Friday, March 31, 2006


Sadly, it came as no surprise to me when last week Charlie Sheen suggested that perhaps the American government was behind the 911 terrorist attacks. Now this is nothing new and people who read the Toronto Star will not at all be surprised that some people have these views.

What the Sheen remarks suggest however is that these views are more and more mainstream and that people are becoming more and more comfortable making them in public. It suggests that if Charlie Sheen feels comfortable enough making these remarks in public, then there are probably plenty in Hollywood who agree with him who he has already made these remarks to. That is both sad and disturbing.

Los Angeles based film critic Jeff Wells links to a 'documentary' on these theories called Loose Change. This 'documentary' examines the theores that evil conservatives inside the Bush Administration orchestrated the 911 attacks themselves in order to gotowartogetoilandoppressand...blah blah blah. You know the rest.

But people are noticing. Even Wells, who is an adamant left winger whom I respect for his honesty, knowledge of cinema and good writing skills thinks the theory is bogus:

"Anyway, I've seen it and thought about it, and I know a lot of bright people who seem genuinely jazzed about it, but I just don't accept -- okay, won't accept -- the notion that this kind of demonic, cold-blooded Machiavellian plotting could emanate from the Bushies. Evil is necessarily a matter of dedication and passion, but deep down it's most often about selfishness and greed and the willingess to look the other way."

"...I have never believed in evil manifested through the application of daring super-schemes requiring the utmost secrecy at the highest levels of government among a cabal of black-hearted right-wing fuckheads."

"And I don't believe that upper-level neocons are in possession of the necessary monstrous, heartless, Ernst Stavro Blofeld mentality to arrange for a slaughter of this magnititude, no matter how much their friends in the defense industry have benefitted, or how greatly the general neocon faction in the government would have benefitted."

What is sad is that if many people in the film industry believe it, you know many people in academia believe it and so on and so on. You can see the domino effect.

This is an extension of the sixties culture, which is what The War Room has talked about all along. This was a generation that saw corruption at the highest levels of government with Watergate, witnessed the assassinations of JFK, RFK and MLK and experienced and caused a level of turmoil that will be recorded in history. Now in thier old age, they can see nothing but conspiracy. For them, what is up is down, what is right is wrong, what is black is white. And they are teaching it to ourselves and our children.

They see the world through the prism of Vietnam and the American Civil Rights movement of the 60's and cannot fathom that there is any other evil in the world other than white, Judeo Christian, American, capitalist, male, patriarchal, heterosexual etc.

They believe they are the new way of thinking. I say they are the old.

They are the people who buy into The Da Vinci Code without any question and think that the Vatican colludes to oppress the Divine Feminine and the Jews control the international banking system to oppress blacks.

Fed on a steady diet of Michael Moore and Prime Time TV, they think they are questioners but instead they accept defacto that every sort of 'traditional' authority figure is evil (police officer, mother, father, priest, banker, minister, rabbi, accountant, CEO); and that any 'non-conformist' type holds the truth (ie. Hollywood actor, artist, singer, lawyer, judge, academic).

We must do all we can to negate the conspiracy theorists in our culture. If they win, it will be a complete unravelling of history and how we think.

Ration, logic and reason will be thrown out the window and the feelings and emotion of the 'Age of Aquarias' style of thinking will be in.

At this late date...I have no idea who is currently winning.

Wednesday, March 22, 2006


Within every culture there are topics that one is not supposed to talk about. Things that you are not supposed to question, truths that you are not supposed to deny. Even the most ‘open’ of cultures has things that they are not supposed to say. Similarly, no culture considers itself ‘closed minded’.

In modern day vernacular these terms are synonymous with been ‘left’ or ‘progressive’ or ‘liberal’ in your outlook. But these terms as employed by the left are really just words and rhetoric from the 1960’s generation who were reacting to the ‘conservative’ culture of the 1950’s. When young people born post 1970 use them, they have very little meaning.

In our culture, ‘open minded’ usually translates to ‘think like me’ and ‘tolerance’ usually means ‘you better affirm my sexual lifestyle’. In truth, open mindedness means that you should be able to see the world from outside of your own box.

Tolerance is both sides allowing the other to live without the other pushing their views legally onto the other.

Sadly, this has not existed in Canada for decades. Nowhere is this true more than in the question of abortion or as this essay will deal with, partial birth abortion. It is the one topic you are not allowed to discuss in polite company. Even amongst people I know who support it and have had abortions, they do not discuss it or the effect that it had on them. It is something we are all supposed to implicitly endorse, but we are not supposed to think about it too much lest we break down our cultural assumptions on it.

