Lindsay Shepard recounts her 2017 "woke mob" targeting at Wilfrid Laurier University for sharing a Jordan Peterson clip, sparking a defamation lawsuit still unresolved due to Peterson’s health. Meanwhile, Canada’s Trudeau Liberals push internet censorship via Heritage Minister Stephen Gilboe, who called Breitbart’s comment section a "racist cesspool" yet faces accusations of hypocrisy after smearing critics like Catherine McKenna. Shepard’s book, Diversity and Exclusion, argues universities weaponize ideological mandates—funded by terms like "BIPOC"—to silence dissent, mirroring old human rights commissions’ manufactured outrage. Critics compare the transgender movement’s legal expansion to gay rights’ past activism, noting 90% of Latinos reject "Latinx" as a forced diversity tactic. The episode exposes how free speech crises and pandemic-era church crackdowns reveal systemic overreach, questioning whether dissent is now the real target. [Automatically generated summary]
They're actually pretty good about warning us about the worst things they're going to do.
The carbon tax, for example, they told us that was coming.
Well, they've been telling us for months that they're coming to censor the internet.
They're explaining how and how hard.
And today I'm going to show you the Heritage Minister saying he has an extreme idea, that's his word, that includes a nuclear option.
That's his word.
I'll tell you what that is.
And you know he's coming for us, right?
That's today's podcast.
Before I get to it, let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
That's the video version of this show.
It's eight bucks a month or $80 for the whole year if you buy it a year at a time.
That's a bit of a discount.
Go to RebelNews.com, click subscribe.
You get my video show every day.
Sheila Gunnery, David Menzies, and Andrew Chapardos have a show once a week.
But I think a real reason to do it too, frankly, is to support Rebel News because we need the dough more than ever.
We don't take any money from Trudeau, and yet our expenses have never been larger because we're doing so much civil liberties work.
So I'd really appreciate the subscription for that reason.
Plus, I think you get good stuff from it.
It's more interesting than what you get on Netflix, and it's half the price.
All right, my friends, here's today's podcast.
Tonight, Trudeau's liberals say they will legally censor anyone who taunts them.
So anyways, nice be knowing you.
It's April 9th, and this is the Anzra Levant show.
Why should others go to jail when you're the biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here, and you won't give them an answer.
The only thing I have is government about why I publish them.
It's because it's my bloody right to do so.
Sometimes politicians ambush you.
They say one thing, and then after they get what they want from you, your vote, they reveal their true colors, as in they're liars.
Like all politicians, Trudeau is a bit of a liar, but I have to give him some credit where it's due.
In many cases, he really does tell us in advance what he is going to do to us.
He told us even before he was Liberal Party leader that China was his favorite country.
There's a level of admiration I actually have for China because their basic dictatorship is allowing them to actually turn their economy around on a diet.
Trudeau told us that he loved marijuana so much that he didn't want to just decriminalize it.
He wanted to legalize it.
He told us.
I have been in my past a very rare user of marijuana.
I think five or six times in my life that I've taken a puff.
As has been said many times, the legalization of marijuana is not an event, it's a process.
And as we do that, we will continue to move forward and be responsive to challenges that come up and opportunities that come up.
But I need to reiterate the importance of moving forward as planned this summer on the legalization and control of marijuana.
Trudeau told us countless times that he was going to bring in a carbon tax.
I mean, sure, he lied about the details.
He lied about the rate he would jack it up, but I can't say that any of his carbon tax stuff has really been an ambush.
The guy poses for pictures with George Soros.
He goes on TV to tell the United Nations that he's excited about their great reset.
This pandemic has provided an opportunity for a reset.
There's a certain honesty to Trudeau's corruption, whereas lesser liars like Aaron O'Toole campaign on one thing and then do another.
Trudeau's views on, well, I mean, Aaron O'Toole, for example, on cancel culture or global warming or Foreign Aid or CBC funding, those are a few examples there.
But my point is for months, we've been watching Trudeau get things in line for his massive new censorship program.
He has not been hiding it, is my point.
It's not an ambush.
