Rhetoric, Social Media, and Monty Python

 

The nature of debate and its philosophical origins:

The roots of modern debate, especially the kind that weaves in ethics, epistemology, and ontology, goes straight back to ancient Greece. 

Socrates receives the credit for the real breakthrough: he turned argument into a tool for truth-seeking, not just winning an argument. His method involved questioning everything aimed at exposing contradiction, basically epistemology in action. He didn’t care about "sides"; he cared about what *is*. That’s why Plato, his student, wrote it all down and made dialogue the backbone of philosophy. 

Aristotle took it further. He systematized rhetoric, how to persuade ethically, while grounding using syllogisms ((an instance of a form of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn (whether valid or not) from two given or assumed propositions (premises), each of which shares a term with the conclusion, and shares a common or middle term not present in the conclusion, fallacies)) and ontology (what exists, what doesn’t). His use of “Rhetoric” is still the playbook: ethos (credibility), pathos (emotion), logos (reason). Without him, debate stays street-corner yelling or like 99% of the responses to my social media posts, lol.

Added to these tools comes the modern version from both the Renaissance and Enlightenment folks. Philosophers such as Locke, Hume, and Kant brought empiricism and skepticism into the mix. They asked: "How do we “know” what we know?" As a result, debate was no longer merely about gods or kings, rather it investigates evidence, doubt, and moral reasoning. 

Therefore, Socrates invented the spirit, Aristotle the structure, and the Enlightenment gave it teeth. But if you want the single name? Aristotle. He’s the one who made debate a science, not a sport.

 

Why the Monty Python sketch on the “Argument Clinic” applies to the lamentable lack of reasoned discourse on social media

The *Monty Python* “Argument Clinic” sketch (sometimes called “buying a debate”) is both silly and funny for several classic “Python-style” reasons. So, here’s what makes it work:

1. It mocks overly formal, bureaucratic systems 

The idea that you can *purchase* an argument—like buying a bus ticket—is already absurd. The sketch exaggerates how institutions can turn even the most human, spontaneous things (like disagreements) into rigid, transactional services.

2. Constant subversion of expectations

The customer wants “a proper argument”, but instead gets:

*   Mere contradiction

*   Abuse

*   An endless redirect through offices 

This back-and-forth frustration is funny because it plays with the audience’s expectations of what an argument “should” be.

3. Wordplay and logical silliness 

The humour relies heavily on treating language in an overly literal way. 

For example: 

“An argument is just a series of statements intended to establish a proposition.” 

“No, it isn’t.” 

“Yes, it is!” 

The circular logic is intentionally childish yet delivered in a very serious tone—that contrast is key to what makes it funny.

4. Deadpan delivery of absurdity

Both characters treat the ridiculous situation with complete seriousness. A quirky reality I see echoed repeatedly on my social media feed. This straight-faced approach amplifies the absurd nature of the scenario which is a *Monty Python* signature.

5. Relatable parody of real arguments 

Part of the joke is that many real-life arguments “do” devolve into contradiction rather than reasoning. The sketch exaggerates this truth in a way audiences immediately recognise. Moreover, they recognize it because of the number of times in one’s life you are confronted with idiotic retort rather than reasoned response.

6. Escalation into nonsense 

The customer keeps pushing for something reasonable, but the dialogue becomes increasingly surreal. The momentum of nonsense keeps building, which is a common Python comedic tactic.

 

An example from experience which is only one of many:

Yesterday in the light of recent revelations from the Epstein Files and the obvious harm that gender affirming care is actually causing our children, I noted that the original experiments of transexualizing children were conducted by none other that Dr. Joseph Mengele. This has resulted in making today’s multi-billion dollar industry the direct progenitor of Mengele’s heinous experiments. I pointed out that Epstein and many with whom he was associated stood to benefit financially from the “gender industrial complex”, were themselves paedophiles, moreover that Cultural Marxist Gender Theory is a carefully constructed Neo-Marxist ideology whose aim is to destroy normativity. My interlocutor responded with among many other remarks with the following, that I owed a debt of gratitude to Canada and therefore ought not to complain about my government despite its association with such vile ideological nonsense which is harming children. Then he went on to state how much happier I was when I was booking music and playing harmonica. As to the first point my love of country causes me to defend peace, order and good government not Neo-Marxist ideological possession. This man was unable to disassociate my love of country from my concern that my government has become ideologically captured. Secondly, when you are entertaining a crowd, it is your job to appear happy since the audience doesn’t attend to be confronted by a depressed nihilist. My happiness therefore had nothing whatsoever to do with the debate. After all are you happy that children are being driven mad to the point where they murder their own mother then go to their school to kill their classmates? He was utterly incapable of recognizing these sad realities as stated facts. This makes me wonder what sexual fantasies occupy the minds of people who heartily approve of altering the sexual nature of a child? Such people invariably display an abnormal interest in deviant sexuality.

 

How to Sharpen Your Rhetoric: The Three Core Pillars

Aristotle’s classic trio is still the best framework:

1. Ethos — Credibility

People listen to you if they trust you.  To build ethos:

*   Show you’ve done your homework — define terms clearly, cite reliable information.

*   Acknowledge uncertainty where appropriate.

*   Treat your opponent’s position fairly before criticising it — this makes you look more reasonable.

2. Logos — Reasoning

This is where structure matters. Strong arguments usually follow a clear logical path:

*   State your claim plainly.

*   Give reasons that support that claim.

*   Provide evidence or examples for each reason.

*   Anticipate and address likely objections.

# Avoid:

*   Vague generalisations

*   Jumping to conclusions

*   Emotional overreach

3. Pathos — Emotional Intelligence

This doesn’t mean being theatrical; it means connecting with the audience’s values and concerns.

*   Use relatable analogies or stories.

*   Frame ideas in terms of what your audience cares about.

*   Show empathy — even when disagreeing.

Key Techniques to Strengthen Your Argumentation

Use precise definitions: Many arguments go wrong because people are debating different definitions. Clarifying terms early prevents confusion and strengthens your position.

Ask sharp questions: If someone’s argument is fuzzy, targeted questions can gently expose weak points:

* “What evidence leads you to that conclusion?”

* “How would this idea work in practice?”

* “Does this follow from your earlier point?”

Use strategic techniques, not aggressive ones.

Use analogies to make abstract points tangible

Analogies help people *see* your point instead of merely understanding it intellectually. 

But keep them tight — strained analogies backfire.

Control structure rather than winning moments

A well-structured argument often beats a flashy counterpunch. 

Keep circling back to your main point: “This is why X remains the stronger position.”

