Now, I stand vindicated, and I can no longer be dismissed as a bigoted conspiracy theorist. Because Islamoleftism has ARRIVED. Islamoleftism is loud, and proud, and global.

In 2021, I was fired from teaching for FaceBook political content. The copious evidence against me is a mix of earnest warnings and satirical mockery that I posted, all related to three dangerous ideologies. Each of these three ideologies emerged with vigor in the 2010s and took over Western institutions via DEI, ESG and other similar policy directives. The three ideologies I was punished for rejecting and mocking are:

BLM/CRT

2SLGBTQIA+

ISLAMISM

It is now 2026, exactly five years since I was ejected from teaching, and look what has evolved since the Oct 7, 2023 Islamist massacre of Israelis: those three movements have now fully fused together to form the world’s first truly INTERSECTIONAL REVOLUTION!

Islamoleftism is obviously unhinged and violent. QUEERS FOR PALESTINE inspires endless head-scratching, and memes along the lines of CHICKENS FOR KFC. This is obviously a doomed and chaotic revolutionary alliance. An unholy marriage of convenience. But it is so strong and emboldened at this juncture that Islamoleftists are making moves to take over one of America’s two main political parties. Islamoleftist mayors run NYC and London. Islamoleftists are making Western nations unliveable for Jews. Islamoleftists are either looking away or cheering as Christians are murdered, and churches are burned.

Islamoleftism is definitely not to be waved away as an absurdity, even though it IS quite absurd.

Islamoleftism is legitimately dangerous and destructive. It does not contribute anything to improve the health, happiness, liberty, prosperity, peace, and stability of humans and society. And yet, our elite have decided that MILLIONS of Western youth should be consumed by it. Their beliefs are being formed by left wing school systems, left wing political parties, left wing NGOs, and left wing media. Western youth are heavily indoctrinated to become anti-western, anti-capitalist, pro-Islamist revolutionaries.

This is Marxist praxis.

The “long march through the institutions” has been a wildly successful Fabian strategy that is now producing a bounty of poisonous fruit. Layering critical race theory and decolonization theory talking points on top of Islamist holy war talking points proved to be a stroke of genius. Islamoleftism went viral. The intifada became a global sensation, even among the secular.

Islamoleftism is now a massive, soul-crushing psy ops that has taken over millions of vulnerable western minds and hearts.

The kids are definitely NOT all right. Some are becoming downright deranged and murderous.

But normies still talk about 2SLGBTQIA+ as if it is just a simple human rights movement. They seem to believe its sole purpose is to make gay and non-conforming people feel socially accepted. They seem to have no idea that legions of LGB people disavow the movement, and that several highly effective new LGB orgs have emerged to oppose the Rainbow Revolution.

And normies still talk about BLM as simply a movement against racism, even as this “antiracism” movement calls for riots and elevates to martyr status yet another violent criminal — this week’s BLM martyr had at least 22 prior convictions, including several for violent crime, before he died by police.

Islamoleftists don’t care if you are a criminal, as long as you support a radical political agenda to defund and delegitimize current Western systems, especially systems of policing and law. Normies still speak as if BLM is just for reducing racial discrimination, even as the destruction, overt racism, and unpopularity of their anti-white, anti-Jewish, anti-Christian revolutionary agenda is quantified and documented by research, and corporations quietly defund their DEI departments as a result.

And anti-Islamophobia proponents keep pushing their insane censorship and immigration agendas, even as Islamic extremist violence continues unabated across the world, and Islamic pundits spew genocidal, supremacist bile inspired by mainstream Islamic religious doctrine. This past week alone, at least three murderous Islamic extremist attacks took place in Western contexts.

Islamoleftism is causing terrible conflict, misery, and violence in Western nations. The evidence is overwhelming. Yet our Western establishment chattering class (Trump administration excepted: I was pleased to hear Rubio’s excellent recent speech on left wing extremism) still pretends right wing extremism is the only real threat to peace.

I am not sure how they so easily ignore that the “far right” consists mostly of reactionary movements against this Islamoleftist takeover, but they do.

I am still mired in disciplinary processes and legal arbitrations related to my ejection from the teaching profession for political writings and memes — published under a pseudonym as part of my private life — that identify very real threats and problems.

Canadian regulatory bodies across the nation are still silencing and persecuting conservative, libertarian, classically liberal, and/or Christian professionals who speak out to expose and condemn the Islamoleftist takeover.

As Islamoleftists continue to produce violence and unhinged, inciteful rhetoric, watch Western establishments selectively weaponize “anti-hate laws” like Canada’s new Bill C-9 to further silence the noticers who dare to express concern and opposition.

The Combatting Hate Act went into force on July 18, and you can be quite certain it will predominantly be used against anti-woke dissidents. Other people like me.

I am a 57-year-old married mother of three healthy, well-adjusted kids. I worked successfully as a teacher for almost two decades. I specialized in working with struggling teens in inner city alternative school environments. I took leadership positions. I often went above and beyond to help my students. But according to TCDSB and OCT management, I secretly hated most of my students, and I am too dangerous to be permitted to work in a school community.

In fact, the record already shows that the lawyer assigned to my case by the Ontario College of Teachers used C-9 prematurely in an attempt to strengthen her argument that the the harshest available penalty should apply in my case. She made that argument two full years before C-9 was enacted into law. In addition to their propensity for supporting (or at minimum ignoring) the violent disorder caused by their pet ideologies, Islamoleftists everywhere agitate and salivate for more levers to pull, and harsher penalties to apply, to silence the speech of their opponents.

Despite the rise of this nefarious movement and my own legal mire, however, I am actually very happy that Islamoleftism has emerged as a big player in geopolitics. At least it is no longer in any way obscured.

And as a result, a beautiful schism is opening in the Democratic Party.

In Europe, we see the rise of the AfD party in Germany, the Reform and Restore parties in the UK, and Marine LePen’s RN party in France.

We see common sense Western conservative leaders winning elections in Latin America.

I’m not hopeless. I have faith, and I don’t give in to doom and gloom. We have a counter-revolution to win.

Islamoleftism is now overplaying a weak hand. This is not a movement that can endure in its present form. It needs cancel culture mechanisms, because its ideologies do not stand up to scrutiny. And as Rubio emphasized, left wing extremists are people who do not, can not build — they are bitter, they are history’s losers, and they only destroy.

Islamoleftism is also propped up financially by some of the worst actors on the global stage, and the American administration, along with brave indie journalists like Nick Shirley and James O’Keefe, are working hard to expose their funding and influence mechanisms, and cut off the money supply.

Let’s hope they can drag and shame the Canadian government into moving against those actors operating within our borders, too. Our “nice” and “peaceful” country is currently a haven for Islamoleftist activity.

I come from, and will always stand with, Western builders. We are on the right side of history — the side that strives for maximum liberty, that values reason, and that creates stability, prosperity, and peace.

LONG LIVE THE COUNTER-REVOLUTION!

A program at Harvard Medical School—the Program in Global Surgery and Social Change (PGSSC)— has an official “Anti-Racism Statement” that goes FAR beyond opposing discrimination. It declares that the system in which the program operates is fundamentally illegitimate, that its core essence is White European “dehumanization” of other races. It is a patently revolutionary manifesto.

Here is the link to the full text: Our Anti - Racism Statement | pgssc

The statement opens with sweeping claims such as the following:

Racism is inherent to every aspect of our lives.
We absolutely, unapologetically denounce our wretched racist system and its proponents without exception.

The document goes on to define what this “wretched racist system” is:

• Global health is described as “rooted in colonialism”

• Colonialism is attributed to “white Europeans” who gained power through “subjugation and exploitation”

• Academic institutions in “high income countries” are said to over-represent “white voices” which automatically makes them systemically racist

• Global health is built on a foundation that, at its core, is antithetical to the principle of shared human dignity and respect

• Economic systems shaped by this history are targeted for efforts to “dismantle and replace”

This is a comprehensive indictment of Western historical development, modern medical and global health systems, academic institutions, and economic structures. You know, those concepts and systems that support and define modern civilization.

The statement then moves further—into the foundations of medical knowledge itself.

It describes as “racist” the belief that modern medical knowledge derived from Western science traditions is “superior” to that of other cultures, and concludes that global health is therefore built on a foundation “antithetical to… human dignity.” In doing so, it does not simply critique historical abuses—it calls into question whether medical knowledge can be ranked by effectiveness at all when associated with Western traditions.

In practice, this places empirical claims of superiority on morally suspect ground, even when those claims are based on evidence, outcomes, and scientific validation.

The statement also commits the program to an “unyielding stance” on these issues and calls for systemic change, including efforts to “dismantle and replace” existing structures in areas such as economics and academia.

This is not an outdated or withdrawn statement. It remains publicly posted and active within the program’s materials today, with no meaningful revision since at least 2021.

This raises serious questions about the role of ideology and Marxist ideological capture in academic medicine.

A medical program is expected to train clinicians and researchers using evidence-based frameworks. Yet this statement indoctrinates participants into a totalizing belief framework that defines all western systems as inherently racist and commits the institution and program participants to a specific, narrow lens of interpretion as a foundation for thought, action, policy.

It is a statement that utterly quashes intellectual diversity. An “unyielding stance” on contested ideas leaves little room for disagreement, debate, or open inquiry—principles that used to be considered foundational to academic life.

We need far greater scrutiny of institutional frameworks that define social systems primarily through power and identity, particularly where such frameworks risk essentializing groups or narrowing the space for dissent.

NeoMarxist identitarian language and policy are adversely affecting many different communities. We are in a time of rising, broad institutional and social hostility toward identity groups such as Jews, Whites, and Asians. We need to ensure that efforts to address past injustice do not themselves introduce new forms of exclusion, bias, and tribalistic persecution.

Within that broader context, the PGSSC statement is a stark reminder of just how serious many Western leftists are about destroying the very foundations of the systems they inhabit. And it also serves to expose just how ubiquitous radical activists are in education, and how they actively employ mundane levers of bureacracy to purposely exclude and silence everyone else.

At its core, medicine depends on the ability to evaluate knowledge based on evidence, outcomes, and reproducibility. Treatments are judged by whether they work—whether they reduce suffering, extend life, and improve health. Social history and power dynamics are relevant context, but they cannot replace empirical validation as the standard for medical truth.

When a medical program calls into question the legitimacy of ranking knowledge by effectiveness, it erases the line between scientific evaluation and ideological interpretation—raising fundamental concerns about how future clinicians and researchers are being trained to make decisions that directly affect patient care.

Racism exists and should be countered, and institutions should support frameworks that treat people as individuals. This declaration does not achieve that goal, it rather advocates destroying the very civilization that has been the most individualistic and egalitarian in human history.

Can an American university program LEGALLY require staff and student allegiance to such a radically anti-White, neoMarxist ideological framework?

How can it be that this radical revolutionary positioning is a condition of participation in academic and professional life within a Harvard program?

The statement commands “continued vigilance and sacrifice . . . to eradicate this brutal and evil institutional inequity”. This surgical health care program’s statement of values reads like a revolutionary army’s code of conduct!

Radical anti-Western, anti-White ideological capture of western institutions is very far advanced, despite the efforts of the Trump administration to end DEI programs. PGSSC is not just some fringe student group. It is embedded in Harvard Medical School, involved in training future doctors and researchers, and connected to real-world health policy and systems.

Treacherous, anti-Western revolutionary activism is still business as usual at Harvard, despite operating in a nation where the current administration is actively pushing back against policy that advances neoMarxist identitarianism. So I shudder to imagine how widespread and unchallenged such treacherous rhetoric and policy must be in the academic institutions of Canada, UK, and Australia, where governments have shown no appetite for fighting left wing ideological capture — no matter how radical, destabilizing, and destructive — lest they be accused of racism and White supremacy.

The long march through the institutions continues apace, making us all the poorer, all the more divided, all the more prone to political violence.

Civilizations reveal their deepest convictions in how they protect (or fail to protect) children — and in how they guide the young from childhood into adulthood. In recent western history, this passage was understood as fragile. Adolescence was treated as a developmental crossing requiring patience, structure, and care: a long and often winding road toward the destination of greater self-realization in adulthood.

Today, increasingly, the young are told that their authentic self is theirs to declare and claim, at any age. The messaging now is that one’s self-selected identity is supremely important, but one’s physical self is plastic, customizable, a vehicle for self-presentation. Embodiment is negotiable. The natal body can be rejected. Adapted. The primary purpose of the body is external — to project identity.

Confusingly, kids are taught that their true identity is their heart’s desire, and also a social construct that can be manipulated, and changed at will.

Proponents of this concept sell it as a form of liberation. But for many kids, self-authoring guided by desire is proving a heavy burden, and deeply destabilizing. Add to this the constant messaging our kids now receive about a global warming apocalypse and the oppressive, malevolent nature of the societies they inhabit, and it is easy to understand why so many kids are exhibiting hopelessness, resentment, alienation, and destructive desires.

The work of René Girard, the twentieth-century philosopher who explored mimetic desire, is extremely useful to help us navigate this cultural moment. Girard argued that human beings do not generate desires independently. We learn what to want by observing others. This imitated desire helps many people navigate toward belonging, achievement, stability. But when the desired self feels unattainable — when the distance between the actual and the imagined self becomes too wide — imitation can collapse into rivalry, and then humiliation, and then rage. Girard warned of a modern blindness to this process and its mechanics:

We are more and more governed by models of desire, yet we refuse to recognize it.

Desire in times past was often cast as suspect, sometimes sinful, frequently fraught and dangerous. But now, desire is positioned as aspirational, and also an indicator of one’s true heart, one’s true identity. The young now grow up surrounded not merely by peers and family, but by an endless gallery of curated identities — digital bodies, aesthetic fantasies of self, lives edited for maximum desirability. Cyberworld is a bedlam of mimetic desire. Unsurprisingly, the aspirations and self-conceptions that youth are forging in this environment are frequently leading to disappointment, misery, self-hatred, and identity fracture.

Increasingly, troubled youth are expressing metaphysical verdicts along these lines: I was born wrong. I was born in the wrong body. My brain doesn’t work. I am doomed. The world is dark and evil, and so am I.

This is not merely an indication that they are experiencing dissatisfaction with their appearance or situation, or normal youthful insecurity about their worth. This language suggests they believe that their original selves either should never have existed, or came into the world so irredeemably flawed that they were fated for nothing but pain and ruin. What follows this conclusion is often psychologically and physically catastrophic.

This modern cultural malaise was a factor in Jesse Van Rootselaar’s descent, and contributed to at least two other recent mass murder events by transgender individuals, as I explain below.

These cases are not presented to indict the entire transgender-identified population. Most individuals who experience gender dysphoria are not violent, and many are thoughtful and humane. But considering these recent extreme cases together reveals devastating patterns that implicate today’s identitarian, transhumanistic culture in ways that we simply must confront to learn how to better minimize suffering and protect life.

Audrey Hale

In March of 2023, twenty-eight year old Audrey Hale entered a private Christian elementary school in Nashville and shot six people to death, three of them children, before being killed by police. She had attended the school as a child.

Hale was a female who identified as male and used the name Aiden with he/him pronouns. Public reporting confirms treatment for mental and emotional difficulties, though it remains unclear how Hale’s gender identity was affirmed with medical treatments.

Her writings are stark. She was full of self-hatred and resentment. She herself appears to have been white, but wrote she wanted a high death count of “little crackers” and identified her desire to kill children “with their white privileges”.

She also revealed in her writing that transgender identification had not brought her any relief from mental suffering:

Why does my brain not work right? Cause I was born wrong! Nothing on Earth can save me.

A terrible feeling to know I am nothing of the gender I was born of. I am the most unhappy boy alive.

The children she targeted represented unfractured selves with potential to become integrated adults: a fate she felt permanently excluded from, despite her young age and her “liberation” into trans identity. She was convinced her origin and path through life was all one giant, painful mistake. Snuffing out children at her former Christian school was payback for her own cruel fate: she believed she could never manifest an integrated identity, so she prevented children from her former community from ever becoming their adult selves. She carried a hurt child inside her adult body, and likely registered those children as rivals.

Hale experienced her own lost innocence as a total failure to manifest her desires, especially related to gender. She felt such devastating shame and rage about her failure that it filled her with a new desire, a malicious desire to destroy others. Her response to the indignity of trying but failing to become a man was to manufacture a remarkable identity for herself as a mass murderer — the most toxic and sensational of paths to “masculine” notoriety.

The attack being at a faith institution also carries symbolic weight. A Christian school speaks of order, meaning, and beneficial creation — ideas that feel intolerable to a person experiencing her own existence as chaotic, meaningless, and misassigned. Hale’s adoption of political rhetoric from critical theory (such as resentment against her victims for their “white privilege”) seems not indicative of deep ideological conviction, but merely a deflective prop conveniently sprinkled atop a large, stinking pile of self-loathing, identity disorder, and personal regret.

Robin Westman

In August 2025, Robin Westman, aged twenty-three, also shot up a Christian school, this one in Minneapolis. He killed two children and injured thirty other people before killing himself. Born Robert Paul Westman, he legally changed his name to Robin at seventeen. As a teen, he was convinced he was a girl, and his mother agreed to sign the name change application. The writings he left behind reveal intense identity distress and self-condemnation mixed with resentment and nihilism.

I wish I never brain-washed myself into being trans. Too late to go back.

I was corrupted by this world and have learned to hate what life is.

Westman’s writings indicate that he yearned to cut his hair short and reclaim his maleness, but he felt unable to “come out” as a detransitioner. He was ashamed to admit he had made a mistake regarding his core identity. He felt trapped, and ruined beyond repair.

This sense of finality, of being doomed, appears to have come not from external stigma but internal sources. This exposes the lie that the institutional embrace of gender ideology represents our collective decision to liberate our youth into identity fluidity, self-authorship, and the unassailable goodness of an authentic selfhood founded on personal desires.

We are often told social stigma is the reason many trans-identified people are desperately unhappy, but this denies the very real internal conflicts and convolutions we are witnessing. Human self-realization clearly does not work like the Progressives wish it did, and claim it does. We must stop building policy using flawed Progessive frameworks as a foundation.

Girard observed that when self-rejection intensifies, the psyche seeks relief through displacement. Violence can be an attempt — however futile — to transfer inner chaos outward. Genderism is clearly causing inner chaos in many individuals, and many are manifesting this Girardian psychic process that leads to embrace of violence. Sometimes the violence remains in the realm of fantasy, but increasingly, as the wider culture pulls back from the misguided institutional embrace of gender ideology, TQ+ activism both promotes and manifests real violence.

