On Voting for the Trump

If I were American, I would vote for Donald Trump.

Yes, he’s scumbag.  I’ve written plenty here about how he’s not a conservative, he’s not a decent or humble person, he’s a rich narcissist and unlikely to solve any of the problems the US has at the moment.  I think his ideas of building a wall, deporting 11 million people, banning all Muslim immigration; canceling free trade deals… they’re all crap ideas.

And no, it’s not a lesser of two evils thing, even though Hillary Clinton is a pretty deplorable character as far as that goes… she’s the very definition of a political “insider”, guilty of corruption and treasonous behavior, enabler to her husband’s many sins and a chronic liar.

No, the reason I would vote for Donald Trump is that this is clearly not an ideological election.  This is not a contest of the ideas of the right vs. the ideas of the left.  Trump is not ideological, nor is Clinton.  They speak to elements of their parties, but they don’t represent either party’s predominant ideology.  Thus, when choosing between the two you need a different reason to pick one or the other.  Character is a wash and neither truly represents a “side” in the political or cultural wars.

So, what I like about Trump is that his enemies are for the most part, people I despise.  That’s pretty much the summation of my reason for voting for him.  An “enemy of my enemy is my friend”, sort of deal.  I don’t really want to see him as POTUS.  I’m not a nihilist that wants to burn it all down and rebuild from the bottom up.  But there is a group of people out there who if Trump wins, their heads would quite literally explode – and I would LOVE to see that.  I would vote for him quite simply because I like the enemies he’s made.  Well done.

Take for example this stupid twat, Jill Soloway, who wins an Emmy award and promptly uses the opportunity to compare Donald Trump to Hitler:

“He’s a complete dangerous monster, and any moment I have to call Trump out to being an inheritor to Hitler, I will,” she said, to applause.

Or how about when Donald Trump has the temerity to call the Chelsea bombing a “bombing” before it was actually declared a bombing.  Horrors, he got it right.  It’s well reported now that CNN and MSNBC edited Hillary Clinton calling it a “bombing” before the police said that was what it was.    That’s the other part of the equation – most people HATE the media.

Then there’s the outrage – OUTRAGE!  That Jimmy Fallon would dare to have Trump on his show and make small talk with the man.  He ruffled his hair!?!  Oh my God, man… would you ask to ruffle the mustache of Hitler?

Then there’s Bono claiming that Donald Trump is possibly America’s “worst idea” ever.  Idiot, stick to your music.   The US has had slavery, civil war, McCarthy-ism, Jim Crowe and so many other bad ideas that nominating Donald Trump for President doesn’t even make the top 20.

It’s to the point where I am reminded of this interview several years back Michael Coren (before he went traitor to the cause) and the wonderful Melanie Phillips. She starts at the 2:00 mark discussing how conservative thinking is demonized, but what he says at 4:40ish is also what Ross Douthat is getting at in this column; approximately 35-40% of the population sit at home and are beaten over the head, day after day, and told that what they believe is wrong. What they believe is not just wrong – it’s evil. They are mocked as being racist, bigoted and stupid. So, one of two things can be the outcome when a large chunk of the population is dismissed as “deplorables”; either these people surrender and “convert” or they go underground but find different ways to vent when the opportunity comes. Like the Brexit vote. Like Donald Trump. These are not votes for something. Rather these are votes to stick it to the elites that have been belittling them.

I don’t know if Donald Trump can win.  It doesn’t look likely.  Conceivably he could get more of the popular vote than Hillary Clinton and still lose because she’s got the black and suburban soccer mom votes sewed up in the key states.  But imagine if he did.  No, no – don’t imagine the nukes on North Korea or billions spent on a ridiculous second coming of the Great Wall.  Worry about that later.  Instead, just imagine John Oliver, Samantha Bee, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Trevor Noah, 99% of Hollywood and the mainstream press… imagine them staring aghast at the TV screen as the results roll in.   That might be reason enough for me.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

On “Montreal Sucks”, “Make America Great Again” Hats and Free Speech

Free speech is a sticky subject. I’m not an absolutist in the mold of Mark Steyn or Ezra Levant or others – I think there is a balance to be struck between maximizing what can (and often should) be said and what crosses the line.

Where might I draw the line? Well, for example, some clowns brought a poster to a recent Toronto FC game against the Montreal Impact, depicting a blue-thong wearing female Montreal fan performing fellatio on a supposed red hoodie wearing Toronto fan with the headline “Montreal Sucks” in French. It’s vulgar, but could you defend it as free speech? Sure, some might and I would see the theoretical libertarian argument. But where I would draw the line is that, if I have to explain it to my children then it is wrong. You’ve now imposed a burden on me that I neither asked for nor should reasonably expect to be responsible for as participating adult member of society. No thanks. That poster should not be allowed because it’s a fairly straightforward depiction of a sexual act, there’s no subjective interpretation of it required. Only extremists would argue otherwise that it’s my obligation to explain to my young daughter what that sign means and not the clowns’ obligation to exercise some basic human decency.

