Yesterday I was privileged to be invited to come on as a guest on Canada’s Webcast live show, Laura Lynn. I don’t get much chance to do radio/podcasts as much as I used to, so it was fun and a little scary to do a live broadcast again.
Basically, we covered the events today as they are playing out from the perspective of a more or less Coughlin-esque view of the strategics of what we see manifested on the streets. For regular readers of this site, I hope it makes sense and is enjoyable for those that want to give it the time.
For all interested, Stephen’s analysis on the left from a strategical and historical point of view, can be read here. it is highly recommended reading.
It is also on Youtube as an Audio Book and some find that easier to process. A briefing with slides is in the works I believe, and that should be fantastic when it comes out. To give you an idea of what that would be like, check out The Red Pill Brief, which has its own page at Vlad.
I am currently in a small back and forth on Twitter with someone who objects to my statement that Social media owners should be arrested and indicted for their blocking of information about HCQ as a potentially effective treatment for Covid19. As well as politicians that made the unprecedented step of making it illegal to prescribe for that purpose.
The argument my interlocutor is using, is that there is no medical or scientific consensus on the efficacy of HCQ, and therefore, social media policies etc. are justified.
My arguments are multifold but for the purpose of this post, two things need reenforcing.
1. Social media is perfectly fine with any and all fully bulls**t and even dangerous medical advice on any number of subjects as they should well be, as freedom of speech is much more important than if the science is right. That is up to us to determine for ourselves.
2. His repeated use of the word “consensus” feels like a club and therefore, is likely being used in the manner described in the following video.
It is a little hard to follow, but I would ask all of our readers to make the effort to follow this explanation, even if it takes a few times through the video. It is very important to understand what “consensus” really means, as well as how we are to think of it. It is not agreement. It is an imposition of the will of leftist authorities.
The notion that men who pretend to be women should be able to compete in women’s sports is back in the news again.
Listening to Dennis Prager this morning on replay brought a few thoughts to mind.
The first thing is how the whole misguided concept came to pass.
We used to use the word sex, (as an adjective rather than a verb), to describe what sex a person was. Male, or female. The answer to that tells us a lot about the person’s biology. Then the notion of Gender was introduced. Gender is what sex a person thinks they are, as opposed to what they are. Pseudo-reality over reality. This concept was advanced by several notorious Marxist doctors since the 60s including Drs Money and Ehrhardt as well as others who I am too lazy to look up right now. But Money and Ehrhardt I had to study in university in the 70s. There are actually more famous ones than Money.
Gradually, the word sex disappeared from popular use, as well as use on forms, and was replaced by Gender. And now leftists could safely say that there are as many genders as people can imagine, as its circular reasoning so of course there is because gender means what sex you imagine you are, and that any attempt to impose gender on someone, is fascism, which is it in the Marxist logic using that rhetorical trick/line of reasoning.
The next phase came when they claimed that gender, the imaginary thing, is real and we all must submit to that, and bear with me, this is where it gets wiggy, biological sex, is not.
And therefore, any attempt to stop a man from competing in women’s sports is racist. Using the expanded definition of racist to mean failing to support any taxonomy at all that the left creates at any given moment.
But wait! Since we have disposed of biology altogether in favour of a more Marxist one, much like the Soviet communists did when they banned Darwin and forced Lysenkoism on everyone, why stop there?
Why not allow adults to compete in Children’s sports? Certainly we have to get rid of all weight classifications in contact sports like boxing and wrestling. Why can’t heavyweight boxers fight fly weights? How about special Olympics against normal Olympians? The Philadelphia Eagles Vs. high school flag football?
The distinctions are all biological and are all therefore “racist” by the same definition? Why are these demands not made yet, and more importantly, why is this obvious and important comparison not made as an argument against this insane dialectic negation tactic being used to obliterate something which allow women’s sports to exist at all?
All the distinctions and categories made above are created in order to make competition fair, and therefore fun and exiting. These distinctions are a part of Western taxonomies. The science of categorization which allows things to work, to be properly judged without having to examine each thing from scratch on every encounter. They are imperfect and from time to time, need to be modified even using science as a modifying examiner. It allows people in many biological categories to be able to compete against people with the same rough class of attributes so that training, effort and talent can create the win as opposed to seeing Randy Macho Man Savage crush a 12 year old in grade school wrestling.
Males and females as categories are not 100% accurate for 100% of the people. But it works. And the current cancelling of actual scientists who deny the Marxist pseudo-reality of “gender” is actually an attack on our entire taxonomy. Because the left, with an insight on Western thought and Western civilization that only people with a burning, even demonic hatred of it can have, intend to destroy us with ideas and words, and taxonomy is one of Western civilization’s most powerful ones.
For the rest of us, taxonomy is just the background noise of our culture. People may get together in bars and debate or banter or joke about the attributes that make up a taxonomy, like women, or men, or dogs or cats. But the left intends to destroy the very concept altogether. And by doing so, all sense of fairness within all of our cultures.
Woman in Colorado accuses "Trap Tea" of appropriating black culture pic.twitter.com/NPanQjJ9hP
— Fifty Shades of Whey (@davenewworld_2) August 22, 2020
The arguments against are too numerous to even list. But also listing them is falling into the trap of lending legitimacy to the entire concept of cultural appropriation. Itself just another dialectic scam to deconstruct our civilization and cause racial strife where there is none.
