Replacement - Conspiracy, Reality.

In the West: 

1) Native birth rates are below replacement;

2) Life expectancy is increasing;

3) People are getting older; thus:

4) The native young of the country is decreasing as a proportion of the population - or in other words, the population is 'aging'.

5)We need to import other young people to work, get taxed, and contribute to pensions, and;

6) The majority of these people being imported happen to be of a different race and culture than the native population.

[Edit. We'll have to see what changes given the Coronavirus outbreak]

This is replacement.

The point isn't that there is the white race being replaced by a particular race, but rather that white-majority nations in Europe and North America are having their native white populations dwindle as a proportion of the population as the foreign-born population increases due to immigration and birthrates.

It needn't be done intentionally by a cabal of elites conniving to erase the white race from the world, but regardless of intention the proportion of white people is decreasing as a percentage of the population of their countries whilst the proportion of non-white people in increasing as a percentage of the population, and the increasing non-white population is occurring, in part, due to the policies and incentives set up by leaders and decision-makers. So, there are people in charge, and they are making decisions, so there is at least some weak claim to 'intentionality'.

There are also some complicated issues about WHY native birthrates are so low. Reasons range from education, to abortion, to unstable economic conditions, to fear of climate change, to materialism and consumerism, the cost of raising children, as well as the promotion and acceptance of 'non-traditional' families, as well as changing gender norms and expectations. These all serve as explanations of (1) and (5), additionally, some of these are used simultaneously as achievements of a progressive society.  There is little to no discussion of pro-natal policies, and what to do about low birth rates. 

But what are we supposed to believe? Points (1-5) are consistently stated in the news and other media, and (6) is touted as an achievement by our leaders and elites: 'diversity is our strength', after all. Coupled with media and corporate campaigns that target and dilute the native populations national identity, character, and history whilst bolstering the prominence of the non-native; one cannot help but smell something is rotten. 

I won't believe bullshit. And I don't like being told to believe conflicting things without explanation.

When facing the evidence one is told: a) replacement isn’t happening, but when pressed, one is told b) it is happening, it is good, and you are a bigot if you think otherwise; or even c) it would be good if it did happen, oh, and you are still a bigot if you think otherwise.

This approach won't work. 

Instead of talking about the issue seriously, and addressing concerns honestly, the discourse around replacement reads like a series of A/B tests wherein media figures, politicians and pundits throw out shallow, poorly thought-out denialism, or even insults to dismiss critics. 

When someone asks about replacement or expresses a concern about it, they're told that there is no evidence for it and that one should ignore claims saying its happening. When stats are used to back up the claims about replacement, they're then told that such reasoning is conspiratorial, or, finally, that is its racist. I reckon that doubling-down on the reality of replacement will become more common amongst certain circles of people in the media.

Now, one can ask, 'why are you concerned in the first place?' But that's not my point, here. That is another issue, and I'll be happy to get into it later. The point, here, is modest: replacement isn't a conspiracy theory, one needn't be a hateful bigot to think it is happening, and there are arguments to show that replacement is happening.

If one reads the six (6) points, and agrees that they're true, then one agrees that replacement is happening.

Corona-chan, Globalism, and Living

Why didn't we just close the borders and stop air travel, Dad?

Our thought-leaders and politicians have come out to tell us of the real problems with Coronavirus: racism, xenophobia, nationalism, and borders. Pretty much anything that challenges the neo-liberal, cosmopolitan orthodoxy.

French President Emmanuel Macron has stated that: 

"Two pitfalls must be avoided, one is the nationalist withdrawal because this virus has no passport."

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stated that: 

Closing Canada's borders and restricting travel is a knee-jerk reaction that will not slow the spread of the Coronavirus. 

(If closing borders in March in response to an viral outbreak that started in January is a 'knee-jerk' reaction, then that is the slowest knee-jerk I've seen. [Oh,and now his wife has tested positive for the virus after coming back from the UK]. I guess if you let your wife get Coronoavirus, you win.)

Steven Pinker says: 

"The Coronavirus Pandemic is one of many reasons neo-nationalism is destructive & ultimately futile. Viruses (like greenhouse gases, cybercriminals, dark money, terrorists, pirates, & technology) don’t care about lines on a map."

