The Day a Jewish Kid Played the Role of Kaiser Wilhelm – A High School Memory

The highlight of our high school’s academic year was always the elite World History class(es) ‘Who Started WWI’ debate.  The debate was a closed-door event, but we all waited breathlessly for daily updates and the final result.  It was a major event.  One could even say it was legendary.  Year after year, the World History class battled it out.

Finally, we were seniors, and it was our turn at the event.  Not everyone; just those of us who had the academic chops to be accepted into the World History class.  Some years that group was small, and there was only one class.  Other years, there could be two classes – but that was very, very rare.

When the day came to choose who would represent which country, the teacher read out the names of those students in his class whom he believed had the academic strength to lead teams into the debate.  My name was one of the ones read out.  The next step in the process was deciding who would represent which country.  I was determined to be the one who would take Germany, going into the debate.

“Germany is going to be a hard position to represent,” the teacher advised us.  He then continued, “I recommend a person like XYZ take it.”

XYZ was not me.  Still, it was not the end.  We were free to pick our countries, and I was going to defend Germany, come hell or high water.

Now we came the actual selections.  Despite the teacher’s recommendation, XYZ went the easy route, and choose Britain.  One by one, the countries were taken, and still no one picked Germany.  At last, my chance to choose came along.

“I want Germany,” I said.  The whole class broke into a sort of good-natured laughter.  I was, after all, the only student in the class who was of actual German parentage.  However, the issue still remained, was I strong enough to take a team in under the German flag?  A mini-debate broke out about it.  The teacher had recommended… but… who?… .  I parried them all.  One after another, I fielded the questions, and provided rebuttals.  At last it was over.  The matter was settled.

“If you can debate like,” said one of my classmates as they ceded the issue, “you really are the best one to represent Germany.”

I had won.  I would take Germany into the famous World History class ‘Who Started WWI’ debate.

But, there was one last country to be selected.  Russia had not yet found a champion.  There was one last captain available, and he gladly took it on.  He liked taking things nice and easy, and, well, had left his selection to fate.

The Next Hurdle

The next hurdle we faced was building our teams.  As you can imagine, some teams were easier to build than others.  When it came to building a team to represent Germany, it became almost impossible.  No one wanted to be on what was presumed would be the losing team.

‘So, who cares?’ I told myself.  ‘I will do all the work.  I just need some bodies to fill the seats beside me, and I know how to get them.’

Yes, I knew.  I would find out who had not yet been selected for one of the other teams, and offer them an enticing deal to come and join mine.  The deal?  ‘I’ll do all the work, you just have to sit there and play your role.’  So I started with the guy sitting next to me, a diminutive sort-of-once-upon-a-time-Jew.  Yes, in those days he was hard to categorize.  His mother had divorced and remarried a non-Jewish husband, and he had decided that this made him no longer Jewish.  Just like that.  From Jew to non-Jew overnight.  At that moment in time, he was identifying as a non-Jew.  His self-identification was still fluid in those days.  But… .

He wanted more.  What more could I offer?  In desperation, I told him, ‘You can take the role of Kaiser Wilhelm’.

I now had the first member of my team, courtesy of bribery.

I still needed two more people, though.  I approached another abandoned soul, another person of Jewish roots who had found herself without a ride for the debate, and added another member to the team.

There was still one spot, and I was determined to fill it.  I consulted with Kaiser Wilhelm about the individual I had in mind.  ‘Nah.  She’s just tits and ass, and no f*cking brain,’ he opined.  ‘Who cares?’ I advised, in my role as Chancellor Bismarck, ‘We just won’t let her do anything.’

The Kaiser acceded, and I recruited what I believe to be the third Jewish member of my team.

Now some of you may yelp about the fact that Chancellor Bismarck was part of the team representation.  It was a special arrangement, given the official okay by our teacher.  The lead debaters needed to assume the personas of actual historical figures, and even though Bismarck was no longer Chancellor at the end of World War 1, it was decided that he could rise once again in order to defend his nation’s honor.

