Scott Mayers

I've been watching videos online through YouTube and find that when I publish, a few moments later, I get deleted. The issue was on Multiculturalism from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCCKuZuBOkU. I'll publish what I wrote there here. I've already commented my dissent for the CBC's censorship here at this site. And it is to the specific insights on this issue particularly that seems to be purposely being monitored. I'm guessing it just means that it has some justification. While I contend that I could be 'wrong' on certain areas of this as it concerns practice, I believe our system is deliberately set up deceptively to promote the idea of "Multiculturalism" when in fact this concept is sincerely a smokescreen for real discrimination and abuse by our particular groups here in Canada using this to lock out democracy for all peoples in the future external to the select heritage of Ontario and Quebec established wealth. My opinion is NOT about All Ontario or Quebec people. It is about the ones who have established wealth based on our history who are particularly responsible for what we might think of as potential 'crimes' against human rights should they be exposed. Let me at least reprint here what I wrote and gets deleted when I publish before discussing. Note that I'm not pissed that I could be wrong for my views. It is that it appears that I'm being deliberately prevented from speaking freely on this for some reason. While this may or may not be what some may think is a bad thing (censorship), this should at least concern others as what it implies about our capacity to speak democratically:

This 'equality of opportunity' though, is often merely a perception only. For instance, one can say that I have an equal fair right to buy a Rolls Royce. While technically this may be 'true', if my actual real initial circumstances places the bar so high if I start out so impoverished, it lacks a sincerity to my real opportunities.

You fall for the same trap that causes the problem, jacee. Your use of statistics to measure the 'white men' as a group as if they are somehow of equivalent status in wealth is grossly ignorant. The 'white men' who DO have problems are the ones who suffer in similar ways to others of any group. And it is of this 'subset' of 'white men' who are complaining. The opposite is true of those 'white men' who ARE more successful as they DO believe in distinction in kind and favor discrimination. This is because they do not suffer the consequences and intrinsically believe in their 'whiteness'. If anything, it would be this subclass who are the ones who are both favored by those like yourself when in truth they are also the very ones who believe and cause the discrimination. They only SACRIFICE the poor 'white' male if only to enhance the very discrimination that gave them their own powers. That is, the ones who would 'agree' with you ARE the ones who caused any problem in imbalances between peoples. And in the same way, it makes you as guilty because they are feeding your own similar belief to discriminate as you enhance this mentality rather than defeat it when you argue that somehow the 'white man' has earned their disposition. For religious people, this is not a problem as they can simply defer to some 'God' in some afterlife they believe in who'll fix the wrongs. So should an 'innocent' male (or any other disapproved of class based on genetics) be treated badly in life, they impose their faith upon the disenfranchised by willing to sacrifice them. On the other end of the spectrum, for the non-God religious, they believe in a 'greater cause' for prosperity as if the ideal future itself would 'fix' the wrongs. However, it still sacrifices those who don't have the capacity to be a function of that 'future ideal'. The extremes of these are all forms of Nationalisms. It is THIS that is the problem. [by 'Nationalism', I'm referring to any belief in some genetic heritage with neglect to contingent reality, which includes those based on sex, for instance.] I'd like to see the supporters of Nationalistic beliefs truly sacrifice of themselves rather than impose it upon others.

This HAS happened here in Saskatchewan. At least some of our schools (maybe all now?) that had mascots or team names that suggested natives changed them. See one here for example: http://thesheaf.com/2013/12/02/whats-in-a-name-sports-teams-mascots-and-racism/

I'm still catching up. But when I saw this, I was thinking on a similar line but with regards to sex. With all this crap about appropriation of cultures, if it is 'valid', then is it unacceptable for a man to wear a skirt (dress, traditionally 'feminine' clothes, etc) as it is appropriating the culture of women? While is may be insulting for many to accept drag queens, should we also not ban these people from their freedom to dress up even for things like that "Rocky Horror Picture Show" for fun? I'm completely disgusted with our Canadian ignorant and severely racist but, ironically, appropriated, view that our Multiculturalism is about a friendly love for cultural diversity and equality. It is a deceptive function of the very racists who OWN the causes of all harms against people by favoring laws that enhance and discriminate legally peoples based on ancestral genetic factors. I have no doubt that the supporters of our system would also laugh at Donald Trump for his own more clearly apparent discrimination without intellectually realizing they are even worse in kind. While Trump may support the dominant culture of the U.S. by attempting to discriminate legally against one target group, our system of Multiculturalism does the same to ALL non-officially recognized people who don't belong to their selectively favored cults. The individual has zero rights here to choices if they don't belong to such a cult. I also accept the reflective blow-back of those who DO appear to be acting with intentional insult (like flag-burning, using Nazi flags, etc.) because while I don't favor them either, our Western society always favors the extremes with regards to those preferring cultish privilege and preservation. Such overt reactionary behaviors is ALWAYS due to at least one cult demanding preservation in political power. And so it is to all cults (cultures defined by religion, ethnicity, nationalism, race, specific sex, etc.) who OWN the cause of social biases.