Richard Dawkins chimes in: 

"Nasty FOREIGN virus. Lock it up! Lock it up! Keep America safe. No FOREIGNERS from Europe allowed. Except Brits of course. They’re not really foreign. They speak English. Don’t they? I think they do, I went to London, I met the Queen, they love me there."

It's almost like they're getting out there to fend off an anticipated reaction... 

First, they must know that they're viciously equivocating fears of foreigners with fears of the virus - particularily Pinker and Dawkins. Its not the case that people who want their nations' borders shored up and inter-national travel restricted because they just don't like those dirty foreigners. They don't want travel to and fro because foreigners are people and people carry the virus. 

The cute quips about viruses not caring about borders is so obviously stupid, that it sounds like a joke. 

Also, Pinker's neologism 'neo-nationalism' is also dumb. Nationalism, first of all, is more of a default setting for national and international understanding than Pinker's globalism, so there isn't anything really 'neo-' about it. The very fact that Pinker and others feel like they have to 'in before' nationalistic approaches or motivations to the viral containment shows that nationalism is baked into people's assessments. 

It is also an opportunistic word that he can use to cast aspersions at his political and social opponents whilst also attempting to turn his own ideological framework of 'globalism' into the default setting. It is the language of global capital, finance, industry, complex global supply chains, and technocracy. It is the language of our age's orthodoxy. 

Oh, and it sound a little like 'neo-nazi'. So, he can slide in nazi insults while he pontificates.

Now, these are difficult times with tough decisions. Closing borders means serious economic impacts, and serious economic impacts can exasperate medical issues as goods, services, and money become increasingly unavailable. But easy travel and porous borders brought the virus to our shores in the first place. 

I wouldn't argue for a full, air-tight travel ban - though situations will differ - but platitudes and moral hand-wringing won't work. In fact, they could just reinforce the opposition to globalisation - so, in some sense, the Pinkers and Macrons of the world are welcome to spout their talking points. 

I don't know how much entropy Coronavirus will throw into the system. Inertia is a powerful force. But this pandemic, like climate change, will require tough decisions and strong, honest, clear leadership: traits that are sorely lacking in our litter of leaders. 

I do think that globalism will be undermined. 

People will have to be locked out. Mobility will have to be reduced. Supply chains will have to be truncated. Costs and advantages will have to be reassessed. Time horizons for planning with have to be lengthened. Medical and military priorities will have to be realigned. But those are challenges for our nation's leaders. Us, here on the ground, have to exercise caution and become more self-sufficient - re-discover old knowledge and reduce external needs. Learn to make and preserve foods; fish, trap or hunt. Get healthier and stay that way. Reduce reliance on global supply chains; get local. Increase production, not consumption - if you need something, try making it yourself. Keep friends and family close, and stay in touch. Communication with loved ones is important in unstable times, and you should all have each other's backs. Stay mentally engaged and stable, and try to enjoy the life you are trying to create. There are many things out of our control, but those things that we do control should be fashioned out of intent, and deliberation. 

This isn't just the calm before the storm. This could be the beginning of an age. And we're in it for the long haul. 

I'll leave this ramble with a quote by CS Lewis:

"In one way we think a great deal too much of the atomic bomb. “How are we to live in an atomic age?” I am tempted to reply: “Why, as you would have lived in the sixteenth century when the plague visited London almost every year, or as you would have lived in a Viking age when raiders from Scandinavia might land and cut your throat any night; or indeed, as you are already living in an age of cancer, an age of syphilis, an age of paralysis, an age of air raids, an age of railway accidents, an age of motor accidents.”

 In other words, do not let us begin by exaggerating the novelty of our situation. Believe me, dear sir or madam, you and all whom you love were already sentenced to death before the atomic bomb was invented: and quite a high percentage of us were going to die in unpleasant ways. We had, indeed, one very great advantage over our ancestors—anesthetics; but we have that still. It is perfectly ridiculous to go about whimpering and drawing long faces because the scientists have added one more chance of painful and premature death to a world which already bristled with such chances and in which death itself was not a chance at all, but a certainty.