But then there’s the story today about a Calgary student being told to take his “Make America Great Again” hat off because it represents “hate speech”. “Make America Great Again” is one of Donald Trump’s campaign slogans. In the video of the incident the young lady objecting to the hat (who is surprisingly attractive and not an obese ugly troll like so many SJW’s) cites her incorrect understanding of what Trump wants with regards to immigration and as such because it’s a Trump hat, regardless of what is actually written on the hat, it represents something hateful. In SJW parlance then she’s “triggered” by the sight of the hat and wants it removed because it offends her.

Now we’re into subjective interpretation as opposed to the Toronto FC sign. If we go down this route almost anything anyone says or writes may be construed by some person somewhere as “offensive”. It’s a never ending rabbit hole to fall into.  But this is what the vast majority of SJW’s want; the carte blanche power to essentially bully anyone and everyone that they disagree with into shutting up because they’re being offensive, they’re triggering people, they’re infringing on “safe spaces”.

Here’s a prime example of the psychopathic bullying of an SJW in full flight. Watch the video and tell me that if you were not the Lyft driver you wouldn’t have not only kicked this bitch out of the car way sooner, but also backed the car up and tried to run her over to do the world a favour. Thankfully there’s been some justice since this became public and this abusive woman with obvious mental problems has been driven underground and off social media. The driver has a right to display the bobble head of a Hawaiian person because there’s no obligation imposed on the persons seeing it to interpret it any other way that how it’s presented. Had the presentation been of a Hawaiian person being cut in half by a white navy captain? OK… that would cross the line and you’d be within bounds to ask to have that removed from sight.

It’s nuanced, but not that difficult for ordinary people to exercise common sense. But we do need to actively tell the triggered little babies of the world to stuff it because free speech is a continuum; at one end is the vulgar, indecent, truly offensive that is hard to accept but at the other end is honest scientific inquiry – if you give the SJW’s an inch they will take a mile and soon they won’t just be shutting down offensive speech, they’ll be shutting down research and analysis that just happens to uncover truths they find uncomfortable.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

On Spin and the Lesser of Two Evils

If I were ever to be elected to provincial office, I would shut down TVO my first day in office.  I’m so glad that basically no one watches this tax-payer funded network for Liberal propaganda… except for me obviously.

Note the “balance” on this episode – if you include the host, the conservative is outnumbered 5:1, and the conservative is a poor feeble minded old man who acts as a Wynne apologist to boot.  That’s the Left’s idea of “balance”.

Once upon a time, I thought Steve Paikin was a reasonable, professional journalist who hid his leftist bias. But on this episode he opens with talking points straight from the Premier’s office and actually wonders aloud why, oh why, is Kathleen Wynne’s personal approval rating at 16%.

Unemployment is down under Wynne?  The manufacturing sector in this province is absolutely and totally gutted.  Take a drive through the wasteland of southwestern Ontario. As a result there are literally thousands upon thousands of men and women who have given up looking for work – once you stop looking for work you stop being counted as one of the “unemployed”.  Add to that the literally thousands upon thousands of young men and women, recently graduated from school with zero job prospects and are either sitting at home playing video games or padding their resumes with volunteer and intern positions. That accounts for a large drop in the unemployment figures. Private sector employment has fallen, government sector increased. On whose backs are those jobs being paid for?

Oh, but the budget will be balanced… firstly, says who?  The Liberals?  3% growth is THEIR projection.  They keep projecting tax revenues to go up.  Intuitively we know that is bullshit in this economy.

And they claim the budget will be balanced next year… but only after McGuinty/Wynne have DOUBLED the provincial debt.  We are the most indebted sub-national government IN THE WORLD.  And how have they balanced the budget?  But levying all sorts of bullshit taxes, health premiums and selling our stakes in Hydro One a one-time balance sheet mark-up.

Paikin totally blows past the idea that the Liberals are the subject of five ongoing OPP investigations, have blown billions on eHealth, ORNG, cancelled gas plants, cancelled ORPP, MARS and we pay the highest hydro rates in the western world.  Our hydro rates have doubled in the past two years and now they want to levy a carbon tax on our gas because they, the wonderful Liberals, are combatting climate change single handedly.  Now they promise to help us with our hydro costs by removing the HST on our hydro, a move that will cost the Ontario government $1 billion.  NO – wrong.  It won’t COST the government shit – BECAUSE THAT’S OUR MONEY, NOT THE GOVERNMENTS.  We make the money and government taxes us, but if you follow typical Leftist logic it’s all their money first and they allow us to keep some to live on.  Every tax cut or rebate is portrayed as COSTING the government, but taxes and charges never seem to cost the taxpayers jack squat.

