Colin Godbout


Part One: Recreation and Guitar Yoga.
Part Two: Awakening – Mainstream Media, Academia, and Conservative Individuals; Globalism and Nationalism; Trudeau, Islamists, and Leftists; Islamists and Leftists; Marxists and Free Speech; Gender, Race, and Body Parts.

Part One: Recreation and Guitar Yoga

I was born in New Westminster, a municipality of the Greater Vancouver Regional District.  I live on Indian Arm in North Vancouver.  This area offers a variety of recreational actiivites, including kayaking and surf skiing, mountain biking, trail running, and snowshoeing and skiing in the winter.  I enjoy some of these activities with my girlfriend. 

3e63kd3m85l55n55h8d419220eb1730f0138a 3e33j63ha5lb5o65k5d41c9557c392f321b9f 3kd3lc3h65lf5g95ffd41d4cbbfae04911733

600 321597342 600 326643362 deepcove

v-10 v-10-2

In the future I hope to yoke joy to sobriety while performing a music genre called Guitar Yoga, which accords with Robert Moore and Douglas Gillette’s description of “an individual Ego” reaching “the sober but joyous realization of its noncentral position in the psyche and in the wider universe.” (The Warrior Within, 29)  This consciousness transcends Northrop Frye’s complaint, “We are ashamed of our bodies, and though the shame itself is shameful, particularly when we realize that they are the forms of our souls, it is there, and it is hard to love a Creator who could, for instance, make our ‘places of joy & love excrementitious.’ [Marg to Watson, 3; K2, 156].” (Fearful Symmetry, 40)  Frye is citing William Blake, whose perception may have been from a state of innocence, for Norman Diodge comments: “Adults are not generally bothered by this, because in adolescence they have gone through another critical period of sexual plasticity in which their brains reorganized again, so that the pleasure of sex becomes intense enough to override any disgust.” (The Brain That Changes Itself, 100) 

guitar yoga

Georg Feuerstein explicates “the term hatha-yoga, which is esoterically explained as the union [yoga] between ‘sun’ and ‘moon,’ the conjunction of the two great dynamic principles or aspects of the body-mind.

The life force (prana) is polarized along the spinal axis, where the dynamic pole…is said to be at the base of the spine and the static pole…at the crown of the head.  The hatha-yogin’s work [286] consists in uniting [the poles.]…The syllable ha in the word hatha represents the solar force of the body; the syllable tha represents the lunar force.  The term yoga stands for their conjunction, which is the ecstatic state of identity between subject and object….the exoteric meaning of the word hatha is ‘force.’  Hatha-Yoga is a forceful enterprise in which the body’s innate life-force is utilized for the transcendence of the self.” (Yoga as Spiritual Alchemy: Hatha Yoga; from Yoga: The Technology of Ecstasy, 286-87; see also The Yoga Tradition, 390) 

Michael Holquist: “there is no politics without society, there is no society without human subjects, and human subjects – for all their differences – have in common the fact of material embodiment: the body is therefore a most potent force in ideology, for it is the one home we share in the world’s diverse materiality.” (Bakhtin and Beautiful Science; from Dialogue and Critical Discourse, 224)  Holquist: “embodiedness – in the first of several important features it shares with language – not only joins us, but separates us as well.  Politics, as the means by which claims to authority and ascriptions of responsibility are negotiated, requires a space that is social in the degree to which it is composed of interacting individuals who can figure authority and responsibility because they are simultaneously the same and different.  At its most basic a head is needed to anoint when a king is crowned, and a head is needed to chop off when a king is deposed….

The condition of being in a body is similar to the condition of being in a language insofar as in both cases the relation between one and many, self and other, us and them, is primary.  Desire and its ideologies are not individual phenomena, any more than words and their meanings can be unique.  But the effects of desire are no less known in particular, separated bodies than words that belong to every speaker, and yet which are uttered by particular, separate speakers.  We are texts insofar as the world writes on our bodies its judgments concerning our assumptions about it….the very separateness of our bodies is the one thing we all have together.  What we share is uniqueness.” (225)

Baltasar Gracian (Schopenhauer’s favorite writer and admired by Yehudi Menuhin): “The divine philosopher [Plato?] was right to compare the human body to a resonant, living instrument.  When it is well tuned, it makes marvelous music, and when it is not, it is all confusion and dissonance.  It is composed of many, very different strings, incredibly hard to adjust to one another, and its pegs are always slipping.  Some have called the tongue hardest to tune, and some the covetous hand.  One person says the eyes, which never see enough vanity, another the ears, which cannot get their fill of flattery and gossip.  Some say it is the fancy; some the insatiable appetite; [86] some the deep heart or bitter gut.” (Moral Anatomy; from A Pocket Mirror for Heroes, 86-87)

Part Two: Awakening

The following links and quotations reflect my recent political and ideological interests.  They also identify two ideologies, Marxism and Islamism, that threaten to destroy Western civilization.