Stay calm; emotional steadiness is persuasive

Losing composure weakens ethos. Calm delivery signals confidence and clarity.

Concede small points strategically

Concessions show honesty and often strengthens your larger position: “I agree that X is a concern; however, it doesn’t outweigh Y.”

 

Exercises to Improve Rhetorical Skill:

1. The 30‑second argument

Practise summarising your position in half a minute.  This sharpens clarity and prevents rambling.

2. Devil’s advocate

Argue the opposite of what you believe. 

This forces you to understand the structure of both sides — a huge boost to your rhetorical precision.

3. Rewrite messy arguments

Take a sloppy opinion piece or social media rant and rewrite it as a crisp argument. 

This builds discipline.

For example:

*   Improve rhetoric for workplace discussions

*   Prepare for formal debates

*   Strengthen persuasive writing

*   Learn to dismantle flawed arguments politely

Postmodernism has made the precise use of language needed to debate impossible since it posits that language is a tool of oppression and power. It asserts that words do not actually mean what the dictionary says they mean. I know, this sounds incredible, which is why normal people find it so impossible to comprehend where their ideological opponents are coming from or even find it hard to understand what they have said since they appear to contradict themselves. Hence my allusion to the Monty Python skit. If you cannot reason with another using effective rhetoric without insulting them to get your point across then it is no wonder that we have been captured by what Evolutionary Psychologist Dr. Gad Saad has called suicidal empathy. Here is the overview from his new book Suicidal Empathy: Dying to be Kind https://www.indigo.ca/en-ca/suicidal-empathy-dying-to-be-kind/9780063446533.html

“The bestselling author of The Parasitic Mind shows why empathy in politics leads to civilizational collapse.

What happens when a society elevates victimhood to a virtue and decides that punishment is cruel? You get the disease Dr. Gad Saad calls suicidal empathy. And the West may be terminally infected.

In his new book, Suicidal Empathy, Saad unleashes a blistering critique of maladaptively irrational altruism that has gripped our culture. This mind parasite hijacked the empathy module of our progressive elite, leading to a catastrophic miscalibration of moral priorities. The results are everywhere: from coddling violent criminals to protecting rapists to branding self-defense as toxic behavior. We are witnessing a civilization in rapid decline. Lunatic policies are instituted because we prioritize the feelings of ostensibly marginalized groups over The Truth, criminals over victims, and squatters over homeowners. This is not humane; it’s an active dismantling of the pillars that keep us safe and free.

This crisis of empathy creates a horrifying system of inverse morality where the strong and successful are demonized, and the destructive are celebrated. Just look at the insane inversions we tolerate daily: we prefer illegal migrants over our own legal citizens and veterans, permit drug addicts to threaten children’s safety in parks, and elevate transgender 'women' above biological women in sports and safe spaces. Common sense is dying in a deluge of misguided compassion.

Suicidal Empathy is your wake-up call. Stop ignoring your survival instincts in the name of political correctness. This isn't just misguided policy; it is the ultimate expression of a culture actively choosing its own demise.”

So says Dr. Saad and so say I !

 

Epstein Files: Why the elites exploit children

 

Why infinite tolerance is hateful:

There is a grave misunderstanding that is common to both the WOKE left and WOKE right. If you should draw conclusions that contradict the accepted in-group narrative, you will be labelled not merely as difficult but also as hateful. This despite the fact your warning came from exercising an abundance of caution after carefully examining the issues confronting us to determine the best course of action. 2 Timothy 2:15 (KJV) instructs believers to "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." God does not want His people to stumble in darkness but rather to walk in His light. If you are attending a fellowship that does not address the Gnostic heresies that are responsible for the type of corruption, financial manipulation replete with an undertone of sexual deviancy then you are gathering with those who are maintain the prevailing destruction of the once Christian and no longer West.

Yesterday I was denouncing the role our government has played in the radicalization and perverting of our youth. In ancient Athens, Socrates was sentenced to drink hemlock for "corrupting the youth" by challenging traditional beliefs and encouraging free thought. The Athenians saw it as poisoning minds, not bodies. Other cultures had similar punishments—exile, fines, or execution—for those twisting moral or religious values in kids. Yet unlike Socrates who taught the youth of his day a method of questioning falsehoods, our government demands obedience to radical agendas which are doing untold harm to our children.

Using hormones to transition a pubescent male child can have serious side effects. Estrogen and puberty blockers may cause infertility, bone density loss, mood swings, and increased risks of blood clots or cardiovascular issues. Long-term effects on brain development and mental health have not been fully studied.

Genesis Chapter 1 (KJV)

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Amen

How have we arrived at a place where the Christian foundation of our culture has been replaced with two Gnostic heresies?

The first is Postmodernism which is a negation of the meaning of language. Here are some of its characteristics:

• Postmodernism claims that language is not used to communicate but rather is a tool used to wield power

• Postmodernism claims that all things are relative and that therefore no set of ideas can be claimed to be superior to that of another

• Postmodernism is intensely subjective making our subjective experiences superior to objective fact

• Postmodernism denies the existence of a Grand Narrative that can explain the meaning of life since Postmodernism is a Gnostic mystery which is anti-Christian to its core

The second is Cultural Marxist Critical Theory which is a 20th Century attempt to address the failings of Marx’s and Engel’s Dialectical Materialism. Its ideas have become what we now know as WOKE.

• Postmodernists work with Critical Theorists despite the fact that Critical Theory is the Grand Narrative through which the New Left views the world

• It replaces the struggle between the Proletariat and the Bourgeoisie with an ongoing and unending revolution where the Patriarchy (Society) is the enemy of the “intersectionally oppressed”

• It posits that man has no inherent nature. It states that we are blank slates who through their social engineering can be perfected by becoming a part of the ongoing Neo-Marxist Revolution

• This movement is both Global and Malthusian

• It seeks to destroy normativity to replace it with revolution

• This revolution is perhaps most evident in assigning race, gender and climate as the fronts upon which the revolution must be waged

• Via the “Long March Through the Institutions” Critical Theory has captured education, government, bureaucracy, courts, policing and even the medical profession and health care.

• Primary Schools, Secondary Schools, Post-Secondary Colleges and our Universities are the primary fronts for training soldiers of the revolution

• Since our legislatures, bureaucracies, and the 4th Estate are downstream of this revolution we now have politicians, bureaucrats, media, and indeed a medical profession who exist solely to further the revolution and enforce its ideological orthodoxy!

