The first of the manipulations, and the center of how it works, is the collectivization of the “LGBTQ2 community.”
This thing does not exist meaningfully. It’s not even a genuine coalition. Gay people, and so on, exist, but that acronym represents nothing but a lie.
However they spell the acronym, its purpose is to collectivize all of the people in certain descriptive demographics and to allow the radicals to speak for their entirety, making it appear like many “marginalized” people support Woke stuff when actually only few do.
That is, Queer Activism is being done in the names of a broad pseudo-coalition “community” denoted by the acronym, even though most individuals in that “community” aren’t represented by it and may even reject it outright. Queer Activists hide behind a synthetic coalition.
It bears repeating that throughout the Queer literature, it is stressed and stressed again that “Queer” is an oppositional political stance, not an identity at all. That proves, outside of the obvious rejection by people falsely claimed by the “community,” that it’s fake.
It also proves that the Queer Activists KNOW the “LGBTQ2 community” is an artificial construction that they’re manipulating to gain empathy and support they don’t deserve. Let that sink in. They KNOW it. They’re DOING IT ON PURPOSE, WILLFULLY. So here is the Liberal Party.
So this is the first huge manipulation here: making people believe in a broad “LGBTQ2 community” that doesn’t exist except as a manipulative pseudo-coalition that speaks for and hides behind sexual minorities so it can do destructive oppositional Queer Activism in its name.
The second huge manipulation here is the claim that anything resisting Queer Activism “harms” this “community.” First of all, no it doesn’t. It just doesn’t. Nobody is being “harmed” at all. That claim is the wail of a histrionic narcissist not getting his way.
Second of all, the community itself can’t be “harmed,” even if it existed (remember, it’s a fake pseudo-coalition ginned into existence by Queer Activists to hide behind). Only individuals can be harmed, and they could be treated individually rather than collectively if harmed.
This part of the manipulation twists the ethos but not the logic of civil rights into its inverse. The logic of civil rights is that no INDIVIDUAL should be harmed through discriminatory law or policy. It has nothing to do with groups or their rights, but this inverts that logic.
People have been led to think civil rights is about protecting groups (“protected classes”) when in reality “protected classes” refers to classifications under which all individuals are protected against discriminatory activity. Race, not specific races, is protected this way.
The third part of the manipulation is in the idea of “harm” itself. For Queer Theorists, not getting their way is “hate” and “harm.” They paint a picture of fringe cases where something bad happens as though they’re indicative of the population. They’re not.
They’re trying to claim that all members of a fictitious “community” are “harmed” so they can emotionally blackmail people into supporting radical agendas from within (Communist) Queer Theory, when in fact a few individuals have problems blamed on a system, rightly or wrongly.Their objective is to provide universal solutions that might be merited in a small number of individual cases by claiming “the community is harmed.” This is akin to doing universal screenings or treatments in medicine, which is strongly discouraged for good reasons.
Doing universal cancer screenings, for example, produces far more false positives than real positives and puts people into fear and onto courses of treatment that actually harm them when they don’t need them. This “community” stuff treats the whole community for a few bad cases.
It’s malpractice justified through collectivist empathy. The remedy is to install the praxis of Queer Activism everywhere so the few special cases don’t get missed and “harmed,” but Queer Activism harms everyone, and what you might hope it would be harms most people.
The reason they think this way is because Queer Theory posits that our true, essential nature is queer. Everybody is queer. It’s who we really are, and we have to be led BACK into realizing it because it’s socialized out of us by cisheteronormative society.
What this actually reveals about Queer Theory is that it’s a Gnostic or Hermetic cult (both, really). Our true nature is obscured from us, and we have to be led to remember it by escaping the evil forces obscuring it from us. We’re all “spiritually” queer but don’t realize it.
Since Rousseau and Marx, “spiritually” has meant collectively in society. Marxism is the belief that our true spiritual nature is “social(ist),” and we have to be re-socialized into realizing who we really are: a social species with the power to create itself and our world.
Queer Theory just posits that we’re all queer (abnormal and intrinsically opposed to limitations of normalcy), but we’ve been socialized to be “normal” instead. So denying Queer Activist praxis to ALL kids (and all people) “harms” them spiritually. That’s what they really mean.
We don’t have to put up with this emotional blackmail anymore, nor do we have to accept that a fringe of radical activists with demonstrable cult views gets to present itself as the “true” voice of a broad coalition that it holds out as tokens for empathy and support.