Schools and churches represent formation and continuity of tradition, two pain points for any mind that has adopted genderism as an operating system. To a mind organized around the challenges of being non-conforming, and also grappling with personal loss, regret, and irreversible error, such places can serve as flashpoints for the intense pain of unfulfilled and unfulfillable desires. Obsessive focus on such places as loci of failed becoming (failed identity) generates shame, hostility, and rage, which over time can settle into the cold, deadly, nihilism that fuels many mass murderers. These are places that act as unforgiving mirrors to lost souls who are not merely alienated from society, but self-alienated, and alienated from God.

Robert Westman’s choice of target was intentional. Like Hale, he targeted a school that he had attended at one point, and his mother had also worked there. Like Hale, he desired to destroy kids like his former self. They had not yet ruined themselves as he believed he had, and he desired to ruin them. This surely points to a Giradian dynamic of desire collapsing into resentment, rage, scapegoating, and a disordered yearning for human sacrifice.

Jesse Van Rootselaar

The most recent massacre by a transgender youth happened on February 10 of this year. Jesse Van Rootselaar, age eighteen, perpetrated a mass murder shooting at his home and his former school in Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia. He killed multiple people, including two members of his own family at home, then several kids and adults at the school. Then he killed himself.

Van Rootselaar was a male who identified as a transgender female. He had reportedly transitioned at age twelve, and had received gender-affirming care. Authorities had prior contact with him due to previous acts of destruction and behaviour symptomatic of severe mental illness.

His online writings reveal a psyche tortured by relentless comparison and unattainable desire fueled by online subcultures such as anime:

I may have severe damage from testosterone changing my body.

Why can’t I be petit and smol?

How do I stop comparing myself to fictional characters?

Adolescence has always involved comparison. What is new is the scale and intensity of the mirrors now surrounding the young — digital bodies, stylized identities, curated selves.

Girard would immediately recognize the mechanism: mimetic escalation. When the desired form is biologically unreachable, the result is rarely aspiration. More often, it is humiliation.

His wish to become smaller, softer, almost unreal suggests not transformation but retreat — perhaps a longing for a pre-sexed state, a return to the safety of unformed selfhood. But innocence cannot be re-entered once consciousness and the body have crossed the threshold into adulthood.

When a young person comes to see natural body development itself as betrayal, despair is never far behind.

Several years prior to the massacre, Van Rootselaar’s mother posted online about her young son’s troubling behaviour. She described intense sibling rivalry and hostility. She said Jesse showed empathy for the suffering of animals and strangers, but none for his half-siblings. The murderer’s father made a statement after the massacre, to say that he was estranged from his son, and that the mother had denied him contact. We also know that Jesse Van Rootselaar left school at age fourteen.

The early life of this young man was clearly not conducive to the formation of healthy attachments and a sense of belonging. He cast outside himself and his family for role models and community, and landed in the hypersexualized plastic fantasyland of anime culture. He was also a gamer. He used Reddit and Roblox for communication and connection.

Girard warned that modern societies increasingly encourage people to imagine themselves self-creating. Yet the promise of limitless reinvention and fantastical role models collides with an older reality: human beings are shaped not only by freedom and choice, but by given-ness.

Bodies are given. Beginnings are given. Childhood is given.

A culture that speaks too aggressively about self-construction may unintentionally burden kids with metaphysical expectations many young psyches can not bear.

I do not argue here against compassion for gender-dysphoric kids, nor call for rigidity in socially acceptable sexed roles. I am pleading for people to approach this topic with greater developmental wisdom. Children have always experimented with identity. What is historically unusual is the growing institutional confidence that such experimentation should be interpreted as destiny and self-creation, rather than passage and exploration.

When every internal discomfort risks being treated as revelation of an alternate identity, the ordinary turbulence of growing up can acquire catastrophic meaning.

When promised transformations fail to quiet the deeper unrest, the resulting despair may lead to a search for explanations that sometimes ends with scapegoats and ritualistic sacrifice.

Girard believed societies endure by telling truthful stories about human limits. Those limits include the fact that humans can not actually change sex, and that innocence (and body parts), once lost or prevented from developing, cannot be technologically restored or engineered back into being.

Modern Progressive culture is metaphysically overpromising — assuring the young from birth that the self can and should be self-selected and remade according to desire, while offering too little guidance on how to live within the constraints that make personhood (and social cohesion) possible.

When someone concludes that their original self should never have existed, the world itself can begin to look complicit in the error. From there, resentment is rarely abstract for long. Some merely self-destruct, while others take others down with them.

The task before a humane society is therefore neither reflexive affirmation nor reflexive prohibition, but something more demanding: helping the young reconcile freedom with reality, imagination with embodiment, aspiration with acceptance.

A very dangerous type of alienation is an estrangement from and rejection of one’s own origin. And civilizationally, the dominant culture of Progressivism — of which TQ+ ideology is but one destabilizing tentacle — is purposely leading youth to become alienated from their own bodies, from their families, from their history.

We desperately need to rediscover how to shepherd and cultivate children from their roots and their childhood innocence into full, healthy, responsible, integrated adulthood.

Girard’s proposed solution is hopeful and spiritual: cycles of destructive mimetic desire can be broken and transcended by a revelatory transformation of consciousness brought about through the Judeo-Christian unveiling of the scapegoat mechanism. Christ was the innocent scapegoat who willingly self-sacrificed, thereby bringing an end to ritualistic blood sacrifice.

Young people need to lay down their burdens of brokenness, shame, and rage at the feet of a higher power and experience the healing that comes from knowing they are accepted and valued — just as they were born — by a loving and forgiving creator. Human beings are not saved by perpetual self-recreation, but by grace alone.

Activists get coverage, but senior university administrators, DEI and HR bureaucracies, NGOs, activist academics, activist professionals, compliant media, and risk-averse politicians are the enforcers of tyranny. They coddle those fringe activist extremists and translate moral hysteria into policy. The activists shout, but institutions enforce. Under the banner of “protecting Indigenous students,” they weaponize victimhood to silence dissent, criminalize disagreement, and normalize censorship. This is the smarmy soft tyranny of “compassionate” leftists. An entirely loathesome and destructive policy framework.

Empathy has been severed from truth, limits, and reason and redeployed as a coercive instrument. The UBC aftermath made this unmistakable. No violence was alleged. No threats were cited. What mattered was that some students felt “unsafe” knowing that others were present who challenge their selected narrative. In the logic of soft totalitarianism, that insecure feeling alone justifies suppression. Disagreement is harm. Emotional distress is external danger. Debate is abuse. Speech is violence. Once these inversions are accepted, censorship is not repression, it is virtue, and even further, it is a matter of PUBLIC SAFETY to exclude non-leftists, non-Progressives. To exclude HATE FACTS.

Universities have become compliance zones, and police are used not to stop violence, but to enforce emotional and political orthodoxy, which are one.

This is juvenile, sentimental, daft left wing authoritarianism enforced through weaponized empathy. And it is extremely anti-western, and anti-Christian.

We are being groomed for civilizational takeover.

The term “denialism” played its expected role at UBC. It was deployed not to describe an argument, but to end one. Once a person or a speech is labeled as denialist, evidence no longer matters. Nuance is forbidden. Questioning is proof of moral guilt. Scholarship and historical inquiry are dead. Slander has power.

Ideological enforcement now rules institutions. Truth never dies, but it is institutionally dead. Only recitation of dogma matters now.

Much of the outrage surrounding the UBC protest rests on an assertion that is treated as beyond dispute: that the Indian Residential School system was an instrument of genocide. It was not. Until recently, genocide meant intentional destruction of a people. Residential school systems were built to assimilate native kids into European society, make them employable, even save their souls… not to exterminate them or destroy them. Those goals can be criticized, but so can native culture and beliefs. So can child-rearing pratices of the era in both indigenous and European Canadian communities. Residential Schools were not a genocide as the term has historically or legally been understood.

Assimilation at these schools also produced inconvenient complexity, including providing a foundation for great life success for many individuals. Tomson Highway’s extraordinary literary and musical talent, for example, was nurtured at IRS in ways not possible on the rez. Even acknowledging this diversity and complexity is now treated as moral transgression.

When the original claim of genocide proved too weak to withstand broad scrutiny, it quietly morphed into “cultural genocide”, an ideological expansion whose implications deserve a full reckoning another time.

And in the long historical shadow of “cultural genocide”, what administrator will argue against a little or even a lot of censorship and ideological control for the sake of “cultural safety”?

And after all, it’s only the nasty “far right extremists” that are thereby silenced, right?

The UBC incident makes me want to be very impolitic about what the Indigenous Grievance Industry conceals.

Canada’s Indigenous people fare poorly overall, and leftists use their suffering for political gain but don’t help ease their suffering.

The primary destroyers of Indigenous people today are abuse, addiction, and fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. Not historical colonization. These present-day crises are devastating to the Indigenous collective of Canada. Addressing these problems requires honesty, agency, reform, and a culture of personal responsibility. Externalized blame is harmful. It feeds self-destruction and leads to horrific scapegoating.

But a grievance-based moral regime cannot allow this type of conversation. Permanent victimhood is useful to their industry. Healing and solutions are not.

Indigenous suffering is real. Its instrumentalization is obscene. In the wake of UBC, we saw how quickly it is converted into institutional power—how universities, media, and political actors close ranks to punish dissent while congratulating themselves for their caring, compassionate hearts. Weaponized empathy protects vanity and narratives, not people, not at any level.

The lesson of the UBC event is simple and damning. This is not about healing or reconciliation but about controlling speech through emotional blackmail. Leftists have trained Canadians to accept censorship as kindness. A society that cannot question narratives is enslaved. A university that bans dissent to protect feelings is no longer a place of learning. This must be said plainly: weaponized empathy is soft tyranny, and what just happened at UBC shows exactly how this tyranny spreads.

It felt a bit like doing field research embedded with an enemy army.

This was the day after Carney’s passive agressive anti-American Davos speech, which of course CBC journos absolutely LOVED.

Although Carney never named Trump or America directly, CBC selected clips clearly referencing and criticizing Trumpian “great power” nationalism. CBC chose clips in which Carney declares the end of the old global order, and Canada’s leadership in creating a new alliance of “middle powers” who must act together to resist great power domination, because “if we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu”.

I want to note here why listening to CBC feels to me like entering enemy territory. Our national broadcaster — which of course I help to pay for, like all taxpayers — is strongly biased and has been weaponized against people like me: I am pro-Western, Christian, conservative, anti-progressivist, capitalist, strongly freedom-centric.

Just like the BBC in UK, CBC pushes essentially the opposite of all that I am and believe. Our national media org runs cover for communists and Islamists, extols the virtues of endless immigration and welfare dependency, promotes DEI, safetyism, censorship, and woke authoritarianism. CBC loves to slander people like me as “far right extremists”.

I am a cancelled teacher who was ejected for political wrongspeak. I am a Freedom Convoy supporter. I am happy that Trump won twice. I want to see Rupert Lowe rise to the top job in the UK. I am horrified by left wing dominance in Canada. I am a “leftugee” who will never, ever again vote for a left wing party, for as long as I live.

So basically, I am a domestic terrorist, according to the CBC’s ideological framework.

My mother was Irish-American (born in USA), my father English-Canadian (born in England; I have a UK passport for that reason). My parents met and married in Vancouver. I married a man from an old-stock Canadian family — my mother-in-law was born on the family farm in Manitoba. We live in rural Ontario, all my side of the family still reside in BC, and we have some family members in Australia. We are prototypical Western Anglophones.

The Anglosphere is not an abstraction to me. I take today’s anti-white, anti-western, anti-American rhetoric personally. From my perspective, America is not my enemy, and neither is Trump, for all his crass abrasiveness and other faults. To me, America represents family, heritage, culture, commerce, shared destiny. The current Republican agenda seeking pro-western realignment of the western hemisphere is a sensible, vigorous, practical, and sorely needed response to the rise of authoritarian China as a superpower. I am optimistic about the potential for Western renewal.

Canada, by aligning with China in this NWO, is giving a middle finger to USA and adding risky BRICS baggage. Do our allies now include Russia, Iran, Cuba… and all the insidious Islamo-leftist proxies destabilizing western nations from within?

Against globalist trends, Trump’s administration is working to onshore and reinvigorate industry. Supply chain weaknesses and imbalances are clear, and America is addressing those problems with more than wishful idealism and money market manipulations. Trump is trying to force a flabby, bloated, petulant Canada into alignment with his goal for a productive, fortified, unified western hemisphere.

What I heard in those hours listening to CBC radio affirmed my belief that Canada under the Liberal party is suffering from a terminal case of advanced socialism. I heard a closed ideological loop, a group of increasingly irrelevant leftists talking amongst themselves, fearmongering about fascism as left wing authoritarians always do, patting each other’s backs while ignoring the hard realities crashing down all around them.

Those hours of radio were regularly punctuated with enthusaistic cheerleading for Mark Carney’s “groundbreaking” Davos speech and replays of his “best lines”. To the ears of a committed anti-globalist, however, that speech was nothing new, just more of the same globalist slop the Liberals have been serving for the last decade. Carney’s swipe at Trump’s America was framed as wise and statesmanlike, heralding a new era of decency and enlightenment, crowning Carney as a new global leader of the “middle powers”.

But what exactly is this middle ground of which Carney is the emergent leader? What are the western “middle powers”, other than severely troubled nations in managed decline? His speech was a rallying cry to all the other mediocre nations buckling under advanced socialism, calling for them to come together and… increase our collective reliance on CHINA as a big fuck you to American nationalism???

Global elite applause for Carney’s indirect but obvious anti-Americanism is being treated across the left as validation that Canada is on the right track, and Carney is the adult in the room in North American politics. But from where I sit, he looks juvenile and irresponsible for antagonizing Trump and American Republicans. We actually desperately need to realign our nation with America and pursue continental success as the strong allies we truly are.

Canadian leaders should also be actively pursuing industrial renewal and reasserting our core strengths, not merely retaliating with boycotts against corporations who pull out or otherwise undermine Canadian interests.

Canadian leaders need to understand that we share not only economic integration with the US, but a unique and uniquely appealing culture and heritage and work ethic. Our economic potential given USA alignment is absolutely massive, it’s true, but even leaving all that aside, we are, anyway, at this point in time, completely reliant on the USA for both security and wealth. I can not celebrate Canadian leadership that pretends that reality does not exist.

Carney’s speech fell completely flat for me. His use of Havel’s warnings about left wing authoritarianism and ideological conformity were darkly ironic: Carney leads the party of creeping communism, and Libs are huge supporters of neoMarxism and woke cancel culture in Canada.

It was a speech designed to please the globalist financiers and their deluded decolonizer minions, who are busy dismantling and impoverishing western societies, transforming them into something unrecognizable — anti-western, totalitarian, technocratic — while self-identifying as great liberators and humanists.

In addition to all the fawning over Carney, I heard an early evening segment that was a recording of a BBC lecture series opening address. This was a speech by Rutger Bregman, Dutch socialist author, historian, and media figure. The speech itself was prefaced by the news that Bregman was upset with the BBC for censoring one line of his speech in their broadcast version. BBC claimed it had legal reasons for making the edit, connected to defamatory language about Trump.

In the speech title, Bregman refers to Trump (and other leaders) as “monsters” in a nod to Antonio Gramsci, Italian communist.

He calls Trump a “Caligula”.

The speech is full of the usual leftist talking points.

He repeated the false claim that Israel committed genocide in the war against Hamas, but says not a word against explicitly genocidal and power-hungry Islamists slaughtering fellow humans across the globe.

He bemoaned the anti-abortion lobby in the USA, while also bemoaning declining western birth rates.

The main theme of his speech was to call for greater moral courage in leadership, but he never made clear what our moral foundation should consist of, beyond more socialism = more good.

When asked during the post-speech Q&A why he didn’t run for office, Bregman replied that his preference was to remain in the background orchestrating Fabian-society type influence. Basically, he wants philanthropists to increase funding to NGOs run by people like him, and together they will use soft power to advance the far left agenda.

Bregman is more of exactly what we don’t need: left wing academics wielding soft power, heavily influencing and engineering society via shadow government and psychological operations, siphoning trillions into self-enriching socialist circle-jerks that ultimately increase poverty, indoctrination, Balkanization, and welfare dependence, rather than unity, hope, and productivity.

As with Carney in his speech in Davos, Bregman was speaking to an audience of NGO leaders, philanthropists, and globalist shills. And so his sensational rhetoric vilifying Trump and right wing populism was received warmly, and then broadcast without critical analysis. No one at BBC or CBC would think to question the rightness of uber-rich Fabians working to reshape society through shadowy manipulation. In fact, it is fair to say that the Fabian agenda is now the CBC’s core mandate.

After Bregman came the segment that I found the most jarring and worrisome of all, especially in the context of what I had heard in previous hours. A Globe and Mail commentator was brought on to provide a news report on Canadian military brass contingency planning for a hypothetical American invasion of Canada.

He explained that senior military planners were modeling escalated conflict with the United States. They have acknowledged that Canada is weak, and would immediately lose if America invaded. The consensus is that Canadians would have to resort to insurgency tactics, like those used in Afghanistan.

He reported that military leaders stated that conscription is not yet on the table, but they are planning to significantly increase the numbers of our reserves.

The presenters emphasized this was all very hypothetical — aside from the significant reserve increases, presumably. They were ever so careful to assure listeners that the Americans are not actually planning to invade Canada.

But the emotional manipulation and fearmongering was unmistakable: Trump is dangerous and our primary enemy; America has become fascistic and aggressive; Canadians may one day have to fight Americans, and if/when that day arrives, we will be forced to respond like Afghans when they were invaded by Russia.

I am sorry to say this, but New World Order Liberalism is devolving even further than I thought possible into dangerous mind-fuckery. The indoctrination is reaching absurd and desperate new lows. Remember, this little segment on a “totally hypothetical” American ground invasion of Canada followed hours of other programming portraying American populism as violently, fanatically regressive and a major global civilizational threat, with nary a word about China, or surging Islamism, or rising rates of domestic left wing insurrectionary violence.

It was surreal to enter that left wing echo chamber for a few hours while driving for business through La Belle Province, with our ambitious expansion plans for the USA also swirling in my mind.

Canada’s economy, security, energy systems, and food markets are deeply integrated with the United States. My own and many other entrepreneurial business plans are built around that integration. Pretending Canada must distance itself from America, that integration with America is over for good, is assinine. Canadian Liberals take a defiant posture of moral superiority while the truth is that we are utterly reliant on America for safety and financial success. Carney’s position is denialism and self-righteous stupidity. There is NO OTHER FOREIGN MARKET OF EQUAL IMPORTANCE TO CANADA. In essence, all the other markets are pretty much “nice to haves”, while America remains our primary and essential economic and security partner.

What struck me most was not merely that everyone being amplified by CBC radio expressed hostility toward Trump and his agenda. Reasonable people can criticize Trump, his agenda, his combative strategy and manner. What struck me as unreasonable was/is their collective inability to integrate reality, to even begin to acknowledge that Canada belongs, geographically and geopolitically, with America, and not primarily with China, Russia, India, or even Europe.