This is a good time to revisit this event from Ottawa U in November, 2015. A Yoga teacher who was giving FREE classes to people, with extra respect to Hindu culture by not making any spiritual claims herself, was fired. Fired from giving free classes, from Ottawa University. Her classes were also for the handicapped and others who enjoyed tremendous benefit from her classes.
‘There were some cultural sensitivity issues and people were offended,’ says instructor
A yoga instructor who says her free class at the University of Ottawa was cancelled because of concerns over cultural appropriation believes the student union’s issues are misplaced.
Jen Scharf said she’s been teaching a free yoga class for the university’s Centre for Students with Disabilities, which is run by the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa, for the last seven years.
When she checked back in with the centre in September, she said she was told by them the class wouldn’t be happening because some students and volunteers were uncomfortable with the “cultural issues” involved.
Not very often we get to post things that are encouraging. Especially when most of us here feel that the world seems divided into three groups. Those who see what is going on and oppose it; those who see what is going on and support it, and those who refuse to see what is going on.
Knowing that AG Bill Barr clearly understands what is going on so well and expresses it so plainly offers massive pain relief to the first group.
Truly excellent excerpt:
VladTepes has written on this subject before. On how the narrative has escalated from, “Speech is violence”, which is the Marxist justification for attacking anyone that speaks against the pseudo-reality of Marxists, or any position they may take at any given time. An example might be saying that there is a difference between biological males and biological females. Many people have been attacked in one way or another for taking this rather obvious position.
But since the death, likely due to a massive overdose of Fentanyl of George FLoyd, the Marxists have moved to the next position. “Silence is violence”.
Now, those who do not verbally support the position of the Neo-Marxists, (at this moment using the beard, “Black Lives Matters”) justify a violent response from the communist revolutionaries we see across the West at this time.
It must be understood that this is indeed signalling a real escalation. From you may not oppose us in words, to you must not fail to support us in words.
We have always had a suspicion that ANTIFA/BLM/COMINTERN has specifically picked events from which to seed insurgent action disguised as riots, that were in themselves, the worst possible examples of police ‘racism’. In fact, where the killed black man either richly deserved what they got at worst, or at best, put the police in a position where there was nothing else they could possibly have done. For example, where a large man robbing stores, reaches for an officer’s gun and overpowers the officer. Not a lot of options there.
The likely reasons they would do this is to create hatred and distrust of the police, and the entire system. If on the rare occasion, an officer does kill a black man for no reason other than his race, which is extremely rare, it seems that BLM does nothing about it. Rioting over that does not serve the COMINTERN revolution. It might in fact, make the US a better place if rational measures are taken.
But it seems to us that the purpose of these riots are multifold, and none of them are as stated. On top of the ones already listed, reducing the authority of the police in the minds of the public. A greater divide between newly minted groups of people. The ones who support police and those who don’t.
That entire issue is a fiction as well. No one should be for, or anti-police as no one should be for, or anti-war, and for that matter, pro or anti open heart surgery. Each of these things depend on the circumstances. Best not to have open heart surgery if you have no heart problems and best not to support the police if the police are a politicized force representing not the rule of law or protection of individual rights and property, but enforcement of a political narrative and oppressive political force with no basis in law. In which case, being anti-police would be the sensible position for a free and democratic society.
The same goes for war. War is only a thing to favour when the cost of war is higher than the cost of not-war. Being enslaved, killed, mass robbed and raped, having your identity erased, these are reasons to be pro war. Reasons to be anti-war would be nearly any other circumstance.
ANTIFA/BLM actions have always been anti-police for the exact reasons the rest of us should be pro police. Because in a democracy, and for the most part (until very recently and the Covid ultra-vires actions of various governments) police are what allow us all to enjoy the fruits of our own labour free from thugs, thieves and cheaters in multiple ways.
ANTIFA/BLM/Communist insurgents want to make sure that the trust is broken. Some state officials are working overtime to assist them in that goal, although not for the reasons they say. But because the plan is 1. Abolish the police, and 2. abolish all private property.
The actual arrest footage of George Floyd was leaked. Rumour has it that anti-state actor, Kieth Ellison, was the reason the footage was not properly released to the public already. This speaks volumes to the points raised by this post. Minnesota AG Ellison would most certainly not want to undermine the propaganda efforts of the insurgents.
As early autopsy reports stated fairly clearly, if the death of career criminal, George Floyd was not caused by the police, and if it was seen that the police did every possible thing to accommodate Mr. Floyd, and that he was uncooperative and lied consistently to police, claimed he couldn’t breath before he was touched, and claimed to be claustrophobic and therefore could not be put in a car, although he had in fact been taken out of one, then all that work burning, looting and attacking the state under the aegis of “George Floyd BLM!” would be seen for the total communist fraud it is.
It is important that everyone see this footage. BLM has always been a lie and a front for a Leninist/Maoist revolution. Even its own founders pretty much say that. But all communist insurgencies require that the real work be done by useful idiots. And seeing this footage and understanding the real nature of the ‘peaceful protests’ should really lower that demographic a great deal.
Tucker talks about newly released police bodycam footage from moments before George Floyd’s death. pic.twitter.com/A3ylnxFg1i
— Benny (@bennyjohnson) August 5, 2020