Last November, the Post ran a column by transwoman Julia Malott who allegedly supports my right to free expression but simultaneously believes that my “persona” has devolved and that I’ve become divisive and resentful. The devolution, she wrote, occurred during my three-year-and-counting legal battle with the British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives over my political speech on women’s rights and the binary nature of human sex.
I could lose my nursing license and job because I said that males can never become females. I am resentful and I have changed after facing years of legal, professional, and personal abuses — but I haven’t devolved.Twenty years ago, no one would have batted an eye if a health care professional said that only women can give birth, or that women do not have penises. Today? You’ll get hauled into a disciplinary tribunal for daring to say so. And just because I’ve insisted on loudly repeating these facts — it’s obvious that human males don’t birth offspring, whatever gender-obsessed “queer” activists think — I am called divisive, by detractors and supporters alike. That’s wrong. What’s divisive is our culture, with its increasingly pathological aversion to basic truths.I’ve tried to keep myself a bulwark against the delusions and despotism of our times. I admit that I’ve abandoned any pretence of politeness, but my message — like the truth — has never changed. Nor will it. And nor should I hold myself to an arbitrary standard of politeness so as not to offend those who either hate the truth, or believe that Canada’s sanity will be restored only if we hold courtly discussions about real-time crises. That won’t work.
The situation in Canada is dire; we are well beyond the point of change making via raising our hands to speak before whimpering politely towards a cacophony of rainbow-adorned tyrants. There are sexual predators that have been transferred from men’s to women’s prisons based on “gender identity” rather than anatomy. The same is true of rape shelters. Those born as males are competing in women’s sports categories. Hundreds of underage Canadian girls are being greenlighted for double mastectomies because they do not wish to be girls. Our health-care system continues to medicalize and transition gender non-conforming youth, despite the fact that other countries have realized this is a medical scandal not based on sound — or even any — evidence.
Canada’s self-identification policies, flowing from gender identity legislation, have enabled 50-year-old transwoman Melody Wiseheart, who began swimming under that name in 2019, to compete against and undress in the same changing room as little girls and teens. And for Kayla Lemieux to wear obscenely large prosthetic breasts with protruding nipples while teaching high school students. Tara Desousa, known pedophile, rapist, and murderer, transitioned while in prison and now resides in a B.C. prison that runs a mother-baby program.
Nothing I’ve ever said or written is as “divisive” as what is happening to Canadian women and children; and the “division,” again, occurs along the line of the rightfully outraged versus those who are intolerant of the naked truth.
Regulated professionals like me, or Jordan Peterson, are being sanctioned, punished, defamed, and censored for following truth, evidence, and our conscience — whether we are anodyne or not. And our court system, as Peterson has shown, may not afford any remedy. At this juncture, trying not to be “divisive” with our words is no different than waving a white flag. I refuse to equivocate over or sanitize the truth — and the provocation of an extremist minority is, to me, an acceptable side effect of my refusal to do so. They’re mad? So be it. I’m mad too.
Malott wrote that she “was struck by a sense of lost potential” and saw me as someone she could “possibly envisaged as a friend” — if only I hadn’t become so bitter and devolved as a result of my free speech battle. Well, I’m not fighting to make friends or hold ineffectual conversations.
I’ve unwittingly become the public face of this fight for women and children in Canada. I can’t afford to be timid. I won’t take pains to make winding, inoffensive arguments about whether women should be allowed to keep their sex-based rights, or children their bodily integrity and fertility. The answer is obvious. Canadians need to listen and to understand quickly. There is no time to be moderate. There is no time to baby the feelings of people who are horrified by truth in plain language.
Amy Hamm is a freelance writer and healthcare professional. She is co-founder of the nonpartisan Canadian Women’s Sex-Based Rights (caWsbar).
It is important that news like this gets proper exposure and to illustrate how the MSM is not doing its job. Plus it gets it on Facebook around the stupid news censorship in Canada.
By now, every Canadian has heard the news out of Alberta. Although depending where you get your news, you’ve either heard that Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has announced a forthcoming genocide camp for LGBT youth or—for those who’ve not lost their grip on reality—you’ve heard that Smith is taking an evidence-based stance on transgender healthcare for minors, protecting female athletes in sports, and ensuring parents have the right to safeguard the well-being and best interests of their children.
There will be no more puberty blockers or cross sex hormones for children under 16. No gender surgeries—such as double mastectomies or penile inversions—for minors under 18. No more teachers changing under-16 students’ names or pronouns without parental permission. No more leaving parents in the dark about gender-identity school lessons. Parents can continue to opt their children out. For female athletes, they will have sports leagues of their own: no males can identify their way in.