It is coming.
The greatest censorship of Canadian media since the Second World War, when military censors reviewed every newspaper in the country before publishing.
But that was only to protect military secrets, not to quell political debates.
Trudeau has been working on this censorship for years.
In fact, for several years, it has been part of Stephen Gilbo's mandate letter.
He's the heritage minister.
The very second priority has been censorship.
So first Trudeau softened up his targets by boosting his annual grant to the CBC and by putting the country's newspapers on his payroll through the media bailout.
I mean, once you agree to take his money, you can't really oppose your new boss, can you?
It's like asking the mafia for a favor.
All right, but then you're indebted to them forever.
So the CBC has always been in Trudeau's pocket, but now 99% of the rest of the media is in Trudeau's pocket too.
It's just a few online outfits like us at Rebel News and True North and Blacklocks, Western Standard Online in Alberta, The Breaker.
It's almost it, Spencer Fernando.
A handful.
But more than 99% of the media in Canada is under direct liberal control through money.
But that last 1%, that seems to mean everything to Trudeau because you can have a dark room with 100 candles in it, and you can snuff out 99 of those candles.
But if there's just one candle that's still burning, the room's not dark, is it?
As long as one last candle is lit, there is still light, isn't there?
And if you want darkness because you don't want scrutiny and you don't want criticism and you don't want opposition, then actually that last candle, that last holdout, it absolutely has to be snuffed out at all costs.
It's actually more important than the first 99, isn't it?
Well, here they come to try and snuff us out.
Look at this story in Blacklocks today.
We'll censor political taunts.
Federal internet censors should target hurtful words against politicians, says Heritage Minister Stephen Gilbo.
The minister added pending regulations may include an internet kill switch to block websites deemed hurtful, but called it a nuclear option.
Oh my God.
Let me read the first five paragraphs to you from the story.
They're stunning, actually.
So just don't say you weren't warned, right?
We have seen too many examples of public officials retreating from public service due to the hateful online content targeted towards themselves or even their families, said Gilbo.
I have seen firsthand alongside other Canadians the damaging effects harmful content has on our families, our values, and our institutions.
As a dad and a stepdad to six kids, I know more can and should be done to create a safer online environment.
Gilbo made his remarks in a podcast sponsored by Canada 2020, an Ottawa think tank affiliated with the Liberal Party.
Legislation to censor internet content will be introduced shortly, he said.
I am confident we can get this adopted, said Gilbo.
Once the legislation is adopted, clearly creating a new body, a new regulator like that in Canada would take some time.
Could we envision having blocking orders?
Maybe, he said.
It would likely be a last resort, a nuclear bomb in a toolbox of mechanisms for a regulator.
It's pretty extreme, but theoretically it is a tool that is out there and could potentially be used, said Gilbo.
But really, no decisions have been made on that.
This is something you would see as part of the regulations, most likely.
Okay, stop for a moment.
He's admitting it's an extreme idea.
It would be extreme censorship.
He used that word.
He compared it to a nuclear bomb.
Not to take down terrorist websites, not to take down child pornography websites, but to take down comments by people who are politically mean to liberal politicians.
Internet censors should have federal powers to delete content piecemeal, said Gilbo.
There is this notion of a 24-hour takedown, he said.
This is something we want to do in Canada.
On online platforms, when something is posted there, it can stay there for a very long time, he said.
It can get reproduced and shared and reshared hundreds, thousands, hundreds of thousands of times.
And it's very difficult for people, individual citizens, to have any control over it.
So we want to shift the burden from people to the platform.
The thing is, that's not new.
Threats or defamation or any other word crime, a forgery, a copyright violation, whatever, can be seen thousands of times before the law catches up to it.
Maybe you saw that smear the other day that 60 Minutes just tried to do to Ron DeSantis, the governor of Florida.
I bet 10 million people saw that.
Okay, the law will catch up to them.
Books once published last decades, centuries even.
So nothing he's talking about is new.
The law can catch up.
It already has YouTube, Facebook, Twitter.
They're not brand new, by the way.
They're all over a decade old.
