Trump, Xi Jinping, and Carney: A deadly dance for dominance

 

Trump, Xi Jinping, and Carney are locked in a deadly dance, particularly now that Canada has a new strategic relationship with Communist China. So, how is Trump likely to react to this new development where the Prime Minister of Canada has declared us to be a part of the New World Order?

Few from either the left or right are going to appreciate my assessment which is precisely why I am writing this. This new strategic partnership with China—signed just days ago under Prime Minister Mark Carney—includes beefed-up law enforcement cooperation between the RCMP and Chinese authorities on things like transnational crime, narcotics, and cyber threats. Critics are already calling it risky given China's human rights record, and Trump's inner circle is fuming about Chinese EVs and investments flooding North America through Canada. Trump is privately griping about Canada's weak Arctic defenses against China and Russia, and he has got a history of using tariffs as a hammer on allies. With seventy-five percent of Canadian exports heading south, he could slap on heavy duties or tighten border security fast if he sees this as Beijing getting a backdoor into the continent. It is likely that he will start with more tough talk and targeted tariffs within months, maybe even pushing for border measures if the police cooperation gets spun as a security hole. The undefended border stays open only as long as it suits U.S. interests—and right now, this deal's poking that bear pretty hard.

Why did Trump endorse Carney as opposed to Poilievre?

Back in March 2025, right in the middle of the election campaign, Trump went on Fox News and basically stated that he'd rather deal with a Liberal like Carney because Poilievre had trash-talked him, calling him no friend of mine and saying Poilievre would be tougher to negotiate with. It was classic Trump reverse psychology: he figured Carney would be easier to push around on trade deals and tariffs, while Poilievre was pitching himself as the guy who'd stand up hard to Trump’s tariff rhetoric. Ironically, now with this fresh China partnership Carney just signed a few days ago—including that limited EV tariff cut and broader cooperation—some U.S. officials are grumbling about it being a backdoor for Chinese goods, but Trump himself has surprisingly called it a good thing if Carney can cut a deal with Xi Jinping. So far, there are no big new tariffs over it, but his original preference was all about who he'd have more leverage over. But why would Trump think that cutting a deal with Communist China was preferable to one with the U.S.? Something stinks!

This favouring of Mark Carney over Pierre Poilievre has blown up in Trump's face big time. He thought bashing Poilievre and boosting Carney would scare Canadians into voting Conservative—it was classic meddling to get the tougher negotiator out. Instead, it pissed people off, rallied Liberals, and handed Carney the electoral win. Now Carney's pivoting hard to China for trade diversification and that secret police cooperation deal, is exactly what Trump didn't want. Although Trump's agenda was leverage; he miscalculated how Canadians would react to the interference.

Was Trump behaving stupidly or was there something hidden at play?

Nobody calls Trump stupid and gets away with it—or so he'd say. But arrogance plays tricks on even the sharpest of minds. He read Canadian Politics through an American lens—figuring fear of tariffs would make everyone fold. He underestimated how much Canadians hate being treated like a vassal state. Plus, his ego couldn't handle Poilievre copying the MAGA playbook. Trump wanted to crush that movement before it gained hold not out of stupidity but rather out of hubris.

So, what is really at play? Is there a financial incentive for Trump to continue ignoring the security threat that Carney poses and therefore to the security of the longest undefended border in the world?

So yes, there's a very tangled web with Brookfield that fuels this speculation. Brookfield doesn't directly manage Trump's personal assets or his trust—there is no evidence of that—but they have deep ties going back to 2018, when they bailed out Jared Kushner's overleveraged 666 Fifth Avenue building with a massive ninety-nine-year lease deal (funded partly through Qatar-linked money, which raised eyebrows at the time). Fast-forward to now: Brookfield (which co-owns Westinghouse) just landed this huge eighty-billion-dollar nuclear partnership with the U.S. government under Trump to build reactors for AI power and energy dominance. That's a massive win for the company. Carney chaired Brookfield's board until he jumped into politics, and critics hammered him on those ties during the campaign. Trump boosting Carney (even if it backfired) might've been less about miscalculating voters reactions and more about seeing him as a guy with insider leverage at a firm that's hugely invested in U.S. infrastructure—someone who'd keep doors open for deals like this nuclear one. The China pivot looks bad on the surface, but if the real play is securing Brookfield's billions in U.S. projects, it could be less of a screw-over and more of a calculated trade-off. This smells like business over borders to me.

How does Trump’s threats against a NATO ally and Greenland affect Canadian autonomy?

It is difficult for me to believe that Trump’s repeated rhetoric about making Canada the 51^st State is mere brinkmanship or pure blustering. Moreover, the level of contempt that many Canadians have developed toward their American cousins and particularly Trump is truly unhinged and is undoubtedly a symptom of Trump Derangement Syndrome. To make my point clear, the only thing I embrace in any of these great questions yet to be answered is my unwavering Christian faith. I put no trust in men, especially when they are narcissistic and driven by a lust for power and control. I seek to control no one nor do I wish to be controlled by anyone other than by God Himself. Something other than mere surface appearances are at play that has created an entirely new socioeconomic dynamic that we do not yet understand. The old order is dead, we can hope and pray that Peace, Order, and Good Government can be restored to the Dominion of Canada, but we have been marching toward a more illiberal, authoritarian form of government for decades. This has culminated in Canada aligning itself with a Communist country that persecutes dissenters and uses slave labour to run its factories. How on earth could anyone prefer this over renewing our partnership with our chief trading partner who has no such abuses in its workplaces?