I've been quoting from it above and this is precisely the very link of the OP's. I was commenting initially on the interview with Wendy Mesley to which I have not found but exposed more clearly what I was saying. The rhetoric is ALWAYS going to be two-faced when the head of the department in question is defending an unfavorable position. Her words to 'say' she and their staff is somehow compassionate for the democratic views of the site are NOT true when you even HAVE any need for moderation in that forum, is contradictory. It is purely logical: If it is 'true' that (1)"We believe it's important to provide the public with a democratic space where they can freely engage and debate the issues of the day.", as this chief editor says, AND that (2)"...we draw the line on hate speech and personal attacks.", the question is ambiguously lacking required quantification in (1). It means either "They" believe we can "freely engage and debate" in ANY "issues of the day" or just simply SOME "issues of the day". Their act to ban proves they mean SOME, but the wording is intended to convince the masses (including yourself) that the lack of quantification can be openly and freely interpreted! And, given they actually banned ALL free speech for the sake of the SOME "they" don't approve of, they don't approve of ALL "free speech". So, to reduce this logically to its real meaning, this is what the logic COMMANDS here by interpreting the words with their acts consistently: (1) "Some specific freedoms to speak is acceptable." AND (2) "Some specific freedoms to speak is Not acceptable." These are called "subcontrary" in logic, which means that both may be 'true' but that both cannot not be 'false'. So Either (1) is 'true' alone, OR (2) is 'true' alone, OR both (1) AND (2) are 'true'. That is, "Some freedom of speech" is true OR "Some freedom of speech" is not true. YET, they've positively PROVEN by suspending all speech, that "All freedom of speech" is not true NOW and that enforced with the power of moderation, that at least "Some freedom of speech" is not allowed regardless. They suspended it, in other words because they DON'T approve of 'some' free speech. So, it begs what "free speech" even means! "Moderated speech" is NOT not "free speech". But their suspension in ACT proves even on the question of someone yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater, that no toleration for any dissent that affects their own default favoritism* even in where in minority is allowed. [* their standards of etiquette and their sole 'right' to adjudicate this] Thus this LOGIC according to even the very words in that letter by the editor to us in defense of her decision assures us that she has no sincere argument for her act and alerts us that her only reason to delay is precisely DUE to the 'free speech' she doesn't approve of. I have no doubt that what one thinks is abusive is in direct opposition to others and why even the concept of "free speech" is ever mentioned. It has no value if it is partially 'true'. It's like George Orwell's quote, "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." [Animal Farm] I'm hoping you can follow this. But I'm still doubtful you'd actually indicate this if you did. That's you're "freedom". But imagine if I had the power to not simply assert your own speech as "hate", or some secretly hidden aggression as such, and then opt to BAN all speech until I can manage a staff who could eliminate your views effectively! I'd be clearly indicating that I am NOT for "freedom of speech".

It's logic. Direct proof is what you're demanding. It is like the Holocaust deniers who might argue that they couldn't believe it unless they personally saw it directly. I don't believe this would actually matter to you. It doesn't make sense why you would be AGAINST a direct comment that specified universal abuse when it seems to slip your mind that they've banned ALL commenting, period. Is it simply more relevant that the staff might abuse the public by banning them than that we should determine this by their words as sufficient evidence for the abusive act? The whole context of their option to choose to ban is in question regardless of what they would say to justify it. The very FACT that they censure public responses at all is already a crime against the people. Banning is even more extreme. And if they were overwhelmed with such apparent abuses, it alone is enough to suggest that the only reason they are troubled is because they accidentally let the views of the people they disagree with get past the censures.

Again, I indirectly proved it but you're demanding that I directly prove this. I am only guessing that the reason the Wendy Mesley interview could not be found may be for this very reason. But of course, I still can't DIRECTLY prove this now. Because it is in the interest of politics to be cautious of their wording, you have to show most acts 'indirect'. The indirect evidence in this case I've proven above. I can't help whether you can infer this or not. But you are also trying to distract from the actual points in depth by attending to the one word, "ALL" that I wrote. In kind, this is no doubt why Jennifer McGuire opted to use indirect innuendo to create her formal message. Their ACT to ban ALL comments is sufficiently proof of the discrimination at play here. It says that no matter how its audience of the public actually think, they don't count. By simply labeling them all (all of the 'set' of 'severe majority' to which they accuse of being 'abusive', ignorant, or hideous) is itself proof that the CBC doesn't represent the vast majority interests. And then to also state that those commenting are also somehow of a 'minority view' is also NOT accounted for the supposed evidence which makes them contradictory. The 'other comments' are the argument to which you won't attend to to determine whether I've proven anything or not. They are not disconnected 'comments.'

"Dismissal of 'all' dissent?" (Michael asked of me above) They banned ALL commenting, Michael. While you might technically think this is insignificant since it includes even preferred comments too, the point of commenting is to serve the people a democratic outlet regardless of favor or not. I also believe that the very ones commenting within a community have the burden to speak up within these forums to speak against those supposedly abusing. It's often just a subjective perception of the reader in their own dissenting views. With regards to news and its politics, this is expected. But to censure and now banning it, is more aggressively abusive an act than anything one could possibly say. On Multiculturalism, do you or do you not think this concept merely on principle alone is discriminatory? Your claims of it NOT being a problem is NOT even qualified itself but only suggests your own existence here has not been affected OR is affected in a positive way by contrast to others who are affected. The root of 'culture' is "cult". They have a common factor to what we recognize of abusers in the following way: Use isolation techniques to control how and what a person or group thinks. Language isolation is one. In Multiculturalism, they legitimize the right of groups to speak distinct languages to both control the in-group and to prevent the out-group from influencing their member(s). Enhance in-group policies to strengthen the cohesiveness of its members and create an us versus them mentality. Create cultural identity even where none may exist before to fit with conformed stereotype behaviors in common with one another. Since other cults also have this advantage, the idea of supporting Multiculturalism serves to keep the groups who believe in this mentality to work together to approve laws that permit their segregation, enhance the out-side groups to agree to keep away from theirs, and to prevent the progress of individuals separate from these from fostering a common ground. Multiculturalism initially is favorable but always leads to eventual problems. Each 'group' is actually Nationalistic (not patriotic to the whole) and only acts like a coalition of gangs who agree that gangs should persist and agree in common to territorial boundaries of influence. To me, all distinct cultures are criminal as they are most discriminatory against the perfect minority, the individual, and to the collection of such individuals as a whole. Individuals are forced to join a cult as identified by their genetic ancestors and ONLY to those specific ones even permitted by the coalition of present groups in power. We also lack the right to choose our groups (regardless of our Constitution's claim that we have a right to at least 'think' it, as if this matters or could easily be prevented otherwise).

