https://www.newcenter.ca/news/2017/10/7/justin-trudeau-is-far-more-dangerous-than-donald-trump
But I found the essay at this link:
https://solsticewitch13.blogspot.com/2017/11/justin-trudeau-is-far-more-dangerous.html
And in case it too disappears here is the actual essay:
Justin Trudeau is Far More Dangerous Than Donald Trump
Readers
of the above statement will likely fall into one of two categories:
those who knew this all along, and those who will find the statement
absurd. I am putting this argument out there for the latter category and
hopefully it will be read with an open mind. If you are the type of
person who does not have the ability to question their own beliefs, and
prefer the comfort of an echo-chamber, then this piece is probably not
for you. I will offer only one caveat on my position: Donald Trump will
only turn out to be more dangerous in the short-term if he blunders his
way into a nuclear war.
Before
I begin, I just want to make a couple of things clear. My political
leanings would make me either a classical liberal, or perhaps a
left-leaning libertarian, depending on the criteria used. I am not a
conservative or a Trump supporter, but I have been forced to abandon my
support for the Left because of its increasingly alarming and bizarre
politics. I care deeply about my country and our precious and rare
civilization. I dislike suffering, and wish to act in a way that
minimizes it for all people. The reason that I am writing this piece is
that I believe that we are being duped, and that this is going to lead
to a lot of suffering in the future.
I
believe that the tool that is being used to dupe us is
political-correctness. It is a very powerful tool because it stifles all
argument and creates the perfect conditions for mass manipulation of
the population. Those in charge set all of the rules and conditions for
conversation and a large percentage of the population becomes afraid to
make statements that they know to be true; or worse, are forced to make
statements that they know to be untrue. Christopher Hitchens issued a
warning about this more than twenty years ago when he said, "There's a
police-state coming, get used to it. And it will all be done in the name
of niceness". Well, it's arrived.
We
currently live in what I would argue is the best civilization ever
created in any place or at any time in human history. It isn't perfect,
but it is amazing when you consider our humble beginnings and if you
compare us to the rest of the planet. If our great civilization were to
be compromised past a certain point, there is a strong likelihood that
it would never recover. No one knows for sure if the society that we
find ourselves in is even our natural state - it might be an anomaly. If
it is, we had better be extremely careful with it. I would say, based
on a quick look around the world, that our society
is an
anomaly. The massive amounts of luck combined with the bits of design
that got us to this point should not be taken for granted; indeed, this
would be a fatal mistake that could devastate our society and leave it
severely degraded for future generations. While the current state of our
society provides most of us with much freedom and also an excellent
quality of life, the future could easily provide only poverty and
violence. Be very wary of a desire for too much change.
And now on to my argument:
I
have studied Justin Trudeau very carefully for quite some time now and I
have not noticed anything that would justify the fawning adulation that
is heaped on him by the media. In fact, when I study him, the word that
immediately comes to mind is
twit. I don't say this lightly or
just to be insulting - it is exactly how I feel. Now, to be fair, I
also agree with much of the constant criticism that we all hear about
Donald Trump. Now that I've gotten this very minor name calling out of
the way, I will move on to the important distinctions between the two
men.
There
are two things about Donald Trump that remind me of George W. Bush. The
first of those things is a willingness to acknowledge his country of
birth as a great civilization. The second is a natural extension of the
first: the need to protect that civilization. And while I have always
found both of them painful to listen to, I respect them both for their
willingness to engage difficult topics and also to start a fight if
necessary. It's as if both of them are blessed with a deeply ingrained
and innate sense that their civilization is worth defending. Trump
doesn't seem to have the ability or the desire to articulate his
position in satisfying terms; however, maybe that quality doesn't need
to be articulated, as it's something we can actually see. I think that
this allows me to say that the very least you could say about Trump,
however you feel about him, is that he is not going to let anything
happen to his country without a fight - and that's important. Actually,
it is
the fundamental quality that is required for a nation's long-term survival in anything resembling desirable conditions.
