence laws. Everything else is up to the society made up of sovereign individuals within our sovereign state to enforce, it is not the role of government to legislate and compel.
If I were this Pakistani ISIS fighter I’d lawyer up and probably within a year I could find myself in a hotel room like the asylum seekers or with an out of court settlement for 10 million dollars like convicted terrorist Omar Kadhr, or both. And Trudeau himself would probably pose for selfies with me as the cherry on top. Because that’s how you follow the letter of the laws to destroy a country from within in the same way an infection kills it’s host. These are issues that we should all be able to agree on. And we should all stand to tell Trudeau loud and clear that we must have justice. And allowing ISIS to freely walk among us is to surrender to those who seek to conquer us.
You are a part of this culture war whether you want to be or not. And in this war silence is consent. Generations before you have built a society to honour you every single day. It’s time to take your place in the greater destiny of the world and uphold the values you’ve benefited from. It’s the Trudeau government itself which requires rehabilitation. Trudeau may have won the last election based on a popular vote but let’s not forget that before they even lost official opposition status. They have been out of touch with people for a very long time and even now the values they portray are that of special interest groups based on a regressive ideology that rejects enlightenment principles. All I ask is that you pay attention with open eyes and you challenge your preconceived notions as you pursue truth first before anything else.
Watch Michelle Rempel discuss what happened during question period more in depth:
Evil does seek to maintain power by suppressing the truth, or by misleading the innocent.
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:
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.
Nancy Regan declared a war on drugs in 1982 when she told a highschool student to “just say no” to drugs. It launched a whole movement but critics are saying today that it may have actually made drug use worse. I wonder what Nancy would say today with the opening of these safe injection sites like those around Toronto and Vancouver. Yes, drugs are bad but we didn’t get anywhere treating the people who take them as bad. And there’s a hell of a lot more nuance to substance abuse than just the substance. I think we generally all understand this. And maybe it’s because substance abuse is old as time.
But yet with most other things we tend to push to ban any and all things surrounding a problem. After the Danforth shooting people cried for Toronto Mayor John Tory to ban handguns. Despite the fact that the Danforth shooter was not using a legal gun so a gun ban would not have changed any of the events anyway. It was being said that the gun was smuggled across the US border and now CBC is saying the gun belonged to his brother. Either way you look at it, a gun ban wouldn’t have prevented the shooting nor will it prevent future shootings. But that didn’t stop Toronto Mayor John Tory from calling for provincial and federal support in banning handguns and ammunition sales in the greater Toronto area. “Why does anyone in this city need to have a gun at all?” John Tory asked in a press conference in response to the greektown shooting. But let’s be real. The only people who are hurt from a gun ban are legal, responsible gun owners.
But it sure is eerie how similar it sounded to the London Mayor’s tweet, “there is never a reason to carry a knife.” London currently has gun restrictions to address violent crimes and now stabbings have gone up and they’re currently talking about possible bans on knives. Will it take banning of every utensil or sharp object before someone steps up to finally address the implications of fatherlessness, PTSD among refugees we attempt to integrate into society, community based policing or gang culture which is prominent in the neighbourhoods in poverty? Nope, that means we have to actually talk about the differences between us all in society and that’s just targeting the vulnerable and that’s discrimination. Words are violence and ideas are dangerous!
Thankfully the province had the sense to not support a gun ban. They increased funding to the police to put more cops on the streets and specialty services. Because what we have isn’t a gun problem, it’s a gang problem. It seems like there were cops who were abusing their powers. Did they decide to crackdown on the bad apples? Did they explore possible protections like body cams to hold all police more accountable? No, Toronto decided that carding was a racist practice and they decided to just ban carding all out. Oh, then gang violence spiked to record levels? No, there can’t be any correlation there. And we are seeing less police engagement as we do more and more to tie their hands. I’m not saying I have all the answers but I know we’re addressing the wrong issues for the sake of looking virtuous.
Another great example is anytime you see Trump take a position on anything, the left feels the need to oppose it to the utmost extreme. This is Trump Derangement Syndrome. Where feelings fuel your thinking. And so if Trump calls for a border wall? Trump wants to limit migration? Well then borders are racist! Ban all borders! Open borders for all! Really? All those egalitarian countries you love, did they get there by opening their borders? It even extends to hating those who enforce immigration laws as people protest ICE agents. Even Barack Obama was talking about cracking down on illegal border crossers and those who employ them.
These things don’t actually make things better, they just create more problems. You can see this kind of hysteria legislation in the upcoming UN Global Compact (which is a whole series of blog posts in it’s own right coming soon) where they seek to literally change the language of “illegal immigrant” to “irregular immigrant” so even the very discussion around illegals will be deemed discriminatory rhetoric.