All this and yet I have zero faith that Wynne will be defeated in the next Ontario provincial election. We have entered the era of “lesser of two evils” when it comes to our politics and as Ben Shapiro so accurately writes about the US election;

We’ve been told since the end of the primaries that we must choose one candidate or the other. It’s a binary decision: pick Hillary, or pick Trump. Now, aside from the fact that a vote for neither is not a vote for either, the underlying logic seems to be that in any one-on-one electoral competition, the obligation to choose a candidate trumps any moral obligation to eschew bad candidates entirely. This leads to a lowest-common-denominator politics that can excuse any and all bad behavior by any and all candidates. If Matthew 7:3 enjoins people not to “look at the speck in your brother’s eye but fail to notice the beam in your own eye,” lesser-of-two-evils politics tells us that we ought to ignore both the motes and beams in our own eyes, because after all, our opponents have motes and beams in their eyes.

So the problem becomes that Wynne and the Ontario Families Coalition only have to paint the Ontario PCs as some unpalatable collection of evil bigots/deniers/anti-union rural rednecks and make it a contest of lesser evils – wouldn’t you feel BAD about yourself voting for those people? You may not feel all that good voting for us, but hey! We’re not close-minded right wingers. And boom… 40% of the population buys the idea that, despite your corruption and incompetence, you represent the lesser evil and you’re back in.

I hope I’m wrong.

 

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

On the Coming Apocalypse

Quickly, some sure signs that the apocalypse is imminent.

Colin Kaepernick jersey sales are now the third highest of all NFL jerseys this year. A hero is born. Funny how, at the beginning of the pre-season this guy was on the verge of being cut from the San Francisco 49ers, a very average quarterback commanding a very above average salary that the team might want to be freed of. If one were cynical you might suspect he engineered this bit of Black Lives Matters controversy to basically make him un-cut-able.

“I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color,” Kaepernick told NFL.com last week. “To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.”

It is ironic that he was a child abandoned by his black father, put up for adoption and raised by a white family and makes millions of dollars a year playing football in a league where 65% of the players are black. But he’s being oppressed.

Megan Rapinoe is a lesbian who plays on the US National women’s soccer team. Nothing unusual about that; the higher the level of women’s competition in a large number of sports, it seems the higher the proportion of lesbians. No big deal though, it’s doubtful that despite the huge popularity of the US Women’s team in recent years that anyone beyond a small minority of people knew or cared that she was lesbian. It’s fair to say that practically nobody cared about her sexuality. But she was also being oppressed.

“Being a gay American, I know what it means to look at the flag and not have it protect all of your liberties.”

I’m curious what country other than the US, Canada or England, could you be an out-of-closet lesbian representing your nation and no one really batting an eye?

But oppression? You don’t know oppression until you are confronted by a man wearing a beard. Yes, beards and mustaches are symbols of the oppressive patriarchy. Men should be forced to shave. From the wonderful mind of the author:

Participating in #Movember is basically an action that screams “Look at me, I am a man, I accept the current patriarchal gender roles and I basically hate women“. It is a tool used by sexist men to keep women and transfolk down and make anyone who doesn’t agree with male supremacy and the Patriarchy shut up and just take being oppressed and hated on the chin. Every single hair on your chin is like a knife in every woman’s heart.

Trying to raise awareness for “men’s health” is frankly, pretty ridiculous. I mean, come on, it’s 2015, I thought we had gotten further than giving already privileged men an ENTIRE month when they already get the entire YEAR. Talking and “raising awareness” about prostate cancer and growing a frickin’ beard to get that conversation going, is incredibly sexist because it literally takes attention away from all the brave women who are dying every day from cancers such as ovarian cancer and breast cancer. We’re supposed to be living in an equal society and yet it’s accepted that men, who have been privileged for thousands of years, get so much attention for being poor “victims” of cancer. It’s so twisted that I can’t even begin to explain it.

We shouldn’t feel sorry for men and we shouldn’t prioritize men’s health. Men rape, men kill and men catcall and in today’s equal society, do we really have time to run around creating campaigns for men with cancer? Would you really care about Hitler if he got cancer? Would you grow a Hitler moustache as a campaign to raise awareness about Hitler’s cancer? No, I guessed not, so why are you doing the same for men?

I can’t tell if this is serious or satire.  If satire, then congratulations to the author, well done.

But assuming it’s legitimate, then yes, women should not do anything for men. Most of all, do not wear bras!

This change in consumer demand is happening against the backdrop of France’s burkini ban and ongoing hurdles facing mothers trying to breastfeed in public. And it’s creating a striking contrast: While many women around the world are policed for their clothing choices, others have the comparative freedom to go bra-free and, in the case of celebrities like Kendall Jenner, flaunt nipple piercings publicly.

That’s raising eyebrows among some feminists. Jean Golden, a professor of sociology at Ryerson University, says the bra-free trend isn’t a substantive feminist issue, or a political movement.