While
Trump is a constant bungler, egomaniac, hot-head, and possibly a
corrupt individual, he does not engage in the vile and always eventually
deadly game called identity-politics. This is a big deal and it's
likely the biggest contributing factor in Trump's victory. So, while
Trump has many faults, his basic instinct to protect the US and maintain
its status as a great civilization, while avoiding identity-politics
all together, is worthy of some respect. He also came right out and said
that he "doesn't do political-correctness" - again, worthy of respect.
Justin
Trudeau, on the other hand, does not seem to have anything innate about
him that is worthy of respect. He has made some very troubling
statements that make this very obvious. He has expressed a desire to see
Canada as "the first post-national state" and said that "there is no
core identity or mainstream in Canada". These are alarming statements,
and yet, they have gone largely unnoticed. The reason for this is that
the media have given him a free pass in the same way that the mainstream
media in the US gave Bill Clinton a free pass after he had executed a
mentally ill black man
whose IQ was so low that he asked to save his dessert until after his
execution. Like Trudeau, Clinton was the charming new Liberal and the
narrative had to be maintained at any cost. This is exactly the same
type of sickly behaviour that we are currently witnessing by the
main-stream media towards Justin Trudeau.
Not
one mainstream media outlet stopped to ask by what right Trudeau could
decide that Canada had no core identity, and why he thought that he was
entitled to allow its carefully constructed and unique society to be
hollowed out and left to rot by his own personal agenda. He claims to
have undertaken this project on behalf of Canadians. The CBC - the
country's excessively large public broadcaster and recipient of
Trudeau's promise to increase funding if elected
- did not invite any serious opposing viewpoints to counter his
alarming statements. Every time Trump tweets or makes any kind of
statement on any topic, no matter how benign, the media goes into high
gear to discredit and mock it. And whenever Trudeau goes for a jog or
changes his socks, the entire news industry starts giggling, blushing,
and fawning on him in the most disgusting way. Why the glaring
contradiction? The media used to complain that Stephen Harper's
Conservatives were secretive and overly controlling with information.
Trudeau's government has turned out to be even more secretive, and as a
result, information is more difficult to acquire through the Freedom of
Information program. Still, the media seem interested only in telling us
about his latest photo-bomb incident or his latest socks, while
displaying a pseudo-journalistic style that can only be described as
ditzy.
To
aid in Trudeau's dangerous, nihilistic, and suicidal desire to
transform our country into a borderless, ghettoized, and completely
unrecognizable country, he prefers to use easily spreadable and empty
platitudes and avoids serious and rational discussion. For example, he
frequently recycles the phrase "diversity is our strength". The glaring
stupidity of the statement is quite enough to deal with. The fact that
news outlets parrot the idiotic phrase on his behalf actually makes it
dangerous. Instead of thinking, a large portion of our society now just
repeats the idiotic slogan. I am not sure if Trudeau actually believes
the statement, or if he believes that a large enough portion of
Canadians are so stupid that the phrase will simply serve its purpose
for now.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines diversity as:
1. being diverse; variety. 2. a different kind; a variety. Diverse is defined as: unlike in nature or qualities; varied.
Now, what kind of idiot do you have to be to be the Prime Minister, and
a former teacher, and to publically state that diversity equals
strength? If you had a group made up of, say, a fentanyl dealer, a
rapist, a pilot, and a circus clown, you would have a pretty diverse
group. Under Trudeau's formula, this should be a pretty strong,
harmonious, and desirable group. The harebrained nature of his assertion
would be comical if it had not so consistently been pumped into our
culture by Trudeau and his volunteer army of compliant halfwits and a
corrupt media. Diversity is only one thing: diversity.
If
you want to talk about things that are strengths in a civilization like
ours, you might start with things like decency, the rule of law, strong
institutions, a reliable and fair legal system, a transparent
government, a comprehensive and far-sighted immigration policy etc...
