This story came across my newsfeed recently, and I must admit, I almost let it pass without my response or comments. There is no winning here. There is no way to come out of this story unscathed. Addressing this rationally and reasonably, will make me enemies on all sides of the political and cultural spectrum. I am going to piss off everyone. Black Lives Matters and feminist ideologues will loathe me. I’ll also manage to simultaneously piss off absolutely everyone engaged in the abortion debate. Pro-Choice, Pro-Life – won’t matter, I am going to upset absolutely everyone. OK, so, lets get started !
Having said all this, a good man – a very good man – Patterk Netser, does not deserve to stand alone. He does not deserve to face this tyranny alone. Mr Netser has a hearing on Oct 21st to determine his fate. He is walking into an ambush. This is not a ”hearing”. This is a co-ordinated and planned ceremonial like dismantling. These sorts of rituals are nothing but paganistic demonstrations of this groups perceived self importance and self righteousness at this point. This is a public flogging, a public humiliation designed to be nothing more than a brazen display of authoritarian power – a stern warning to others, reminding them what they stand to lose if they dare possess the audacity of holding an opinion which is ideologically misaligned.
So, lets accomplish a few things here. Firstly, lets rally some support behind Mr Netser and the battle he has found himself in. Make no mistake about this ladies and gentlemen. Mr Netser did not choose this battle. Rather, this battle came to him. The only thing Mr Netser is guilty of is daring to possess the requisite insolence to vocalize an opinion which is now frowned upon. This could happen to any Canadian, and at any time. The goal posts are perpetually moving, with new reasons to be offended being discovered almost daily at this point. The fact that every single word Mr Netser spoke was true, is completely irrelevant in this discussion. However, I would be remiss if I didn’t at least point this out.
I would argue, even if Mr Netser was wrong (which he wasn’t), he should be allowed to be wrong, and he should still be permitted to start a discussion and a debate – and especially if he is wrong. Otherwise, how on earth can we get people to change their minds? Last I checked, our entire country was been built upon the foundational cornerstone of open debates. I’m not sure when being on the wrong side of a debate, in a free and democratic country, meant you needed to be humiliated, destroyed and cancelled. Again however, I do not think Mr Netser actually said anything wrong here. You see folks – you must speak the words they demand you speak, and when they demand you to speak their words – OR ELSE. Until such time when they demand you speak the required words, you will not dare to say anything which contradicts their directives, otherwise, they will swiftly and immediately come for you, with pitch forks raised and character assassinations via application of horrific labels onto the infidels character.
Lets start with the fateful Facebook post by Mr Netsor which started this absurdity.
So, when exactly did it become a criminal offence, IN CANADA, to strip an elected representative of all of their titles, and aggressively pursue to have them removed from their position. And for what? for daring to say “all lives matter”? or for questioning how many black babies are aborted and openly asking why those lives do not seem important to an organization NAMED “Black Lives Matters”?
So, lets first dissect this post by Mr Netser, and break down this Facebook message into its component parts.
“All Lives Matter”Patiq Netser
One would think this statement would be self evident, however, and apparently, one would be wrong. You see, these ideologues will actually demand that you specifically say “black lives matter”, as otherwise, you’re a bigot. Merely suggesting that maybe we should not assign different values to different lives based on nothing more than skin pigmentation, is apparently akin to burning crosses on the front lawns of homes occupied by a black family and breaking out a white hood while carrying a noose. The mere suggestion that one actually cares equally about all lives is suddenly adequate enough of a reason to compare said heretic with the absolute worst version of human which has ever walked the face of the earth.
Personally, I find this horrifically offensive – Ironically, these zealots could care less about the offence they cause others. Let alone to an Inuit man like Patiq Netsor. Aren’t intersectional identity politics wonderful? You see, in a country where a man like Patiq has fought long and hard for his people, within OUR SYSTEM in Canada, he must now be silenced, and allow radical ideologues to operate freely outside of our system. Most reasonable and rational people would call radicals operating outside of our system like this criminal – but, for now, I digress.
“Just thinking outloud”Patiq Netser
Even openly indicating that he is simply sharing a thought – you know, on a social media platform, in order to initiate and stimulate a DISCUSSION, maybe even a DEBATE. How dare he do such a thing! How dare an elected official IN CANADA think he possesses the privilege to think outloud, let alone initiate and participate in a discussion or debate. You see, the aspiring identity politics authoritarians cannot allow this. You must speak their words, or else right? So, what are Patiq’s options here. Speak the words he is literally compelled to say, or stay silent. IN CANADA. You know what the real problem here is? Like all authoritarians who have come before them, their ideas are simply atrocious. Their ideas cannot stand up to debate in the public forum, and they damn well know it. This is why they silence opposing voices, and this is why they cancel opposing voices. To allow this in Canada is not only unconstitutional, its also, by the very definition of our laws, criminal.