To understand this better we must review these things in the context of how Manifest Destiny, and the Monroe Doctrine influence Donald Trump’s Foreign Policy

Introduction

Although Manifest Destiny and the Monroe Doctrine originated in the 19th century, their underlying principles—territorial ambition, regional dominance, and resistance to foreign interference—continue to shape U.S. foreign policy. Donald Trump’s presidency (2017–2021) provides a compelling case study of how these historical doctrines resurfaced in modern contexts. While Trump’s “America First” agenda was primarily economic, episodes such as his interest in purchasing Greenland and his assertive stance toward NATO allies reveal echoes of expansionist and hemispheric control ideologies.

Manifest Destiny and Trump’s Territorial Aspirations

Manifest Destiny was the belief that the United States was destined to expand across North America, justified by notions of exceptionalism and strategic necessity. Though territorial acquisition is rare today, Trump’s 2019 proposal to buy Greenland from Denmark demonstrates that expansionist thinking persists. Greenland’s strategic location in the Arctic and its vast natural resources made it attractive for both the U.S.’s military and economic interests. Trump’s insistence, coupled with his criticism of Denmark for rejecting the idea, reflects a willingness to challenge traditional alliances for perceived national advantage—an attitude reminiscent of Manifest Destiny’s assertive posture.

Moreover, Trump’s rhetoric toward Canada regarding Arctic sovereignty further underscores this point. By questioning Canada’s control over Arctic routes and resources, Trump signalled that U.S. dominance in the region was a priority, even at the expense of diplomatic harmony with fellow NATO members. These actions suggest that territorial ambition, though exceptional in modern times, remains a tool for advancing U.S. strategic interests.

The Monroe Doctrine and Regional Dominance

The Monroe Doctrine, articulated in 1823, warned European powers against interfering in the Western Hemisphere, asserting U.S. influence over the Americas. Trump revived elements of this doctrine through his policies toward Latin America and the Arctic. His administration took a hard line on Venezuela and Cuba, opposing Russian and Chinese involvement in the region. Similarly, efforts to counter Chinese investment in Latin America and Greenland align with the Monroe Doctrine’s principle of excluding external powers from the hemisphere.

Greenland again serves as a case study: Trump’s interest was not merely economic but also geopolitical, aimed at preventing rivals from gaining a foothold near North America. In this sense, the Greenland episode reflects both Manifest Destiny’s expansionist spirit and the Monroe Doctrine’s emphasis on hemispheric security.

Economic Nationalism and Strategic Control

While territorial acquisition was not a central theme of Trump’s presidency, economic nationalism dominated his foreign policy. Renegotiating NAFTA into the USMCA, imposing tariffs on China, and pressuring NATO allies to increase defence spending all demonstrate a commitment to U.S. primacy. These actions parallel the confidence and unilateralism embedded in 19th-century doctrines, albeit expressed through trade and security rather than outright conquest.

Conclusion

Donald Trump’s foreign policy illustrates how historical doctrines can re-emerge in modern contexts. Manifest Destiny’s expansionist ethos appeared in his Greenland proposal and Arctic ambitions, while the Monroe Doctrine’s call for regional dominance shaped his resistance to foreign influence in the Americas. Combined with economic nationalism, these elements reveal a foreign policy rooted in historical ideas of U.S. supremacy—adapted for the 21st century but still capable of challenging alliances and reshaping global dynamics.

As a result, we are challenged from within and without. Canada has been betrayed to our worst possible ideological enemy, namely the People’s Republic of China by our own “appointed” Prime Minister who was basically anointed as opposed to being elected legitimately. We have no means to extract ourselves from our number one trading partner. One would need to be mad to suggest such and here is why.

What percentage of Canadian manufacturing are wholly owned subsidiaries of American parent corporations?

• According to Statistics Canada, foreign-controlled corporations account for a significant share of Canadian manufacturing assets—about 44.1% in 2022. Among foreign owners, U.S.-controlled enterprises dominate, holding 53% of all foreign-controlled assets across industries. [thecis.ca], [statcan.gc.ca]
• While exact figures for “wholly owned subsidiaries” are not separately reported, this combination suggests that roughly half of foreign-controlled manufacturing in Canada is under U.S. control, meaning around 23% of total Canadian manufacturing assets are likely controlled by U.S. parent corporations. [thecis.ca]

In my almost 73 years I have never witnessed such concerted madness aimed at destroying functional socioeconomic order. I am happy that I believe that God is on His Throne since I cannot put my faith in any institution or political leader, no matter who they are. To me they all seem to have left their senses to the point where it appears they actually wish to destroy their own citizens just to fulfill their own narcissistic hubris. For you worshippers of oligarchs, kleptocrats, and narcissists. Psychological analyses of Donald Trump, often conducted by experts from a distance, generally describe his personality characterized by high extraversion, low agreeableness, low conscientiousness, and, most commonly, profound narcissistic tendencies.

When a leader is incapable of differentiating between his own interests and that of the welfare of the nation such that he governs so as to make both synonymous, then that leader by definition has gone mad! I am so fed up with the WOKE left and WOKE right where both are marching in unthinking lockstep. Radical change to geopolitics smacks of revolution and I dare anyone to cite an example of such that did not result in socioeconomic chaos and disorder which are enemies of good governance. Certainly changes needed to be made in America where the State has become deeply corrupt to the point where it was not serving the American people’s interests, but Trump’s bombast and authoritarian bullying is not the cure either. So here we are, as I have stated betrayed from within and without. This is not a new situation for Canada since when you sleep with an elephant you must always be aware that he may roll over in his sleep and crush you. Will this year prove to be the 21^st Century version of the War of 1812? We just don’t know yet!