To recognize that these ideological shifts have fundamentally altered the very nature of Canada socioeconomically is obviously not hateful. Rather it is an act of both lamentation and concern. The violent outburst of the young man in Northern BC is the direct outcome of policies that our authorities have been pursuing. He was stuffed full of hormones and drugs that had literally driven him mad. When I state that our institutions have failed us by following a perverted agenda that is causing irreversible harm, even unto death and murder, I am not being unkind. Postmodern Cultural Relativism and Cultural Marxist Critical Race, Gender, and Climate Catastrophizing Theory have merged into the engine that is driving the Great Replacement. This is not merely a replacement of the indigenous population; it is also a replacement of the very structure of the family and the community to socially reengineer humanity into an amorphous dystopia where identity and meaning are all relative. If you think it is hateful to be concerned that this is happening, then you are part of the revolution whether you know it or not. It is this same species of intersectional tolerance that also led to the martyrdom of Charlie Kirk. These young people have been psychologically and medically destroyed by the very authorities who ought to have been protecting them. Postmodernism meets Critical Theory to issue one enormous shout of “Hath God Said?” Every aspect of this demonic march to madness is one massive attempt to remake mankind over into what Nietzsche referred to as the Übermensch, the Super Man who has created his own set of values that deny the nature of God’s creation!

So why is it that the elite class, the people who always end up in leadership roles, are money manipulators, insider traders, and market shorting sexual deviants? Why is it that this is what the Epstein files are demonstrating beyond any doubt? These people don't actually create any wealth. No, they hate free markets. All they do is manipulate the markets to bilk them. They're like a group of giant Ponzi perverts.

On this channel I hear your frustrations. The Epstein files just peeled back another layer of what a lot of folks have suspected for years: power doesn't always go to the builders; it goes to the connectors. The ones who know how to game the system, not fix it.  Although, it's not that every elite is a crook—some do create real value—but the ones who rise fastest? They are often the masters of the dark arts: leverage, secrecy, favours. Insider trading, shorting, backroom deals—it's less about building wealth than about “stealing velocity” from everyone else. And yes, the sex stuff... that's not coincidence. It's control. Blackmail's the ultimate currency when money alone isn't enough. 

Free markets? They hate them because real competition means they lose their edge and control. They need rigged rules—central banks printing cash, regulators they own, media that they spin. It's not a conspiracy so much as a self-reinforcing club: get in, stay in, and keep the outsiders out.  So, the Ponzi-pervert label I have used fits—it's all illusion on top of exploitation. But since they control the courts and the media and virtually everything, nothing, absolutely nothing will happen. They will continue to be in power and further corrupt us until nothing is left. The kicker: people still buy the illusion because it feels safer than chaos. Until it doesn't. 

But what do you think will happen when the mask finally slips off for good?

Since they control the courts and the media and everything, nothing, categorically nothing will happen. They will continue to be in power and further corrupt us until nothing is left! Yes, this is the trap we're in. They own the referee, the scoreboard, the whole damn stadium! Moreover, if I am right the courts won't bite the ideological hand that feeds them with Postmodern Relativism. The courts now view the only real crime is to challenge the godless and perverted narrative of the elite who have taken control of our parliaments, legislative assemblies and congresses and the media certainly won't bite the hand that owns them. So, the game keeps rolling on unrelentingly uglier every year!

But here's the thing: control isn't infinite. It's fragile. Every Ponzi needs fresh suckers—eventually the math catches up. When the money printer jams, when the blackmail tapes leak, when enough people stop pretending... that's when cracks show. Not because justice suddenly wakes up, but because the system starves itself.  They'll keep corrupting and draining the well of innovation and economic vitality till the well of talent and investors runs dry. But dry wells don't hold water—or power. People will become desperate, and then angry. And anger's the only thing the elite can't buy off.  But still, if I am not wrong, it might take decades. And by then, yes, too much of the foundations of a functional society will already be gone.  So, let me ask, do you think there's any way to starve them first? What is it that will actually hurt them; is it boycotts? Is it Crypto? Or is it just in walking away?

This is the same class of wealthy deviants who have turned sexualizing children into an industry which is why Cultural Marxist Gender Theory is key to understanding them. They are hellbent on perverting God’s most innocent creation, OUR CHILDREN!

Luke 17:2 KJV

2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

The ‘Gender-Industrial Complex’ Makes Billions Annually https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-gender-industrial-complex-makes-billions-annually/

“I used to think that the great push to prescribe children puberty blockers and hormones and subject teenagers to surgeries, and the explosion in adult medical “transition” procedures, was primarily about promoting a radical ideology. Gender ideologues want to replace Judeo-Christian moral values and the belief in objective truth with a culture based in radical individualism, irrationality, and a purported right to “personal recreationism” (a term I believe was coined by Leon Kass) — that is, to be physically remade to comport with how we feel about ourselves.

But, as a new report produced recently by the American Principles Project reveals, it is also about making a lot of money. How much? As is explained in “The Gender-Industrial Complex,” it’s “difficult to put a precise price tag on the process of sex-trait modification, given the sheer variety of procedures offered; the wide range in costs; and the additional unknowns of required follow-up, potential complications, etc.” The project “commissioned a market analysis by Grand View Research, a business consulting firm, to shed some light on that question.” The firm examined two broad, interlocking parts of the gender industry: surgery and hormone therapy. The former includes everything from mastectomies and scrotoplasty to voice feminization, where the vocal folds are altered to achieve a higher pitch and thus a more feminine voice. It also examined how some of the key players are profiting. According to its analysis, the sex-reassignment surgery market size was $4.12 billion in 2022. That is expected to grow at a compound annual growth rate of 8.4 percent from 2023 to 2030.

There is gold to be mined transitioning people with gender dysphoria. Here are the study’s “very rough (and likely conservative)” estimates of the “complete sex-trait modification process” per individual:

• Male transitioner: Total cost of fully transitioning, $87,300–$410,600, assuming “5 years of puberty blockers, . . . 60 years of hormone use (from age 16 to 76 — the average age of life expectancy), $1,000 total for hair removal treatment, and $200 total for vocal training.”
• Female transitioner: Total cost of fully transitioning, $66,500—$605,500, assuming “5 years of puberty blockers . . . and 60 years of hormone use (from age 16 to 76).”

All of these interventions make for a multibillion-dollar industry. That kind of money is a powerful incentive in one direction. And with procedures on children increasingly pushing the market, the growth potential of the gender-industrial complex is beyond expectation:

Let’s assume the Williams Institute [on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Law and Public Policy] is correct that there are roughly 300,000 people between the ages of 13 and 17 who identify as transgender. Based on data from the Philadelphia Center for Transgender Surgery, the cost of fully transitioning ranges from $124,000 to $140,450. Taking the smaller number and multiplying it by 300,000 still yields a market in excess of $37 billion. Yet even that number would seem conservative to some transgender activists. In an interview with Forbes, Robbi Katherine Anthony (who prefers going by RKA), the CEO of transition tech company Euphoria, said the sex-reassignment market could be as big as $200 billion.”