Facebook, if you can believe it, it's 17 years old now.
You can sue someone for a Facebook post if it breaks the law.
Police can respond to a death threat made on Facebook, just like they would if the death threat was made on a piece of paper or the telephone on the radio or whatever.
All that's new here is a politician who's getting more and more comfortable ordering the internet to erase his opponents.
The internet is actually not new.
It's about 30 years old in terms of the popular internet.
That's not new.
What's new is politicians saying, I want the power to censor.
I mean, Gilbo has dreamed for years of censoring his political enemies.
Look at this weird tweet from him years ago.
He said, discus hosts Breitbart's racist, sexist cesspool of a comment section and doesn't seem to have a problem with it.
So he wants to delete an entire comment section of a media company in another country, no less.
He's trying to de-platform a news website in another country, and he's wanted this for years.
That was him four years ago, but now he's doing it.
And he wants to be able to do it in 24 hours.
Why?
24 hours?
I can see taking down a terrorist threat or a death threat really quickly like that.
I don't think Facebook would need a politician to tell them to do that.
But you heard Gilbo, he wants to do that for taunts.
Because you can't have a real trial in 24 hours.
So it would be a command, really, a show trial at most.
That's the censorship way.
And who do you think they're coming for?
Well, ask Catherine McKenna.
Hi, Minister.
How are you this morning?
Could you tell me what you meant when you said yesterday that your government might regulate everything?
I certainly never said that.
You actually said it as a threat.
Unfortunately, Rebel News always distorts what I say.
No, it was quite clear.
You said it in a tweet as a threat to companies, digital companies that don't regulate themselves.
You said the government could regulate everything.
What did I say to you?
That you guys are contributing to hate against me because you spread misinformation and disinformation.
I will continue to call out your misinformation and disinformation every single day.
What was the misinformation?
Please tell me.
I'd be interested to hear.
The misinformation and disinformation is what you just said right now.
You threatened yesterday to regulate the market.
You know what I don't like?
Sure, please give me some.
Is that you're contributing to all the hate I'm receiving.
I did an online, I did an event with women politicians.
The amount of hate the woman politicians is getting from outlets like you is completely unacceptable.
About half of our journalists are women.
Why are you targeting us specifically over that?
It's your comments that we're asking you about.
The funny thing is that McKenna and Gilbo are the rudest, most obnoxious bigots around.
They sure can dish it out.
They just can't take it.
I mean, Gilbo himself, he's actually a convicted criminal.
I don't know how he managed to get into cabinet.
Did the RCMP not object to a convicted criminal in cabinet?
And McKenna, she smears anyone who disagrees with her as a denier.
She uses language that tracks Holocaust denial.
She tries to say, you're a Nazi if you don't agree with her.
I mean, listen to her contempt for the public here.
You know, I actually gave him some real advice.
I said that if you actually say it louder, we've learned in the House of Commons.
If you repeat it, if you say it louder, if that is your talking point, people will totally believe it.
So just go in.
Yeah, kids, don't drink and tweet, okay?
But for Gilbo to complain about rudeness is just next-level gaslighting.
I really don't know any MP from any party who is more abusive to citizens online.
Here's just a little sample, just a couple.
Why am I not surprised?
Ezra Advance Rebel Media boosts propaganda from neo-Nazi group.
No, you wicked liar.
Please don't call me a Nazi booster.
I'm actually a Jew.
Here's another one.
Rebel media's climate denial expert was too dumb to be sued for defamation, BC court rules.
Oh, that's not true, of course, but we're not talking about truth.
We're just talking about mean tweets, right?
I mean, Gilbo wants to ban mean tweets, right?
For other people, but not for himself.
Look, this isn't really about hurt feelings.
Gilbo calls Jews Nazis.
Gilbo himself is an unrepentant, convicted criminal.
Gilbo doesn't believe in the same moral code that you and I do.
He believes in raw power.
He believes in breaking the law when it suits him.
And now he's a lawmaker.