 

 

Ten Things About Postmodernism: Know Thy Enemy

 

Welcome to my blog/vodcast entitled, "The things the Postmodern Left never does", and face it, there are many things they refuse to consider! For the purposes of argument, I will define the left as broadly referring to all collectivist ideologies such as Fascism, Nazism, Democratic Socialism, Communism, Postmodernism, Cultural Marxism and its Critical Theory and Islam which share sufficient collectivist DNA that I will delve into the ten things they all share in common. This with the one exception of Islam which claims it is a religious ideology while in fact it places creating an Islamic caliphate in the place which belongs to God alone. This is why Islam cooperates with Marxism to foment revolution.

For my first observation I'll remind you of this. You cannot manage what you do not measure. Leftists deliberately ignore any real data collected so that they can continue stealing from the public purse. Any data that disproves the successes of their agendas must be rejected in favour of maintaining the rhetoric that supports their failing programs. The solution to all failure is to waste more resources as opposed to actually reducing waste, cost, and variation.

I know. I've watched what happens to senior bureaucrats who dare to defy the left's delusional ideation!

Leftists measuring their actual successes accurately are as rare as real conservatives believing in metastasizing bureaucracy!

For my second observation:

In this observation I'm forced to confront an aspect of social collectivism which many don't often consider. Leftism is essentially materialistic. It defines life as a material struggle between haves and have nots, between oppressor and oppressed. In the case of Fascists, they prefer to be the oppressor whereas with the Neo-Marxists they prefer to pretend to bat for groups they deem to be, “intersectionally oppressed by the patriarchy”.

Both are fundamentally reductionist views of existence which of necessity must eliminate the spiritual since to the left (yes Fascism is a phenomenon of the left) there is nothing but matter and energy in an unending and constant struggle between chaos and order. This is why they refer to the "revolution" as ongoing, utopia always remains a distant point on the unending struggle to eliminate the spiritual nature of mankind. This reveals why socialism cannot be either democratic or voluntary. It reduces man to the level of a beast in an eternal struggle for survival in a material world devoid of any spiritual meaning.

So now you know why the Postmodern left seeks to traduce Judaism and Christianity since these belief systems pose an existential threat to the Dialectical Materialism of Marxism and indeed Fascist ideologies. Leftists not only refuse to consider the spiritual, to them it is anathema! Religion of necessity must be labelled "the opiate of the people". And look at how successful they've been in creating this current godless age where the real struggle is to find meaning in a material world devoid of spiritual connection.

Which is why we must know our enemy by studying what they actually believe.

For my third observation:

Collectivists never consider the consequences of their own actions, EVER! Then appear to be shocked when their plans fail catastrophically. Which is why Maduro just plead, “Not Guilty” for being a narco-terrorist. lol! So, here’s a clear, evidence‑grounded overview of some chief reasons often cited for why collectivist systems fail, backed by the sources surfaced in my search. I’ve summarized the recurring structural, economic, and political failure modes that appear across historical analyses and academic commentary.

Chief Reasons Social Collectivism Fails

1. Concentration of Power and Emergence of a New Ruling Class

Even when collectivism abolishes private property, someone must still operate the state machinery that owns and allocates all resources. This creates a “political elite” that effectively becomes a new ruling class, wielding disproportionate authority over production and distribution. This undermines the stated goals of equality and often leads to “lack of accountability, abuses of power, and authoritarianism”.  https://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/impossibility-collectivism

2. Collectivist Production Requires Hierarchical, Non‑Democratic Administration

Theoretical and historical critiques argue that “collectivist production is unworkable in a democratic environment” because coordinating an entire national economy centrally demands strict administrative hierarchy. This results in systems that are “rigid, bureaucratic, and incompatible with liberty or equality”, defeating collectivism’s intended values.    https://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/impossibility-collectivism

3. Inability to Transition from Extensive to Intensive Economic Growth

Collectivist states often perform adequately at early stages by mobilizing resources through central planning—particularly for industrialization.  However, as economies grow more complex, they struggle to support innovation, technological advancement, and productivity improvements. The coordination demands exceed what central planning can handle, leading to stagnation.  https://www.jstor.org/stable/658019

4. Weak Incentive Structures for Productivity and Innovation

According to group‑solidarity theory, collectivist structures rely heavily on “obligatory contributions” to the common good rather than compensation-based incentives. This creates chronic motivation and productivity problems because:

·       People are not rewarded proportionally to their efforts

·       Innovation and excellence receive weak reinforcement

·       Free‑riding becomes more common

The result is declining output and inefficiencies.    https://www.jstor.org/stable/658019

5. Coercive Enforcement Produces Resistance, Sabotage, and Human Suffering

Historical collectivization campaigns—especially in the Soviet context—show that forced restructuring of agriculture and labour often leads to:

·       Active resistance (e.g., peasants destroying crops/livestock)

·       Mass discontent and refusal to work

·       Repression, exile, and mass deaths

·       Severe famines due to mismanagement and forced quotas

This combination of coercion and inefficiency contributes to systemic collapse.  https://www.elucidate.org.au/content/successes-and-failures-of-collectivisation

