racism: n. 1.a a belief in the superiority of a particular race; prejudice based on this. b antagonism towards other races, esp. as a result of this. 2 the theory that human abilities etc. are determined by race. racist n. & adj.
bigot n. an obstinate and intolerant believer in a religion, political theory, etc.
- The Concise Oxford Dictionary, Eighth Edition
I
initially wanted to begin this essay with a beautiful and apt quote
from either George Orwell or John Stuart Mill. I opted for quoting the
dictionary instead because our language has been so badly corrupted by
political forces that this now seems to be the most obvious and
important thing to do. Our language is very old, extremely important,
and has evolved and developed into an amazing and unbelievably useful
system for communicating complex ideas. I don't believe that it is wise,
or even acceptable, to allow people with self-serving political motives
to debase our language. If holding firm on preserving our language
requires constant reminders to those who attempt to misuse it for the
purpose of politics, then so be it.
Canadians are Decent Human Beings
My
desire here is to reach the very large percentage of our population
that is decent. By decent, I mean morally healthy and having a genuine
concern for other people and our future as a civilization. In order for
me to do this, I ask that the reader throws off, as much as possible,
emotions, political biases, assumptions and all of the mental
contamination that you have been forced to digest since childhood. If
you succeed in this, you will have a much clearer mind and you will be
able to focus more seriously on individual ideas, as opposed to only
being slightly aware of the vague notions that are the seeds for
irrational political alliances and beliefs.
I
have been through this process myself and it is tough to complete.
Complete is perhaps not a good word, as this process is never actually
complete. But I am now at least in the position of seriously questioning
my own motives before supporting any political figure or any political
idea. For most of my life I was a left-leaning liberal. I never actually
stopped to seriously consider why until just a couple of years ago. In
fact, in the last federal election, I voted for the Liberal Party of
Canada. During the Harper years, I hated the Conservatives - really
hated them. I now think that this hatred was seriously misguided and was
based on a lack of knowledge. I have in the past also voted NDP and
even Green. If you're left-leaning this will all seem very reasonable.
If you're conservative, this is likely confusing. Anyway, I will
explain.
I
think that the reason that I was a Liberal Party supporter for most of
my adult life is that I felt that I was a decent human being and that if
you cared about other people, the environment, and people less
fortunate than you, then you voted for either the Liberal Party or for
the NDP. It wasn't until I began to look very rationally at the tactics
of these political parties, and at the results of their policies and
actions, that I was able to see that they didn't actually care about
these things at all. What they actually care about is being in power.
The tactics that they use - appealing to your emotions - are simply
political tools for gaining that power. What they are saying to you is
that if you're a decent person you'll vote for them. If you're mean and
nasty then you'll vote for the Conservatives. Their language is more
sophisticated than that, and it's masked and obfuscated by carefully
crafted virtue-signalling, but that is exactly what they are doing.
Before
my political overhaul and the subsequent escape from dogma that it
produced, I had been vaguely aware of the fact that for some reason,
whenever people got into power while claiming to speak for an oppressed
group, the problems of that group got much worse. This is a reliable
phenomenon and very much worth thinking about. Where I live we have a
very serious homelessness problem. Our weather can be very wet and very
cold. We have a far-left mayor who has consistently run on a platform of
helping the homeless. Every time he speaks, he tells us that he is
going to rid the city of homelessness - it's always just around the
corner. It's great virtue-signalling, and it makes the people who vote
for him feel like they're doing the right thing. There's just one
problem: the guy has been at it for ten years now and homelessness is
the worst it's ever been in the city. If you're a thinking person you
might ask yourself if this guy actually cares for the homeless or, is it
that homelessness is a great tool for getting caring people to vote for
him and send him money. It turns out that his girlfriend's mother in
China is facing serious criminal charges consisting of bribery,
embezzlement, abuse of power and corruption in crooked land deals. The
Canadian mayor of one of the most sought after real-estate markets in
the world being involved with land-swindling criminals from China kind
of gets you wondering, doesn't it? Anyway, due to continued brushes with
reality, I've become extremely wary of people who make a constant
effort at appearing overly virtuous. I count this as wisdom rather than
cynicism.
The
thing that would actually help the homeless is many more available jobs
- even low paying ones - and better mental health services. To create
jobs or to fund mental health services you need to build a strong and
growing economy. So, if you really want to help the homeless, maybe the
key is to vote for someone who is going to attract business and not for
someone who acquires power with appeals to your emotions and your desire
to perceive yourself as a good person. All of this is debatable of
course and I only bring it up to show that there are different ways to
approach any particular problem, and that you should not be guided
purely by emotions. Ah, come to think of it, I am going to get
to quote a small piece of classic work after all. While I was writing
the sentence before the last, I remembered a perfectly fitting idea that
Bertrand Russell put forward in his 1925 essay, What I Believe. The following is from a portion of that essay that is titled The Good Life:
My view is this: The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge.
Knowledge and love are both indefinitely extensible; therefore, however
good a life may be, a better life can be imagined. Neither love without
knowledge, nor knowledge without love can produce a good life. In the
Middle Ages, when pestilence appeared in a country, holy men advised the
population to assemble in churches and pray for deliverance; the result
was that the infection spread with extraordinary rapidity among the
crowded masses of supplicants. This was an example of love, without
knowledge. The late war afforded an example of knowledge without love.
In each case, the result was death on a large scale.
Although both love and knowledge are necessary, love is in a sense
more fundamental, since it will lead intelligent people to seek
knowledge, in order to find out how to benefit those whom they love. But
if people are not intelligent, they will be content to believe what
they have been told, and may do harm in spite of the most genuine
benevolence. Medicine affords, perhaps, the best example of what I mean.
