Identity Intersectionality is a religion

There’s a new religion that the Social Justice students, Antifa & Intersectional Feminists have joined and now proselytize. This new religion is Identity Intersectionality, which is better known as **Identity Politics**.

Andy Ngo wrote aptly that any ideology or philosophy about identity is only a religion. Religion is heavily concerned with the identity of a human being and what “good & evil” makes up their identities. The new form of “Good” and “Evil” is “Marginalized & Oppressed” and “Oppressive & Oppressor”.

Religion is majorly focused on “Social Justice” and with the “Intersection of Good with Evil” that each human has and each human community has. Religion is more concerned with group agreement, heresy, than with intellectual freedom, dissent & disagreement. Religion heavily punishes a heretic for speaking up and for dissenting with its narrative.

Here’s what Andy Ngo wrote:

Transgender & Transrace: The Social Justice progressives have an upcoming hypocrisy to deal with

Social construction is favoured over biology? Am I right? This is the ideology that Social Justice liberals rally and push for?

As far as the Social Justice politicos are concerned, gender is only a social construct. The social construct is explained as the ONLY CAUSE for humans to have created and performed their two genders.

Gender is explained as being performed by human culture. So, excuses are made and gender is rationalized as NOT being the behaviour of men & women that emerged from their dimorphic sexual human biology.

Okay then, so Gender is only performative. However, Race is also a social construct. Oh dear. Race must be off limits.

Remember Rachel Dolezal? Rachel is a White woman who styled herself as Transrace Black woman.

Rachel Dolezal

However in the upcoming future, reasons and excuses will be made by Social Justice adherents that Transrace shouldn’t be done and it must be called all sorts of slurs, like “appropriation“, to shame people from being Transrace.

However, tough.

I will not give sympathy and hugs to the Social Justice crew when they face people from their own crowd demanding to be Transrace. The Social Justice warriors will have to face their own political metaphysical beliefs being used against them.

I will be one of the people who will be a bitch and call the Social Justice students a “bigot” and “transphobic” when they speak out and say “No, that person can’t be Transrace. That’s racial appropriation“.

When the Social Justice believers begin to realize that their own arguments are being used against them, I won’t be sympathetic. “Tough,” I will say.

Live by the sword Die by the sword

The Social Justice progressives will hear their own ideology about Transgender being spoken from other people’s mouths, but those words would be spoken to support Transrace.

Any Social Justice parent or student would be called names and slurs whenever he or she publicly argues on Twitter, Facebook & other social media against the uncritical support of kids & adults. They will be called the slurs of “bigot” & “transphobe” when they debate to either caution or to not support the kids & adults who want factory pharmaceuticals and surgeries so that they could do their medical & surgical “transitions“.

Payback is a bitch, and I’m such a bitch because people need to learn what their ideology does in reality to someone who dissents it.

Live the reality of your ideology


New Publication: Chimpanzee Play

The Chimpanzees will have to show us that gender arises from biology!

Here we go…

The Kanyawara girl Chimps seek out and play with sticks as **Dolls**. Meanwhile, the boy Chimps aren’t interested in playing with sticks as dolls. Instead the boy Chimps throw the sticks.

Kibale Chimpanzee Project

Sex differences in chimpanzees’ use of sticks as play objects resemble those of children. Sonya M Kahlenberg and Richard W. Wrangham (2010). Current Biology 20: R1067-R1068
Sex differences in children’s toy play are robust and similar across cultures. Evidence for biological factors is controversial but mounting. In this paper, we present the first evidence of sex differences in use of play objects in a wild primate, in chimpanzees. We find that juveniles tend to carry sticks in a manner suggestive of rudimentary doll play and, as in children and captive monkeys, this behavior is more common in females than in males.

View original post

Social Construct vs Biology: The Chimps will have to show us that Gender emerged from Biology

The major problem I see with believing that “gender” is ONLY a “social construct”, is that “biology” is discounted. Biology is believed to be irrelevant. It’s ignored as the organic essence or the stuff from which gender had emerged.