We’ve been seeing this attitude in science with climate change. For me anyways, it started in 2015 when Mark Steyn decided to challenge the famous Michael Mann “hockey stick” climate graph. He was tied up for half a decade in the courts over it. But to have someone challenging climate science really felt like a climate denier. Steyn highlighted this when he was on the Agenda with Steve Paikin and pointed out to Steve that “it’s not a chair issue“. Like everything else that we move to ban and censor and sanction, we’re not mature enough to actually have the conversation. Despite the fact he was backed up by climatologist Tim Ball. He won his court battle against Michael Mann. Even the founder of greenpeace, Patrick Moore, has spoken out about the fraudulent science around climate change but it’s clear that if you are not a climate change scientist, you are a climate denier. How about I live by Al Gore’s example and stop once I have my own private jet.
There is no room for discussion. And all those who “deny climate change” must be silenced, deplatformed, shut up forever. In the effort to get everyone on board with climate change they feel the need to lie to people, which only pushes people away from climate change initiatives. Then there’s the conundrum of legislating against climate change. Which is too difficult so let’s just introduce a carbon tax to make people who pollute pay more taxes. But… we ALL pollute. So then you ALL pay #BecauseScience.
What’s going on in France right now is possibly the best example on how the left is failing its own people. President Macron may have had his moment to talk about how horrible nationalism is, completely dismissing the democratic system which gave him the mandate to look after such people of the nation he represents. Now there are riots in the streets and they’re being called bigots. The very people who were celebrated for voting down the french nationalists despite the countless acts of terrorism that traumatized the country. And that’s the thanks they get, because they don’t buy the bullshit of a carbon tax? Real classy.
The new thing on campuses across the world is that words are violence and ideas are dangerous. So instead of using free speech to challenge disagreeable ideas or opinions it’s far easier to just ban free speech or deplatform. Some of the best examples of these are the protests held against Milo Yiannopoulos at Berkeley University which cost $100 000 during his first visit where protestors threw molotov cocktails at police. And then his second visit cost the University $800 000. Or when Ben Shapiro came to speak. Or Jordan Peterson at Queens University where one protestor carried a garrote. When words are violence you must ban free speech, they say. Free speech is an excuse for hate speech, they say. Well I say political correctness has gone too far.
Earlier this year Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and others all decided to ban Alex Jones. Though there were references to comments made around his Sandy Hook conspiracy, there was no specific explanation as to how exactly Jones had broken the platforms code of conduct. More recently, Twitter just updated their hateful conduct policy to grant them the right to ban accounts who engage in misgendering or deadnaming trans people and other forms of hateful targeting of members within their “protected category”. And they’ve wasted no time in suspending accounts from people like Megan Murphy, who is controversial for advocating for women only spaces (i.e. women only gyms) to barr trans women (male to female). Also decorated peacekeeper and journalist William Ray had his blog (The Tranish Inquisition) removed off of “medium” and then was suspended on twitter. Even James Woods found himself suspended for tweeting out two apparently hoax hashtags (#LetWomenDecide and #NoMenMidterms). Their reasons being that his tweets could affect the political process. As if censoring tweets isn’t interference. “This is not about a celebrity being muzzled. This is about an American being silenced — one tweet at a time.”
Twitter apparently subscribes to this ideology from the trans movement that because some people have gender dysphoria then we should all be compelled to address people by their choice of pronouns, despite how vague or inaccurate or nonsensical. It’s to such an extreme now that to even identify that biological sex exists is a form of descrimination of it’s own, called essentialism. Because gender is all just a social construct and we can choose to be whatever we want if we could only be free of the oppressive patriarchy. Oh, but we’re going to still call them “trans” because they are transitioning from boy to girl. Or girl to boy. You know, gender reassignment surgery? If Gender was a social construct then you would never feel that you were in the wrong body. And I wonder what trans people are talking about when they refer to appearing “passable”. You mean, like, passable as the opposite gender? Should we target trans people who use the word “passable” as divisive hate speech rhetoric? If gender was truly a social construct then “misgendering” would be impossible and no one would require hormones. Well it’s clear what we must do, ban all biological sex!
And then there was Apple today with Tim Cook. “At Apple, we believe technology needs to have a clear point of view,” Cook said while addressing “those who seek to push hate, division or violence.” Well, none of those I’ve discussed here today qualify as “white supremacists”. And now you’re probably second guessing all those times you swiped to consent to apple to have access to all your personal information. Look, regardless what you define hate to be or whether or not you disagree with the positions of any of the people I’ve featured here, deplatforming doesn’t work. The whole reason Jordan Peterson is world famous now is in part because everyone has told you not to pay attention to him. Deplatforming reaps more division than any divisive comment.