This is the first point to be made: and the first action to be taken is to pull ourselves together. If we are all going to be destroyed by an atomic bomb, let that bomb when it comes find us doing sensible and human things—praying, working, teaching, reading, listening to music, bathing the children, playing tennis, chatting to our friends over a pint and a game of darts—not huddled together like frightened sheep and thinking about bombs. They may break our bodies (a microbe can do that) but they need not dominate our minds."

— “On Living in an Atomic Age” (1948)

DQSH

The other day, I learnt that Drag Queen Story Hour (DQSH) has come to my city. It is a capitol city, but a modest one.

Aside from the overt, in-your-face spectacle of a male drag-queen dressed as a female caricature reading stories often about drag queens or LGBT issues to very young children in a public library, there is also the churning cognitive dissonance.

For some reason we are expected to believe: a) that we live in an over-sexualised culture, and b) that there is nothing sexual about Drag Queen Story Hour.

We are told: DQSH is innocent. It is performative art. It is no different than having clowns.

The natural response is: OK, so why not have clowns?

The reply is: because children are encouraged to have positive queer role-models in their lives.

So, this isn't like clowns, at all. Clowns are merely for entertainment, not role-modelling; and certainly not for the formation of personal identity (sexual, gender or otherwise). Additionally, if there is any sexuality, at all, involved in these events, those who promote should be forced to reckon with that and choke on any defense they utter.

Such defenses of DQSH result in cognitive dissonance and often there is ad homimem that falls upon those who criticise it. When opponents point out the obvious sexualised nature of these events, they are told that there is nothing sexual about it, and that, in fact, it is the opponent of DQSH who is sexualising DQSH. None of these are healthy reactions, and both are the consequence of a desperate attempt to maintain ideological stability.

There is the visceral concern people have towards child sexual abuse - and there have been some cases of known and convicted abusers finding their way into DQSH events. These pose practical issues that have to be brought to the forefront of any DQSH proposal.

There is also another concern, and perhaps one that is more amenable to DQSH's supporters: by celebrating queerness/transgenderism/non-binary as valid gender/sexual identities, libraries, schools and the parents involved are promoting a body/mind disconnect which may very well bring about the dysphoric states that they should be trying to prevent.

Gaslighting and Cultural Dysphoria

In early February, Scandinavian Airlines (SAS) posted the video ad, below:

It asks at the outset: 'What it Truly Scandinavian?' The answer: 'Absolutely nothing'. 

What follows is a montage of stereotypically Scandinavian-looking people being told by a disembodied woman's voice as well as various people of colour that numerous stereotypical Scandinavian things aren't 'Scandinavian' at all. From Swedish meatballs and windmills, to bicycles and democracy: none of these are 'truly Scandinavian', but what is are the people from around the world who immigrate to Scandinavia.

There is a lot more than could be said about this video as it is chock-full of all sorts of interesting choices that betray its purpose, but that is another set of issues.

What is interesting is the logic of this message.

To my mind, it is asking the viewer to hold two conflicting notions in your mind at the same time.

1) The things that come to Scandinavia from other countries are not Scandinavian, but also:

2) The people who come to Scandinavia from other countries are Scandinavian.

In fact, there is a bit more to (2): not only are those who come to Scandinavia from other countries just as Scandinavian as native-born Scandinavians, these foreigners, in fact, are what make Scandinavia 'Scandinavian'. As the video states, 'In a way, Scandinavia was brought 'here''. 

I smell a double-standard, perhaps a provocation, and such things introduce all sorts of problems. 

What are we to say about India or Nigeria, Morocco or Turkey? They were colonised (several times in some cases), and have been stamped with that past. 

How does this standard work for left-wing causes? For instance, what claim do the indigenous peoples of North America have to their traditional lands and lifeways under this rubric? What right to they have to conserve their identity and traditions? They're just behind the times, and need to get with the program. Finally: is any country truly itself?

No. This is only meant to be applied uni-directionally: towards Western nations. 

This isn't even the first video of this kind this year: just after the UK withdrew from the EU via the Brexit withdrawal agreement, the BBC had a video in its children's TV series, 'Horrible Histories', that argued that 'British Things' aren't really British. It used the same logic as the SAS ad. 

What is the purpose of such videos? 

I suppose one is supposed to take solace in the ad’s message: we are all one human family that has exchanged artifacts and practices that, indeed, demonstrate our interconnected and shared humanity. 