An able physician is more useful to a patient than the most devoted
friend, and progress in medical knowledge does more for the health of
the community than ill-informed philanthropy.
Russell
was a gifted thinker. Many people have said that he was the greatest
thinker of the twentieth century. Whether or not this is the case, he
has left us some very sound advice. I stated earlier that the reason
that I voted for Trudeau's party was because I had the notion that this
was the correct thing to do if you were a decent and compassionate
person and wished the best for all people in your society. This fits
Russell's description of love without knowledge and, as he warned, "they
will be content to believe what they have been told, and may do harm in
spite of the most genuine benevolence". I voted for Trudeau's politics
and he is now doing much harm. I share some responsibility in this
because, through a lack of knowledge, I did not behave intelligently
when I voted.
Defining the Racism and Bigotry of the Left
There
is no requirement that we prove an actual conscious racist and bigoted
motive on the part of the Liberal Party of Canada in order to assert
that they are both of these things. We can never actually know the true
motives of any person as we can never actually get inside their mind.
What we can do is carefully study their use of policies and language and
then look at the results that flow from them. It can be reasonably
argued that a deliberate action that is likely to increase racism and
bigotry is an endorsement of racism and bigotry. At the very least, you
cannot perform an action that you know will cause an increase in racism
and then credibly claim to be against racism. This would be like
speeding on a downtown sidewalk in your car during rush-hour while
claiming to love pedestrians. Both of these things would produce
cognitive dissonance and perhaps might explain the diversions and
defensiveness that seem to permeate Question Period. We might then ask
if simply not being anti-racist makes one a racist? I would say yes,
because I think that to be neutral on such a point is impossible if you
are a morally healthy individual.
Because
we live in a global economy and because information is readily
available, it is fair to say that political parties in Western countries
are entirely aware of the results of their actions. There is no
question that modern identity-politics, as practiced by the Liberal
Party of Canada, causes an increase in division and hostility within a
population. This leads to real racism and to real violence, always. This
is exactly what you would expect to happen if you were to divide a
harmonious population - and one that was based on the individual - into
identifiable groups and then tell some of those groups that they are the
oppressed victims of other groups. The next step is to send an army of
marketers out to tell all of the oppressed groups that they are best
represented by your political party. It's the ultimate sales tool. You
create the problem and you also offer the solution. The problem with
this is that you end up getting people killed and ruining your society
in the process. However, the people who are always claiming to speak for
other people never seem to care about this detail, as long as they
manage to acquire power.
It
also does not require much thought to realize that if you set about
dividing your population along religious, ethnic, gender, class and
sexual orientation lines that divisions will continue within each of
those groups. There are an infinite number of sub groups within each
group and they will continue to divide further. You might have noticed
that the once relatively easy to manage term, gay, was transformed into
LGB in the 1980's. Then it was LGBT, then LGTBQ. Now, it is
LGBTQQIP2SAA, and you're supposed to have this memorized and address
people accordingly. There is now currently infighting under this
umbrella and, again, this is exactly what you would expect to happen.
Similarly, the women's movement was initially a broad identity-politics
movement that has now subdivided into smaller groups that are now,
predictably of course, attacking each other. White women are currently
the trendiest target of "women of colour". Now some feminists are
fighting with the transgendered community. Anti-Semitism is also on the
rise but for some reason seems to be less important than silencing
criticism of the main ideology currently producing it. And if you are a
white heterosexual male, you are in serious trouble. There are many
people who are foaming at the mouth while calling for your elimination
from the planet. The white heterosexual male community is now fracturing
along class lines. You have likely already figured out that what this
will lead to is the endless creation and then subsequent division of new
groups of oppressed people. If we take this to its logical conclusion,
we will end up back at the individual level, which is the way to run a
society to begin with.
Justin
Trudeau has encouraged these divisions and has nurtured them through
his love of identity-politics. His government never stops talking about
how they are representing this or that oppressed group or have to
apologize for this or that. They do this under the guise of fighting
hate and creating inclusion and diversity. Perhaps hate is another word
that we need to properly define, as the Liberal Party of Canada seems to
like to stretch the term to mean anyone who asks logical questions
about government policy. As I have written elsewhere, Mr. Trudeau has
also stated that Canada is post-national and has no core identity. This
is deadly for a civilization and plays into his division scheme
perfectly. It is much easier to be a virtue-signalling race-baiting
charlatan than it is to convince millions of free-thinking
non-victim-group individuals to vote for you. If you follow politics,
you have likely noticed that all the Liberal Party of Canada seems to
talk about is identity-politics. They have so far been successful in
shutting down any opposition to this. This is because our society has
become so sensitive that all it takes to shut anyone up is to threaten
to call them a racist, homophobe, bigot, Islamophobe, etc. It seems odd
to me that someone could use the charge of racism to shutdown criticism
of actual racism but, that's how odd things have become.
Identity-politics
is racist to its core. And in order to pull off this immoral political
tactic, you need to exercise a high level of bigotry. If you put people
into groups based on identifiable features and then make judgements
about those people, based on their belonging to the group that you've
assigned them into, then you are a racist. If you say that one group
needs more assistance than other groups and therefore yet another group
must be excluded from employment opportunities, then you are a racist.
If you are claiming to speak for an oppressed group and one person of
that group comes forward and says that the group is not oppressed, and
you try and silence that person's opinion, then you are a racist and a
bigot. If you say that a particular group needs continual handouts then
you are saying that members of that group are inferior, and that makes
you a racist. It is disturbing to think that people will actually vote
for this kind of thing in order to make themselves feel good. Worse,
they then accuse those who didn't fall for this squalid sales maneuver
of being racist and mean spirited. I've had enough of the Left getting
way with that kind of manipulation and immoral behaviour and stopping it
is long past due. All it takes to stop it is for enough people to
simply point out that we can see right through the tactic and also to
point out that the people attempting it should be ashamed of themselves.