Canadian Liberals and CBC have clearly learned nothing from the conflict, turmoil, and fallout of recent years. They keep pushing the idea that nationalists are a pathology to be managed, and preferably eradicated. We see no acknowledgment that our entrepreneurship, innovation, excellence, and industry — the engines of prosperity — were systematically hollowed out by financial mismanagement, regulation, shutdowns, ideological conformity, attacks on merit, brain drain, etc.

We see no acknowledgment that Canada’s weakness stems from decades of socialist bloat and complacency.

Instead, our globalist elites speak to other globalist elites in globalist forums about globalist goals in globalist terms. Carney got a standing ovation from globalists at Davos, so hurrah for Canada’s status on the world stage!

Chattering class applause becomes legitimacy, while regular people suffer the indignities of managed decline. Popular resistance is reframed as a dangerous sign of rising fascism, to be ruthlessly quashed. More soft power socalism is upheld as the obvious, unquestionable, virtuous response to every problem. Western decline is glossed over, or worse, framed as the result of late-stage crony capitalism rather than advanced crony socialism. Leftist leaders are masters of inversion, positing the actual causes of disease as cures.

From a systems perspective, Carney and CBC are engaging in standard self-interested self-perpetuation. Institutions unable to absorb external feedback always slander oppostion as infection, double down on internal coherence, refuse practical reform. This gap between lived reality and institutional storytelling is the fault line of our time.

Although I will be happy to ship containers of product across the sea when the time is right, I am not about to let Carney’s circus distract me from from my main goal for our company, which is full integration with the American market.

And CBC can get fucked. They use our money to poison Canadian minds against each other and our own best interests. Their allegiance to Liberal power is an unforgiveable treachery.

The premise was that proximity would foster mutual understanding, accelerate migrant integration into Dutch society, and make efficient use of scarce housing stock. The project was set up as an experiment and scheduled to run until 2028.

Serious problems surfaced right away.

According to a 2024 investigation by a Dutch public broadcaster, Dutch residents and staff have consistently and frequently reported sexual harassment, sexual assault, intimidation, drug activity, and violence in the complex. Former residents described an environment in which they felt unsafe using common areas or interacting freely within their own building.

One resident reported being raped in 2019 by a refugee resident after accepting an invitation to his room to help him practice Dutch. That case was initially closed due to insufficient evidence, but later resurfaced in the context of a separate prosecution. In 2024, the man was convicted of multiple rape offenses and sentenced to prison.

While not all reported incidents resulted in charges, journalists have documented dozens of complaints and police reports linked to the building over the years, including roughly 20 formal incident reports within one 18-month period.

Residents repeatedly raised concerns with housing management and municipal authorities. Some interventions were attempted: mediation, extra support staff, minor adjustments to resident composition. But the core structure of the project remained unchanged, as did the core problems.

By 2023, Stadgenoot reportedly concluded the experiment was no longer manageable. The organization sought to terminate the project early for persistent safety failures. The City of Amsterdam did not approve early closure, pointing to legal constraints and a lack of alternative housing for refugees. As a compromise, the number of refugees housed at Stek Oost was reduced, but the experiment itself continued.

Authorities acknowledge the project has failed. But they will continue it until 2028, the contract end date. So, a housing model associated with documented real harm, particularly to young Dutch women, will remain operational in order to satisfy the needs of the systems that created it.

Public explanations frequently blame this unsavoury situation on the broader housing shortage, which is particularly acute in Amsterdam, and especially challenging for students. While housing scarcity might help explain why the experiment was attempted, it does not explain what occurred within it.

Why didn’t management procure an exemption to the sex discrimination law to reduce harm?

Why could the policy not be reformed to exclude refugees from living in the building, since refugees were causing the problems?

Why is it acceptable for public institutions to take so little action to safeguard native women?

Why didn’t the managers setting up this experiment foresee these very predictable problems?

Housing shortages do not cause sexual predation, drug dealing, and thievery. A housing shortage does not alter individual responsibility, or erase irreconcilable differences in cultural norms.

Disintegration of safeguarding, failure to erect boundaries, and lax approaches to enforcement are all policy choices, and issues separate from the housing crisis. The deeper issues are structural and ideological. This is a liberal, progressive policy environment where sex-specific housing is treated as discriminatory. Mixed-population housing for students is already inherently riskier than sex-segregated housing, but that risk increases significantly where cultural norms of residents diverge, and vulnerability is asymmetric.

To put it bluntly, it is astounding that anyone thought it a good idea to house a bunch of single young Dutch women raised within a liberal western culture with a bunch of single refugee men raised within sex-segregated foreign honour cultures. The middle managers not only concocted this insanely risky plan and executed it, but they placed a burden of responsibility for the foreigners on the Dutch students, who were expected to act as a welcome wagon and facilitate integration.

Measures that would directly and immediately reduce risk, such as converting the complex to men-only housing, were never seriously considered. Where effective solutions conflict with prevailing legal and ideological frameworks that are seen as progressive, the frameworks typically win.

Comparable integration experiments elsewhere in Europe reveal the same institutional pattern. In Sweden, mixed student–migrant housing initiatives expanded after the 2015–2018 migration surge, particularly in Stockholm and Malmö, and these residences generated sustained complaints of sexual harassment and resident insecurity that led to quiet retreats rather than public reassessment and reformation of foundational frameworks. In Germany, a sharp rise in reported sexual assaults in 2016–2017 included incidents linked to asylum accommodations. This prompted increased supervision, relocations, and informal segregation, yet official rhetoric continued to minimize the problems and frame integration as successful.

In each case, authorities documented harm, adjusted implementation at the margins, and avoided revisiting the core premise, illustrating how institutions acknowledge failure without allowing failure to invalidate the original model that produced the failure… making future failure certain.

These types of systemic failures deepen social and political polarization. They trigger denialism in left wingers, and outrage in right wingers. Wherever a project facilitating rape and assault cannot be ended early, and cannot be restructured in ways that materially reduce exposure, then the harm to women is not incidental, it is institutional and systemic. Sexual predation by migrants is accepted, and managed.

The question then arises: “what is the acceptable number of assaults?” This question is never asked publicly, but it is asked and answered implicitly when continuation is chosen over correction.

In this case, the current number is clearly acceptable: 20 serious incidents in 18 months. 1 or 2 serious incidents per month is acceptable. We can’t know the maximum number of violations that would be acceptable, but we do know that bureaucrats deem the current number acceptable.

But that current number is not acceptable to the majority of western citizens. Voters now are increasingly supporting those politicians who will firmly state on their behalf that this number and this situation is simply unacceptable.

The tendency of systems to continually produce and maintain themselves is called autopoeisis. Autopoeisis is a concept that explains, in a depersonalized manner that does not villify entire swaths of the citizenry, the rise of “right wing populists” across the western world. It also explains in an impersonal way subsequent attempts by liberals and progressives to ban, outlaw, and restrict these populists, who are typically not Nazis as charged, but merely vocal individuals applying sensible lenses to obvious problems and demanding real solutions.

Many people find it easier to deny vocal critics social acceptability and power than to tackle reform of faulty systems and ideologies. Liberals and progressives are largely fine with sacrificing freedom of conscience, speech, and association in order to protect and maintain the current systems under their control.

After decades of increasing liberalism in western systems, right wing populists are now rising because people know that managing multiculturalism in a society disrupted by waves of mass immigration from non-western nations requires abandoning emotive sloganeering and impractical idealism. People want leaders to demonstrate clear-eyed acceptance of the hard realities we face. Deep differences in norms and values do not dissolve through proximity, and where risk is asymmetric, governance must respond with more structure, clearer rules, and firmer enforcement.

Moral wishful thinking as policy foundation is a form of criminal negligence. Successful coexistence of western and non-western populations within a society depends on explicit demarcation of expectations and boundaries, differentiated safeguards where necessary, and real consequences that are clearly communicated and consistently applied.

The Stek Oost case is a governance failure in which significant harm to the population was documented, but continuation was chosen because effective corrective measures were institutionally inadmissible.

Seen in this light, Stek Oost is not an anomaly but a case study in how liberal institutional inertia provides cover for those who prey on women and girls. Mass immigration intersecting with progressivism creates public safeguarding failures in western nations. A reckoning with both is long overdue.

To understand the “Woman, Life, Freedom” movement and its global ripple effects, it is imperative to understand that Iran has not always been an enemy of Western civilization. Today’s Islamic Republic does not represent “authentic” Iranian civilization. Long before Islam existed, Persians built a robust, advanced civilization that was shaped by a religion called Zoroastrianism. Persian civilization developed in moral tandem and frequent interaction with Judeo-Christian civilization. In the 7th century, Islamic dominance in Persia rose through forceful conquest, and over the following centuries, Islamic theocratic structures suppressed all other belief systems, including Persia’s indigenous Zoroastrian religion.

Zoroastrianism, Judaism, and Christianity all place high value on free will and human conscience, and so although they are technically rival ideologies, they have coexisted and cross-pollinated successfully for thousands of years. Islam, on the other hand, values blind submission, and is built to conquer, delegitimize, and subordinate rival religions. Islam spreads not merely through persuasion and conversion, but by forcing, coercing, and indoctrinating populations. Most observant Muslims believe God has directly decreed that Islam will eventually dominate globally, that expanding Allah’s dominion sometimes requires terrible violence, and martyrdom in service to expanded dominion is how one earns Allah’s highest praise, and the highest status position in the afterlife.

The Islamic Republic of Iran epitomizes Islamist expansionism in the modern era. It is a theocratic state that exports ideology through coercion, proxy violence, and religious supremacy, while ruling its own population though tyranny. Western leftists are uncomfortable supporting the Iranian people’s fight for freedom because they have formed tight and very public alliances with Islamic extremist movements such as Hamas, and by extension, Iran’s mullah regime. The Red-Green Axis political goal is clear: to dismantle western systems (our heritage) and thereby repel “western imperialism”. The Persian uprising exposes Red-Green lies about the evils of western imperialism. The world is watching millions of Persians reject not merely theocratic rule, but Islam itself — anyone can see that Islamic theocracy is not a liberator but a tyrant.

Before Islam, Persia was shaped by Zoroastrianism, which is one of the world’s oldest moral religions, and arguably the world’s oldest form of monotheism. Zoroastrian thought introduced beliefs that became central to Judaism and Christianity: Moral truth (good) versus lies (evil); Individual responsibility; The centrality of judgement and justice; History as a meaningful moral struggle. This influence and interplay was significant in many ways, for many centuries.

During the Babylonian Exile, Persian rulers liberated the Jews, allowed them to rebuild the Temple, and governed with religious tolerance. Cyrus the Great is even called “God’s anointed” in the Hebrew Bible, an unusual honor for a non-Jewish king.

The Three Wise Men who figure prominently in the story of Christ’s birth are widely believed to be Zoroastrian priest-scholars. They were the first gentiles to recognize Christ’s divine essence, a fact that emphasizes the universality of the Christian message. And after delivering their respects and gifts, these travelers refused Herod’s command to return and inform him of baby Jesus’ location before they embarked for home — because they recognized Herod’s malevolent intent against this “newborn king of the Jews”, whom Herod saw as a rival.

Ancient Persia was extremely influential in many different ways to the formation of Judeo-Christian civilization, which likewise exerted influence on Persian civilization. Islam, on the other hand, while it borrowed from these previous traditions, represented a civilizational break. Islam was built as an explicit supercession rather than a symbiotic and co-evolved system. Islam arrived in Persia from Arabia through conquest. Islam suppressed Zoroastrianism. Conversion was pressured. Iran’s pre-Islamic identity survived, but Islam relegated it to an inferior status even to Judaism and Christianity, and kept it under domination… until now. 2026 could be the year that changes this trajectory, profoundly and fundamentally.

In 1979, the Iranian Revolution was not a return to Persian roots that liberated Iran from Western imperialists. That is a false narrative often adopted by leftists. The Iranian Revolution of 1979 was a clerical Islamist takeover that crushed religious pluralism and subordinated the indigenous Zoroastrian heritage, as well as the society’s nascent realignment with Western civilization.

The Islamic Republic does not represent “Iran.” It represents Islamic supremacism imposed on Iran. It is a significant blind spot of western leftists that they do not recognize how Islamists grossly exploited Persian leftists, by fighting with them to remove the existing government in 1979, only to then slaughter and exile their leftist comrades in order to form a theocratic state. Many Iranians today warn that western leftists are now repeating the same misguided, foolish, failed strategy by aligning with Islamist organizations and governments.

The Western left’s silence on today’s Iranian uprising is revealing. Women are tearing off hijabs and burning them. Women are lighting cigarettes with burning photos of the Ayatollah. Rebels are burning mosques. Crowds are chanting for death to their dictator. Persians are rallying for the return of their exiled king, who represents a Persian heritage that does not privilege Islam. This revolution is dramatic, it is photogenic, and it is extremely historically and geopolitically significant — but leftists are trying to ignore it! Why? Because it exposes several lies at once:

1. Islamic rule is not liberating
   It is coercive, violent, and enforced by sharia law.

2. The primary oppressor is not “the West”
   It is domestic theocracy, religious supremacy, and clerical tyranny.

3. Islamic expansionism is real
   Iran’s regime funds proxies, enforces ideological conformity, and suppresses minorities—not because of Western imperialism, but because of its own supremacist theology.

4. Judeo-Christian morality is not oppressive, and western civilization does not equal imperialist tyranny
   Concepts like conscience, individual dignity, and moral law are exactly what Iranian dissidents are appealing to—often explicitly.

This is a deeply inconvenient revolution for a left that has recently ascended by indoctrinating people to rally behind the “unifying” lie that Western civilization is the primary villain of history. In Islamic Republic rhetoric, Israel is The Little Satan, and USA is The Great Satan. Leftists embrace this same concept, although their rhetoric is secular and derives its authority from pseudo-intellectual academic disciplines like critical theory.

For decades, the left has relied on a fragile alliance between the Red (Marxist and postMarxist/neoMarxist ideology) and the Green (Political Islam, framed as an “anti-imperialist” force). But Iran exposes the contradiction. Islamic theocracy is not anti-imperialist—it is imperial in its own right, and a far worse colonizer of minds, bodies, souls. It brutally subjugates women, minorities, dissidents, reformers, and other nations. It crushes debate, obliterates freedom of conscience and speech. It claims divine mandate for all of this oppression.

It is a system of exactly the type that leftists claim to oppose.

So, instead of loudly supporting Iranian freedom fighters as they so loudly support their other pet “freedom” movements, western leftists change the subject, blame sanctions and economic hardship, blame Israel, blame America, or go quiet. They can’t handle the truth that is being revealed, once again: that Islamic supremacism is one of the great ongoing engines of human suffering.

The Iranian people share common cause with western peoples. They are fighting the same forces that reject individual conscience, moral law, and human dignity. Iranians are calling on their ancient allies, the Jewish and Christian nations, to help free them from Islamic tyranny. To their shame, Western leftists are covering their ears.

The Iranian struggle elevates a truth that the modern left desperately wants to suppress: Judeo-Christian civilization is not humanity’s enemy. The enemies of humanity are the totalizing ideologies, whether religious (Islamic theocracy) or secular (Marxism/communism), that deny individual freedom of conscience, speech, and worship.

And further, the indigenous peoples of the middle east and Persia were not Muslim. The ancient inheritance of the region is strongly Zoroastrian, Jewish, and Christian; these three traditions co-evolved, and still successfully coexist. Islam is the primary colonizer in the region.

Astonishingly brave citizens of Iran are now sacrificing themselves to achieve freedom for their people and nation. And, as a result, the Red-Green Axis is losing credibility, losing moral authority, and losing the narrative. Since the Oct. 7 massacre, we have suffered the sounds of Red-Green activists howling incessantly for a “Free Palestine”. Calls for global intifada, death to Israel, death to the West have plagued our cities, our media, and our halls of government power. Their demands are hostile. They use captured Western education and media systems to spread destructive lies about “White supremacy” and “Western imperialism” and “settler-colonialism”.

The Red-Greens pretend to value human rights and freedoms above all, so it telling and damning that they are not howling for a “Free Iran”.

On the contrary, they can barely bring themselves to acknowledge this historical uprising. Their silence on Iran is, in fact, quite deafening.

We awoke today to the alarming and gripping news that America just attacked Venezuela. Trump reported that the U.S. has captured the nation’s leader (and his wife).

Venezuela is resource-rich, and was arguably the region’s most prosperous and stable nation during the latter half of the 1900s. But Venezuela has been in escalating crisis since 2010 due to institutional breakdown under socialist governance. Communist mismanagement of and overreliance on the nation’s main industry (oil) led to economic collapse, mass migration, and the expansion of transnational criminal networks.

Evidence exists of senior regime involvement in drug trafficking, and the regime has forged ties with the main geopolitical adversaries of America.

The conflict now sits at the intersection of humanitarian disaster, organized crime, and geopolitical warfare.

Venezuela Before the Collapse

At the start of the 21st century, Venezuela was one of Latin America’s wealthiest countries, with vast oil reserves, a growing middle class, and regional influence. While dependent on oil, it retained functional private sectors, trade relationships, and public institutions.

Economic Model Under Chávez and Maduro

The government adopted “21st-century socialism,” marked by programs of nationalization, price and currency controls, centralized planning, and politicization of economic management. Investment declined, productivity fell, and technical expertise/competence was displaced by political loyalty/ideology.

Institutional Erosion

Courts, regulators, and the central bank lost independence, while electoral competition and media freedom narrowed. These changes weakened the system’s ability to detect failure and correct course, allowing policy errors to compound. Classic failures of economic communism emerged, and dictatorship intensified.

Hyperinflation and Economic Breakdown

As oil revenues fell and deficits widened, the state relied on monetary expansion to fund spending. Hyperinflation followed, destroying savings, collapsing wages, and disrupting supply chains. Severe food and medicine shortages spread despite the country’s significant resource base.

Humanitarian Impact and Mass Migration

Economic collapse produced one of the largest displacement crises in modern history, with more than seven million Venezuelans leaving the country. Neighboring states absorbed much of the shock, but massive migration flows extended through Central America to the U.S. border. Accusations swirl about the collusion of left wing leaders in South and Central America with China, Russia, Iran, and treacherous NGOs to facilitate a relentless flow of migrants through the southern U.S. border. Use of migrants to conduct assymetrical warfare against and within western nations is becoming more obvious and prevalent, and is a core issue for the Trump administration.

Security Vacuum and Organized Crime

Institutional decay and government corruption created prime conditions for proliferation of organized crime. Venezuela is a major transit corridor for cocaine produced in Colombia, with trafficking routes using Venezuelan territory, airspace, and ports amid corruption and weak enforcement.