Mainstream Media, Academia, and Conservative Individuals

CBC Invokes Godwin’s Law Against Jordan Peterson:
CBC – “A Bunch of Bullies”:
Levant on Media Diversity:
see also Peterson @ 7:52

Compare this CBC link:
with this independent link:
and Fool on the Hill
not to mention El Risitas:

In 1996 Doug Collins stated: “More than any other single media outlet the CBC is responsible for smashing traditional values in this country.  It has also been feminized, especially in Vancouver.  It has led the attack on things of which Canadians used to be proud….Less than ten per cent of us watch the CBC even though we have to pay for it whether we watch it or not.” (CBC Not Tuned in to Canada, from Here We Go Again, 38)   In 2012 Brian Lilley perceived a bias in the CBC: “To the CBC, conservative minded Canadians and the Conservative Party are the enemy.  Sometimes this has played out in subtle ways such as what CBC chooses to cover and what to ignore.” (CBC Exposed, 149)  Lauren Southern (3:20): “Fake news is normalizing liberal viewpoints as being impartial….It’s the media that are the bad people….They’re disgusted by the people that they’re selling their narratives to….They want to maintain control of our minds.”

Brigitte Gabriel: “Arab rulers know how to control their populations: keep them ignorant.  That’s how you rule people, keep them ignorant and control the content and flow of information into society.  You brainwash them into believing whatever you want them to believe, using the government-controlled newspapers, radio, and TV.” (Because They Hate, 191)  Gabriel describes a similar condition in North America: “The term ‘political correctness’ has evolved out of the Marxist and Freudian philosophies of the 1930s to become a tool for multiculturalism, multisexualism, multitheism, and multi-anythingism….Today, the use of political correctness has become so abused that anyone who voices his or her opinion contrary to ‘politically correct think’ is immediately tagged with some form of disparaging label, such as racist and bigot.  This exploitation has gotten so out of control that this name-calling accusation is used as a simple and mindless means to manipulate academic, social, or political discussion.  The result is a social paranoia which discourages free thought and expression.  It’s like living in a totalitarian state in which you are afraid to say what you think.  Now who wants to suffer that?  So people keep quiet.  Their opinions are held captive to fear.” (217)  

Shoaib Nasir: “My move to the West has completely disillusioned me.  Academic clerisy, for the most part, has decided to jump on the political correctness bandwagon and not criticize Muhammad and his ideology at all.  In most religious studies programs, professors criticize every religion on the face of the earth except the aforementioned.” (Liberation from Muhammadan Ideology, from Leaving Islam, 254)  

Pamela Geller describes the Muslim American Society as the “chief arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S., which is dedicated in its own words to ‘eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within.’” (Stop the Islamization of America, 172)  Geller is quoting “a Brotherhood document…, dated May 22, 1991, [which] reminded Brotherhood operatives in the United States that they ‘must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion [that is, Islam] is made victorious over all other religions.’” (Islamization, 145)

Geller describes the Muslim Students Association as a “Muslim Brotherhood organization” responsible for “the Islamic supremacism and jackbootery increasingly found on college campuses all over the country today.” (Stop the Islamization of America, 172, 173)  According to Geller, “Americans and Canadians and Europeans…are misled, misinformed, by a Sharia-compliant media.”  Ezra Levant: “The media does not respect Islam, the media is afraid of Islam. It’s a very different thing.” 

Geller describes “an all-out campaign to restrict the West’s freedom of speech regarding Islam, jihad, and Islamic supremacism, and to brand all honest discussion of such matters as ‘Islamophobia.’  In 2008, OIC [Organization of the Islamic Conference] Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu warned that the OIC had ‘sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed’ when speaking about Islam and jihad. Ihsanoglu was happy with the results: ‘The official West and its public opinion are all now well-aware of the sensitivities of these issues.  They have also started to look seriously into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility, which should not be overlooked.’” (Islamization, 174)

Milo Yiannopoulos: “The establishment – the media, academic and entertainment establishment – has made certain sorts of political opinion – respectable, reasonable, mainstream opinion – impossible to express in public.”  Peterson: “The conservatives are afraid that they will be targeted as individuals, mobbed by the social justice warriors online, and taken out.  And so they don’t say anything….Now the journalists are censoring themselves, they’ve already told me that, the politicians are censoring themselves….If you guys are afraid of being conservative you’ve already lost.”  Joseph Heath and Andrew Potter: “John Ralston Saul claims that we live in an ‘unconscious civilization,’ all victims of conformity and groupthink.  We need to wake up, smell the coffee and start acting as genuine individuals.” (The Rebel Sell, 95)

Globalism and Nationalism

Peter Brimelow: ‘The word ‘nation’ is derived from the Latin nescare, to be born.  It intrinsically implies a link by blood.  A nation in a real sense is an extended family.  The merging process by which all nations are created is not merely cultural, but to a considerable extent biological, through intermarriage.” (Alien Nation, 203)  Pierre Trudeau: “The road to progress lies through international integration; nationalism will have to be abandoned as a rustic and clumsy tool…” (from Alien Nation, 223)  Jim Goad: “Whitey floats in an identity-free limbo.  He is commanded to walk the streets devoid of cultural bravado.  Our ethnic fashion show welcomes the Nation of Islam, Native Nations, Azatlan Nation, and Queer Nation [LGBTQ Nation], but Aryan Nations are sent packing.” (Redneck Manifesto, 209)  Compare with Northrop Frye: “I feel that senility is exactly the same in society as it is in individuals: you lose your memory and you’ve had it.  If you lose your sense of tradition and the sense of what is behind you as a dimension of your own life, then you are simply floating in some kind of ether.” (Interviews with Northrop Frye)

Brimelow cites “Cokie Roberts, reporter fro National Public Radio and ABC News….’We have nothing binding us together as a nation – no common ethnicity, history, religion or even language – except the Constitution and the institutions it created.’” (Alien Nation, 231)  

Brimelow comments: “When Robert says ‘nation,’ of course, she means ‘state’ (or polity).  And, when she says, incredibly, that Americans have no common ethnicity, history, religion or language, what she really means is frankly if naively made clear: more power for the political class, aka ‘the Constitution and the institutions it created.’