But this is what we get for creating a world where everyone gets to have a voice. There are no private clubs or closed off group chats or anything that isn’t immediately accessible by the rest of the world. And so there is no privacy. So all the locker room talk and every opinion we disagree with is right there in front of our faces, promoted by third parties looking for clicks. Maybe we ought to address the nature of clickbait journalism and provocateurs. But we’re not mature enough for that. It’s far easier to just ban it all. If you don’t like the conversation, change the channel. When you’re so obsessed with spotting conflict you literally see everything as problematic. Now christmas classics are under fire just like old Disney movies. Like “baby it’s cold outside” was actually about rape. Rudolph the Red nosed Reindeer was only accepted for deviating from the norm because he was able to be exploited by the patriarchal Santa Claus. Santa Claus himself is now a white supremacist.
Everyone was on board when Charlottesville happened. People carrying tiki torches and chanting “jews will not replace us“. Yes, that’s a nazi. Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Ted Cruz. These are all people who have said and done toxic, reprehensible things. Would I call them nazis? No, Alt right, sure. How about all conservatives? Nazis? Bigots? Now you’re starting to lose me. But now you’re putting other feminists, conservatives, scientists and me in the same camp as the guys carrying the tiki torch because we said “Bruce Jenner”? It’s so scary to see this snowballing assault on free speech. And how it’s actually celebrated. And it’s EXACTLY what the tiki torch carriers want.
Today it’s a simple twitter account. Tomorrow it’s all media that has any kind of conservative perspective. Then it’s all media that doesn’t agree to promote the “accepted narrative”. Then we will program AI to share these “values” and it’s only when we program them to “ban” all forms of hate speech that they suddenly move to end the human experiment. God knows if any one of us will survive that purge.
Society is too violent. BAN ALL GUNS!
Police profiling feels racially charged. BAN ALL CARDING!
It started with a tweet from Chrystia Freeland, 2018 diplomat of the year, about the case of Samar Badawi. Because in a world with Trump why not just tweet all our diplomatic relations? Nothing bad has ever happened on Twitter before. I’m just glad she kept the emojis out of it this time. But lazy diplomacy aside, Ms. Freeland did raise a valid concern. Which frankly shocked me since even looking at a Muslim here in Canada is bound to get you accused of Islamophobia. Saudi Arabia has a long history of human rights violations. Or at least that’s what we would call it here in the west. But in sharia law enforced Saudi Arabia the restrictions on one’s sovereignty is considered the path to God.
Prince Mohammed Bin Salman was appointed defence minister on January 23, 2015, after his father’s accession to the throne. In the same year, he was named deputy crown prince. He has enforced a more aggressive foreign policy to rival Iran’s influence in the nearby regions. He has made headlines around the world in making social progressive changes of allowing women to drive and revoking the authority of the religious police to make arrests. In April of 2016 he declared his plans to diversify and privatize Saudi Arabia’s economy in an effort to rely less on oil. The plan is by the year 2030 Saudi Arabia will attract investment capital as it serves to connect the neighbouring continents.
However this was seen to be more of a PR stunt to distract from the controversial “purge” that was happening in the background. In November 2017, four ministers, 11 princes and several high-profile entrepreneurs were detained in what was called a “anti-corruption purge“. This on direct orders by Mohammad bin Salman. But critics claimed this purge targeting more competition than it did corruption. Fast forward today as Mohammad bin Salman exercises his military forces against the Houthi in Yemen, the conflict has left an estimated 56 000 dead while thousands other suffer from malnutrition and disease.
The most recent development was the murder of The Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi. He had published articles in the past which took a critical aim at the royals as he called for a need for more free speech in the kingdom. He went into the Saudi consulate in Turkey to handle divorce papers from his previous wife. Only he never came out. Turkey officials conducted an investigation where they determined that Khashoggi was killed by a coordinated strike which they linked directly to Mohammad bin Salman. Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan discussed the findings in a public forum and Turkish authorities released evidence including an audio tape alleged to feature Khashoggi’s last moments.
Khashoggi had written one last article before his disappearance. This has caused senators in the US like Marco Rubio to react by guaranteeing congress will take action against Saudi Arabia whether or not Trump decides to take action. Meanwhile Trump refused to take a clear position on the matter until he had irrefutable proof that it was in fact Mohammad bin Salman behind the alleged murder plot. Then later Trump came out and declared that the Saudi-US relations took precedence over whatever events transpired over the Khashoggi incident.
Very alarmed to learn that Samar Badawi, Raif Badawi’s sister, has been imprisoned in Saudi Arabia. Canada stands together with the Badawi family in this difficult time, and we continue to strongly call for the release of both Raif and Samar Badawi.