I have to trademark "multiculturalism" to indicate the legal intentions of this word as it hides that it actually means is what it says. Summary: (1) CBC bans commenting by declaring too much abuse by comments emotionally driven that appear anti-Indigenous (2) I say the comments deserve to be heard because they are likely only reflecting a sincere intellectual feedback based on our Multicultural policies entrenched in and throughout our Constitution. (3) Because our Constitution defines privileged people simply because those cultures had been there at the beginning of our formation, and the very people in power to create these laws are themselves of those classes and are responsible for all cultural distinctions which lead to both their privileges and the problems, they -> (a) intend to preserve their own fortunes while recognizing their faults, -> (b') but choose to disperse their 'debt' from their guilt upon the rest of society rather than absorbing it personally and potentially tainting their love of segregated and sacred cultures, -> (c') opt to promote laws that maintain cultural segregation but in the guise of lawmaking privilege to FAVOR diversity -> (d) by requiring to also permit their past enemies (like the Indigenous) to cooperatively conspire in kind to a degree they won't rebel against them but towards others instead (4) Solution suggestion: Stop Multiculturalism by changing our Constitution to eliminate the rights of any privileges based on race, ethnicity, and advance limitations to inheritance in general -> (corollary) CBC would then not be able to reflect a Multicultural bias by limiting freedoms of speech to preserve it

Michael, read the above in detail. I showed the particular comments by the chief that the person on the news was referencing. It's not my fault that I cannot find the CBC link. I saw this on television and as much as I tried to seek the interview, I could not find it. The sites don't even list all coverage. I used the date "December 1", specified "Wendy Mesley", "The National", and others and still there is nothing! But I DID show above the exact quote by the chief editor there which indicated this: "Some of the violations are obvious, some not so obvious; some comments are clearly hateful and vitriolic, some are simply ignorant. And some appear to be hate disguised as ignorance (i.e., racist sentiments expressed in benign language)." Their act to ban based on merely "some" minority views doesn't jive with their actions to ban ALL unless they are biased to those particular 'minority' views even being remotely seen. They should, including things like "harassment". This is done in regular law-making with clarity by defining the terms up front. Choosing NOT to do this specifically only enables them to judge terms on their own biases of interpretation. We don't have PROOF neither that they are privileged NOT to provide to us to justify what they are claiming as 'abuse' IS abuse. And I DID provide this above. But you too have the option to ignore it as "evidence" by simply claiming I don't have it. EVIDENCE: They assert a special consideration at the CBC for "aboriginals" by providing a special unit for them as if they are intrinsically more relevant than other groups distinctly. This comment from the chief's letter to us clearly indicates they serve this bias. While it may be 'legal', I argued above why our country's mentality is intrinsically racist from above...the ones forming our constitution and why they cannot expect such a system to treat those in defiance of it to comment on it regardless of any degree of kindness nor abuse. By default, anyone against our Constitutional views ARE considered 'abusive' no matter what they say. So it places added question as to the sincerity of the CBC respecting the Constitution. Why is it a 'concerted effort' needed for the indigenous community and how is it linked to the function of journalistic integrity above and beyond those complaining, no matter how 'abusive' they may even seem? EVIDENCE:From the above quote: "The success of our Aboriginal unit and our investigative journalism around missing and murdered indigenous women are just two examples of that commitment." I expanded on this above to show that the very attention to dignify that some unspoken motivator(s) including their 'causes' are not qualified as being due to discrimination against the logical classes "indigenous", "women", nor that there has even been determined "crimes" committed for the missing. These clearly indicate that we are being TOLD that these are true even without their own evidence one way or the other. It also suggests (by the CBC, not me) an inverse and hidden agenda in the population who conspire against these groups AND that it is based certainly on their associated race rather than to the more logical classes, "poor people" and "segregation of people"[like reserves, for instance]. In other words, it creates a smokescreen to solve the real problem, "missing people" and/or "murdered people", by dressing it up as a racial discrimination against the general population unqualified [without directly pointing fingers yet implying 'white' and 'men' in context to most other explanation of causes.] If and only if there IS some root of causation owned by the 'white men', it is specifically the ones who created the segregation (reserving of indigenous people) and the abuses that lead to their impoverishment. "Impoverishment" alone is a discriminated class. But it doesn't matter who the wealthier classes who define them are as the cause because it ALWAYS occurs in all people generically throughout time and place. If the vast majority of our wealth resided in the Native population and a minority, say Europeans, were reserved in camps, the exact reversed situation would be true. That is, there is nothing intrinsic about 'white men' to be abusive AND that 'indigenous women' are the victims. This contingent reality is not subject to racial or ethnic considerations. It is only about economic differences of power AND to the very intrinsic beliefs of those who are deluded into thinking roots matter who create the assumption that it is about race. So those complaining against this are NOT the ones who are necessarily being racist, discriminatory, nor hateful. It is the very ones maintaining the accusations (like the CBC here) who are framing the context AS racist when they report that certain issues are relevantly racial issues and even go as far as setting up subcommittees in their office granting such groups authority. This is NO different than Hitler's Germany setting up offices in their government to foster the German aboriginals or indigenous population in media as requiring special privilege. The European's (and usually the 'men' of these more specifically) are targeted like the Jews were in Germany. And just as the supposed unified 'Jew' was originally indirectly implicated as the cause, many of the disenfranchised 'white', 'male' and 'European' are targeted these days here in the same way. Should it be any surprise that you find a disproportionate amount of complaints by this class? This again, contrasting it historically to WWII Germany, the supposed 'Jew' who complained would have been interpreted as being the representative class who were being vile, abusive, and racist themselves. And to those 'Jews' for whom the discrimination against them was derived [the ones who DO believe in segregation and discrimination], even while in minority of their own class, allowed the Germans to persist against those who did complain AND whom were not even the benefactors of the supposed wealth nor "Nationality" lovers for which Hitler excused such legalized discrimination in law. We are having continued events of just such backlash by many here and around the world. The Muslim ISIS terrorists react against the discrimination WE in the West have caused indirectly to the point they've responded. Their minority status even within their own communities against them have forced them to isolate just as expected. And if we continue down this road we are doing here, while those supposedly complaining are considered too 'abusive', while even momentarily non-volatile now to decide to ignore them, this will force them to BECOME the class of people who are forced to collectively make a stand (become the very 'abusive' class they are accused of). And yet, this feeds into the very mentality of the segregationist policy of Multiculturalism that causes it. We NEED to stop Multiculturalism in its tracks. I assure you that if we don't, no amount of censorship will improve our conditions for any group.

I'm not apologetic for the length, I am apologizing for how some opt to ignore based on my depth in respect. If the majority are simply NOT concerned about the depth of this in sincerity, why should they bother being here? That was my point about the comment tl;dr (too long; didn't read). If people want simple readings, go to Twitter. Its designed for those favoring cell phone screens and simple-minded responses.