Anything that further deconstructs the American nation – multiculturalism, bilingualism – will tend to bring about the situation Roberts hopefully describes.  And the political class, driven by this view of its self-interest, will applaud.

From the point of view of members of the American New Class, immigration is manna from heaven.  It gives them endless excuses to intervene in society.  It enables them to distinguish themselves from the xenophobic masses.  And, by introducing diverse populations, it strikes at the nation-state’s Achilles’ heel: the need for homogeneity.” (Alien Nation, 232) 

Alexandr Solzhenitsyn: “In recent times it has been fashionable to talk of the levelling of nations, of the disappearance of different races in the melting-pot of contemporary civilization.   I do not agree with this opinion, but its discussion remains another question.  Here it is merely fitting to say that the disappearance of nations would have impoverished us no less than if all men had become alike, with one personality and one face.  Nations are the wealth of mankind, its collective personalities; the very least of them wears its own special colours and bears within itself a special facet of divine intention.”  (Nobel Lecture)

Jordan Peterson on Why Globalism Fails and Nationalism is Relatable:

Trudeau, Islamists, and Leftists

TrudeauManiac Quotes: “Honor killings shouldn’t be called barbaric.”  “If you kill your enemies they win.” “The Liberal party believes that terrorists should be able to keep their citizenship.”  “I have tremendous confidence in people who don’t think a lot about politics, terrorism.”  “I think being able to choose it rather than being Canadian by default is an amazing statement of attachment to Canada….This is your country more than it is for others because we take it for granted, we default into this place.”  “There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada.”  Compare with Oscar worthy performance.  I start to understand him.  He’s a politician acting like he’s in a drama class reciting grand speeches that aren’t connected to the real world; thus his references to narratives.  Mark Bonokoski of Postmedia Network describes “Trudeau being Trudeau the play actor.”  There is no truth, just competing stories.

“Deficits are a way of measuring the kind of growth and the kind of success that a government is actually able to create.”  “We need to recognize that we still have a problem because there are men out there who will not say, ‘Yes, I am a feminist.’  We need to recognize that saying and bringing forward truths that are uncomfortable to some and challenge each other to shift our ways of thinking out of the easy ways we do.”   In this last sentence he contradicts himself, for he associates “we” with “easy ways” in contrast to “some” who are “uncomfortable.”  He’s a puppet populist who doesn’t seem to believe in his own rhetoric.

Trudeau: “Terrorists do not have the strength to defeat us, so they seek to have us defeat ourselves.  We stand firm in the conviction that we [Freudian slip] – they will fail, because we are much stronger and more durable than they could ever imagine.  Canada continues in its fight against ISIL in the work we do as an important part of the coalition against the so-called Islamic State.” How can an intelligent person take this globalist puppet seriously?  Welcome to the post-truth world.  Geller: “[George] Soros is, according to Discover the Networks, ‘one of the most powerful men on earth,’ with personal assets of an estimated $13 billion. Soros’ Open Society Institute (OSI) donates millions of dollars to far-Left, pro-Sharia, anti-freedom groups.” (Islamization, 175)

More Quotes:
Trudeau Body Language:
George Soros and Trudeau:
Soros sponsors Antifa:
and BLM:
BLM Canada Problematic:
BLM Canada Founders:
Yusra Khogali on Twitter:
Milo on Twitter:
Saudi Prince and Twitter:
SJWs: Trigglypuff 1:
and 2:
Smugglypuff 1:
and 2:
Hugh Mungus:
Rebel 1:
Rebel 2:
Send Your Money:
Moldylocks’ Body Language:
Berkeley Antifa Prof Attacks:
and then Apologizes:
Berkeley Antifa:
Berkeley Body Language:

Leftists and Islamists (for more on this visit my webpage titled Islam)

Noam Chomsky once observed that “George Orwell once remarked that political thought, especially on the left, is a sort of masturbation fantasy in which the world of fact hardly matters.  That’s true, unfortunately, and it’s part of the reason that our society lacks a genuine, responsible, serious left-wing movement.” (Keeping the Rabble in Line, 200)  Gavin McInnis: “Socialism….[is] just communism lite, and that means bureaucrats with ‘Godlike power,’ as Milton Friedman put it, and a citizenry of ‘childlike dependents,’ as he also put it.” (How to Piss in Public, 97)  

Stephen Hicks: “In the modern world, Left-wing thought has been one of the major breeding grounds for destruction and nihilism.  From the Reign of Terror to Lenin and Stalin, to Mao and Pol Pot, to the upsurge of terrorism in the 1960s and 1970s, the far Left has exhibited repeatedly a willingness to use violence to achieve political ends and exhibited extreme frustration and rage wen it has failed.” (Explaining Postmodernism, 192)