– Chrystia Freeland, 2018 diplomat of the year
After tweeting this out Saudi Arabia swiftly moved to call back all their foreign exchange students which was estimated at 5,811 short term students and 9,120 long term students. Ranging from an estimated cost upwards of hundreds of millions of dollars. They also suspended all Saudi state airline trips to Toronto. Then they expelled our ambassador from Riyadh (and they did that over twitter too). Not that Freeland regrets the tweet, noting that she hadn’t said anything about Saudi Arabia that wasn’t consistent with what Liberals have been “publicly vocal” about for some time. “There is nothing new or novel about Canada’s support for human rights, very much including women’s rights, around the world and including in Saudi Arabia,” Freeland, 2018 diplomat of the year, told reporters in Vancouver.
I don’t know if Chrystia Freeland, 2018 diplomat of the year, was aware of the risks she was taking by signalling her virtues in her tweet but frankly this narrative from the media that all of this was ever so shocking and unpredictable is complete political spin bullshit. she could have expected a strong reaction if she was aware of Saudi Arabia’s 2015 reaction to Sweden’s foreign minister. Where attention was drawn to Raif Badawi’s treatment while criticizing Riyadh’s record on human rights. Saudi Arabia’s response was to temporarily recall it’s ambassador in Stockholm. I’m just saying, when dealing with a tyrant maybe a more serious approach than social media would’ve been a more appropriate way of addressing the issue. I don’t see her as willing to take on China, Pakistan or North Korea but I wouldn’t know, I don’t follow her twitter.
Now I’m certainly not about to defend Saudi Arabia by any means. Chrystia Freeland, 2018 diplomat of the year, is still my foreign affairs minister and I’m on team Canada every time. And even if I don’t like her methods, I at least agree that it’s about damn time that Saudi Arabia get called out for their atrocious human rights violations. Although I wonder if by the Liberals own standards if what Chrystia Freeland did was Islamophobic and violates twitter’s hateful conduct policy by promoting harm against a member of their protected category. I mean, who are we to criticize an Islamic state country? When they call women whores or declare them property of their husbands or sons, isn’t that just their truth?
The part that makes this whole situation sticky is that, like the US, Canada has invested interests in Saudi Arabia. We currently trade about 4 billion worth of goods with them. A good chunk of which are military vehicles. So not only are we fiscally tied to the Saudis but we’re also complicit in what they use those combat vehicles for. You know, the war in Yemen that Trudeau has been so critical about. Some of that blood is on our hands. So we’re in the same boat as the US who does billions of dollars in military dealings with the Saudis as well. Trudeau has expressed a desire to actually pull out of these dealings but doesn’t see a way out of the current contract that was signed by the previous Harper government. At least not without losing a bunch of money in breaking the contract. My question is, are we really that sure about cutting all ties to Saudi Arabia? Over a US journalist and their handling of Badawi?
Anyway, now Trudeau is at the G20 meeting where he spoke to Prince Mohammed bin Salman about their diplomatic relations. And among the mass murder and malnutrition going on in Yemen, the planned murder of a journalist, imprisonment of Badawi, millions of dollars in trade sanctions, I’m proud to report to you that Trudeau is addressing the issues that matter most. Gender equity! I’m sure Oshawa is breathing a sigh of relief. Nothingto see here. In all seriousness Trudeau claims he did speak to the prince about how he’ll “always stand up strongly” for human rights and apparently he also spoke to Putin about what’s been going on in Ukraine. But didn’t go into details.
My question to you is this. We do billions of dollars in trade (or at least we did) with Saudi Arabia. And they oppose a lot of countries that we oppose as allies of Israel. Like Iran and Lebanon and Syrian president Bashard al-Assad, who is supported by Russia. They also actively oppose the muslim brotherhood. They may be very different than us but in terms of our options, they’ve always played the role of the enemy of our enemies. And I hate to say it but I agree with Trump when he says if we cut off all ties only end up pushing them into the arms of our enemies. And that would no doubt be far more damaging in the long term. Perhaps the warm welcoming Putin gave M.B.S. at the G20 painted that picture perfectly.
It also doesn’t help having the Trump deranged narrative news only reporting on the details of the story around Khashoggi’s murder to make Trump look like a heartless bastard. They care more about that than even pronouncing Khashoggi’s name properly. Only a few sources seem to even be addressing that Khashoggi was more than just a journalist. He established a political party in the US called Democracy for the Arab World Now. Based around supporting Islamist gains in democratic elections throughout the region. This meant that Khashoggi was in the process of leading an Islamist political opposition to Mohammed bin Salman. So there is a hell of a lot more to this than mere censorship. And there have been allegations that in that movement he had direct ties to the Muslim Brotherhood whom we consider a terrorist organization.