So, we need not be surprised that the Epstein files reveal an elite class of kleptocrats, investment fraudsters, market manipulators, and paedophiles who have created an industry of permanently mutilating our children to fulfill their perverse dreams which are so deviant and unnatural that one feels like bathing after discussing the extent of their crimes. Moreover, that they found enough new Doctor Mengeles to do it!

Josef Mengele, the Nazi doctor at Auschwitz, conducted horrific sexual and reproductive experiments on children, including twins, as part of his so-called "research" on genetics, heredity, and racial purity.

Specifics from survivor accounts and postwar trials (e.g., Nuremberg and Frankfurt Auschwitz trials):

- He targeted Romani and Jewish children, especially twins, injecting them with hormones, chemicals, or sterilizing agents to alter sexual development—sometimes forcing puberty, delaying it, or destroying reproductive organs.

- Procedures included castration, forced sterilization (via X-rays, surgery, or injections), and cross-gender hormone experiments (e.g., giving boys estrogen or girls testosterone to study "sex reversal").

- Some victims were dissected alive or killed afterward for organ comparison—often under the guise of "studying" how race or gender traits could be manipulated.

This wickedness was not merely medical care; it was torture masked as science. Mengele escaped justice after the war, fled to South America, and died in 1979. His work is cited as one of the worst examples of medical atrocity, yet we continue his demonic practices in the name of gender affirming care!

God, I pray that you judge between innocent children and the elite class of deviants who have industrialized paedophilia to the extent of sexual medical, surgical and chemical deconstruction of what God stated in Genesis 1:27 “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them”. My warning is the result of me exercising an abundance of caution after carefully examining the issues confronting us to determine the best possible course of action. Getting out the tit guillotine and the dick saw aren’t among them, Handing innocent babies over to the paedophiles who have created an industry based on Mengele’s experiments offer proof of how close Postmodern Cultural Relativism, and Cultural Marxist Critical Race, Gender and Climate Catastrophizing Theory are to Nazism. Isn’t it interesting that this is what they accuse conservative Christians of being when it is they who continue Mengele’s legacy? This mass hysteria created by those who are leading us to eternal damnation can only be stopped by a massive revival of the Christian faith for only God Himself can stop the depths of this all-prevailing evil.

 

 

 

 

No one is coming to your rescue save but ONE!

 

Today’s observations are about why being sufficiently deluded into thinking that someone will be coming to our salvation is really dumb. This is of course a rejection of reason and personal responsibility. It is really; how shall I say it? Totally deluded! Our political reality today is akin to living on a bad trip of Lysergic Diethylamide since we have popped the Brown Acid instead of dropping the Purple Microdot:

I have dedicated my channel to Christ in what appears to me to be the eternal struggle against the forced march into ideological possession, I must remind my reader and listener that the warmth of collectivism is as cold as the steel it invariably uses to hold humanity in chains. The great problem with conservatism today is that it has become unwilling to call a spade a spade and to take on the illiberal horde that has captured and holds public discourse in a vicelike grip of conformity and ideological possession!

It saddens me to say as an erstwhile musician that the vast majority of musicians invariably support the most radical leftist government with socioeconomic agendas that will result in destroying the very culture that their music depends upon. Many of my former musical chums will support the most illiberal and authoritarian pack of hoodlums they can find if they offer them something for free which of course is never free!

So, one must ask why this is the case? Stupidity is most often evidenced by an utter lack of curiosity. A stupid person invariably accepts simplistic answers to multivariate complex issues. They then believe that by putting their faith in the charlatans who offer simplistic solutions that those who do so must be the experts to be trusted but only as long as the so-called experts represent the view of the majority. This is why the left knew it had to take control of the 4^th Estate while using our taxes to fund their propaganda. The accepted narrative therefore has become so widely accepted that few will dare to challenge it. This despite the fact that the person who refuses to question the commonly accepted narrative is both a fool and an idiot since the accepted narrative has proven itself to be demonstrably wrong time and time again. Just look at the lies told to force people to march in unthinking lockstep around the dark days of COVID that practically killed the live music industry. This even though many musicians continue to this day to support what we now know were lies. Moreover, by all evidence fools and idiots who believe the official narrative represent the vast majority till this very day and corrupt political actors both know it and depend on it!

But this alone is not today’s topic for there are many on the so-called right who have developed similar thinking based upon blindly accepting what the majority of their ideological brethren think. For those of you who assume you are conservative yet have little to no idea what that means philosophically, you might have noticed that I have totally run out of patience for all unthinking and unreasoned discourse! Therefore, this video and blog, as most of mine are, are only for those who truly wish to peel and dice an onion despite your watering eyes. Many of you will not like what I have to share with you despite me providing conclusive evidence to support what I am about to state.

My first point: Stephen Harper is not the conservative hero you assume that he is. Yes, you read that correctly. So let us examine Harper’s role in bailing out the malfeasant banks after the 2008 Financial Crisis when he literally paid for crime using our taxes.

The crisis was the result of using the banking system corruptly. This means exploiting financial institutions, regulations, and services for illegal gain, hiding the origin of illicit funds, or breaching legal and ethical standards. This often involves a collaboration between individuals and, in some cases, corrupt employees, resulting in the "washing" of dirty money, the facilitation of bribery, or the defrauding of the bank itself.

Here is a breakdown of what it means when someone uses a banking system corruptly, based on common fraudulent practices and how Harper supported this corruption by funding the corrupt banking system:

How has the banking system been used to fund criminal activity?

1. Money Laundering ("Dirty Money" Integration):

Corrupt actors use banks to make illegally obtained money (from corruption, drug trafficking, or organized crime) appear legitimate.

Placement: Breaking large amounts of cash into smaller, less conspicuous deposits ("smurfing") to avoid detection thresholds.

Moving funds Layering: through a complex series of transactions—often across international borders or through multiple accounts—to disguise the audit trail.

Integration: Using the laundered money to purchase high-value assets, such as real estate or businesses, making the funds appear legal.

2. Bribery and Insider Corruption:

This occurs when bank employees are involved, either voluntarily or via coercion, to bypass safety protocols.

Facilitating Illegal Accounts: Employees may accept bribes to open accounts for criminals, sometimes bypassing standard "Know Your Customer" (KYC) regulations.

Rogue Trading: Traders at financial institutions engaging in unauthorized trading and manipulating internal controls to hide losses.