Hicks: “Socialism is the historical loser, and if socialists know that, they will hate that fact, they will hate the winners for having won, and they will hate themselves for having picked the losing side.  Hate as a chronic condition leads to the urge to destroy….Postmodern thinkers hold that not just politics has failed – everything has failed.  Being, as Hegel and Heidegger taught us, really has come to nothing.  Postmodernism then, in its most extreme forms, is about driving that point home and making the nothing reign.” (Postmodernism, 194, 196)  Kate Ellis notes, for example, ‘the characteristically apolitical pessimism of most postmodernism, by which creation is simply a form of defecation.’” (Stories Without Endings, Socialist Review 91:2. 1989, 46)

Walid Shoebat: “a devil must exist – how else can one explain the unity of beliefs between the leftists and Muslims?” (God’s War on Terror, 12)  Bertrand Russell offers an explanation: “Among religions, Bolshevism [Communism] is to be reckoned with Muhammadanism rather than with Christianity and Buddhism.  Christianity and Buddhism are primarily personal religions, with mystical doctrines and a love of contemplation.  Muhammadanism and Bolshevism are practical, social, unspiritual, concerned to win the empire of this world.” (Practice and Theory of Bolshevism, 5, 29, 114)  

Tarek Fatah: “The ultra-left Trotskyites even advanced the idea that since Lenin had permitted the continuation of sharia courts in the Soviet [242] Union’s Asian republics after the Bolshevik Revolution, support for the Islamists was in line with socialist principles.

The flamboyant and controversial left-wing British politician George Galloway joined the Islamist cause while visiting Canada.  In a spirited support of sharia, he defended the rights of Muslims to be governed by their own laws….Galloway’s endorsement of sharia was another reflection of  the close working relationship between the ultra-left and the Islamists.  Of course, neither Galloway nor Toronto’s ultra-left would refer to Lenin’s warnings about ‘the need to combat Pan-Islamism and similar trends, which, he wrote, strove ‘to combine the liberation movement against European and American imperialism with an attempt to strengthen the positions of the khans, landowners, mullahs, etc.'” (Chasing a Mirage, 242-43)  

Fatah: “When history is written, the twenty-first century will be remembered as the great struggle between the Muslim world on the one hand and the West on the other….epitomized by Israel and world Jewry with its ally, the United States of America.” (189)  Where does Canada stand in this “great struggle”, on the left or the right side of history?  With Ishmael the outcast or Israel the son of promise and blessing?  Shoebat: “The West has a choice to make peace or make war.  To the Muslims, there are only two choices.   Do you want peace?  Then declare the Islamic creed and live in peace. [There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is His messenger (the Shahadatan)]” (Terror, 15)  

Hal Lindsey: “Land is looked upon by Islam differently than by other religions.  Once Islamic culture is established in an area, it is considered sanctified to Allah.  It becomes ‘Dar al-Islam’ – the land of peace.  When an invader takes it away, Muslims are obligated to take it back for Allah, no matter what the sacrifice.” (Everlasting Hatred, 130)  Carl Sagan: “In 1993, the highest and supreme religious authority from Saudi Arabia, the sheik Abdel-Aziz Ibn Baaz, issued a fatwa stating that the world was flat.” (The Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle in the Dark, 325)  Al Riyadh Saud (founder of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia): “The power struggle between Israel and the Arabs is a long-term historical trial.  Victory and defeat are for us questions of existence or annihilation, the outcome of an irreconcilable hatred.” (from Everlasting Hatred, 125)   

Compare with Reza Aslan: “Islamism means nothing more than religious nationalism of the Islamic variety.  It’s the same kind of religious nationalism that one sees among, for instance, Christians in the United States.  Scholars sometimes refer to them as Dominionist or Christianists.  It’s the same kind of religious nationalism that one sees in Israel among the religious Zionists, whose loyalty, as they themselves declare, is not to the state of Israel but to the biblical land of Israel.  It’s the same kind of religious nationalism that one sees in India amongst the BJP, who have created a new kind of Hindu orthodoxy, Hindutva as they call it, whose purpose is to fuse Hindu religiosity with the state.  Religious nationalism, in other words, is a universal phenomenon. Islamism is just the Islamic flavor of it.

Gavin McInnis – “Islamophobia is a rational disease”:
Toronto Imman Al-Hasshim Atangana – “Who Cares About Canadian Law”:
Sweden’s Stockholm Syndrome:
Peterson on unconscious mind of SJWs and Saudi Arabia:

Marxists and Free Speech

Stephen Hicks: “The ethical standard used in criticizing capitalism was, accordingly, Marx’s slogan in Critique of the Gotha Program: ‘From each according to his ability, to each ]150] according to his need.’  Satisfying need was thus the fundamental criterion of morality.

Yet come the 1950s it was hard to argue that capitalism fails to satisfy its people’s needs.  In fact, a big part of the problem seemed to be that capitalism had satisfied its people’s needs so well that the people had become fat and complacent and not at all revolutionary.  So a moral standard that made satisfying needs primary was now useless in a critique of capitalism.

From need to equality

A new ethical standard was therefore necessary.  With great fanfare, then, much of the Left changed its official ethical standard from need to equality.  No longer was the primary criticism of capitalism to be that it failed to satisfy people’s needs.  The primary criticism was to be that its people did not get an equal share.” (Explaining Postmodernism, 150-51)

Hicks: “In postmodern discourse, truth is rejected explicitly and consistency can be a rare phenomenon. Consider the following pairs of claims.

* On the one hand, all truth is relative; on the other hand, postmodernism tells it like it really is.