The Debate

We went into battle, and it was a hard-fought one.  The other teams came at us with every accusation in the book, and we parried them all.  The use of poison gas?  Well, we weren’t the only ones.  You guys used it on us, too.  Invading Belgium?  Hey, we DID send a message asking for permission to cross before we did it.  We had the proof in the form of a copy of the wire-message that we sent.  I reached for it from the stack of documents on the desk in front of me, pulled it out, and found out I had the wrong document.  A search was quickly made for the missing message, but we could not find it!  The teacher, thankfully, interceded and acknowledged the existence of the missive.

Then came the big one.  The one that the Kaiser and I had discussed in our pre-debate meetings.  The one question we could never find a suitable answer for: Why did Germany have a military-based economy?

The Kaiser stood up.  He would field the question personally.

‘Sure Germany had a military-based economy; but that doesn’t mean it was meant for war,’ he stated boldly.

The class keeled over laughing.  They laughed until they practically peed themselves.  When they finished laughing, they’d all forgotten that we’d never answered the question.  Seizing the opportunity, we moved the debate on to the next question.  The Kaiser and I, in fact everyone on our team, patted each other on the back after class that day.  We’d survived the A-bomb of debate questions thank to the Kaiser!

The debate ended, and the judges went into seclusion in order to discuss their findings.  When they emerged, the results were read out: Britain was found to be the least responsible for starting the war.  German was the second least responsible for starting the war, and it was a close second – in fact it had been a tie, which the rules did not permit.  To declare a winner, they’d had to resort to the technicality of the missing telegram. Then, at the end of it came the country named as most responsible for starting the first world war: Russia!

The Russian team immediately stood up and bowed.  They had come in last and were damned proud of it.

It is one of my best memories of high school.  Who could forget the day when one German and three Jews cleared Germany of war-guilt!  At a high school reunion twenty years later, I found out that one person could: the Kaiser!

‘Really?  I don’t remember that,’ he said, ‘Hard to believe a Jewish kid like me would do that.’



Photo: public domain /  Bain News Service – The Library of Congress – Kaiser Wilhelm (LOC) (pd).jpg


This is something that I uploaded to my Steemit ( account today.  Since no one reads it there, I’m sharing it here.

The Danger of Glorifying the ‘Traditional Family’

I want to address a certain danger that I am seeing, one that seems to be going completely unrecognized, mainly because we are too damned busy hiding under our beds, pointing terrified fingers at Islam and the prospect of Sharia law invading our western countries.  While we mock women in the far-left for attempting to embrace things like the hijab, we let women in the far-right off completely scot-free when they attempt to embrace ‘traditional’ lifestyles.

At this point the reader is no doubt wondering how on earth I can equate the repression that women suffer under strict Islamic law with traditional man-at-the-head of the household western-style family life.  Well, the first point of similarity is that the women advocating these two lifestyles don’t have a clue as to what they represent, and where they lead.  Those on the side that glorify the hijab as an emblem of female liberation are guilty of cultural ignorance, while those on the side of ‘traditional western families’ are guilty of historical ignorance.

I am going to assume that most readers are already familiar with the downside of Islam when it comes to a woman’s rights: women don’t exist as individuals, women are owned by their husbands, husbands can beat their wives, and so on and so forth… .  However, do modern women advocating ‘traditional western families’ realize that, until the the suffragettes and other fighters for the rights of women came along, western women lived under similar conditions?

Yes, western women were once considered the property of their fathers until they married, and then of their husbands.  Since they were legal non-entities, every cent they earned belonged to the men who owned them.  They did not have access to their own money, including inheritances, unless their husbands gave them an allowance from it.

Did men have the right to beat their wives?  Yes, they did.  In a law similar to that found in Islam, men in the UK were permitted to beat their wives with a reed no thicker than his thumb (You can visit this page from to read more about wife-beating in the UK).  Sophists may try to argue that this law is a UK law, and therefore not the norm for women in other areas of Europe and North America, but sadly, that is a lie.  From the Urals to Los Angeles, women were subject to similar laws granting their husbands permission to beat them, and their children, if they misbehaved.