I don't have a means to provide that. It was on yesterday's news on CBC with Wendy Mesley when it first occurred. It is still irrelevant. The link in the OP raised says: The first paragraph asserts a 'sincerity' and then backs out of it (just as their own claim of "hate disguised as ignorance" by others?) The last bolded comment above is what I was referring to but she was not the one Wendy was interviewing. The sentiment of this and its justification is based on their own personal and biased views of which is considered hate speech. See: These terms lack any means to define what is considered "hate speech". They can opt to ban those who publish or suspend them. They can't excuse their problem as about insufficient staff for moderation as none of our posts automatically allowed publication until moderation. But it is moderation itself that is questionable anyways. They already have the capacity to track those in violation regardless and they ALSO have a right in the same guidelines to require REAL (non-anomymous) names. So it is secure. The arguments to support the ban is already problematic as they even HAVE an "Aboriginal Unit" of CBC which makes their preference non-democratic and by default intentionally racist or discriminatory against all others. [i don't see a "Greek Unit" or a "Spanish Unit", etc.] AND the issue they add specifically on "missing and murdered Aboriginal women" also add more force to prove their own IGNORANCE AND DISCRIMINATION. On the latter issue, the nature of their race nor their sex is relevant accept in the delusion of the minds presuming that the unknown cause of some vacant criminal or criminals are actually targeting these people on such a basis. Without knowing this, all we CAN logically say is that there are 'missing' people and 'murdered' people. To state these in terms of some mental cause is itself ignorant, racist, and inappropriate behavior. What about 'missing men' or 'non-aboriginal missing persons' or etc. These claims and their point of imbalanced representation are thus PROOF that the CBC is in violation of its mandate to even serve the people as a medium. It's claiming to serve specific people only. And it makes their ban even more hateful in reflection and non-productive as it will only foster more 'hatred' by all sides. EDIT REFERENCE: the reference to the same guideline speaking on their capacity to keep accountability to the poster reads: "CBC: Your username links to your profile and will appear alongside any of 'Your Content'. We reserve the right to identify your real name and city of residence from your profile when using Your Content (ie. John Doe from Vancouver says...). Adopting the identity of another person with the intention to mislead or cause harm is a serious violation which may lead to expulsion of the user."

That's what Twitter is for.

I also apologize for the many grammatical errors I made above. I'm being distracted by that "Mass Shooting in California" on the news while I wrote it. Looking back some of it is clearly in need of edit. I'll leave it as is for now though. Just ask what you might not follow and I'll try to repair any misunderstandings.