6. Misalignment Between Ideology and Real Cultural/Social Dynamics

Collectivism assumes that people naturally behave cooperatively for group benefit, but psychological and cross‑cultural research shows:

·       People may *not* self‑report—or actually demonstrate—consistent collectivist behavior

·       Collectivist norms can **mask real differences**, producing false uniformity

·       These mismatches can hinder performance in groups that require diverse expertise rather than uniform cohesion

Thus, collectivism often fails because real human social behavior conflicts with ideological assumptions.   https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/why-your-understanding-of-collectivism-is-probably-wrong , https://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/chatman/papers/Blurred%20Lines%20Final.pdf

7. Poor Fit Between Collectivism and Task‑Type or Group Structure

Research on group performance shows that collectivism:

·       Helps when tasks require cohesion and the group’s weakest member determines success (conjunctive tasks)

·       Harms when tasks require recognizing and leveraging individual expertise (disjunctive tasks)

Collectivist norms can “blur important differences”, reducing performance in tasks that require specialization or individual excellence.    https://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/chatman/papers/Blurred%20Lines%20Final.pdf

# “Summary”

Across historical experience and academic theory, the main reasons collectivism fails include:

·       Structural power concentration and authoritarian drift

·       Rigid, non‑democratic economic administration

·       Inability to support sophisticated, innovative, or technology‑intensive economies

·       Incentive failures that depress productivity

·       Widespread resistance to coercive collectivization

·       Mismatch between collectivist assumptions and actual human behavior

·       Poor performance in settings requiring specialization or individual differentiation

For my fourth observation:

For my fourth installment I have the following observations. Leftists never question the sanctioned narrative to assess whether or not there are logical alternative reasons which might demonstrate that their faith in the socialist collective might be misplaced.

I don't as a rule of thumb go onto other people's profiles to condemn their opinions. But what is truly remarkable, others come onto mine to tell me why my distaste for social collectivism is unacceptable while also informing me that my beliefs are “all in my head”. But wait, when I offered cited sources for how I arrived at my conclusions providing verifiable researched evidence this only resulted in a renewed attack on a personal level. In my rebuttals I avoided all such personal smears. I chose to reason with my interlocutor using ethics, epistemology, and ontology nevertheless this merely resulted in them renewing their hyper-emotional rant.

The left hides under a guise of empathy for the weak and downtrodden, but their kindness is always a mere veneer to hide the narcissism and nastiness underneath! The chief characteristic of social collectivism is its demand for ideological conformity and devotion to the sanctity of the officially accepted narrative. So pathetic. Add to this the fact they think themselves to be enlightened is a rejection of the very liberalism they claim to embrace!

For my fifth observation”:

Those infected by “group think” refuse to acknowledge the immutability of human nature, rather they insist that people are “blank slates”. By the force of their sheer will they believe they can rewrite evolutionary biology. They treat human nature as though it were a computer program which can be reprogrammed into becoming the Übermensch, that being that rejects all that has gone before. This is the great collectivist delusion used to create a future Utopia by remaking mankind over in their unnatural image.

It is largely young women of voting age who are responsible for two things, the queering of politics and supporting mass Islamic immigration. These young women have ideologically categorized LGBTQIA2S+ and Muslims as victims. We are witnessing our daughters being converted into radical Postmodern Cultural Relativists even as they abandon their natural function as wives and mothers. These sad aspects of modern life are poorly understood but I suspect they're the result of fathers abandoning their proper role in the developmental stages of their daughters' lives. This is where WOKE MARXISM has gained a stranglehold over the prevailing Zeitgeist in the West. Sadly, I've seen its effects up close and personal. God save our girls if our culture is to survive!

I must add, the idea to become WOKE did not originate with our young women but rather with their "educators" who have used our schools and universities where the prime task has been to indoctrinate rather than educate. Postmodernism cannot succeed without first undermining the nuclear family and the traditional roles of each family member which have evolved naturally due to humanity’s evolutionary biological nature. Human nature is not a blank slate and only radical social collectivists who deny evolutionary biology would think that our natural instincts are not the result of natural selection! No wonder so many young women appear to be so unhappy and unfulfilled!

For my sixth observation:

Collectivists appear unwilling to delve into the history of "Progressivism" to study their own ideological origins, its consequences and outcomes. Accompanying this is not only an ignorance of their own ideological DNA, but they also have a complete lack of knowledge as to what their philosophical doppelgangers think. This is quite telling since the resultant oversimplification of all socioeconomic ills creates neat little packages of one size fits all solutions which when applied and in turn measured for success consistently prove that the diametric opposite outcome of what was desired has been achieved.

But it gets worse. Many who claim to be conservative are doing the same thing. In this both the WOKE right and the WOKE left are sharing the same gross intellectual failures.

Therefore I have created an equation which will assist you in determining where those who resist reason sit on a scale of measurable, “Assholiness".

“Assholiness” is a factor (f) of stupidity times (*) belief in simple answers to multivariate complex problems divided (/) by curiosity where ten is high and one is low

Example: Jane hardly reads anything about what she claims to believe (giving her a stupidity factor of 9 out of 10) this is multiplied by her belief that since she acts as a metaphorical hammer that every problem must be a nail (so she gets 10 out of 10 for not knowing that her solution wasn’t addressing the issue which she had hoped to resolve) which is divided by her almost total lack of curiosity (obviously a factor of 1 since she already thinks she knows it all).