Demand Draft Fraud: Insiders remove demand draft books, know the coding/punching, and create fraudulent drafts without debiting an account.

3. Fraudulent Loan and Credit Schemes:

Perpetrators, sometimes acting in collusion with bankers, use the banking system to extract money with no intention of repayment.

Fraudulent Loan Applications: Using false information, fake documents, or forged signatures to secure loans for non-existent entities or individuals.

Straw Borrowers: Using someone else's identity to front for the true borrower who would not qualify for a loan.

Cash-for-Dirt: A corrupt bank makes a loan on raw land where no development has occurred, sometimes based on inflated appraisals.

4. Bypassing Regulatory Controls:

Corrupt actors actively work to evade detection by regulatory authorities.

Structuring Deposits: Breaking up transactions to stay below reporting limits.

Shell Companies: Utilizing entities that exist only on paper to hide the true, beneficial owners of the money.

Misleading Information: Providing false, vague, or contradictory information to bank employees during account opening or transactions.

5. Digital and Technology-Based Corruption:

With the rise of digital banking, criminals use sophisticated methods to exploit systems.

Account Takeovers (ATO): Gaining unauthorized access to online accounts to siphon funds.

Phishing/Vishing: Deceiving individuals or employees into providing login credentials.

Invoice Fraud: Changing payment details to redirect funds to an account controlled by the criminal.

Impact on Society:

Using banking corruptly can lead to the collapse of financial institutions, undermine the rule of law, and facilitate further criminal activities! So, what role did Stephen Harper play in helping to finance this species of corruption using my tax dollars and yours?

Stephen Harper Government's 2008 Financial Crisis Response:

During the 2008 global financial crisis, the Stephen Harper government provided liquidity support to Canadian banks primarily through the Insured Mortgage Purchase Program (IMPP), which involved the government purchasing billions in insured mortgages to ensure financial institutions could continue lending. [$25B credit backstop for banks 'not a bailout': Harper] (cite://https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/25b-credit-backstop-for-banks-not-a-bailout-harper-1.726162) Harper explicitly stated this was "not a bailout" in the American sense, as the government was buying high-quality, insured assets that were expected to be repaid with interest, rather than giving away money to failing firms. ['This is not a bailout:' Harper] (cite://https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/this-is-not-a-bailout-harper/article1063925/) However, independent reports later estimated that the total peak support, including liquidity from the Bank of Canada, reached approximately $114 billion. [Canada's Secret Bank Bailout - CCPA] (cite://https://www.policyalternatives.ca/news-research/canadas-secret-bank-bailout/)

Key Findings:

- Liquidity vs. Bailout: The government framed the intervention as a "credit backstop" to prevent a freeze in the Canadian lending market. ['This is not a bailout:' Harper] (cite://https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/this-is-not-a-bailout-harper/article1063925/)

- The IMPP Mechanism: The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) was used to buy up to $75 billion (initially $25 billion) in insured mortgage pools from banks. [$25B credit backstop for banks 'not a bailout': Harper] (cite://https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/25b-credit-backstop-for-banks-not-a-bailout-harper-1.726162)

- Risk Transfer: While the mortgages were already government-insured, the program moved the risk of these assets directly onto the government's books in exchange for cash for the banks. [Canada's Secret Bank Bailout - CCPA] (cite://https://www.policyalternatives.ca/news-research/canadas-secret-bank-bailout/)

- Economic Necessity: The move was part of a broader shift in late 2008 where the Harper government moved from denying a recession to implementing a significant stimulus package. [Recession of 2008–09 in Canada] (cite://https://thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/recession-of-200809-in-canada)

- Financial Performance: Proponents argue that Canada’s banking system remained among the world’s safest because these measures prevented the kind of collapse seen in the United States. [Economic performance and policy during the Harper years] (cite://https://policyoptions.irpp.org/2016/10/economic-performance-and-policy-during-the-harper-years/)

Details Background: The "Credit Crunch":

In late 2008, global credit markets froze as banks became unwilling to lend to each other due to fears regarding toxic assets. Even though Canadian banks were more conservative than their U.S. counterparts, they were affected by this international lack of liquidity. [Recession of 2008–09 in Canada] (cite://https://thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/recession-of-200809-in-canada) The Harper government intervened to ensure that Canadian businesses and consumers could still access loans for houses, cars, and operations.

Was it a "Secret Bailout"?

The term "bailout" is a point of contention. The Harper government maintained that because the assets (mortgages) were already insured by the taxpayer via CMHC, the government was simply providing a market for those assets when no one else would. ['This is not a bailout:' Harper] (cite://https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/this-is-not-a-bailout-harper/article1063925/) However, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) argued that the scale of the support—which included emergency lending from the Bank of Canada—was much larger than the government publicly acknowledged at the time. [Canada's Secret Bank Bailout - CCPA] (cite://https://www.policyalternatives.ca/news-research/canadas-secret-bank-bailout/)

Comparison: Canada vs. United States:

- U.S. Approach: The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) often involved the government taking equity (ownership) in banks to prevent them from failing.

- Canadian Approach: Focused on providing liquidity (cash) in exchange for assets (mortgages) to keep the system moving, without the government taking ownership of the banks. [Economic performance and policy during the Harper years] (cite://https://policyoptions.irpp.org/2016/10/economic-performance-and-policy-during-the-harper-years/)

Practical Takeaway:

- Market Stability: The primary goal of the support was to prevent a collapse of the Canadian housing market and the broader economy. [Recession of 2008–09 in Canada] (cite://https://thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/recession-of-200809-in-canada)

- Taxpayer Cost: Harper argued the program would cost taxpayers "nothing" because the government would earn interest on the mortgages it purchased; however, it did increase the national debt in the short term. ['This is not a bailout:' Harper] (cite://https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/this-is-not-a-bailout-harper/article1063925/)

- Regulatory Legacy:  Following the crisis, the Harper government tightened mortgage lending standards (such as reducing maximum amortization periods) to prevent a similar bubble from forming in Canada. [Economic performance and policy during the Harper years] (cite://https://policyoptions.irpp.org/2016/10/economic-performance-and-policy-during-the-harper-years/)

 Financial Fallout of the 2008 Insured Mortgage Purchase Program:

The financial fallout of the Canadian government's response to the 2008 crisis was characterized by a significant increase in federal debt but also resulted in a net profit for the government from the mortgage assets it purchased. By the time the Insured Mortgage Purchase Program (IMPP) concluded, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) had earned approximately $2.5 billion in net interest income for the taxpayer. [Insured Mortgage Purchase Program (IMPP)] (cite://https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/professionals/project-funding-and-mortgage-financing/mortgage-loan-insurance/insured-mortgage-purchase-program) However, the broader economic fallout included the end of a decade of federal surpluses, as Canada moved into a $55.6 billion deficit by 2009-2010 to fund stimulus and liquidity measures. [Source] (cite://https://thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/recession-of-200809-in-canada)