But no, for Trudeau it's diversity all the way. He is so doggedly
determined to peddle his trademark foolishness that he even had the
nerve to use the phrase "diversity is our strength" in an official
statement after the most recent Islamic terrorist attack in Edmonton.
You might think that after such an event he might replace his too often
recycled, discredited, and worn out old phrase for something coherent
and courageous. If you did think that, you'd be mistaken. In fact,
Trudeau's Liberal Party machine is now selling
sweatshirts online with the even more idiotic phrase "
Diversity over Division". So, further down the rabbit hole we go.
Justin
Trudeau's desire to re-engineer our society to his personal liking has
taken an even more sinister turn in recent months. His government has
forced through two nightmarish Orwellian policies, despite the fact that
some very rational, brilliant, and accomplished academics protested
strongly with very coherent and sound arguments. I say Orwellian because
both policies force citizens to lie to themselves and to lie to others
in order to remain in compliance. Bill C16 forces people to deny basic
biological science, and M-103 has the Government possibly condemning
criticism of the Islamization of Canada, FGM, or child marriage. With
Bill C16,
you could actually end up in prison for refusing to publically state what you know to be a lie.
Because the language in both policies is incoherent and because precise
definitions of the terms involved have not been provided, you will
never have the ability to know if you are running afoul of the policies.
This has a very strong similarity to the way people who lived under
Stalin reported feeling about how the NKVD operated.
I
watched the Senate hearings for Bill C16 and thought that they were a
great disappointment. I, like many other Canadians, had always
considered the Senate to be our country's "chamber of sober second
thought". I can tell you that on the side of the government, there was
very little that was sober about the hearings and there wasn't much
thought happening. It was very quickly apparent that Bill C16 was going
to go through no matter what. I watched Liberal Senator, Serge Joyal
behave in a way that made me wonder if he was a serious alcoholic. He
started off with a rant about genocide - as if transgendered people in
Canada would be suddenly wiped out in a fit of genocide if the Liberal
bill didn't pass. The guy singlehandedly degraded my confidence in our
Senate. Please remember that this Senator gets a pretty fat paycheque
and a pretty fat pension, while the rest of us are expected to perform
our jobs in a logical way and to also bring value to the economy while
we work. It was a disgrace. There was also the absurdity of Ratna
Omidvar, another Senator. She attempted a very squalid maneuver via
carelessly presenting some misleading and dishonest information and then
suggesting that she couldn't elaborate because the committee wouldn't
allow her time to finish. The chairman did allow her to finish - nice
try Ms. Omidvar - and predictably, she embarrassingly tapered off into
nothing. It was cringe-making. I urge all Canadians to watch
these two
videos
of the hearings and make up their own minds. It's important, and
everyone should see exactly what is happening under the Trudeau
Liberals.
Bill C16 is completely unnecessary. In fact, many
transgendered people spoke out against the Bill.
It is very clear that it actually has nothing to do with transgendered
people. The Bill is simply another tool to reinforce
political-correctness for sinister motives and for future sinister
plans. Transgendered people just happen to be pawns in the case of this
Bill.
After
the Bill C16 disaster I was simply too tired out to watch the hearings
for M-103. And I knew, from what I had witnessed with Bill C16, that
M-103 was going to pass no matter what evidence was presented. M-103 is
also completely unnecessary.
The Liberal who brought it forward, Iqra khalid, has connections with people who are openly very hostile towards Israel.
I find it quite troubling that the Liberals are allowing our political
processes to be used as a tool to help fuel religious disputes
originating in the Middle East. Why would Trudeau allow this to go on?