It's a simple truth and one that all individuals need to start saying
out loud. Coming from the Left myself, I am embarrassed that I have
fallen for this game and I'm disgusted when I see it still being played.
I think that I would be pretty offended, and rightfully so, if some
twit came up to me and said that he was going to give me some money and
get me a job by excluding a more deserving candidate because, with my
victim status, it's unlikely that I'm going to be able to get through
life successfully on my own. I think I know what I would say to that
person; although, I did get a few complaints about unnecessary use of
profanity in other writing and so I'll just leave it at that.
How
would you feel if someone told you that you would be held less
accountable than another individual in the same circumstances for
committing the same crime? It seems highly racist to me to inform
someone that their race of people is less capable of controlling their
behaviour and therefore will receive smaller punishments for crimes. And
what about the victims of these crimes who are most often from the same
community as the perpetrator? Do you tell them that their victimhood is
worth less than that of someone from a different identifiable group?
This is racism by definition and it has been forced into our legal
system by racists disguised as virtuous humanitarians. This makes about
as much sense as telling a group of people that their type cannot drive
very well and so the government will send drivers around for them. This
is all racist insanity masked as virtue and leads to extremely
undesirable outcomes. These outcomes include such things as citizens
coming to resent each other, a distrust of our legal system, suspicion
of our education system and a hostile view towards government. The
proper way to run a society is to base it on the individual, provide
everyone with equal opportunity and to treat everyone equally under the
law. These things have been key principles of the West for a very long
time and now the Liberal Party of Canada wishes to discard these
successful concepts so that they can appear virtuous in order to appeal
to emotionally driven voters.
The
Liberal Party of Canada's diversity scheme has now reached the point
where it is so racist that it can no longer even tolerate people engaged
in anti-racism activities. We have in Canada an organization called the
Canadian Race Relations Foundation. The Prime Minister's Office
controls the appointment of the board of directors. Recently, the
organization fired board member Christine Douglass-Williams for the
crime of issuing a written warning about an extremely racist, violent,
misogynistic, anti-gay, anti-Semitic and totalitarian ideology that is a
threat to Western democracies. You would think that her comments would
be welcome but you would be wrong. This event actually happened and it
should be alarming to any person who values a thoughtful, respectful,
and peaceful society. The only reason that I can come up with for the
firing of Douglass-Williams is that her ideas have the potential to
result in a long-term reduction in serious racism, and this would run
counter to the diversity/division scheme the Liberal Party of Canada is
running.
In
its relentless desire to create more victims to turn into voting
clients, the Liberal party of Canada is now also engaging in the new and
trendy micro-aggression mania. For those of you who don't know,
micro-aggression theory is the tactic to use if you can't find any
evidence of actual racism but you still need to level the charge for
political purposes. Canadians are a very welcoming, peaceful and
civilized people and it can be difficult to find racist events to
complain about. Canadians - Liberals or Conservatives - are much more
likely to be found helping a fellow citizen or an animal in distress
than they are to be engaging in racism. Micro-aggression theory solves
this problem perfectly. You just search for any noticeable human
behaviour, and then you label it as a micro-aggression and say that it's
causing harm to you or some other vulnerable group. For example,
walking too quickly is a micro-aggression against people who walk
slowly. Sipping coffee is a micro-aggression towards tea drinkers. The
list just keeps growing and no one can ever know if they are committing
micro-aggressions. The only way to live properly under these
circumstances is to seek permission continually from every perceived
victim group for every action that you might undertake or any thought
that you might have, or, vote for the Liberal Party. Liberal MP Celina
Caesar-Chavannes seems to be highly tuned to sense micro-aggressions.
What might be a harmless joke or a completely meaningless action to your
average everyday Canadian is a highly damaging micro-aggression to her.
She recently complained - as a member of the Trudeau Government - that
someone had made a joke in her presence. Another woman had entered the
same washroom as our grieving micro-aggression victim. When the other
woman went into a washroom stall she put her wallet on the counter and
apparently said what any normal person might say as a joke to another
normal person: "don't steal my wallet". This is an obvious and probably
very common statement to make, as a joke. The woman even said that she
was joking. Ms. Caesar-Chavannes has since attempted to pass off the
idea that the comment was made because she is black. She didn't attempt
to explain how if the woman actually thought that she needed to be
worried about having her wallet stolen by a black woman why she wouldn't
have just taken it in the stall with her. Never mind, as with all
insane ideologies, if you start to ask questions the whole thing falls
apart. The Speaker of the House was forced to release a statement about
the incident. Isn't it troubling that the Liberal Party of Canada will
search for racism and intolerance to the point of delusion and mania,
but will aggressively and swiftly crush the pointing out of extreme
cases of actual racism? By the way, just in case you thought that
micro-aggression theory is about as far down the rabbit-hole as you
could go, rest assured, it's going to get weirder. Micro-insult theory
is now gaining ground amongst those who wish to further divide and
damage our society.
The
absurdity of micro-aggression theory in order to find and expose
non-existent racism is bad enough, especially when your federal
government is involved in it and using tax dollars to promote the idea.