“It is a personal choice, especially for young women, framed by the hyper-sexualized media portrayal of young women’s bodies, including their breasts and nipples,” she says. “It does not address systemic sexism. It could be argued it feeds into it.”

Ah ha! Your bluff is called feminists. Of course next will be a big(ger) push for hairy armpits and unshaven legs.  Kim Kardashian will soon do a spread where we see that an ethnic Armenian woman’s natural state sans Brazilian wax is hair, front to back, full side to side.  Everyone will applaud her naturalism and copy. Did I wake up in 1969?

Nope. It’s 2016 in full bloom because here we have incredulously anger over a movie about a trans-gendered person not having an actual trans-gendered actor cast in the part.  Mark Ruffalo is as leftist a virtue-signaling Hollywood star can get. And yet he’s getting ripped to shreds for not following the social justice warrior playbook where only trans-people can play trans-people. Only gays can play gays. Only visible minorities can understand racism. Only women can understand sexism and straight white men understand nothing except how to inflict violence, colonialism and the patriarchy on the world at large.

Lastly I leave you with this bit of “art”.

The feminist then presents and interesting suggestion: “Go sit down with your blood during one of the first days of bleeding. Meditate on it. Smell it. Feel it. Why is it gross or scary? Look at me. Look me in the eyes and tell me why,” she demands.

Ah jeez.

The apocalypse cometh. Prepare yourself. Learn some survival skills, take some self defence classes and hope that the zombie virus hits before the social justice warriors take over.

 

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

On Shooting Survivors in the Countryside

From the National Review last year;

 “…This is not about “justice”; it’s about crushing the enemy beneath their holy heel. Progressives have chosen an ideology of total warfare. They aren’t satisfied with compromise. They aren’t satisfied with surrender. They aren’t satisfied until they are roaming the conquered countryside shooting survivors. And since progressives’ battle lines are always bounding forward, eventually everyone will end up in the crosshairs.”

Everyone. That includes you, Ellen DeGeneres. No, no, we won’t hear about how you were a progressive pioneer, one of the very first out-of-the-closet lesbians in Hollywood. How dare you post a photo-shopped picture of you riding Usain Bolt? A joke? Check your privilege, woman. Based on the privilege arithmetic you have no business trying to make a joke at the expense of a black man.

Ellen DeGeneres:

White = +1000

Woman = -500

Very rich = +500

Lesbian = -500

Total Privilege Score = +500

Usain Bolt:

Black = -1000

Man = +1000

Able Bodied = +100

Cis Gendered Straight = +250

Total Privilege Score = +350

Uh oh. It looks like you are more privileged than Usain Bolt, Ellen. Walk that tweet back, in a hurry, lest you be called a racist.

Ah, but the Progressives aren’t quite done roaming the conquered countryside, shooting survivors. Who else is out there – wait, what about the Olympics? Yes, let’s attack not just the Olympics but the whole idea of separate athletic competitions for men and women.

Just take a listen to this clip from the wonderful leftist fantasy land called CBC Radio. If you can make it far enough, at about the 18 minute mark the lunatic professor from the University of Western Ontario claims that women could successfully compete against men in lots of sports, like… ski jumping. OK, let’s look at her claim; the world record for men’s ski jump is 252.5m.  For women it is 200m.  That’s a difference of over 50m.  But whatever let’s not let actual facts get in the way.   She being a “scientist” and all.

How about we look at the marquee event of the Olympics, the 100m sprint?  For a man to qualify to compete in the Olympics, he must run a time of 10.16s or less.    Florence Joyner-Griffith’s women’s world record time from 1988 was 10.49s and it is widely accepted that she was using steroids at the time.  With that time, which has remained unbeatable for almost 30 years, she wouldn’t even qualify for the Olympics in the men’s division.

But again, whatever – you win! Let’s get rid of all the hand wringing about Castor Semenya’s hypoandrowhateverism and her let’s get rid of gender classifications in sports. Instead we’ll do it by blood chemistry profiles. Let’s end this bullshit. We test everyone and you compete in a category appropriate to your testosterone levels;

Category 1: 0-400 ng/dl (nanograms/deciliter)

Category 2: 400 – 1200 ng/dl

Category 3: 1200+

I’ve deliberately increased the upper threshold of the lower category, since men are typically 345-1190 ng/dl, so let’s assume there are some women that have naturally higher levels of testosterone and some men with naturally lower, i.e. as you get older men tend to have lower testosterone levels… so why not have a 50 year old man competing against 25 year old woman in wrestling? Same testosterone levels right? Even competition, right? And Category 3 … load yourself up guys and gals! Unlimited ‘roids, GHG, etc. What excitement that would be! It’d be like watching Marvel superheroes battle in real life.

Let’s roam the countryside some more.

Here’s a story about how millennials are, as a generation, having less sex than any generation in the past 60 years. Whoa, how can that be? I thought this was the age of the hook-up culture and free-flowing sexuality. But one guy offers an explanation;

“Third-wave feminists seem to be crazy, saying that all men are participating in this rape culture.” He opts for porn instead. “It’s quicker. It’s more accessible. What you see is what you get.”

