~ YOU KNOW those deliriously happy people in commercials and photos?– we’re supposed to be like that. Just– super-DUPER happy. Happy with the new tech-toys, happy with travelling and gathering random experiences, happy with the semi-anonymous exchange of bodily fluids, happy watching the same movie and listening to the same song, each only slightly varied from the other ones. Such very fun!
Except.. life. The world. Politics. Our longing hearts, seeking a kingdom of true peace, and inner peace. And in our world, restless Progressivism must “progress”, which means interfering with everything & everyone in sight.
“People don’t like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think. Don’t run, don’t walk. We’re in their homes and in their heads and we haven’t the right. We’re meddlesome.”
Most of all, the meddlers don’t like a taste of their own medicine. The Euro & American establishments both got a huge dose of meddlesome & uppity peasants with the U.S. Fall election of one Donald John Trump in 2016, and the Brexit vote earlier that same Summer.
Big Meddle got a royally bloody nose. And then their planet-sized snit ensued.
The Snit Ensues: Details
Looking back at 2016, Team Meddle knows one thing: internets helped bad thing happen: must part-muzzle peasants! In 2015-2016, YouTube, Twitter, Google Search, Drudge, FaceBook were all used by the peasants as levers of public awareness, circumventing the lapdog media, and the political establishments feeding the elite narrative.
Must fix! So now it’s Big Backlash by Big Meddle, with shadow-banning, leftwards algorithms, demonetized videos and YouTube Channels, Twitter deletions and bans, FaceBook Jail & nanny-messaging. This is all to one end: to stop the anti-Meddle meddling by the revolting peasants. Social Media weaponized against non-compliant political-cultural-religious users.
Our digital self is a big thing for many Western people: imagine being all but banned, being digitally unpersonned, silenced, unable to get alternative news quickly, and not being able to discuss it with others? A genuine debility, in some respects.
It gets worse for the meddlers in 2018– the peasants not only spoke up several years ago, they keep speaking up, and even when some get banned, shadow-banned, de-monetized, and slapped down, they and their peasant allies still keep fighting back and speaking out! What’s a Big Meddle authoritarian to do?
The Other SoHappier 2018…
You see, just now President Hillary the globalist mafiosa is entering her second year, with her Canada-style gun rules coming into force and her FBI poodles covering her tracks, and the bodies quietly piling up; and a nearly de-blooded Islamicized United Kingdom is laying prone before the unelected autocrats in Brussels, surrendering every freedom, distinctive, and historical authority over itself to Big Meddle, and imported trouble. Same as it ever was, before 2016. Nigel Farage is merely a bad memory.
Just as planned pre-2013, the one-world progressive Pope is working closely with globalist schemer George Soros, President Hillary and the EUcrats towards a one-world government, more social control, more disruptive weaponized “immigration”, and a gentler Chinese-style control of the internet and all social media. And a suitable one-world religion to match.
In the 2018 that should have been, the internet is still an issue, but as long as a few grumblers don’t actually write letters, protest, speak to their elected representatives and get organized, they are pesky, but harmless: one mosquito at a time. SLAP! People vanish from Twitter and YouTube and FaceBook, and nobody wonders why.
New uppity-peasant YouTube channels with ‘unacceptable’ politically incorrect content all have a terrible time trying to get started, and make no advertising money. Troublesome news-sources are all but invisible online, or very hard to find on Google, banned on Twitter, sidelined on FaceBook, or in links on other pages. With advertising revenues dropping, many outlets are forced to cut back reporting, or shut down entirely.
The fight must continue. Alternative social media platforms are only part of an answer, since we must stay in the public square, not surrender it to the bullies. And the bullies are not totally above the law, or invulnerable, either.
Actually protesting, writing letters, speaking out, exposing the Big Agenda and educating others about it, getting involved at the local level, reading books, praying for God’s Kingdom to come, and aligning ourselves with His almighty will makes any protest or expressed concern more than just our team versus theirs, screech versus scream.