“The movement on BLM (Black Lives Matters)”Patiq Netser
Firstly here, lets be clear on something. The Black Lives Matters movement, is in itself, by definition, a double entendres. On one hand, of course “black lives matter”. No sane, rational or reasonable person would disagree with this statement. One would also presume that no sane, rational or reasonable person would disagree with the statement that “all lives matter“, but, as is clearly evidenced here, one would be wrong to make such a presumption – but again, I digress. Meanwhile, on the other hand, absolutely everyone should be questioning the organization “Black Lives Matters”. The ORGANIZATION “Black Lives Matters”, is a flagrant radical Marxist revolutionary group. You don’t need to be a neurosurgeon to understand this. There are no hidden meanings, or subtle agendas here. They openly demonstrate this in their actions. They demand you speak specific words, they demand you stifle your speech and your ideas if it contradicts their own, and they come after you mercilessly if you possess the requisite impudence to simply disagree with them.
Don’t listen to your own lying eyes and ears if you are unconvinced, instead, listen to their own words. They OPENLY and FLAGRANTLY admit who and what they are.
“We do have an ideological frame. Myself and Alicia, in particular, are trained organizers; we are trained Marxists. We are superversed on, sort of, ideological theories. And I think what we really try to do is build a movement that could be utilized by many, many Black folks.”Patrisse Cullors – Co-Founder – Black Lives Matters
describes herself as “a queer social justice activist and Marxist.”Alicia Garza – Co-Founder – Black Lives Matters
“We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.”Black Lives Matters website – about us page (recently removed for obvious reasons)
It can, and should be argued, that the number one issue impacting the black community in Canada, is the dramatic rise in single motherhood rate over the last 30 years or so. The black single motherhood rate has soared from approximately 30%, to slightly over 70%. I find it alarming, and horrifying that an organization named “Black Lives Matters” would not recognize the negative impact this soaring single motherhood rate has had on their community, and instead, as a foundational objective within their platform, look to disrupt the western-prescribed nuclear family structure, and drive the single motherhood rate higher across Canada.
argued that his organization and others like it are justified in using destruction to call attention to their grievances with American society.
“”What if you throw a whole bunch of tea in the water and start a war?” Newsome continued at another point in the interview. “That’s what this country was built on.”Hawk Newsome – President of Black Lives Matters of Greater New York
The Black Lives Matters ORGANIZATION, no matter how you look at it, are a well funded, structured, hierarchical organization. They are self proclaimed Marxists, and they are self proclaimed revolutionaries and self proclaimed war mongers. They operate outside of our Canadian system and laws, they suppress the rights of others, and they attack those who do not comply. This, by its very definition, is authoritarian, and its completely nonsensical that we are not only accommodating such people, but, we are eagerly participating in their despotic practices.
Finally, with respect to Patiq Netser, and his original Facebook post/comment…
I wonder how many black ladies go through abortions and at what stage of the gestation? Are they not lives too?Patiq Netser
Despite how offensive some may feel this comment may be, there is absolutely nothing wrong with these comments and these questions from Mr Netser. These are fair comments, and rational questions to be asking. When exactly did it become ok, IN CANADA, to be so utterly offended by the facts, that we must cancel those who dare to speak of them?
Factually speaking, black women, are 5x as likely to have an abortion vs white women. It wasn’t that long ago when various black activist groups referred to this as the “abortion racial gap”, and an example of something that needed to be addressed and resolved within our society and culture, with respect to achieving racial equality.
How on earth did an Inuit man asking this question suddenly become offensive to an organization which calls themselves “Black Lives Matters”?
Further to this, and lets actually avoid the pro-life vs pro-choice debate here – at least as much as I possibly can. My own formal position re abortion falls somewhere in the middle of a pro-choice and pro-life debate (and yes, this is possible). However, for todays discussion, allow me to draw a simple conclusion (I say simple, yet I know even this statement will throw many into a fit of rage – but, I could care less). Myself, nor any rational scientific, logical or humanity based assessment and discussion, can tolerate late stage abortions. Late stage abortions, by every definition of the word, is infanticide. An abortion at 21 weeks or longer of gestation is completely unimaginable. Its utterly unthinkable. It literally relies on the ideological separation of your mind from all science, logic, reason and humanity to accept. It explicitly relies on one dehumanizing a person, over nothing more than their current residence being that of the womb. There are no politics, and there are no ideologies which can justify these atrocities. This is unfathomable. At 21 weeks or longer of gestation, a fetus is a baby. There is no science which would describe a fetus at this stage of development as anything other than a human being. At this stage of development, and with our existing capabilities, this baby is fully viable outside of the womb, and will absolutely survive without its mother. This is a human life, by every single possible definition. Killing this life, is again, infanticide. There are zero valid arguments against this position.