What's even worse is when an MP tells a flat out lie in order to create
division and increase racial tension. Liberal MP, Hedy Fry, while she
was Minister for Multiculturalism, said, in the House, "Mr. Speaker, we
can just go to British Columbia, in Prince George, where crosses are
being burned on lawns as we speak". It turned out that this statement
was a complete fabrication of course. The Mayor, the RCMP, and
representatives of the Prince George Indo-Canadian community all
responded in the same way. They all said that nothing of the kind had
happened or was happening. The Police stated that they were pretty sure
that they would have noticed if crosses were being burnt on lawns in the
city. Fry should have been immediately and roughly thrown out of
government for engaging in something so divisive, stupid, and deceitful.
But no, it was not to be. Instead, Justin Trudeau's Liberals decided
that Fry's talents for hysterical race-baiting would best be put use by
having her help chair the M-103 hearings. For those of you who don't
know, M-103 is a motion put forward by another Liberal, Iqra Khalid, to
stifle speech that is critical of the highly racist and dangerous
components of Islam. Christine Douglass-Williams, who worked as an
anti-racism activist, and Raheel Raza, president of The Council for
Muslims Facing Tomorrow and author of Their Jihad — Not My Jihad,
have both stated that M-103 will produce results opposite to those its
peddlers claim to desire. Both say it will increase division. So why
would the Liberal Party of Canada push the motion forward and assign a
racist crackpot to help chair the committee in charge of it? Christine Douglas-Williams explains here.
I recommend that all Canadians watch this interview with Ms.
Douglass-Williams. Any delusions you held about M-103 being about
inclusiveness will be corrected and you'll be a better and more informed
person afterwards.
Catherine
McKenna is another Liberal Party of Canada MP. She sends out an endless
number of virtue-signalling tweets that tend to annoy a large number of
Canadians. You can tell this by reading the comments from voters that
flood in after each tweet. I get the feeling that a growing number of
Canadians would prefer our MPs focus on topics of substance and not
spend all day promoting gender or race politics for the purpose of
creating division. McKenna must be detached from this reality because,
recently, in addition to her endless tweets informing women that they
are wretched victims, she sent out a retweet of a tweet that said "There
aren't many truly mean and rude Canadians - but every single one of
those (all-white dudes) that exist troll". McKenna is an MP, and she is
sending out sexist and racist tweets. Why would she do this? I think she
is doing it to deliberately promote racial and gender tension in Canada
like the rest of her party has been doing since they got into power.
She has since deleted the tweet but I was able to get a screenshot
before that happened. McKenna made another very interesting statement
recently and it doesn't take much to unpack it. She sent out a tweet
suggesting that the Conservative Party of Canada does not support the
"LGBTQ2 community" because they don't march with them in parades. I
think it's important for Canadians to let McKenna know that we can see
right through this trick. Marching in a parade is not support for
anything. It's a political tactic, like holding a baby. What really
matters is how you set up your society for the long-term in relation to
the people who you use as virtue-signalling tools. You cannot claim to
promote gay rights while at the same time pass motions designed to
stifle criticism of an ideology that calls for the violent death of
gays. Do you take Canadians for complete morons, Ms. McKenna?
Let's
move again to Trudeau himself. Trudeau claims to be a male-feminist. As
we are all quickly finding out, male feminists usually turn out to be
creeps. There have been many examples of men who claimed to be feminists
and then ended up being arrested or fired for sexual assault or
stalking or some other creepy activity. There is no indication, so far,
that Trudeau falls into this category but there is something equally
disturbing to mention. Recently, in Iran, a massive protest began.
People have been kidnapped, tortured, raped, killed or have simply
disappeared at the hands of the Iranian regime or its supporters. Most
of the protestors have openly stated that they are not willing to live
under a theocracy any longer. Many brave women - really brave women -
have thrown off their face or head coverings in public and some have
waved them in the air on sticks in a show of defiance and freedom. This
is a serious and dangerous business. I cannot even find the words to
state my admiration for these women and their courage. Justin Trudeau
has made exactly no statement about these women. I find this to be very
odd for a Prime Minister who won't stop talking about his male feminism
and his support for women. And why would Trudeau put the crackpot
race-baiter Hedy Fry in a position to help implement a motion that would
ban criticism of the very thing that the brave women in Iran are
fighting to escape? It almost makes me wonder if Mr. Trudeau might not
be genuine after all.
Mr.
Trudeau's bigotry is blatant and the contradictions that this creates
expose him quite nicely. Remember that he mentions very frequently the
need for diversity. Last year, the Conservatives put forward Rachael
Harder to chair the Status of Women Committee. Instead of voting, the
Liberal party walked out of the selection process. Harder didn't get the
job. The reason for this is that Harder apparently holds anti-abortion
views. Having such a person chairing the committee actually would make
the committee diverse - you would think that this would please Trudeau,
in that all he talks about is diversity. Harder is a woman. Where was
Trudeau's male feminism on this occasion? You might think that the
Liberals would value the opinion of a hard working and successful woman.
They don't, because they are bigots. They are intolerant of opinions
that differ from their own. I am an atheist and pro-choice, if I have to
state my position. Some members of our society are not atheists or
pro-choice. These people have a right to participate in our democratic
process. I want to hear what they have to say and I want our society to
negotiate a solution in a respectful and democratic way. Even though I
disagree with Harder's position on a single topic, I was appalled that
she was not allowed, as a woman, to partake in the Status of Women
Committee. The claim that the Liberal Party of Canada is for diversity
and inclusion is an outrageous one. They are actually for exclusion and
division.
Another
example of Trudeau's bigotry and racism was on full display when the
opposition leader, Andrew Scheer, questioned Trudeau about the wisdom of
bringing ISIS sadists and murderers back into Canada for reintegration.