It’s a disaster. I am not a historian, but it strikes me as a new Victorianism.  One of the main reasons was the inability for young men to navigate modern social rules for engaging the women, so they’d just as soon sit home and masturbate watching porn.  Sexless lesbian relationships are on the rise because “women” cannot find “men” that they can tolerate.

I always operated with the belief that what most people really really really wanted from life was to be happy, to experience joy.

How stressful is life if you have to tip toe through a minefield with every tweet or comment afraid that you might inadvertently be called a racist, sexist, bigot or homophobe?

Who will sticking men and women against each other in sports competition make happy?  The female athletes?  No, it will make the majority of female athletes who have no desire to take drugs in order to stay level with men pretty miserable, to the point where they’ll drop out.

How happy are young people so afraid of the opposite sex because they don’t know the rules of engagement?

The only people these things make happy are the tiny minority of progressives thinking Thank Gaia we’ve struck a blow for social justice.   But even then for how long exactly do they gain a feeling of happiness?  When they stop for a second and realize they’re still not happy, instead of some self-reflection and wondering if they’re wasting their energies, they instead think they’re unhappy because we haven’t gone far enough yet. Let’s go find some more survivors to shoot in the countryside.

Update:

It never ends. Congratulations Justin Trudeau, you’re being shot at also.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

On Warriors and Our Nation of Children

Do you ever wonder what a nation or society of children we’ve become?

I’ve become a big fan of Jocko Willink of late and based on his praise for the book, I’ve begun reading About Face by Col. David Hackworth. Reading the book gives you great perspective on how soft (and fortunate) we’ve become in our modern age; Hackworth joined the army at age 15, and by age 21 was a 1st Lieutenant commanding 200 infantry in the Korean War.  In the book he details the horrors of fighting in Korea and later Vietnam, the trench warfare, trying to sleep and cope with constant artillery shelling and sniping and attacks, rats nibbling on your toes at night, digits cut off due to frostbite, starvation and dehydration, feet rotting due to poor hygiene and constant rain, comrades killed and wounded on a daily basis… Hackworth at one point gets his arm and shoulder shredded by landing on a grenade, and when a doctor tells him he will never straighten his arm again he jumps out of his hospital bed, drain still inserted in his arm after surgery, does a push-up to straighten his arm and tells the doctor to shove off. This is a warrior. Without these types of individuals none of us would enjoy any of the freedoms we take for granted.  Only those who are intellectually dishonest would argue otherwise.

It is to laugh when Donald Trump claims to have made many sacrifices and then you compare his “list” to individuals like Hackworth and others who unfortunately lost their lives. Trump is an idiot; the proper response to the question of what sacrifices he’s made was to admit in all honesty that he has not made any sacrifices comparable to Capt. Khan and his family, but then subtly turn it around and ask what sacrifices can Hillary Clinton claim? Barack Obama? Bernie Sanders? Any Leftie leader in the US? Instead he didn’t do that, he attacked the family of a fallen soldier. That alone is proof that he is unfit to lead a nation and be a Commander-in-Chief.

But then how much different is this; an artist in B.C. paints a fawning picture of Sophie Gregoire-Trudeau performing a yoga pose and then has the temerity of call her a “warrior”, the “Queen” of Canada… grow up woman. You are a child that is impressed by ridiculous things. She and her husband are the hipster products of a silver-spoon fed privilege that haven’t made any sacrifices on a scale with real warriors. Neither have what it takes for a real fight or conflict.

Take for example the latest story that our Defense Minister, an actual warrior, is being humiliated with the assigned task of searching for a peacekeeping mission somewhere in Africa that Canada can attach onto, because for Justin Trudeau the military is a tool for Liberal virtue-signaling of what a wonderful, peaceful nation we are, how much he believes in an unworkable utopian United Nations, instead of understanding that true peace is achieved by our warriors fighting for our side, killing people and breaking things that belong to the other side, not just standing in between two groups of hostile people. How’d that Canadian/UN peace keeping mission go in Rwanda?

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Fear for the Future

When two dogs get into a fight what happens the vast majority of the time is that one dog will lie down and show its belly to the other dog. It submits. You won, you are the leader. Rarely does the superior dog then continue the fight and kill the dog that has submitted unless it has behavioral issues, which tend to be more common in breeds like pit bulls, not because they are hardwired to kill other dogs but because they are chronically mishandled by their human masters which leads to said behavioral problems. But let us not digress.

The “right” has been submitting to the “left” now for the last 50 odd years. Pretty much since the 1960’s the right has been showing its belly to the left and conceding ground on all manner of social and cultural issues. It’s a misconception that true conservatives are against social progress on matters pertaining to women’s equality, gay rights, race relations, cultural diversity. But what conservatives try to petition for is Balance, Stability and Rational Government. Progress is great, but taken too far and too quickly it unbalances society, produces instability and results in governments that want an activist role rather than merely manage the affairs of civilization. Unbalanced, unstable and irrational is not a successful formula for any society and inevitably over the long haul leads to human tragedy, suffering and pain.