Speaking in comparative biological terms, a baby at 21 weeks, would be equivalent to the developmental stage of a puppy or a kitten when they are born. One of the evolutionary advantages found in higher level mammals, such as human beings for example, is a prolonged gestation period. Unlike cats and dogs, who have litters of offspring, humans for example, will typically give birth to a single offspring. Evolutionarily speaking, dogs and cats trade off number of offspring in exchange for probabilities of survival. Meaning that dogs and cats expect a certain number of their offspring to die from exposure or predators for example. Whereas with humans, they carry a single viable offspring for much longer, but bank on the survival of that single offspring – which is practically assured as a direct result of the longer gestation period. Ironically enough, 10’s of 1000’s of years of evolutionary gifts, resulting in longer gestation periods and less offspring per birthing cycle, specifically designed to increase the likelihood of the survival of that baby human being and the human species, by protecting it in the womb well beyond normal birthing gestation of other mammals, has been completely negated, in a few decades of work, by radicalized feminist ideologies.
So, lets look at some of this data here. I am going to use the data from the ARCC – “Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada” – so that absolutely no one can accuse me of sourcing biased data. In fact, if a bias does exist in this data, its certainly leaning counter to the point I am making. According to the ARCC, only 1.16% of all abortions occur at 21 weeks or later. This is obviously worded in such a way as to indicate that since “only 1.16%” of abortions occur past past 21 weeks of gestation, this would be indicative of a small number, and nothing to be concerned with. Realistically however, according to the data provided by the ARCC, this represents 1029 fully formed human beings being killed each year (data accurate as of March 2020). No matter how you look at this, you would have to be an absolute monster not to at least question how and why our society has gotten to the point where we allow (and often times even promote), the killing of over 1000 human babies a year. In the United States, this number is closer to 10,000 babies – each and every year. (and again, this is just abortions performed at 21 weeks of gestation or later) Considering the disproportionate number of black women having said abortions, this represents approximately 800 aborted black babies, per year in Canada, and approximately 8000 in the United States.
So, no matter how you look at this, Mr Netser is completely validated in asking these questions.
The question I would ask, is how on earth does this offend an organization called “Black Lives Matters”? If the organization called Black Lives Matters, you know, actually cared about black lives, would they not be asking why such a disproportionate number of black babies are being killed in late stage abortions? Would this not be indicative of a problem they need to investigate and address? Would this “racial gap” in late stage abortions not be concerning to them?
The simple fact of the matter is, the Black Lives Matters organization do not care about black lives, or any other lives for that matter. They are nothing but flagrant Marxist anarchists, and they demand ones obedience to their ideological rhetoric. Science, logic and reason be damned. How else do you explain that they are more concerned with Mr Netser daring to question their movement and their motives, versus demonstrating any concern what so ever for the disproportionate number of late stage abortions performed on black women and against black babies?
So, what does Joe Savikitaaq, the MP (Member of Parliament) in this riding do? Without even bothering to perform any sort of assessment against the comments made? (as I have done in some pretty good detail above for example) Instead, Joe Savikitaaq, based on nothing more than a complaint made by Nunavuts Black History Society, and local Black Lives Matters organizational chapter (who recently organized and promoted a local Black Lives Matters event in Nunavut), immediately, without question, acted to remove and disgrace Mr Netser.
Savikataaq said that being an executive council member meant carrying the position “24 hours a day, seven days a week,” because of which making such remarks was unacceptable. The Black History Society of Nunavut appreciated Savikataaq’s “hard decision to remove a cabinet member who had made insensitive comments towards our local Black Lives Matter movement, Black women and women generally.”From reclaimthenet.org
I must ask Mr Savikataaq, which comments exactly were unacceptable? Which comments exactly were insensitive? And why exactly were they unacceptable? Simply because a radical Marxist organization told you they were offended, you immediately, without question, moved to remove a cabinet member? Well, I can assure you Mr Savikataaq, myself, and plenty of your constituents, are equally offended by your actions. Will you now be resigning as a member of parliament and forcing a byelection in your riding? As, by your own admission, you simply heard that a specific group of people were offended, and you immediately moved to accommodate them? I demand you treat those offended by YOUR actions equally, and you immediately move to remove yourself from office.