It will cost us something– perhaps everything– but the West is not founded on trusting in the strength of men, but on a trust in the Risen power of Jesus Christ– the only-begotten Son of God– to truly make all things new, in the great re-creation.
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King.
This is our fight, in our day. God knows the outcome, but I know that if we sit back and self-indulgently despair, we have already lost our contribution to the battle for freedom, faith, and our own civilization in our time.
Navigating the Acadia website was like wandering through a picturesque maze, with not a single human being to be seen. In five minutes, I didn’t see the actual name of anyone, let alone Heather Hemming’s. I phoned the switchboard, hoping to speak to someone who could give me Ms Hemming’s email address: the hours are 8:30-4:30, Monday to Friday, so no luck. So, here I am at the general email address.
I also thought of contacting Acadia’s Office of Safety and Security as I believe that Professor Mehta’s safety and security are under siege—the topic of this message.
I have been an educator for 45 years. In that time, I have noticed a serious deterioration in both the maturity and behaviour of a critical mass of students. At the same time, I have noticed a standing down of the administrators, whose first line of defense now seems to be to appease the miscreant. This solves the problem of having to deal with an even more angry, entitled student and, often, that student’s belligerent parent(s). It’s nice for the three parties just mentioned—and hell for teachers, not to mention society at large.
I have twice been physically assaulted as well as suspended, minus due process, on the say-so of well known, student bullies. In all cases, the students were coddled and catered to: there were no negative consequences for them, but plenty for me. Who do you think felt really unsafe? As a colleague says, “Our schools are safe, all right—for the bullies.”
I attended excellent public schools in Toronto in the 50s and 60s: the adults were in charge. There were clear boundaries and not only were we safe, we felt safe! Academics were rigorous—a far cry from the curricula today—and we were held to account. We were not taught to be offended : the very idea of micro-aggressions and triggers didn’t enter our minds.
We were treated respectfully, which meant that we were held to high academic and behavioural standards. We could actually fail a grade. We could actually be suspended. Teaching our children that they have a right not to be offended is, in my opinion, a form of child abuse. This fiction renders young people very vulnerable to their own capricious and often tempestuous emotions. How is allowing vindictive and often misguided emotion to be the standard by which a university makes crucial decisions helpful to anyone?
Professor Mehta sounds like a man after my own heart. If the fairy tales being propagated at places like Acadia weren’t so outlandish, Professor Mehta’s ideas would seem to be just what they are: fairly mainstream. Why are his rights the only ones being disregarded? Why is his integrity considered expendable? Why is it OK to offend him?
Ms Hemmings, in attempting to censor, shame and bully Professor Mehta, Acadia seems willing to put itself in the same position as Wilfrid Laurier, which, deservedly, became a laughing stock. It seems that you’re unable to discern the gigantic double standard under which you appear to be operating. Acadia seems to have everything backwards: in order to enforce tolerance, you are intolerant. In order to appease the immature appetites of a group of coddled adult toddler students, it seems that Acadia is willing to sacrifice not only the integrity of a hard working, accountable academic, but his very livelihood. Shame on you.
How about if Acadia were to come to its senses and follow the example of the University of Chicago, re its expectations of its students? How about if Acadia were to actually treat its students not like spoiled brats, but like adults?
“Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called ‘trigger warnings,’ we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual ‘safe spaces’ where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own,” the letter said.
I have just sent the following letter in support of Dr. Mehta:
Dear Dr. Hemming,
My family and I have been some-time residents of Nova Scotia since 2003, and have always been moved by the friendliness of your people and, in general, their practical common sense and peaceful ways. Therefore I am stunned to read about what is being done to Professor Rick Mehta, at your university.
I have skin in this game, as they say. I have been a professor of literature for more than thirty years, introducing students to a range of works spanning four thousand years and more than a dozen cultures, written in a broad variety of languages, ten of which I read. So I can see where Dr. Mehta is coming from.