NOTE: try to make an effort to read as this applies to us all. I think what I explain here is the caused of all of the problems relating to discrimination. Although this doesn't excuse abuse by the posters of the CBC [i never actually saw them] this argues for the underlying cause and I try to also add what we can do. In light of my preference for the American's First Amendment, I believe that cultural problems are naturally still more powerfully perceived as the cause when it is the difference of economies ONLY. As such, even the First Amendment doesn't solve problems in practice only because this constitutional law is NOT actually enforced and is hard to challenge by other factors. It is still nevertheless the ideal to which we at LEAST require to begin with and only happens to be the best kind of law that has ever had a chance to improve these problems thus far. We just need to figure out how to add a means to enforce this by default. I'm sorry for the length of this. I preserve my right to also change my mind on this in respect to practice. But I believe this is theoretically a correct interpretation of the problem and my suggested solution. It was on CBC news with an interview with some guy representing a part of the editorial staff or representative of it. The interview was given by Wendy and I was paraphrasing what I'd just heard. The point is, they classed all forms of dissent as unacceptable. While they asserted (1) outright hate, the other reasons were based on what they could not technically assign as 'hate' but that they still interpreted as either 'ignorant' or 'hidden hate due to ignorance'. I've commented before on the logic of "Multiculturalism". It is just a means to justify in its own propaganda that our politicians should have a right to create laws that separately privilege groups in law based on culture, ethnicity, and religion with priority over all other considerations. The creation of the U.S. was based on the fact that England was treating North America and the people of these colonies as subjects to serve the England profitably at the expense of the rights of the settlers. It did this by defaulting to an assumption imposed on all that England and its heritage was matter-of-factly and intrinsically special above all other people (commoners). It got to the degree that it imposed that the people of the colonies could not establish their own posited right to create industry and manufacture but should send the raw resources to England; it treated the people of the colonies as relative 'slaves' who had to also be taxed without those taxes being returned in any way to serve the people. It was an English dictatorship snobbishly assuming that inherent genetic and cultural factors supersede the logic that respect people's economies. It is differences of economy that determines whether one succeeds or not. But traditionalists believe in inherent God-entitled entities based upon their genes or their ancestral roots. Or, at least, they depend on their subjects to believe this without question. This is what created the initial separation of the U.S. from England. Then, as this same traditional belief still most predominated by many, as it did to the Confederates who believed that the Black race were simply subject to their own heritage that made them 'naturally' the slaves they were, it forced the U.S. upon defeat of this to create the First Amendment to limit the power of government to create laws based on culture, ethnicity, or race. It was a rational progressive idea to which distinguishes the 'Old World' mentality to the new one. The rationality is about Actual causes to social problems between people -- differences of economy, not genetic or contingent fortunes that people inherit. Our ideal of "multiculturalism" is a purposeful campaign to keep the traditional belief in hierarchical privileges based on inherent factors to excuse a continued right to create laws that discriminate between people. Here in Canada, we 'inherited' this British belief. As such, our Constitution locks in special (not ALL) groups of people based on the classification of genetic or contingent origins (heritage). Multiculturalism is a means to maintain what the U.S. fought against by rhetorically hiding its nature of discrimination AGAINST excluded and undesired groups by appealing to fostering diversity as a virtue that posits favor FOR the desired groups instead. It is still the same logical meaning of inappropriate discrimination but is hidden by appealing to ones prejudices for their own groups over the individual AND the whole. Example: Imagine you have a household which represents a simplified model. To be 'fair', let us assume that the parents of such a household represent the arbiters of authority by their heritage. Since they are the parents, we seem to naturally accept this in a family. Now the children represent the rest of the population that inherit the rights that the parents have commanded by their virtue of natural authority. So, in this light, the parent is assumed to be absolutely respected authoritatively and so can choose to treat their children either all the same or differently as they see fit. The parent can be 'fair' by default by treating each child as equal and independent. However, they can also treat some children differently by their same authority as they are the dictators of heritage. Our country by default treats the parents' authority as the priority right to command who gets treated one way or the other. In this way, if they believed that they want to classify how they treat their children based on hair color or sex, they can arbitrarily choose to define this. What our system (Old-World thinking) does is to treat the parent's authority as absolute for all times based on their traditional classification to discriminate upon their children on classifications they saw fit, regardless of their logic. For instance, if the parent commanded that red-headed children should never eat pork, this rule, even though it may not actually have any real justification or some potential one in error, it becomes a law for all red-headed children for all time to have this same treatment. This would be then defined as a 'red-head' tradition inherited by their genetic/cultural rule from their ancestor. [note that the parent's rule here for red-heads IS the 'heritage', not the fact that the parents are the same for all. This is like the fact that all people ARE related as people. But it treats some arbitrary parent(s) at some point to be authoritative to define all that follows.] Now all, some, or none of the heritage rules that the parents could assign to the children do not have to have any justification in logic to be 'fair' for that class. So, these parents may, for instance, define yellow-headed children as having an inherent right to freely choose what they get to eat or not. This is an advantage for yellow-heads. But they could also be granted a disadvantaged right. For instance, if the parents loathed the way their yellow-headed children looked, they might make the rule, "no yellow-headed child should be allowed to wear expensive clothes as it doesn't improve their circumstances and is a waste of an expense." "Multiculturalism" is like the way these parents are privileged to define what is rightfully inherent or not. Now, generations later, while people may have recognized that the 'disadvantaged' inheritances are what caused the most havoc in the past [like the slavery of African Americans in the Confederate South.] But the ones who have had such fortune of 'advantages' over 'disadvantages', still approve of their fortune and yet know that if the rest of society would overthrow this right of even their inherited privilege or penalize them for it which would threaten their own fortunes. The classification to privilege one on their heritage is obviously illogical. Yet, in practice, the only way that the ones who have gained from this ideal are able to preserve their own fortunes would be to find a means to keep the best parts of this system by appealing to others to 'see' the positive 'advantages' while simultaneously hiding or diminishing the negative ones. By selecting specific children with extraordinary contrast who receive more 'disadvantages' over 'advantages', they can at least preserve this irrational system of heritage-based privileges of their own by favoring specific or targeted child-types who most threaten their own demise should they continue. If, for instance, the green-headed children were most disadvantaged based on heritage rules and they represent the largest potential threat, by tweaking which 'inherent' rights that have remote advantages with more attention while disguising the disadvantages, they can make the green-headed children at least think they would benefit by maintaining this "multicultural" illusion. Here in Canada, the established cultures of Quebec and Ontario are the children who were most advantaged and are threatened should the rest of society recognize the unfair logic of their privilege based upon heritage. So they have cleverly fostered the "Multiculturalism" idea by instead of abandoning their unfair advantage or be responsible to pay back personally for the costs to repair what gave them privilege, they target specific heritage-classified people in order to grant them certain protection, even while they still don't believe it right to treat all of their siblings the same. One disadvantaged group here is the Aboriginal population. The success of the Catholic (Anglican/French-Roman) Ontario and Quebec establishment was based on what they received in the past from what took away from the Aboriginals. Thus, the Aboriginal population was 'targeted' as another special class in order to create laws that at least prevent this group from making the favored establishment responsible. And it is this logic to which many individuals are complaining about when they are of the actual logical classes that get treated based on their heritage as commanded by our Constitution. The reason the mostly 'white' and 'male' population are of the inherent class of complainers on issues regarding Aboriginals is due to the fact that these particular 'white' and 'male' population are exclusively discriminated against as they are both falsely presumed to be the benefactors of heritage when their logical conditions do not apply. This is because they don't actually belong to the particular established privileged groups defined by those in power. It is because economic differences, NOT heritage, is the actual cause of all problems by nature. Yet, the ones who desire discriminating who ARE privileged and like to keep people thinking that the causes are about some natural heritage when it is actually the arbitrary heritage they've defined are intended to hide their own belief in discrimination. It's self-feeding. Multiculturalism itself is a policy that only fosters more, not less, discrimination and why you have people in real disadvantages complaining. This does NOT mean that the ones posting in dissent of Aboriginal rights laws are against Aboriginals, intrinsically. It means that Multiculturalism is a policy that turns people of the same logical disadvantaged (like all 'impoverished' people) against one another. It also cleverly makes it appear by contrast that these complainers are the actual cause of the discrimination when it is actually being mediated this way to create this illusion. Thus it makes the actual creators of discrimination AND in control to be justified in making more drastic and discriminatory policies, like the banning of free speech in the context of the CBCs complaints. The solution is to redress our Constitution and insist on a separation between culture/religion/ethnicity from laws. If the American's First Amendment was not able to fix this, at least, the people have a means to be able to address this in time. It also lacked the clarity that could have been more strict to assure this separation remains and why even the States still also have problems. But the "multicultural" anti-intellectual thinking permeates all humans, especially when we are economically favored OR deprived in contrasts. Our human error is to induce the wrong causes based upon emotions. So we 'see' genetic-classes as causes easier than the economic ones. We still allow inheritance based on ones economic factors which only contribute to this. To solve this factor too, we CAN do this by limiting the right to inherit wealth by individuals. How is it somehow inherently a right to become billionaires, for instance? While greed is our common genetic inheritance, we can fix this through both minimal rights to 'own' and maximum rights to 'own'.

I agree with this. I think we need to give charity to people's words or intents. When we do, if they or ourselves are in error, we can actually affect one another more productively to change. If there is an imbalance of those who are against the Aboriginal concerns, this can be due merely on the basis of differences of economy and language. Poverty and average education levels that permit lots of writing, including language barriers, may be all the prevents the voices of Aboriginals to even come to sites or even forums in general. So does this mean we have to 'wait' until the population in question be in the same capacity first before openly speaking about these things? There are many other factors too that get too complex to discuss. In the population of inmates in a prison, there will always be some group that is more represented. Does this mean we should abandon prisons to function unless we have equal representation of all groups? I proposed this idea before in the case of the vast majority of men as opposed to women being in prison. In any given population, there are just as many 'guilty-minded' men as women. Should we arbitrarily arrest enough women (or purposely go after a quota) to assure an equal amount of women are incarcerated as men? Should the incarcerated majority of men require by law that they can never speak of women because women are not their to represent themselves in equal balance of complaint?