I’m not excusing what happened to Khashoggi by any means. But with so much at stake I can’t help but feel like it just isn’t worth losing the relationship we do have. And perhaps through our relationship we may have opportunities yet in the future to put more pressure on Saudi Arabia for social reform. I really do believe that. If we can impress more capitalism integration then there’s no doubt in my mind that liberty will find it’s way to the people. If they do manage to pull off their 2030 vision, well that’s a lot of opportunity there. And we need to think about the future. I’d like to know what you think about all of this. Wherever you fall on the issue, this is definitely something we all need to be discussing. We need to talk about Mohammed bin Salman.
“hold your friends close but your enemies closer.”
Michael Corleone (Mario Puzo), The Godfather Part II
I’ve been thinking more about Esther Betts. It makes me think about other trans people like Contra Points, Theryn Meyer, Mandy Goodhandy, Blaire White, Camille Paglia and so many more who are all advocates of free speech. They also serve as a reminder that not all narratives coming out of a community necessarily represents that whole community. At the end of the day we are all unique individuals and that’s exactly what makes each one of us special. I feel the necessity to place a distinction between opposing an ideology and opposing people. That can be a tough thing to do as some are so ideologically possessed that they truly embody the ideology. But the reality is to condemn a bad idea is perfectly fine but condemning people becomes much more serious. We must continue to strive to be precise in our speech. Rule #10: be precise in your speech.
In biological terms humans can only be born male or female. But I can appreciate that when we talk about what it is to be a man or a woman truly varies from individual to individual. If a male is born and develops gender dysphoria and genuinely believes they are more of a woman than a man and genuinely make an effort to transition into the gender they’re most comfortable with then I see no harm in entertaining that persons sense of identity. That doesn’t change the fact they have the body of a male. And one does not necessarily NEED to fully transition, like Mandy Goodhandy who doesn’t feel she needs to surgically alter her genitals to have the privilege of being called a lady. Breast and prostate cancer doesn’t give a fuck about your identity and is a good example of the importance to make such biological distinctions.
The more we fight with one another the less willing entrepreneurs are to taking risks. Who would dare open a woman’s only gym in today’s climate? And face the backlash of trans people, politicians and news media? Yeah, no thanks. Who benefits? No one. Who suffers? Women. Same applies to everywhere there aren’t accommodations. Until we can prove to the free market that we are mature enough to coexist then there is a 0% chance of anyone taking on the risk that comes with change. There is a reason why the gay cake issue was raised with a Christian bakery and not a Muslim one. The more I think about this the more I believe the real answer to all of these problems are to drop the useless tribal communities we all seek to identify with (like any of the million forms of feminism) and have face to face conversations. It’s not only way easier to talk but it’s way easier to listen.
What makes this system controversial is that there is no bottom to the score. Meaning the lower your score, the more rights and privileges are taken away from you. People are drawing the comparisons to Orwell’s 1984 because of its efforts to essentially “unhuman” people. So instead of waiting for a problematic person to break a law to enable action against them you can proactively nit pick and pull apart their entire life which can even extend to their family (like barring one’s children from attending school). There really is no limit to how far they’ll go to prevent things like being politically outspoken against the government.
But before you go thinking to yourself, “gee, I sure am happy that I’m not living there,” I challenge you to first observe what is becoming the post-modern western civilization. I believe we established our own form of social credit scoring only we haven’t fully implemented the consequences yet. But day by day we add one more brick to the great wall of censorship. Censorship of wrongspeak. Or the replacing of free speech with “better speech”. School uniforms are a thing of the past when true conformity comes from the self censorship that only the best peer pressure fueled mob justice public shaming can provide.
China gets the 1984 comparison because they already have their citizens at gun point. There is no free speech or any real individual sovereign rights. You do what I say or I’ll jail you and you then formally become my property and slave. This social credit system is nothing more than another order to be complied with like every other order that’s demanded of the people. They’re reaction is probably more along the lines of, “oh, you mean there is a chance I might be able to have things for how much I bust my ass already? Great!” For countries who have a foundation in freedom and liberty for all, it’s a hell of a lot trickier to remove rights and privileges that are already deeply seeded in citizens.
So how do you get a capitalist to give up their rights and privileges? You sell it to them. There’s a reason why steve jobs was so successful, standing before a big crowd There’s a reason why Google has removed their logo “don’t be evil”. Tired of cleaning your home? How about a roomba who does all the cleaning for you? As long as you’re cool with it digitally mapping the rooms and uploading the schematics to a cloud server where it’s data is collected and only used to make your life better, I’m sure. Don’t have enough time to stay organized? Wish someone could just throw on that playlist for you while you’re trying to prepare dinner? How about a Google home device or Amazon Alexa to be your “digital assistant“. Now we can all have our own personal assistant, LOOK AT YOU GO! If you don’t mind all your smart phones, digital assisstants, webcams, mics, and all other “smart” devices to be recording your every detail and uploading it to the cloud for “marketing purposes.”