He and his family have been, in their lives and in profoundly personal ways, the victims of ugly prejudices, some of them arising from a clash of cultures, the British and the Indian, and then the Canadian and the Indian. And yet he has the grace, and it seems the courage, not merely to condemn the British, and then your own people the Canadian, for pure evil. He has tried to understand both peoples and to evaluate them with equity, and because of that — because, apparently, he does NOT HATE his erstwhile overlords with sufficient passion — you are now doing to him exactly what you accuse the overlords of having done.
In other words, YOU are playing the part of a colonial master, coming down hard against a mild-mannered and gentle man, for daring not to be your intellectual puppet.
That is disgraceful in its own right. At a university, supposedly a place where young people are to be taught to pursue the truth, it is inexcusable.
Anthony Michael Esolen Fellow, Thomas More College of the Liberal Arts
Panel Discussion on Free Speech at Universities (Acadia University; May 3, 2017)
~ AS MY FATHER used to say, ancient civilizations were invaded from outside by barbarians: modern societies are more efficient– we make our own barbarians, inside the gates.
This is an actionable moment for any concerned Canadian, Nova Scotia, Acadia Grad, academic, or just concerned person. It’s also a time to press the media to tell an accurate story, unlike the Canadian Press hack-job reprinted in the recent Chronically Horrid, which mostly quotes an associate professor from New Brunswick as the “expert”.
The Point, Gotten To
To me, this looks like a full-on witch-hunt to get rid of Acadia’s own Jordan Peterson, Professor Rick Mehta. If you can’t answer someone’s wisdom, then threaten their livelihood, reputation, and academic standing. Typical radical politics of personal destruction. Even if he is exonerated, the process IS the punishment.
By GOLLY I Object!
As an Acadia Grad (’86-’87), this mess proves that my Alma Mater has gone full-on flaming loony snowflake/ SJW echo chamber. I guess I was lucky it wasn’t lost to the pink & blue haired barbarians while I was still there.
I wonder: how many Canadian professors have recently been threatened with firing and public disgrace for being too socialist, too Marxist, too Leftist/ progressivist, too ‘Critical Meta-Narrative’, too feminist, too anti-free speech? Yeah, I thought so.
This attack is sad, humbling, and a call to protest. Now.
What to Do… Some Suggestions
Raise a stink. The barbarians are inside the gates– and they are dressed up as intolerant professors and students, trying to punish and silence someone challenging the no-debate Leftward mono-culture status quo.
If you are on FaceBook, how about dropping a word of support, prayer, and encouragement to Professor Mehta? Every little bit helps.
And youth? Parents? How about considering very very carefully where you want to invest that precious $30K+ in tuition & expenses.. at Politically Correct U, or a real college teaching the whole of the Western Tradition, like King’s College in Halifax, amongst others in Canada & the U.S.?
Why not let Acadia officialdom know what you think (politely, calmly, and not 15 pages)? Carbon copy your MLA, or MP, and interested media. Letters to the editor.
Heather Hemming Office of the Vice-President, Academic 15 University Avenue Acadia University Wolfville, NS B4P 2R6
The neo-barbarians are inside the gates, killing & pillaging: and we made them. We must expose, fight, and demand free speech and academic freedom under law.
Mehta: In His Own Words
I— Acadia Vs. Mehta
February 27th, 2018
“This post is for the general public and for the students who don’t know me. Many of these individuals may not even know where their next meal is coming from and may even see me as a member of an elite class. These are valid reasons for them to be skeptical about why they should care about my situation. I hope that my post addresses these issues.
I want to start this post by acknowledging that Acadia University is a publicly funded institution that receives its income primarily from the general public and students’ tuition. I believe that this makes these groups of people my employer and, even though this is not written down in any official capacity, I believe that this means that I am morally and ethically bound to serve their interests in my capacity as a professor.