But is one really to buy into this when, in fact, one’s own heritage is being diminished? I see this ad as an example of gas-lighting: its a psychological manipulation that is meant to sow the seeds of doubt in a targeted group, making its members question their own memory, perception, or judgment, often evoking in them cognitive dissonance and other changes such as low self-esteem. (We even see evidence of this in some of the portrayals of folks in the ad.)

What the message really is, is that there is no national identity outside of the country’s immigration policy. Nothing to separate one from an other, and no conflicts outside of the competitive networks of brand loyalties. 

I think that we should reject this wholeheartedly. National identity and its meaning shouldn't be left, or even given to the dictates and whims of capital or government. It is retained via old and inherited sentiments of belonging and tradition, and cultivated through consideration and practice with others who share in it. It is not imported, bought, or signed into existence on a piece of paper. It is isn't universal or borderless. There are particularities, there are sides. It is personal, rooted, and deeply normative.

We are attached to particular things because we need to belong to something… We can’t belong to something abstract. We do not keep the cathedrals just because they’re beautiful, but also because they are part of our past. We want the past to be present among us. We don’t want to be cut off from it. We rejoice in our contact with the culture of our past.  We value our particular past in the respectful way that we value any past culture, but [also] in a more personal way. We want to be part of [the] 'partnership…between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born'. (G.A Cohen, A Truth in conservatism: Rescuing conservatism from the Conservatives)

We ought to celebrate and cultivate our national identities, and repudiate the frauds. 

Virginia Gun Rally, Elite Narratives, and Framing

Despite some media itching for violence, the Virginia Gun Rally has finished without incident. 

Antifa groups apparently chose not to show up, and perhaps this shows that Antifa is an integral ingredient in the violence we see in street protests. 

It was good to see that there wasn't any violence at the protest - despite there being roughly 22,000 people present, with many being armed. All it could have taken was one idiot, and the whole thing could have been a bloody, self-defeating disaster. But there wasn't. Not one.

Whereas some on the alt-right/white nationalists will get punished and/or arrested for edgy memes and banter or even downright offensive speech (which is still Constitutionally protected), Antifa can engage in doxxing, harassment campaigns, and unprovoked physical violence against innocent, though perhaps disagreeable, bystanders and counter-protesters.

Although the alt-right/white nationalists are deemed to be extremists who are prone to violence and threats, I can't think of an instance where the presence of Antifa hasn't led to violence, let alone increased the likelihood of violence; and though it often takes two to tango and those who tussle with them are responsible for doing so, Antifa is an agitating force that seemingly operates with little consequence.

I wonder if the non-violent conclusion to this pro-Second Amendment Rally, coupled with the lack of Antifa will get people thinking about Antifa's role and responsibility in fomenting agitation and aggression. 

That said, there are other things to be gleaned from this protest: the pitiful obeisance some interviewees showed to the media was on full display. We were treated to clips of individuals desperately trying to convince the interviewer that the rally wasn't racist; that gun rights are gay rights; and that minorities need guns too in order to protect themselves from oppression. 

Here's the thing folks: there is nothing you can say that will make your enemies NOT think it is racist or homophobic or transphobic or bigoted in someway, and so flying your LGBT Gadsden Flag looks desperate. No one will believe you when you say 'Gun Rights are Trans Rights' - they'd be more likely to think that your trying to pull a fast one on them by smuggling in your bigotry under the guise of tolerance. 

The media doesn't call you 'racist' because they think you are racist, even if they do. They call you racist so the debate becomes about racism instead of whatever cause you are working for. It deflects from the issue at hand and forces you to spend the time to wipe off the filth that has been smeared on you. 

This is something that is a bit different from my standard view of things. Typically, I think it is flawed to view politics as one team versus another, and that a win for your team is a zero-sum game for your opponent. Winning isn't necessarily about your team coming out on top: winning is about getting your ideas to prevail. So, when we see LGBT folks and Blacks and Latinos protesting in favour of the Second Amendment, that looks like pro-Second Amendment ideas spreading into communities that help form the Progressive Coalition (which is pretty much anyone who isn't a straight white male). 