Right now Google is promoting their home hub device which will allow you to do things like look at recipes in the kitchen. Thank you Google, now I can finally modernize my love for cook books so I can stop feeling like a cave man! I mean, how many trees were killed to bring me my first world privilege of Jamie Oliver? And now Google has patented an AI “babysitter” system to “protect unattended children”. I mean, who am I to care if Google, Amazon and Apple are watching, listening and storing data on everything that’s going on in my house 24/7? “I’ve got nothing to hide, I’m not doing anything bad, this will only improve my life.” So it is fed to us and it is widely received very well. We went from boycotting unethically made clothing brands to not giving a single shit that people were working in sweatshops to make our iphones.
There was a story out of new mexico where a digital assistant saved a woman from a home invasion because it called the sherif’s office while it was listening to what was going on. Well, that sure sounds like a plus. For now. But now this is proof that your devices are doing more than simply “listening”. They’re also judging. And this takes me to the real thing I want to talk about here but first needed lost of word salad rambling to lead up to. We need to start asking what the cost is of all these free websites, services and apps. Ever Google search something only to find ads for it on facebook? Let’s not forget the Zuckerberg hearings. As AI becomes much more complicated we need to stop talking about chicks with dicks and start having an adult conversation about the companies who are designing this software. THEIR biases and how ideological possession manifests itself in programming. And why privacy actually matters.
The James Damore debacle should have disturbed us all way more than it did. Not just how James Damore was treated, especially considering he is on the autism spectrum, but the actual scary campaign that was launched against him by Google and the mainstream media. Most media outlet other than fox news would even entertain the idea of an interview with him but were more than happy to report on the story with a sexist tech-bro narrative. NBC literally called it a “sexist manifesto“. Hell, I even bought a science magazine at my local Rexall which featured an article on the sex differences in the brain and even THAT started out referencing Damore’s memo and how wrong and sexist he was and went on to say that though there are some differences in the brain, it’s very small. Damore never even talked about differences in the brain. It was as if no one had actually read the memo. A scarier thought is that they actually did. Thank God foryoutubeandindependentmedialikeQuillette. Otherwise the truth may have never gotten out.
The kind of social credit score system we’re subjecting ourselves to is one that is being sold to us in a means-justify-the-ends style utopian vision of the future. A future where sexism, racism, homophobia, all forms of discrimination have been completely eradicated and we’ve all become totally egalitarian where all men and women of all genders, ethnicities, and ages have completely accurate visible and ideological representation at all levels of the workplace, government, stores and entertainment. A world where we are able to literally shit rainbows and be free of all physical, symbolic, metaphorical barriers who would seek to limit or restrict any aspect of any wish or desire. A lot like being on vacation forever and pretending that wouldn’t become hell after week #2. When you put it that way, this marxismutopia stuff sure sounds like a great idea!
But what is that kind of change going to cost us? What will the brave new world look like? Art, science and religion are going to be rather “problematic” for the utopia. So the first domino has fallen. Twitter has updated it’s “hateful conduct policy” to include “misgendering” and “deadnaming” as promotion of violence. Or incitement of harm. Whatever that means. I’m not about to start defending anyone who wants to call gender dysphoria a sickness or wrong. But should simply using the name “Bruce Jenner” qualify as hate speech? Hate speech is becoming so watered down that it’s no longer an accurate term. It should be called disagreement speech because when words are violence everything is just hate. I read through the policy and found some very interesting details I will feature in photos below.
Now because twitter refuses to be up front about who exactly their “specific protected category” consists of all you need to do is check out who meets their own criteria for punishment where no enforcement is present. A great example of this would be when Louis Farrakhan tweeted “I’m not an anti-semite. I’m anti-termite”. If you’re not convinced enough even Chelsea Clinton called it out as dehumanizing rhetoric. It couldn’t be more black and white. If that’s not “promoting harm” against a “religious affiliation” then what exactly is? But upon closer inspection, you’ll notice that Louis is a leader at the Nation of Islam. If being a muslim grants Farrakhan “membership” in Twitters self described “specific protected category” then this changes the context of his comments and would provide a “protected status” on the grounds that his comments might have been “part of a consensual conversation”. I wonder if a priest or pastor were to tweet “I’m not anti-islam. I’m anti-termite.” if twitter would consider that a “protected category” as well. hmm. But Jesse Kelly was clearly worth banning, eh?