The result from this equation is therefore 9 times 10 divided by 1 giving us 90 out of a possible 100 as to where Jane falls on the scale of being a total asshole!

You will thank me for this, but probably not today! But you must admit, Jane is 90% asshole!

For my seventh observation:

Social collectivism cannot operate without weaponizing emotions by hijacking healthy emotional responses to turn them into tools by which the weaponizers can use to fulfill their political agenda. The leftist leaders do such since they fully realize that they cannot make a rational pitch based upon objective reality for their socioeconomic revolution.

Social collectivists never consider that their ideology has hijacked their emotional system to weaponize it against them. Picture this: evolution wired our brains for survival through razor-sharp emotions—fear to dodge predators, disgust to avoid rot, anger to crush threats. Brilliant design, right? But the postmodern left, those virtue-signaling apostles of relativism, slither in like cultural vampires. They've hijacked these instincts, twisting them into self-sabotaging weapons against our own species' triumphs. Start with disgust: once a shield against disease, now weaponized to brand oppressors as moral filth—think cultural appropriation panics or cancel culture's ritual purity tests. We end up policing our tongues, fearing a misstep that summons the mob's righteous vomit. Fear? Primed for saber-tooths, but redirected at microaggressions and patriarchy. Universities breed paranoia factories where safe spaces coddle us from ideas sharper than words. Result? A generation paralyzed, too scared to debate, letting echo chambers rot our spines. Anger, that righteous fuel, gets perverted into perpetual grievance—intersectional victimhood where every identity stacks grievances like Jenga. Instead of channeling it productively, we implode, tearing down statues, traditions, even biology itself in the name of equity. It's evolutionary suicide: turning adaptive drives inward, eroding the very hierarchies that built civilization.

Wake up, folks—these parasites aren't just ruining discourse; they're reprogramming our hardware to hate our progress. Reclaim your instincts, or they'll leave us whimpering in the ashes of our own virtue. Yet they label this as “being progressive”!

For my eighth observation:

The Postmodern left cares nothing for objective reality, only for the officially sanctioned narrative which supports their tyrannical hold over mainstream media and the state sanctioned narrative in the name of the "welfare of the many" when in fact it supports the rape of mankind by the few!

For this installment I will provide a “Petersonian Critique” of the Postmodernism and Social Collectivist Left:

Jordan B. Peterson, a clinical psychologist and public intellectual, has extensively critiqued what he terms the "postmodern left" or "postmodern neo-Marxism" in lectures, interviews, and writings. From his standpoint, this ideology represents a dangerous fusion of philosophical skepticism and ideological resentment, prioritizing power dynamics over objective truth, and ultimately serving as a tool for societal control rather than genuine human flourishing. Peterson argues that it emerged in the late 20th century as a rebranded form of Marxism after the catastrophic failures of communist regimes became undeniable, shifting from economic class warfare to identity-based oppressor-oppressed narratives. This perspective, he contends, cares little for empirical reality or individual merit, instead enforcing "officially sanctioned" stories that justify authoritarianism under the guise of collective welfare.

How the Collective has Rejected Objective Reality in Favour of Power Narratives:

At the core of Peterson's argument is postmodernism's denial of objective reality. Influenced by thinkers like Jacques Derrida, Postmodernism posits that there are no grand narratives or universal truths—everything is interpretation, and interpretations are infinite. However, Peterson sees this as selective skepticism: while it dismantles traditional structures like logic, reason, and Enlightenment individualism, it smuggles in its own meta-narrative of power struggles between groups defined by race, gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. In this view, social hierarchies are not based on competence or voluntary cooperation but on arbitrary power grabs, where the "oppressed" must overthrow the "oppressors" to achieve equity. Peterson warns that this reduces all human interactions to a "Hobbesian nightmare" of enmity, where dialogue, negotiation, and consensus are illusions masking domination

Objective reality—facts verifiable through evidence, science, or shared human experience—is dismissed as a construct of the powerful. For instance, he points out that postmodernists privilege certain identity dimensions while ignoring others, like intelligence or personality traits, leading to incoherent applications like intersectionality that paradoxically highlight individuality but weaponize group grievances. This, he argues, is not truth-seeking but a strategic narrative designed to accumulate power, as "everything to the Postmodernist is about power."

The Tyrannical Hold Over the Common Person:

From Peterson's perspective, this ideology enables a tyrannical grip on society by infiltrating institutions—universities, bureaucracies, governments, and media—through mid-to-upper-level positions. He describes it as a "slight of hand" by disillusioned Marxists who, after the horrors of Stalin's gulags and Mao's famines (which he estimates killed over 100 million people), could no longer defend class-based communism openly. Instead, they pivoted to Postmodernism, which maintains the oppressor-oppressed binary but applies it broadly, fostering division and control.

Peterson draws on historical examples, such as the Soviet Union's Ukrainian famine and Nazi Germany's propaganda, to illustrate how such narratives degenerate into tyranny. Totalitarian systems, he says, are upheld not by a single dictator but by a web of lies where everyone participates in deception, silencing dissent through censorship or social pressure. The "common person" becomes collateral in this power game, coerced into conformity via guilt-tripping tactics that exploit Western conscientiousness—framing individualism, capitalism, or traditional values as inherently oppressive. This leads to polarization and chaos, as hierarchies based on competence (essential for stable societies) are vilified as tyrannical, ignoring evidence from biology and history that arbitrary power is unstable and often overthrown.