He's the most obnoxious defamatory smearer in all of Parliament, but now he'll pretend he's about good taste and hurt feelings while he bans the last 1% of the media in Canada that didn't take his bribe.
I guess my point is, folks, don't say they didn't warn you, but come back next week because if we're still on the internet, I'll have some very interesting news for you on this subject.
Stay with us for more.
I'm very excited about our next guest.
Jordan Peterson's Controversy00:14:26
Lindsay Shepard skyrocketed to international acclaim in 2017 when she was a 22-year-old graduate student at Wilfrid Laurier University.
She did not have a public profile, but she was targeted by a diversity and inclusion woke mob because she dared to show a short clip of Jordan Peterson to her graduate students just to ask them what they thought.
She was then harassed by the anti-harassers.
There was an investigation of her, but she made a very strategic decision to record her own interrogation because as we know, if she hadn't recorded it, no one would believe what they did to her.
She turned the tables on her inquisitors and fought back.
Her name is Lindsay Shepard.
Book.
It's called Diversity and Exclusion, and we're delighted to interview her now.
Lindsay, great to see you again.
Congratulations on the new book.
Thank you.
And thanks for having me.
Well, it's our pleasure.
I'm so glad you wrote this book.
I didn't know if you were able to tell the full story because I'm aware, and I'm delighted about this, that you are actually suing Wilfrid Laurier for blacklisting you, for deplatforming you, for smearing you in a trumped-up sham investigation.
So is that lawsuit still going on?
Yeah, so that lawsuit was launched in 2018.
And there's also a lawsuit in conjunction with Jordan Peterson.
So he is suing for defamation because the professors that you were referring to that were in the disciplinary meeting with me telling me I created a toxic environment and all that, they said Peterson was a charlatan and they compared him to Hitler.
So he's suing for defamation concurrently.
And so the lawsuit can't progress until Jordan Peterson is feeling a bit better.
Your viewers may know he hasn't been of the greatest health lately.
So because these lawsuits are all kind of combined, we're waiting for that point.
Because I should add, the university, they're saying that if Jordan Peterson was indeed defamed, it would be my fault because I made a recording of the defamation.
So there's a third-party claim against me, if that'll make sense.
I do understand it.
I'm delighted, and you've got a very serious lawyer, if I'm not mistaken.
Is Howard Levitt still your lawyer?
Yeah, he's great.
He's one of the top legal minds in Canada.
So this is not a rinky-dink lawsuit.
If I were Wilfrid Laurier and if I saw an incoming lawsuit from Howard Levitt, I would be very worried.
And I think one of the reasons they should be worried, and I don't want to talk about the lawsuit so much, but it is, it really covers what your book is about.
You were put through a sham process, a fake trial, a show trial, like a struggle session that they would have in Maoist China.
For example, you were told that there were one or more people who had complained about you, and there were all these complaints that were allegedly said, but it turned out it was all made up.
It was just basically a chance to bait you and set you up.
It would be what the Brits call a stitch-up, am I right?
Yeah, exactly.
And it's all documented in this book.
So it was truly a pleasure to get all that out there.
I bet.
Now, the book has been out for only about a week or so, and I see it's getting great ratings on Amazon, which is excellent.
And I really look forward to digging into it myself.
I feel like our side, and I don't know if you regard yourself on my side, but I regard myself on your side because I think you were victimized and demonized.
And they shut down your ability to debate.
And then they had a fake process and then they smeared you.
But the difference is you fought back and you made that one very smart decision.
So I love the fact that you're fighting back.
Is the book part of your fight back?
Or is it just to tell people this is what's going on on campus?
This is where you're sending your kids and grandkids.
This is what you're spending 10, 20, 30 grand a year in university tuition for.
This is what it's like these days.
Yeah, exactly.
So it's mostly a memoir, but it's also, it has elements of a nonfiction book that is explaining what's going on on campuses right now.
But one of my main motivations was just to document everything that happened in that case from 2017 to 2018.
I just saw a shortage of books that really serve as case studies of campus free speech issues.
And so I thought this is a good chance to tell a full story, especially because a lot of your viewers may have followed the Laurier controversy when it was in the news in 2017.