The pit bulls in my metaphor are the left, the social justice warriors (SJWs) and progressives who are constantly on the march, unable to acknowledge victories and completely amnesiac to where we were as a society even a few short years ago. There seems to be on the left a pathological impulse to fix the world whereas conservatives would tend to argue the only lasting fixes are internal as individuals. Stop asking for the government to fix every ill in the world; look in the mirror, adjust your behavior accordingly, set an example for others and trust that people will follow.

This was a long way of getting to the current Ghostbusters movie and the controversy over Twitter banning Milo Yiannopoulos. The movie looks like it sucks but that’s almost beside the point.

Hollywood is pretty devoid of new ideas and risk adverse so for the most part all you see lately are endless sequels and remakes. Hence their lack of imagination leads them to the brilliant idea that they should remake Ghostbusters with an all-female cast. Firstly, the original Ghostbusters wasn’t all that funny; could they not find a funnier 80’s comedy to remake? Second, comedy remakes tend to be busts because so much of the success of the original is dependent on cast chemistry and jokes that are relevant to that era… fart jokes were hilarious in the 80’s, now it’s got to be upgraded to ghost slime in vaginal cavities? OK, whatever, har har. And lastly, nothing against an all-female cast, Bridesmaids was hilarious for example, but why not create a new comedy for female comedians? Why scavenge a thirty year old comedy, ironically written by men, and simply try to swap out the cast genders?

So the trailer for the movie becomes the most disliked video ever posted to YouTube. Then after it comes out one of the lead actresses, Leslie Jones, gets into Twitter war with trolls that lasts more than eight hours (does she not realize the best thing to do is ignore idiots? Not feed them? Or was this part of a publicity scheme?) It ends with her threatening to quit Twitter and then pleading to Twitter that they do something and they do – they ban the supposed ring leader, Milo despite the evidence that he never actually called her anything racist.

Now Milo Yiannopolous is definitely an acquired taste. He’s a flamboyantly gay libertarian who likes to go after “third wave” feminists and SJWs. Watching him do it is quite funny and provides a perverse satisfaction; it’s like when your older brother would grab your arms and starting forcing you to hit yourself with your own hands and asks “why are you hitting yourself, what’s wrong with you?”. They can’t combat a gay man attacking them in the most un-PC way; they don’t know how to respond. But his soaring popularity is indicative of the times.

Brendan O’Neil writes a pretty good piece on this story, but now he’s under attack… on Twitter. His column is not completely nonsensical.  The only caveat I’d have is this; the left shows no graciousness and so even if a conservative were to show proper decorum, were to attempt to discuss things rationally, there is no reciprocal behavior.  The left act like the aforementioned pit bulls. So in the end a lot of people on the right give up and say, “Hey, if you think we’re incurable bigots then fine!  Let’s be incurable bigots!” and a large segment then give themselves permission to indulge in their worst instincts. No more submission. It’s what has given rise to Trump, an unapologetic bigot who hilariously has had the past two night’s speech upon speech at the Republican National Convention about what a wonderful husband, father and human being he is, despite being married three times, a serial philanderer, and a crook who stiffs people who’ve worked for him. A guy who is on trial for fraud. One of his character witnesses is Rudy Giuliani, a man who let his wife know about their divorce during a press conference after months of running around in public with his mistress. But you know what? None of his fans (or Milo’s fans) care, if the other side doesn’t care about standards, why should we?

It’s sad. Conservatism at its roots should be about character. It already evaporated long ago on the left (Hillary Clinton 30 years ago would have been indicted), and now it’s all but evaporated on the right. Fear for the future.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

On Diversity, Segregation, Cultural Appropriation and Multi-Culturalism

On the one hand you have the supposed forces of diversity; take for example the female German politician who neglected to report her own rape at the hands of three Arab migrants because she was afraid of the racial backlash against Arabs that reporting her crime might provoke. Only after there were subsequent attacks was her friend able to convince her to come forward to the police with her own story. She certainly signaled her virtues to the world – it was more important for her to avoid potentially negative characterizations of a specific race than protect other women from the same fate. It’s as though had she come forward she would be the bad person, not her attackers. Multi-culturalism practiced as a doctrine for being a good quiet victim. It’s not the victim blaming feminists so decry, but it’s close; it’s simply on the hierarchy of grievances and victim-hood, Muslims rank higher than women.