From my perspective, I believe that my duty is to ensure that my students become informed and engaged citizens who can think critically and can make informed decisions. This also means that I am duty-bound to do what I can to ensure that they will become citizens who are open to diverse perspectives even if they disagree with what they’re being told, and that that they will be able to generate good ideas – so good that they can win people to their side solely on the strength of their ideas.
In my time at Acadia, I worked on these goals quietly in the confines of my classrooms. This is because I am an introvert at heart and have never had the desire to be in the public spotlight. Based on the rapport that I have had with my current and past students, I like to think that the quiet, understated approach is what worked best for me. I felt like I was making a contribution to society and enjoyed the quiet satisfaction of not being in the public spotlight and of not having fame.
In 2015, I started to suspect that there were serious problems with the university system. In 2016, I became worried that the problems would affect Canadian universities. In May 2017, I organized a panel discussion on free speech to discuss this issue (I’ve posted it on YouTube). Based on the feedback I received, I believed the event was successful and I was optimistic that I could play a role in instituting change at Acadia.
I became alarmed by events that transpired in the summer of 2017, and decided to present a thorough and comprehensive talk on free speech (the talk is posted on YouTube). In that talk, I also presented some ideas on how to implement change that would balance the conflicting concerns that had been brought to my attention. My talk was well attended (and listened to online) by students and members of the Wolfville/Acadia community. But the only faculty members who attended my talk or have said anything (e.g., over campus emails) have been the ones who oppose me.
Between September and November, I sent out campus emails and used social media to fight my own union because I believed that they were abusing their power to get money that I as a faculty member didn’t deserve, because I disagreed with their strong-arm tactics, and because their proposals would undermine academic freedom and free speech.
Since December, I have openly challenged many viewpoints that have become dominant on campus (i.e., questioning the basis for “systemic racism”, “systemic sexism”, the university’s decolonization initiatives, etc.) both in the emails that I have sent to my campus and on social media. Rather than refute me, which would be easy for the best and brightest minds to do if they had arguments and data on their side, the people who oppose me are claiming that I am harassing and/or being discriminatory towards them, and are using university policies that are vague and ill-defined as their basis for asking that the university investigate me (I’d be happy to send people copies of the policies so that they can judge for themselves)
Furthermore, my department has taken away the courses that I have taught for years (I would be happy to send people copies of my resume if they are skeptical about whether or not I was competent at my job). The rationale that I was given that there were “concerns” about my teaching. I submitted my appeal and explained the reasons why I believed this decision was unfair, and proposed that I teach the large sections of Introductory Psychology that I have taught this year, and that I would cover a third course on overload. Because I already have a good salary, I gave my word that I would donate the extra income to a charity so that the extra money would benefit the people who needed it more than me.
After taking over three weeks to get back to me (which is the time frame given in the university’s collective agreement), the Dean overturned my appeal. Rather than summarize his rationale, I welcome people to contact me. I can then send you copies of my appeal and the Dean’s response so that you can decide for yourselves if I was treated fairly. I believe that the documents speak for themselves and don’t need any commentary from me.
I believe that the evidence in my post demonstrates that that there are serious problems at Acadia. My position is that the problems are so serious that I am willing to lose a job that rewards me with a six-figure salary and a gold-plated pension. This is because I believe that my ethical duty to serve the interests of the general public and the students at Acadia take precedence over my own narrow self interests. Given the role that education plays in the lives of the students and society, this is my rationale for why I believe that my situation should be cause for concern for all of us as citizens of the world.”
II — Rick Mehta: A New Canadian
Rick Mehta February 25 at 1:37am
“In this long post, I’ll give some information about my family history and so-called lived experience in Canada so people know where I’m coming from when it comes to issues related to racism, sexism, etc., and WHY I have been so outspoken of late – and also why I have adopted the positions that I have taken (e.g., standing by Cornwallis and Senator Beyak).
My grandfather was stoned to death outside of his own home during the separation of India for the “crime” of being a government employee. My grandmother blamed my mother for my grandfather’s murder and did what she could to make my mother’s life miserable. In turn, my mother directed her anger about how she was treated onto my older brother – until she realized that what she was doing was wrong. She then overcompensated by spoiling me when I was a child and that created its own problems.