Savikataaq called Netser and presented him with two options: quit or get stripped of portfolios. Netser refused to resign, forcing Savikataaq to do the latter.From reclaimthenet.org
So, a simple ultimatum. Without even the courtesy of a discussion, without a debate and without even a second thought. You offended a group of radical marxists, and as such, you must be removed from your responsibilities. So now, you are punishing a man who has accomplished amazing things for the Inuit community and Inuit children in your riding, and has done so for how long exactly? The Inuit community in Canada has had legitimate concerns since, well, Canada became Canada. Have the fine Inuit people ever demanded that Canadians not be allowed to speak? not be allowed to have an opinion? Not be allowed to have a discussion or a debate around differing opinions and differing perspectives? Well, of course they haven’t. So why on earth Mr Savikataaq, are you allowing a radical Marxist organization like Black Lives Matters to make such demands upon Canada and the Inuit people now?
“The Government of Nunavut values diversity, equality and fairness for all.” Savikataaq said in the statement.Joe Savikataaq
Joe, I am not sure if the definitions of words like “diversity”, inclusion”, “equality” and/or “fairness” simply escape you. Possibly you are simply misguided and confused within the ideological narratives currently surrounding you, and your judgement is being impaired. Listen Joe, I absolutely and positively assure you – without tolerance and acceptance of all ideas, beliefs and discussions, within the acceptable framework of our constitution and our laws, you are, by the very definition of the meaning of the words you’re using to justify your actions, destroying all of the diversity and inclusion which exists in Canada today. Nothing said by Mr Netser, can in any conceivable way, be even interpreted to suggest that Mr Netser was inciting violence with his speech. Nothing Mr Netser said was indicative of racism or discrimination towards a specific group of people based on their race, gender or religious beliefs.
So, on which practical or logical grounds are you determining that Mr Netser spoke in any way what so ever which was detrimental towards concepts of diversity and inclusion within Canada. You have silenced and now threatened, an Inuit man, and an Inuit leader, for suggesting that all lives are equally important, and for suggesting that a disproportionate number of late stage abortions being performed against black women and black babies, is something maybe we should all be concerned with.
Is this legitimately the position you are holding? Is this legitimately the position you are using to justify stripping a man of his cabinet positions and as justification for forcibly removing him completely from the assembly? If you really feel you hold the moral high ground here, and that your constituents support your actions and your decisions, maybe this is something you should take to an election.I think you would find that the people do not support these radical Marxist ideologues. Nor do they appreciate having their freedom of speech and freedom of expression stifled. Nor do they appreciate being called bigots unless they agree with the nonsensical ramblings of these radical Marxist ideologues. This is pure authoritarian nonsense Joe, and you are clearly on the wrong side of history here. Please consider reversing course, as I positively assure you that your descendants will not look back fondly upon you here.
Now, a personal message to Mr Netser here if I may. Patterk (Patiq), and with all due respect, you have made one mistake here. You apologized to the radicals. As respectfully as possible sir, this is something you should not have done. This is how they gain power, this is how they force their ideological rhetoric, seemingly unchallenged, onto our society.This is how they destroy our rights and freedoms, while assuming the victimization position, cowardly and meekly hiding behind their faux outrage and their “hurt feelings”. They do not care about your apology. You are nothing but a trophy on their mantle, along with every other person they managed to destroy. Each time we bend to their will, they gain power and control. That is all they care about. They demonstrate their tolerance so eloquently don’t they? They have zero tolerance for anyone. Even if someone actually says something they regret. Maybe, being human, a person simply made a mistake. Unacceptable to these folks correct? They will attack with full fury, and demonstrate zero sympathy or mercy towards those they are targeting. They must destroy anyone who dares stray from the path of the thoughts and ideas they approve of. Remember, they behave this way, because their ideas are not sustainable under the pressure of rational debate within the public forum – therefore, they must stifle the debate from even happening. Retract your apology Mr Netser. Stand your ground. You have said nothing wrong, and you have nothing to apologize for. I for one, agree with every single word you said. At the very least, you raised interesting points which all Canadians should also feel free to raise, discuss and debate. That is what democracy and freedom means, and that is what this once great country stood for. That is what, despite these radicals best efforts, the laws of our land demand.