ISIS members behaved in ways towards women and children that easily
match and maybe exceed any sadistic cruelty committed at anytime in
human history. Their behaviour was so brutal that I don't recommend that
people even google it. I think it's fair to say that Scheer was
speaking on behalf of almost all Canadians when he was making this
inquiry. Trudeau's response was to angrily call Scheer an Islamophobe.
By extension, Trudeau is labelling, as an Islamophobe, every Canadian
who has concerns about extremely dangerous fanatics returning to Canada.
Very few Canadians are racist in the true sense of the word. If you
suggest that it might not be good idea to bring sadists and murderers
into your country, and the person who you direct that question towards
responds by using innuendo to imply that you are a racist, because you
asked the question, then you are dealing with a flat-out con-artist and
an actual racist. Trudeau is racist here because he implies that to be
against sadism and murder is to be against immigrants who happen to be
Muslim. He is a con-artist because he is attempting to manipulate you
into accepting his vice as your virtue. The people posing the question
are able to differentiate between the two - Trudeau, not so much. I
cannot see how this makes Canada more inclusive. It will only increase
division, along with all of the other divisive activities that the
Liberal Party of Canada undertakes. During the heated exchange mentioned
above, Trudeau also accused the previous Conservative government of
creating "snitch lines against Muslims". This is a particularly
disturbing statement to be coming from a man who claims to be a
feminist. First of all, the "snitch line" was not a snitch line and it
was never actually created. The idea was to provide people with a safe
way to report things like FGM, child marriage or honour killings to a
specialized department that could competently deal with the reports. You
would think that Trudeau would be for such a thing, again, as a
feminist. I think that the fact that he shows such contempt for the idea
of being able to report such things outs him as a racist and a
misogynist. In order for him to be against such a reporting system he
would have to feel that the safety of young Canadian girls of African or
other origin is not important enough to risk offending male clerics
over. That's some position to be taking while calling yourself a
feminist.
I
think that I am on solid ground to make the claim that Trudeau outs
himself as a racist, a bigot, and a misogynist here. It might not be
intentional but the end result of his statements and actions are enough
to pass judgement. I don't actually believe that he is a conscious
racist. It would take quite a bit of evidence to convince me that he was
and, unlike him, I don't throw the accusation around casually. He will
not make a coherent statement or take a position on FGM or child
marriage in Canada and I say that this makes his position a racist one. I
think that the Liberal Party of Canada would take a public position if
large numbers of middle-class white families suddenly started taking
razorblades to the genitals of their young daughters or marrying off
nine year-old girls to grown men. There would be swift action along with
an effort to stomp out the practice. This is what a moral society would
expect. Why is the Liberal Party of Canada only capable of incoherent
mumbling on the subject when it comes to protecting young girls and
women from, say, Sub-Saharan Africa? Are those girls and women not
entitled to a strong and clear statement from our government condemning
brutality against them? Trudeau has also voiced an objection to using
the term "barbaric practices". I don't understand what the difficulty is
here. One of the biggest problems that the Liberal Party of Canada
faces is its inability to use language correctly and its continual and
deliberate misuse of language. If a practice is barbaric, call it
barbaric, and then take a clear stand against it as a morally healthy
human being. Or, admit that you think the practice is tolerable, as long
as only people from different cultures than yours are suffering under
it. Trudeau was also unwilling to list FGM in the new citizenship guide
until he was forced to after considerable pressure at the hands of some
women from the Conservative Party. Why is this? If you won't take a
position on something like FGM then you are not qualified to take a
position on anything serious.
While
I was writing this, the now famous hijab hoax happened. The incident
further exposed the racism and bigotry of the Liberal Party of Canada
and also confirmed everything I've written above. The Liberal Party
Canada was so delighted at their luck that before the alleged scissors
had even snapped closed on the first alleged snip of the alleged hijab,
they were releasing official statements to remind Canadians how racist
and divided we are and that we should all feel terribly guilty and that
the correct thing to do is to vote for the highly virtuous Liberal
Party. When it turned out that the incident didn't actually happen,
Trudeau released another statement saying that while this incident might
not have happened, Canadians are still really awful and that there must
be some racial or gender based hatred somewhere. The speed with which
the official statements were released is very telling. This situation
was a win-win for Trudeau. If he releases a statement and the incident
happened, it would serve to increase division. If he releases a
statement and it turned out to be a hoax, it would serve to increase
division. I disagree with those many who said that Trudeau made a fool
of himself over this incident. I think that he or his strategists knew
exactly what they were up to. What is also telling is that when real
crimes happen that go against the Liberal Party of Canada's political
strategy, we don't hear a peep from them. For example, in October of
2017, 75 year-old Sara Anne Widholm was walking on a trail when she was
attacked by 21 year-old Habibullah Ahmad in a random act of brutal
violence. Widholm was beaten unconscious and left with a fractured skull
and other serious injuries. Her husband passed away while she was in
serious condition in hospital. I can't find an official statement from
our male-feminist Prime Minister on the brutal, random, and unprovoked
attack. Why? In Toronto recently, 20 year-old Adam Abdi went on a random
shooting spree, targeting innocent victims, including a 4 year-old
girl. Again, I cannot find a statement from Trudeau on the incident. It
looks to be the case that he only releases official statements when
there is the likelihood that it will increase the kind of ethnic tension
that will work in his favour politically.
The
reason for this government's inconsistency on making statements on
specific criminal acts is obvious. They are hoping for much more
division and hostility down the road and if Europe is any indication,
the main source of this division, violence, and hatred still has not
reached sufficient levels in Canada. The government is hoping that they
can avoid attention on the topic long enough to get it to the point
where they can simply say that it's too late and we will just have to
get used to it. This is what Europeans have been forced to hear from
their political leaders recently. The difference in Canada is that we
are able to look to Europe - a place where this experiment is more
advanced than it is here - and see the results. No Canadian politician
can now say that they didn't know what would happen when they set out to
turn us into an open border post-national state with no core values.