For example, I spent a good part of my childhood looking down on people who were poor and blamed them for their situation without giving any consideration to the greater societal context (e.g., did the people I was insulting even have access to drinking water, education, etc.) I also had a difficult time finding work after graduating from university because I was too spoiled from having had everything given to me, and to had to learn the hard way life’s lessons about the importance of hard work and how to find a job.
Other incidents that have shaped me as a human being stem from my own direct experiences with racism in my childhood (this paragraph) and observing how my mother was treated when she was trying to succeed in the workplace as a woman with brown skin.
During the 1970s, there was a lot of tension between the English and French; because I was a first generation Canadian, I was accepted by neither group. That resulted in me not being allowed on certain streets, being beaten up routinely (in part because of my skin colour, although I imagine that being socially awkward and overweight played a role in being a target of bullies), my family receiving crank phone calls at all hours of the day and night, having total strangers scream at my family and me to “go back to your country”, and routinely coming home to have to clean eggs that were thrown at our home. After the 1980 referendum, my experience as a first generation Canadian has kept getting better. Until Justin Trudeau became prime minister and started dividing our country, I had little reason to even think about my ethnicity or skin colour; I was simply a proud Canadian.
With regard to the issue of sexism, It pained me to have to hear stories of what my mother had to endure due to racism and/or sexism. I’ll give two examples. She was unceremoniously fired over the phone when she called in to miss work because my brother and I were ill with the measles. She also had to watch as people who were junior to her in the workplace quickly rise through the ranks (one person ended up becoming her boss) – not because of qualifications or work ethic, but because they were connected to “the old boys club”.
I like to think that these and other experiences have shaped who I am as a person, how I treat other people in general, and – more importantly – why I’ve tried to structure my classes as a functional hierarchy and democracy. My hope has always been that students would take what I did implicitly and would adopt it into their lives after they’re no longer students in my classes (e.g., how they treat other people, what qualities they look for in politicians when it comes to elections, etc.).
In term of India’s history, it’s true that the British insisted that India and Pakistan become two separate countries, and that this resulted in much bloodshed; I know this because it affected my mother directly and affected me indirectly. However, I believe that a greater good was served as a result of this decision. India is now an economic powerhouse. I highly doubt this would have happened if the British hadn’t insisted on having India separate into two countries. I believe that the situation would have been a lot worse and would have made the conflicts in the Middle East look like world peace in comparison.
It might seem counterintuitive (and some might argue that my position is “racist”), but I believe that the British used their greater and advanced knowledge of civilization and democracy to do what was best for the people of India. I’m not saying that the British were perfect or angels, but if they were evil people hell-bent on genocide, I believe they would have found a way to have accomplished that goal many years ago.
For this reason, I see colonization very differently from the FN advocacy groups and openly challenge some of the narratives that are dominant at university campuses (e.g., the decolonization initiatives) – especially when they’re done under the premise that they can’t be scrutinized (e.g., any attempts to ask questions or offer different perspectives are countered with charges of “racism”, “cultural genocide”, being “pro-colonialsim”, etc.) and when the past is used for endless demands for financial compensation. This explains why I have been very skeptical of the so-called “Truth” and “Reconciliation” report on the residential schools and why I am standing with Cornwallis (I believe that the activists are trying to rewrite history).
I’ll bring my thoughts to a close by saying that respect is a two-way street. At what point are we going to start playing by the same rules when it comes to issues such as race, gender, etc.? We can continue to along with with divides us, which will help us continue to magnify the polarization we’re seeing in society today and the path to civil unrest; if I’m correct, we’re on a path to WWIII and this will consist of civil unrest in the liberal democracies. In the past, evil has persisted not because the citizens had adopted the views of fascism or communism (the term “social justice” is in vogue at the moment), but because the good people did nothing. Applying the lessons of the past to the present, this explains why the voices of reason must start to speak out.