Yes, I'm just getting sick of the many problems that relate to the fact that we are inversely opposite to your First Amendment. It is this simple law you have to which our whole Constitution is based on. It is what gives our CBC the power it has to censure. They also do this as I was detailing by going through a privately owned group who is unaccountable AND who are protected of their secrecy. They are thus not only no different than the ones they are complaining about but are actually worse for it. This is intentionally deceptive Argus. While they are 'left' in many ways, it is the small 'c' conservatism that exists in this 'left' that is the problem. What is most prevalent in 'conservative' minds (= to save) is that they all believe is some favored Nationalism or group of Nationalisms. For our right-wing parties, they maintain a more Protestant-rooted conservative base AND that favor the dominant Nationality uniquely. Our Liberal party favors the conservative Catholic-related religious groups and to those who are traditionally the ancestral 'owners' with priority and other group Nationalisms secondarily. The NDP favors conserving the collective non-dominant minority group interests with strongest priority in direct opposition or extreme to the Conservatives [the party]. CBC is more 'liberal' only as to the GROUP minority (actually pluralities) who lack the independent means to have the power by majority as one group. This means they favor a more 'liberal' social ideal but are still commanded by the plurality groups that are still not representative of the individual, especially if you don't belong to the accepted coalition groups. While the CBC is most 'left', the rest of the media is most 'right'because they are completely privately owned and base their success on the power of capital in a concentrated Nationality. CBC SHOULD be more 'liberal' by default. It is the 'conservatives' in all groups though that create the problem because they aim to favor some cultural group over one or more others when permitted. We can't escape this mentality unless we limit that our government not be allowed to have laws made of or for any group based on culture, religion, or ethnicity.

Most Canadians do not have a clear understanding of the distinction of our system as opposed to the Americans. While racial and discriminatory things occur in the States with more notice, they also evolve to improve their condition in stages of advancement. Our system is backwards in that we are strengthening the character of nationalism. We are a nation of nations but not of individuals. Just yesterday on the news, I saw a short debate "cultural appropriation" in which they appear to think that its a crime to borrow from other cultures. An example they gave that some had issue with was Yoga as an appropriation of East Indian culture!! This is an example of the extreme to which our system is and will continue to foster. So I'm not surprised at the backlash of responses even without seeing them.

I just saw this on the news too. I already have problem with the fact that all our government websites are actually privately owned. This enables them to moderate it with respect to an unidentified group (anonymous) themselves to which I find troubling. As to this issue, I haven't seen the commenting, but think that they CAN set it up to be accountable by making the site government owned, require signing up non-anonymously with some identifying means (like a phone number) and have them non-moderated. I find the moderation to any degree on government sites a form of prevention of free speech. The editor commented that he (and the board) decided to suspend this for a couple of months until they can find a more forceful moderation. Regardless, to any degree, this is limiting freedom of speech. It is already bad enough that the other media is as much too moderated and consolidated in the hands of select establishment concerns. (Ontario and Quebec, for the most part). The editor also commented that for ALL comments of dissent, they were either (1) outright hate, (2) 'ignorant' but still hateful, and (3) 'ignorant', hideously dressed up as friendly but still hateful. I question this even though I recognize that this does occur. I've already mentioned some of my own dissent with our Multiculturalist policy in preferred favor for the American Integration because our's is based on creating laws that interpret causes of real problems as solely due to racial or ethnic differences when the problems are almost always about differences of economy. Favoring culture/ethnicity as the means to address the real problems only create discrimination against those without these even in the same real conditions. This is a sad announcement. And I'm ashamed of the CBC for it.

This is interesting....but 75 pages long. I'll need to have time to read before responding in depth but seem to understand some of the concerns as I think it relates to our circumstances here in Canada too. I like so far that Moynihan appears to be suggesting an indirect approach to solve the problems associated with poverty of an ethnic class by focusing on its logical class (poverty) rather than to deal directly with one's cultural background, something I too find problematic here with Multiculturalism . As to the suggestion dealing with focusing on getting men to have sustenance is more about the fact that in all of our world we still treat "women" as a social class combined with the innocence of the class, "children". This universal cultural bias is what contributes to the problem. For instance, if we consider the population of those incarcerated in jails, the more common denominator involves single parenthood of which women are the ones who often take this role. Should this not suggest that even women (the single mothers) are as much a contributor to the very stereotypes against both men and women AND that since they are the ones raising the men who end up incarcerated, are they NOT likely a direct contributors to the problems? I'll have to read this whole article before fairly commenting on Moynihan. But thanks, Michael, for introducing this one. I think it may help in making sense of some of the other threads discussing similar concerns of many issues of discrimination/prejudice.