But there was, even though at the end, the university apologized and all that, there was still almost another full year of when I was still at school at Wilfrid Laurier University.
And there was so much happening behind the scenes that wasn't necessarily newsworthy, but it's still really interesting.
And it shows that gradual process of being alienated once you show to have a different unpopular viewpoint on something.
And so that story is now out there.
You know, am I correct to say that before this whole thing started, you weren't particularly a troublemaker.
You weren't a public advocate.
You weren't famous for campaigning or championing things.
You were a grad student who was in an interesting debate.
That this sort of forced you into the public eye.
Is that true that this turned you into an activist or were you one to begin with?
No, as I write on the blurb of the book, I went from going from a nobody to going viral.
So I had no social media accounts.
I was not active in that kind of sphere at all.
And this book tells the story of being thrust into those issues and learning about free speech and political correctness, those kinds of issues really quickly, and immersing myself in them because I just kind of found myself in the middle of something.
And at a time when it was also very culturally relevant, which it kind of still is.
I mean, the pandemic has taken over the cultural relevancy.
But yeah, it was just kind of the right moment where people were paying attention to things like gender pronouns and all that.
And I fell into it.
You know, I think a lot of people are liberal or moderate, and then they get hit by this woke mob and they are either crumbled or they suddenly rediscover the importance of free speech and they look around and they see that the woke mob is on the left.
You tell me if I'm right or wrong here.
I'm trying to think back to 2017, 2018, because we did cover these stories a little bit.
I remember we sent a reporter out to Wilfrid Laurier.
And if I recall, I think you were a little hesitant even to talk to Rebel News because if I'm not mistaken, you probably would have described yourself as a liberal or at least regular.
And back then, I think maybe you hadn't fully realized that the censors, the limiters of free speech were increasingly from the left and that it was conservatives that were on the free speechy side.
I mean, I don't want to mischaracterize you, but that's how I sort of remember your transformation.
You were a little nervous when we even said, what's your story?
Because maybe you thought that the war against free speech was even on the right as opposed to, I mean, I'm not saying there were no right-wingers who are against free speech, but I seem to recall you being a little bit liberal.
Yeah, I think, I mean, I was a pretty person who kept to myself.
And I think if you don't vocalize any kind of non-unorthodox opinions that you have, or you don't have any brush-ups with political correctness, you can kind of just go on thinking there's no problem.
But I did brush up against it, and I very quickly learned that there was a problem.
Otherwise, I think, yeah, people just go on thinking there's nothing wrong because they don't ever vocalize an unorthodox opinion.
So you're right.
I remember being hesitant to speak to, I think it was David Menzies at the free speech rally at Wilfrid Laurier, just because at the time I was being bombarded with accusations of, you know, I'm alt-right and all these things.
And people, I remember a professor at Laurier was writing how I'm going to end up working at Rebel News and they're the only ones who are going to hire me.
I mean, this is the things that they say, right?
Well, you know, it's funny because, I mean, I'm joking around, and this is not about us.
It's just me remembering that you were blindsided by this.
I think you were a regular person who was blindsided by this.
And yeah, I mean, my question is really not about us.
It's about how someone who's thrust into these cancel cultural wars realizes that maybe the threat is surprisingly to them from the left.
But let me ask you this.
You talked about reputation and they said only right-wingers will have you.
You were smeared.
And a student who's in grad school, I didn't go to grad school myself.
I imagine that unless you're just really passionately interested in a subject and really, really, really want to learn more about it, there is sort of a hope that you would get a job in academia.
I think that's what graduate school is about, right?
So if you are blackened, blacklisted, blackballed by academic bosses, by deans and professors, as being a troublemaker at best and like a transphobe or whatever at worst, you're not going to get offers to be an assistant professor somewhere or whatever the next ladder on the academic, next rung on the academic ladder is, right?
So they really killed any academic career you could have.
Yeah, yeah, you're right.
And the world of Canadian academia, the arts, it's really quite small.
And even if you do have some professors advocating for you, which I did, there were some pro-free speech professors across the country who are openly supporting me.
