Don’t Drink Water In Ottawa


Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
June 30, 2017

I’ve known many Canadians over the years and even visited their beautiful country, and for the most part, found them to be a very “grounded” group of people, which leads me to think that maybe the proverbial “they” are putting something – LSD? oxycontin? –  into the water supply at Parliament House in Ottawa, for ever since the lamentable advent of Mr. Trudeau on the scene, Canada appears to be in a race to establish Ottawa, and not Washington D.C., as the undisputed leader for the swampiest and kookiest place on the planet. (To my Canadian friends: yea, good luck with that. We’ve had a lot more practice).  As a tangent, I would like to propose a new Friendly International Competition between the two countries, one perhaps to rival the Stanley Cup, for the USA and Canada to compete for the kookiest idea to come from its political class on a yearly basis. This will pit Congress and Parliament House directly against each other. We can call the award the Grand Tacky Award (le Plus Grande Tacqueie for those in Quebec) or Green Worm Award, or some other appropriate name (to be decided at a later date), for the appalling kookiness governing our respective swamps. The award nominations would be reviewed by a committee of equal numbers of sane Canadians and Americans (if they can be found) and a winner chosen by that committee. In cases of ties, Mr. Putin would be invited to interfere in our internal affairs, and cast the deciding vote, which could then be turned over to Congress and the Canadian Parliament as more evidence of Russian malfeasance.

What am I talking about? Canada’s new “gender language” law, which, like most projects coming out of the left these days, is not only nutty, but a massive restriction on freedom of speech, and, at the same time, a dangerous codification in law of what is, at best, a theory(and thanks to Ms. C.V. for sending along the following article):

Canada Passes Bill-C16 Forcing Gender Theory Acceptance

What is intriguing here is to note the reactions:

Senators who voted against the bill along with Plett are all affiliated with the Conservative Party.

They are David Tkachuk, Yonah Martin, Richard Neufeld, Leo Housakos, Don Plett, Betty Unger, Norman Doyle, Tobias C. Enverga, Thanh Hai Ngo, Lynn Beyak, and Denise Batters.

Senators who abstained are Anne Cools (independent) and Conservatives Larry Smith, and Michael MacDonald.

Campaign Life Coalition, the political arm of Canada’s pro-life movement, condemned the passage of Bill C-16.

“This tyrannical bill is nothing but social engineering to the nth degree, all in the name of political correctness,” Campaign Life’s Toronto vice president Jeff Gunnarson told LifeSiteNews.

Jack Fonseca, Campaign Life’s senior political strategist, said the bill will be used the attacked Christian belief.

“Mark my words, this law will not be used as some sort of ‘shield’ to defend vulnerable transsexuals, but rather as a weapon with which to bludgeon people of faith and free-thinking Canadians who refuse to deny truth,” he told LifeSiteNews.”

This, I suspect, is the real root of the problem: it’s a bill designed to attack certain fundamental core pillars, not just political ones, or not just pillars of Canadian law or custom (or, for that matter, the USA, where similar measures have been attempted), but of our common culture; it is a bill enabling a certain vocal minority to be used by people ostensibly concerned with its rights, to seek to impose cultural norms and values on a greater number of people. This is not politics, but culture, and the plain fact of the matter is, the divide is cultural, and not political.

It is, I suspect, about exactly what its conservative critics say it is: an attempt to legalize unrestrained social engineering, and social engineering of a certain type at that.

This month is June, the month that seventy-three years ago the troops of America, Britain, and Canada stormed ashore in Normandy, France, to put an end to a tyranny that likewise regulated speech in the most extreme manner, choosing what words were acceptable, and what were not. One wonders what those men would think, now.

In the final analysis, the Canadian bill is a form of tyranny, like it or not. Let us hope that the insanity which produced it in Canada, and produces similar nonsense in the USA and elsewhere, will not require similar measures to defeat it.

But note, this bill is about forcing certain types of language, and again, this critique suspect what I suspect, that a certain community, in this case, the transgendered community, is being used by the political elite to drive something very different:

Peterson told the Senate committee last month that he believes “ideologues” are “using unsuspecting and sometimes complicit members of the so-called transgender community to push their ideological vanguard forward.”