Well, one answer is that it helps with the furthering of his
indoctrination of the Canadian population into his political-correctness
cult. Why else would the Government of Canada feel the need to pass a
Parliamentary Motion to specifically condemn criticism of one religion? I
remember the great lawyer, Edward Greenspan, saying that Canada needed
fewer laws, and not more. Canada is possibly the most open and tolerant
society on earth. It is more than a little insulting that the Liberals
think that Canadians behave so badly that the government needs to put
laws and policies in place in order to police all of our language and
thoughts. Or do they think that? I think that they probably do not, and
that they are pre-emptively laying the groundwork to radically alter the
makeup of our society and to use political-correctness to stifle
opposition to the plan.
Trudeau's
government has managed to pass off their sinister schemes as benign
humanitarian necessities. The dishonesty of the tactic should tell us
all we need to know about him. There is nothing benign or necessary
about his policies and his intentions are not good. The Liberal Party
has put in place
a group of advisors who have stated that Canada should triple its population by the year 2100.
Where will these people come from? After Trudeau gets his desired
policies in place, no one will be able to criticize his actions for fear
of acting contrary to M-103 or going against a mob-enforced
political-correctness. If the Trudeau government decided to allow
unlimited immigration from a country whose population overwhelmingly
believes that death by stoning is an appropriate punishment for crimes
like adultery or blasphemy, and whose economy consists mainly of piracy,
murder, and rape, no one would be able to criticize the plan for fear
of being called a racist, bigot, Islamophobe, homophobe, transphobe, and
general hater of all good and noble things. They are good and virtuous
you are bad and evil for asking questions. This sounds slightly funny -
but it is what's happening. If you follow politics closely, and are not
in an echo-chamber, then you already know this.
We
need only look to Europe to see the end results of the type of policies
that Trudeau is hoping to smuggle into our society under the banner of
diversity and inclusion. In Sweden, Britain, Germany, France, and
Belgium, the results are plain to see. It is a fact that some people
with some beliefs do not assimilate at all into our society. They don't
want to and it is foolish and patronizing to expect them to. There are
endless examples to demonstrate that this is the case, and they are very
easy to find.
The Rotherham child sex scandal is
a perfect example of where political-correctness and identity-politics
will take a society. This unbelievable and nightmarish saga took place
in Britain, lasted for about twenty years, and has not been sufficiently
covered by the media. I follow current events a lot and was completely
unaware of it and learned of it only very recently while listening to an
episode of
The Rubin Report.
What happened was that a group of Pakistani/British Muslims decided
that they should spend their time raping and torturing British girls
between the ages of eleven and sixteen. There were at least 1400 victims
and the activities included rape, torture, murder, sexual trafficking,
extortion, beatings, gang rapes, and an attack on a young girl with a
hammer after she told one of the men she was pregnant, and many other
things that are too disgusting to repeat and are now on the public
record. There were also other offenders who undertook similar activities
with young boys; one had at least 80 victims.
This
story is disgusting enough on its own. The tragedy deepens severely
when you find out that police and other officials had known about the
goings on for about a decade before anyone began to do anything at all.
They had even received information revealing the names of some of the
perpetrators. The reason for the country's inaction is truly sickening
and depressing: no one did anything about it for fear of
offending the Muslim community and possibly stirring up accusations of
racism.
Just let that sink in for a few minutes. You might wish to think that
this story was cooked up by some Alt-Right Nazi propaganda machine but
you would be wrong. It did happen and it is all now public information;
although, no one likes to talk about it. The wives of some of the
perpetrators didn't mind talking about it and publically stated that the
children who had been raped and tortured deserved it because "they were
immodest before Allah".
