(This is so good. Reprinted Without Permission)
By Jonathon Kneeland
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.