But then you have the forces of segregation; Black Lives Matter, Idle No More, etc. Ever wonder what it is exactly that these people want? As a Canadian this ridiculousness is particularly insulting; we are not a country with anywhere near the history of racism that the US has, so why is this abomination being imported from that country? Sure, we have done some bad things as a nation to First Nations, interning Japanese and refusing Jewish refugees during WWII and such, no Western nation has a flawless record on that front. No serious person would argue that we are a country free of racism, sexism, homophobia et al, but you cannot convince the majority that racism against blacks or other identifiable groups is either “systemic” or endemic in Canada, or in Toronto particularly.

One idea that gets pounded is the idea that white people, because of their “privilege” cannot understand the condition and lives of black people or any other visible minority in our country. That is intellectually absurd. By extension then how could a black person understand the life of say, a Chinese immigrant? How could the straight Chinese immigrant understand the life of gay Chinese immigrant? How could that gay Chinese immigrant understand the life of that trans-gendered Aboriginal wo/man? How could that trans-gendered Aboriginal wo/man understand the life of a paraplegic lesbian Muslim from Pakistan? How can I understand my neighbor? He has a teenage daughter and lives 25m north of where I live, his perspective on life must be different than mine… and on and on.

At some point if you carry that argument to its logical conclusion you could argue that it is impossible for any of us to understand each other, because we are individuals. We all develop as persons with our own experiences that colour who and what we are and determine our cognitive biases. For a society to function successfully we have to accept that others will be able to, for the most part, understand us and our concerns. So when you say that that is impossible then what these people argue for is segregation; the ability to exist under a separate set of laws and conditions. There doesn’t have to be physical separation of groups to have segregation, all it requires is that there are different rules for different people. And when you provide different rules for one group then every group wants its own rules. Including whites who then turn to a Donald Trump in the US and argue, hey it’s our turn for special treatment.

Perhaps it’s not all that different from the German politician who didn’t want to report her Arab rapists – she believed that they, because of their identity, should be allowed to operate under a set of different expectations for allowable behavior. This is what progressive white guilt has created; a society that every day seems more and more hell-bent on dividing into little identity groups, white, black, straight, gay, woman, single, married, native, migrant, Muslim, Christian, atheist, kids, no kids… nothing approaching a nation or unifying culture.

Unifying culture? What a quaint idea. Here’s Justin Timberlake, a pop star that does “black” dance moves and emulates Michael Jackson wherever and whenever possible. He tweets in support of a blatantly racist speech made by a black actor at the BET awards and gets hit with a request to stop appropriating black culture. What? Should we whites then volley back with blacks should stop appropriating “white” culture in the form pianos, keyboards, guitars, brass horns… recording equipment? Turntables? Records? CDs? Where is this headed?

You’d think the left would applaud cultural appropriation. Isn’t cultural appropriation is just another word for multi-culturalism, which as we’ve discussed, is a key goal of the left… but it also is simultaneously a tool of oppression by the white Patriarchy? What? Is this an example of “intersectionality” or whatever they call this crap when they teach it in universities? I can’t keep up.

Two hundred years from now we can only hope people will look back on this time in history and laugh at what utter morons we all were.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

On Being UnChristian-Like and Others

I may be asking for a bit of trouble with this posting, because I am far from being a Christian scholar, but I would say confidently that I am a Christian and a practicing Catholic. If you are of the “right-wing” persuasion, a classical liberal or a conservative, then these are trying times to be a Catholic when the current Pope and clergy seem to asking you to view the world and behave as a progressive might.

What prompts this post is an experience yesterday whence I had to listen to a homily at church  and my priest speak about not creating “others” to demonize in life; migrants, immigrants, refugees, gays, lesbians, trans-gender… He went on to quote Barack Obama and Pope Francis extensively, the quotes being mostly typical progressive stuff about going out of our way to embrace “others” of differing cultures, races, sexuality and views.  Some stuff about Brexit being unfortunate and a vote against immigrants, ignoring the fact that in polls of Brexit voters last week immigration was a distant third place in terms of concerns behind political sovereignty and economic opportunities.

Matthew 5:39:

But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Now, I repeat, I am not a Christian scholar. But I always have thought of Jesus not as some hippy-dippy flower child but as One who preached love, strength and personal power. This passage in the Bible I believe is an exhortation to resist provocation, not to tolerate or be indifferent to bad actions, not to be pacifist. What He was suggesting is who is stronger, more powerful, more in command than the person who can restrain themselves from lashing out? Perhaps some of our modern-day snowflakes attending universities and are so afraid of people saying controversial things or using words that they find offensive or “triggering” might take something from this passage. The old “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me” is derivative and still a good adage for everyone to try and live by but seems to be forgotten by the political correctness crowd.

We can infer that what Jesus was concerned about when He said to turn the other cheek was the example His followers would set in how they reacted to future persecutions. He wanted people to come to Him and not be turned off by violence.

But again, He was not one to take things lying down; consider John 2:15:

And when He had made a scourge of small cords, He drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables.

That doesn’t sound like someone who passively tolerated or was indifferent to bad behavior in His midst.