“The fact that it’s potentially illegal for me not to participate in that is something that I think is absolutely dreadful. It puts a shudder in my heart as a Canadian that we could even possibly be in a situation like that,” he said.

Peterson became Canada’s preeminent critic of the Liberal bill after he produced three videos opposing the enforcement of gender ideology, one of which blasted Bill C-16, which he said “requires compelled speech.”

He has also vowed that, come what may, he will not use “genderless pronouns” such as “zir” and “ze” for those who self-identify as gender non-conforming when requested.

Lawyer Brown told the Senate Committee the federal Liberals have made it clear they will follow Ontario’s lead when implementing Bill C-16. And Ontario Human Rights Code guidelines “mandate” the use of genderless pronouns on request, he said.

“Mandating use of pronouns requires one to use words that are not their own that imply a belief in or agreement with a certain theory on gender,” he added.

And this, as I wrote and said long ago, is the hallmark of all gnostic systems: the demand to (1) define reality solely by language (2) the demonstration that one has subscribed to that “raised consciousness” by adherence to the linguistic agenda, and hence, (3) the pressure on others – by law or simple “shaming tactics” – to adopt the linguistic agenda.  Ultimately, as I have warned before, the coup was to substitute “gender” for “sex.” Once this occurred, it became possible to deal with a fundamental human issue by manipulations of language.

Make no mistake, this is an assault on free speech, and for the fools in the Canadian transgendered community who think this is a good thing I have only this warning: eventually, they will turn on you, as well, and force you to use language you do not wish to use, to force your subscription to a cosmology with which you are not agreed.

See you on the flip side…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Advertisements

Amairikuhn Edgykayshun: Female Student Docked For Using…

alternative news
Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
April 2, 2017

It’s been a while since I had one of my customary rants about the fraudulent state of Amairikuhn edgykayshan and the  insane circus agenda of the cultural Marxists infesting it. Just in time, Ms. S.H. noticed the following article and sent it along:

Student has grade docked for using ‘mankind’ in English paper

Now you’ll note the latest victim of the “politically correct diction” crazy is, in this instance, a young lady who thinks the whole language agenda is a bit ridiculous:

Cailin Jeffers, an English major at NAU, told Campus Reform that she received an email from one of her professors, Dr. Anne Scott, informing her that she had been docked one point out of a possible 50 on a recent paper for “problems with diction (word choice)” related to her use of the word “mankind” as a synonym for “humanity.”

“After our first essay we were given a list of ‘do’s and don’ts’ based off of errors my professor found in our essays. Most of them make sense, just things like ‘make sure you’re numbering your pages’ and ‘cite in proper MLA format,’ but she said we had to be sure to use ‘gender-neutral language,’” Jeffers told Campus Reform. “Included with this rule were several examples of what was and wasn’t okay to use. In one of these examples she stated that we could not use the word ‘mankind.’ Instead, we should use ‘humankind.’ I thought this was absurd, and I wasn’t sure if she was serious.”

Jeffers decided to test the policy on her next paper by including two instances of the word “mankind,” and when the paper came back with the requisite points taken off, she requested a meeting with Scott.

Well, beyond the fact that Northern Arizona is using the very inadequate MLA (Modern Language Association) directives for proper citation – which in my curmudgeonly opinion is absolutely inadequate as a scholarly method of source citation, if only for the reason that it is a completely artificial set of rules, and did not develop from the tradition of academic orthography that emerged over the centuries of use – you’ll note that there is a tactic going on here, one designed to short-circuit the whole idea of “free speech”. Ms. Jeffers’ professor stated:

“I would be negligent, as a professor who is running a class about the human condition and the assumptions we make about being ‘human,’ if I did not also raise this issue of gendered language and ask my students to respect the need for gender-neutral language,” Scott explained. “The words we use matter very much, or else teachers would not be making an issue of this at all, and the MLA would not be making recommendations for gender-neutral language at the national level.”