The Facade of "Welfare of the Many" resulting in the "Rape of Mankind":

Peterson asserts that the postmodern left's rhetoric of "welfare for the many"—promises of equality, emancipation, and care for the oppressed—is a mask for resentment and hatred, not genuine compassion. Drawing from George Orwell's observations in “The Road to Wigan Pier”, he argues that socialist intellectuals are often motivated by disdain for the successful rather than love for the poor, leading to policies that entangle societies in dependency and undefined "needs." Slogans like "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" sound benevolent but justify coercive redistribution and control, echoing the utopian claims of Marxism that ended in genocide and starvation. In Peterson's view, this ideology "supports the rape of mankind" metaphorically by violating human dignity and potential—demolishing the foundational structures of Western civilization, such as individual responsibility, free speech, and merit-based hierarchies, in favour of group-based coercion. He contrasts this with Judeo-Christian narratives that view suffering as intrinsic to human vulnerability, not merely sociological oppression, urging personal truth-telling and moral courage as antidotes (e.g., referencing dissidents like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn). Ultimately, Peterson calls for resistance through principled conservatism, emphasizing that viable societies require finite, reality-bound interpretations, not infinite power plays.

For my ninth observation:

I will examine how the Postmodern Left refuse to use ethics, epistemology, and ontology in favour of using language as a tool of wielding power over others. So, I’ve prepared a “critical essay” expanding on this with references to some key thinkers:

# Power Narratives and the Postmodern Left: A Critical Analysis

 Introduction:

The postmodern left is often accused of abandoning traditional philosophical domains—epistemology, ethics, and ontology—in favour of power-centred narratives. This critique stems from the intellectual legacy of Postmodernism, which emerged as a reaction against Enlightenment rationality and universalist claims. Thinkers such as Michel Foucault, Jean-François Lyotard, and Jacques Derrida reconfigured the foundations of knowledge, morality, and being, placing power at the heart of social analysis. This essay explores how these shifts occurred and evaluates their implications.

Epistemology: From Truth to Power:

Classical epistemology seeks objective foundations for knowledge. Postmodernism, however, dismantles this ambition:

*   **Foucault’s Power-Knowledge Nexus**: Foucault argues that knowledge is never neutral; it is produced within regimes of power that determine what counts as truth. Scientific discourse, legal systems, and even psychiatry are seen as instruments of governance rather than pure inquiry.

*   **Lyotard’s Incredulity Toward Meta-Narratives**: Lyotard famously declared the “end of grand narratives,” rejecting universal theories such as Marxism or liberalism. Knowledge becomes fragmented, local, and contingent.

*   **Implication**: Epistemology shifts from seeking certainty to exposing the political conditions under which truths are constructed.

Ethics: From Universal Norms to Emancipatory Politics:

Traditional ethics relies on universal principles—Kantian duty, utilitarian calculus. Postmodern thought challenges this:

*   **Moral Relativism and Pluralism**: Ethical norms are viewed as historically situated, undermining claims to universality.

*   **Ethics as Resistance**: For Foucault, morality is not about fixed rules but about practices of freedom—resisting domination and creating new forms of subjectivity. In other words, normalizing deviant behaviour and sexual perversion including paedophilia.

*   **Implication**: Ethics becomes politicised, prioritising liberation from oppressive structures rather than adherence to transcendent norms.

Ontology: From Essence to Construction:

Postmodernism destabilises ontological certainties by denying the existence of objective reality:

*   **Anti-Essentialism**: Identities such as gender, race, and sexuality are understood as socially constructed rather than natural givens.

*   **Decentring the Subject**: Derrida’s deconstruction and Foucault’s critique of the autonomous subject reveal individuals as products of discourse and power.

*   **Implication**: Ontology is reframed as an analysis of how categories of being are produced and maintained through language and institutional practices.

Power Narratives as the Organising Principle:

The common thread is the centrality of power:

*   **Power as Constitutive**: Social reality is not merely influenced by power; it is constituted by it.

*   **Politics of Representation**: Narratives about identity, justice, and truth are sites of struggle over meaning and authority.

*   **Critical Project**: The aim is to expose hidden hierarchies and challenge dominant discourses when in fact it creates new hierarchies of radicalized operatives.

Critique and Consequences:

While this reorientation has illuminated mechanisms of domination, critics argue it risks:

*   **Epistemic Paralysis**: If all knowledge is power-laden, can we justify any truth claims?

*   **Ethical Ambiguity**: Without universal norms, how do we adjudicate between competing moral visions?

*   **Ontological Instability**: Radical constructivism may undermine shared realities necessary for collective action.

Conclusion:

The postmodern left has not simply “rejected” epistemology, ethics, and ontology; it has transformed them into tools for interrogating power that does not further the Cultural Marxist Revolution. This shift’s chief goal is to challenge coherence and normativity. We have seen the results of this since it lies at the heart of the Postmodern left’s goal of deconstructing functional socioeconomic order!

For my tenth and final observation of the things the Postmodern left does not do

Essentially the Postmodern Left does not realize that their beliefs are literally mad. I will reference an American-born author, mathematician, and professional troublemaker, Dr. James Lindsay who has written six books spanning a range of subjects including religion, the philosophy of science and Postmodern theory. He is a leading expert on Critical Race Theory, which leads him to reject it completely. He is the founder of New Discourses and is currently promoting his new book "Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity―and Why This Harms Everybody," which is currently being translated into more than fifteen languages.

