An Open Letter to Social Justice Warriors I: Introductions & Feminism

Dear SJWs,
Remember when those who preached tolerance were actually the tolerant ones? You may not but I do. Remember when freedom of speech was a thing on university campuses, and students didn't need to be protected from others' potentially contrary opinions? Or when you actually used valid counterarguments instead of using personality assassination to discard those who disagree with you? Yeah, neither do I, but I'm told the former was at least a thing at some point.
What I'm trying to say is, its time for you and I to have a talk. A serious one. Using things like logic, and actual, credible, information. Oh yeah, and if the aforementioned personality assassination comes into play, or if you retreat from this to a "safer" part of the internet, I will have won, and you don't want that, do you?
I wouldn't be surprised if you already feel offended, after all, I know many of you are so thin-skinned that just the mention of my Conservative Party membership has you running for the hills. If you have stayed, congrats on your "courage", you're probably still thin-skinned, but not as much as your compatriots.
I, on the other hand, have been forced to grow a thick skin, partly due to bullying from a young age, partly due to the fact that I swim against the current of university culture and refuse to conform - there is no "safe space" for white, cis-gendered, straight, conservative, Christian, males. I don't entirely find this a bad thing. Having ideas challenged allows them to be refined and improved - on both sides of the equation. Such discussions are becoming harder and harder to find in modern academia, with the all-pervading censorship of political correctness acting like a stifling blanket, but I am grateful to have made some friends actually capable of having an intelligent discussion, despite potential differing ideas or ideologies. More people need to take what they're spoonfed with some salt, and actually consider why they believe what they do, and foundations from which their opinions derive their validity.
Consider me a salt shaker - or at least that's what I'm attempting to be.
"Check your privilege", you whine, to which I say, "Check YOUR privilege, because odds are, you haven't taken a full accounting."
Consider my thesis and purpose as such - to break down many of the myths perpetuated by the Social Justice movement as they pertain to the First World, to show the damaging potential of many of their ideas, and to prove that their advocacy movements serve to further the divides within society instead of eliminating them. I start today with feminism. Hold onto your butts - this will probably be a long one, as within this one topic alone, I have ALOT of ground to cover.

As I have stated before, I am not a feminist. This should not come as any big shock given my demographic. That said, I do appreciate the progress that was made to gain women equality in the past century - namely the right to vote, recognition as persons under the law, equality under the law, and equal rights being the highlights. What I cannot condone though, is what it has become. Instead of the equality of the genders, what feminism has become is a movement of female advocacy for the advancement of WOMEN's issues and WOMEN's privileges, with little regard for the other half of the population. Sure, they SAY they're for equality, and that they're for men's issues as well, and that the patriarchy somehow oppresses men as well. BULL. SHIT! With the number of privileges women have at this time, I honestly find it difficult to believe that people somehow still think women are oppressed in Canada.
Want examples of female privilege?

• In post-secondary education, there are scholarships exclusively for women, but none exclusively for men, despite far more women enrolling in the institutions than men (http://www.theguardian.com/education/datablog/2013/jan/29/how-many-men-and-women-are-studying-at-my-university)
• Women are FAR more likely to win court custody battles. As a man who wishes to one day be a father, I want to be involved in my children's lives for the rest of my natural life - come what may. With this privilege in play, I may be denied that opportunity.
• Women will get lighter sentencing for committing the same crimes as a man (http://ncfm.org/2011/04/issues/criminal-sentencing/)
• Due to affirmative action and pressure from feminist groups, women are far more likely than men to get jobs in the STEM fields (http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_issues/articles/2015_04_13/caredit.a1500091), government, public service (http://nypost.com/2015/05/03/woman-to-become-ny-firefighter-despite-failing-crucial-fitness-test/), military, and management/executive positions. "MERITOCRACY BE DAMNED" seems to be the takeaway here.
• Women who experience domestic or sexual abuse and/or assault have far more resources available to them than men.
• With abortion legal and unrestricted in Canada, women have the privilege of "opting out" of parenthood, whereas men do not. If the father is not in the picture, and the mother keeps the child, and heredity can be proven, she can extract child support from him by law. As for my views on abortion, those are to come.
• Etcetera. I could go on, but as I said, there's a lot to get through