If a woman left her husband, even for valid reasons such as being cruelly beaten, she lost all of her rights and could be denied access to her own children.  Divorcing, or being divorced by her husband, brought massive shame down on her family and could damage any unmarried siblings’ marriage prospects.

An interesting bit of trivia: The Mary Richards character in the old Mary Tyler Moore Show was actually supposed to be a divorcee, but producers felt that idea was too radical for a 1970s viewing audience.

In addition to being beaten, western women were also considered too feeble-minded and morally corruptible to be permitted the vote.

This leads me to ask what the hell is in the minds of women glorifying ‘traditional’ lifestyles?  How much hypocrisy can modern women be expected to swallow?  A return to the ‘traditional’ family unit is no sunshine-and-daffodils scenario.  It means giving up everything other women, and some men, have fought decades-long battles to win for us.  Those rights include the right not to be beaten, the right to keep our own earnings and inheritances, the right to divorce a man who beats his wife and children, and the right to have a say in how our cities, provinces, and countries are governed.  If a woman wants to relinquish those rights, then let her do it, but she does not have the right to strip other women of them.

Please watch these videos that I have found.  They might help to open the eyes of people who believe women in the west were never treated as badly as their modern day counterparts in the Middle East.



We, The Other Sheep!

From my Steemit blog ( :

lying-sheep-112971048625bXphoto: Photo: Lying Sheep by Petr Kratochvil

The world has a very big problem, and it is based on the rather stupid notion that the Jewish people are God’s ‘chosen’ people. That is, ‘chosen’ as taken in a positive, or elitist, sense. It seems that at least two thirds of the planet are vying for the right to consider themselves as ‘God’s Favorite People’, and doing so in the strangest ways. The remaining one-third of the planet, quite frankly, doesn’t give a shit about all the nonsense and jealousy surrounding the ridiculous notion that God loves one race of people more than all the others He created. This post isn’t about them. This post is about the two-thirds who are literally killing each other in order to claim the title of God’s favorite.

It all started with the proliferation of Judeo-Christianity, which equates the Jewish God as the Creator God. Since Judeo-Christianity spread itself via the Jewish diaspora before breaking into the ‘gentile’ nations, it is no surprise that its Jewish progenitors claimed a special, ‘first born’ privilege for themselves in the new religion. Then, along came a third religion. This religion, however, sprang up among other Semitic tribes. Naturally, if God had a chosen people taken from Semitic tribes, they were eligible to lay claim to the title of God’s favorite people.

In short, it became something of a family feud. Who does daddy love more? Which of us is the favorite? The end result is the disaster we now have.

In the Christian world, meanwhile, we now have sects that actively attempt to co-opt Jewish tradition and rituals in order to graft themselves into ‘God’s Chosen People’. We have the entire ‘Israel can do nothing wrong’ movement. As Christians of non-Jewish bloodlines, there is now a tendency to think of ourselves as the child less favored by God, so we try to make up for it by slobbering all over everything Jewish and Israeli.

How sad and how far from the truth we have fallen!

Personally, I prefer to look at the Old Testament as a sordid history of how bad a people can get, and how far from the ways of the Creator God they can fall. Instead of taking it as a glorification of the Jewish people, it should be taken as a lesson of what not to do if you want to stay on the right side of God. It is the long story of how a people became a mega pain-in-the-ass to a God who wanted mercy for the weak, and kindness between humans. If God ‘chose’ Abraham and his descendants, it was probably not because He thought them superior to all the other peoples of the world. It was, more likely, because He needed to use them to produce a specific end. He looked down, assessed the candidates, and selected Abraham for the job. This does not mean that He loved them more, or that He considered them the ‘first born’, with all the rights of the first born (double share of everything), but only that He had a plan and needed someone to do the job.