The Chimpanzees will have to show us that gender arises from biology!

Here we go…

The Kanyawara girl Chimps seek out and play with sticks as **Dolls**. Meanwhile, the boy Chimps aren’t interested in playing with sticks as dolls. Instead the boy Chimps throw the sticks.

If we have to revisit our Chimpanzee relatives in Uganda to educate us that “Gender emerged from Biology“, then so be it.

Violence isn’t debate or conversation: Speech, Disagreement & the muddy slope of Hate Speech censorship

Social Justice liberals would like to define spoken & published disagreement with their advocacy as violence.

Violence is, however, defined as:


*Violence* wouldn’t be people talking & speaking a debate. The Antifa in Western countries have to learn that disagreement through conversation IS NOT Violence.

As well, dissent expressed through conversation or debate is NOT Hate Speech:

Hate Speech

So this would mean that speaking & writing dissent must be allowed. You must have the right to disagree with people who are outraged advocates for their politics and beliefs.


What happens when expressed dissent or disagreement are publicly censored & defined as violence?

People end up doing violence because their speech was heavily censored.

So whenever people were forbidden & outlawed to have a conversation or a debate, then usually everyone would show up at public spaces to express their dissent as violence.

Or whenever you couldn’t use your words, you eventually go into public spaces to use your body to protest and to foment.

Two examples would be:

1) The current 2017-2018 public dissent in Iran: Andy C. Ngo, #IranProtests



2) Any society & their government who are pro-censorship.

This would mean any society regardless of being a theocracy, democracy, or a communist country who chose to define speech as violence whenever this speech was publicly made by people as their own disagreement, debate or conversation that expressed their dissent.

This further means that Social Justice liberals, or the current Antifa, shouldn’t be pro-censorship toward any person or group of people they define as being “Privileged“.

Or this would mean that it’s a moral and practical error to censor one group of people you define as “Privileged” or as undeserving of the right to freely speak their disagreement in public spaces toward your beliefs & advocacy. You could very well in a decade or in the future end up being defined as “Privileged”, and feel a crack down of censorship on yourself and your right to speak your dissent.

So it’s important and an emergency to sustain the right of speech within public spaces that express dissent or disagreement. These spaces are university campuses, etc.

HOWEVER, whenever a society has chosen to be pro-censorship, then this has happened:

From the 20th century, examples would be Germany’s Third Reich Nazis (Socialists who were Fascists), Italy’s Benito Mussolini and his Italian Social Republic supporters (Socialists turned Fascists), the former Soviet Union’s Bolshevik Communists, China’s Chairman Mao Zedong and the Maoist Communists, or Cambodia’s Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge Communists. As well, there is North Korea’s Communist government of the Kims (currently Kim Jong Un).

The above examples are from the previous 20th century, and North Korea’s Communist government is still ruling.

Furthermore, there are MANY more examples of societies throughout history previous to the 20th century who went wrong whenever they became pro-censorship toward groups of people they defined as “Privileged” , “Deplorable” , or as “Unwanted”.

So Hate Speech is a muddy slippery slope. People, like Social Justice advocates, slip and make fickle decisions on what Hate Speech is and about who they target.

Any group of people could be defined as being Hate Speech propagandists, as being morally wrong, or not “on the right side of history” WHENEVER the Social Justice liberals get fussy and feel outrage at whomever. The Antifa could very much turn on their own IF such people dared to refute the goals of the Antifa. The Khmer Rouge certainly turned on their own.

So tolerance of speech can become less and less whenever people, like the Antifa, have no experience with what violence realistically is. They also would do real violence to silence speech from people who upset their feelings, but wouldn’t define their actions as real violence. Or the people who speak irksome ideas to refute the Antifa would be defined by the Antifa as doing violence because their speech to the Antifa is violence.