Still, to get hired in an academia today, you have to sit through these, you have like a panel of people interviewing you.
And their main concern right now is, do you abide by the tenets of diversity and inclusion?
And what I did, which is say that Jordan Peterson's view on compelled speech and pronouns was a valid viewpoint, I'm seen as antithetical to their mandate of diversity and inclusion.
So that's kind of why I'm a fan of the title of my book, Diversity and Exclusion.
Yeah.
Well, every kind of diversity is allowed except for diversity of thought.
Everyone's included except for those they cancel and they exclude.
I think it's a great title also.
You know, you made me think of Peter Thiel, the great tech entrepreneur, libertarian thinker.
He is famous for a job interview question that he would put to people.
And I don't know if you've ever heard it, but I've got it on my screen here.
It's, what important truth do very few people agree with you on?
Or another way of saying that is, what is a heretical view that you have?
And he liked to ask that, not so much because he wanted to know the particular answer, but he wanted to know if you could answer that question, if there is anything in your life you've ever done to be a dissenter, a disruptor, because most people would say, I have never been a heretic.
I've never dissented.
I've never made a ripple or a wave.
Please don't call me an outsider.
That's what I love about the question.
I don't even think he really cared what the answer was.
He just wanted to know, do you have the courage to swim against the currents?
What do you think of that?
Yeah, that's awesome.
And I really learned throughout the controversy that I like being around people who have been through controversies themselves, who have had false accusations or anonymous complaints put against them, because you do gain a certain understanding of the world once you've been put through that.
Whereas I think people who haven't rubbed up against it, they just, they don't have that insight.
We're talking with Lindsay Shepard, of course, the hero of Wilfrid Laurier University, who stood up to the woke mob, very strategically recorded their sham investigation of her.
Her new book is called Diversity and Exclusion, Confronting the Campus Free Speech Crisis.
We'll have a link to it under this video.
Well, let me put the teal question to you.
And maybe I know the answer.
What important truth do very few people agree with you on?
Well, so there's one part in my book where I talk about who I was before the Laurier controversy.
And I say that, let's say I had been approached on the street, and I'm kind of like what the rebel does sometimes, like streeters approaching random people.
And if you had asked me, are trans women women?
I probably just would have said, yeah, sure, whatever.
And now, after having learned about those issues, I would say, no, that's not correct.
Trans women are trans women.
And I'm not sure how many, if that's an unpopular opinion or a popular opinion, but I think a lot of people are just too scared of being perceived as mean.
Inclusion vs. Ideological Conformity00:04:01
That's probably where my previous view is coming from.
Yeah, you didn't want to be mean.
Yep.
And that's a nice place to come from, to be nice to everybody, not to be mean to everybody, but often, you know, that may be the intention, but the outcome, in the case of trans women, for example, okay, have you just destroyed all girls' sports, for example, because now trans women can compete with women?
I think that's a very interesting answer to the Peter Thiel question, because I don't know.
I think most people would say trans women are real women just to avoid being mobbed, but secretly in their heart, they would say the opposite.
I mean, they would hold two different views, one for public consumption, one for private consumption.
Like in the former Soviet Union, you knew what to say to people you didn't know and trust, and then you knew what you could say at home within the privacy of your own house.
Let me ask you this.
Your story, I mean, it was well covered in the National Post, and we did our best to cover it too, and you were a great spokesperson yourself.
I'm glad you've lawyered up, and I understand why the lawsuit sort of paused.
This book is an excellent expression of all these things.
But what is your proposal or plan?
If you had one piece of advice for how to fix things, what would it be?
Yeah, in my book, I say straight up that we need to close all diversity and inclusion offices at universities.
And that's going to be what I see as the most important step to making universities bastions of free thought again.
Because those offices, while they sound nice, you know, you want to include everyone, inclusion, what they are really in the business of is enforcing ideological conformity and making sure everyone on campus has the correct viewpoints on everything.
That's what they're doing.
And they get six-figure salaries, the heads of these offices.
And the students pay for it.