* On the one hand, all cultures are equally deserving of respect; on the other, Western culture is uniquely destructive and bad.

* Values are subjective – but sexism and racism are really evil.

* Technology is bad and destructive – and it is unfair that some people have more technology than others.

* Tolerance is good and dominance is bad – but when postmodernists come to power, political correctness follows.

There is a common pattern here: Subjectivism and relativism in one breath, dogmatic absolutism in the next….Consider three more examples, this time of clashes between postmodernist theory and historical fact.

* Postmodernists say that the West is racist, but they know very well that the West ended slavery for the first time ever, and that it is only in places where Western ideas have made inroads that racist ideas are on the defensive.

* The say that the West is deeply sexist, but they know very well that Western women were the first to get the vote, contractual rights, and the opportunities that most women in the world are still without.

*They say that Western capitalist countries are cruel to their poorer members, subjugating them and getting rich off them, but the know very well that the poor in the West are far richer than the poor anywhere else, both in terms of material assets and the opportunities to improve their condition.” (184-85)

Jacques Derrida: ‘deconstruction never had meaning or interest, at least in my eyes, than as a radicalization, that is to say, also within the tradition of a certain Marxism, in a certain spirit of Marxism.” (Moscou aller-retour)  Michel Foucault: “Discourses are tactical elements or blocks operating in the field of force relations; there can exist different and even contradictory discourses within the same strategy.” (History of Sexuality, Vol. 1, 101-02)  Eric Hobsbawm has descried “the rise of ‘postmodernist’ intellectual fashions in Western universities, particularly in departments of literature and anthropology, which imply that all ‘facts’ claiming objective existence are simply intellectual constructions.  In short, that there is no clear difference between fact and fiction. But there is, and for historians, even for the most militantly antipositivist ones among us, the ability to distinguish between the two is absolutely fundamental.” (On History, 63)  Herbert Marcuse: “Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right, and toleration of movements from the Left.” (An Essay on Liberation, 109)

Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont describe postmodernism as “an intellectual current that is supposed to have replaced modern rationalist thought.  However, the term ‘postmodernism’ covers an ill-defined galaxy of ideas – ranging from art and architecture to the social sciences and philosophy – and we have no wish to discuss most of these areas.  Our focus is limited to certain intellectual aspects of [182] postmodernism that have had an impact on the humanities and the social sciences: a fascination with obscure discourses; an epistemic relativism linked to a generalized skepticism toward modern science; an excessive interest in subjective beliefs independently of their truth or falsity; and an emphasis on discourse and language as opposed to the facts to which those discourses refer (or, worse, the rejection of the very idea that facts exist or that one may refer to them).

Let us start by recognizing that many ‘postmodern’ ideas, expressed in a moderate form, provide a needed correction to naïve modernism (belief in indefinite and continuous progress, scientism, cultural Eurocentrism, etc.).” (Fashionable Nonsense, 182-83)

Sokal and Bricmont: “In practice, some individuals use postmodern language while opposing racist or sexist discourses with perfectly rational arguments.  We think, simply, that there is an incoherence here between their practice and their avowed philosophy.” (note 279, 209)

Sokal and Bricmont: “postmodernism is such a complicated network of ideas – with only weak logical links between them – that it is difficult to characterize it more precisely than as a vague zeitgeist.  Nevertheless, the roots of this zeitgeist are not hard to identify, and go back to the early 1960s: challenges to empiricist philosophies of science with Kuhn, critiques of humanist philosophies of history with Foucault, disillusionment with grand schemes for political change….Almost forty years later, revolutionaries have aged and marginality has become institutionalized.  Ideas that contained some truth, if properly understood, have degenerated into a vulgate that mixes bizarre confusions with overblown banalities.  It [210] seems to us that postmodernism, whatever usefulness it originally had as a corrective to hardened orthodoxies, has lived this out and is now running its natural course.” (210-11)

Peterson on how he will stop post-modernists:
Peterson Gives Failing Grade to Senate:
Peterson aims to start online university:

Peterson (15:35): “You know what you call people you can’t talk to?  Enemies.  And if we want to divide our society into armed camps of emnity all we have to do is keep doing what we’re doing.  And I would recommend that we don’t do this.  I’ve studied authoritarianism for a very long time.”  “If you stop talking to people, you either submit to them, or you go to war with them.  Those are your options and those aren’t good options.  It’s better to have a talk.”  Peterson (4:06): “You got three states: you can negotiate with someone, you can be their slave, or you can be their tyrant.  And I would pick negotiation, but as far as I’m concerned the law right now as it’s currently instantiated is a tyrant and it makes people into its slave and we’re going to pay for that.”  Moshe Dayan famously said that you don’t negotiate with your friends, you negotiate with your enemies,

Peterson: “As a result of my studies, I have come to believe that Marxism is a murderous ideology.  I believe its practitioners in modern universities should be ashamed of themselves for continuing to promote such vicious, untenable and anti-human ideas, and for indoctrinating their students with these beliefs.  Peterson: “I think that the continual careless pushing of people by left wing radicals is dangerously waking up the right wing.  So you can consider this a prophecy from me if you want.  Inside the collective is a beast and the beast uses its fists.  If you wake up the beast then violence emerges.  I’m afraid that this continual pushing by radical left wingers is going to wake up the beast.”