The Antifa, or Social Justice liberals, therefore have a major blindspot:

Violence is a physical force or use of your body to push, hit, shoot or blow up other people you don’t like, you want to silence and whom you perceive as “Privileged” , “Deplorable” , or as “Unwanted”. Violence isn’t conversation that expresses refutation, dissent or debate.

The lesson to learn is: Use your words & tolerate conversation. Otherwise, the people who refute the Antifa with conversation & debate will have only ONE option, which would be to use their body (not their words) to foment an opposition to the Antifa within public spaces.

The Antifa or Social Justice advocates must drop their righteous belief that ONLY they can have the right of free speech and expression. They’re righteous enough to keep themselves blind to gross mistakes they make while doing their militant advocacy.

One mistake the Antifa have been making is their arrogance. They are arrogant to believe that their speech couldn’t be wrong nor incite wrong actions to be done to those they hate and think of as “Privileged”.

Wilfrid Laurier University & its Social Justice adherents who censor

A storm of poop 💩 has concluded at Wilfrid Laurier University.

This poop 💩 debacle was caused by a trio and one more: Two professors, a bureaucrat, and a “them” from the Rainbow Centre.

The infamous three were: (1) Supervising professor Nathan Rambukkana, (2) Communication Studies coordinator Herbert Pimlott, and (3) acting manager Adria Joel of the Equity & Diversity department.

The “one more” was Toby Finlay, the manager of the Rainbow Centre.

The trio attempted to censor a teaching assistant named Lindsay Shepherd.


Lindsay is a student who’s doing a 12 month Master of the Arts at Wilfrid Laurier university. Her MA is specified as “Cultural Analysis & Social Theory“.

The English Communications class that Lindsay taught was CS101, “Canadian Communication in Context”.


CS101 was the class where “one or many” students spoke a complaint about her.

But the “one or many” only went to the university’s Rainbow Centre.

Wilfrid Laurier Rainbow Centre

The “one person or the group” spoke their complaint to the Rainbow Centre, and the manager of the Rainbow Centre (Toby Finlay) was the one who next informed (1) Nathan Rambukkana, (2) Herbert Pimlott & (3) Adria Joel to call a disciplinary meeting of Lindsay.


CS101 was meant to teach the following to 1st year Communications students:

An Intro to key issues in Canadian mass communications from a variety of perspectives, including such topics as social history of mass media in Canada, public policy and politics, and popular culture.”

Canadian Communication in Context, or CS101, was meant to teach English grammar and beyond it.

Lindsay’s job as teaching assistant required her to introduce a classroom discussion about (1) Canadian public policy, (2) politics and (3) popular culture whenever those three concerned themselves with the English language.

An example that Lindsay tried to teach was the Jordan Peterson & Nicholas Matte debate from public television, which was TVOntario.

Link to the transcript is here:

Link to the full video is here:

The Peterson/Matte debate on The Agenda was a sample of the contentions that Canadians are right now discussing as their criticism of Bill C-16.


Bill C-16 is a radical law because it makes pronouns compulsory for all Canadians to speak & write whenever a transgender person wants someone to describe “them” by “their” chosen pronoun. An example would be: “They” or “them” as a pronoun.

Bill C-16, as a language law, will extend protection against hate speech toward “gender identity” and “gender expression“.

Bill C-16 will add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination.

Bill C-16 would, in all, amend both the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code.

This legislation is summarily radical because laws about words & propaganda within a democracy only prohibit words being used as slurs.

So a language law for a democracy consistently prohibits words from being used as “hate speech” rather than enforcing an entire population to use certain words as “gender pronouns“.

Bill C-16, however, has already been done in communist & fascist countries. Think of “comrade” being legally required for all communists to speak & write while in public schools, and so on. North Korea would be an example of where people are compelled to use specific words.

An example would be from the Washington Post. It published on November 17th, 2017, the stories from Koreans who had escaped from North Korea.