By the titles you favor though, I get the impression which reminds me of the multitude of pop-psychology, new age, or motivational garb promoting things in steps. The (X-number) steps to improve your life, the (X) keys to success, How you can lose 100 pounds in 30 days, etc... This 'sells' or appeals to those who MAY lack a skill in actual critical thinking or who wants an easy solution to some problem. But I find this hints at those who like lists and wants to follow or be followed. Before even attempting any of this, let me ask you what you even think is "good" or "evil"? Are these marked in the universe as absolutes somewhere? ...by something (like a god)? ...by nature? You can't simply assume we all agree to these terms and why you need to define what you mean up front. Note that the John verse is a Christianized reinterpretation of origins from Judaism. And Judaism also received their sources from Egypt and other stories. Writing on paper or inscribing in stone were like wonders of the ancient times as it was to many in even many tribal cultures up to the last few centuries. It was like interpreting advanced scientific math for many today. How, did they ask, does this capacity to place marks on paper or stone seem to effectively transfer ideas with such clarity by those scribes or readers who could replicate another person's ideas? And to even those of the 1500 B.C. Egyptians, the Pyramids and writings of the past were from an equally distant ancient time as they are to us now! That is, the pyramids and surviving stone scripts or writings were ancient to those like King Tut or Akenaten. These were the days that inspired the old testament and are also the era to which paper (or papyrus) writing began in. Thus, the very records of the ancients came down to them in symbols or orally passed down stories. While words are certainly powerful, they misinterpreted much of what was likely intended as a means to communicate secular (non-religious) ideas down through the use of stories that 'cartooned' the original meanings in entertaining ways to help them remember. Thus, I don't consider numbers and words as trivial in the least. What I DO think is the problem is to interpret the evolution of words (including those regarding number) as somehow transcending some clear truth of history based on our contemporary interpretation of them today. The ancients were just as likely as 'secular' minded then as many are today when these sources were first recorded. But what has survived would have been too simplified because the average person back then did not read nor write. So, much of the words or symbols were over-simplified and also severely generalized to appeal to the masses with an intentional means to both be interpreted broadly and to entertain. To your (1) above, Human civilization is neither 'good' nor 'evil' other than your perception that these qualities exist in nature itself. But if you've studied history, you'd also see that we go through stages as well as cycles where what is considered relatively 'good' in one era becomes 'evil' in another. We also lose the history of the defeated as many new generations believed in destroying the old records in disgust of their own then present interpretation of history. Thus, for example, the Old Testament treats things like Palestine as the "promised land". Yet, if you look and read contextually and consider the times, the actual "promised land" to those of the writers of what came down to us as "Genesis" likely favored Egypt (the land of 'ham' -> Abraham means "father to 'Ham" when he arrived as opposed to Abram as "father before it" [likely from the north or (A)syrria]). The point of this example is to show that what we assume was one history cannot be so certain. I also noticed that the focus of Genesis, for example, was to demonstrate the error of these people who took presence in Egypt with apparent 'good' intent only to have caused 'bad' things upon the people there. "Good" and "evil" are thus flipped on its end. The original Assyrians (Hebrew/Jews) who generally 'conquered' Egypt that was heightened as the reign of Akenaten, was intended to be 'good' but imposed a closed and fixed interpretation of truth to which caused the uproar against that leadership and the eventual expulsion from there. Palestine was only the last refuge and remnants of that age as a reconsidered prize of a "promised land" because of their recognized error (or defeat) in trying to conquer the Egyptians. This relates to your belief in advancing civilization through some apparent 'good' means often defeats itself in practice. We are still not any more 'good' as a society than the Assyrians who thought that their 'god' (God of Abram/Abraham) was the arbiter of "goodness". And so the cycle continues. [ironically under the latest banner of the (As)Syrians today through ISIS] Again, this is merely your interpretation and I personally believe that it has missed the mark of the original lessons of even the bible in its likely original intent. Many in that day were somewhat Multicultural in that as travelers in the Middle East, they had to respect other's 'gods' or ancestral leaders, etc. When Joseph (or others?) heard a 'voice' from the heavens (or likely authority through people) commanding him, he asked, "who (or which) god are you" to which he received the response, "I am who I am" in a sarcastic way to say it is not important. The term "YWYH" was a mere way of saying this or to emphasize that it lacked any 'supreme' significance over any other. This term was likely more localized as "I, source" or "I am the egg" [Ye Ovah/ovum or Je ovah in reference to life we think of coming from that oval-shaped thing like the sun as to an egg of many animals.] The story was likely symbolic and merely tried to communicate to its listeners that this source was not owned by any culture. Yet the mistake was that this was improperly interpreted to mean by these biblical characters that they were destined to dictate that only one source was 'true'. Historically, though lost in time, this was probably Akenaten (= a kin or the same as to the shape of the source or aten, meaning the sun). When the Assyrians took on Egypt, Genesis explained that the family fortuned through Isaac had loaned to Egypt in bad times what was previously gifted to Isaac in a previous time from the Egyptians who welcomed them. This backfired as the loans were backed by promises to relieve the average Egyptians in desperation of their ownership. They rebelled and expelled this government represented by its "Moses" (= leader = Akenaten) and why in Tut's reign this whole society threw them out. But it was relatively calm and respectful initially. Akenaten's people had relocated their capital (literally) to the desert for what was one generation (40 years). Agree or disagree, the 'spiritual' conflict was about the conflict of interpreting what is 'good' or 'evil' in some fixed and certain way. THIS was the error to which was likely intended to be passed down when written to what eventually became the remnants of those earlier 'wanderers' that coexisted among the settled in the whole of the middle east. This is fine on its surface. At least what I'm saying here may contribute in kind. Here is where you make another error that was likely understood with more secular roots to ancient peoples. When Moses' character, represented by the expulsion of the Assyrian/northern migrants from Egypt through Akenaten (or caricature of his likeness), had been forced from Egypt altogether, they likely took with them remnants of the almost destroyed remains of Akenaten's reign (an obelisk? or set of stone dictates or commandments of his), they carried this in an amphibious boat/sled or "Ark" to which represented the moses' commandments. To maintain the loyalty of these people and their return to 'wandering' (= non-land ownership), they resisted the symbolism which represented the very 'ownership' markers of such land -- the idols. Idols back then were merely mapped markers of tribal associations that had a matching idol buried in plots of fixed properties. This was a means to assure which tribe or individual 'owned' which plot of land. It acted as a proof or signature to the claim. Civilization (settling) was still relatively new to which both coexisted with the transient lifestyle but also caused problems because of it. A tribe would often lead the original transient life of hunting and gathering during most of the year but only return to the lands they held seasonally as society was being formed. As such, there was a 'conservative' feel to the tribal wanderers that became more and more distinct from those people who settled into towns and villages with more permanence. Much of the 'wanderers' were rejects of the very people who settled. Like the clash of civilized Europeans to the North American tribal lifestyles, these were irreconcilable unless one or the other lifestyle was preferred over the other. The 'wanderers' became the "Jew" (which likely derived from the same idea. Like a wadi, where the rains are plentiful, these dry creeks fill up with water an draw in crowds until they dry up again just as one who wander's like the old tribal lifestyles.) The abandonment of the idols were more likely a demarcation of the ancient wanderer against the strict formality of claiming and settling land, not simply about any 'gods' they represent. They represented 'gods' only in the interpretation of these as symbolic reminders of their rooted tribes. And so by abandoning them was a form of agreement to despise what they represented as legitimate claims to land ownership. It has only come down to us as improperly suggesting an abandonment of 'gods' as we understand them. Also, in a symbolic way too, it delegitimizes the formalized function of settled civilization that these idols represented. They were of the very "fixed" idea of what is 'true' or legitimate in kind to what one might think of is one 'true' God. While it is now perverted to make the ancient wanderers (Jews) appear as devout to some particular god, it is just as likely that they fostered the very abandonment to which their last generation had thought to equally imposed upon the Egyptian masses prior by trying to make them conform to one specific 'god'. It's funny how the lessons get flipped through time. But this only proves once again how we as society never seem to settle on what is supposedly 'good' or 'true'. The 'violence' is often just as hard not to realize comes in the form of the apparent passivity of those who think they are 'good'. This again was the lesson of Genesis. They 'thought' they were being helpful in trying to 'save' the Egyptians in the turmoil of economic disaster by loaning them what they needed. But it turned out to require those they were 'helping' to relieve themselves of the property to which they felt they had a historical link to. Thus, the Egyptians felt they were not being 'helped' but rather exploited, similar to what again occurred in Germany in more recent times. The 'aboriginal' settled populations in times of desperation are forced to make severe sacrifices to those they believed were foreign new-comers. While you might think this is simply the fault of nature or to the aboriginal population, the same can be said of the wanders of Egypt who then later reclaimed Palestine in their own belief of aboriginality (ironically, the present state of Israel does this in distinctly the same way). We all continue this cycle of claiming stake to something whether it be 'truth' or 'real estate' until the nature or our environment of politics steals these from the last generations of people through concentrated authoritative hands. Then as the masses of impoverished grow, they too rebel and get interpreted as terrorists who then desperately fight in extreme ways. These non-owning peoples are no different than the ancient wanderers who get denied their means of survival. They either have to fight, lay down and die, or to go elsewhere to find new settlement...often in places that they again treat them as foreigners attempting to conquer them. Does this at least inspire you in any way? Don't take my interpretation as literal though. I might repeat, "I am only who I am" too. I mean that I could be mistaken and not authoritative on this. I am no god. But I'm sure if this writing survives in another thousand years, someone who might come across this will likely misinterpret this as coming from one too.