Let me put this to you: if God loved the Jewish people more than all other people in the world, why did He keep kicking them out of the land He gave them, while everyone else around them got to stay? And, why did He not let them take land from certain peoples, citing that those people had not yet pissed Him off enough to merit it yet? God obviously loved those people too, and kept a watchful eye on them.

We have to put aside the notion that God has one ‘chosen’ people. You must remember that we get that notion from the Jewish people themselves, and not from God. God did pick Abraham out to do a job, but having your father select you to go to the store to get milk does not make you his favorite. If you believe Christian and Jewish scripture, then you probably believe that the whole point of the undertaking was to eventually enable God to come into the world in human form. So, then why nt look at what Jesus had to say about the matter:

“I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also.
They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.”
John 10:16 (NIV)

Yes, according to Jesus, the Jewish people do not have a stranglehold on God’s favor. The Jewish people were just one pen of sheep on a farm with many pens. Each of those pens has its own traditions, and is filled with its own people. There are pens filled with sheep of all colors, and a pink sheep doesn’t have to get its fur dyed white in order to win favor with the shepherd. In fact, it is silly to even try such a thing. The shepherd loves all his sheep, no matter what pen they came from.

Shifting Genes

As I was checking my Twitter feed this morning, I came across a tweet that took a dim view of a recent Lauren Southern video. The video, entitled ‘The Great Replacement’, is the usual right-wing angst about the decline of the white race. I don’t deny that the white race is in decline, and is likely to completely disappear in coming generations if nothing happens to change the current situation. That, however, is where I part company with the right-wing. Unlike many of their talking heads, I actually learned a bit of global history, and accept the fact that no race remains long on this planet without interbreeding with other races. This comes through invasions, through trade routes, and through individual choice.

If we had pictures of people taken a thousand years ago, they would not look the way we do now. They might be shorter, darker, fairer, taller, with green eyes, blue eyes, red hair, or something else. If you do a little digging, you will find accounts of blonde-haired, blue eyed Greeks, and red-haired Egyptians. Of course this news will throw right-wing race purists into a frenzy, citing it as proof that the white race is being slowly drowned out by dark-skinned people.

That may be. Or it may not be. My mother’s people are dark, almost Mediterranean in appearance. This comes from an infusion of Hungarian blood. On the plus side, they are quite tall, except for my maternal grandmother who was petite. On my father’s maternal side, they were short and dark, of undetermined racial background, though the word ‘Gypsy’ was tossed rather carelessly around. On his father’s side, the line originally was Dutch. Both my father and his sister came out blonde and fair skinned. My mother and all her siblings came out dark haired and closer to olive skinned. Considering our genetics, my siblings and myself should have turned out dark. We did not. My sister is petite, with mousy colored hair and pale, sallow skin. My brother is brunette bordering on blonde, is very tall, and has olive-type skin. Both are brown-eyed. I am tall, blonde, blue eyed, with what, at first glance, appears to be light skin. Actually, my skin is extremely pale olive, and used to turn golden yellow when I tanned (if I did not burn immediately).

Fair hair and skin may be a recessive gene, but it takes a lot to make it sink into oblivion. That is fact number one.

Fact number two has to do with trying to keep your gene-pool ‘pure’. The only way to do that is with tight inbreeding. Yep, you know what that causes. If you don’t, just look at the upper classes and royalty. They tend to be sickly, prone to genetic diseases, and are mentally, well, weird. In Norway, psychosis has a tendency to crop up more frequently in certain regions, likely due to isolation and the inbreeding it causes, while in the Saguenay-Lac St. Jean region of Quebec, another region with close inbreeding between families, a rare genetic disease has become fairly common. Follow this link for more info on the Lac St. Jean disease:

All life on this planet has a built-in instinct that strives to prevent these sorts of thing from happening. On a social level, we’ve constructed complex rules that govern what degree of separation must exist between relatives who wish to marry. The closer the relation, the more likely the union is to be banned. From a purely hormonal perspective, we are hard-wired to find healthy, strong appearing mates to be more attractive sexually than weak, wimpy ones. Thus women often marry the wimp for his money, then bed the gardener, thus planting a cuckoo’s egg in the husband’s nest. For men it far easier; they just go out and knock up a mistress or two.