Rowan Atkinson’s speech at Reform Section 5 Parliamentary reception:

Forthcoming: Down with the patriarchy!  Matriarchal music by mama’s boys with gynocentric guitars, egalitarian whole tone scales, diminished and augmented chords, and feminine endings.  No hierarchical tonal structures or racist black and white keyboards; all keys monochromatic beige!  Live gigs at gynocentric safe spaces like Vancouver’s exciting Thornton Park!

Seriously, it’s time to take back the culture from the darn Post-modernists and Neo-Marxists.  Let the counter-revolution commence!  Resist the matriarchy; reclaim your identity (sorry folks, but I’m a white-read racist Christian-read Islamophobic heterosexual-read homophobic/transphobic man-read misogynist.)  Not really.  Screw idiotic identity politics and radical egalitarianism (race and biological sex don’t exist?); let’s get back to the individual, the family…  Enough of being bullied and indoctrinated into a doomed social constructionist experiment like a bunch of lab rats!  

Old Soviet joke: They pretend to pay us, we pretend to work.  Alexandr Solzhenitsyn: “the inflation of this scathing term kulak proceeded relentlessly, and by 1930 all strong peasants in general were being so called – all peasants strong in management, strong in work, or even strong merely in convictions.  The term kulak was used to smash the strength of the peasantry.” (The Gulag Archipelago, 55)  This is comparable to the terms used by contemporary neo-Marxists to silence their opponents.  Paraphrasing lines of Jimi Hendrix: Social justice warriors [like Trigglypuff, Smugglypuff, and Moldylocks, above] flashing down the street, pointing amoral fingers at me.  They’re hoping soon my kind will drop and die, but I’m gonna wave my free flag high – HIGH!…Speak on brother; play on strummer.

Sagacious advice: Exercise your right to free speech and to free music while you still can.  Resist the compelledspeech of the ideologically possessed and the compelled songs of the mob.  Attune your speech and song to the divine Logos – the truth will set you free.  Peterson on those ideologically possessed: “It’s like the background rattle of a thousand identical demons.”
Gender, Race, and Body Parts
Terry Eagleton: “Everyone believes in hierarchies, even the most fervent of egalitarians.  In fact, almost everyone believes in absolute, unchanging hierarchies.” (Why Marx Was Right, 109)  Peterson@3:18: “One of the things that’s really appalling about our modern world is that we’re rejecting the notion of qualitative distinctions.  You say, ‘We don’t want to hurt anybody’s feelings by saying that one thing is better than another….if you deny the possibility of qualitative distinction because you want to promote a radical egalitarianism then you remove the possibility of redemption, because there’s no movement towards the good.. it’s a catastrophe to sacrifice the good for the equal, because for us to be equal would mean that we would all be equally unredeemed and miserable.”
Egalitarianism doesn’t accommodate itself to biological differences between genders and races, particularly the differing sizes of brains and genitalia.  Size matters.  Belfort Bax: “Specialists are agreed that at all ages the size of the brain of woman is less than that of man.  The difference in relative size is greater in proportion according to the degree of civilization.  This is noteworthy, as it would seem as though the brain of man grew with the progress of civilization, whereas that of woman remains nearly stationary.  The average proportion as regards size of skull between the woman and man of to-day is as 85 to 100.  The weight of brain in woman varies from 38.5 oz. to 45.5 oz.; in man, from 42 oz. to 49 oz.  This represents the absolute difference in weight, but, according to Dr de Varigny, the relative weight – i.e. the weight in proportion to that of the whole body – is even more striking in its indication of inferiority.  The weight of the brain in woman is but one-forty-fourth of the weight of the body, while in man it is one-fortieth.  This difference accentuates itself with age.  It is only 7 per cent in favour of man between twenty and thirty years; it is 11 per cent. between thirty and forty years.  As regards the substance of the brain itself and its convolutions, the enormous majority of physiologists are practically unanimous in declaring that the female brain is simpler and [31] smoother, its convolutions fewer and more superficial than those of the male brain, that the frontal lobes, generally associated with the intellectual faculties, are less developed than the occipital lobes, whith [sp] are universally connected with the lower psychological functions.  The grey substance is poorer and less abundant in women than in man, while the blood vessels of the occipital region are correspondingly fuller than those supplying the frontal lobes.  In man the case is exactly the reverse.  It cannot be denied by any sane person familiar with the barest elements of physiology that the whole female organism is subservient to the functions of child-bearing and lactation, which explains the inferior development of those organs and faculties which are not specially connected with this supreme end of Woman.” (The Fraud of Feminism, 31-2)
Bax describes male deprivation by feminists “of the most elementary rights of self-defence against women” as “their endorsement of an iniquitous sex privilege.” (Fraud, 142)  Bax: “Modern Feminism has always professed to be a movement for political and social equality between the sexes.  The claim for this equalizing of position and rights in modern society is logically based upon the assumption of an essential equality in natural ability between the sexes.  As to this, we have indicated in the preceding pages on broad lines, the grounds for regarding the foregoing assumption as false.” (Fraud, 161)  In 1913 Bax observed: “We have seen that Feminists are, in this country, at least, zealous in championing the Puritan view of sexual morality.  Many of them, in the vehemence of their Anti-man crusade, look forward with relish to the opportunity they anticipate will be afforded them when women get the vote, of passing laws rigorously enforcing asceticism on men by means of severe penal enactments.  All forms of indulgence (by men), sexual or otherwise, uncongenial to the puritanic mind, would be equally placed under the ban of the criminal law !” (Fraud, 170) 
Bax: “The whole modern woman’s movement is based, in a measure, at least, on an assumption which is absolutely unfounded – to wit, that man has [173] systematically oppressed woman in the past, that the natural tendency of evil-minded man is always to oppress woman, or, to put it from the other side, that woman is the victim of man’s egoism !  The unsoundness of this view ought to be apparent to every unbiased student of history, anthropology, and physiology.  The Feminist prefers to see evidence of male oppression in the place woman has occupied in social and political life, rather than the natural consequence of her organic constitution, her secondary sexual characteristics, and the natural average inferiority which flows therefrom.” (Fraud, 173-74)