Why is it that conservatives and classical liberals cannot understand the Postmodern Left? Dr. Lindsay believes that Postmodernism is a Gnostic Cult with an ideology that must be accepted by faith. From Lindsay's lens, the Postmodern left's insanity stems from rejecting objective truth and embracing radical relativism, where language and power dominate everything. It's a Gnostic heresy because it creates an elite enlightened class who claim secret knowledge—think critical race theory or gender ideology—while dismissing reason, science, and tradition as oppressive tools. Most folks can't grasp it since it denies shared reality, demanding constant self-critique and social deconstruction. It's not just confusion; it's a deliberate, cult-like rejection of reality that fuels division and control.

There is therefore no longer any need to wonder why things have gotten so dire under the domination of a cadre of mad kleptocrats who believe in a system which is an utter rejection of everything that has underpinned functional society. A society which evolved naturally out of evolutionary biology and the philosophy of the Christian West. The very reason the scientific method became possible is due to the fact that we believed God had created an orderly universe that could be studied and the principles upon which the world works discovered by hypothesising and testing these hypotheses to see of the outcomes are repeatable.

What we know for certain is that the outcomes of Postmodernism are as predictable and repeatable as Newton’s Theory of Gravity. Postmodernism is a tree where the rotten apples fall in precise proportion to that vile theory being applied.

The unholy alliance between WOKE Marxism and Islam

 

Why do I write my blog and host my YouTube Channel? To inform others in the clearest manner that I'm capable of doing the hows, the whats, the whys, the wheres, the wherefores, and the whos behind Postmodern Cultural Relativism and Cultural Marxist Critical Race, Gender, and Climate Catastrophizing Theory. This socioeconomic catastrophe is largely being manifested today as WOKE Marxism. It is one giant Satanic Ponzi scheme run by Fabian Malthusians who loathe mankind and despise human nature (which is why they always attempt to reengineer it). But most of all, fundamentally they hate God and His Creation which is why they've hidden their real agenda behind saving Creation itself. As I have previously stated, it isn't merely that people have stopped believing in God, it's also that they have stopped believing in Satan and therefore cannot conceive of the evil incarnate behind this Globalist cabal of cooperation between Islam and Neo-Marxism. We are witnesses to a Globalist cabal deep in bed with another murderous cult invented by a warlord and paedophile. If we fail to stop this it will proceed unabated until only one of the two will remain since at that point the one will be forced to destroy the other because their ultimate goal is total dominance.

The fact that referring to Islam by using the precise phrase “Religion of Peace” gained prominence only after 9/11, when political leaders used it to distinguish mainstream Islam from extremist violence is telling.  Each and every time our WOKE Marxist political leaders have attempted to differentiate Islam into peaceful versus Jihadist, Islam itself has proven this definition to be nothing short of a vile obscenity.

Nothing could present a starker contrast between the ministry of Christ and the warlord and paedophile Mohammed who Islam claims is the “final prophet”. Violence against Christians has risen globally, with over three hundred sixty million facing high levels of persecution last year, according to “Open Doors”. Recent incidents include church bombings in Nigeria, kidnappings in Burkina Faso, and vandalism in Europe. Syria's Christians face targeted killings by extremists. In Pakistan, blasphemy accusations often lead to mob attacks. Indonesia's churches have seen arson and threats. The trend's tied to extremism, nationalism, and weak legal protections. There have been over sixty thousand Islamist terrorist attacks worldwide since 9/11, per the Global Terrorism Database through last year. These include incidents with at least one casualty, mostly in the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia. Data shows many attackers, like bin Laden or the 9/11 hijackers, came from affluent backgrounds. Ideological indoctrination, perceived grievances over Western policies, or seeking purpose often outweigh economic status. Education sometimes amplifies radicalization, as seen with ISIS's propaganda targeting professionals. Studies since 9/11, like those from Rand and Krueger's research, show many jihadist attackers are middle-class or wealthy, often well-educated engineers, doctors, or students. Think of bin Laden himself, a millionaire, or the nine-eleven hijackers-mostly from stable Saudi families with college degrees.

The 9/11 attacks were carried out by nineteen al-Qaeda operatives, a Sunni Islamist extremist group led by Osama bin Laden, driven by anti-Western ideology rooted in their interpretation of Islam. But I find it remarkable that the West always looks to give them an excuse. How are we to know which among them hold these views? It is not like many will come out to state their intentions beforehand which is why the attacks have been so successful. Moreover, why do our leaders in governments find the need to excuse the outcomes of the belief system itself? They've inspired or been echoed in other attacks-global jihadist movements like ISIS, Boko Haram, and al-Shabaab continue targeting civilians, often citing religious motives. Since 9/11, thousands of incidents worldwide-from Paris to Orlando-have been linked to such groups, though many Muslims condemn this violence, I have witnessed in my own community protests calling for Jihad.