Screenshot from Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s gender law announcement video.
Smith is bringing safety, fairness, parental rights, and reason back to her province. She is bringing Albertans exactly what the majority of Canadians support, as per a recent Angus Reid poll that shows parents expect to be notified if their kids suddenly identify as transgender at school. (What loving parent wouldn’t want to be?) Similarly, a 2021 poll reveals that Canadians want sports segregated by sex, not gender self-identification.
There’s no denying that Smith’s new legislation is reflective of majority Canadian sentiment. So naturally, Canada’s activists and hard left, plus their sycophant Liberal and NDP bootlickers—fringe minority that they are—had a Chernobyl-level nuclear meltdown, with a fallout zone well beyond Alberta’s borders.
Notably, our national broadcaster trotted out vile misogynist Fae Johnstone, slapped an “expert” label on the transgender-identified male, and hit “publish” on another gaslighting piece of state propaganda. They quoted Johnstone on Smith’s new rules: “This is interfering ideologically in the provision of medically necessary healthcare for trans and gender diverse young people.” He also claimed the new legislation “flies in the face of establishing medical best practice.”
All of what Johnstone said is demonstrably—and infuriatingly—false. The only ideology at play is his. Gender “affirming” healthcare for minors is being globally outed as the medical scandal that it is, with numerous Scandinavian and European countries implementing restrictions or bans on the treatment of children. The World Health Organization just released trans care guidelines that do not include standards for youth or minors; they cite a lack of evidence to support childhood transition guidelines.
Persons like Fae Johnstone are desperate to bury the truth. When not lying via our government-funded media platform, Johnstone can be found trolling and threatening women with differing political opinions online. “I actually do want a political environment in which TERFs are so vilified they don’t dare speak their views publicly,” he once wrote. Because if you can’t beat them, shut them down.
And then there’s Canada’s Special Advisor to the Prime Minister on LGBTQ2 issues, Randy Boissonnault, who took the good news from Alberta particularly poorly. In a presser, the man insisted that joining your school’s chess club or debate team is no different than changing your gender and going on Lupron, the puberty-blocking drug used off-label for trans kids and also to castrate sex offenders.
“Nobody calls your parents when you join the debate team. But now, if somebody thinks you’re questioning or queer, they’re gonna tell the teacher and the teacher’s gonna call the parents,” said Boissonnault. “This is our NATO moment as an LGBTQ community. An attack on one of our communities is an attack on us all.” Boissonnault, a gay man, seems blissfully unaware that childhood medical transition is disproportionately inflicted upon gender-confused kids who, if left alone to go through puberty, would simply end upgay. What Canada is doing to “trans” kids, in many cases, is “transing the gay away”; it’s a modern form of conversion therapy. It must stop. We are an international embarrassment on several fronts, most appallingly so for ignoring the global demise of gender ideology and destroying the bodies and minds of untold numbers of vulnerable children.
In response to Premier Smith, legal group Egale Canada has called her proposed legislation “unconstitutional” and claims they will launch a court challenge. It’s possible that the federal government will, too. Minister Boissonnault is promoting a rally to protest Smith’s proposed changes at the Edmonton Legislature this weekend.
Premier Smith is not backing down. Good for her. Canada needs an enormous dose of reality, and our petulant gender activists need their tantrums to go ignored. Let them stamp and shout and lie—the adults in the country are finally having a conversation.
He who commits violence first loses moral authority and legitimacy in society. We are entering a period where the provocateurs on both the Left and Right will be doing all they can to make the other side resort to force and violence. We, in our fight to save our culture, must always be sure never to blindly react to the other sides provocations – the target’s reaction is the action – is how Saul Alinsky’s The Rules for Radicals phrases it. We must stop – breathe – and see the contrived decision dilemma we are being maneuvered into.
It’s tough to do in the heat of the moment, but it must be done in order to avoid the reactionary outcomes that ultimately push the other side to victory. Manifestos (that advocate for violence) are part of the path of blind reaction and are almost never justifiable in a peaceable society.
“A manifestor’s engagement with violence, whether it’s aggressive language sharpied onto the body, or the gunning down of children, is a premeditated rhetorical act. It’s what makes the manifesto itself a performance as opposed to a static object: it possesses the power to communicate something of its own and stop an audience in its tracks. An act of violence amplifies the ethos of the writer and the legitimacy of their cause, adding flesh and bone (often literally) to mere words. Without the rhetorical effect of direct violence, the manifesto is just a literary rant.