How
was this attitude allowed to work its way into such an established and
civilized society? Do you think that maybe a couple of decades of
pumping identity-politics and political-correctness into the culture
might have something to do with it? A leaked document between the police
and social service agencies contained the following statement: "There
are sensitivities of ethnicity with potential to endanger the harmony
of community relationships. Great care will be taken in drafting ...this
report to ensure that its findings embrace Rotherham's qualities of
diversity. It is imperative that suggestions of a wider cultural
phenomenon are avoided." A Yorkshire lawyer, named Adel Weir, was
investigating ways to reduce prostitution amongst young girls. After
reporting to an official that young girls were being targeted by Asian
men, she had the following experience: "She said you must never
refer to that again. You must never refer to Asian men. And her other
response was to book me on a two-day ethnicity and diversity course to
raise my awareness of ethnic issues..." Theresa May blamed the
"dereliction of duty" on "institutionalized political-correctness". MP
Denis MacShane blamed a culture of "not wanting to rock the
multicultural boat". Once officials had no choice but to rock the
multicultural boat, or risk having it rocked for them, they didn't even
have the honesty or courage to name the real cause. All they could
manage to do was state publically that the men were "Asian". This caused
immediate alarm - and rightfully so - in the local Sikh and Hindu
communities, and representatives demanded that the truth be told and
that the perpetrators be described as Pakistani Muslims, because that's
what they were. Imagine being so vile and so doltish that you would
allow more than a thousand girls to be tortured and raped so as not to
offend anyone or appear racist, and then you make an extremely racist
blanket statement by implicating a whole group of people who had nothing
to do with it. How stupid would a society be to have to set up that
trap for themselves? None of it would have happened if the poison of
political-correctness had not been passed off as a virtue. A real and
age-old virtue is honesty. Had that real virtue been followed, the
Rotherham scandal wouldn't have happened.
We
could go on to talk about the Sidney rape gangs, the Swedish rape
gangs, the endless swimming-pool assaults on young girls in Germany, or
incidences of gangs of Muslim men storming into nude swims in Europe and
threatening and spitting on people for being "indecent" and being
"sluts", but I think that any reader should get the point by now and
anyone can easily find way too many stories to read or keep track of
with a quick Google search. I think that I should relate one more story,
and this one has to do with animals.
A Danish animal protection worker reported that,
in Muslim Ghettos, her organization has seen cats being used as
footballs; kittens walking around with their intestines hanging out
after their stomachs were cut open; and other horrific treatment of
animals by migrants. When an animal cruelty prevention volunteer drove
to the area to recue an injured cat, her van was swarmed and she was
assaulted and had to flee without the cat. The organization says they no
longer send anyone into the area for safety reasons. Again, Mr.
Trudeau, I don't agree that "diversity equals strength".
What
kind of society offers up its children as a sacrifice to sadists,
rapists, and murderers in order to appease the diversity and
political-correctness gods? What kind of twisted death-cults are
identity-politics and political-correctness? How weak, pathetic, and
emasculated does a country have to be to allow this to go on? And how
far does the rot have to creep in before citizens wake up? For some
European countries it's too late. It's gone too far and much violence
and suffering is now likely to follow, along with a severe degradation
of their societies.
For
Trudeau, this appears to be only a game. He knows that
political-correctness and identity-politics are currently very trendy
and that he can get away with a fair bit of it. He tweets all
identity-politics all the time and his whole cabinet does the same. He
seems to have an entire army of empty-headed diversity peddlers at his
disposal and they all seem completely unimpeded by any sort of
conscience or far-sightedness. What price will the politicians who
peddled this deadly poison have to pay?
Likely, they will pay nothing.
They will finish their terms and then retire into very upscale areas
where they won't have to be subjected to the damage and chaos that they
have left behind. It is depressing watching all of this unfold and it is
depressing to know that a sufficient percentage of the population is
gullible enough to go along with it. It is also frustrating when you
contemplate the fact the racism accusations that are levelled at anyone
who dares question our immigration policies are actually tools used to
avoid suspicion of
actual racism. I will explain.
It
is not those on the Right who are the racists; although, some of them
are. The real racism comes from the Left, with all of its diversity
talk, political-correctness, and endless virtue-signalling. The
politically-correct types and the diversity-is-our-strength types and
their ilk, are actually engaging in what Michael Gerson called "
the soft bigotry of low expectations".