"But we're still for equality for BOTH genders!" you insist. Ummmm... No. If that is the case, why do you never advocate for equality of opportunity and meritocracy instead of affirmative action? Why don't you push for equal numbers of women and men in female dominated fields like teaching and nursing or more physically demanding fields like the trades? Why don't you ever talk about men's issue's unless you can use them as a way to discredit the Men's Rights Movement (http://www.newstatesman.com/sci-tech/2015/06/male-rape-charity-has-had-its-funding-slashed-zero-where-are-all-outraged-men) (Note: she didn't do her research very well, as it was talked about by the MRAs quite extensively - see this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q995vH2X5Fk)? Why do feminists do THIS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iARHCxAMAO0 when MRA's try to make their voices heard? And before you try to discard the last question - don't you DARE try using the No True Scotsman Fallacy on me - it is NOT valid!
You know what the worst of it is? Men are supposed to TAKE that abuse and keep our mouths shut about our own issues: http://feministcurrent.com/7988/how-to-be-a-male-feminist-ally/. Reality Check: Life is hard, and just because you find you aren't being coddled through it (if you are you probably have a silver spoon up your ass), does NOT mean you are being oppressed!
Men's issues need advocacy as well, without fear of being censored by their female counterparts. Men are far more likely to commit suicide than women (they represent 80% of suicide deaths) (http://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/help-information/mental-health-statistics/suicide/), far more men than women are homeless, men make up half of domestic abuse victims(http://www.domesticviolenceresearch.org/pages/12_page_findings.htm(also, note that women are MORE likely to PERPETRATE domestic abuse)), men are more likely to die on the job (http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfoi_revised13.pdf) and men get raped and sexually abused by men and women alike (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9g7W4C7dnc). Yet the same subsidized safety net that women have is just not there, and when it is, it is always at risk (the charity that made that last video lost all its funding). IS THIS WHAT EQUALITY LOOKS LIKE??? I think not.
Some people in the MRM are misogynists, just like some feminists want to kill all men. I don't believe all feminists are man-haters, most of you are probably just more than a little misguided, so it is NOT fair to consider all MRAs to be misogynists, and until you stop seeing them that way, true equality of gender-issue advocacy is not possible.
Note I said "them" not "us". I do not consider myself an MRA, though I am forced to bend that way in order to act as a counterweight to society's feminist bent. Neither am I a MGTOW (though I may go the way of TFL if things don't change - God help me). Rather I am an egalitarian, and a true believer in meritocracy and equality of opportunity. All individuals should be held to the same standard, regardless of sex. 
Oh, and I'm just getting started.
By now you've probably started whining about the wage gap, which is bogus. Don't believe me? Here it from the mouth of a WOMAN then: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oqyrflOQFc. 
You probably follow that up by saying how "men are more likely to be hired than women". As the video stated, these two common feminist statements cannot co-exist as they make no economic sense. If companies COULD get away with paying women less, then they'd hire MOSTLY women and increase their profit margin as a result. 
"Just because you don't witness the misogyny in society, it doesn't mean it isn't there." You may say in response. To which I say "Just because you don't see the misandry in third and fourth wave feminism, it doesn't mean it isn't there." Do you see how that logic is circular? It goes nowhere.

A word about video games. Firstly, you SJWs seem to have done something that seriously offended gamers. Especially atheist ones for some reason, because the most effective and vitriolic anti-feminist rhetoric I've heard via the internet comes from atheist gamers for some reason. As a non-gamer (and a Christian to boot), I can't exactly comment as to why this is happening, but hey, it is.
As for video game culture being sexist, has it ever occurred to you that the big blockbuster games are created by by men, and marketed to men, because more men tended to by them in the first place? It's this thing known as a feedback loop. Much like how beer is marketed to men because more men drink it than women. As for the intricacies of actual gamer culture, I must plead ignorance. I will, however, leave you with this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NE5wsBlwmiA. Moving on...