A black male Nigerian in ultra-left Victoria recently told me that people there are much more racist than Montrealers.  He’s a racist, as he feels that blacks are body conscious and whites are mind conscious.  A Victoria friend tells me that her feminist Wicca friends are very racist, especially towards Natives.  Theodore Roosevelt: “if we fail to act on the ‘superior people’ theory,…barbarism and savagery and squalid obstruction will prevail over most of the globe.” (from Norman Finkelstein, A Nation on Trial, 84)   James W. Perkinson: “White supremacy continues to infiltrate much of the private talk in this [American] country.” (Rap as Wrap and Rapture, from Noise and Spirit, 146, 148)  So much for the land of the free.

Philippe Rushton: “following World War II (1939-1945) and the revulsion to Hitler’s racial policies, egalitarianism led to the virtual elimination of Darwinian thinking among Western social scientists (Degler, 1991).  The doctrine of biological equality was taken to an extreme among Communists in the Soviet Union and elsewhere (Clark, 1984).  Throughout the world, leftists took up the cry ‘Not in Our Genes’ and vociferously asserted that social inequalities were due entirely to repressive environments (Lewontin, Rose, & Kamin, 1984; Lweontin, 1991). (Race, Evolution, and Behavior, 2)

Rushton: “During the 1980s there was an increased acceptance of behavioral genetics and evolutionary theorizing….A renewal of interest in human racial origins also characterized the 1980s with Africa identified as the Garden of Eden….Race differences in behavior, although a necessary concomitant of these revisionist viewpoints, were not included in these studies, and constituted an embarrassment for scholars who omitted them.” (3)

Rushton: “Mongoloids and Caucasoids have the largest brains, whether indexed by weight at autopsy, external head size, or intracranial volume….The intelligence debate was broadened by Richard Lynn (1982, 1991c) who gathered global data showing that Orientals had higher test scores than whites.” (4)  Rushton: “Archaic versions of the three major races appear to differ in antiquity, with Mongoloids being the most recently evolved and Negroids the earliest….Africans emerged from the ancestral Homo line about 200,000 years ago, with an African/non-African split occurring about 110,000 years ago, and a Caucasoid/Mongoloid split about 41,000 years ago. [6] (Stringer & Andrews, 1988).  Because Bonner (1980) had shown that, in general, animals that emerged later in earth history had larger brains and greater culture than those that had emerged earlier, I extrapolated to the human succession (Rushton, 1992b).” (Race, Evolution, and Behavior, 6-7)

Rushton: “The evolutionary psychology of race differences has become the most politically incorrect topic in the world today….Although nobody denies that some ethnic groups are disproportionately represented in wealth, education, health, and crime, alternative explanations for the differences constitute ideological warfare.  Ultimately, the battle is over nothing less than how to conceptualize human nature.” (Race, Evolution, and Behavior, 7-8)

Rushton: “From the 1930s onward, scarcely anyone outside Germany and its Axis allies dared to suggest that groups of individuals might be in any genetic respect different to any other lest it should appear that the author was supporting or excusing the Nazi cause.  Those who believed in the biological equality of people were free to write what they liked, without fear of contradiction.  They made full use of their opportunity in the decades that followed. Politically fueled also by European decolonization and by the U.S. civil rights movement, the idea of a genetically based core of human nature on which individuals and social groups might differ was consistently derogated.

Among the refugees who fled Nazi persecution and entered Britain and the United States in the 1930s and 1940s there were many who exerted a powerful influence on the Zeitgeist of the social sciences, helping to create an orthodoxy of egalitarianism and environmentalism (Degler, 1991). (14)

Rushton: “A threefold increase in the relative size of the hominid brain has occurred in the last 4 million years. I t is reasonable to hypothesize that bigger brains evolved to increase intelligence….More intelligent children, assessed by standardized IQ tests, learn faster than those less intelligent, and mammals with larger brains learn faster than those with smaller brains.…George Cuvier (1769-1832) may have been the first to formally consider that brain size proportional to body size was the determinant of intelligence across species.” (36)  Rushton: “the relation between brain size and intelligence is supported by the parallels with age. Both brain size and IQ increase during childhood and adolescence and then slowly and finally more quickly decrease.” (41)

Rushton: “A study of cross-racial marriages in Hawaii found more similarity in personality test scores among males and females who married across ethnic groups than among those marrying within them (Ahern, Cole Johnson, & Wong, 1981)  The researchers posit that, given the general tendency toward homogamy, couples marrying heterogamously with respect to ethnicity tend to ‘make up’ for this dissimilarity by choosing spouses more similar to themselves in other respects than do persons marrying within their own ethnic group.” (76)