We have gone from it being controversial to suggest that there is gender identity that extends beyond male and female to now it’s controversial to suggest that male and female ever existed in the first place. I don’t buy for a single second the excuse that any of this is out of compassion for anyone. This is deeply rooted doctrine out of the marxist camp and if you look at the people who these movements attack, it aligns perfectly with who marxism opposes. And they embed their marxist principles in the identity groups they put forward so in order for you to oppose the idea you must oppose the person. And in the landscape of “white privilege” they have created you don’t need to be right in an argument if the optics look bad enough. But who am I as a cisgender, white, imperialist colonizer, oppressor, benefactor of privilege, normie, angry young male, mysogynist, biological essentialist, conservative, islamophobic, climate denier, bigot, transphobic, hyperbolic, dog whistling, rape apologist, straw manning, sexist, patriarchal tyrant, nationalist, racist, homophobe, cave man. What right do I have to criticize compassionate twitter policies?
One youtuber who I follow who frankly does an amazing job of analyzing these culture wars we find ourselves in is the self proclaimed Boyce of reason, Benjamin Boyce. He is working on a documentary of the Evergreen college debacle. But he’s covered other stories like that of Lindsay Shepherd of Laurier University and other relevant developments in the news. He recently sat down with a trans writer who came out with an article (I regret my tactics at a trans rights protest. Here’s why – Esther Betts) beautifully timed along side of this twitter insanity which challenges the politics of “shut up” as actually more harmful to trans people. I will link below here a handful of fantastic videos that really help you wrap your mind around the marxist language of the extreme left:
So to wrap this up, I ask you this. What next? At what point do we draw the line and where do we draw it? There was already a leaked Google seminar about how they could use their power to influence people politically. Unfortunately that’s the one story I can’t seem to find so I can’t share it at this time. But I ask you, if our smart devices are constantly recording and judging us and this “progressive” doctrine continues to be promoted by all virtue signalling leftists then what about when our devices decide we have broken one of these social rules? At what point will we be unable to uphold the terms and conditions of what is considered the correct view points? What would that world look like? I’d have to say that what comes to mind is an episode from “black mirror” where they explore that rabbit hole. I highly recommend you watch it. It’s not about being right or wrong, it’s about removing the bias from the software that will some day be installed into the brain of the AI who plans to solve the human “problem”. We can only chuckle at skynet jokes for so long. Let’s not let chicks with dicks to lead us down the path of the age of ultron.
Let me ask you this. The people in the picture below. Am I allowed to disagree with them? Am I allowed to politically oppose them? Or would that just be prejudice?
That is a picture of a group who participated in this years pride parade. It’s a communist group who works with the communist party of canada and other student groups and has a lot of other affiliations with groups, including the NDP government. Andrea Howrath has seen that shifting the party to a harder left stance has awarded her with official opposition. Unfortunately this means she will be openly adopting a more marxist ideology into the NDP constitution. There are several party members and special interest groups who are pushing for policy to forward a marxist agenda in the exact same way that there are special interest groups pushing to counter that in the conservative party. This isn’t about committing a genocide against an entire group of people. It’s about weeding out ideas that are designed to break down our society. That is the Marxist method of critical deconstruction. And it’s actually more dangerous than Nazism. And it NEEDS to be opposed.
I’m running on a lot of anecdotal evidence. I don’t have hard stats or numbers, I’m aware of that. But the trend is there. And if we cannot have a dialogue about ideas then we are doomed to approach whatever ugly future is ahead of us that is the end result of that game. I will be the first to admit that I voted for and supported the resolutions of a group I aligned my values with in fighting this neo-communist movement. But these are not special interest groups I actually subscribe to so I cannot say there aren’t prejudiced motivations between the lines either. So maybe it’s time I reach out to learn more. I don’t want to just be a part of another “means justify the ends” movement on the other side of the fence which could turn out to only do more harm than good all the same. So I will put my money where my mouth is and investigate this more myself. Rule #6: Set your house in perfect order. That’s what I’ll do. But with that, I also invite YOU to look a little more into these things as well. You may be surprised about what you find. I attended this conference on BillC16 (one year later). There are a hell of a lot better qualified people than me who discuss these issues that are apparently genocide for even discussing.
These issues are very complex. Despite the simplicity in the narratives you hear being reported. We live in unusual times with influencing factors that we are not fully aware of the implications they have on our lives. Because of social media we are constantly bombarded by ads and propaganda and unsavoury sentiments and images every single minute of every single day. Most of us do not watch the news. And the majority of us do not watch the news because it depresses us. I believe it depresses us because we are constantly running on overload and cannot intake anymore data because we are literally fatigued. Disaster fatigue, information fatigue, technology fatigue, outrage fatigue, call it whatever you want.