Question: Should sex-selective abortion be allowed? Why of course not, that would be sexist! Unfortunately, that would mean acknowledging that a foetus is distinct from its mother, invalidating the "my body, my choice!" argument feminists so proudly trumpet. My point is, that argument is indeed invalid. From the moment of conception, all a child is, biologically speaking is present, coded into their distinct genetic code. As it shares only HALF its DNA with the mother, it is NOT PART OF THE MOTHER'S BODY, but simply WITHIN it. After birth, if a skin graft from the child were given to the mother, it would be rejected by the mother's immune system without the appropriate medication. A baby is like someone who lays in a coma for 9 months, and awakes naturally, a fully distinct individual, still very vulnerable and dependent, but a person nonetheless. While that person is in the 9 month coma, they are not considered to be of one substance with the life support machine, nor are they the property of the hospital. Some may say that its best to euthanize them, but this is a case where if you wait out that 9 month term, they will most likely awake. If that comatose individual retains all the basic human rights we all share, why shouldn't children in the womb be afforded the same protection? I wish foetal transplants were possible, but they are not, and regardless, in the vast majority of cases abortion is simply the shirking of responsibility for one's actions. Whenever you have sex, even if you use contraception, you run the risk of pregnancy. It is a fact of life and has been since creation. It's even an implicit part of the animal's sexual processes for crying out loud! That risk of that consequence, must be acknowledged before we start sleeping around, and if conception does take place despite our best efforts, that new life is our responsibility as we were responsible for creating it. This is why the best contraceptive is always abstinence. There. I said it. The onus belongs with the partners for protecting themselves during any sexual encounter they may have, and determining their levels of acceptable risk. If they have a child as a result, that was the risk they took. Period. End of story. No deposit, no return, no takebacks.

Remember when the political left was about being a voice for the voiceless? Well, in this case it is I who am speaking for those who are incapable of doing so: "STOP THE KILLING!!!" Abortion is MURDER. Fifty four MILLION babies have been aborted in North America since Roe v Wade. That's NINE TIMES the number of people Hitler killed, and you know you're not in good company when a comparison with the Nazis actually makes rhetorical sense.
"But what about rape babies?!" you cry. To which I say, aborting one of those children is the ULTIMATE victim blaming. It is condemning an individual who is just as much a VICTIM of the rape as the woman to DEATH, when the only one possibly deserving of that is the RAPIST.
A news story recently came out about Planned Parenthood selling organs of aborted babies. My reaction was "meh." Because whatever they do with foetal remains is NOTHING compared to the fact that they commit ABHORRENT acts every day already, many of which involve children which can already sense PAIN.
With the Canadian definition of what constitutes a "person" under the law, the difference between abortion and infanticide is a matter of inches and seconds. People say they don't support abortion but that they are still "pro-choice". Generally speaking, the mother had a CHOICE whether or not to have sex in the first place. She also has a CHOICE to put it up for adoption. Taking abortion off the table does NOT mean there are NO OPTIONS.
So yes, I am Pro-life. The only case abortion is a legitimate option is when both mother and child would otherwise die. Deal with it.

And finally, speaking of rape and victim-blaming, I need to deal with rape culture (see what I did there? XD). It is one of foundational assumptions of feminist culture today. Even at debate tournaments I attended in the past academic year, events predicated on the argument and the challenging of ideas, where topics related to sexual assault routinely came up, no one ever dared challenge the existence of rape culture, in fact, the topics themselves came with "trigger warnings". Had I known more about what it meant at the time, I might've done just that. I won't deny that there are elements of our culture which still make light of rape (I will never understand why Blurred Lines was such a hit for instance, a large chunk of today's rap music culture being another example), but I would still argue that rape culture in the west is either dead or dying. Rather, we live in a hyper-sexualized culture, part and parcel with which seems to come a certain prominence to sexualized violence and sexual violence - whether it be through Blurred Lines, Game of Thrones, or Fifty Shades of Grey. I frankly find this saddening, that said the supposed "anti-rape culture" movement seems to be an "anti-responsibility" movement in reality.
Let me clear; NOTHING excuses rape, but that does not mean you should not guard yourself against it. It also doesn't mean the whole "let's teach men not be rapists rather than teaching women how to avoid rape" mantra isn't utter bullshit. We live in a society where rape is already taught as a despicable crime, but that doesn't mean people don't still do it - same goes for any other crime, be it murder, theft, etc. Even though we live in a society where robbery is wrong does not mean you shouldn't hide your valuables to prevent robbery. Leaving your stuff out in a breakable, unalarmed glass case doesn't make you at fault for their theft, but that doesn't mean the theft couldn't have been deterred by hiding them in a strongbox. The easier a target looks, the more likely it is to be rod. Lets complete the analogy, shall we? If you value the integrity of your genitals so highly, treat them like you would a prized possession - keep them well hidden, and show them only to those you trust the most - don't wear clothes that practically leave them hanging out for all the world to see - its just common sense (which apparently isn't so common these days)! This isn't victim-blaming - as I've already explained - and it isn't slut-shaming, what it IS is taking responsibility for yourself!
While I'm on the topic of slut-shaming, let me state for the record that the virgin/slut dichotomy (as well as the forever alone/stud one they seem to say exists for guys) is false.I do not know of anyone - male or female, that thinks this way or with this double standard. In the women's case I'd assert the perception of this dichotomy to be the result of a distortion of the Judeo-Christian worldview, which values virginity in both sexes, combined with the terminology of sexual liberalism (sex acts as being "naughty" for example). Regardless, as a Christian, I believe sex outside of marriage to be immoral. Does it make you a lower class of human being if you do it? No, but it makes you a fornicator in the same way a female dog is a bitch (that is, the literal sense of the word). I won't bother going deeper as I don't want to bore you with theology lessons.