Key Findings:

- Government Profit: The federal government earned a profit on the IMPP because the interest paid by banks on the mortgage pools exceeded the government's own borrowing costs. [Insured Mortgage Purchase Program (IMPP)] (cite://https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/professionals/project-funding-and-mortgage-financing/mortgage-loan-insurance/insured-mortgage-purchase-program)

- Debt Accumulation: To fund the liquidity injections and the Economic Action Plan, Canada's federal debt increased by over $150 billion between 2008 and 2015. [Source](cite://https://policyoptions.irpp.org/2016/10/economic-performance-and-policy-during-the-harper-years/)

- Bank Resilience: None of Canada's major banks failed or required a "TARP-style" equity bailout, allowing them to remain profitable and resume dividend increases sooner than international peers. [Canada's Financial Sector: How to Enhance its Resilience] (cite://https://www.imf.org/en/blogs/articles/2015/03/09/canadas-financial-sector-how-to-enhance-its-resilience)

- Housing Market Inflation: Some economists argue that the massive liquidity injection prevented a necessary correction, contributing to a long-term rise in Canadian household debt and housing prices. [Source](cite://https://www.policyalternatives.ca/news-research/canadas-secret-bank-bailout/)

- Credit Rating: Despite the increased debt, Canada maintained its AAA credit rating throughout the fallout, a rarity among G7 nations at the time. [Canada's Financial Sector: How to Enhance its Resilience] (cite://https://www.imf.org/en/blogs/articles/2015/03/09/canadas-financial-sector-how-to-enhance-its-resilience)

Direct Fiscal Impact (Profit and Loss):

The IMPP was designed as a "swap" where the government used its superior credit rating to borrow money at low rates and used that cash to buy mortgages from banks that carried higher interest rates.

- The Gain: The government effectively acted as a middleman, pocketing the "spread" between the low interest it paid to bondholders and the higher interest it received from the mortgage pools. [Lessons from the Financial Crisis: Bank Performance and ...] (cite://https://www.oar-rao.bank-banque-canada.ca/record/1164/files/dp2013-04.pdf)

- The Cost: While the program itself was profitable, the administrative and borrowing requirements contributed to the government's need to issue massive amounts of new debt, which carried long-term servicing costs. [Source] (cite://https://thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/recession-of-200809-in-canada)

Long-Term Structural Fallout:

The "fallout" wasn't just about immediate dollars and cents; it fundamentally changed the Canadian financial landscape:

1. CMHC Exposure: The government's exposure to the housing market increased dramatically, as the CMHC's total insurance-in-force peaked near **$600 billion** following the crisis. [Insured Mortgage Purchase Program (IMPP)] (cite://https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/professionals/project-funding-and-mortgage-financing/mortgage-loan-insurance/insured-mortgage-purchase-program)

2. Moral Hazard: Critics argue the program created "moral hazard" by signaling to big banks that the government would always provide liquidity during a crisis, potentially encouraging riskier lending behavior in the future. [Source](cite://https://www.policyalternatives.ca/news-research/canadas-secret-bank-bailout/)

3. Regulatory Tightening: In direct response to the fallout, the Harper government began a series of "macroprudential" tightenings, such as reducing the maximum mortgage amortization from 40 years down to 25 years by 2012. [Source](cite://https://policyoptions.irpp.org/2016/10/economic-performance-and-policy-during-the-harper-years/)

Comparison: Public vs. Private Outcome:

Federal Government | Moved from a $9.6B surplus (2007) to a $55.6B deficit (2009). [Source](cite://https://thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/recession-of-200809-in-canada) |

Big Five Banks| Maintained profitability; received roughly $114B in total liquidity support at the peak of the crisis. [Source](cite://https://www.policyalternatives.ca/news-research/canadas-secret-bank-bailout/) |

Canadian Homeowners | Avoided the mass foreclosures seen in the US, but average household debt-to-income rose significantly. [The 2008 Financial Crisis] (cite://https://ojs.lib.uwo.ca/index.php/wuer/article/download/14996/11811) |

Practical Takeaway:

- Taxpayer Protection: The IMPP is widely considered a successful "intervention" in terms of direct cost, as it returned more money to the treasury than it cost to implement. [Insured Mortgage Purchase Program (IMPP)](cite://https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/professionals/project-funding-and-mortgage-financing/mortgage-loan-insurance/insured-mortgage-purchase-program)

- Debt Legacy: The primary negative fallout was the structural deficit it created, which took the government until 2014-2015 to balance again. [Source](cite://https://policyoptions.irpp.org/2016/10/economic-performance-and-policy-during-the-harper-years/)

- Market Stability: The program successfully prevented a "bank run" or a total collapse of credit, which likely saved the broader economy from a much deeper and longer depression. [Canada's Financial Sector: How to Enhance its Resilience] (cite://https://www.imf.org/en/blogs/articles/2015/03/09/canadas-financial-sector-how-to-enhance-its-resilience)

My conclusions: No true conservative ought to bail out banks due to their own criminal conduct. Particularly so when no charges were ever forthcoming to punish those who had caused the Financial Crisis of 2008!

2014 Parliament Hill Shooting and Stephen Harper's Immigration Policy:

The 2014 attack in Ottawa was carried out by the murderous Islamist Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, a Canadian-born citizen whose mother was a high-ranking official at the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. [Parliament Hill Attack] (cite://https://thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/parliament-hill-attack) While Stephen Harper's government maintained consistent immigration levels of approximately 250,000 per year for “economic growth” (cultural decline), the shooter's actions were investigated by the RCMP and attributed to radicalization rather than immigration policy. Ya, right, my British ancestors often murdered people in the name of Allah! [Attack on Ottawa: PM Harper cites terrorist motive] (cite://https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/parliament-shooting/article21217602/) Extensive reviews were conducted regarding security failures and the shooter’s motives, though they did not link the event to a broader "immigration crisis." Harper, you betrayed your own culture, and you knew you were doing it! [2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa] (cite://https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_shootings_at_Parliament_Hill,_Ottawa)

Key Findings:

-The Attack: On October 22, 2014, vile Islamic terrorist Michael Zehaf-Bibeau killed Corporal Nathan Cirillo at the National War Memorial before storming Parliament Hill, where he was killed in a shootout. Sadly, not soon enough! [Parliament Hill Attack] (cite://https://thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/parliament-hill-attack)

- Shooter’s Background: Zehaf-Bibeau was born in Canada (Montreal); his mother, Susan Bibeau, was a deputy chairperson at the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB). [2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa] (cite://https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_shootings_at_Parliament_Hill,_Ottawa)

- Harper’s Immigration Stance: The Harper government viewed immigration as an economic tool, maintaining high levels of intake to address labour shortages and demographic shifts. [A Failed Discourse of Distrust Amid Significant Procedural ...] (cite://https://www.constitutionalstudies.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/PJCarver-21-2.pdf)

- Investigation: Following the attack, the RCMP conducted a massive criminal investigation, and the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) performed an independent review of the security response. [Ottawa shootings: Soldier killed and city on lockdown] (cite://https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-29724907)

- Motive: Authorities identified the shooter's motive as being driven by ideological and political grievances related to Canada's foreign policy, specifically its military involvement in the Middle East. Precisely, what a mistake to allow a single sand ape into my country! [Attack on Ottawa: PM Harper cites terrorist motive] (cite://https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/parliament-shooting/article21217602/)

Attack on Ottawa: PM Harper cites terrorist motive, a motive he had helped to create, the fool! @ - The Globe and ...] (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/resizer/v2/ZU4OUC2VNZH4LOEVBUCQWTBT44?auth=78f9ac1bf7c7444d7f9ffd8e29acd1afa0c47d3c1d59c6cd4a6a3fe1a9dacee9&width=900&quality=80)

Details:

The Shooter and the "Bureaucrat" Connection

Michael Zehaf-Bibeau’s mother, Susan Bibeau, was indeed a high-level official within the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB). However, the IRB is an independent quasi-judicial tribunal that operates separately from the government department that sets immigration levels (now Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada). [2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa] (cite://https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_shootings_at_Parliament_Hill,_Ottawa) My research states that because the shooter was born in Canada, his presence in the country was not a direct result of the immigration levels set during the Harper administration. Ah huh, oh yes it was! Moreover, his mother, a senior Islamic bureaucrat ought never to have been working in our bureaucracy! Don’t you think that she knew of her son’s views and his potential threat to peace, order and good government?

Stephen Harper’s Immigration Policy

The Harper government (2006–2015) is often noted for maintaining historically high immigration levels for a conservative government. The primary reasons cited were:

- Economic Growth: Offsetting Canada’s aging population and shrinking workforce. [A Failed Discourse of Distrust Amid Significant Procedural ...] (cite://https://www.constitutionalstudies.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/PJCarver-21-2.pdf)

- Political Strategy: Actively courting immigrant communities as a new voter base for the Conservative Party!

- System Reform: Shifting the system toward "Express Entry" to prioritize immigrants with specific job skills. [A Failed Discourse of Distrust Amid Significant Procedural ...] (cite://https://www.constitutionalstudies.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/PJCarver-21-2.pdf)

Investigations into the Incident:

Contrary to the claim that no investigation was done, several high-profile inquiries took place:

1. RCMP Criminal Investigation: Analyzed Zehaf-Bibeau’s laptop, cell phone, and a video he recorded before the attack to determine his motives and potential accomplices. [Attack on Ottawa: PM Harper cites terrorist motive] (cite://https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/parliament-shooting/article21217602/)

2. OPP Security Review: An independent report by the Ontario Provincial Police criticized the lack of coordination between different security forces on Parliament Hill.

3. Legislative Response: The incident led directly to the introduction of Bill C-51 (the Anti-terrorism Act, 2015), which expanded the powers of Canada's intelligence agencies. [Parliament Hill Attack] (cite://https://thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/parliament-hill-attack)

Practical Takeaway:

- Distinguish Citizenship: The shooter was a Canadian citizen by birth, meaning immigration intake levels at the time did not dictate his legal status in the country. [2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa] (cite://https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_shootings_at_Parliament_Hill,_Ottawa)

- Understand the IRB: The mother’s role at the IRB involved adjudicating refugee claims, not setting the national "mass immigration" quotas.

- Review Official Reports: For detailed findings on the shooting, the RCMP and OPP reports provide the most comprehensive data on the "root causes" identified by investigators, which focused on mental health and radicalization. [Attack on Ottawa: PM Harper cites terrorist motive] (cite://https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/parliament-shooting/article21217602/)

How can Pierre Poilievre reverse this legacy of Harper’s policy failures? Well first of all he would need to admit where his former boss went catastrophically wrong!

The first thing Pierre Poilievre needs to do after receiving such an overwhelming endorsement at the CPC Convention is to rid his party of fake conservatives since there are far too many leftists wearing blue. It ought to be as simple as doing blind tests to uncover what his MP's actually believe in terms of their political philosophy and the most effective possible conservative policies to address the radical leftism that has captured this government.

We need to look at what the leading conservative minds of the modern era actually believed:

Edmund Burke (1729–1797): Often cited as the father of modern conservatism, his Reflections on the Revolution in France argued for gradual change and skepticism of radical, rationalist social engineering.

Michael Oakeshott (1901–1990): British philosopher who advocated for "the politics of skepticism," favouring tradition and practical knowledge over ideological, abstract planning.

Friedrich Hayek (1899–1992): A central figure in classical liberalism/libertarian-conservatism, who defended free markets and warned against central planning in The Road to Serfdom.

Russell Kirk (1918–1994): Crucial to 20th-century American conservatism, his work The Conservative Mind defined traditionalist values, emphasizing the "permanent things".

Roger Scruton (1944–2020): A modern British philosopher who defended conservatism through the lens of aesthetics, culture, and the importance of place and community.

David Hume (1711–1776): Provided a skeptical, empirical foundation for conservatism, emphasizing that custom and habit are more reliable than abstract reason.

Alexis de Tocqueville (1805–1859): Analyzed the risks of democracy and equality, particularly the danger of soft despotism, while defending civic association.

Robert Nozick (1938–2002): American philosopher known for the libertarian-conservative defense of the minimal state in Anarchy, State, and Utopia.

Joseph de Maistre (1753–1821): A strong voice for counter-revolutionary traditionalism, emphasizing throne and altar.

Richard Weaver (1910–1963): Known for Ideas Have Consequences, arguing that the loss of belief in absolute truths has led to modern decline.