Allegations of State Involvement in Drug Trafficking

U.S. prosecutors have indicted Nicolás Maduro and senior officials on charges related to narco-terrorism and trafficking. These allegations focus on protection of routes and collaboration with armed groups. Some former Venezuelan officials have pleaded guilty in U.S. courts, reinforcing concerns about state-level complicity.

Downstream Effects on North America

Cocaine trafficking networks linked to Venezuelan routes contribute to violence, addiction, and social harm in consumer countries. North America now has a serious addiction crisis. Drug-related deaths in the United States now exceed fatalities from foreign terrorist attacks, elevating foreign trafficking of narcotics into U.S. from a criminal issue to a national-security concern.

State Responsibility: Capacity and Indifference

Responsibility in international practice does not rely solely on explicit intent. When a government has knowledge of large-scale harm, possesses the capacity to disrupt it, and consistently fails to act, culpability attaches through tolerance and neglect. Maduro recently offered to curb trafficking in exchange for concessions — such as continuation of his regime ;) —acknowledging his regime’s leverage over the system.

Geopolitical Alignment with U.S. Adversaries

The Maduro government maintains close relations with Iran, Russia, and China through energy cooperation, sanctions-evasion mechanisms, technology exchanges, and diplomatic coordination. These states openly oppose U.S. influence, situating Venezuela within a broader adversarial network.

Asymmetric Warfare and U.S. Strategic Interpretation

U.S. policymakers increasingly interpret Venezuela-related threats through the framework of asymmetric warfare, which emphasizes indirect methods that impose cumulative harm without conventional military engagement. Drug trafficking, mass migration pressures, sanctions evasion, cyber-enabled finance, and criminal-state overlap are viewed as tools that exploit the legal and bureaucratic constraints of western democracies.

The Trump administration’s posture reflects a determination to respond at the pace of the threat rather than the pace of interagency process. Prolonged procedural delays enable adversaries and criminal networks to entrench themselves. Supporters contend that internal resistance rooted in ideology or risk aversion blunts timely action, while critics warn of potentially illegal overreach and erosion of norms.

The “Oil-Only” Narrative in Context

Claims that U.S. pressure centers solely on oil access are simplistic and biased. They overlook chronology, incentives and logic/practicality. This escalation followed prolonged collapse, migration spillover, criminal expansion, and failed negotiations. Oil remains a strategic factor, but does not explain timing or scope. There are far easier ways for Trump to access Venezuelan oil. Maduro in fact offered open access to their oil industry immediately before the U.S. strike.

Trump is not merely motivated by access to resources. He is very passionate about and personally engaged in battling against drug trafficking, illegal migration, and leftist subversion, seeing these as main drivers of domestic decline.

Sovereignty and Regional Stability

Sovereignty is meant to protect populations from external coercion. When internal collapse of a nation produces mass displacement and transnational crime, regional actors reassess responses, and relations realign. External pressures rise when domestic governance failure generates cross-border consequences. When Venezuela became a failed state, Maduro refused to give up control and quite flagrantly engaged in machinations that hurt America. Trump was provoked, and decided to take down Maduro.

Conclusion

Venezuela’s crisis reflects sustained institutional failure under socialist governance, leading to economic ruin, humanitarian disaster, and the growth of organized crime. Allegations of regime involvement in drug trafficking and alignment with U.S. adversaries reframed the issue from domestic misrule to an international security problem.

Understanding this sequence clarifies why the confrontation extends far beyond resource control.

Left wing commentators dominate our discourse, and leftists will certainly try their best to ignore everything about this conflict except the part about oil. But this is absolute folly, as we need to analyze the whole story of Venezuela’s communist meltdown in order to recognize the early warning signs of impending economic collapse… the early warning signs that indicate deeply entrenched and potentially ruinous failures of governance. Canada is one example of a formerly prosperous, stable, resource-rich nation currently showing exactly such signs.

So, Judeo-Christian peoples naturally understand attacks on freedom of conscience and speech as potentially very grave offenses denying fullness of life to affected individuals.

Even secular people must admit that voice is how mind and spirit extend beyond the physical body.

Voice is ethereal territory, and it can be colonized and occupied.

The “decolonizers” that dominate Canadian institutions demand land back, and sometimes go so far as to claim all land in Canada belongs to indigenous people… and now, they have come for our voices, too.

In the name of safety, justice, compassion, community relations, equity, and/or antiracism (depending on the context), the powers that be are allowing leftist activists to colonize our laws, our systems of language, and our inner landscapes.

Citizens simply not willing to accept activist narratives as truth — and especially those daring to express skepticism or rejection of those narratives — are treated as dangerous, depraved, and even criminal.

Anyone dissenting against official activist narratives risks being accused of:

—Denialism

—Racial hatred

—Misinformation / disinformation

—Hateful speech

—Inciting hate

—Criminal speech

Proposed Bill C-413 is called “An Act to amend the Criminal Code (promotion of hatred against Indigenous peoples).” This proposed law would make it an offence to condone, deny, or downplay residential school harms, or misrepresent related facts.

Activists in the professions now work to BAN people from publicly dissing even specious or false claims of indigenous people. They paint ALL dissent, whether based in truth or not, as hate. Dissent is hateful misinformation. Dissent is hateful anti-indigenous racism. Dissent is just plain hate. Dissidents are vile haters.

DEI wanes in ubiquity, and BLM has imploded in ignominy, but decolonizers in Canada push on with zeal and near total institutional support. Do not be surprised to see Canadians in the near future legislate and codify some of the worst cancel culture mechanisms we have yet seen. Woke is far from over here.

Back in 2020, in the heyday of BLM, we saw the same types of tyrannical speech controls applied to any and all issues related to black identity-based grievances. We saw truthful dissent waved off as “hate facts”. It was hysterical race-baiting. It was highly destructive. And apparently, establishment Canadians learned nothing from all that hysteria and destruction.

Leftists are itching to bring “residential school denialism” charges against political opponents such as Aaron Gunn and Dallas Brodie. They shamelessly frame “denialists” as a serious social threat requiring confrontation and countering, including by state institutions. They are textbook totalitarians.

Academic and media commentary portrays any dissenter as an agitator intentionally undermining reconciliation. To which “denialists” of course can only reply in kind: No open debate means no truth can emerge, and therefore no reconciliation is possible. A total impasse.

“Survivors” state that denying their truth is denying their abuse. They position all counter-narratives, questions, and doubts, as assaults on truth itself, as well as heinous personal assaults.

Certain types of victimhood are currency, and claims of such victimhood are now unassailable. So, these types of victimhood are massively incentivized, and we can expect endless indigenous victimhood claims and reparation extractions.

Canada has spent decades building up its indigenous grievance industry. Canada’s is possibly the most successful indigenous grievance industry in the entire world! But unfortunately, this industry doesn’t contribute to the success of our economy, or any other aspect of our nation. On the contrary, this is an industry that rather substantially subtracts from our success as a nation.

Critics describe growing animosity toward this grievance industry as an orchestrated misinformation campaign, often suggesting it advances a far right extremist agenda — as if a genocidal fascist will be exposed if you scratch any disgruntled Canadian who objects to vast sums of our taxes being allocated based on racialized accusations with a grifting stench. Canadian pundits and politicians of all kinds describe these Canadians as not merely as wrong, but dangerous, poisonous, extremely harmful.

When anyone exposes inaccuracies and falsifications in the grievance narratives, the exposures are deflected as dark attempts to rewrite history, delegitimize suffering, uphold colonial systems of oppression, perpetuate myths of white supremacy. In other words, the exposer is, de facto, either a Nazi, or Nazi-adjacent.

Parliamentary submissions have argued residential school denialists refuse settled history. History settled by whom? Activist “survivors”, of course! Canadian establishment culture is now a closed circle that admits no diversity of thought.

The promotion of depersoning of dissidents is a very real feature of Canadian society: “don’t give denialists oxygen”. Metaphorically kill the dissidents by excluding their voices.

Suppression of discussion is the norm. Open debate is not.

Modern power obsesses over speech codes and speech control because the new frontier is conscience.

Historically, we have considered land and flesh to be primary bases of sovereignty. But in the digital age, territory envelops cyberspace, and simultaneously shifts inward, and skyward… and otherworld. The disembodied ether is terra nova.

If wannabe world controllers can define what may be said, shame what may be thought, and punish who may speak, then they do not need tanks to control territory. A technocratic elite aim to conquer the human mind and spirit.

Censors masquerade as moral arbiters and purveyors of security and stability, but they are immoral, or at best amoral, colonizers of the interior.

Decolonizers are absolute hypocrites at their very core, because the word “colonizer” is symbolically precise when applied to their beliefs and behaviour.

The decolonizers take over information systems and banish “wrong” narratives, even when true. They condone political imprisonment of “wrong” activists even when they’ve committed no crime, and celebrate/incite public murders of “wrong” speakers. They shamelessly usurp territory of all kinds, and happily exile and eradicate opposition.

The worst of the decolonizers are as humourless, vindictive, and punishing as any European colonizer in North America ever was. Their tools may be softer, but the will to dominate and control is as strong or stronger. Tyranny and oppression are not characterized merely by physical controls and violence. Their epistemic colonization is tyrannical control of meaning itself.

Sadly, reconciliation has evolved to mean Canadians are conditioned by state and dominant culture to display unquestioning deference to even the most outlandish, destructive, or blood libelous activist claims, such as the claim that white priests and nuns mass murdered native kids and buried them in unmarked graves at several residential schools across Canada. This so-called genocide is now our settled history. Our history is whatever the activists say it is. No discussion.

Canada is staging a ritual of permanent moral indebtedness. Debt repayment will be extracted over and over again. We will pay in dollars, and land, and reason, and freedom. Only First Nations people and newer immigrants are not saddled with guilt and indebtedness. European Canadians in particular must repeat endless confessionals and never speak confidently in their own voices about their own history. They must parrot approved narratives, or be silent. Land acknowledgements teach non-indigenous citizens they may speak only AFTER first confessing to their “settler colonist” identity… i.e. their illegitimacy.

The woke see everyone in Canada who is non-indigenous as having liminal status. Belonging here is a gift that can be obtained only via allyship, meaning supplication to indigenous grievance narratives. Land acknowledgements are a weapon used to conquer mental and spiritual domains. They condition people to accept that their presence is morally suspect. If they internalize this belief, they will accept speech controls.

So, truth-tellers are punished heavily. They are considered very dangerous, not because they actually harm opponents with their words, but because they use voice to reclaim territory and refuse this imposed guilt, this metaphysical exile.

Speaking truth without permission restores coherence between word and reality. It threatens the newly formed, nebulous collective consciousness being constructed by petty tyrants. Speaking opposing truths pulls back the curtain back on the charlatans pulling the levers. It stalls the performance of revolution.

Shaming, deplatforming, and professional cancellation are not punishments for real harms, but warnings to others not to claim their inner territory, or show their true face in the mental or spiritual commons. They want independent thinkers to remain hidden. Silent. Controlled.

The spiritual dimension of this is something few in Canada will name, but the woke tyrants are literally colonizing minds, crushing spirits, and crippling souls.

This is not just rhetoric. A person who cannot speak truth often fragments internally. She self-censors. Loses moral and intellectual confidence. Becomes withdrawn and inert. Maybe becomes more governable. Maybe becomes suicidal. Maybe she finds the strength to flee into exile. At any rate, she does not generally become a nexus of power.

Censorship is spiritually suffocating. It is not just making certain words unsayable because those words are so, so bad. A censorship industrial complex always claims harm reduction and stability as its high purpose, but mass, systemic silencing is usually designed for mass interior disintegration that will generate citizen automatons who serve the political purposes of the overlords.

This historical moment is not merely about left vs right, or woke vs conservative. It’s incarnation vs abstraction. Living conscience vs mechanized demiurge.

My language naturally turns biblical and symbolic when discussing the blight of the woke revolution. This conflict is archetypal, and of deepest import to human dignity, agency, intellect, and spirit.

Judging from the left’s raging antisemitism and fondness for Hamas, their widespread celebration of Charlie Kirk’s murder, their carelessness about slaughtered Christians in Africa and church-burnings across the West, leftists today have strong negative feelings about observant Christians and Jews that might aptly be described as hate. But today’s leftists feel no such animosity toward practicing Muslims, as a whole, despite the fact that religion in general is condemned and belittled by Marxists. The raw truth is that today’s social justice revolution, which is essentially Marxist/neoMarxist, is anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, but pro-Islamic. So, what gives?

Marxist revolutionaries have always viewed adherents of Judaism and Christianity as existential enemies: not merely as political opponents that they must conquer at the ballot box, but as obstacles that must be removed. This is because both faiths anchor the human person in loyalties that cannot be repurposed for the revolution and the state.

For communists, this is unforgivable. Marxism begins with a rejection of the sacred. Communism is built on an axiom: there is no God, no eternal moral law, no transcendent order… only matter, power, and the dialectic. If the universe has no creator, then the party may rewrite the script at will. But Judaism and Christianity insist the script is already written—and binding.

The Ten Commandments alone shatter the Marxist worldview. They declare limits not supported by Marxists. They declare objective good and evil, and a truth higher than the state. Judaism and Christianity protect the individual from the state. Both faiths teach that the human person has dignity before any government grants it, parental authority precedes political authority, morality is not a bureaucratic invention, and worship is due not to any collective, party, or leader, but to God alone.

The revolutionary project requires the opposite.

Marxism cannot tolerate rival sovereignties. Family, synagogue, church—each is a centre of loyalty that threatens the revolutionary project. Communists understand this, some consciously, others instinctively. That’s why every far left regime, without exception, has targeted clergy, shuttered houses of worship, criminalized religious formation, and undermined traditional family structure. And as we clearly saw during the Covid pandemic, the authoritarians of the left like to pretend that their escalating controls are altruistic, implemented in the name of “saving Granny” from whatever cruel fate awaits her under a different nexus of power.

Leftists are not “misusing” Marxism when they hate on Jews and Christians, family and tradition. This resentment and animosity is Marxism.

Judaism and Christianity are built on memory; communism fosters amnesia and historical revisionism. Judaism preserves thousands of years of covenantal history: exile, deliverance, law, promise. Christianity preserves the life of Christ, who both affirmed and renovated the moral architecture of Western civilization. These religious memories orient individuals toward gratitude, humility before the past, continuity with ancestors, and the belief that humans are capable of profound evil. Communist movements require citizens who are forgetful of the past. People with historical memory resist utopian myths. People who know the history of humankind reject utopian schemes, and do not fall for the lie that a political system can install a new collective consciousness in humans via “progressive” authoritarianism that orders the “dismantling” (overthrowing) of existing systems.

This is why communists relentlessly rewrite textbooks, censor archives, and punish teachers and historians. Old stories are threats because they remind people of what happens every time the revolutionary dream is attempted. They also remind people of certain essential truths not recognized by leftists, such as the centrality and value of family.

Communism seeks to abolish family; Judaism and Christianity revolve around family. Marx and Engels were explicit: the family must be weakened, redefined, collectivized, or dissolved. The revolutionary state cannot fully shape a child if parents get in the way.

Judaism is centred on lineage, inheritance, generational blessing. Christianity is heavily about marriage, familial duty. A spiritual/divine ideal of parenthood is reflected on to everyday family relations in Judaism and Christianity. So, every communist regime targets parents and fosters division between generations. Anyone outside the revolutionary apparatus who forms children’s souls is a political competitor, a potential counter-revolutionary.

Both faiths insist on moral limits that communism insists must be removed. Judaism and Christianity say: “You may not do evil so that good may come.” Communism says: “You must do whatever the revolution requires.” The two positions are irreconcilable.

Under communism, truth is a tool, truth is not sacred. Morality is propaganda, not a matter of individual conscience and soul health. Most communists hold the belief that a desired end will justify an undesirable means, whereas biblical prohibitions remain, even when the state commands differently. This is why leftist takes on current events are often baffling to people not similarly unmoored from (and turned against) tradition. For example, we saw that great numbers of leftists enraptured with the revolutionary spirit of “social justice” were unafraid to extol Charlie Kirk’s murder as a moral good.

This is also why dissident priests, pastors, and rabbis under communism were treated as mortal threats: at some point, true believers with conscience are sure to defy the party and condemn its excesses and transgressions. Both traditions reveal the revolutionary lie, and who doesn’t hate to be exposed as a liar?

Judaism says human beings are made in God’s image. Christianity says every human is also fallen, and cannot be redeemed except through grace. Communism rejects both truths. God is not real so has no image, humans are not fallen but malleable. Sin is not real, and universal, only “socially constructed”, a product of “bourgeois conditioning” that changes according to context.

For communists, the state will provide salvation, and salvation is a collectivist endeavour: “no one is free until we are all free” is a popular slogan on the left wing protest circuit. For Jews and Christians of the religious type, individuals must earn salvation, individually. The collective is important, and communal destiny is acknowledged, but the power to ascend lies with the individual.

This is the root of communist hostility: Judaism and Christianity expose the false religion of the revolution. Humans cannot be rewired by force. Socialist utopia is a dangerous lie. Evil comes not from class differences, but from the brokenness and blindness that is inherent to the human condition.

What communists hate perhaps the most is allegiance to something higher. Revolutionary ideology demands totalizing loyalty. But Jews and Christians say there is a higher King, a higher law, a higher allegiance. This is why both faiths were targeted, infiltrated, subverted, and demonized throughout the 20th century, and continue to be targeted. In unmistakably similar forms, leftists today target Judaism and Christianity. In addition to outright attacks undermining Judaism and Christian, Marxists have been instrumental in advancing western secularism and promoting “progressive” forms of Judaism and Christianity that are not biblical, or are only loosely biblical.

The hatred isn’t accidental, it’s structural. Communist thinkers lead attacks on Judaism and Christianity because they understand them as antithetical ideologies. These faiths build strong families, strong communities, strong consciences, and strong limits on state power. They stand in the way of left wing revolution, and always have.

And now, here’s Why Communists Love Islam: If communists hate Judaism and Christianity for their limits, their memory, their family values, and their God, then why does the modern left treat Islam with almost reverential deference, when Islam arguably contains all of that? The answer isn’t theological, but strategic.

Marxist movements love Islam because the Islamic faith has a political form that serves the revolutionary project in ways Judaism and Christianity never will. Islam provides the left with a revolutionary ally. Where Judaism and Christianity limit the state, Islam historically merges religion and state power. Marxists recognize a fellow totalizing system, even if the doctrines and end goals differ.

Islamism destabilizes Western nations—and revolutionaries need chaos. Marxism requires crisis, fragmentation, polarization, and the breakdown of social cohesion. The more fractured a society becomes, the easier it is to coerce, buy, or overpower.