Next up, the whole "alcohol is not consent" thing. This is another supposed issue which in reality is just the shirking of responsibility. When you get drunk, you accept the risk that it lowers your inhibitions and makes you vulnerable to things which would not occur if you were sober. This is one reason why I do not get drunk. Ever. Therefore but imbibing alcohol you are implicitly consenting to what may happen as a result of you partaking in the alcohol. You are not responsible for what others do under the influence, so rape is still not excused, but my point is that if you wake up with a hangover regretting a one-night stand, IT WAS NOT RAPE.
In addition, these only yes means yes, guilty until proven innocent university sexual assault rules seem to assume that sex takes place in a place where social context plays no relevant role -as if it was a chatboard on the internet - this is RIDICULOUS. Don't agree? Why don't you listen to a FEMINIST talk about it then: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIomA2MQNI4 (skip to 11:30). I can see another attempted No True Scotsman usage - DON'T YOU DARE. That's the left for ya though - they want to make you fill out paperwork for absolutely everything.
This idea of rape culture demands that all women be treated as victims, all men as potential rapists (when women can and do victimize men), and that women be freed from responsibility for themselves and their actions. This is socially irresponsible, which I know is kind of repetitive, but I don't know what else to call it.
Modern feminism goes so far as to say that women who HAVE taken responsibility for themselves are part of the problem and further this mythical systematic oppression, as they do not allow themselves to be bound by the victim-culture hive mind (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqQ850-YiXE). Victim culture results in a false sense of entitlement, as if entitlement wasn't rampant enough in our society as is. I am sorry, but this is just not something I can support.

Let me be crystal clear here. I have no animosity towards women. Most of my most trusted friends are actually women. What I am opposing is the ideology that seeks to reduce them to a victim class, deprive them of the responsibilities of a mature adult, and mislead them about how they deserve more than the perfectly equal treatment they are getting

Oh yeah, I probably should have put a trigger warning at the start of this thing. Whatever

Until next time,
Tim Beales

THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!!!, or, double standards, pots calling kettles black and other issues in Canadian politics

Remember that freedom/equality/rights post? Think of this as an addendum to that.

The words "equality" and "rights" get thrown around alot in today's political environment - in case you hadn't noticed. To listen to the parties talk they would have you believe that they are the only ones actually for freedom and equality, and that the other parties are the ones against it. This applies to all parties. Except maybe for the Rhinos, who instead run on a platform of "Sex, Drugs, & Rock n' Roll" or some variation thereof - this is the Rhinoceros Party we are talking about after all.

On the upside, at least this means freedom of speech is alive and well in the legislative chambers of this country. After all, you cannot be sued for anything said within the House of Commons - the antithesis to the "safe spaces" popping up in academia across the country these days. Nevertheless, one has to question who is "right" in their assertions. Well... all of them. And none of them. As in all of them are about equality and human rights... with regards to certain issues... and elevating some rights above others... and allowing double standards to exist when it suits their purposes. Conservatives, for example, claim to be all about freedom of religion... except when it comes to Islam. Yet when it comes to Islam, they claim to be pro-women's rights, despite their lack of concessions to people demanding an inquiry into violence against aboriginal women, and despite the fact that many a feminist wants Stephen Harper's head on a platter. The left of centre parties are no different. They claim to be all for equal rights, yet they let LGBT "rights" take precedence over religious rights. I could go on.

These hypocrisies and double standards aren't just limited to political parties and positions on rights issues. They extend to every political movement, and nigh on every issue. The NDP whine and stomp their feet about the government's lack of accountability, transparency, and oversight, yet rail against the same principles when they are applied to First Nations groups and Unions. I can tell you why they oppose the latter (see Bill C-377) - if Unions had to show how they spend their members obligatory dues payments, it would probably at least disgruntle Conservative voting Union members to see how much Union money is donated to the NDP and PACs like "Engage Canada". Sorry "D'ppers", but your beloved NDP is just as beholden to the almighty loonie as the rest of 'em.