Rushton: “Many studies have found that people are more likely to help members of their own race or country than they are to help members of other races or foreigners, and that antagonism between classes and nations may be greater when a racial element is involved….That fear and mistrust of strangers may have biological origins…is supported by evidence that animals show fear of and hostility toward strangers, even when no injury has ever been received.” (85)

Rushton: “Recent developmental psychological studies have found that even very young children show clear and often quite rigid disdain for children whose ethnic and racial heritages differ from their own, even in the apparent absence of experiential and socialization effects (Aboud, 1988)”  Rushton: “Because ethnic conflict has defied explanation by the standard social science disciplines, genetic similarity theory may represent an advance in understanding the causes of these conflicts, as well as of ethnocentric attitudes in general.” (87)  Rushton: “Adopting a gene-based evolutionary perspective for ethnic conflict may prove illuminating, especially in the light of the conspicuous failures of environmentalist theories.  With the breakup of the Soviet Bloc, many Western analysts have been surprised at the outbreak of the fierce ethnic antagonisms long thought over.” (88)

Rushton: “For millennia, racism was not a word, it was a way of life….Downgrading the importance of race not only conflicts with people’s evolved tendency to classify and build histories according to putative descent, but ignores the work of biologists studying other species (Mayr, 1970)….Most…classifications recognize at least the three major subdivisions considered in this book: Negroid, Caucasoid, and Mongoloid.” (91)  Rushton: “As late as the 1950s, the word ‘race’ was still widely used to designate peoples and national groups that today would be called ethnic groups….Few words in the Western world have undergone such significant changes, primarily as a result of the aftermath of World War II.” (94)

Rushton: “The Aryan or Indo-European people who invaded India 2,500 years ago built up a complex caste system to preserve their original physical type….The caste system may have been the most elaborate and effective barrier against the mixing of contiguous ethnic groups that the world has ever known.  It continues to this day despite the attempts of governments to dismantle it.  Nonetheless, the once fair complexions of the Brahmans have darkened considerably.” (92)  Rushton: “A theory of North European racial supremacy was assisted and expanded by the discovery of a surprising linguistic relationship between the Aryans, Persians, Hittites, Greeks, and Romans of the ancient world, and the peoples of modern Europe.  The Indo-European languages gave rise to the hypothesis of a common race, in which a blond, light complexioned people with rare creative gifts continuously refertilizes dying and decadent civilizations.” (93)

Rushton: “The character yi, ‘barbarian,’ has been the normal Chinese word applied to all non-Chinese peoples for over 2,000 years (Cameron, 1989:13).  The Chinese had always felt superior to the rest of the world, long before women of the Roman Empire craved the alluring effects of Chinese silk to the point of alarming the Roman Senate about the drain on its treasury.  The European traders, priests, and soldiers who came later gave the Chinese no reason to [92] doubt their judgment about themselves.  The very name that the Chinese called their country, Chung Kuo, the centrally located ‘Middle Kingdom,’ from whence culture radiated outward, was ethnocentric.  Today China is convinced that her communism is the only right and true communism, and that her way out of communism is the only right and true way forward.” (92-93)

Rushton: “Slavery is attested from the very earliest written records among the Sumerians, the Babylonians, and the Egyptians, as well as the Greeks and the Romans.  The wall paintings of ancient Egypt, for example, typically depict the gods and pharaohs as larger than life while Negroes and other outlanders were posed as servants and slaves.” (97)  Rushton: “Mas’udi (d. 956)…quoted the Greek physician Galen (A.D. c. 130-c. 200) attributing to the black man ‘a long penis and great merriment. Galen says that merriment dominates the Black man because of his defective brain, whence also the weakness of his intelligence.’  This description is later repeated, with variations.” (98)

Rushton: “Rushton and Bogaert (1987) averaged the ethnographic data on erect penis size and estimated them to approximate: Orientals, 4 to 5.5 inches in length…Caucasians, 5.5 to 6 inches in length…blacks, 6.25 to 8 inches in length.” (167)  Rushton: “Metabolically the brain is a very expensive organ.  Representing only 2 percent of body mass, the brain uses about 5 percent of the body’s basal metabolic rate in cats and dogs, about 10 percent in rhesus monkeys and other primates, and about 20 percent in humans.” (206)  Rushton finds “that archaic versions of the three races emerged from the ancestral hominid line in the following order: Africans less than 200,000 years ago, with an African/non-African split about 110,000 years ago, and a Caucasoid/Mongoloid about 41,000 years ago (Stringer & Andrews, 1988).” (217)

Rushton: “the genetic distance between Caucasians and Orientals is significantly smaller than either that between Caucasians and Africans or that between Orientals and Africans.” (222)  Rushton: “The view that race is only a social construct is contradicted by biological evidence.  Along with blood protein and DNA data …forensic scientists are able to classify skulls by race.  Narrow nasal passages and a short distance between eye sockets mark a Caucasian, distinct cheek-bones identify a Mongoloid and nasal openings shaped like an upside down heart typify a Negroid (Ubelaker & Scammell, 1992)” (235)

Rushton: “In Civilization and It[’]s Discontents, Freud (1930/1962) noted a positive correlation between restrained sexuality and the production of culture.  He proposed that repressing aggressive and sexual instincts led them to be sublimated into higher cultural products.  Because African children are raised more permissively than are European or American children, their instincts are less subject to being repressed and thus blacks develop uninhibited personalities but lowered economic success.” (250)