But… there is something else that nature does to drive people away from committing the mistake of too much inbreeding. I call it ‘raging genetics’.

Raging genetics occurs when your body understands it is time to look to greener pastures for a contribution of healthier genes. I saw this happening in Europe a couple of decades ago. Women in Scandinavia and Germany were actively seeking out men of racially diverse backgrounds for fun and marriage. Men in Germany and Scandinavia were likewise taking on loads of foreign wives. The French in France are well known for cross-breeding with foreigners coming from their former colonies. Why was it happening, and why is it still happening?

Simple. It is called exoticism. We are attracted to something fresh and different, and I am convinced it is our genetic structure that is driving us to it. Our genes need an influx of something new, and so our tastes suddenly start to turn to things foreign and exotic. Some people sniff at exoticism and condemn it, however it satisfies a variety of needs in addition to refreshing the gene pool. If there are not enough women in an area because they have all left to pursue careers elsewhere, as actually happened in central Norway, directing foreign women who want to enter the country into those areas is a win-win situation. Isolated villages need fresh genes to prevent inbred diseases, the men there are traditional and want traditional wives, and the women going there tend to be from cultures where women are more traditional. The women probably want to escape cultures that they find repressive, and thus find a freer culture to live in. That is why so many Asian, Russian and other women have chosen the route of becoming ‘mail order brides’.

For white women, the situation is a bit more complex, with higher risks. However, you have to remember that, until recently, racial stereotypes were completely different in Europe than in North America. ‘Ghetto culture’ was not the norm for non-whites, and refugees and immigrants from the Africa and the Middle East were not seen as backwards. Indeed, their behavior was quite upstanding back when I had the chance to observe it. So, these were just exotic men, from exotic places, who appealed to woman’s urge to refresh her genetics.

Human beings created eugenics in an attempt to beat nature at its own game, and failed miserably. Nature wants the gene pool to be as wide as possible. Humans want to narrow it. But, to be quite honest, if your purebred Persian queen cat escapes the house when she is in heat, she is not going to give a damn about whether the tomcat next door is a Bengal, a Siamese, or an average domestic. And, when your purebred Bengal gets out and meets a saucy female cat from the alleyway, he is going to be quite taken by her. The kittens produced will definitely not be purebreds in the first generation, but they will be a lot healthier. However, do what do you get when you cross a Siamese cat with a Persian cat? A first generation Himalayan cat.

Please note this is a republication of a post on my Steemit blog.

Tenants From Hell

In Canada, July 1 is moving day for huge numbers of people.  It also is our national day.  The reason it is both our national day, and our moving day, is probably obvious: it is far easier to move on a holiday than to have to get time off from your boss.  Because of this, July 1 can be a living hell, anticipation-wise.

Why do I say such a thing?  Simple; you never know who will be moving into your building.  Or, if you’re the one moving, you don’t know who your new neighbors will be.  As a tenant, I’ve gone through both scenarios, and nine times out of ten, it has been bad.  Very bad.  I’ve been a bit more fortunate in the building I now live in, thank God for that, however my neighbors still fall short of considerate at times.  When the last lot moved in this past fall, well, they didn’t make a very good impression.  Fortunately, they did not turn out to be as bad as they first appeared to be, and I can pretty much live with them next door without too many issues cropping up.

I can only imagine how much worse it probably is for the owner of a building!  A tenant might look good on paper, might even have great references, but once they move in… .  Well, you never really know who they really are until it’s too late.  The person themselves might not be the problem; it could be their friends, their family, or even their dog which is causing an uproar and/or doing damage.

I found myself pondering this as I was going about my business today, mainly because something has been bothering me about the Old Testament.  Having stepped back from theology and scripture for several years, when I finally did get back to it, I found that I viewed the whole thing from an entirely new perspective.  The great and mysterious ‘covenant’ that God made with Abraham no longer looked like a divine selection of a chosen people, but a standard rental agreement.  No matter how I now looked at it, it always came back to a series of terms and conditions under which Abraham was given permission to live in the land of Canaan.   There were also plenty of clauses that allowed for eviction should he fail to respect the terms he’d agreed to.

As a tenant, Abraham turned out to be not half-bad.  He respected his neighbors, caused minimal problems, and generally honored the terms of the rental agreement.  It was as his family grew that the problems began.  Like so many renters, his sons stopped seeing the abode as someone else’s property, and started treating it as if it was their own personal possession.  They started fights with the neighbors, did what they pleased, and generally ignored the terms of their lease.  The neighbors complained, and God finally had to throw them out.

There was plenty of back-and-forthing going on throughout all of this, with God telling Abraham’s family that if they would just adhere to the terms of the lease, he’d let them back in, followed by their making endless promises to do so, only to renege again and again, over and over, again and again.  Finally, as all good landlords do, God gave them the boot, once and for all, and rented out their apartment to someone else.

And that is where it was supposed to end.  Unfortunately, they appealed to the rental board, and the rental board allowed them to force their way back in.  The peace of the neighborhood was once more destroyed.  In fact, it became an area and a building that no one in their right mind – except those who are truly desperate – want to live in.

That is the sad story of how all neighbors from hell cause property values to go down, and end up attracting other bad tenants to the building.  On this moving day, let us all remember how one bad tenant can wreck an entire neighborhood.

Jesus Was a Peacenik and a Communist

Where to begin with this one?  How did it start?  Where did it start?  Why did it start? And, most importantly, why am I going there?

Well, it started with an image being tweeted out that was so awful, the mere sight of it nearly caused me to go blind, and I was not alone.  At least one other viewer had a WTF?! moment, while numerous others seemed to be experiencing their own form of visual confusion.  Words cannot do justice to the awfulness the thing we saw, so I have provided the image in question directly below (with the offender’s name blocked out).


Now that you have experienced the joy of nearly going blind yourself, you can better understand just how misguided the theme actually is.  That is, unless you are a member of the religious right.  If that is the case, you probably can’t see what is so eye-hurtingly wrong here.  I will therefore explain it to you.

Jesus was a pacifist.  He did not advocate violence, even going so far as to heal the ear of the soldier Peter had injured during the scuffle that occurred during His arrest.  Jesus instructed His followers to love their enemies and pray for those who persecuted them.  At no time did He ever tell them to go out and slaughter people who believed in other gods, or belonged to a different religious system.  Violence was abhorrent to Him.  That alone should show up the notion of ‘Deus Vult’, and ‘it’s crusade o’clock’ for what it is: garbage that has no relation to Jesus’ teachings, and something that no true believer in His message would ever adorn their Twitter account with.

There is something else that is disturbing here, though.  That is the misplaced reference to Isaiah.  Isaiah 6:8 reads: ‘Then I heard a voice of the Lord saying,”Whom shall I send?  Who will go for us?” “Here I am” I said; “send me!”  But… God never said ‘Go launch a crusade, Isaiah!’  Isaiah used words.  Fiery words, but not words of hate and division.  Isaiah was a prophet, not a warrior.  His job was to turn the people back to their God, and in so doing, keep them from being booted out of the land that He had given to them by covenant.

What Little Missy with her anime-crusade cover-photo is missing out on, is exactly what an entire segment of the religious right is also missing out on: that covenant, the Old Covenant, was rendered null and void by the Jews’ own failure to adhere to its rules and regulations.  It was replaced by a New Covenant between Jesus and His followers, which has nothing to do with the land of Israel, or the physical descendants of Abraham.  There is no ‘Holy Land’ to retake, and no crusade to wage, because the inheritance of Jesus’ followers is not an earthly one.