One more example. Feminists cry out for more women in leadership roles, yet proceed to gripe when ones are elected who just happen to lean right of centre. I guarantee you the vast majority of them voted for the NDP in the last BC election, despite the fact that the Liberal leader and current premier Christy Clark is a WOMAN, and NDP leader Adrian Dix was a MAN. Same goes for Alberta and Alison Redford, and the federal government and Kim Campbell.

Point is, the smear jobs and personality assassinations need to stop. Political parties and groups attacking one another is just the pot calling the kettle black. Over. And over. And over. Can we actually have some properly intelligent and rhetoric based arguments instead of baseless insults in the Canadian political forum?

This is what I plan on trying to do in my upcoming posts. My summer job is exceedingly tedious, but it does allow me to listen to various entertaining media while I work (thank GOD for the internet). This has included a variety of sociopolitical commentary. Henceforth the next few posts will formatted as "an open letter to social justice warriors" and I will argue my opinion against the common leftist counterpoints. The point will be to get some actual DISCUSSION for once. The lack of comments or dissenting opinions is almost painful. I can hear crickets chirping and and that is a PROBLEM. In other news, I plan on getting a recipe for laksa posted soon. It just needs typing up, and copying others content instead of writing original stuff like this can be boring so... be patient with me.

A brief word on scandals in the age of social media. Stop adding the suffix "gate" to whatever your scandal is about. JUST STOP. "Gamergate" "deflategate" and "shirtgate" have nothing to do with and are nowhere NEAR as significant as the actual Watergate - one of the most infamous political scandals of the 20th century. So unless your issue in question is POTUS-resignation level significant, call it SOMETHING ELSE. Otherwise you are trivializing the original from which those stupid names are derived - WATERGATE! Rant over.

American Ninja Warrior & Women in Sports

Given the heavier tone of my previous posts, I thought I might prologue a deeper dive into today's hot-button issues with something lighter. Enjoy.

Around this time last year, history was made. Kacy Catanzaro became the first woman to make it up American Ninja Warrior's (ANW) Warped Wall. A month later she became the first woman to make it to the end of an ANW city finals course, becoming the first women to earn herself a shot at Mt. Midoryama (the world's toughest obstacle course) through her ability alone (that is, outside of a wildcard spot).

The Jumping Spider claims another victim - Ms. Catanzaro

Unfortunately, I, and every other avid fan of the show, knew exactly where she was going to fall on the Midoryama course - Stage 1's Jumping Spider. At 5 foot nothing and only about 100 lbs, she has neither sufficient weight to get her a good hop off the mini-trampoline, nor the wingspan to wedge herself between the walls with anything short of a perfect jump. Unfortunately, I was right. By that point, though, the video of her city finals run had gone absolutely viral, making her one of the most hyped stories in the show's history.

ANW is a show that has draw revelry through personal bests and obstacles beaten, as well as history-making run attempts. I say "attempts" because ANW has yet to have a competitor touch the buzzer at the end of Midoryama's Stage 3, let alone Stage 4, in the standard, singles competition format during its 7 season run. The only three men to do that hail from Japan, which built Mt. Midoryama in the first place. Thus, this is an proudly American show built on a surprisingly un-American premise: failure. Humbling, respect-building, confidence-killing, failure. This makes it a breath of fresh air in today's stinking pile of reality competition shows. Not only are the rivalries friendly, but the odds of anyone winning are slim, which helps create stakes that feel all the more real - especially when people quit their jobs to train for ANW full time.

 As this season of ANW drew near its halfway mark, and with the FIFA Women's World Cup in full swing here in Canada, I got to thinking about females and their relationship to the sporting world. Here's a question for my feminist readers (if I have any): Which is better: to have sex-segregated sports leagues and whatnot, or to have a single set of leagues based purely on athletic merit - without any affirmative action to ensure equal numbers of men and women playing at the same level? The two athletic events described earlier in the paragraph demonstrate the two respective styles. FIFA has a World Cup for Women, and the same for Men, and never the twain shall meet. ANW on the other hand, is a co-ed event based on athletic ability, with the only "affirmative action" asitwere taking place via its 15 yearly wild-card spots. There is, however, no easier course or lower standard for women, though - they are run through just like the men - equality and meritocracy as it should be.