This means that it is being done deliberately. No one who deliberately
sets out to increase anti-Semitism, violent misogyny, violent
homophobia, rape gangs, large scale abuse of social safety systems, and
the importation of unresolved murderous ethnic conflicts, can make a
claim to be for actual diversity and inclusion or anti-racist.
Victims Past, Present and Future
The
Liberal Party of Canada seems to have taken its racist and bigoted
diversity scheme out of a common manual that has been available to all
Western governments. If you google "diversity is our strength" -
Trudeau's most common statement - you will find that the deceptive and
endlessly recycled phrase was employed with great success in all
European countries that are now experiencing levels of racial,
religious, sexual, and homophobic violence not experienced since the
Holocaust. This is the end result of decades of pumping identity
politics into our culture. Canada is on its way to joining some European
societies in violence and decay. I say that the scheme is deliberate,
as it is impossible to not notice its failure, or success - depending on
your motives - in Europe.
I
have read both Victor Klemperer's diaries and Christopher Browning's
Ordinary Men. It is impossible for me to reconcile the realities of the
20th century with the idea that modern European countries would
willingly allow even the tiniest sliver of anti-Semitism to creep into
their societies. In Germany, Jewish groups are now warning citizens to
try and look less Jewish. Some Jews are considering leaving Germany
because of safety concerns. This is because of attacks by migrants who
have come to Europe holding the belief that Jews are evil and must be
destroyed. Try and absorb this information at the same time you're
convincing yourself that the German government is run by sane and
compassionate human beings. This can only produce cognitive dissonance.
Is Germany insanely evil and corrupt, is it incompetent beyond belief,
or has it been under the grip of a globalist agenda that cares nothing
for its long term health? Germany is not alone in its moral implosion.
At the same time the Liberal Party of Canada was falling all over itself
to create as much division as humanly possible out the hijab hoax, a 15
year-old Jewish girl in France was slashed in the face with a utility
knife in an anti-Semitic attack. This was a few days after two kosher
stores were torched. This is what one French Jew, Jacob Katorza, thinks
of the situation: “In the past year, 7,000 Jews have already left France
and after this there will be many thousands more. We are not safe in
France any more. There is no future for Jews here in France. We are
finished in France.” He said this after his nephew experienced a deadly
Islamic attack on a kosher grocery store. In Britain, the first six
months of 2017 produced a record level of anti-Semitic attacks or
incidences of harassment or abuse. There 767 incidents between January
and June of that year. Much of the anti-Semitism is fueled by the open
preaching of hatred by Imams in Mosques that are receiving government
funding. The preaching of hatred towards Jews has also been happening in
Canadian Mosques. How can a government claiming to be for diversity and
inclusion deliberately pave the way for such hostile and deadly
environments? Again, why does Trudeau release an official statement on a
non-existent attempted vandalism of a hijab but then remain silent on
the preaching of actual incitements to hatred and violence?
Let's
move on to something that is only irritating and cringe-making for now
but will be deadly in the future. I am likely not the only person in
Canada who finds Trudeau's attendance of Pride festivals to be nothing
more than cheap electioneering. If he really had any concern about the
gay community he would stop insisting that we all promote the deadly
ideology that wishes to reduce the numbers of gays through brutal
violence and murder. Throughout Europe, as a result of exactly the same
type of diversity scheme that the Liberal Party of Canada has
undertaken, there have now been countless brutal assaults and murders on
gays. In one case, in Britain, a young gay man was walking home and was
stabbed eight times by a gang of Muslim men. The perpetrator was
convicted in court and this angered another large gang of Muslim men who
then stormed a gay pub and violently attack everyone there. In Germany,
a gay man had to have his face put back together with screws after he
and his partner were viciously attacked by Islamic extremists who fled
to Syria before they could be arrested. In France, five gay men were
murdered in the space of two months. Attacks on gays are increasing
dramatically all over Western Europe and as a result there is a
worldwide trend that is now seeing many gays becoming supporters of
conservative parties. This is likely a survival strategy, as any
thinking gay person is well aware of the fact that the Left is going to
get them killed. In France, things have gotten so bad that gays are
willing to vote for an anti gay-marriage party in the hopes that it
might help keep them alive. A 25 year-old gay artist named Kelvin Hopper
made the following statement to the Associated Press after many brutal
attacks on gays by African Muslims: “Faced with the current threats,
particularly from radical Islam, gays have realized they’ll be the first
victims of these barbarians, and only Marine is proposing radical
solutions.” Justin Trudeau is welcome to attend all the pride parades he
likes in order to win over gullible voters. This will not change the
fact that he is promoting an ideology that is openly hostile towards
gays while at the same time promoting a motion (M-103) that is designed
to stifle criticism of the deadly components of that ideology. I
recently saw a tweet by a gay man from the US who was responding to a
tweet from the fake feminists and Islamist Linda Sarsour. Sarsour had
tweeted that "you'll know you're living under Sharia when your credit
cards are interest free". He responded by tweeting "I'll know I'm living
under Sharia when I'm thrown from a rooftop for being gay". Awareness
of reality is essential for survival.
Justin
Trudeau's male feminism is perhaps the tool you would expect him to use
to avoid accusations of promoting an environment that leads to violence
against women. It is generally known that con-artists will accuse
others of the crime that they themselves are hoping to get away with.
The Liberal Party of Canada spends a lot of time and energy promoting
the idea that they are the party to vote for if you care about women.