One story was very telling. It was by “a university student, 대학생, who escaped in 2013“:

We had ideological education for 90 minutes every day. There was revolutionary history, lessons about Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, Kim Jong Un. Of course, they taught us about why we needed nuclear weapons, and they would tell us that we needed to make sacrifices in our daily lives so they could build these weapons and protect our country, keep the nation safe. I was so sick and tired of hearing about all this revolutionary history, I was so sick of calling everyone “comrade. I didn’t care about any of that stuff.

As well, Jared Brown, the lead lawyer for Brown Litigation spoke the same misgivings about enforcement of words as pronouns on May 17th, 2017 at the Senate:

Jared Brown reasoned his own misgivings at the Senate’s third & last review of Bill C-16.

Bill C-16 in a university

Bill C-16 was wrongly assumed by “one or many” students to mean that a discussion about English pronouns must be censored. Someone from CS101 made a complaint to the Rainbow Centre about seeing a TVOntario clip of Jordan Peterson.

Lindsay Shepherd was next asked to a meeting with her supervising professor (1) Nathan Rambukkana, (2) Communication Studies coordinator Herbert Pimlott, and (3) acting manager Adria Joel of the Equity & Diversity department.

All three reprimanded Lindsay because they believed she was teaching Transphobia.

However, Lindsay had secretly recorded her meeting with Nathan Rambukkana, Herbert Pimlott, and Adria Joel.

Her audio of her being policed & berated is found here:

Wilfrid Laurier President Deborah MacLatchy next apologized to Lindsay:

The apology is here:

Herbert Pimlott & Adria Joel didn’t apologize.

Nathan Rambukkana only published an “open letter”:

The “open letter” is here:

Deborah MacLatchy finally concluded that Lindsay didn’t commit *hate speech* within the classroom of CS101.

Her statement is here:


Michele Kramer, president of the Wilfrid Laurier Faculty Association, made a public statement that the faculty association “condemns violent speech“.

To myself, this statement was very questionable because Herbert Pimlott is also a Vice President of the faculty association:


So, the faculty association wants to define any “discussion” as “violence” when this speech is heard and righteous anger is felt toward it?

This is a pro-censorship problem. Any debate could be defined as violence because it only takes a few people to feel upset when hearing a “discussion” and to then define that speech as violence to silence it.

Gred Bird (or Uccello) certainly believes in censoring any spoken debate and writing that upsets anyone’s feelings:


He had run a petition that argued the safety of genderqueer & trans people on Wilfrid Laurier’s campus were threatened with violence.

In conjunction, Toby Finlay (the Rainbow Centre’s administrator) also repeatedly called any conversation about Lindsay as acts of violence:






Finally, this is a summary of Wilfrid Laurier’s exposed attempt at censorship:

On Nov. 1st, Lindsay showed the students of CS101 a three-minute video clip from the TVO public affairs show “The Agenda.”

The video clip was from “Genders, Rights and Freedom of Speech”, which was broadcast on Oct 27 2016.

Link to the full video is here:

Link to the transcript is here:

Lindsay said she was trying to demonstrate the theory that the structure of a language will affect the perception of the people who speak and write that language.


She said she had mentioned to the class that traditional beliefs of English speakers about gender have probably been shaped by the gender-specific pronouns of “he/him”, “she/her”, and “they/one/it” that for centuries have been the only gender pronouns in the English language.

Someone later after the class complained. That person complained despite the video clip was **neutrally** shown by Lindsay.

Lindsay Shepherd was next asked, through email, to a meeting with (1) her supervising professor Nathan Rambukkana, (2) Communication Studies coordinator Herbert Pimlott, and (3) acting manager Adria Joel of the Equity & Diversity department.

All three reprimanded Lindsay because they believed she was teaching Transphobia.

Lindsay had secretly recorded her meeting with Nathan Rambukkana, Herbert Pimlott, and Adria Joel.

