The Humboldt Broncos: Nora Loreto’s Social Justice response to a tragic bus crash

I keep track of tragic accidents, and recently there was a very severe bus accident in Canada. On April 6th, this year in Saskatchewan, the Humboldt Broncos junior hockey team suffered a terrible collision with a transport semi truck. 16 people, in total, had died. Only 13 people had survived.

The location of this terrible collision was at the intersection of Highway 335 and Highway 35 in Saskatchewan. As well, another life taking collision took place at this same intersection two decades ago. In 1997, a family of 6 were killed when their truck was hit by a tractor trailer truck at this intersection, which is also called Armley Corner.

When you look at the photo on the right, you see that the Humboldt Broncos bus was travelling North along Highway 35. The semi transport truck was travelling West along Highway 335. The Humboldt Broncos bus had the right of way. So when the transport truck drove through the intersection, the Humboldt Broncos bus couldn’t immediately stop to avoid the semi transport truck. The trees that you see in both photos show that the Humboldt Broncos bus driver, Glen Doerkson, didn’t see the transport truck immediately as he drove the Humboldt team’s bus through the intersection.

The RCMP are investigating this horrific collision. They will also update the Canadian public with its conclusion once it has a complete report.

In the meantime, insult was added to injury when a Social Justice adherent, named Nora Loreto, decided it was a good idea to show off her presumed superior Social Justice morality on Twitter.

Nora could have tweeted “This Is A Tragedy” without including a Social Justice moral lecture. However, Nora wanted to display her Social Justice. She let it all hang out. There was no humility.

Thanks for showing your naked Social Justice that’s in sore need of a shower, Nora.

So of course, Nora Loreto, had tweeted very false condolences to the Humboldt Broncos.

Here they are:





Nora had to tweet: “I’m trying to not get cynical about what is a totally devastating tragedy but the maleness, the youthfulness and the whiteness of the victims are, of course, playing a significant role.”

Her software, called Social Justice, is the newest religion that convinces the converts to ONLY view human beings by their pedigree of Race, Gender, Ethnicity, and so on.

Intersectionality is Pedigree. It is the newest form of Birth Right for anyone who identifies their ancestors as being wronged. This birth right is a right to justice, which is retribution from anyone currently alive whose ancestors were the Wrong Doers and the Transgressors.

Finally, intersectionality is undoubtedly the latest iteration of the Catholic Christian belief of Original Sin. It is both a birth right and a smudge of original sin.

I am done with Nora Loreto. Her Social Justice stinks and it’s only sectarian politics that’s rotten to the core.

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”.