Manifestos are not your usual five-paragraph essay, or editorial thinkpiece or essayistic article like the one I’m writing at the moment. They’re not even measured, posturing political speeches; as Breanne Fahs notes in ‘Writing with Blood’ (2019), manifestos are ‘wild-eyed calls to arms intended to provoke radical social change, often moving at breakneck speed and invoking the collective “we” as they envision a new world order.’ There is always a dimension of spleen and spite, an ‘us’ vs ‘them’, or ‘it’, or ‘everything’. And it all has to go. Be it up in flames or surgically removed, the manifesto’s target will have a fight on its hands.
Here is the explosive recipe we’re working with as we approach the manifesto’s present-day incarnation:
Demonstrate a burning desire for change.
Identify a clear target of blame.
Remain committed to the intended goal, no matter how extreme the proposed solutions.
Experiment with style and form for the sake of impactful rhetoric, expressivity and wresting attention from the reader.
Promote ideas off the page through direct action.
A contemporary equivalent of the traditional manifesto doesn’t really exist. Did its recipe disappear? Has it been replaced by a new one? Not quite. It’s migrated online, reverted to the shadows, stretched like smooth taffy across the ether to grow less identifiable with each click. The modern manifesto is no longer a singular, blatant document touting a megaphone, but an underground extremist network fronted by professional interests.”
I was a strong proponent of the Harm Reduction strategy until more data has come out about its effectiveness and benefits for society versus other methods. There might be a case for Harm Reduction, but as currently implemented in BC it is a like a 4 legged stool that is missing three legs -harm reduction, law enforcement, prevention and treatment – just focusing on harm reduction and not the other areas is a recipe for social disaster.
The Alberta rehabilitation model has been modestly more successful in dealing with the problems of addictions. Both systems require overlapping programs working together to get people out of the drug abuse loop – whether Alberta has been more successful in coordinating the synergy of anti-addiction programs or that rehabilitation programs are just more effective remains to be seen. Initial data points to the Alberta method being more successful.
The divergent policies and politics of B.C. and Alberta have played a major role in determining the public perception of Canada’s opioid crisis. Left-leaning media outlets have tended to laud B.C.’s harm reduction as being more compassionate, while conservative voices point to Alberta’s focus on treatment as more practical and realistic. What Canada had lacked until recently was an impartial, data-driven assessment of the two competing systems.
Advantage Alberta: The Stanford Network on Addiction Policy’s 2023 report (depicted above) observes that, “Alberta is currently experiencing a reduction in key addiction-related harms,” while “Canada overall, and BC in particular, is not yet showing the progress that the public and those impacted by drug addiction deserve.” At middle, a typical street scene in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside; at bottom, a therapy session at Alberta’s new Red Deer Recovery Community. (Sources of photos: (middle) Ted McGrath, licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 DEED; (bottom) EHN Canada)
That problem was partially solved last year with the release of a report from the U.S.-based Stanford Network on Addiction Policy. Entitled Canada’s Health Crisis: Profiling Opioid Addiction in Alberta & British Columbia, the document offers an even-handed review of the differing policies of the two provinces, summarizes the latest available data (which it criticizes as inadequate) and cautiously evaluates the results. B.C., the report notes, emphasizes harm reduction, “safe supply” of illicit drugs, decriminalization of possession and reduction of addiction stigma. Alberta, by contrast, is focusing on “investment in rehabilitation beds and spaces, such as therapeutic communities,” while moving away from “safe supply” of opioids and instead providing addicts with medications.
Using these differences as a natural experiment, the Stanford report comes to a few key conclusions. First, it observes “a lack of policy innovation in BC on the issue of drug addiction.” Obsessive attention to harm reduction appears to have blinded politicians and public health officials to the longer-term consequences of their favoured policy. “Enforcement against drug crime has [been] reduced in recent years,” the report notes, “indicating a general lessening of criminal justice enforcement against drug offences in Canada during the escalating health crisis of opioid addiction.”
Second, “Of the two provinces studied for this report, Alberta is currently experiencing a reduction in key addiction-related harms.” The province’s rate of overdose deaths declined by 17 percent from 2021 to 2022 (B.C.’s remained almost unchanged), although it was still Alberta’s second-worst year on record. Using the most recent data available, the Stanford researchers point to B.C.’s higher death rate as suggestive of the two approaches’ relative effectiveness: “Our research indicates that Canada overall, and BC in particular, is not yet showing the progress that the public and those impacted by drug addiction deserve.”
What is ad block? It is an application that, at your discretion blocks out advertising so you can browse the internet for content as opposed to ads. If you do not have it, get it here so you can enjoy my blog without the insidious advertising.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…