You are currently browsing The Arbourist’s articles.
The notion of LGB/TQ+ ‘community’ is in itself a synthetic proposition. How do people who share mutually exclusive goals reasonably be part of the same “community”? LGB are about acceptance into society based on sexual attraction preferences – that is if you happen to like the same sex you should be able to pursue your life without facing discrimination for doing so. The TQ+ doesn’t believe in sex at at all, and are not about fitting into society – they are there to burn down the old society and reformat society’s rules and norms according to their ideology – aka – the entire transgender campaign that denies the reality of sex in humans and reifies the notion of mystical gender identity. The fetish driven men in dresses need to justify their paraphilia and thus children must also be transed and mutilated/sterilized in the name of gender ideology.
We must keep in mind that “queer” isn’t a identity you are. You can act queer and do queer things but queer is an identity without an essence – queer exists only in opposition to the norm and by definition is a political identity(one that seeks to destroy the current society).
Anyhow, here in the West the scales have been tipped far to long in the queer activists’s favour. People in the US (and hopefully soon in Canada) have rejected the activism and are now rolling back the damage done to society by self righteous activists who have been happily corroding society for years. The pendulum swinging back is causing some consternation in the LGB/TQ+ community.
Here is a notable ‘activist’ now blaming the human shields she used to advance her activism for the backlash she is responsible for.
This is a masterclass level response:
Hard to disagree with any of the points made. We should all be taking notes on how this happened as this is how activists work in the West – they get on the inside and corrupt institutions with their bullshit and then ruin the party for everyone involved.
The “oof” will be big when it lands.
The Liberal Party of Canada’s decision to remove Chandra Arya from the leadership race is a concerning display of undemocratic behavior.
Arya, having met the necessary criteria and raised the required funds, should have been allowed to compete on an equal footing with other candidates. This exclusion smacks of internal manipulation, suggesting that the party leadership might be more interested in controlling the outcome than in fostering a fair and open contest.
Such actions raise serious questions about the integrity of the leadership selection process and whether it truly reflects the will of party members or is instead orchestrated by a select few. This move not only disenfranchises Arya’s supporters but also undermines the democratic ethos that the Liberal Party should champion.
It’s a clear indication that the party might prioritize maintaining a particular narrative or candidate over the democratic ideals it claims to uphold, thereby casting a shadow over the legitimacy of the entire leadership race and, by extension, the future governance of the country.
The decision by the current Liberal Government in Canada to prorogue Parliament is a stark demonstration of political opportunism trumping democratic principles.
By shutting down Parliament, they’ve effectively silenced the legislative body’s ability to hold the government accountable at a crucial juncture, especially with the looming leadership change. This move appears less about a necessary “reset” for government action and more about buying time to manage internal party politics ahead of a potential vote of non-confidence.
It’s particularly egregious given the backdrop of significant national and international issues that demand parliamentary attention, including economic recovery and international relations.
The prorogation not only delays important legislative work but also undermines the democratic process by preventing timely scrutiny of government actions, further eroding public trust in a government that seems more focused on self-preservation than public service. This is not governance; it’s a blatant manipulation of parliamentary procedure for partisan gain.
This is like when you really *really* wanted Santa Claus to be real. You look for information to confirm your beliefs (the exact opposite of you like doing the corresponding to reality thing).
Of course, the non EKOS polls show a rather different story.
The take away for today: The easiest person to fool is yourself.
We really need to get away from using the term “gender” when we mean “sex”. Word confusion is part of the reason why we are in this sad state.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…