If my reading of history is correct, the voices of reason outnumber the far left to the point of being able to minimize their impact. Once the far left is neutralized, there will be little reason for the far right to advocate for itself. From there, we will finally have a context in which we will finally be able to have the difficult conversations to address both the good and dark sides of our history, and to finally address modern social problems. The simplistic “settler/colonizer” = evil (or “genocidal”), “patriarchy”, “systemic racism”, “systemic sexism” approaches to our history and complex social problems is only worsening problems that can potentially be about as close as humanly possible to being solved or nipped in the bud.”
I’m an original Star Wars kid. Saw the first one 14 times that Summer of ‘77. Spent a couple thou on merch over the years, helping make the Dark Lord George rich. Those first three movies were big pivotal events. Cultural moments. Good versus evil, heroes vs. villains, big over-simplified sloppy-science nerdy space-opera.
Then, George got mad about the success of Titanic, and James Cameron. Enter the prequels. Meh, take the kids, maybe there’s something.. oh. What’s that smell? Little Rebel filmmaker George had morphed into Darth Jabba, bully billionaire toy-seller with a side-order of movie-making.
I Gotta Bad Feeling About This
The latest branded product? Pretty much that South Park episode with Lucas & Spielberg raping Indiana Jones, and the audiences of that dreadful UFO+Indy movie. Except now, it’s Jar Jar Abrams, Kennedy, Mickey Mouse, and Johnson taking their turns violating Luke Skywalker, and the nerdly audiences of these three beautifully filmed– but contemptuous– violations of the SW universe & fandom.
There’s a lot of puzzled, offended, angry, and turned-off fans out there right now. And it hurt 2017 ticket-sales, toy & collectible sales, DVD & BluRay and all the knock-on money expected from big tentpole movies like this.
This feels like part revenge for #GamerGate; and the industry flipping the bird at the public for slumping ticket-sales for recent Hollywood rubbish; and the spoil-it-all ill-will of progressives towards anything they didn’t make, and of which they disapprove. Take something good, kill it & skin it, and wear the carcass while demanding respect for the new thing as if it’s still the old thing. Then, mock the fans, and drink their tears. Ha ha ha.
Clearly the next movies must be about hunting down each & every surviving character.. Chewie, R2D2, C-3PO, Nien Nunb, and Lando Calrissian in the retirement home for space-rascals, and killing them. Then, dancing on the grave of old Star Wars.
Deeper Stuff Is Important, Too
The nihilist meta-narrative that there is no good or evil, nothing worth living & dying for, no unifying spiritual force above & beyond appearances— so we can just all live in John Lennon’s craptastic revolutionary song ‘Imagine’? What a horrible dead life that would be, of competing chaotic forces wrecking everything & each other in a race to mutual bored destruction. This new Star Wars is a paean of praise to that “Eff It ALL” mentality.
The original movies were exciting & inspiring BECAUSE each person & their decisions mattered, made a difference. The protagonists were willing to live and die to help others, to hope and love and act in the face of apparently insurmountable tyranny. Leaving aside fanboyism and online insta-opinionated word-wars, it’s those deeply human elements that attracted us original kids in 1977.. a new take on movies, heroes & baddies, and interesting stories, remade with amazing effects and things we hadn’t seen before.
Of course they weren’t perfect. Of course they don’t make for a good religion or life. Of course you want to punch some fans in the nose and tell them to get a life and a religion.. but using a movie to do that is a pretty arrogant and dumb way to do it– and it’s bad business, no matter how many fart-sniffing film critics you make smirk with such work.
Nope. This original Star Wars fan is done. Not one more penny. Down with the Disney dystopia, and this disastrous train-wreck of a film franchise. ~
~ I AM AN ONLINE FRIEND of Donna’s and am excited to see launch of her new project– Livia Magazine. How do we live well in the midst of our times? How do we redeem our days and years to live and be fully and joyfully alive?