And it's just so ridiculous.
They need to all be shut down.
So that's my suggestion.
I think that's spot on.
How likely is that to happen?
Is there any school in the country that doesn't have one of these offices?
I mean, I'm sure even community colleges where they would teach something more practical to a different type of student.
Like there's some universities that are so abstract in the humanities and peace and gender studies, vegetarian studies, whatever.
But I bet even in trade schools where you're learning how to get your welding ticket, they probably have these offices.
Is there any chance of pulling out this weed by the root in the liberal arts universities?
Because to me, that sounds like such an impossible prescription.
I agree with you.
We need to do that.
But really, is that even possible these days?
I mean, these offices are only expanding.
They're expanding into the private sector too.
I mean, not every university has a diversity office.
It's only if you have enough money, frankly.
The smaller universities just kind of have a webpage saying how they abide by the tenets of diversity and inclusion.
But once they get enough funding, they open one often.
I think it's only the University of Prince Edward Island where I think they had to shut it down for lack of funding like many, many years ago, which is kind of interesting.
But yeah, they're only expanding.
I think people who do, students who do arts degrees, they see, or even business or STEM, because there's this whole women in STEM BIPOC STEM kind of stuff.
So you're using lingo, STEM, that's science, technology, engineering, and math, I think, and BIPOC, that's, what does that stand for?
Lingo Wars00:02:59
Black, Indigenous, people of color.
It's this whole language and vocabulary that if that I think most, I don't think most people know what BIPOC means on the street, but there's this whole language and like an insider speak.
And if you don't, I mean, I often think about this.
It used to be the word Indian, you know, the Indian Act and Indian Reserve.
These are legal words, status Indian, Indian agent.
But then that was racist, so it became Aboriginal.
Then it became First Nations, then it became Indigenous.
And if you're not keeping up with the latest phrase, you are obviously racist.
Even if you're not, I think they have to continuously ratchet things forward to show that they are one step ahead of you so they can sneer at you, investigate you, punish you.
I think it's mission creep.
And, you know, I think the whole trans movement is mission creep.
I mean, you have complete equality under the law for gay people, gay marriage, gay adoption.
It's all every single box in their to-do list is checked.
So to justify the perpetual campaign, they move to trans issues.
That's my thinking.
What do you think?
Yeah, well, even what you're saying about the evolution of the word that we now say indigenous, if you write it down, you have to capitalize the I. Same with the word black.
You have to capitalize the B in black in order to be proper.
And so it's like what you're saying.
But I see it more as you have to keep up with these trends and show that you're very in the know, show that you're paying attention to social justice issues.
And I think social justice is very infectious in a bad way.
But, and I mean, it's kind of like a cancer.
But I still am kind of in the know about those terms.
Yeah, but when someone says, for example, like I had a boss once who called someone an Oriental gentleman, just in reference to an Asian person.
And yeah, if a woke person heard that, they'd think, oh, that's racist language.
But really what it is, it's someone from a different generation and someone older, and that's the language they're used to, and they're not keeping up with social justice language.
That's all it is.
Yeah, and I think it's constant attempts to show you're more virtuous than the next guy.
It's like, oh, you're only wearing one mask.
I'm wearing two masks.
What are you, some grandma killer?
Oh, you're a two-masker?
Well, me and the three mask kids are better than you.
I think it's this arms race of whoever can be one degree more woke than the next guy, completely disconnected from reality.
I mean, I know this word, I don't even know how to say it, Latin X. Some people say Latinx.
I think it's Latin X.
It's a way of saying Latino and Latina.
And I've seen polls showing that like 90% of Latinos hate that phrase.
The Arms Race of Wokeness00:02:26
It's basically used by white liberal academics to create some new class of diversity.
It's just an industry unto itself.
It reminds me of the old human rights commissions that I used to fight with.
Their mandate is to find hate.
So even if they're in a peaceful, happy society, they have to find hate to justify their budgets, justify their jobs, justify their moral authority.
So they will find it whether it exists or not.
I think that these diversity and exclusion committees, they will find racism, whether it exists or not, just so they can justify their whole worldview and their job.