This sounds okay until you think about it for a minute. It is a fact
that when some groups fail to assimilate into Western societies the
women of those cultures are the most frequent victims. Honour killings,
rapes, child marriages, arranged marriages to relatives, beatings for
failing to meet strict dress codes and social isolation are some of the
major things that women in some cultures face when arriving in a country
like Canada, Britain, France, etc. What the peddlers of diversity and
inclusion are really peddling when they insist that immigrants should
not assimilate is racism and misogyny. To allow the abuse of women and
girls at the hands of male religious figures or male family members is
racist and misogynist. The Liberal Party of Canada and their
counterparts in Western Europe are guilty of these crimes and have
guaranteed that women of some cultures do not carry the same human value
as women of other cultures. Through their actions and policies they are
stating that appallingly barbaric acts are tolerable as long as they
are only committed towards women of some ethnic backgrounds. Ayaan Hirsi
Ali, a Somalia born writer, feminist, activist, and former Muslim, has
been writing and speaking in the most articulate and powerful way for
decades now and has been trying, unsuccessfully, to get Western Liberals
to treat Muslim women as human beings and not as part of a larger
victim group that must be perpetually subjected to the bigotry of low
expectations. She has experienced the most cowardly and blatant racism
possible at the hands of white Liberals and it has nearly cost her life.
In all Western democracies, young girls are being subjected to barbaric
practices including FGM and Liberal Governments refuse to act in a way
that demonstrates that they care at all for these girls. Even in Canada,
where a young Muslim girl was recently beaten by her father for
refusing to wear a hijab, the Liberal Party of Canada refuses to make a
statement. Contrast this with the immediate and powerful response by the
Prime Minister's Office when the hijab cutting hoax took place and you
can see that the message is clear: you shall wear the hijab if the males
dominating you insist on it. When Ontario's16 year-old Aqsa Parvez was
murdered by her father and brother for refusing to wear her hijab it
should have been a wakeup call to all politicians that perhaps
assimilation is the best route for the protection of women from very
conservative Muslim cultures. Trudeau takes no lesson from the incident
and decided instead to publically state that Canada has no core identity
and is the world's first post-national state. In other words, anything
goes in Canada while he is in charge as long as the votes keep coming
in.
Females
of immigrant families are not the only victims of Trudeau and the
Liberal's style of male feminism. In Britain, where male liberal
politicians frequently virtue-signal their male feminism and their
support of diversity and inclusion, thousands of girls have been
brutally raped by migrants. There are way too many stories to even begin
to relay them and so I will relay one run-of- the-mill story. Last
year, in Darlington, County Durham, England, a 21 year-old Kuwaiti
migrant brutally raped a random British woman who he had followed and
then attacked. The woman was later found bloodied and face down with her
pants down around her ankles. The migrant said to one of the arresting
officers, a female, "I will not talk to you, you are a woman". He also
stated that his newly adopted country was a "bitch country". Is this the
kind of feminism that Trudeau and the Liberal Party are trying to sell
us?
The
Liberal Party of Canada and its plan to further divide Canada along
race and gender lines has now worked its way into the job market. The
message here: healthy white males need not apply. June 23, 2017...
Removing barriers to jobs for Canadians who are typically
under-represented in our workforce will help the middle class, as well
as those working so hard to join it. Today, the Honourable Patty Hajdu,
Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour, launched the
Call for Concepts for a program to help federally regulated, private
sector workplaces break down barriers to employment for women,
Indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible
minority communities. The Workplace Opportunities: Removing Barriers to
Equity grant and contribution program will provide up to $500,000 a year
to help make workplaces inclusive and diverse through partnerships and
industry-specific strategies. What this means is that the
government wishes to remove competence from the list of hiring criteria.
What will matter now is your race or gender. Nothing says harmony like
excluding a segment of your population from employment based on the
colour of their skin. This fits in quite nicely with Liberal MP
McKenna's tweet showing her contempt for white males. Or maybe it's more
in line with Liberal MP Hedy Fry's enormous lie about the white males
of Prince George. Whatever the case, the whole thing will fit quite
nicely into the Liberal Party's scheme do divide Canada into as many
resentful and oppressed groups as possible.
If
this trend continues, Canada is going to end up like some European
countries. In Germany, they now have to have gender segregation at New
Year events. And just in case a women is unable to make it to the safety
of the female only venue, German designers have now come up with pants
that will send out an alarm if they are forcibly removed. Jews are
beginning to flee Europe - I still can't get my head around this fact
after reading what I have about the twentieth century. In Malmo, Sweden,
gangs of young men are roaming the streets with Kalashnikov assault
rifles - this is in addition to frequent random explosions. In London,
couriers refuse to deliver in some areas for fear of acid attacks. In
Australia, police have become alarmed at the very high rate of home
invasions committed by Sudanese migrants. And all of this is leading to a
rise of the Far-Right. This is not the non-existent and comical
alt-right that the Left so frequently mentions, but rather, the real and
very serious Far-Right, and they mean business. Of course this would
happen and any politician who claims not to have known that this is
exactly what you would expect to happen is either a liar or an idiot. We
have no way of knowing how many more victims there will be as a result
of governments deliberately tampering with our core societal values. It
does look like it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better - if
it ever does. In some European countries, citizens were being called
racists by their political leaders while they were forced to sit quietly
by and watch the decay of their societies. Now those same societies are
bubbling over with the most vile and violent racism imaginable. In
Canada, there is no need for us to do this. We now have enough
information to see the tactics being used and also the end result that
the diversity charlatans are after. All we have to do is speak up.