This brings us to the question of "Why are the sexes segregated in sports in the first place?". Not being a Gender Studies student, I can't tell you the exact reasoning behind the practice, but I can make an educated guess, and it pertains to men's and women's differing physical characteristics - and no I don't mean how they're plumbed between the legs - after all, sexual dimorphism is a thing when it comes to humans. As a blanket statement, men are general built physically stronger and more durable than women. Of course, to see this you have to compare apples to apples. There is enormous variation in physical competence within the genders (there are many females out there who could definitely kick my ass, I must admit), and thus in order to a achieve a proper comparison one must use a sample of men and women who are all at their peak. Hence, ANW generally makes for a good testing ground for this, though the sampling is unscientific at best. All this to say, there is nothing HINDERING a woman from being the first American to achieve total victory other than her BIOLOGICAL LIMITATION, thus it ends up being MORE LIKELY that a man will accomplish the feat first.

Shannon Szabados playing the the SPHL's Columbus Cottonmouths

Due to the aforementioned variation within the sexes though, I honestly don't think professional sports leagues should be closed to women at the highest level. There is nothing stopping women like Hayley Wickenheiser and Shannon Szabados from playing in the ECHL, SPHL or even the European leagues. They can even PRACTICE with with NHL teams for pete's sake, yet their is ever any mention of offers for a formal tryout, let alone word of contract negotiations.

Let me make this abundantly clear. I am not a feminist. What I am in regards to the feminism vs mra hornet's nest is for another time, but here I do need to state for the record that I am for meritocracy and against affirmative action. I am not saying the Edmonton Oilers need to sign Shannon Szabados (though she would probably help solve their goaltending problems - LOL), or that Toronto FC should sign Christine Sinclair, what I'm saying is that these women deserve a chance to see if they can make it in the top leagues of the professional sports world. If Kaillie Humphries can run in the men's bobsled championships, I don't see a reason why the same actions can't be taken in other sports.

Kaillie Humphries and her 4-man bobsled team

Of course, biological differences still count for something - especially when it comes to durability (bodychecking is banned from women's hockey for a reason, after all), - and, once again, sexual dimorphism is a thing - and so I have no problem with some of the more physical contact sports remaining more segregated (hockey exempted for no other reason than I am Canadian LOL), but at the end of the day, athletes should be ranked on ability regardless of sex - that's the whole point of equality and meritocracy isn't it? Unfortunately this creates a double standard in an of itself where there are sports divisions exclusively for women and none exclusively for men. Harrumph. Perhaps instead there should be exclusive leagues for each, both feeding into the singular, co-ed top leagues which then become true showcases of the best athletes in the world. I don't have an answer to this particular issue, so this monologue is simply me self-discussing it to an ambiguous conclusion. Hur-rah (sarcasm). What are your thoughts on this? I genuinely want to know, and there has been a drought of people commenting on this blog anyway...

While I'm on the subject of American Ninja Warrior...

There are certain shows that Canada needs to make its own versions of. This is one of them. The UK got there own version this year - so WHY CAN'T WE? I know a couple of my friends would actually make it quite far as well. GAAAAHHHHH

The same goes for Top Gear. We NEED a Top Gear Canada. Have you SEEN the density of supercars in the Vancouver area? Or the gorgeous drives available in this beautiful province? Not to mention the jokes to be made at the expense of drivers around here are numerous indeed... I'll volunteer as host! :P Seriously tho, if anyone reading this has contacts in the tv industry, call them up - I really do want to make this happen.

Until next time.

In Support of Anarchism, or, Would the REAL Freedom and Equality Stand Up Please?

I'm hoping that title got your attention. I'm also hoping you are now thinking about how it relates to its sub-heading. If both statements are true, and you're still reading this, good - its fulfilled its purpose.

Anarchy is the most free and equal form of society and state governance in existence today. There is no truer statement. It is also the perfect antidote to the whiny, entitled, complainers of today's Western society, but I'll get to that later. Now you may call Anarchy a cop-out solution to today's issues of equality and whatnot in both society and state - as it is representative of the lack thereof - but I would argue, that it is just as valid as saying your favourite colour is black (the absence thereof) (coughBethcough).