If you ask an American who was 'from' an ancestor of Ethiopia or their Nationality, they'd respond, "America" or "American". If you ask an American who was 'from' an ancestor of Scotland or their Nationality, they'd respond, "America" or "American". If you ask an American who was 'from' an ancestor of the Andromeda Galaxy, they'd respond, "America" or American". Etc.. Even the aboriginal-decedents in the States would say this too. If they DO qualify more specifically, it is "American-X" where the X stands for that root. If you ask a Canadian who was 'from' an ancestor of Scotland or their Nationality, they'd respond, "Scotland" or "Scottish". ... But if adding the qualification of our country at present to which you'd think our nationality should respect, they would revers the way the Americans would additionally qualify. I am a Native Canadian, I am a Scottish Canadian, I am an X-Canadian (sounds like Ex-Canadian, doesn't it?)

You seem fixated on numbers on everything you post. Is there a reason for your compulsion? Oh, wait... I just noticed your signature regarding "private tutoring of math". But how do you propose religious ideology has anything to do with math? I certainly would not have my kid being sent to you for math in your apparent neglect to differentiate these ideas. Perhaps you should define yourself as a Religious tutor that uses 'math' in your particular philosophy. But don't paint yourself as a mathematics tutor or you are purposely intending deception. Math is NOT emotive. You can't use your human emotions to define a study that relates numbers regardless of human feelings (like 'good' or 'evil') to your religious/spiritual ideology. Do you believe in 'good' or 'evil' numbers too? This WAS a common belief among many ancients only due to confusion of understanding reality prior to further investigation. In ancient times, words had appeared to be magical because they seemed to differentiate how we are as opposed to other animals. So many thought that "In the beginning was the Word". But it was likely originally a means by our ancient ancestors that since authority was commanded by words, whatever had 'caused' reality would be as to a command in what we now call "laws". There 'gods' were neutral and only meant "the unknown factor or source". The idea of the latter emotive assignment of "good" to this entity, was a human idea. The very root of the term, "God" was their literal transference to assign this source as "good". That is, the term, "God" actually meant "good", not the other way around. This is why the Old Testament's Genesis kept repeating that for all this "source" [YWYH -> Je-Ovah -> literally, "the ovum or egg" for a word meaning any "source"] merely assigned a default value that appealed to what we value life as being a 'good' thing rather than nothing at all. Numbers were also used then in sync with their phonetic alphabets. Thus "A" might be used to also mean '1', "B" might be used to represent '2', etc. Only later had many who were awed at the symbols upon things like stone (ancient even by their standards), made some interpret that the very permanence of such ruins must have been of the original creators of their present reality at the time. Some also confused that since the symbols relating to their phonetic alphabet were also used as counts (numbers), they presumed that their "sources" must have had a magical meaning to associate a phonetic symbol to a number. Why would a symbol like "A" also be associated with meaning a '1' when those symbols appeared arbitrary UNLESS they had some 'meaning'? Thus Numerology evolved as a religious belief that there was some correlation between numbers and human history or their use in words. You appear to be a numerologist in the same light. So my question to you is how do you relate anything you speak of here about human matters to numbers? I'm not asking you whether numbers matter. I am asking you how you seem to think that numbers have some magical relationship to things like politics or other human social affairs other than as mere non-emotional/non-spiritual concepts. You are appearing to impose significance of our accidental history of this world's assignments of symbols of numbers to the actual meanings of them regardless of our history.

I don't like the quote features here. "What are you talking about? According to a report from the parliamentary budget officer income inequality in Canada stopped rising in 2006, and has been narrowing since then - unlike in the United States where it continues to widen." Income 'inequality' can occur when the average becomes poorer too! But I'm skeptical of this declaration and would have to see the actual stats and how they were created to determine this and to what that could mean. Our society is in an economic downfall right now and the only 'winners' of the Conservatives is to the real estate/mortgage/construction industries taking advantage of the propped up population via temporary employment laws. "I have no idea what this is even meant to say" The Americans may favor our oil but it would make their already cheap oil cheaper! It would thus possibly create more secondary industries there but the net result would require laborers working in these new industries to be paid that much more cheaper and thus reduce the average person's capacity to survive at present as they are still recovering. "No, not so much. They're more concerned with the money donated by environmental groups." Are you proposing that the Democratic Party is simply without any standard ideals? I understood liberal parties always more interested in global and economic groups as this is a function of their ideal towards the whole. So declaring your statement is more what a conservative party would do as in "Conservatives are more concerned with the money donated by every corporations". What 'gain' do any independent environmental groups have compared to the power and dominance of corporations (who aim to capitalize financially)?