Her audio of her being policed & berated is found here:

She next contacted the National Post and other media. Christie Blatchford from the Post immediately replied. Blatchford next published an editorial about the attempt to shame and censor Lindsay. Blatchford called it:


Wilfrid Laurier President Deborah MacLatchy next apologized to Lindsay.

Nathan Rambukkana, however, only published an “open letter“.

Deborah MacLatchy followed up and ran an investigation, which concluded that Lindsay didn’t commit *hate speech* within the classroom of CS101.

MacLatchy also hired Robert Centa as a lawyer to represent the university during its inquiry. Howard Levitt also contacted Lindsay and became her lawyer. He did this as pro bono for her.

Howard Levitt discovered from Rob Centa that only a spoken complaint was made to the Rainbow Centre.


Specifically the complaint was spoken to Toby Finlay, whose own gender pronoun is “they” and “them”.

Toby is the main admin for the Rainbow Centre (or is the “them” who’s the top “they” that manages the Centre).

It was this “them” who contacted Rambukkana, Pimlott and Joel to call a meeting with Lindsay so that she would be scolded.

During their tribunal, Herbert Pimlott, Nathan Rambukkana & Adria Joel intended to censor her.

All three ignored academic freedom because Lindsay is a teaching assistant.

Lindsay knew the trio were wrong. So she contacted the National Post and other media. Christie Blatchford from the Post immediately replied. Blatchford next published, “Thought police strike again as Wilfrid Laurier grad student is chastised for showing Jordan Peterson video“.

Other media soon followed and published their reporting of Lindsay’s experience of a kangaroo court at Wilfrid Laurier University.


From start to finish I watched Lindsay’s updates on twitter.

I also ran a petition.

I agreed with her because I see that the Humanities and Social Sciences in both Canadian and American universities are mostly populated with professors who are Social Justice acolytes.

Rather than being advocates, these professors (including TAs & students) behave as acolytes who value Social Justice as a dogma.

As Social Justice liberals, they righteously enforce their ideology through shame and censorship whenever their feelings are offended. Any disagreement to their maxim of “gender/race/etc. intersectionality” will cause them deep felt offense.

To myself, it was very problematic that Nathan Rambukkana had published an open letter to Lindsay Shepherd that ONLY provided his reasons that he taught by critical pedagogy and by the narrow worldview of Social Justice.

I personally see that Social Justice, as a righteous belief, can delude anyone into calling a Mao Zedong style kangaroo court to censor a teaching assistant. That ideology had certainly deluded Nathan Rambukkana.

As well “objectivity” — according to Rinaldo Walcott at OISE in the University of Toronto — is specifically and only “White Supremacist Logic”. It’s logic from White Supremacy within the university despite it being an intellectual neutrality and freedom to allow all ideas & sides to be investigated within a classroom.

Rinaldo Walcott made his opinion about White Supremacy known while he was on The Agenda, hosted by Steve Paikin, during the episode “Freedom of expression on campus“.

What he said at 19:33 to 19:51 was: “The university is deeply implicated [with] producing certain kinds of logics of white supremacy.“:


In all, I was troubled when I listened to Lindsay’s supervisors attempt their re-education of her by invoking the “Ontario Human Rights Act, Bill C-16 and Wilfrid Laurier’s Gendered Violence Prevention & Support policy“.

Their appeal and deferral to the above sounded exactly like a secular bureaucrat or religious official invoking the dogma of a political manifesto or a holy book.

Secular politics, political values or religious dogma that forbid academic freedom, objectivity, learning to debate, etc., have no place in a university. Values that are righteous and totalitarian have no place in a university. To myself, the intellectual freedom of the TA and students within the classroom must be supported.

Finally, Wilfrid Laurier is no longer a university to me. How can this place be a university when the Humanities & Social Sciences in it drivel Social Justice as a righteous doctrine that could never be questioned because it could never make gross mistakes?