They also engage in flat-out racism when they praise an elected person
who is, say, South Asian and wears a turban, for the sole reason that
the person is not a white male. It's done in the same tones and with the
same sickening and patronizing attitude that a mother displays while
praising her toddler for using the toilet for the first time. It's
blatantly racist and anyone who does it should be ashamed of themselves.
We are currently experiencing this with Jagmeet Singh, who just won the
leadership of the Federal NDP. Those on the Right only want to know
about two things: his character and his policy proposals. The Left only
wants to talk about his race. They won't shut up about it, even for a
second. And of course, from Justin Trudeau's CBC, we get: "Jagmeet
Singh, the first turban-wearing Sikh to sit..." This is actual racism
and the Left owns it.
Let's
talk about racism a little bit more. The Left has been using the
accusation to create a climate of fear and to stop people from asking
questions. I am going now to throw their accusations back at them and
more people should start doing the same. I am not a racist and I don't
like racists. I believe that people are individuals and should be
treated as such. I think that a majority of the Right currently thinks
this way. It is the Left that wants only to categorize people into
identifiable groups and then to rate each group on things like
victim-status or on their level of perceived oppression. The result of
this is that there are individuals within marginalized groups who are
facing actual oppression from both sides. They have to face the fascist
elements within their own communities and they also have to face the
racist left-leaning groups who insist that they are only a member of an
identifiable victim group. To demonstrate this point, I will give a
short version of
Ayaan Hirsi Ali's story. I encourage people to do further reading about and from her.
Ayaan
Hirsi Ali is a Somali-born activist. She became a Dutch politician and
eventually ended up in the United Sates. She was subjected to FGM but
did manage to escape an arranged marriage to a distant relative and
ended up in Holland. She tried to warn Dutch politicians that there were
dangerous Islamic radicals in the country and that they meant business
and that they were something to watch out for. The Dutch politicians
wouldn't hear it because they were obsessed with multiculturalism and
political-correctness. She then tried to make a movie about the
difficulties that women in Muslim societies face and paired up with a
filmmaker named Theo van Gogh.
Van Gogh was then brutally murdered in middle of the street by a Muslim fascist
and Ayaan had to go into hiding. So here we have it again. Who are the
real racists and sexists? An intelligent and articulate woman comes
forward and gives a dire warning about brutality and vicious misogyny,
and warns that there's lots more coming, and the Left says:
Don't be silly dear girl; you're just part of this oppressed group. Run along now. It's appalling that anyone on the Left is even allowed to use the word
racism. It's very clear that they don't have the foggiest idea what the word even means.
Then
we have the racism that results from using cheap virtue-signaling for
personal political gain. Justin Trudeau and the Liberal's
virtue-signalling contain two vile elements. One is the obvious feeling
of superiority that would be required in order to make someone feel as
though an entire group of people is somehow inferior, and that they are
lying helpless and waiting for the approval and assistance of the
superior and highly moral virtue-signaller. The second element is the
obviously deceptive and demagogic practice of pandering to various
groups of people as if all of the members of each group were exactly the
same - this is the very definition of racism. Trudeau and his Party do
this, while constantly reminding Canadians not to be racist.
The
thing to remember about virtue-signallers is that they are either
attempting to con you, or they have a psychological mechanism that,
unknown to them, is working against them in order to reveal a thought
that wants to force its way out into the world. I think that with Justin
Trudeau, it is likely part of a simple con-job. If I am wrong and it is
of the second type (psychological mechanism), then it has been
beautifully put by Christopher Hitchens, in
Hitch 22: "
Whenever
I hear some bigmouth in Washington or the Christian heartland banging
on about the evils of sodomy or whatever, I mentally enter his name in
my notebook and contentedly set my watch. Sooner rather than later, he
will be discovered down on his weary and well-worn knees in some dreary
motel or latrine, with an expired Visa card, having tried to pay well
over the odds to be peed upon by some Apache transvestite." I have been around for a while and know that this psychological phenomenon exists, and that it is highly reliable.