However, I think the last 10 years of technological advance has crippled our collective ability to handle reality. We undervalue our sleep and start our days half dead at best. We take on more stress without even entertaining methods of coping or managing that stress so we are prone to creating positive feedback loops which make the stress impact us greater. We simply do not exist unless we exist through some form of digital avatar online. Whether it be our instagram account, our twitter, our snapchat or facebook. The only part of us we are willing to show the world is our “BEST” self. And we do it for the likes, the retweets, the upvotes, the follows, the praise in the comment section. Courtship has been reduced to swiping right or left and an orgasm is today’s handshake. Is that what this grand sexual liberation movement intended? And we’re not afraid to hide behind the hundreds of filters available to highlight our superficial attributes. And the world becomes smaller and smaller as we become further and further detached from the real us outside in the real world, sitting by our lonesome, on a little phone that means more to us than the world itself.
We don’t even discuss what impact all of this has on us. But if you look at other addictions you start to see a similarity in symptoms. To be addicted to porn is to chase a greater high. Alcohol addiction is chasing a greater high. Drug addiction is chasing a greater high. Addiction is a psychological and physical inability to stop consuming a chemical, drug, activity, or substance, even though it is causing psychological and physical harm (as per the medicalnewstoday.com).
The story of Icarus comes to mind. Banished to the centre of a labyrinth by their king, his father Daedalus applies his skill as an inventor to build wings out of wax so that they can escape, but showing his bravado, Icarus takes off with the wings. However, when he flies too close to the sun, the wings melt and he crashes to his death. Can Icarus be a symbol of addiction itself? Are we Icarus? It makes me think of that story about that guy, Richard Russell, who stole that fighter jet, do you remember that story? Po The Person Youtube channel.
I rewatch this video from time to time and everytime I watch it or think about it I actually start to cry. There’s just something so intensely tragic about it to me. And yet something so deeply, deeply true to it. Symbolically true, metaphorically true, literally true. The guy steals a fucking jet fighter. Some Joe-six-pack nobody infiltrated the US Army and #becausevideogames was able to fly that plane into the sky and even perform stunts with it. He did it so he could feel something that was missing in his heart. I think he became so detached from life, the world, from spirituality itself that he accomplished the near impossible just to be able feel alive. How dead do you have to be to become that desperate to NEED to feel ANYTHING? God, it’s so sad. And I wonder if there’s a Richard Russell in all of us. If we’re all just Icarus. Chasing that greater high.
At some point we are going to need to decide which philosophy we’re going to adopt. A very much blue pill, red pill situation. There are many philosophies that contain all unique perspectives and values but I truly believe that big ugly thing awaiting will be a distillation to two simple tribes. Let’s call them the Right Tribe and the Left Tribe. I do believe that this movement will not allow anyone to stay out of it. If you’re not with a tribe, you’re against the tribe.
Photo by Syed Hasan Mehdi on Pexels.com
I’m a centrist, I always have been, I don’t like this at all. I believe in free speech because I think there is a role for ALL philosophies. And I truly believe that the best way to fight “hate speech” is to utilize free speech to expose the bad ideas from within. But something has changed. What I see is a real effort to not just throw the baby out with the bathwater, but all of society along with it. And I’m participating in hopes that once this populist movement of outrage is over we can return to the centre and to not giving a shit about any politics. But my observations are leading me to believe that quite simply put, if you want to expose and fix the problems with society then you’ll find yourself in the Right Tribe.
If you’ve lost your faith in society and believe that society needs to be torn down and rebuilt from the ground up then you will find yourself in the Left Tribe. Whether you like it or not. And it runs way deeper than politics. WAY deeper than any LBGTQ issue. It’s way closer to a trans-human issue than it is a trans-gender issue and with how quickly AI is advancing, we as humans may not even have enough time to get to the bottom of it. There is a storm brewing at the spiritual level and it’s manifesting itself right now through political movements. Trump beat the algorithm. And if he goes down in history for anything, It’ll be that. Despite all the negative shit. But it’s the post trump era I’m worried about. And it has yet to truly rear it’s ugly head. So I ask you this, how solid is the foundation of your faith?
And so I’m working to lay out the ground work to prove to everyone that our society is GOOD despite its flaws and it’s WORTH saving and if we can save it and fix it, then I truly believe our children will get to see a time of peace that we can only dream of. I truly do not believe that hitting the giant red reset button will solve ANY problems. It will ONLY create more. You CANNOT transfer or exchange suffering, you can ONLY create it. As I work on my writing, as I do more thinking, more studying, more listening, I will eventually expose this all in, hopefully, a very articulate, clear way that enables everyone to stand together in solidarity for our future together.
“Freedom of speech does not protect you from the consequences of saying stupid shit.”
Rule #8 