But nonetheless, Matthew 5:39 gets used to berate us into thinking that we can only be a good person if we “turn the other cheek” which has been twisted into modern times to be synonymous with the idiom “turn a blind eye.” Case in point, let’s discuss a recent story about “others”; grown men (some with beards even), Syrian refugees, attending high school in New Brunswick and harassing female students, refusing to speak English and giving Jewish students a hard time. One might think the story is being actively repressed, to the point where it’s hard to even find it on a Google news feed. Heaven knows CBC or CTV wouldn’t touch it with a 10 foot pole. It has taken a small upstart media outlet to do a FOI request to get their hands on emails between teachers and the school, emails that show the teachers have gone out of their way to accommodate these students and make the best of a bad situation and not gotten any help or seen any improvement.

This is just a very recent Canadian example, but one could add to it literally hundreds of recent stories from Europe. What does a Christian do when the Others are “others” because they are choosing to be “others” and have no interest in peaceful coexistence or conformance with even the most basic ideas we have here in the West about treating women and other religions with respect? Where is the Christian responsibility to protect the weak and those unable to protect themselves? Is it Christian to ignore the plight of teenage girls being harassed in our high schools because we want to be “tolerant” and avoid demonizing people? No, it is not. That is wrong, it has to be. I can’t conceive of a Jesus who would have suggested Christians just roll over or allow evil behavior to proceed unchecked.  Should we ignore the plight of Yazidi and Christians in Iraq being slaughtered, or maybe just try to talk with ISIS and make them see the light?  No, we need to go destroy them because they are evil.  It is justified.

There is a difference between being tolerant and being indifferent. We should strive to be tolerant of other people, their creeds, sexuality and beliefs. We should try to understand them to the extent possible. No question, and as I’ve written in past posts we have come a million miles in the last hundred years on this front. A diverse society is a stronger one provided everyone is on the same page as far as respect for each other and rule of law.

But that doesn’t mean we have to be indifferent to events, actions and persons who either knowingly or unknowingly are having an adverse impact on our way of life.  It’s not wrong to defend who and what we are without being called un-Christian.  I wish my church would stop implying otherwise.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Why Not? A Brexit Opinion from a Canadian Conservative

Why not? Let’s have another opinion on Brexit from someone who isn’t British or lives in England.

It’s awesome; a fantastic victory for the right over the left. And not the “far-right” as the progressives clambers over each other to proclaim at how shocked and appalled they are by the victory of racists and bigots. No, a victory for the right that rejects ideas of over-arching government bureaucracy and micro-managing of every little aspect of your life, a rejection of the idea that one-size-fits-all policies and pan-continental/world government should take precedence over local and community solutions and desires.

The EU over-reached; had it simply remained a free-trade bloc with the capacity for labour and goods to move freely within its members this would never have happened and the original goal of the EU, post WW-II, of a more integrated Europe to prevent future military conflicts, would have been achieved. But no, it decided to pursue a pan-European government, a one-size fits all pan-European currency, and saddle the continent with a largely unaccountable bureaucracy that nobody really cared for.

The Leave campaign argued that the U.K. is being prevented from negotiating free trade deals with the US, Canada, Asia et. al. by its ties to the continent which has been experiencing near zero growth for the past decade. That’s not anti-trade or isolationist, it’s a valid belief that the economic grass is indeed greener on the other side. The proof is in the pudding; strikes and protests are going on right now in France about such minor reforms to labour laws that we here in Canada have to laugh, but it’s so hard to hire and fire people that the French economy has stagnated. Germany has so few young people that its economy has been stalled for years and so it’s come to Merkel taking a massive gamble that letting in over a million Syrian men will give their economy the boost of young labour and entrepreneurs it desperately needs. Really? Then you have basket-case countries like Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and others that can barely pay their bills and need massive floats of funding from other countries who know, deep down, that they will never see that money back again.

The economic arguments are there, the sovereignty-erosion arguments are there. So the left have to dip into making last ditch arguments about racism and xenophobia. Take for example our virtue-signaler in chief, John Oliver, who does these long form TV essays on issues he wants to expound upon from the angle of his choosing, but when he does get caught out because his facts are wrong or he chooses to omit certain key arguments, he just says “I’m a comedian, not a journalist.” He gets to have his cake and eat it too. But on this issue even he can’t float the Remain boat for too long on the basis of legitimate arguments and of course, slips into the Nigel Farage is a racist bigot etc. argument.

Here’s what the Left do really well – they END arguments. They don’t WIN them, but they are very good at ENDING them. They simply try to discredit the other side as being racist, homophobic, and bigoted, climate-deniers etc. and they unilaterally declare arguments are OVER. The Left has a long track record in recent years of being tremendously successful at doing this.   But they tried that here, and it didn’t work. This is why there’s going to be so much anger and angst in the next few weeks and months. This is a bad precedent for the Left, and we on the right have been given a reason to cheer for a change.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,
%d bloggers like this: