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!

 

 

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.