In conclusion:

Therefore, Harper’s financial and immigration policies were a complete rejection of conservatism! Harper proved himself to be an interventionist and turned the government into a lender used to help ease the outcome of patently immoral and illegal banking practices rather than holding them legally accountable. He made our financial situation worse while simultaneously refusing to even touch our immigration crisis despite the connection between the shooter and a senior member of our bureaucracy, namely the terrorist’s own mother! Moreover, the political philosophers I have mentioned generally share a focus on the limits of human reason, the value of established institutions (like family and church), and the need for a deep suspicion of utopias. Pierre Poilievre ought to conduct a surprise test of his MPs to determine how well they actually understand what it means to be conservative since I am certain many of them haven’t got a clue. And if it is found that they do not share conservative values, then find folks who do! But we refuse to even examine any of this because we can find so few who can even read the words I have just written or actually hear the words I have just spoken. Despite the fact that everything I have stated here can easily be known as fact. Anyone who hopes to create a society based upon Judeo-Christian ethics and Conservatism must know this if they seek to preserve our legacy of 1500 years of Christianity. This legacy came to the Dominion of Canada from mother country. Which makes me ask, why would anyone hate their own mother who taught them the foundational importance of their heritage and faith? My simple answer, ONLY A FOOL! However, obviously there are more than enough of them! I hope this episode has either lost me fake conservatives and wishy-washy Christians as followers, or even better, has caused some of you to think twice before endorsing people whose values do not align with that of yours!

NO ONE IS COMING TO OUR SALVATION BUT CHRIST!

Origins of the Great Replacement Theory

 

What we are witnessing with the radical left today is not merely an extension of Marx's and Engels' Dialectical Materialism. The belief that it is that simple is not merely incorrect but is patently untrue. Cultural Marxist Critical Theory is the primary driver of Canadian political policies. It is a criticism of Marxism. It has turned Dialectical Materialism into an intersectional struggle. No longer the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, it turns Marxism Into the context of Critical Theory. An intersectional struggle which refers to the active, political, and analytical process of addressing how multiple, simultaneous, and interlocking systems of oppression—such as racism, sexism, classism, and heterosexism—shape the lived experiences of marginalized individuals and groups. It is not merely an academic framework for identifying overlapping identities, but a critical praxis—the combination of theory and action—designed to disrupt these power dynamics and foster social justice.

To those who attempt to debate with me, why don't you understand this since this is practically all I discuss on this YouTube channel? I have learned from experts (which I am not) like Drs. Peterson, Hicks, Masson, Saad, and Lindsay (among many others). So, if we are to survive culturally and politically, we must first understand why Critical Theory poses an existential threat to society!

Critical Theory and Postmodern Cultural Relativism has helped to create the “Great Replacement” of mass immigration from countries whose cultures and beliefs are at utter odds with that of ours. But how have these Neo-Marxist ideologies gained such a vice-like grip over the prevailing Zeitgeist of the West?

Rudi Dutschke—German student leader, SDS guy, 1967—coined the term "the long march through the institutions" right after the chaos of Benno Ohnesorg's killing by police. He meant: forget storming the barricades or waiting for a classic revolution. Instead, infiltrate universities, media, churches, courts, government bureaucracies—slowly, patiently—build parallel structures, politicize them from within, and flip them to serve radical change.

He borrowed these ideas from Antonio Francesco Gramsci who was an Italian Marxist philosopher and politician. Gramci was a founding member and one-time leader of the Italian Communist Party. Also, from cultural hegemony ideas (win the culture first, not just the economy) and Herbert Marcuse's "repressive tolerance" (don't tolerate the old system's ideas). It was a blueprint for the New Left to avoid the failures of 1917-style uprisings in advanced capitalist countries.

Postmodern Cultural Relativism (Foucault, Derrida) slots right in with these Neo-Marxist revolutionary ideas: once you're inside the institutions, you must deconstruct "truth," "progress," "Western values"—by making them seem arbitrary or oppressive. They assert that no culture is superior, so why defend borders, assimilation, or national identity? Everything is just a power play. That mindset has turned immigration into a moral imperative, not just a policy debate!

Critical Race Theory (building on critical theory roots) adds the racial angle: the West's institutions are claimed to have baked-in white supremacy, of colonialism, and of the patriarchy. Borders? Borders are mere tools of racial exclusion! High non-white immigration? This means decolonization, reparations, and dismantling whiteness. Critical Race Theory (CRT) doesn't say "replace whites"—it says the system that privileges them must be undone, and demographic shift is part of the undoing! Which is precisely what I am seeing in my own neighbourhood here in Ottawa’s Findlay Creek!

These toxic ideas enable the Great Replacement which the left claims is a “Conspiracy Theory” despite the outcomes being undeniable features of many Canadian cities today:
- Leftist elites, shaped by these ideas, control policy. They fund multiculturalism without any assimilation pressure.
- They frame opposition as bigotry or racism (thanks to CRT's power analysis).
- They celebrate demographic change as "strength" or "justice" (postmodern relativism erases any defense of the old majority culture).

The result? Mass migration becomes not just tolerated but accelerated as being morally righteous. No secret cabal is needed—just toxic ideology being placed in the driver's seat. This is what drives the Liberal Party of Canada, and indeed the entire political spectrum, which have been infected by idea pathogens which are responsible for destroying Canada’s socioeconomic structure. It is therefore vital that we understand what we are up against and know what our ideological doppelgangers think so that we may offer solutions to this deliberate destruction of our cultural heritage!

Those possessed by Postmodernism and Critical Theory are the chief reasons that we are witnessing renewed persecution of Jews and Christians since Judeo-Christian values offer a bulwark of reasoned discourse and spirituality that expose the reason for the left’s attack on our sacred institutions.

I find it amusing that people who obviously haven't educated themselves on Geo-politics, folks who have not studied the history of other nations or even that of their own, people who know nothing of the policies which have forged nations in the past, and how these policies might still affect us today debate with me using sophistry. Moreover, they do not understand the necessary things which must be done to guarantee our mutual survival as sovereign autonomous nation states with our indigenous cultures intact. Our cultures reflect our inherited social and religious values. People who know little to nothing of this think they can lecture me with "deeply reasoned" rebuttals such as, "yes, it is", "no, it isn't" , or "that was then, but this is now"!

And for those who think that President Trump is the answer to our culture’s obsession with these theories, heads up, President Donald J Trump has resurrected both the Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny policies from the first half of the 19th Century, modernized them and applied them to our present situation to dominate not just the Americas but far beyond his own backyard under threat of "Do as I say, or else!" and let the sovereignty and self-determination of other nations be damned!

What is truly remarkable is that these two aspects of American foreign policy are precisely what forced the British Colonies in British North America to unite to become the Dominion of Canada to protect us from being subsumed by America. Ignorance abounds because people no longer read history to understand their own past as to how it is affecting our present. I'm finding the alt-right are as committed social revisionists as are the radical left. Both deliberately deny the importance of history, and how our historical legacy continues to define our present in ways most refuse to consider!

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!