There are so many things wrong with the religious right that it boggles the mind.  Jesus was not a traditionalist; he did not advocate traditional roles for women.  He broke all the rules when it came to a woman’s ‘place’.  He spoke to women who were strangers to him, which was a big taboo in those days.  He fraternized with women who were considered the dregs of society, and he had women among his followers.  In the early Christian church, women acted as deacons, as organizers, and helped spread the Gospel both alone, and side by side with their husbands.  St. Paul advised women who became widowed not to remarry, and those who were not yet married to remain single, so that they could more effectively devote themselves to the work of God.

The religious right would now have all women back in the kitchen, under the authority of a husband.

That is just a taste of how far from the Gospel, and the spirit of Jesus, the right has wandered.  They’ve also thrown away the concept of salvation through faith, and returned to one of attempting to attain salvation through works (I’ve recently heard this described as ‘the Hebrew Roots Movement’, which, as a movement, is not new at all).  They’ve thrown their support behind the nation of Israel, refusing to condemn that nation when it commits heinous acts that Jesus would never have approved of.  For the love of God, Jesus talked to Samaritans, and the Samaritans ended up believing in Him!  Worst of all, the religious right pride themselves on an ideology that only people with hearts of stone could ever espouse.

What ideology is that, you ask?  One that has no sympathy for the poor, the outcast, and the unfortunate.   An ideology that spits on the poor and calls them ‘lazy’.  An ideology that believes giving to the poor only ‘enables’ them.  One that doesn’t even believe in taking care of the sick and suffering.

What would Jesus have said about that ideology?  Let’s see.  Jesus told his followers to sell everything they had, and give it to the poor.  He fed the hungry, healed the sick, and refused to condemn a woman who had been brought to him for judgement.  In the ideology of the religious right, these are the actions of a horrible, anti-American communist!  He provided FREE HEALTH CARE!  He didn’t just give out food-stamps, he GAVE AWAY FREE FOOD!  Worse yet, he GAVE OUT FREE MONEY!

By today’s standards, at least those of the crusade-fostering religious right, Jesus was a communist, a feminist, and a filthy, traitorous peacenik!  Oh, yes, he was also an antisemitic Jew-hater who believed Jews worship Satan and advocated the destruction of Israel and Jerusalem.  In the words of John 8:44 “You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” (NIV)

Somebody hand these religious right-wingers an easy to read copy of the New Testament, please!

To Shill, Or Not To Shill…

It is a sad fact of life that most people wear at least two faces; while one face is carefully constructed and maintained for public consumption, there is another that is strictly a private matter.  Nobody is immune, but not everyone’s intention is evil.  Some people simply want to keep sensitive matters private, and are sincerely embarrassed by their own dirty laundry.  There are, however, those people who construct public images for profit, and profit alone.  In some cases, the profit might be social status, in others, it might be financial, but regardless of what the profit is, it is still profit.

The ‘person of many faces’ is not the topic of this entry, however.  What I am concerned about is the proliferation of talking heads who are heaping up Patreon profits by riding the storm of political right-left tensions.  Some of them, such as the university professor in the screen-shot below, fell into internet fortune almost by accident.  In this case, the individual got into trouble with his employer over the use of gender pronouns, and suddenly the radical right got wind of it and made him into an overnight sensation.  A Globe and Mail reporter did what could loosely be called a ‘hit piece‘ on his rise from obscure professor hawking a writing program, to internet heavy-weight, in which the reporter mentioned that he now makes $30k Canadian via his Patreon account.

This was his response:

Screenshot j peterson

I will admit that I initially felt a degree of sympathy for the man.  That, however, was only in the early days of his crusade.  I am deadly opposed to being forced to use silly non-words in order to describe people.  While I accept the usage of the now common ‘Ms.’, I do remember when it was first invented, and I do remember how silly the whole thing was.  In other cultures, such as the German one, ‘Frauline’ is no longer used when addressing any adult woman, regardless of marital status.  Its usage has been relegated almost elusively to that of denoting an underage girl.  ‘Frau’ is now used for both married and unmarried women.  In the French culture, in Quebec at least, ‘Madam’ is used in exactly the same way as the German ‘Frau’, while ‘Mademoiselle’ has likewise been relegated to the underage crowd.  No fuss.  No commotion.  Just a simple solution to a modern problem.  Problem solved.