Those folks can certainly join the protest, and their presence does trip up the standard narrative being woven by the media. However, one has to be wary of how elite narratives of white supremacy, racism, homophobia, and the like can be used to re-frame an issue and hijack a movement of protest that has a very specific goal. 

In short, the media isn't the friend of those at those protests: no matter how many check-boxes on the Oppression Bingo chart they can knock off. Getting your ideas to prevail within the media won't work if you, as an enemy of the media, start to express ideas and attitudes that the media promotes. They make you look like you are caving to their narrative by buying into their premises, and falling for their framing.  

This rally was about an inalienable right to bear arms in the United States. Virginia was a test case to see how quickly that right can be eroded. Luckily the protest didn't give any ammo to those wishing to secure its demise - though perhaps they'll just plow through with it anyway.

When looking into the face of your enemy, and when faced with propping up elite narratives:

Just say 'no'. 

Divine Hiddenness & the Problem of Evil

When presented with the problem of evil – whether natural or moral – the theist can present several responses. One common response is the appeal to Divine Reasons. If atheist A says to believer B, ‘hey, if God is so good, then why is there so much evil in the world?’ B could reply, ‘well, God could have His reasons that us, as mere mortals, cannot fathom.’ This reply dates back to at least the Book of Job when Job reaps his whirlwind and God rebukes Job’s cries for a justification for his profound suffering. In that story God states, ‘Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?’ – thereby contrasting human ignorance and weakness to Divine wisdom and omnipotence.

So, the problem is this: we experience and witness seemingly unjustified evils. A traditional example is a faun being caught in a naturally occurring forest fire, getting horribly burned, suffering agonisingly for days only to die alone the woods (E1), or a 15-year old girl in Pakistan getting shot in the head just because she went to school (E2).

Now, E1 and E2 both seem unjustified if anything is and so either E1 and E2 i) count as evidence against the existence of God, or ii) they do not.

A committed theist wouldn't easily accept (i), and thus (ii) is more likely to be accepted.

If (ii) is accepted, then it's because either because a) they are not unjustified, or b) they are not evil.

Starting with (b) first: that is a fairly unbiteable bullet. There are numerous reasons why we try to prevent such things from occurring precisely because we think them evil. If one states that killing an innocent child is not evil, then one must provide a reason for it, which is precisely what the theist is supposed to do in this case.

For a), it is presumably because God would not allow an unjustified evil and so there must be a justifying reason for it. But what reason could there be for allowing E1, E2 …. En? We have searched and not found. In fact, with regards to natural evils (like earth quakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, and forest fires) we find that they are caused by the very mechanics of the world we live in. So, even if there is no Divine plan, the evils are an inevitable result of the workings of the world. 

Now, the belieber B can say, ‘hey, just because we haven’t found any does not mean that they don’t exist’. True, and this takes us to the issue of Divine Hiddenness. Perhaps God has reasons that we cannot detect or know, and to my mind, the real issue is that such undetectability would render our moral judgement completely moot.

For instance, on this position, I cannot conclude that the 2004 Indian Tsunami was evil because maybe God had reasons for allowing it. Ditto for the Holocaust or Rwandan genocide because God could have a reason that I cannot know for allowing it in the service of some greater good. Pick any evil thing and perhaps there is a reason out there that God has that we can never know about. This really is just stating (b): that these evils are not really evil. It also seems like special pleading because this is not how we act in our lives.

Weapons of the Woke

There has been a spate of robberies in Winnipeg Liquor Marts.  Winnipeg Police say there are 10-20 liquor store robberies per day.

Manitoba Liquor & Lotteries, the provincial purveyor and distributor of alcohol in Manitoba, said that despite efforts implemented in March to curb the crimes, the rate of thefts and robberies at liquor stores in Winnipeg is 'as high as it's ever been.'

People are obviously concerned. Theft and violence ought not be tolerated, and the increasing rate of the two has led to some serious discussions about public safety. This has also led some to accuse those of engaging in such discussion of.... yes. Bigotry.

Enter magazine called Canadian Dimension, 'the longest-standing voice of the left in Canada', with an article rife with tactical moral excoriation regarding the increase in liquor store robberies.