The professor of Gender Neutrality and Political Correctness was challenged by her student;

“I stated that I agree with everything she said about my paper except my use of ‘mankind.’ She proceeded to tell me that the NAU English department, as well as the Modern Language Association, are pushing for gender-neutral language, and all students must abide by this,” Jeffers recalled. “She told me that ‘mankind’ does not refer to all people, only males. I refuted, stating that it DOES refer to all people, [but] she proceeded to tell me that I was wrong, ‘mankind’ is sexist, and I should make an effort to look beyond my preset positions and ideologies, as is the focus of the class.”

So note first that the professor put on the airs of “objectivity” and waxed fairly frothy about respecting Ms. Jeffers’ choices of words. But then she went on to state Ms. Jeffers would still be punished for writing the way she wanted to, cited the MLA commissars as the “authority” for her ukase, and when Ms. Jeffers protested that the word mankind did exclude the female sex – funny thing, this curmudgeon doesn’t remember his elementary school or middle school English teachers – women to a… uhm…er… man (this gets so confusing!) – the Professor of Commissarial Conformity lost all objectivity and simply redefined the word according to MLA dictates, and insisted that it did.

OK, we get it, but I hope the tactic here is perceived. In order to “get around” that pesky little thing called “free speech”, the professor couched everything as an academic exercise, nothing more, as an “experiment”.

But one wonders then if the professor, or the institution of lower learning in which she roosts (Edidor’s note, that’s my attempt to be politically correct: “tenure” and words like that are so old fashioned and tainted with masculine imagery) would tolerate a class – just for the sake of experiment – in requiring students not to use “gender neutral” language, but rather, the old traditional language most of use still use, you know, words like “he, him, she, her, it” and “mankind” and so on.

Which brings me to the next article, shared by Mr. V.T. But before this, I have to relate a personal encounter I had with such looniness, one that occurred in the Oxford Union Society during a debate in which I participated. I was at the box, holding forth on something-or-other, and the speaker intervened to correct my use of the word “men” to refer to humanity. She insisted I use gender inclusive language in my remarks. “Men” had to be banned from my vocabulary and replaced with the word “persons”. Well, being a theology student, I objected that this word had more specific technical meanings and that such usage actually confused the issue, and then informed her that the end result of this madness would have to be to change the occurrence of the word “man” or “men” to persons: the word “immanent” would have to be changed to “impersonent” which rhymed with “impertinent” which was “what I find your whole scheme to be.” This was met by a rousing chorus of “hear hears!” and I continued my curmudgeonly and peroration in traditional diction.

At the time, I meant my remarks as a rather humorous comment, and never dreamed that they would become somewhat prophetic, as the article shared by Mr. V.T. illustrates (copy and paste into your browser):http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/29/womyn-womxn-womban-taxpayer-funded-university-ponders-alternate-spellings-for-woman/Yes, that’s right, even the words “woman” or “women” are no longer inclusive enough because – you guessed it – they include the words “man” and “men”:

Garcia-Pusateri then introduced several different ways feminists have invented to misspell the word “woman.”

The possible misspellings include “womyn,” “womxn,” “womban,” “wimmin.” There’s also the term “femme” — which means a conspicuously feminine lesbian, according to Urban Dictionary.

The first time the wrong spelling “womyn” appeared in print was at the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival in 1976, a handout provided by Garcia-Pusateri asserted.

Obviously, the intention of the misspelling “womyn” is to avoid spelling “women” with the word “men.”

The solution to all this? I suspect Ms. Jeffers has pointed the way: simply refuse to go along with it, even at personal cost. That cost is relatively minor in her case. For some, that refusal will mean not attending college – simply defund the activity of the crazies – because it’s either refusal now, or refusal later, for these people will not stop until they are either confronted, or acquire the power to confront, and at that stage, the demands will be total: abandon all tradition, or pay a costly prince. If that seems extreme, then ask yourself if it is worth the financial cost to send yourself, or your children, to these fraudulent indoctrination centers.

Or, to put it more bluntly: violence to language and free speech today will be violence to people tomorrow.

See you on the flip side…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.