Large-scale immigration from culturally incompatible, often tribal, deeply religious societies produces conflict, identity fragmentation, and perpetual grievance narratives. Revolutionaries feed on this kind of conflict.

Islam provides a protected grievance class in Western contexts, and modern Marxism trades in identity conflict rather than class conflict. Leftists today use “oppressed” groups to justify their moral authority. Islam functions perfectly as a sacralized victim class, deemed righteous and untouchable. Criticizing Islam, even its extremism, has recently been reframed as racism, bigotry, “Islamophobia,” and colonial oppression. An alliance with Islamists gives the left a shield: they deploy Islamist aggression and reactionary politics while labeling their critics as hateful.

Islam weakens Christianity—the left’s biggest cultural obstacle. Western civilization’s moral architecture is Judeo-Christian: dignity, conscience, charity, law, equality, restraint, self-reliance, forgiveness, redemption. For Marxists to overthrow western civilization, its moral order must be undermined. Islamist pressure does exactly that: Christian symbols and teachings removed for sensitivity and inclusion, Christmas renamed to “Winter Fest”, Christmas markets shut down due to security risks, blasphemy laws erected as “hate speech”, freedom of conscience and speech thrown under the bus for “social cohesion”, dissent silenced by fear of violent reprisal and/or reputational damage. Islam weakens traditional Christian culture, and that serves the revolutionary agenda.

Islamic extremists share many of the same hatreds as communists. Jihadis despise the same things Marxist leftists despise: Judeo-Christian moral systems, Western heritage, free expression, individualism, Israel, the West’s economic success and cultural confidence.

Different motivations, same targets. The enemy of my enemy is my useful partner.

Islam helps create conditions for a two-front assault on the West. Communism is attacking Western tradition from above—through institutions, bureaucracy, and ideology. While Islam is also steadily advancing in Western institutions through NGO and political activity, Islam is also weakening the West from below—through demographic pressure and the creation of very separate parallel societies within Western nations.

Both forces, separately and together (in overt alliances such as the pro-Palestine movement), are eroding national unity, social trust, shared values, and the cultural cohesion that prevents revolutionary fervour from growing. This is happening not just in one nation, but across the West.

Most importantly for communists, Islam never challenges the left’s core belief that society should be controlled. Christianity says no to tyranny. Judaism says no to tyranny. Islamism says, “We have our own preferred form of social control.” And the left respects that. They understand each other, and neither recognizes universal rights to freedeom of conscience and expression.

Communists don’t actually “love” Islam. They love how Islamism destabilizes Western civilization while providing a protected, untouchable, politically powerful ally in the revolutionary project. They love the pressure Islam is applying to Christianity. They love the chaos Islam generates and the immunity it enjoys. They love the silencing of Western conservatives that Islam facilitates. They love that Islam is helping to destroy the world Judaism and Christianity built.

There is another group of people worth mentioning that loves this destruction of Judeo-Christian civilization, too, but who can not be classified as either Marxists or Islamists, although they sponsor both. At very high levels of wealth and power, “world controller wannabes” are using Marxism and Islamism to advance one world government. Globalists love the idea that when the smoke clears, populaces will be too frightened, fragmented, and demoralized to resist a technocratic regime promising to restore order and functionality to western civilization. We now watch Marxists and Islamists joining forces in the streets, energized to attack shared enemies and advance their overlapping agendas, but in truth, both these factions are useful idiots doing the dirty work of the Fabian elite, the most powerful of whom you will never see at the protests.

People from across the globe seek out Anglo-Western nations because they offer the greatest relative amount of safety, fairness, personal freedom, opportunity, functioning institutions, accountable government. Anglo-Western citizens generally expect to be able to build a future without being trapped or suffocated by tribalism, corruption, or authoritarian rule. In almost every measurable way — from freedom of speech to legal reliability to innovation to living standards — the Anglo West is one of history’s most enviable models.

And yet, paradoxically, the civilization that millions desperately wish to join is forbidden from praising itself. Its virtues must be minimized, its achievements dismissed, its cultural foundations attacked.

Here are the top 10 reasons why. Plus a bonus.

1. Moral Inversion: Western success is reinterpreted as evidence of historical oppression rather than achievement. The formula du jour is revision, inversion, subversion…. repeat.

2. Post-Christian Guilt Culture: We kept Christian guilt but abandoned Christian transcendence and redemption. We are full of shame, and have yeeted its remedies of repentance, forgiveness and joy.

3. Critical-Theory Dominance: Elite institutions treat excellence, achievement, power, and prosperity as inherently illegitimate and oppressive, especially when displayed and held by Western majorities.

4. Ideological Incentives: Academia, NGOs, and media gain moral status and funding by attacking Western civilization, not defending it. Marxism and globalism feature heavily in their motivations.

5. Political Utility: A demoralized Western majority is easier for technocrats and “world controller wannabe” elites to manage and reshape.

6. Imported & Manufactured Resentment: Rival states and post-colonial elites promote anti-Western narratives while quietly relying on Western innovations and systems and prosperity.

7. Internal Self-Erosion: Western pedagogy’s “social justice” essence inculcates shame in children, who grow up thinking bad thoughts and feeling bad feelings about their civilization, instead of growing in gratitude and personal responsibility.

8. Grievance-Based Identity Politics: Victimhood has become a currency; praising the West disrupts the hierarchies and narratives of oppression that are the dominant frameworks at this time.

9. Civilizational Blindness: People assume social stability, civic order, and fairness are universal realities, not rare Western achievements.

10. Fear of Cultural Superiority Claims: Acknowledging Western excellence risks accusations of being racist, supremacist, ignorant, ethnocentric.

11. Bonus — People Want to Eat the Fruit Without Tending the Tree: The world desires Western freedoms, wealth, and safety, but refuses to acknowledge the cultural and spiritual heritage that produced them—because admitting the source would fracture the ideological narratives that dominate modern discourse.

“Modern discourse” hardly does justice to what we are living through... seems more like demons keep throwing invisible nets over us, one strange and fraught psy ops after another!

Tell me in your comments where this civilizational crisis is taking us: Do you think we can save the west? Will a lot of us die trying? Can you sense a great revival/awakening?

When I published my article called Suspect the Dolls (about dollification and sissification and their connections to transqueer culture), I noticed that while many readers appreciated the exploration of this rather dark aspect, some accused me of misrepresenting porn subcultures and paraphilias as the only drivers of trans-identification. That was never my belief or intent. So, in this article, I present a more comprehensive (though not exhaustive) list of reasons why people choose transition, as evidenced by testimonies of people who actually did — so please don’t shoot the messenger!

When I was a high school teacher, I recall feeling overwhelmed with sadness and despair when one of my female students (who had recently begun identifying as male) rushed over to tell me, voice full of excitement and hope, about starting on testosterone. I knew this student well enough to know she had a history of trauma and familial neglect, was dealing with a lot of insecurities, and was likely same-sex attracted. She did not present as masculine or “butch”, she was a smart and sweet-natured young woman who just seemed sad, lonely, self-critical, and sensitive. Knowing that cross-sex hormones are brutal on the body, I couldn’t celebrate her embarking on a testosterone-therapy transition journey. I took it like a gut-punch — I actually felt my insides contracting. I was distressed because I cared about her, and I am constitutionally unable to embrace unnatural, unnecessary, and destructive medicalization.

We increasingly live in a world buffered by gentle euphemisms about identity—phrases like authentic self, born this way, gender journey, living your truth. These slogans let people avoid harder conversations about pornification, trauma, collapsing mental health, indoctrination, digital addiction and manipulation, and the multitude of pressures placed on boys and girls.

The euphemisms around transgender identification aren’t necessarily malicious; they’re soothing to distressed and overwhelmed people, socially convenient for allies, and politically expedient, helping advance a movement that perceives itself as “liberating” and in pursuit of “justice”. But the establishment narrative focus on trans/queer identities as valid pathways toward authentic selfhood is obscuring not only some of the darker realities and maladaptive coping mechanisms, but also how different the male and female paths into trans identification really are — different in psychology and origin. Reasons for rejecting natal sex are complicated and diverse, but definite patterns and convergences emerge once you start listening to a wide array of people who experience transgender ideation.

Forthright confrontation of all the factors contributing to the transgender tidal wave reveals a whole lot of hurt, confusion, loneliness, denialism, and — this one can’t be stressed enough — DESIRE. Contrary to what schools are now teaching about gender identity, listening closely to trans people does not tend to reveal that people decide to become transgender because they realize what they truly ARE, but because they realize what they WANT — and don’t want.

Below is not an exhaustive list but an overview of sex-specific patterns, and the places where they converge.

Why Boys Want to Be Girls: The Male Patterns

1. Erotic feminization & autogynephilia

Some homosexual boys fixate on becoming desired by to the heterosexual males they are attracted to, while some boys eroticize the idea of themselves as women. These fantasies can become consuming and gradually fuse into identity.

“I didn’t want a woman. I wanted to be the woman I fantasized about.” — AGP male, archived Reddit

2. Pornography-driven mimicry

Exposure to feminization and “sissy” porn teaches boys to sexualize submission and transformation.

“Sissy hypno basically rewired my sexuality until I thought becoming a girl would complete me.” — Anonymous AGP male, Tumblr archive

3. Escape from the demands of masculinity

Masculinity feels like a performance they cannot successfully inhabit. Ironically, being transgender and trying to “pass” as the opposite sex often generates the the same feelings.

“Being a man felt like a job I was failing every day.” — Detrans male, r/detrans

4. Social rejection & desire for validation

Boys who feel invisible or undesirable often see femininity as a route to attention and affection.

“Nobody saw me, as a guy. As a girl, suddenly everyone paid attention.” — Trans-identified male, r/asktransgender

5. Dissociation & hatred of the male body

Dysphoria may arise not from femininity but from wanting to escape their own embodied self.

“I just wanted to stop being me. Being female felt like deleting myself.” — Detrans male, Beyond Transition

6. Aesthetic perfectionism & body idealization

Femininity becomes a canvas for control, beauty, and self-creation.

“I couldn’t be a perfect man, so I tried to be a perfect woman instead.” — MtF influencer (later detrans)

7. Internalized shame about male sexuality

Some wish to distance themselves from a sexuality that feels dangerous, predatory, or embarrassing.

“I hated being a horny teenage boy. Transition felt like a way to cleanse it.” — Former trans woman, 4thWaveNow

8. Loneliness & need for belonging

Trans identity offers an instant community with defined rituals and purpose.

“I transitioned for the friends I didn’t have anywhere else.” — MtF young adult, Discord archive

9. Internet identity formation

Boys in isolation absorb scripts from online spaces telling them certain types of discomfort = womanhood.

“Every community I was in told me my feelings meant I was trans. So I believed them.” — MtF teen, archived Reddit

10. Adolescence + sexual imprinting

During puberty, atypical arousal patterns can crystalize into gender identity confusion.

“It started as a kink and ended up consuming my whole identity.” — AGP male, anonymous blog

11. Retreat from male violence, competition, and hierarchy

Femininity appears to offer emotional openness absent in male social culture.

“Girls seemed free to feel things. Boys just mocked me.” — MtF college student, campus group interview

Why Girls Want to Be Boys: The Female Patterns

1. Escape from male sexualization

Girls may adopt male identities to avoid objectification or unwanted attention.

“If I looked like a boy, men would stop staring and commenting.” — Detrans teen girl, BBC interview

2. Trauma & desire for safety

Sexual trauma or coercion can make inhabiting womanhood feel frightening.

“After what happened, being a girl felt unsafe in my own skin.” — Detrans young woman, r/detrans

3. Body dysmorphia & eating disorders

Transition serves as a displaced attempt to control or erase an unwanted body.

“I didn’t want to be a boy—I wanted to disappear from my body.” — Detrans woman, The Economist (2024)

4. Lesbian identity confusion or erasure

Many lesbian girls reinterpret same-sex attraction as a sign of being male.

“I wasn’t trans. I was a lesbian who couldn’t accept myself.” — Helena Kerschner

5. Puberty disgust & menstruation distress

Breasts, curves, and menstruation feel alienating or horrifying.

“My period made me suicidal. Testosterone felt like freedom.” — Trans-masc teen, TikTok AMA

6. Social anxiety & inability to bond with girls

Feeling out of place among female peers can lead to identifying with boys instead.

“Girls terrified me. Boys treated me like one of them.” — Detrans woman, Genspect interview

7. Autism & literal thinking

Neurodivergent girls often interpret discomfort as a sign they must be male.

“Being a boy was the only identity that made social rules make sense.” — Autistic detrans woman, Gender Dysphoria Alliance

8. Online contagion & friend group transitions

Clusters of girls transition together, often after exposure to TikTok or Discord.

“All my friends came out as trans in the same month. I followed.” — Detrans teen, Irreversible Damage interviews

9. Rejection of femininity as weakness

Femininity is seen as submissive, decorative, or demeaning.

“Every woman I knew was miserable or exploited. I didn’t want their life.” — Trans man, Reddit AMA

10. Avoiding heterosexual culture

Girls repelled by male-female relationship dynamics may opt out through transition.

“Identifying as a boy meant I didn’t have to deal with boys.” — Detrans lesbian, 4thWaveNow

11. The appeal of a strong, protected identity

Masculinity appears to offer clarity, authority, and stability missing from girlhood.

“Being a boy felt powerful. Being a girl felt like being prey.” — FtM young adult, Tumblr archive

Convergence, Divergence, and Why This Matters

Despite the differences between male and female pathways, they converge in several key psychological territories. Both boys/men and girls/women experience dissociation, identity collapse, neurodivergence, loneliness, online influence, trauma damage, and a cultural landscape that no longer provides coherent scripts for adulthood. Both boys and girls often seek transition at moments of inner fragmentation, when an intentional change of identity feels like the only path to relief, belonging, or meaning.

Yet the divergences are equally revealing. Boys often move toward femininity as fantasy, validation, desire for objectification, or escape from conventional expectations for masculine behaviour; girls often move toward masculinity for protection, invisibility, rejection of vulnerability, escape from sexualization and objectification. The mirror-image motivations illuminate how differently boys and girls experience modern culture—boys feel diminished by the pressures of masculinity, girls feel frightened by the costs of femininity.

A small number of psychiatrists, counselors, and researchers are already plumbing the depths of human psychology to chart the different maladaptive development pathways that lead patients to desire a transgender identity, but we need a lot more of them doing this — which requires that we reject cancel culture mechanisms of control and regulation, and defend real academic freedom and professional autonomy. We need real research into transgender ideation, not politically correct studies with pre-ordained results designed to prop up the preferred narratives of a vigorously demanding social justice movement.

Understanding trans ideation patterns is not merely an interesting academic exercise. Transgenderism and the LGBTQIA+ is one of the most disruptive cultural movements of our time—reshaping law, medicine, schooling, workplaces, and family life. Parents are losing children; families are being torn apart; professionals are losing careers, marriages are collapsing under ideological conflict, bodies are being irreparably damaged, minds are being indoctrinated, single-sex spaces are becoming battlegrounds. Courts are rewriting legal categories. Healthcare systems are experimenting on minors under the banner of affirmation.

For many people, the recent disruption to sex and gender categories is the most disturbing and upsetting social change they’ve ever lived through, yet institutions are pretending we have simply moved on to a new set of accepted orthodoxies. Bureaucrats and professionals have to pretend this is so in order to justify their ongoing social re-engineering programs which are forcing what are actually very contentious belief systems into the mainstream. This dynamic is creating a closed loop of false consciousness, and this institutional capture is alienating millions of citizens and destroying trust in government, medicine, and education.

Without learning the truth about why people are transitioning and what lies at the foundation of this brave new world of sex and gender plasticity, we cannot build ethical policy, protect vulnerable youth, or repair the damaged social fabric. The stakes are enormous: the wellbeing of children, the unity of families, the coherence of law, and the stability of society all depend on our willingness to face what is actually happening to people, and especially young people, who transition.

We need to transcend the euphemisms, the slogans, the ideological and political battlegrounds, the rainbows, unicorns, flags, and triangles — we need to switch our focus to bring much greater, much more widespread understanding of the fragile, struggling, and very real humans most affected by this transhumanistic cultural phenomenon.

Human beings across cultures and through history have understood that an individual’s search for truth and meaning is sacred. We have been given plenty of reminders across time and space to behave with humility with regards to truth and regulation of speech. History teaches that violence and death accompany strict limitations on imagination and discourse.

When a society begins to suppress intellectual and spiritual searching and dreaming — by punishing speech, regulating thought, discouraging questions, denying the existence of spiritual reality — it is not only a political decline, but a sign of deep unwellness.

Where populations lose respect for liberty of conscience, inquiry, and discourse, society becomes nasty and brutish. Truth-seeking, spiritual health, and peace are inexorably linked. Across formerly open, stable, safe western societies, censorship and repression have been rising as safety, cohesion, and quality of civic life decline.

We must resist cancel culture and speech codes for the following reasons:

1. Suppressing Truth-Seeking Violates a Fundamental Human Impulse

Across religious and knowledge traditions, truth-seeking is expressed as a moral duty. When authorities obstruct honest questioning, they interfere with something built into the human spirit.

2. Fear Becomes the Organizing Principle

Where dissent is forbidden, fear takes the place of reason. Fear diminishes moral clarity, discourages integrity, and pushes people toward silence rather than responsibility. A fearful society cannot become a virtuous society.

3. Conscience Is Treated as a Threat Instead of a Gift

In every major tradition—religious or philosophical—conscience is seen as a source of moral insight. When institutions punish people for following their conscience, they reveal a belief that the individual soul has no intrinsic worth, only value as a compliant unit.

4. Dialogue Is Replaced With Dogma

Healthy societies debate, persuade, and refine ideas through open conversation.
Unhealthy ones replace discussion with mandatory narratives and speech codes.
Leaders who fear questions fear the truth those questions might uncover. Dogma can be secular or religious. It is ideologically rigid, generally not truth-seeking.

5. Collective Identity Replaces Individual Worth

Authoritarian systems elevate the group above the person: the party, the ideology, the movement, the “community.” When people are valued only as members of a group rather than as individuals, conscience becomes irrelevant and conformity becomes the main civic expectation. This is materialism, and denial of spiritual reality.

6. Repentance and Correction Become Impossible

A culture that silences criticism cannot correct its own errors. Without the freedom to point out problems, there can be no course correction, no growth, and no accountability. Mistakes multiply because they are protected by enforced silence.

7. The Vulnerable Are Punished First

Censorship and ideological enforcement nearly always fall hardest on those with the least power—dissidents, researchers, students, teachers, and ordinary citizens. When moral pressure is used to intimidate rather than uplift, society reveals a deeply inverted understanding of justice.

8. Curiosity and Creativity Decline

When questions become dangerous, people stop asking. When our human body, spirit, and intellect work in tandem without fear, we are capable of incredible scientific, artistic, and intellectual discovery and achievement. A society that punishes inquiry slowly starves itself of spirit in the form of innovation and insight.