At the outset the reader is treated with a dire picture:

Winnipeg’s media outlets are salivating at the chance to create a moral panic over alleged liquor store thefts. Nearly non-stop headlines regale readers with seemingly horrific stories of brutal crimes: an old man has his hand slashed while trying to prevent a robbery, guns and pepper spray are wielded, and businesses face the 'darkest time in Winnipeg history.'

The situation is troublesome; escalating to a degree that has prompted people take photos and videos of thefts to be posted on social media. There have even been shoppers who have engaged in citizen's arrests: apprehending thieves through physical force until the police arrive.

Personally, I understand the motives of these citizens. I can see how they'd be pissed off at the idea that such belligerent and dangerous behaviour can be seen as the 'new normal' and wish to take matters into their own hands. It may not be the most prudent decision: after all, the thieves could be armed with knives or other weapons, and the risk of physical injury is real, but more often than not, the people who are engaging in the theft are half-in-the-bag themselves - as is evidenced by numerous videos.

The author of the article has a different take on the matter. According to him, 'camoed shoppers  [who] tackle suspects to the ground in a sort of bizarre and unprompted citizen’s arrests to protect bottles of liquor... [are] living out latent fantasies of racist conquest.'

To describe this as poor psychology and poor history would be an understatement. Painting these vigilantes as some illogical, quasi-militaristic, racist force whose goal is to protect liquor and carry on a resentful, vicious and 'unprompted' White Man's burden is altogether ridiculous and beneath contempt. Though, somehow, predictable.

You see, the thieves are Indigenous - not 100% of them, but enough are to warrant this racialised assessment by our author - and given this fact of the indigeneity of the culprits, the rubric for moral assessment gets all skewed since, as we're told by progressives, oppressed people cannot be held to the same standards as the rest of the moral community. To do so is to impose Western moral standards that overlook the centuries-long struggle of subaltern peoples in North America against white supremacist imperialism... or something.

Well, talk about projection. If camoed white men are persisting in racial conquest of bygone years, then what are the Indigenous thieves doing? Resisting white supremacy by engaging in low-scale, race-based class conflict? 'You steal our land, we steal your booze'? After all, violence of the under classes is often minimised or justified as responses to oppression and poverty.

What we require is a principled demarcation between acts of spontaneous defiance and political resistance, and we're not given one here. In fact, the author states that:

Staff will be best protected when these thefts are understood in the broader sociopolitical context of poverty, housing crises, and colonization, with responses geared to promoting empathy and reducing harms rather than escalating them with state violence. [italics added]

First off, no one is trying to protect the booze, per se. The employees cannot apprehend thieves for safety reasons, as well as legal ones, and thieves know this. Hence the targeting of these stores. I think that vigilantes are fed up with what they perceive as this 'new normal' and wish to intervene. This is theft, after all, and theft is a crime. As crime increases, the sense of public safety diminishes.

Secondly, what exactly does this author mean when he states that 'staff will be best protected when these thefts are understood in the broader sociopolitical context...'? Does this mean that staff would be better off if they were to interpret these thefts and robberies not as what they are - spontaneous acts of deviance - but as what this author wants them to be - permissible acts of political resistance?

I wonder what righteous cause these thieves have intended for the bottles of booze they steal once they get them to a safe place. Selling them on the black market, drinking them before going back for more, or perhaps sharing the spoils with family and friends? I don't know but I'm sure it will help the cause...

One point that stood out to me in this article was the argumentation presented in order to minimise the problem of theft.

We're treated to another gem:

What is completely ignored in all of this is basic facts. Journalists have sensationalized these robberies to the point of parody, systematically refusing to interview anyone with an evidence-based perspective on the situation. The public has been provided little information about whether the number of alleged robberies, totaling 10 to 20 per day according to the police, is particularly unusual for retail stores in general, or why it justifies the commitment of enormous financial resources to counter.

So what's 10-20 robberies? Is that really a problem or is it par for the course? C'mon guys. We need to put this into perspective. Not only do we need to keep things in perspective, we need to consider that lack of credible evidence for the cases, as well as the motivations for perpetuating inflated narratives.

OK. Let's see how they like this reasoning applied to some project they care about: campus sexual assault.