Oh, exactly.
There's one part in the book where I describe, there's kind of a whole backstory, but in short, there were posters around campus that said, Black Lives Matter, Indigenous Lives Matter, Migrant Lives Matter, all of these lives matter, right?
And there was one poster where someone had penned White Lives Matter in addition to all the other lives, because White Lives Matter, they were not on the original poster.
And a student ripped that poster down and took it to the diversity office and said it was racism.
Well, and I'm sure they thought it was.
Listen, it's great that you've got this book out.
I look forward to digging into it.
I would encourage our viewers to read it.
The book is called Diversity and Insclusion, Confronting the Campus Free Speech Crisis.
We'll have a link to the Amazon page below this video.
I want to read it because it's very interesting, and you are the pointing edge of the spear in this fight.
But more than that, anyone who writes a book that dissents from the woke mindset, I think it behooves us to buy that book just out of moral support.
I want to buy it to read it, but I think we have to buy it to support it, not just to support you, but also to show the world that there is a demand for the conservative point of view.
And I want your book to become the number one bestseller on Amazon so the whole world knows that there is another side of the story and that there is a public interest in it.
And maybe that Peter Thiel question that you answered, maybe the emperor has no clothes and the number of people who are willing to say the woke narrative is actually smaller than the number who secretly know the truth.
Obvious Hypocrisies Revealed00:03:26
I don't know.
I think it's a very important book and I'm delighted to have you on the show for it today.
So thank you and good luck to you.
Thanks so much, Ezra.
Well, it's great to see you again.
There you have it, Lindsay Shepard, the hero of the great battle at Wilfrid Laurier University.
And the book is called Diversity and Exclusion.
Stay with us.
Hey, welcome back on my show last night.
Calvin writes, I phoned the Parkland County RCMP complaint line and blasted them for their fence and the use of my tax money to do it.
And that will just go straight into the garbage pile, the delete pile.
They don't care.
Jack writes, silence is consent.
The reason that other churches do not speak out is because they agree with the government that churches are not an essential service.
I know a lot of churches really don't believe in anything anymore, but there are some that do.
I don't know why they're so silent here.
I mean, isn't the whole central theology of the Christian church sacrifice and martyrdom, martyrdom, and being punished for sins and accepting that and defying that?
I don't know.
I'm not a Christian, so I shouldn't opine too deeply on these things, but aren't Christians sort of about facing down persecution?
That's what I thought.
Andreas writes, there's no outcry from other churches because they are following fairly reasonable Alberta health regulations during the one in a hundred year pandemic, keeping capacity down to 15% of fire code, adding additional services if necessary, and going online or virtual.
At this time, it's possible to be a Christian and follow the authorities God has placed over us.
At the same time, AHS isn't asking anyone to renounce their faith.
Just use precaution due to a health crisis.
This isn't religious persecution like the rebel and Grace Life Church would like to paint it.
Well, I appreciate you taking the time to make that point.
But I would like to give you a few facts in return.
First of all, no one at Grace Life Church has got sick, let alone had an outbreak.
So it's just not factually true that this is a one in a century pandemic.
In fact, if you look at the death toll, as we do all the time here, it's about two and a half times the regular death toll from the annual flu.
Second of all, your point of view on how to practice Christianity is not that of everyone.
Everyone can do it in their own way.
You're imposing your approach to Christian prayer on others.
I've been to that church and being together and gathering together and praying together and talking together is a central part of how they are Christian.
You can't just do it by Zoom.
And finally, what about the obvious hypocrisies here?
Walmart is packed.
Costco is packed.
And of course, the authorities themselves don't follow these ridiculous rules.
So I just don't think that what you have there is enough to say to the church, shut down.
I just don't think that's enough.
And the reason I would say that's sort of obvious is the whole world is going through lockdowns of some sort or another.
But only this church in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, that is the only church in the world that is under paramilitary occupation.
Don't you think there's just a teeny tiny chance that the cops have it wrong?
That's our show for today.
Until next time, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headclothes to you at home, good night.