Violence against Christians has risen globally, with over three hundred sixty million facing high levels of persecution last year, according to “Open Doors”. Recent incidents include church bombings in Nigeria, kidnappings in Burkina Faso, and vandalism in Europe. Syria's Christians face targeted killings by extremists. In Pakistan, blasphemy accusations often lead to mob attacks. Indonesia's churches have seen arson and threats. Although this trend in Islamic violence is tied to extremism, nationalism, and weak legal protections no such equivalent can be said about Christianity.  Yet our governments insult their citizens with constant rhetoric about Islamophobia despite the fact that the term was invented by those trying to justify Islamic extremism. The term Islamophobia first appeared in French in 1911 used by Algerian reformists like Alliaoua Touazi, but it gained traction in English through a 1997 Runnymede Trust report, which defined it as unfounded hostility toward Islam. There is no single inventor, yet the credit goes to early twentieth-century French colonial discourse for shaping it. It is no surprise to me that it originated in France for as Dr. David Starkey so eloquently put it, “Every bad idea is French!”

The following table shows some of the strong differences between Jesus and Muhammad. The Muslims revere Muhammad as the greatest of prophets, yet Jesus clearly demonstrated greater authority, teaching, and miracles than Muhammad ever did. Why would anyone want to follow Muhammad over Jesus when Jesus claimed to be divine, performed many miracles, said he alone was the truth, raised people from the dead, and rose from the dead himself; Muhammad did none of these things. However, Muhammad did have people killed, spread his religion through war, married a very young girl, had relations with her when she was nine years of age, and taught hatred of Jews and Christians.

 

	Jesus	Muhammad
Death	Jesus died and rose from the dead.	Muhammad died and stayed dead.
Fighting	Jesus never fought.	Muhammad fought in battles many times.
Hearing from God	When Jesus heard from God, he went to the desert to be tempted and began his ministry with boldness. (Mark 1:14-15).	When Muhammad heard from God (supposedly through an angel), he cowered, was uncertain, and wanted to commit suicide. (Quran 74:1-5)
Identity	Jesus claimed to be God (John 8:24; 8:58) as well as a man. Jesus claimed to be the way, the truth, and the life. (John 14:6).	Muhammad claimed to be a man.
Instructions Received	from God the Father (John 5:19)	Allegedly from an angel
Killing	Jesus never killed anyone.	Muhammad killed many.
Life	Jesus had the power to take life but never did. He restored it.	Muhammad had the power to take it, but he never restored it.
	No one ever died in Jesus’ presence.	Many people died in Muhammad’s presence – he killed them.
Marriage	Jesus never married.	Muhammad had over 20 wives and even married a six-year-old girl and had sex with her when she was nine.
Ministry	Jesus received his calling from God directly. (Matt. 3:17). Jesus received his commission in the daylight.	Muhammad allegedly received it from an angel (Gabriel). Muhammad received his words in the darkness of a cave.
Ministry Length	Jesus taught for 3 1/2 years.	Muhammad taught for more than 20 years.
Miracles	Jesus performed many miracles, including healing people, calming a storm with a command, and raising people from the dead.	Muhammad’s only alleged miracle was the Quran.
Prophecy	Jesus fulfilled the biblical prophecy about being the Messiah.	Muhammad did not fulfill any biblical prophecy except the ones about false teachers (Matt. 24:24).
Sacrifice	Jesus voluntarily laid his life down for others.	Muhammad saved his own life many times and had others killed.
Sin	Jesus never sinned (1 Pet. 2:22)	Muhammad was a sinner (Quran 40:55; 48:1-2)
Slaves	Jesus owned no slaves.	Muhammad owned slaves.
Virgin Birth	Jesus was virgin born.	Muhammad was not virgin born.
Voice of God	Jesus received and heard the direct voice of God. (Mark 1:10-11)	Muhammad did not receive or hear the direct voice of God. It was an angel instead.
Women	Jesus spoke well of women.	Muhammad said women were 1/2 as smart as men (Hadith 3:826; 2:541), that the majority in hell will be women (Had. 1:28,301; 2:161; 7:124), and that women could be mortgaged. Women could be beaten (Quran 4:34)

 

Deaths due to Islamic Jihad:

Although no one knows an exact number since it's impossible to tally across fourteen centuries. Islamic conquests, Jihads, and modern terrorism have killed millions although estimates vary wildly. Medieval expansions like the Umayyad campaigns might have caused two to five million deaths. Later Ottoman wars, colonial resistance, and sectarian conflicts add millions more. Post 9/11, Islamist attacks alone number over sixty thousand incidents, per databases used, with hundreds of thousands of dead from Iraq to Afghanistan. Historians like Rudolph Rummel peg total deaths under Islamic regimes at eighty to two hundred seventy million, including famines and purges!

Jesus’ Ministry:

Jesus’ ministry was totally misunderstood by even His own disciples. Although they believed Him to be the Messiah, they falsely thought that He had come to usher in a Jewish Kingdom under His reign that would end their occupation by the Romans. They could not conceive of the fact that He was indeed the Prince of Peace who came to usher in a spiritual Kingdom through Divine revelation that would manifest itself though His body the Church on earth. Man has constantly attempted to turn that Kingdom into an organization, or a specific sect of Christianity but the Body of Christ exists as a spiritual reality that goes far beyond limitation imposed by man. It was not until the day of Pentecost that the Truth dawned upon the faithful who had gathered to pray when Christ sent His Spirit as the Comforter and Divine Communicator of His Grace! The only way for the west to return to Christ is for each one of us to have their own day of Pentecost. Their own revelation where Christ comes by the Spirit to reveal Himself that through Him, we might come to know God the Father. This is the free gift of God through Christ our Lord and Saviour, for He alone is the only name by which man may be saved!

Isaiah 9:

5 For every battle of the warrior is with confused noise, and garments rolled in blood; but this shall be with burning and fuel of fire.

6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.