First some definitions:

Anarchism:  essentially the belief that humanity is best left ungoverned by any form of state or institution. Imagine a world in which no government, government paraphernalia (laws and taxes), or government services (police, fire departments, state-run libraries, universal healthcare) exists, and you've hit the nail on the head.

Freedom: the ability to do what one wishes. Example: the freedom of religion is the freedom to worship whichever religion one chooses.

Equality: Fair or "equal" treatment of all individuals, with no regard to race, gender, or any other means by which people form group identities.

Now for the real stuff...

Everyone has equal rights in a state of anarchy because no one has any! And before you whine that "but that's not fair!" remember that under that system, a male WASP would have the same rights as a First Nations Islamic transgender lesbian woman (whether the latter is even possible is debatable, but my point still stands). It is also the most free form of society because there are no laws to enforce. Before all the feminists in the crowd get up in arms over how this perpetuates rape culture, let me say this; in the form of society I am laying out, yes a woman can get raped, just like in today's society, but, unlike today, in a state of anarchy she can track down the perpetrator along with her friends and kill him in return. I'd call that a deterrent, wouldn't you? Discrimination would also be cut down on within whatever communities people would form in a time of anarchy, as you can't afford to alienate someone you depend on for survival.

For all you atheists out there, anarchy also restores the natural Darwinian order to human existence. In anarchy, only the strong survive, thus progressing "human evolution". The same, entirely logical, train of thought was behind the eugenics movement, but that's just me being cold.

The reality is people these days want to have their cake and eat it too. They want society for which the natural endpoint might be scarily close to Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron (http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html). This may sound ridiculous, but with the number of hoops corporations and institutions are supposed to contort themselves through to remain viable in this day and age, one really does have to wonder if Vonnegut may have come closer to hitting the mark than he realized.

We live in a society where anyone in minority groups can claim and use victim status, and use it as a weapon, gagging others and benefiting themselves in the name of "equal rights". The root of this problem lies deeper in the cultural undercurrents than it might seem. What many don't seem to realize is that ours is a generation of entitlement. We feel like deserve to be treated in certain ways, a members of various group identities tend to feel like they deserve special treatment (or, as they call it, "equality"). Time for a reality check. Many of the key assumptions behind "rights" in today's culture are actually fallacious. Nowhere is this better exemplified in the classic dichotomy "rights and privileges". This assumes the two are mutually exclusive, when they are in fact the total opposite. Rights, in and of themselves, ARE PRIVILEGES. Yet we, in our 21st century Western society, think we are entitled to them and more besides.
From where are these rights derived though? They have no base in nature, for if you strip man of the trappings and structure of the state, and you will find such ideas as "rights" simply do not exist. This is what I meant when I said that anarchy is the antidote to a society infested with entitlement. In such a social state all lofty ideas of "rights" are stripped down to the dichotomy of right and wrong arising from one's conscience. A conscience is a curious thing, as it limits one's actions, sometimes in ways which make no logical sense. The fact that they exist, and that the rules governing them are roughly similar between cultures across the globe is interesting indeed. Some may say that they come from psychological evolution, but the sheer notion of that further weakens the argument for a natural basis for rights due to the fact that there is significant variation in conscience (though some rules remain fairly static), which adds a certain relativity to the whole picture. In order for there to be a basis for rights as an application for a moral code is if said code were to be universally applicable and thus transcendent of individual humans. Who provides such a code? Well, God of course, so all you atheistic SJWs can kiss my glorious rear end.
Since the separation of church and state is a thing though, what is the source and definition of "rights" in a secular world? Here's my thought: Rights are privileges allotted to the members of a state by the state, which is then responsible for enforcing them. To be clear - all rights are privileges, but not all privileges are rights. Regardless, before you tell me to "check my privilege", check your own, and think about if you really have all that much to complain about.

States also have rights, but that's for another discussion.

Despite the merits of Anarchy, as discussed earlier, no one in their right mind - myself included - no one in their right mind actually wants it. I like the benefits of living in a state society and I want to keep it that way - I am a Conservative after all (though an anarchist party would be my third choice on election day - after the Conservatives and the Rhinos). And I have a Christian moral code, which tells me that it is best that all be treated equally and respectfully, and as a result I agree with the vast majority of rights in current legislation. What isn't "right" is the rights-entitled, identity politics based, victim culture that has arisen in recent decades that demands the death of meritocracy and promotes reverse-discrimination, if anything. But more on that in a later post.

I was going to say more, but this post is long enough already - a shorter one next time.