Turning the Tide
The
Liberal Party of Canada, like its counterparts in Europe who are well
on their way to destroying several European countries, spends most of
its time virtue-signalling. I follow the Party and the MPs on Twitter
and everyday it's the same thing. There is very little on economics,
national security, environment or anything else of substance. Instead,
it's all identity-politics and division. Even when Trudeau is attempting
to negotiate trade deals overseas, he throws in some gender or identity
politics. It's a steady stream of continual reminders that Canadians
are divided and that the Liberal Party is there to mend. The problem, as
with my example of the homelessness problem mentioned near the
beginning of this essay, is that polarization and division is getting
worse, not better.
I
like Russell's maxim about the good life and I agree with him that it
requires both love and knowledge. Love is no problem, as most Canadians
love their children, their fellow citizens and their country and its
culture. Even the animals are loved here. What's lacking, as usual, is
knowledge. Knowledge is more difficult to obtain because it requires
work. It's much easier for voters to contract out this work to
politicians who have told them that they represent the equivalent of
love and knowledge in the form of various trendy political phrases such
as diversity, inclusion, equality, etc. What's missing on the part of
voters here is the knowledge that this is all part of a con-job that
aims to radically alter the makeup of our country and that there is
likely a sinister global scheme behind it. This knowledge is available
if you look for it. Other countries are further down this path than we
are and it's there to see - you just have to want to know and be open to
the truth. And once you have this knowledge you can use it to shape
your voting decisions.
I
can't know for sure that there is a sinister global scheme behind the
actions of the Liberal Party of Canada. I'm not in a position to access
that kind of knowledge. What I can do, though, is notice that we are
being conned. In 2017, Justin Trudeau said that his resolution for the
New Year was "to stand against the politics of fear and division". If
you pay attention and you are a thinking person you will notice that the
Liberal Party of Canada runs entirely on the politics of fear and
division. That's all they do. Almost every statement they make is
intended to create fear and division or guilt and then to capitalize on
that fear, division and guilt by claiming to be the party that's against
it. The hijab hoax is one tiny example of this. As I write this, Asian
Canadians are marching and protesting Trudeau's involvement in the
race-baiting hijab scam that unfairly targeted them. If Trudeau's
behaviour wasn't a deliberate effort at creating fear and division then I
don't know what is. If they are able to get away with this, then it is
definitely knowledge that is lacking in Canada.
The
way out of this is for Canadians to demand that politicians stop
playing this pathetic and now completely transparent game. Politicians
who engage in virtue-signalling should be immediately shamed and
ridiculed. They should be called out on their racism and their cheap
efforts at hucksterism. When you don't know what they're up to and you
are operating on love without knowledge, their language sounds
benevolent and for the good. When you are operating on love and
knowledge their language becomes unbearably irritating because you can
immediately see it for the dangerous and vile con job that it is. All it
would take to reverse this trend is for a sufficient number of
Canadians to come to the realization that they have had about enough of
all this and refuse to smile and nod approvingly when people use the
language of diversity and inclusion. Diversity and inclusion are
actually code words for enforced uniformity of thought and the
elimination of genuine diversity. When Trudeau says he is against the
politics of fear and division, what he really means is that he is for
creating fear and division because it gives him something to
virtue-signal about. He needs fear and division in order to maintain
power and implement whatever agenda his party and its extremely wealthy
donors have in mind. Fear and division is the giant smokescreen that
allows the important and sinister work to go on unnoticed behind the
scenes.
To
put love and knowledge to use together only requires that Canadians pay
attention to the wisdom of our ancestors. It took humanity a very long
time to puzzle out the best way to run a society and this massive gift
has been handed down to us. Millions have paid with their lives so that
we might enjoy the fruits of this wisdom. No society will ever be
perfect, but you can strive to have one that benefits as many citizens
as possible and causes harm to as few citizens as possible. In order to
achieve this, some very simple and powerful principles have been put
into practice: free-speech and the free exchange of ideas; the citizen
as an individual; a merit based society with equal opportunity for all
citizens; the principle that all citizens are equal under the law; a
basic social safety net so that no citizen will starve or go without
basic medical care; and the idea that citizens are free to hold and
express their own ideas and beliefs and that the state will not mandate
beliefs or statements. Do not trust anyone who wishes to tamper with
these tried-and-true principles - especially a politician. Their
responsibility is to uphold these principles and not to degrade them. To
attempt to alter these principles is to engage in the mindset of the
demagogue, the utopian ideologue, and the power hungry narcissist.
If
you removed all of the virtue-signalling from the Liberal Party of
Canada, they would have nothing at all to say. There would be near
complete silence. If Canadians refused to allow them to spend time
engaged in the immoral practice of virtue-signalling then they would be
forced to speak about economic, environmental and national security
issues. These would be much better conversations to have. I suspect that
the Liberal Party prefers to stick with virtue-signalling because the
conversations on economic, environmental and national security issues
would reveal that the Liberal Party of Canada is not acting in a way
that is in the long-term interest of Canadians. For this reason, it is
extremely important that Canadians make it very clear to politicians
that we don't want to hear anymore virtue-signalling from them. Of
course you want to save children, hold babies and attend pride-parades,
but please stop telling us about it every day and instead discuss topics
of substance, and do it truthfully.
My
biggest hope for 2018 is that people in all Western countries will
start to point out the racism and bigotry of the Left and to do it
forcefully and unforgivingly. We have been held hostage to their
accusations for far too long. We have been held hostage because we are
decent and were genuinely afraid of the accusations. No more - we will
turn the accusations right back on them where they belong. They have
been using a very old con-artist's trick to avoid suspicion and millions
of decent people have had enough. Please join me in calling out the
Liberal Party of Canada on their racism and their bigotry.
Jonathon Kneeland
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment