I grew up during an era where the Bush administration was openly defending its use of torture. Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib became synonymous with the total deprivation of justice and law under the banner of the United States. It was the violation of everything America stood for. There was never a reckoning for this era. Bush and Rumsfeld were never tried for their war crimes, and Cheney, an evil and vile Vice President, now has a daughter who is openly persecuting American political prisoners in her role as the Vice Chair of the January 6th committee. Everything has come full circle, and the gross carriages of misjustice that took place overseas have now come back to our shores. We are in a new era of torture, this time domestically, against citizens who stand against lawmakers desperate to hang onto their power and authority.
I was living in Wellington, New Zealand when Margaret Thatcher died. Some people I knew threw a party at Hotel Bristol, a pub on Cuba Street. I knew nothing about Thatcher, but I assumed she must have been pretty bad if friends of mine were singing “Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead” in her wake. Today, activist still literally piss on her grave.
Years later in Seattle, I worked with a British woman who grew up under Thatcher. She was horrified when people celebrated the death of someone who was an inspiration to many young women all over the United Kingdom. In the past few years, I’ve become increasingly more aware at how conservatives will simply state the facts, or praise what they appreciate, when an ideological adversary dies. In contrast, progressives and our legacy media will often write horrific hit pieces when someone on the opposite end of the spectrum passes away. It’s truly disgusting, and shows the relative levels of maturity of people on the far sides of the political spectrum.
I’ve never taken an easy stance on abortion. In high school, and part of University, I was pro-life and an evangelical Christian. Prior to high school, I was pro-choice, and after University, I was pro-baby killing. That has been my stance for much of my adult life. A few years ago, I listened to an interview with Caitlin Flanagan. In her attempt to understand the pro-life argument from a liberal perspective, she discussed the reality of Lysol abortions juxtaposed to images from modern 3D ultrasounds. The recent Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health decision, which overturned of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, is not the end to women’s rights. It is an end to an entitlement that had been legislated from the judicial bench, returning the controversial topic back to the people. The US Congress and the Senate could propose legislation, enshrining some form of abortion into federal law. However, the topic is so divisive any proposals would be unworkable. This means laws about abortion return to individual states, placing such legislation much closer to the control of individual citizens.
If you’ve had an interview recently for a skilled job, either remote or in an office, you may have been asked questions about diversity. If you’ve ever been trained for giving interviews, you may know that, in many countries, it’s considered unethical to ask a potential employee certain questions. Asking about a jobseeker’s medical history, marital status, children or anything else that could be potentially discriminatory, is usually off limits (unless the candidate brings up any of these topics first). The topic of diversity is a way around these ethical limitations. It’s a loaded idea that is never used to promote diversity of thought. Instead, it’s a weasel word, Orwellian newspeak, to pry into the private political views of a potential candidate and ensure they align ideologically with the politics of the company.
Have those who have fought in the militaries of oppressive governments known the evil they supported, or are they only judged that way if their battle ends up on the wrong side of history? Many soldiers likely believed in their nation and its leader’s message. In just the past month, I had been blown away by the peace and love shown by the Canadian protestors in trying to defend their human rights. I felt sick to my stomach as I watched their House of Commons pass the resolution for emergency measures. Although Trudeau relented and withdrew his request, it doesn’t change the fact that the Canadian legislators in the house were willing to enact a tyrannical emergency powers act against peaceful protestors.
As the situation in Russia and Ukraine unfolds, we are about to see nations form new lines of alliances, based on their core ideologies. Although the events may seem unrelated, I believe many policies we’ve seen internationally are a direct result of overreaching organizations such as The World Economic Forum, The International Monetary Fund, The World Health Organization, BlackRock and others. The real question people should be asking, regarding the Russian conflict, is this: Are Putin’s actions a direct stand against globalism and the policies of the globalist leaders, or are all his actions intentional to help further the collapse of world economies?
A massive trucker convoy has descended onto Ottawa, the capital of Canada. If you haven’t heard of it, I’m not surprised. It hasn’t been covered by any international main stream media outlets, with searches on their websites returning irrelevant results from years ago. The Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, has labeled the convoy a “fringe minority.” This minority has gridlocked the streets of the capitol, lined the sides of highways, and has led to what many on the Internet have dubbed The Honkening. They gathered to stand for the rights of all Canadians against the nation’s authoritarian curfews and lockdown measures. It is an amazing movement, and should give people of all nations a boost of hope for the new year.
In 1997, the Southern Baptist Church announced a boycott of Disney to protest the company’s challenges to traditional family values. It could be viewed as symbolic, a failure or both. Many Christians did not stop watching those adorable animated tales, at least not until decades later when Carrie Fisher became Marry Poppins, Mark Hamill drank green milk, and Gina Carano was fired for a political post on social media. In 1955, after the arrest of Rosa Parks, E. D. Nixon called for a one-day bus boycott in Montgomery Alabama. That one day boycott continued for 11 months. It was one of the few boycotts that fueled a movement which lasted generations. But were those who participated really voting with their dollars? It wasn’t their choice in purchases that was impactful, but the cultural and legal shift brought about by their collective actions.
On January 7th, the Supreme Court of the United States heard arguments, regarding the mandates for testing or vaccination, that Biden is attempting to impose via OSHA regulation. Many Americans listened closely to the arguments. Many listeners were also horrified at how Supreme Court justices made arguments for facts not in the records, that were blatantly and horrifically false. The Supreme Court is often seen as a sacred institution, empowered with determining what is, and is not, constitutional law. On January 7th, many Americas discovered that the judges on the Supreme Court are fallible individuals, subject to the same prejudices as anyone else. Soon, these nine individuals will make the most important decisions in the history of the United States.
Earlier this month, I posted a link to an article I wrote, titled Burning Witches, on LinkedIn. When I checked to see if there were any comments, the post was gone. I was given no notification, and received no e-mails, indicating that the post had been removed. I’ve previously written about how Facebook is hostile to smaller platforms. It seems like LinkedIn is also participating in the new era of corporate censorship, but what makes their actions more sinister is that they do so without providing their users any notifications of post removal.
You are in The Crucible. Someone in your town has been accused of witchcraft. Do you defend the witch, or walk away from those screaming for fire and blood? Would you burn the witch? Would you turn on your friend if they were disloyal to the Soviet empire? Would you turn in your neighbor for hiding Jews? Those who conform instead of standing up for deep moral convictions, are the ones who survive. In every authoritarian state, genocide, or episode of mass-hysteria, those who stand to defend others are often the first to be imprisoned, arrested or killed. Figures like Gandhi, Martin Luther (both of them) and others, are the outliers that give us hope. Yet, the tragic reality is that those who either stay silent or embrace atrocities, are often the survivors.
Newer