In this first article I’ve seen, Donna herself speaks up on a very current matter to her, to modern women and families, and a modern suffering-averse society tending more and more to ugly eugenics, and erasing the blessings of having children with special needs–
Wow.. smart, interesting, unflinching, thoughtful discussion about a serious question posed by life in a child-indifferent and disability-hating society– what lives are worth living? How shall we bear our burdens as parents, friends, or supporters of special needs people, as an affirmation of life? Where will we find the blessing in life as it is actually lived?
“We at Livia believe in the innate worth of every single human being as a unique person.
We believe that the key to a good life lies in discovering our potential as a unique person, and through that, developing a health sense of self-worth.
And we believe that society is strongest when the people within it are able to harness their true potential to the benefit of themselves, their families, their friends and their communities.
Our mission at Livia is to help young women embrace their womanhood and realise their potential. We do this by encouraging them to:
engage with the wider world around them: its culture, its history and its people.
think for themselves, to develop their own opinions, and to critically assess new ideas and concepts.
be the best them they can be, by trying out new activities and finding out what it is that they are gifted at.
Broadly centre-right in our political positioning, our voice is generally informative, but also witty, light, interesting, lively. We embrace and promote Livia values of self-reliance, entrepreneurship, curiosity, civic-mindedness and, of course, femininity.
Crucially, we feel that in these divisive times a commitment to emphasising the ties that bind us is essential. At Livia we are determined to maintain a positive outlook in our editorial output.”
Sounds pretty good, huh? Binks thinks so. As most of you know, I calls ’em like I sees ’em– if this was crap, I’d say so, friends or not. I think Livia Magazine is the beginning of something really good.
So please support this project with your stories, your hits and reading and sharing and pondering. Pass on the articles to people who might need to read them, and gain a better perspective on all the topics Donna puts out there. Seek to live well, and to encourage others to do likewise.
Congratulations on serving as Canada’s new Governor General, and representing the Queen to Canada, and Canadians to the Queen. It is an historic and storied role. Representing all Canadians is a wonderful opportunity.
Thank you for speaking out for science recently, at the 9th annual Canadian Science Policy Conference on Wednesday, November 1. Canada has long led the way in technology, innovation & invention, and in medical fields, amongst many others.
However, during your remarks it is reported that you said:
“”Can you believe that still today in learned society, in houses of government, unfortunately, we’re still debating and still questioning whether humans have a role in the Earth warming up or whether even the Earth is warming up, period,” she said.
“And we are still debating and still questioning whether life was a divine intervention or whether it was coming out of a natural process let alone, oh my goodness, a random process.
“And so many people — I’m sure you know many of them — still believe, want to believe, that maybe taking a sugar pill will cure cancer, if you will it!
“And every single one of the people here’s personalities can be determined by looking at planets coming in front of invented constellations.”.
Your Excellency– as I understand it, your role is to speak to and represent all Canadians– including those who need to use non-prescription supplements, those who believe that there is no contradiction between science and religion, those who are not convinced– on actual evidential bases that climate change as popularly represented is primarily anthropogenic– or whatever other beliefs are out there which you seem to have slighted in your comments.
The following distinguished people have believed there is a divine being: Aristotle, Socrates, and Plato. Einstein. Moses & Jesus. St. Thomas Aquinas. Galileo. Leonardo. Sir Isaac Newton. Nicholas Copernicus.
The following Noble Laureates in Science are also people who had some kind of agnostic or actual faith in God (mostly Jewish & Christian)–
My father was trained in the fields of computers, nuclear physics, general medicine, and the difficult specialty of pathology & medical examination. He served Canadian communities up and down the Annapolis Valley for two decades, as did his immigrant Scots father– also a Pathologist– did for 30 years prior. My father was also a Christian. He had no difficulty believing that God both created and was creating– through his created things and beings– all that is.
As a Canadian, I do not feel anyone in such a position as Governor General of Canada should be– or be seen to be– alienating or dividing our country, or possibly provoking and insulting Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jews, or those who follow aboriginal beliefs.