Ted Haggard,
a powerful mega-pastor, was an extremely vocal opponent of
homosexuality, until he was caught in a hotel doing crystal-meth with a
male prostitute - not that there's anything wrong with that. It is the
hypocrisy that is the real problem. There are many more cases like that
and I hope that someone with some formal psychology training might write
me and tell me if there is a technical name for this extremely reliable
and endlessly repeating sequence of events. We have the
virtue-signalling and then the very predictable behaviour that directly
contradicts that virtue-signalling.
Justin
Trudeau is a master virtue-signaller. He also makes much use of the
identity-politics game while constantly enforcing the
political-correctness cult. Even when there is an Islamic terrorist
attack in our country, he refuses to name the root cause. We then have
to be shown a parade of "experts", who dishonestly tell us that the
attacks have nothing to do with Islam. We know this is wrong because the
people who commit acts of terrorism actually tell us that they are
doing it under the direction of their religion. And if you
read the texts,
you will discover that those who commit terrorist attacks are following
their religion correctly. This fact is too much to take for some people
and so they convince themselves that the attackers are somehow
misrepresenting Islam. Justin Trudeau is all too eager to help spread
this delusion, as long as it helps him further his political-correctness
and identity-politics cult. He is either too stupid or too naïve to see
the danger that this creates, or he can see it but is so corrupt and
immoral that he plows forward anyway.
I
cannot accept the idea that the population of Canada is so weak and so
vapid that it will sit by and only parrot idiotic slogans while the core
structure of its civilization is hollowed out by a spoiled twit who
would still be a ski-instructor or a teacher if he had not had an
extremely wealthy and well connected marketing machine behind him. I do
not trust him to protect our country and I am highly suspicious of his
true motives. I know that he is fond of making flattering and
inappropriate statements about murderous dictators and I know that he
refuses to comment honestly on
FGM,
child marriage, or Islamic terrorism. I know that he has called himself
a "feminist", but seems to have no interest in even attempting to
protect real victims who are female. He frequently bangs on about
gender-politics but shows no signs of attempting to slow down FGM in
Canada. But then, I guess you'd have to be willing to name the thing
before you could begin to fix it. In my opinion, Justin Trudeau is not
for the middle-class, as he claims. I think he will destroy the
middle-class and leave it wrecked and ruined and full of
racial tension and violence. This will all happen while ditzy news anchors are giggling about his selection of socks.
I
will no doubt be accused, by those who can't think or read, of being a
racist for writing this piece. To those people I will only say that I am
not a racist, nor am I anti-immigration, and that much of my
inspiration for this piece comes from people with Muslim backgrounds,
African American thinkers, Russian and Polish writers, Jewish writers,
as well as a long list of British writers. Our civilization is far too
precious to sit by and say or do nothing while we witness its demise. If
you are, like me, a person with a natural instinct to the Left, but
find that the Left is going insane, then please join others in speaking
up. There are many more of us than people realize; and the more of us
that speak up, the better our chances of surviving this fight. I have
included a list below, of very serious and intelligent people who have
helped me to reshape my political views in the last few years. They are
the real fighters for true liberalism and for our civilization. If you
are wishing to expand your views and open up your mind, then you might
spend some time watching or reading these people. Studying them will
make you a better thinker, and much less likely to be duped by
con-artists.
I
will close by saying that I hate Donald Trump, and that I am sickened
by the thought that Justin Trudeau is a worse choice. However, it is the
case that if I was forced to pick between the two leaders I would have
to pick Trump - a depressing thought - and then say to Justin Trudeau:
take your identity-politics, your political-correctness, and your sleazy
virtue-signalling, and go fuck yourself.
As with anything that I write, I am open to corrections and also open to posting opposing viewpoints on my site.