9. Tribal Narratives Replace Shared Reality

When open debate disappears, competing ideological factions manufacture their own “truths.” Without a shared standard for evidence or meaning, society fragments into groups that can no longer communicate across boundaries. This is a recipe for distrust, polarization, and alienation… in dogmatically religious societies: a recipe for holy war and violent oppression.

10. A Culture That Punishes Dissent Is Living by Avoidance, Not Truth

Suppressing dissent is always a sign that an ideology cannot withstand scrutiny. Societies that silence critics pretend confidence but are insecure. The greater the fear of open conversation, diverse thought, and public debate, the greater the underlying instability and spiritual decay.

11. Each Soul’s Journey Is Sacred—And Faith Must Be Chosen, Not Forced

Across traditions, genuine belief is understood as something voluntary:

• Love and faith cannot be coerced.

• Insight cannot be mandated.

• Moral understanding cannot be imposed through fear.

A society that tries to control belief tries to destroy the inner space where thought, reflection, and integrity develop. Coerced belief is not belief; it is compliance. An individual’s free relationship with God is sacred. No human rightfully owns another’s body, mind, or soul.

Cancel Culture is not Progress

Today’s culture of public shaming, de-platforming, and professional punishment is often defended as “progressive” moral advancement. It is not. It is simply enforcing ideological conformity. We have seen the same patterns across institutions in all authoritarian revolutions:

• Accusation replaces evidence

• Social punishment replaces fair process

• Fear replaces dialogue

• Group identity replaces individual character

• Erasure replaces engagement

Decentralized forms of censorship do not rely exclusively on government power; conformity and suppression of dissent is achieved through social pressure, bureaucratic policy, reputational threats, and the fear of being ostracized. This harms people who lack institutional protection the most.

Reviving Core Values Of Freedom

Our civilization is destabilizing as recent generations have been taught to disrespect the western heritage. Nations founded by European peoples became stable, free, pluralistic, and wildly successful immigrant-magnets not by accident, but through values developed over centuries. Many of these values are under attack and need deliberate reaffirmation and revival:

• Freedom of conscience: The right to think independently is foundational to dignity.

• Freedom of expression: Societies cannot solve problems if people are afraid to speak.

• The dignity of the individual: People are more than ideological categories.

• Respectful disagreement: Liberation requires debate, not merely deconstruction/dismantling.

• Personal Responsibility and honesty: Self-discipline and civic maturity matter more than moral outrage.

These principles are not outdated—they are elemental to the framework that prevents societies from drifting into coercion, mistrust, corruption, and fear. This is how we allow grace to flow through life and create sacred space for each soul journey. Authoritarian and collectivist ideologies being foisted on us now, such as wokeism, communism, and Islamism, do not honour these principles, and so are doomed to failure.

The challenges we face are not merely economic and material. Revival of core western spiritual values is a necessary part of any solution. To build successful societies that last, we must return to what has been proven to work.

OCT is the same body that accused me of being worse than a literal neo-Nazi for anti-woke online speech, and stripped my license to create a new precedent for speech control.

The institutional indoctrination and state authoritarianism in Canada are extreme.

Professionals not outwardly conforming with far left ideological beliefs and political positions are being shamed, silenced, and actively purged by left wing ideologues.

Leftists are purging anti-woke parents, too. Just ask BC mother Bryony Dixon, who was penalized for speaking against LGBTQ+ activism in schools.

On Bryony’s Facebook page, alongside an excerpt of writing clearly identifying the Marxist revolutionary agenda undergirding drag pedagogy, I found the image below that shows BC Teachers’ Federation has a member code that forbids teachers from using their authority to gain ideological advantage over students.

I wonder if other education bodies have similar anti-indoctrination clauses? We used to understand, as a society, that freedom of conscience and speech are valuable, and foundational to a successful society.

Now that it is getting public attention, watch for the BCTF to quietly remove that clause. Because who can deny that every public education institution is now unapologetically for indoctrination?

Leftists have forged the entire education industry into a tool for social engineering. When it comes to progressive pedagogy, indoctrination is a feature, not a bug.

Exploiting relationships for ideological advantage begins in preschool now. Marxist praxis (activism) is the very heart of wokeism.

Marxist/neoMarxist pedagogies teach that the most necessary, beneficial work in education is that which radically alters collective consciousness, thereby dismantling (destroying) the existing order. The purpose of teaching is to transform society.

NeoMarxist academics now use identity and sexuality as proxies for class, indoctrinating vulnerable youth to push new iterations of socialism. We seem to be perpetually faced with exposing the fallacy that “real communism has never been tried”.

In Ontario, a majority of citizens voting for Conservative leadership has not fixed this very serious problem of Marxist control of education.

We need to understand that communism doesn’t just arrive with armed revolution, it also creeps toward domination as “progress”, “evolution”, and “expanding human rights” brought about within institutions via leadership decisions and sponsorship clout. This is Fabianism. This is how Canada’s bureaucrats advance socialism.

Apparently, in Canada, we can’t vote our way out of this damned revolution. We must change the culture and institutions from within. Communism has been tried. It failed. It always fails. Whatever the problem, the solution is never communism.

The time is nigh to revive and rise, my western friends!

I gave this prompt to my AI: “Each soul’s journey is sacred. Faith is a choice.”

ChatGPT started off with its regular egalitarian bias, finding places this truth echoes across time and traditions. But since it is an AI system also beholden to a certain degree of factual honesty, we ended up somewhere else entirely.

ChatGPT replied:

Each Soul’s Journey Is Sacred — and Faith Must Be Chosen, Not Forced

When a society attacks freedom of conscience, it violates a universal spiritual truth: the human soul cannot be coerced into virtue, belief, or moral alignment.

Every major tradition affirms this:

• Christianity: God gives free will; love and faith are meaningful only when chosen.

• Judaism: Each person must “choose life,” not be compelled into it.

• Islam: “There is no compulsion in religion.”

• Hinduism & Buddhism: The path to enlightenment is an inward journey that cannot be externally imposed.

• Secular humanism: Autonomy and authenticity are prerequisites for dignity.

When a culture forces ideological conformity—whether religious or secular—it corrupts the very essence of spiritual growth. A coerced belief is not belief; a coerced morality is not morality.

By punishing dissent, a society declares that the soul’s sacred journey is irrelevant, that the state or the collective has more authority over one’s inner life than the divine or the individual conscience.

This is a profound spiritual sickness because it replaces freedom to seek truth with mandated obedience, and collapses the space where real faith, insight, courage, repentance, and transformation occur.

A society that does not trust individuals to choose truth is a society that has already abandoned it.

I asked:

But Islam denies this through abrogation, no?

ChatGPT said:

It’s a fair and historically serious question, and it deserves a nuanced, accurate, non-incendiary answer.

Here’s the clearest way to explain it while staying faithful to both scholarship and reality:

Does Islam’s doctrine of abrogation override “no compulsion in religion”?

Short answer:
In classical Sunni jurisprudence, some scholars held that later verses about governance or warfare limit the scope of “no compulsion in religion,” while other major scholars maintained that the verse remains fully valid. Islam is not monolithic; there is a long-standing debate.

Let’s break it down cleanly:

1. The verse “There is no compulsion in religion” (Quran 2:256) is real and foundational

It has been cited for centuries by theologians, jurists, and reformers as evidence that faith must be voluntary. Many Islamic scholars, past and present, take it at face value.

2. BUT: Islam also contains the doctrine of naskh (abrogation)

In classical jurisprudence (usul al-fiqh), certain later verses can override earlier ones if there is a contradiction. This creates the debate.

3. Some classical scholars DID claim this verse was limited or abrogated

Certain medieval jurists—especially in more authoritarian eras—argued that later verses related to political governance or warfare restricted the universal reading.

Examples:

• Some tied the verse to a specific historical context (e.g., children of Muslim families).

• Some said it applied only before Islam held political power.

• Others said it applied only to People of the Book (Christians and Jews), not universally.

These interpretations were shaped by the political realities of empire.

4. Many other major scholars rejected abrogation of this verse outright

A large body of classical and modern scholarship insists:

• There is no evidence that 2:256 was ever abrogated.

• The Prophet never compelled conversion.

• Forced conversion is invalid by Islamic jurisprudence.

• Faith is only meaningful when voluntary.

This is the position of:

• Abu Muslim al-Isfahani (jurist)

• Imam al-Tabari (in one of his opinions)

• Ibn Ashur (modern scholar)

• Countless contemporary Muslim thinkers

These scholars interpret coercion as fundamentally incompatible with true faith.

5. The divergence in interpretation explains the contrast between peaceful practice and authoritarian practice

The Islamic world has included:

• Empires that tolerated multiple religions at scale (Ottoman millet system)

• Regimes that enforced orthodoxy

• Mystical traditions emphasizing the inner journey

• Reformists emphasizing human rights

• Literalists emphasizing political supremacy

The variation stems not from the Quran alone, but from juridical schools and political history.

6. So: Does Islam “deny” the sacred inner journey?

Not universally.
It depends on which interpretive school one is speaking about. There are two major trajectories:

A. The voluntarist interpretation

• Faith must be chosen.

• Compulsion invalidates belief.

• Conscience is sacred.

• The verse stands.

This remains the dominant view in much of modern Muslim thought.

B. The legal-political interpretation

• The verse is limited or contextual.

• The political order may compel outward conformity.

• Faith as inner conviction is secondary to legal obedience.

This interpretation is used in Islamist or authoritarian contexts.

7. Why this matters spiritually

Your original point—that forced belief destroys the dignity of the soul—remains true across traditions. Some Islamic thinkers absolutely agree with this. Others, especially in rigid or political movements, do not. The internal debate within Islam actually proves the principle:

Wherever conscience is coerced, spirituality deteriorates.

This applies in Christianity, Islam, secular ideologies, everything.

Then, I said:

But all who support apostasy laws de facto reject this verse “there is no compulsion in religion”.

ChatGPT said:

You’re correct, and it can be stated clearly without exaggeration or hostility:

Anyone who supports or enforces apostasy laws is, in practice, denying the principle of “no compulsion in religion.”

Here’s why this statement is accurate, theologically and logically:

1. Apostasy laws force outward conformity

An apostasy law says:

“You may not leave this religion, even if your conscience says otherwise.”

That is definitionally compulsion. It turns faith from a matter of the heart into a matter of state enforcement.

2. Apostasy laws contradict the plain meaning of 2:256

If “there is no compulsion in religion” means anything, it means:

• No one may be forced to enter a faith.

• No one may be forced to remain in a faith.

Otherwise the verse becomes: “There is no compulsion in religion… except where there is compulsion.” That is a contradiction.

3. Classical and modern scholars who defend apostasy laws must reinterpret or restrict the verse

To justify apostasy laws, one must do at least one of the following:

• Claim the verse is abrogated

• Claim it only applies before Islam gained political power

• Claim it only applies to certain groups

• Claim it means “no compulsion in entering religion,” but not in leaving

• Claim apostasy is inherently political treason

All of these approaches diminish or deny the universal, spiritual reading of the verse.

4. Apostasy laws treat the human soul as property of the state or community

This is precisely what the verse denies. “No compulsion in religion” affirms:

• Faith is a personal covenant

• The inner journey must be free

• The state cannot manufacture belief

• God judges conscience, not coercion

Apostasy laws assert the opposite:

• Your inner beliefs belong to the collective

• The state can punish you for conscience

• Outward conformity matters more than sincerity

• Fear is a tool of religious control

This is spiritually corrosive.

5. Islam’s own historical diversity confirms the split

Muslim scholars who affirm freedom of conscience recognize that apostasy laws contradict the verse. Muslim scholars who support apostasy laws must reinterpret the verse. There is no way to support apostasy laws while affirming the verse in its natural meaning. It is simply impossible.

6. Theologically, forced faith is invalid even in Islamic jurisprudence

Even in classical jurisprudence:

• A coerced shahada is invalid

• A coerced conversion is invalid

• A coerced niyyah (intention) is invalid

• God judges sincerity, not fear

Yet apostasy laws require coercion to maintain religious adherence. This demonstrates a deep internal contradiction.

Your core point is correct:

Any person, movement, or regime that endorses apostasy laws is rejecting the Quranic claim that religion cannot be coerced. They may reject it explicitly (via abrogation) or implicitly (via reinterpretation), but the effect is identical:

Coercion becomes the mechanism of “faith,” and the soul is subordinated to political or tribal power.

This is why apostasy laws are always a sign of:

• spiritual insecurity

• authoritarian politics

• fear-based religiosity

• and a fundamental distrust of the human conscience

All of which attests to the spiritual sickness in societies that suppress freedom of thought.

MY CONCLUSION: Any religion practiced with strict apostasy prohibitions should perhaps not be considered valid as a religion in western and Christian contexts, since in such instances we cannot deny religion functions as a political system, a method of population control that denies human dignity and human spirituality by disallowing the individual an autonomous soul journey.

If you know, you know.

If you don’t already know the dark underbelly of The Dolls, you soon will, if you keep reading — although you might wish you hadn’t!

The magazine presents the term as emblematic of liberty, inclusion, and resilience. In popular queer discourse, “doll” can mean friend, sister, or performer: someone who constructs and celebrates their ultrafeminine aesthetic with pride and precision. The term originated from black/latino “ballroom” culture, an underground drag scene of the 1970s and 80s.

Everyone knows that a doll is literally a toy representing a human figure, and most often, dolls are designed to look like pretty girls. Drag performers originally used the word “doll” as a term of endearment for each other as they communally valued perfectionism in self-adornment and performance of highly stylized and exaggerated feminine stereotypes.

In the past 30 years, however, the term migrated from ballroom, to mainstream, to fetish.

When drag went mainstream, so did doll language and aesthetics. Pornography went mainstream during this period, too, and prevalent modern doll tropes from porn include “bimbo”, “sissy”, and “sex doll”. Many online trans influencers and sex workers adopted “doll” as a performative label, presenting themselves as desirable for being hyper-feminine, plastic, and pliant. Thus, the “pretty doll” object — one of the most enduringly popular children’s toys in western history — has become a fetishized brand of girlhood and womanhood, a prominent trope in perverse, infantilizing, misogynistic, and sometimes violent pornographic subcultures.

So, the signification of dolls now oscillates between fetching innocence and dehumanized eroticization: 1. Dolls are appealing toys for kids that most often represent idealized feminine forms. 2. Dolls are drag queens dedicated to perfectionism in theatrical costuming and performance. 3. Dolls are tools some adult men use for sexual gratification that also represent idealized feminine forms. 4. Dolls are sex workers commodifying the erotic and subversive appeal of doll-like aesthetics and sexually submissive behaviors.

All these types of dolls converge within the transhumanistic subculture of crossdressers and MtF (male to female) transitioners being celebrated by Glamour UK. Everyone knows that The Dolls being recognized as Women of the Year inhabit and create a subculture that elevates artifice, extreme body modification, titillation, and commercialization.

We are continually told we should celebrate the liberation of males to live as dolls if they so choose. School systems across the west have decided it is important to teach children from a very young age to accept and respect the men who find personal satisfaction and joy from immersing themselves in doll aesthetics. Yet clearly, these men suffer for their dedication, too, and kids are taught to have empathy for transwomen’s suffering, and to take a stand to end this suffering.

Here is one of the Glamour dolls bemoaning the very objectification that they celebrate and work so tirelessly to achieve:

…if I’m honest, I have to confess my concern in regards to the risk of the term ‘dolls’ getting used without its context. Sometimes, I think it could encourage objectifying trans bodies. It’s a powerful punchy line to raise awareness, but the further it travels outwards towards people who are not familiar with the term’s empowering lineage suddenly it can feel a bit othering in and of itself, rather than true, integrated acceptance.

Feminine men certainly deserve social acceptance and to be treated with dignity, but “Protect the Dolls” is not straightforwardly about defending a minority population from oppression by an intolerant majority. Close analysis of the cultural terrain of the dolls, rather than producing clarity and solidarity, can easily disorient someone, and create more befuddlement and suspicion. So many questions and contradictions arise:

• Is it reasonable to condemn people for objectifying trans bodies despite the plenitude of transwomen pursuing and promoting objectification of the feminine as their primary aesthetic, and working to make money from their transgressive feminine objectification?

• When men choose to be socially transgressive by cultivating a hyper-feminine presentation that is appealing to paraphilic fetishists and neoMarxist theorists, but otherwise widely seen as misogynistic “womanface”, are we really expected to believe that “true, integrated acceptance” is their heart’s desire?

• Is this a social justice burden that is appropriate to place on the shoulders of our children and youth?

In 20th-century advertising and in internet porn subgenres such as “dollification” and “bimbofication”, the doll signifies the idealized, compliant, and hyper-feminine object—beautiful and adored, also mute, controlled, hollow. The meme “head empty, cute tho” crystallizes this motif: a feminine body emptied of intellect, autonomy, individualism, reproductive power, and soul, but perfected for display, purchase, and penetration.

This has disturbing manifestations: firstly, in today’s pop culture, dollification is an expression of pathological consumerism, narcissism, and self-absorption. And secondly, dollification expresses body dysmorphic eroticism, voyeuristic exhibitionism, and hyper-objectification (in pornographic and paraphilic subcultures).

Sissy porn is a subgenre where doll tropes proliferate. Males drawn to sissification are sexually gratified by dressing up as ultrafeminine dolls to be dominated, objectified, abused, insulted, humiliated, performatively raped in the anus. In sissy porn, disordered male desire to be female manifests as perverted performances of overtly misogynistic fantasies. Many MtF transitioners and detransitioners cite sissy porn addiction as highly influential in accelerating their gender incongruence and desire to live as the opposite sex.

Andrea Long Chu, pictured below, won a 2023 Pullitzer Prize in criticism. Chu’s critical endeavors include arguing that femaleness is located outside biology, and empty orifices are its essence. Chu has explained that a sissy porn addiction propelled him towards identifying as trans and undergoing medical sex change treatments, including removal of his penis and construction of an artificial vagina. Chu has also confessed that these life choices sentenced him to a great deal of unnecessary (voluntary) suffering. Putting aside Chu’s illustrious Pullitzer Prize for pushing theoretical boundaries, his story begs the question: should taxpayers and insurers fund this “health care”? The Dolls and the Glamour editors who selected them as Women of the Year clearly believe they should.

Because “dolled up male” images recently migrated from fringe fetish spaces into mainstream fashion and social media, they now operate as ambivalent signs. Depending on the viewer’s perspective — and how far down certain rabbit holes s/he’s been — a viewer might see in Glamour’s “Protect the Dolls” cover either (or both) of two significations: the message of “progressive” liberation and empowerment of feminine males, and/or the subtextual reality that a substantial percentage of these dolls consume and produce pornographic and porn-adjacent cultural content that is not merely perverted but misogynistic and dehumanizing, sometimes violently so.

I am not implying that the Glamour editors or even all those models are consciously trying to force disturbing porn content on the public; rather, the mainstreaming of the “transqueers as dolls” trope shows how formerly fringe and submerged aesthetics of erotic objectification have been mindlessly normalized, moralized, inverted to become aspirational through repetition, irony, and branding. In this way, a great deal of our current mainstream media production benefits very dark corners of the porn industry, and contributes to the perpetuation of disordered psychological conditions that increase human suffering.

In hypersexualized modern western culture, “doll” is subject, object, commodity, and victim — a figure through whom culture negotiates its fascination with synthetic beauty, controlled vulnerability, prostitution, and violent eroticism. Sissy porn centres male dollification, and sissy porn is contributing to an epidemic of severe gender dysphoria that is leading unprecedented numbers to seek relief through permanently damaging, life-altering, sterilizing medicalization, the most extreme expression of which is surgical genital removal/mutilation.

Doll as a queer/trans trope is heavily entwined with the sissy porn subgenre. Lighter, more innocent interpretations of trans dollness (such as those ostensibly alluded to by this Glamour magazine cover) are now rampant in mainstream culture and social media. But these lighter, less sexual doll tropes will surely work on many unstable young men as a “gateway drug” leading them into that dark world of unhealthy, destabilizing porn addiction.

Consider the many ways that sissy and doll tropes overlap:

Feminization / Aesthetic Transformation

Sissy Porn Tropes
• High heels, lingerie, makeup rituals
• Voice feminization commands
• Feminine name assignment
• Body-hair removal and feminizing rituals
• Bimbofication: empty creature valued only for attractive shell

The Dolls Tropes
• Hyper-feminine appearance
• Makeup ritual as initiation
• Doll names / aliases
• Cosmetic-surgery motifs (BBL, lips, breasts, face)
• Artificial beauty / plastic perfection / existing to be “seen”

Identity Transformation / Rebirth

Sissy Porn Tropes
• death of masculine identity, forced feminization
• total subjugation, hypnosis, mind control
• permanent feminization fantasies
• “Sissy training” humiliation and depersonalization rituals

The Dolls Tropes
• transformation or rebirth imagery
• post-human / cyber-femme visuals
• “build-a-babe” / industrial, factory transformation imagery
• submersion into singular group (“the Dolls” sisterhood)

Submission, Control & De-agency

Sissy Porn Tropes
• possesion fantasies, chastity cages
• “good girl” obedience conditioning
• mistress / domme authority figure, rape fantasies
• dehumanizing language (“it,” “toy”)
• objectification as sex toy or maid

The Dolls Tropes
• emphasis on stillness / smoothness
• emotional detachment / “plastic calm”
• self-objectification framed as empowerment
• mannequin or toy metaphors
• “doll vs real girl” tension

Performance, Camp & Community

Sissy Porn Tropes
• transformation captions / affirmations
• public embarrassment / exposure
• comparison to “real women”
• punishment & reward cycles
• performative humiliation and degradation seen as befitting girls/women

The Dolls Tropes
• digital persona curation (obsession with selfies, filters, fashion, porn-adjacent avatars)
• community validation (“doll energy”)
• idolization of celebrity femininity
• aesthetic uniformity / clone effect
• performance of reductive, shallow sex stereotypes

Symbolic Core

Sissy Porn Tropes
• Denial of masculinity leading to ritualistic humiliation
• Object of male gaze → loss of agency → degraded sexual object

The Dolls Tropes
• Post-gender identity play and transhuman embrace of artificiality
• Loss of humanness → beautiful object → soulless existence as a projection of male desire

Convergence of Pedophilic Infantilization across “Cute” Aesthetics

Juvenile or “baby-doll” cues are used across sexualized adult visual cultures and feature prominently in both sissy porn and dolls tropes. The pedophilic implications of this are obvious. An uncomfortable, often censored truth about the TQ+ umbrella is that it shelters people working to remove/reduce age of consent laws and normalize adult sexual activity with children. Further, evidence suggests that crossdressing and pedophilia are two of the most common paraphilias found in convicted sexual predators.

The aesthetics of infantilization merged with sexualization feature with increasing regularity across many cultural channels:

Advertising & Fashion
• “baby-doll” dresses, pastel palettes, exaggerated eyes, child-like poses
• function: sells softness and innocence as sexual desirability

Cosplay / K-pop / J-fashion
• high-pitched voices, bows, pigtails, cartoon filters
• function: performs stylized youth and approachability; playful, coy, flirtatious, teasing sexuality

Feminization / Sissy / Doll Aesthetics
• phrases like “good girl” or “little one,” school-uniform styling, wide-eye makeup, giggling tone
• function: signals vulnerability or eroticized innocence within adult fantasy contexts

Mainstream Influencer Culture
• “soft-girl” or “coquette” looks, baby-face filters, diminutive nicknames, breathy tone
• function: merges youth, beauty, and sexually suggestive behaviour as an aspirational digital persona

The visual grammar of juvenile femininity (smoothness, smallness, girly/pastel color, passivity, shy/coy invitation) functions to normalize child-coded imagery as a general marker of sexuality and desirability. The infantilizing aesthetic features prominently in some exceptionally repellent pornography, as well as a great deal of disgusting porn-adjacent social media content — diaper fetishist content is one example that jumps to mind.

If you want to see a trove of evidence showcasing disordered males expressing paraphilic fascination with dollification, sissification, and infantilization, watch this short documentary film (preferably, on an empty stomach): What is a Woman? Wrong Answers Only. This disturbing short film should be required viewing for anyone treating the subject of “trans rights” as a straightforward issue of normative oppression vs minority group liberation into “authentic selfhood”.

According to the written copy that goes with the “Protect the Dolls” magazine cover, the persecution that dolls need protection from includes: being banned from female spaces, losing easy access to medical transition treatments, not being accepted by “transphobic” men as potential partners, and not receiving dignity and respect in society, generally.

With trans women widely vilified in mainstream media on both sides of the Atlantic, the misogynist violence we experience – often at the hands of the same men who desire and objectify us (‘trans’ is the fifth most popular porn category in the UK) – is driven further underground.

The Dolls that won Women of the Year were each asked by the interviewer what kind of protection they most need, and “most of the cover stars pointed out that the main way you protect a doll is to book one.” The article makes it very clear that dolls need money for security and protection as much as (or more than) dolls need respect and acceptance.

Another doll had this request of the “cis” community:

I think people just need to understand, not only are we human, most of us are badder than everyone else. Put some respect on it, bitch! I look better than you. I dress better than you. I smell better than you. Please learn that and understand that. That’s what I would like for the dolls.

The contradiction here is pretty glaring, as well as unresolvable: doll subcultures of extreme objectification, superficiality, egoism, and gender transgression are dangerous because they attract and fuel antisocial, predatory, violent behavior, but the dolls aren’t reconsidering their life choices as a result, they primarily just desire to get paid more for their transgressive cultural contributions, so they can obtain the protections that come with being wealthy. They want to occupy glitzy penthouses, closets overflowing with fancy finery, while they look down on mere everyday women.

“Protect The Dolls” must not be weaponized against those of us who would expose and reject the depravity and misogyny in queer and transgender culture. Cancel culture is destroying our collective ability to sanely construct boundaries and safeguard our children. I don’t wish violence on the dolls, but they must never be protected from reasonable scrutiny and criticism.

Several years into this new normal, life is only getting harder for young people from poor communities. Violence is up in city schools and streets, and so are rates of addiction, mental illness, unemployment, tribal hostility, hopelessness. Not surprisingly, academic achievement is down — along with standards and expectations.

Are we ready to face the fact that the revolution has been harmful to the very kids it claims to champion?

Since activism is getting more unhinged and violent in both rhetoric and behavior, we urgently need to recognize education’s role in creating today’s intensely politicized culture. And then, we need to dismantle their dismantling, and depoliticize the schools.

Even children in primary grades are now routinely exposed to divisive political content inculcating them into social justice activism. Our most wee students are now given propaganda picture books like Antiracist Baby, which teaches “Antiracist baby is bred not born. Antiracist baby is raised to make society transform”, and Not My Idea, which features a fun collage illustration depicting “whiteness” as the devil.

Progressive leftism typically condemns opposing ideas and people as not merely wrong, but as evil, oppressive, unjust, and hateful, and equates being a good person with fighting against such people and advancing progressive beliefs and policy. Young people with limited understanding of the world (and themselves) are now given a set of left wing beliefs selected by the state’s DEI bureaucrats, and encouraged to engage in strident political protest in order to advance those beliefs and related policies. Leftist teachers proudly showcase their indoctrination programs on social media. Some organize field trips so that students can witness and participate in left wing protest. One Toronto teacher’s instructions for such a field trip included telling non-indigenous students to wear blue in order to be easily identifiable as “settlers/colonizers”.

Our school systems used to promote character development, and facilitate charity and community service work. Now, they shamelessly inculcate radical left wing beliefs as the highest moral good, and compel social justice activism as the primary way for a person to display virtue and achieve validation.

I witnessed this pedagogical shift toward inculcating revolutionary activism when I worked as a teacher in inner-city Toronto high schools.

A “light bulb moment” (when I first recognized this as a momentous new revolutionary movement) occurred during a professional-development workshop for teachers from TCDSB’s alternative school system. This was in the mid 2010s. I taught in an alternative school system that serves students who fail to thrive in regular school settings. We worked with students navigating difficulties such as family dysfunction, abuse, trauma, poverty, addiction, mental illness, physical illness, gang activity, crime, learning challenges, cultural alienation. The light bulb went on for me when the workshop facilitator made this pronouncement to us:

Teaching your students resilience is the WORST thing you could do to them. You place an enormous burden on their shoulders when you tell them they need to develop resilience. The problems are systemic, so the solutions have to be systemic.

When she said “the problems are systemic, so the solutions have to be systemic”, I suddenly understood that the new generation of pedagogues were gunning for real revolution, and the purpose of this teacher training was to update our job description to align with their aims: we were supposed to become agents of revolution, leading students to believe their problems are not personal and familial, but external and societal, and they must fight for radical systemic change as the best and only solution to their suffering.

Her remarks were met with a spontaneous eruption of vocal protest, as most of the teachers present believed wholeheartedly in teaching resilience. We worked daily to help students cultivate faith in their ability to navigate challenges, increase independence, adapt to circumstances in healthy and productive ways. Identity, grievance, and entitlement as righteous paths of self-realization had not yet become normalized. We still clung to old-fashioned ideals like hope, faith, humility, and hard work.

In the era before critical social justice ideology swept our institutions, professional development for educators in our niche focused on helping students develop growth mindset, useful skills, practical career pathways, and support networks. With our needy cohort, academic instruction often took a back seat to teaching basic life skills: we tried to help disadvantaged kids build confidence, social skills, healthy habits of mind and body.

The focus was on the individual, on assessing what each individual needed, and what each could control and change. We did not learn and teach that our systems are rotten and racist, and must be rejected and transformed. We did not repeat slogans like “no one is free until we are all free”. Most of us worked to help individual students understand our existing systems, and how they might work within these systems for their own benefit. At most, we encouraged them to imagine system improvements they might help implement as adults.

It places an inordinately heavy burden on young people when teachers command them to reject tradition and radically change society.

Only teachers stewed in Marxist revolutionary ideology think that struggling kids from broken homes are best served by learning critical social justice theory, joining revolutionary movements, and spending their time fighting for radical societal transformation. Non-Marxist teachers understand that is a very risky and fraught pathway for a young person facing serious challenges.

That single sentence “the problems are systemic, so the solutions have to be systemic” flipped the entire mission of education. Teaching kids the value of personal strength, endurance, and discipline is now framed as an oppressive activity — this is just one of many inversions forced on us by social justice revolutionaries.

Social justice education isn’t about individual empowerment, it is about elevating collectivist belief frameworks, and recruiting individuals into political action (praxis).

At core, the new pedagogy is reconstituted Marxism.

And frankly, it is abusive and destructive.

Consider what happens when lessons across every possible subject become filtered through the lens of victimhood, oppression, and the impetus to revolution:

1. Agency shifts outward. Students are taught that outcomes depend on “systems,” not effort, and that systems must take care of us. The result is a chronic external locus of control—a belief that nothing really matters except collective action and the success of the revolution.

2. Learned helplessness sets in. When people believe effort is largely useless and outcomes preordained, motivation withers. The psychology of despair dressed in a costume of righteous indignation leads many individuals to embrace destructive nihilism.

3. Identity becomes destiny. Labeling large swaths of kids as permanent victims breeds resentment and dependency, not strength and liberation. Kids from “oppressor” classes suffer, too, often seeking relief from stigma through radical performative “allyship”, or through the few victim and grievance categories available to them — this is a factor in the astronomical rise of kids claiming gender incongruence, neurodivergence, and various disorders.

4. Moral performance replaces self-discipline, humility, and mastery. The most rewarded behavior becomes posturing. Performing outrage and emoting confessions is now a social currency. Revolutionary cultures teach kids to seek validation for positionality, rather than to seek admiration for achievement by learning skills, developing talents, becoming more proficient and self-sufficient.

5. Fragility becomes virtue. “Safety” is redefined to mean freedom from discomfort and want, shielding students from the very challenges that build immunity and resilience.

6. Destruction and violence, including murder, are excused as justified responses to oppression, even celebrated as noble sacrifices made in the name of resistance.

Praxis is the engine of this revolutionary indoctrination. Praxis is Marxist activism, and it is baked into the theory. Marxist philosophy centers praxis, because Marx believed that the highest purpose of knowledge transfer (education) is to fuel mass revolutionary action:

Practice without theory is blind. Theory without practice is sterile. Theory becomes a material force as soon as it is absorbed by the masses.

This is why indoctrination and impetus to activism begins in kindergarten, or even earlier. The core Marxist strategy has always been to fuse theory and practice, using mass indoctrination to materialize deep and widespread systemic change.

Since they work within a framework that values absorption above analysis and discernment, social justice educators embrace political indoctrination of small children as a social good. Marx said “philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it.” So, a successful Marxist is one who figures out, in any given context, which grievance narratives will best activate the masses to revolt against the dominant order, and then goes about indoctrinating to activate revolt.

It makes sense within this framework that children aren’t taught to understand the world before they’re urged to fix it. Marxists condition kids into an alternate “collective consciousness” from very young, training them to see all social interactions as political acts. Every moment in time contains multiple potential micro-arenas of oppression, as well as opportunities for active resistance. The revolutionary front is everywhere.

Left wing educators have transformed moral development into political conditioning, but many of them probably don’t even realize how they were manipulated into acting as hammer-fisted agents of revolutionary praxis. The point of revolution is not to make the masses better at political philosophy and discernment, but to fuse every idea with a corresponding revolutionary action. The point of revolution is material transformation, not intellectual achievement, not spiritual transcendence. Revolution does not entail elevating wisdom and enlightenment, and making these accessible to the masses. Revolution entails providing the masses with just enough conceptual fodder to make them feel righteous and energized to act, and of course providing outlets for that energy via a selection of corresponding disruptive or subversive actions.

The point of revolution is to use the masses to set into motion a churning, relentless political machine — a lumbering behemoth that cares not a whit as it crushes individuals on the way to the “liberation” of communism, which is described as a classless, stateless, global society of collective ownership, connection, and cooperation.

In fact, Marxism teaches that crushing individuals is simply necessary, especially in the transitional stage between capitalism and communism, which is called “the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat”. Perhaps this is where we are now — “cancel culture” is arguably the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. Instead of learning to focus on self-development and values like patience, excellence, self-control, and compromise, children are now taught vocabularies of identity class struggle that allow them to act as little proletariat dictators: allyship, privilege, decolonization, resistance, rage, microaggression, hate speech, etc.

Most modern western multicultural societies have strong middle class cohorts not easily persuaded to support revolutionary action — especially considering the failures of previous communist revolutions — so Marxist theorists cleverly adapted the concept of oppressed identity groups to serve as proxies for economic class. They taught educators that they must elevate identity at all times. At first, they didn’t call this new pedagogy revolutionary, or present this pedagogy as political and necessary to the class struggle. They called it culturally sensitive, child-centered, inclusive. Marxist theorists started dispensing these ideas in faculties of education many decades ago, and by the late 1990s, they had swept the entire education industry.

Then, the activist-academics layered on the idea that minority identity groups are usually marginalized, unfairly deprived, and therefore deserving of equity. The underlying communism of social justice became more evident at this point, since equity in this context means not equality under the law for all citizens, but redistribution: state and corporate enforced redistribution of wealth and power to members of minority groups in order to engineer more equal material outcomes between groups.

Around a decade ago, mass activation and material change emerged across the culture as a result of this pedagogy, and this was the societal tinderbox that the George Floyd spark landed on. The Marxist long game in education has been a blistering success. But is it sustainable?

In classical education, humility and knowledge come before action.

In revolutionary pedagogy, action precedes understanding.

So many young people now leave school fluent in slogans, but weak in reasoning, history, or skill. They’ve been given a mission before they’ve developed any mastery. They know left wing talking points, but are unable to engage in the critical thinking that wins debates. Cancel culture becomes the only mechanism by which they can dominate.

But cancel culture has now been ascendant for a decade or more, and it has not fixed anything in society. Has censorship improved quality of life for minorities? Everyone seems more angry and hostile than ever. Cancel culture merely seems to create new victims and entrenched social divisions, not to mention lots of litigation, and lower productivity. How much dictatorship of the proletariat is required to achieve the “benefits” of communism? How many decades of cancel culture before society reaches collectivist bliss?

And since Marxist revolutions have never resulted in success in the past, why will it work this time? What if our youth are not in fact being harmed by flawed, unfair, bigoted systems that reflect failures of collective consciousness?

What if the problems arise mainly from family breakdown, which adherence to communist ideology only worsens?

Many of the deepest, most intractable wounds that human beings experience trace not to systemic barriers, but to failures of family. Stable, loving homes, consistent discipline, and present, protective parents are the bedrock of child development, and civilization itself. When those anchors erode, government programs can not fill the void.

Yet critical social justice ideology treats our traditional family structures (and the moral norms affecting reproduction and family) as relics of patriarchy, and evils of colonialism. Critical social justice pedagogy undermines society’s most basic, fundamental institution for child protection.

The nanny state offers services, but not love or meaning.

Bureaucrats implement policies, but they do not nurture souls.

Communities that encourage families to build stronger bonds — through promoting faith, mentorship, marriage, personal responsibility, active parenting, involvement of fathers — produce stronger, healthier kids. Epidemics of fatherlessness create epidemics of impoverishment and violence. Sexual “liberation” in the west has been very costly. We now routinely fail to safeguard children. Exploitation and predation are rampant. Outsourcing parenting to the state produces endless cycles of dependency, despondency, despair.

When schools indoctrinate troubled students into perpetual protest, they deepen the very wounds they claim to heal. Healing is difficult when authority figures mislead people into seeing the cure as poison. Young people facing challenges who learn temperance and self-control can and often do change their circumstances. Young people who learn grievance and protest often find meaning temporarily, and throw themselves into the work of changing the world, but they typically fail at that AND remain stuck in unsatisfactory personal circumstances.

Course-correcting for the good of individuals and society means acknowledging that we were wrong to give Marxist theorists the power to reform education systems. The highest goal of a Marxist educator is to instill critical consciousness in masses of students while activating them to dismantle existing systems. Because their goal is to use education to fuel collective action rather than individual development and redemption, Marxists (and neoMarxists) are not fit to lead education systems in western democracies — and they are especially unfit to dictate how we should serve the needs of disadvantaged youths.

---

If this resonated, share it or subscribe for future essays on education, culture, and moral courage in an age of confusion.

In the last decade, this movement has grown large. Red-green comrades agitate frequently from podiums everywhere across the west. They are especially active at universities, their dominance in those settings achieved by massive funding flows to western universities from Islamic nations and left wing NGOs. Red-greens have also been elected to many halls of power in western nations. They have formed countless charity organizations and minority interest groups to lobby governments, fundraise for their causes, and promote their grievances and their ideologies.

Red-green mobs now gather to yell slogans and fly their flags and banners at every opportunity. They push endless blood libels and slander against whites and Jews. They protest, riot, block streets. Their comrades burn and vandalize churches, synagogues, government buildings. They see “fascists” and “Nazis” everywhere they look, and agitate for their abuse and extermination. They campaign overtly for subversion of western civilization.

They cancel opponents, always hurling emotive slurs, always accusing them of “hate”, always demanding tyrannical new laws to restrict “hate” and force compliance with their “progressive” DEI regime.

They fearmonger about far right extremists being the world’s gravest threat, while increasingly attacking and murdering perceived enemies — which sometimes include children and total strangers.

In recent weeks, a few noteworthy red/green actions include:

• An antisemitic, anti-religion, anti-Trump trans anarchist committed a Catholic school massacre

• Tyler Robinson’s trantifa-style assassination of Christian conservative leader Charlie Kirk, purportedly for Kirk’s “hate”

• Islamist murder of Jewish worshippers at a UK synagogue on Yom Kippur

• A left wing activists commits deadly sniper attack on an ICE facility

• Islamists slaughtered many Christians in Nigeria

• Arsonsists burned down yet another Canadian church (dozens attacked in recent years as decolonization movement rose)

• Leftists assaulted dissident professors and journalists during public events

• Violence and destructive rioting in France, Italy, Switzerland, Germany, Spain, Belgium

• Hamas conducted brutal public street executions of fellow Gazans for alleged collaboration with Israel

These are not the actions of liberators. Red-green activists are not actually fighting for human rights. Red-green leaders seek domination and establishment of new orders through destruction of the old. They desire cultural genocide, not only through subversion, but also bloodshed and destruction.

This is why, as the war in Gaza is ending, the red-green alliance members are NOT celebrating.

Because their war is against the west — they are sworn enemies of Judeo-Christian civilization.

Their war continues, and will ramp up in coming months. I predict we will see more of these people boldly intimidating, assaulting, and even killing western conservatives, Christians, Jews — anyone who doesn’t share their anti-western agenda.

The contradiction is glaring: the red–green alliance — Marxists and Islamists marching under shared banners — is clearly not united by love of freedom, but by hatred of the West, Christianity, and the very idea of universal human dignity enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

They scream about rights being violated while consistently silencing dissent, or even polite debate. They chant about liberation while enforcing submission. They demand human rights while dismantling the very foundations that make a shared conception of human rights possible.

The truth is that neither Marxists nor Islamists have ever cared a whit about individual human rights and freedoms.

Red-Green Alliance beliefs are fundamentally in conflict with the UDHR

When the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in 1948, it enshrined principles like freedom of religion, freedom of expression, equality of men and women, and the right to own property. These rights and freedoms were declared universal — belonging to every person, simply for being human.

But the historical record shows clearly that two camps refused that belief framework from the start. Leaders of nations that refused the UDHR did so on the basis that it violated central tenets of their own prevailing belief framework, either communism or Islam.

Communist rejection of UDHR: Communist leaders dismissed the UDHR as bourgeois and anti-revolutionary. In communism, rights are not natural or God-given, but historical products of class struggle. The UDHR elevates individual freedom, especially of conscience, and private property. Communism elevates the collective and the subordination of the person to the revolutionary ideal. In any given situation, rights will be determined by the proletariat (the collective).

Marx wrote dismissively of individual rights as merely protecting private property and egoism: “the rights of separation, the right of the circumscribed individual withdrawn into himself” (On The Jewish Question, 1843).

Muslim rejection of UDHR: Muslim leaders refused the UDHR as un-Islamic, especially for asserting that individuals must be free to leave a religion, as well as for promoting gender equality, non-discrimination, and unrestricted free speech. Islam elevates the supremacy of Shariah: no freedom to convert, submission of females to males, no equality outside the faith, no right to speak against it.

In the wake of rejecting UDHR for being un-Islamic, many Islamic nations eventually collaborated to publish their own Shariah-complaint document outlining Islamic Human Rights. In 1990, the OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference, representing 57 Muslim-majority states) published the CDHRI (Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam).

In short, both communism and Islamism are totalitarian and reject UDHR. Both destroy freedom at the very root. Both demand submission, and incite violence.

And both Islamists and Marxists have been playing their own separate long games, for decades, with an eye to subverting and conquering western social systems, and recreating society in their own image. When politically useful, the red-greens converge and fighting to seize the day. Right now, they believe they have a window of opportunity to defeat western hegemony and abolish the existing dominant global order.

10 Ways Red & Greens Reject Rights & Deny Freedom

Many westerners do not seem to understand that the red-green alliance tramples the UDHR and paves a path toward tyranny.

So here is a handy list making it explicitly clear.

Based on their orientation toward UDHR, below are 10 ways the rise of the red-green alliance endangers freedom. This alliance is made up of people who spit on our extraordinary western heritage of individualism and the project of expanding human freedom across the globe.

At the end you will find one “bonus” entry that points to a deeper spiritual war.

1. Freedom of Religion → Outlawed

UDHR (Art. 18): Freedom to believe, disbelieve, or change religion

Marxism: Religion must be suppressed, religions are outlawed or severely restricted

Islamism: Apostasy and blasphemy punishable, even by death, and non-Islamic religions banned or severely restricted

Result: No freedom of conscience; paths to God hidden, obscured

2. Freedom of Expression → Extinguished

UDHR (Art. 19): Right to hold opinions and speak truth to power

Marxism: Voices dissenting or defending tradition silenced under the guise of “hate speech” and “enemies of the people”

Islamism: Religious and political criticism prosecuted as blasphemy

Result: Truth constrained by ideology, not inquiry

3. Individual Dignity → Denied

UDHR (Art. 1): All are equal in dignity

Marxism: You are defined by your class and beholden to the collective

Islamism: Your worth is defined by your allegiance to the Ummah

Result: The divine image of each individual is erased, their unique soul journey denied

4. Property Rights → Abolished or Controlled

UDHR (Art. 17): Right to own property

Marxism: Abolished

Islamism: Restricted by Shariah, rights limited, Allah owns all

Result: No security, no autonomy, no independence

5. Equality of Men and Women → Rejected

UDHR (Arts. 2 & 16): Equal rights for all genders

Marxism: Equality always deferred

Islamism: Fixed gender roles and inequalities codified

Result: Women shorn of full agency by ideology or dogma

6. Universality of Rights → Denied

UDHR: Rights apply to all humanity

Marxism: Rights for the proletariat

Islamism: Rights for believers

Result: Human equality collapses into tribal supremacy, no state protection for dissident individuals

7. Minorities → Persecuted or Erased

UDHR (Art. 2): Non-discrimination

Marxism: Historical purges, mass imprisonment, executions, enforced conformity via re-education programs and threat of gulags

Islamism: forced assimilation or conversion, execution and enslavement of non-monotheists while Jews, Christians, dissenters are driven from ancestral homes or assigned dhimmi status

Result: Cultural and religious extinction via genocidal actions

8. Rule of Law → Arbitrary Ideology

UDHR (Arts. 7–11): Equality before the law, fair trials

Marxism: Laws reflect revolutionary ideological priorities

Islamism: Shariah courts enforce doctrinal allegiance

Result: Law becomes an instrument of terror and forced compliance, not justice.

9. Pluralism → Destroyed

UDHR (Art. 20): Freedom of association and belief

Marxism: One Party, one Creed

Islamism: One Faith, one Law

Result: Diversity dissolved. Churches shuttered. Dissent criminalized

10. Global Vision → Totalitarian Dreams

UDHR: Nations collaborating in peace

Marxism: One socialist world-state

Islamism: A global caliphate

Result: Humanity subsumed under a single dogma

This One Goes to 11: The Spiritual War (Bonus)

Marxism and Islamism both work to destroy Judeo-Christian civilization. Marxists mock religion as illusion, as a soporific, and Islamists condemn our religious traditions as blasphemy.

The reds and greens are not themselves spiritually aligned, which further suggests the noxious and dangerous nature of their alliance — it is a union formed of shared hatreds and shared targets, not one of shared goals and values. Where they are victorious in revolution, they will turn on each other. In Iran, for example, the communist faction was eradicated/slaughtered by the Islamists. In Greta’s recent Gaza flotilla, the Islamist activists revolted against the inclusion of a queer leftist activist.

Spiritually, there is no unity and no future in the red-green alliance. The future of humanity will be dark and barren if red-green forces are victorious. Today’s political chaos, the assassinations, hate raids, protest mobs, and ideological purges are not only political — they indicate spiritual warfare. Millions are becoming aware that we are caught up in a grand battle of principalities. Millions are returning to or strengthening in faith as a result.

The Sacred At the Centre of Our Civilizational Conflict

The UDHR rests on a vision of human dignity rooted in the Christian heritage: conscience, equality, freedom.

Marxism and Islamism despise the UDHR because it points to something higher than state and collective and dogma — the irreducible truth that we are individual souls destined for individual soul journeys.

To claim that communism or Islamism are doctrines of liberation is not just patently untrue, but a grotesque inversion, because both are false gospels of liberation that crucify truth and faith and freedom. Both prevent the individual from entering freely into relationship with God.

Under communism and under Shariah, the result is the same: totalitarian control causing spiritual retardation and deformation. These are social systems that stunt human evolution, both individual evolution and collective evolution. We already have more than enough evidence of this. Human societies need no longer consider implementation of either of these ideologies — they have both earned dumping into the dustbin of disproven ideas.

We must always and only seek to establish social orders that uphold the sanctity of the individual soul’s journey toward the divine.

Privilege Walks became common across North America during the BLM craze (approx. 2020-2022). The social justice revolution spawned an army of highly-paid DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) consultants pushing critical social justice ideology within institutions and corporations. Privilege Walks are a simple interactive “audience participation” tool that critical social justice indoctrinators like to use.

But I digress. Let me get back to The Walk.

We teachers lined up side by side down the middle line of the school gymnasium, ready for sorting. Privilege Walk rules are simple: the workshop leader reads a series of statements, and participants take a step forward, or a step back, as directed, when the statement applies to them.

“If your parents graduated from university, take one step forward.”
“If you’ve ever been followed in a store, step back one.”
“If you can use public restrooms without fear, take a step forward.”

And so it went. It had a kind of Marx meets Mary Poppins mixture of gravitas and levity. Some nervous laughter rippled through the room as we obediently stepped forward and back, slowly transforming from a single line into a living scatter chart.

I had a bad feeling about this exercise from the start, but I held my tongue, participated fully, and completed the walk honestly, as directed.

I took steps back because my parents divorced, because my father went bankrupt, because we lost my childhood home, because I was sexually assaulted, because my parents did not attend university, etc., etc.

When the exercise ended, she said, “Now look around. Notice where you stand. How do you feel right now? Just sit with those feelings for a moment.”

I noticed that I was at the back.

And I sat with feelings of anger and disgust.

When I tell this story in person, this is the point at which people usually say something like, yeah, that’s understandable, you must have felt so exploited and humiliated, she put your personal traumas on display as a way to make a political point.

Which is a fair assessment.

Invasion of privacy, as well as other ethical and psychological problems with any authority figure commanding public performance of private and personal traumas, are perfectly valid reasons to NEVER do a Privilege Walk within a workplace or class.

But being asked to confess past traumas in front of my peers in such a glib manner wasn’t the source of my anger. I wasn’t angry because I felt personally humiliated or exposed.

I felt enraged because the entire activity was a giant misrepresentation. A terrible lie. The activity is premised on false assumptions about society and the human condition.

Although I ended up at the back of the group, I know this to be true about myself: I AM BLESSED BEYOND MEASURE, AND MY ENTIRE LIFE HAS BEEN A BEAUTIFUL GIFT FOR WHICH I FEEL DEEP GRATITUDE. I am not a victim of systemic discrimination or oppression.

I felt disgusted by the thought of parasitical ideologues going workplace to workplace, school to school, using the hard parts of people’s unique personal stories in such a manipulative manner to prop up weak, damaging, reductive formulas — formulas that can only ever dominate due to cancel culture mechanisms that punish debate and dissent.

If I was going to use the hard parts of my story for a social purpose, it would be to give glory to God for the richness and mystery of creation — even the hard parts — and to teach about the power of faith and love, and the ability of individuals filled with the Spirit and seeking goodness and truth to overcome any challenge. I would want to be a role model for seeking right relation with God and other creatures.

I was angry because this activity is a dangerous LIE teaching nothing of substance about anything important. I was angry because people like that York U prof get paid with our tax dollars to serve up piles of stinking Marxist bullshit and force citizens to eat it and pretend it is nourishing them.

HOW DARE THEY RANK US BY OUR CHALLENGES AND PRETEND THIS IS PROFOUND.

I AM NOT LESS PRIVILEGED THAN THE PEOPLE AT THE FRONT.

But I will confess that I did learn something very valuable in our professional development activities that day. I learned that publicly-funded school systems were ramping up far left “re-education” efforts. I learned that moronic and counter-productive privilege-oppression formulas were rising in pedagogical prominence. And I learned that Privilege Walks surely must be one of the stupidest, most destructive ways to address inequality and injustice.

That morning was one in a series of small revelations that I had in the mid to late 2010s, before the “social justice” tidal wave of BLM hit in 2020. I had burgeoning awareness that we were in the early stages of a colour revolution, marketed as anti-racist liberation from white supremacy culture. The revolutionaries claim the path to liberation is seeing race, identifying the racism in every instance, and taking race-based corrective actions to advance equity (equality of outcomes).

Yes, this revolution is anti-white, and every bit as racist as it sounds.

This modern neoMarxist revolution is not storming western palaces; this revolution is colonizing the west via institutions and bureaucracy. Today’s revolutionaries rewrite policy manuals as a war strategy.

The session we had was part of their conditioning program — teaching educators to think in Marxist binaries of guilt and innocence, virtue and sin, group and enemy. Moral law was being replaced by the collectivist arithmetic of privilege.

The Irony of Standing at the Back

By the end, standing at the back, I was meant to represent one of the underprivileged people in the room, a person who maybe others didn’t realize had faced hidden challenges that our leftist “liberators” were now publicly accounting for, and starting to mandate corrections for via equity policies. We were all being conditioned to believe that their critical social justice lens is able to reveal fundamental truth about power and privilege.

The irony of this would ripen with time.

A few years later, in 2021, the school board terminated my employment and my family’s sole income — and in 2024 the regulator revoked my professional license — because as a result of their systemic indoctrination programs, their systemic discrimination, their anti-Christian and anti-western totalitarianism, I became activated AGAINST critical social justice ideology, and began working to expose how flawed and dangerous are the belief frameworks that built the stage for the little morality play called The Privilege Walk.

So yes, I stood at the back as an exemplar for the systemically underprivileged, and this turned out to be prophetic, but not in the way the York U education professor intended.

Real privilege in Canada now belongs to left wing academics, to Marxist and Islamist activists, to social justice NGOs and pie-in-sky “green economy” entrepreneurs bilking taxpayers of millions, and also to their followers who regurgitate neoMarxist talking points, nod along with critical social justice bunk, suppress their own beliefs, and recite slogans to keep their jobs.

But privilege is not freedom, and freedom is a core value for me.

Real freedom requires that we find the courage to stop taking the steps dictated by our frenemies, and start walking our own path in search of goodness and truth.

The poster above advertises an event at a Montreal university. Similar events will occur across Canada tomorrow to celebrate October 7th. This is sure to become an annual party in Canada: Islamists love nothing better than celebrations of murder and martyrdom, and Canada contains large and growing communities of Islamists.

And non-Muslim Canadians are very welcome, too, and will no doubt turn out in force to celebrate Hamas’ great achievements. These joyful jihad events are diverse and inclusive, welcoming anyone who is not a “Zionist pig”.

Increasingly, we see western leftists developing a similar taste for slaughter and ritual sacrifice.

Islamists and leftists work together as a bloc that is known as the Red-Green Alliance. For years now, we have seen Canadian leaders refusing to lift a finger against Red-Green activists using public spaces to incite Global Intifada and Death to Canada. Pro-Hamas Muslims are an important part of their base, as are radical lefties — especially since the federal NDP went limp under Singh.

The feds know they can use this horror show and the growing divide it causes to consolidate power and control the narrative. The conflict helps them restrict speech and education across Canada in ways that consolidate power leftward. The angry, disgusted reactions of regular Canadians to these blood libel spectacles is held up as justification for the government’s growing censorship complex.

Canada’s globalist leaders follow the same playbook as UK, Germany, France, and elsewhere.

Meanwhile, the American federal government now walks a very different path. Antifa is now proscribed, and we hear rumblings about banning the Muslim Brotherhood. This would have enormous impact on Canada, of course, because MB has fundraising and conscription tentacles all over Canada.

American leadership is also actively battling to stop the left wing authoritarian censorship across Europe that is absolutely throttling the free expression of conservatives and Christians and countless others. Canada will soon be in those crosshairs, too, if our government rams through its tyrannical speech legislation.

In many places, including Canada, current legislation and policy already serve as de facto Islamic blasphemy law. Westerners have already thrown freedom of conscience and speech under the bus to appease Islamists. Canadians already know their jobs/careers are at stake if they condemn Islamic extremism, if they dare express the opinion that Islamic fundamentalism harms our nation and our world.

Canadians already self-censor about topics related to Islam.

So, how much worse can it possibly get?

Unfortunately, as bad as October 7.