I hope this letter finds you well, enjoying your opportunities for the betterment of our Country, and richly blessed in all you do. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Yours very sincerely,
Etc., etc., so on and so forth.
UPDATE– VICTORY! 😉
Dear Mr. Binks,
Thank you for sharing your views and suggestions with Governor General Julie Payette.
Responses to specific inquiries can be expected within three weeks. All emails will be read, but general comments and opinions may not receive a response.
Nous vous remercions d’avoir transmis vos points de vue et vos suggestions à la gouverneure générale Julie Payette.
Veuillez prévoir trois semaines pour l’obtention d’une réponse à une demande précise. Tous les courriels seront lus, mais les opinions et les commentaires généraux ne recevront pas automatiquement une réponse.
~ WELCOME TO 2017— and the great muzzling. Such as the YouTube Smiting YouTubers Policy.. brought to you by bullying goofy greedy corporations! Let’s boycott them! Who?
HSBC, AT&T, Verizon, Heinz, Johnson & Johnson; in Europe, VW, Toyota, Tesco, ITV, Aviva, and many more. You know, lying, monopolizing, money-laundering, mileage-fudging, terror-supporting, NSA-cooperating heroic companies like these.
What content, exactly? HATE!! What ‘hate’? Must be pretty horrible, to demonetize them (i.e., take away their ad revenues).
“So, it’s not the ISIS recruitment videos or pirated content that caused the mass exodus of brands, but suddenly popular YouTube channels with “homophobic extremists,” and hate preachers. I do hope they mean the videos showing ISIS soldiers dropping blindfolded men off rooftops, but I doubt that’s what they mean.”
Got it? Corporations are trying to police online free speech, especially the politically incorrect, unpopular, or religiously traditional. Terror? Death to all Juice sermons? ISIS-associated AntiFa hate-screeds? Murder of gay Iranians? Those videos are not being blocked or fiddled with in any way, of course. Only certain offensivetopics.
The current YouTube CEO preens:
“We know advertisers don’t want their ads next to content that doesn’t align with their values. So starting today, we’re taking a tougher stance on hateful, offensive and derogatory content. This includes removing ads more effectively from content that is attacking or harassing people based on their race, religion, gender or similar categories. This change will enable us to take action, where appropriate, on a larger set of ads and sites.”
Even videos mentioning the new policy, or criticizing Google or YouTube will get demonetized (of course). As with so many free speech fascisms, truth, freedom of speech, facts, or fair opinion are not legit defences or reasons to the speech-killers. There’s also talk of actual censorship, with videos deleted, made private, or hidden behind digital walls as bad content.
Then, hard-Leftist Google bought up YouTube. The company was pressured to make nice with video content by some very big corporations. The new inhuman algorithm for picking nice videos ensues, along with many YouTubers losing money for allegedly potentially ‘offensive’ content.
ALL guilty until proven innocent, until they appeal.. until their next video. Even formerly acceptable older videos by the same Youtuber on the same current topics or games as before? Demonetized & demonized! DONK!
THEN, you get to send an appeal, to be reviewed by an actual human. One appeal per each video, 2-4 days processing. Some YouTubers now have literally hundreds and hundreds of vids just demonetized by the SKyNet algorithm.
English YouTuber Paul Charleton goes by the nom de web “The Mighty Jingles”. I’m a longtime fan & subscriber.
In his case, ALL the recent work of this huge YouTuber (over 500K subscribers) — DONK!!! — he has had to do for free, because YouTube’s algorithm has smited almost everybody, and all of his recent videos, which cover… a handful of electronic games, with an avuncular lashing of humour and history.
Listen to his clear explanation.
Hence the “Adpocalypse”: Normally, YouTubers are paid by advertisers through YouTube for the views each video receives. More views, more $$$ for YouTube & their creators. Before. Now, everything is different, and worse.
After all, political silencing has always been a goal of GoogleTube, no? ~