To be blunt, Canada now needs to have a debate on partial birth abortion. It is a topic that will not go away. Canada is the only country in the modern West that has absolutely no restrictions whatsoever on abortion.

Think about that for a second.

Canada is the only country in the modern West that has absolutely no restrictions whatsoever on abortion.

That means exactly what you think it means. A woman can go into a hospital, 8 months, 3 weeks, 6 days and 23 hours into labour, with a fully formed baby in her body and order the doctor to kill it. So long as half the child is in the womb, the procedure is legal. Now many doctors will not perform this procedure this late in a pregancy, but in cases where the woman persists, doctors have been known to come up from the States to perform it. Most people are not aware of this.

This ‘late term abortion’ or ‘partial birth abortion’ is a process that many find tantamount to infanticide.

In the Partial Birth Abortion Act that President George W. Bush signed in November of 2003, the process was defined as (courtesy of Wikipedia) :

an abortion in which --

(A) the person performing the abortion deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and

(B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus

Now in this terminology the term used was fetus.

Let’s ask a question regarding Canada’s lack of restrictions. In those few moments right before a healthy baby is born into a new mother’s arms; is this ‘creature’ still a fetus, or is it a fully breathing, human baby?

Here’s another example for the patriarchy obsessed feminist set;

Let’s say a woman is pregnant and she is in an abusive relationship; her husband beats and abuses here brutally and physically. One day in the eighth month of her pregnancy, while her stomach is full; while she knows what sex the baby is and she is already buying clothes, let’s say her husband beats her viciously until she is within an inch of her life and is unconcious. He makes her body look like a jigsaw puzzle. Let’s say say she survives the attack…but her baby does not.

Does aggravted assault seem like the only thing the husband should be charged with?

Should the mother have a say or ‘choice’ as to whether or not he is charged with murder of the child if she was committed to having the baby at this late date?

Should the spouse be charged with murder of the unborn baby at 8 months as well?

In Canada, he would not and the brutalized woman would have no 'choice' in the matter. And that is the way the feminists want it.

This is Canada’s dirty little secret, the one that we are not supposed to talk about. Radical secularists and feminists do not want this discussed. It is obvious why. On any moral level it cannot be justified that a baby in the womb this late in pregnancy has no rights at all. But, once we give a child in the womb rights at this late stage of pregnancy, then the whole debate of when life begins starts…and a debate about the morality of abortion begins.

Radical feminists and secularists know they are on the losing side of this debate and when the grisly details of the procedure are known (complete with the crushing of baby skulls and the dismemberment of baby limbs) there is very little they can do to justify it.

It is why they would rather focus on the Charter and not on the child.

This is where the debate on abortion in Canada must begin. Right now we have no laws whatsoever governing it. That is unheard of for a civilized country. It is unheard of for a country that says it believes in social justice.

I do not blame Stephen Harper for not wanting to instigate this debate. It is a scary one; one the left wing establishment in this country does not want to have, therefore they demonize, vililfy and lie about those who want to have it. But I believe it is coming.

And it is one that I will be glad to partake in once it arrives.

Tuesday, March 07, 2006


Ginned up on hate, the University of Saskatchewan newpaper entitled The Sheaf published a cartoon last week depicting Jesus Christ giving a 'blow job' to a 'capitalist pig'. They were called out. Now they seek to apologize. All after they took the 'principled' position of not publishing the cartoons offending Islam.

"The comic was actually laid out and went to print as a result of an editorial oversight and a mistake," production manager Liam Richards said Monday. "It was not our intention to have a (public) reaction to it."

In other words, Liam Richards didn't think they would be caught. Fed a steady diet of anti-Christian hate and rhetoric on the modern day university campus, Richards thought it would be business as usual.

Editor in Chief Will Robbins tendered his resignation as a result.

"In order for us to rectify this foul-up, accidental though it may be, especially given the egregious nature of the offence given to a large section of our campus community . . . someone needed to fall on their sword," Robbins wrote in his resignation letter, obtained by The StarPhoenix.

Truth is, it was no accident. I cannot hold my contempt for these people.

But people are gradually starting to realize what is being taught to their children. Just like the 16 year old high school student, Sean Allen who recorded his teacher Jay Bennish, alluding that the victims 911 were military victims on the war on capitalism.

Sean Allen is a hero. He should be given some sort of medal for his courage. The recordings can be found here amongst many other places. I encourage you to listen to them. The Bush/Hitler comparisons were the amongst the least offensive comments made although you wouldn't know that from the media.

As far as I am concerned, Jay Bennish should no more be allowed to teach children than a Holocaust denier.