What is completely ignored in all of this is basic facts. Journalists have sensationalized these sexual assaults to the point of parody, systematically refusing to interview anyone with an evidence-based perspective on the situation. The public has been provided little information about whether the number of sexual assaults, totaling 1 in 5 women per year, according to the police, is particularly unusual for university campuses in general, or why it justifies the commitment of enormous financial resources to counter.

Doesn't sound too good. Does it?

There are obvious differences between the two examples, one being that the robberies are documented on camera, be the camera a liquor store CCTV camera feed or a cell phone video recording. A crucial issue regarding campus sexual assaults is ambiguity. It is often a 'he said, she said' scenario, or it is not reported, or it is reported much later after the event and often there is no evidence. Certainly there isn't video evidence.

There is also a similarity between the two: the concern is about safety. The problem with these thefts isn't that products are being stolen, it is the the very real threat to individual and public safety that they imply. In fact, there have been instances of pepper spray, and machetes, as well as guns or hammers, being wielded by would-be robbers.

Now, one can anticipate a response: 'most instances of theft/robbery, though threatening are not violent, and the likelihood of violence increases when bystanders try to intervene. Don't be a hero. Don't risk your life for a bottle of booze.'

This smacks of the charge of 'victim blaming' that we hear from people who decry the advice given to young women on college campuses: don't get drunk, stay with friends, do not accept drinks from strangers, don't go to a stranger's home/dorm room. In short, don't put yourself in a compromising or vulnerable position. This isn't bad advice, but it seems to be inconsistently applied.

The article also talks about entrenched racism towards Indigenous people and increased securitisation, as well as a need for increased harm reduction, education and ending austerity, but nowhere does it talk about the threat to safety that these thefts embody. 

This rhetoric is akin to the argumentation laid out against the recent implementation of security and screening at the Millennium Library in downtown Winnipeg. If you want to get in, you will be searched. This is seen as a discriminatory act that marginalises the already-marginalised members of the community, and subjects the vulnerable to dehumanising treatment.

I think it is a detriment to all who want to enter the library, but the need for safety is clear. We cannot have people shooting drugs and having sex in a public building where children read and play on the ground level floor. Are you advocates missing that point? What could the unintended consequences be? What cost are you willing to pay for the implementation of your recommendations for community outreach? What consequences are you willing to accept?

I think it necessary to extend an olive branch, though. The poor should not be demonised, or dehumanised, nor should they be romanticised. They certainly shouldn't be treated as though they are beyond moral evaluation which includes praise as well as condemnation. One should also be aware of the appropriateness of such evaluations and be aware of the self-congratulatory forms that exist on either end. 

That said, I understand what these advocates are saying. They have a position akin to the early post-9/11 arguments about how safety and security shouldn't trump individual liberty, and that we need to be a community and help each other without falling down the rabbit hole of endless suspicion, but I don't believe them. They are the same people who harp on about white supremacy, Nazism, racism, fascism, and the like. They foment discord, suspicion, and guilt. It is hard to tell if such people care about principles - they certainly don't apply them consistently. Their principles are situational: they'll wait to see the race and/or sex of those involved before they bestow judgement, and side with the member of the group deemed to be more inherently oppressed. Using their overly-educated verbiage to undermine peoples' common sense and concerns whilst twisting them to their own esoteric and abstract morality that is rooted in historical oppression, ressentiment, and utopianism. Such are the weapons of the woke. This breeds inconsistency, at best, and distrust, at worst.

In the article's final paragraph we're told: 

If journalists and politicians really care about dangers facing Winnipeggers, they would turn their attention to a lack of public housing, pedestrian deaths, and police violence itself. And if money is their primary concern, they could pay some mind to the province’s appalling low minimum wage, the fact a single family in Manitoba owns $6.6 billion in wealth, or the ever-increasing police budget that diverts funding away from public transit and community services. Until then, we can only conclude the media are consciously peddling in racist and classist fear mongering for clicks and votes.

Again we can see the big issues being found in the smaller contexts. The problem isn't theft: its poverty. The poverty comes from a lack of public housing, and wealth inequality. The pathologies expressed in belligerent acts of lower class deviance are but symptoms of larger structures that we, in some way, are responsible for.

In short, until the author's particular set of demands are met, in a way that he see fit, he'll continue to judge you to be racist and classist fear mongers. That is what this is about: demands. Not anything else.