The English-speaking world would have done well to have followed  the German and French examples.  Unfortunately, the English-speaking world being what it is, the powers-that-be had to make things complicated in a big way.  We are now facing the same thing all over again, and it may not be long before such detestable words as ‘zhe’ find their way into common acceptance.  We can ignore it, we can go along with it, but in the end, only time will tell if this new scourge has any more staying power than the expression ‘I dig it’ had.

All of that is to say that, while I did sympathize with the man, I stopped sympathizing when I saw how he started working his followers in order to extend his fifteen minutes of fame into something more substantial.  That made me uneasy.  Something rang false.  Then came the article, with points galore that he could have fairly contested, and what did he choose to do?  He corrected the reporter on how much he is actually earning, which happens to be almost double the amount she quoted.

His mask slipped, albeit briefly, and revealed something ugly underneath.  The thing that it revealed was a man willing to ride the wave, and shill for a political stance, because suddenly he became someone special, and was making a lot of extra bucks, too boot.

Meanwhile, his ‘followers’ praise him bigly, and feed his ego largely.  For him, it is a win-win situation, and as long as he can keep whipping them up, he can continue growing his audience, his fame, and his fortune.

But, slap my ass and call me ‘Sally’, if he is still sincere in what he has to say.  I’d be willing to bet that he isn’t the quiet, soft-spoken professor he comes across as on YouTube.

I should add that I don’t know the man, and do not know anyone who does, so I can’t say what he really is like in his everyday life.  There is, however, another university professor – this one from Montreal – who is also stirring things up for the profit of his own ego, and possibly his pocketbook.  He choose anti-Muslim sentiment as his stepping-stone to internet adoration, and is now the darling of the anti-Muslim conservative Canadian and international right.  He comes across as a jolly bon-vivant, and his followers routinely post adoring comments, telling him what a wonderful person he is.

This gentleman, admittedly, has some grounds for his hostility, due to his background and life experiences.  Unfortunately, to package personal rage as political truth is quite a leap, and I cannot condone validating other people’s hysteria by feeding into it, which he does.

Yet, again, I got the niggling impression that the man was not what his YouTube persona made him out to be.  I wondered about this.  I thought it over.  I sent a text message.  The answer I got back was, ‘euwww’.  In fact,  ‘euwww’ was mentioned twice in the same text reply.  The second ‘euwww’ was a summation of the opinions of my contact’s colleagues who also know the man.

This theme continues wherever you go on the internet.  Pundits present one face, and gullible idiots fall for it.  I could come up with a long list of wanna-be philosophers, purveyors of ‘alternate’ new sites, supposed reporters and thinkers.  It’s all the same.  Adoring followers emptying their pocket-books into their idols Patreon accounts, while their idols feed into the fears and prejudices of their fan-bases in order to squeeze out more.  Then, when the hour-long rant against cholesterol and how mega-fast-food chains are killing us for profit is over, and the camera is finally turned off, the internet idol heads straight out to McDonalds for a big, greasy hamburger, with a side-order of super-sized fries and a milkshake.

The moral of this story is: you don’t know who these people are in real life, or what they are really like _ as one YouTuber, I believe it was T.J.Kirk (the Amazing Atheist) straightforwardly pointed out about himself.  But, unlike T.J. Kirk, many of these people want you to believe that they are exactly what and who they tell you they are.  They get off on your adulation, as well as your donations.  While they may have started out as sincere individuals, they have consciously made the choice to shill on behalf of a political or social agenda because it makes them important people on the internet.  Their ego and their wallets are what’s talking now.