I Am Definitely NOT Charlie.


I despise the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists. They are juvenile imperialists pretending to be brave dissidents. The reality is that slave-makers are only concerned with freedom of expression for racist and imperialistic views. The same people have absolutely no problem restricting free speech for true dissident views.

The ‘Je Suis Charlie’ movement was driven by phoney-liberalism (Athenian-style slave-making.) The same phoney-liberals who get outraged over the thought of not being able to spread xenophobic and imperialistic propaganda have no problem suppressing true free speech for true dissident, anti-imperialist views. This is why phoney-liberals like Trudeau are willing to support bills like Bill C-51—because people like Trudeau are only concerned with free speech for slave-makers like themselves.

I support free speech and I think Charlie Hebdo has the right to free speech. However, I think more responsible members of the community should utilize their right to free speech to criticize Hebdo and remind people to use free speech responsibly.

Again, a major problem is that slave-makers always have unrestricted free speech to prattle off boorish and xenophobic drivel, but bills like Bill C-51 allow slave-makers to punish those who express dissenting views by labeling dissidents as terrorist sympathizers and accusing true dissidents of jeopardizing national security.

Getting Rid of the Slave-Makers


Thomas Jefferson owned more than just land.  He also owned more than six hundred slaves, mostly inherited from his father and his father-in-law and his political attitude toward the slavery question was always extremely ambiguous.  His ideal republic of small landowners enjoying equal rights did not include people of color, on whose forced labour the economy of his native Virginia largely depended. [1]

The United States was founded on principles similar to those of ancient Athens where “democracy” and “equal rights” were reserved for the slave-making elite.  Slave-makers like Voltaire helped push through free speech—the real motivation being that self-proclaimed “masters” wanted to be uninhibited in saying whatever they wanted, particularly when it came to ludicrous justifications for slavery and imperialism.  (I still agree with free speech, but it’s important to understand the real reason for its acceptance.)  Slave-makers like Voltaire are only interested in civil debate between slave-makers so that the basic assumptions of such debates are sharply delimited.  For example: “Should Blacks be enslaved because they are racially inferior and no better than cattle, or should they be enslaved for humanitarian reasons such as helping them learn how to use soap?” [2]

Athenian-style slave-makers enjoy all the comforts and conveniences of enslaving others on top of the status of being “progressives.” Movements against discrimination based on race, gender, and sexual orientation gained momentum in the West largely because they gave the appearance of liberalism while leaving slave-making pathology untouched.  (This doesn’t mean that all the protesters for those movements were Athenian-style slave-makers or disingenuous.  Those movements consisted of real as well as fake liberals.)

It sounds strange that slave-making can still exist despite professed acceptance of racial equality.  However, that’s because slave-makers shifted from more direct forms of slavery to other forms of slavery such as wage-slavery which enslaves regular humans of all races.

(On the condition of slaves in Ancient Athens:)

Slaves could not own property, but their masters often let them save up to purchase their freedom, and records survive of slaves operating businesses by themselves, making only a fixed tax-payment to their masters. Athens also had a law forbidding the striking of slaves: if a person struck what appeared to be a slave in Athens, that person might find himself hitting a fellow-citizen, because many citizens dressed no better. It astonished other Greeks that Athenians tolerated back-chat from slaves.  Athenian slaves fought together with Athenian freemen at the battle of Marathon, and the monuments memorialize them.  It was formally decreed before the battle of Salamis that the citizens should “save themselves, their women, children, and slaves”. [3]

(On the conditions for former slaves in Réunion:)

The number of slaves in French colonies emancipated in 1848 has been estimated at 250, 0000 (or less than 10 percent of the number of slaves in the United States).  As in the United States, however, forms of legal inequality continued well after formal emancipation: in Réunion, for example, after 1848 former slaves could be arrested and imprisoned as indigents unless they could produce a labor contract as a servant or worker on a plantation.  Compared with the previous legal regime, under which fugitive slaves were hunted down and returned to their masters if caught, the difference was real, but it represented a shift in policy rather than a complete break with the previous regime. [4]

One can view the emancipation of slaves in Réunion as being a mere shift from direct Spartan-style slave-making to more indirect Athenian-style slave-making.  Athenian-style slave-making is obsessed with finding ways to force other human beings to work.  It has nothing to do with the fact that this helps the economy.  It has everything to do with specializing in controlling the labour of others so one doesn’t have to perform any labour themselves.  Athenian-style slave-making is the predominant force governing Western society today.  People are forced to work in a way that is considered acceptable to the slave-makers.  Anybody who stops working for the slave-makers and is not a slave-maker themselves becomes poor almost immediately.

Phoney-liberalism is reaching a tipping point where all of the progressive values upheld in rhetoric are becoming genuinely realized to the point that slave-making itself is in jeopardy. This a very dangerous time period as a result.  Spartan-style slave-makers will do what they always do which is try to maintain fascist conditions.  Athenian-style slave-makers, who have always fundamentally done the same while paying lip-service to human rights, are going to be all over the map.  In Voltaire’s time, Voltaire could pretend to care about free speech and support free speech measures his entire life because so many other elements of society maintained slave-making conditions for him.  This allowed him to look less hypocritical.  However, if Voltaire were alive today, he would both have to pay lip-service to free speech to maintain his phoney-liberal façade, but then take immediate measure to help suppress free speech for the general public to help maintain slave-making dogma.

It’s obvious Justin Trudeau has become a walking contradiction at this point because he has to support liberal ideals in speech, but must immediately take action against professed ideals to maintain the fundamentals of slave-making:

David Suzuki on Justin Trudeau:

“I said, ‘Justin, stop it, you’re just being political, you just want to make headway in Alberta,’” Suzuki says he told Trudeau. “You’re for the development of the tar sands, you’re for the Keystone pipeline, but you’re against the Northern Gateway, you’re all over the damn map!” [5]

Both Spartan and Athenian-style slave-makers will be working hard to oppose many of the liberties that past slave-makers helped establish such as free speech; equal rights for people of different races, genders, and sexual orientations; universal suffrage etc.  It will start becoming more and more obvious which people truly believe in principles of democracy, free speech, and liberalism and which people are just pretending.  (Even the North Korean elite profess to be democratic.)

The frauds need to be discarded by society.  I still support a basic income and basic human rights for all including those frauds.  They will pay in the form of public condemnation, isolation and worst of all: not being able to execute their intrinsic slave-making pathology.  Slave-maker ants will starve to death without their slaves even when food is provided.  [6]

More genuine movements that re-emphasize the importance of racial and gender equality, free speech, democracy, sexual and religious freedom, the necessity of a basic income etc. and which simultaneously condemn phoney-liberals like Voltaire and Trudeau are critical.  The ‘Black Lives Matter’ movement is a good illustration of the necessity for a second wave of real liberalism that reaffirms all the liberal values made popular in the past with the help of Athenian-style slave-makers who will now begin taking measures to counteract those same values because those ideals now threaten their control.

It will be scary how many people will drop their liberal façade and shift to extreme slave-making practices once their cushy, elite-oppressor status is threatened.

The entire history of Westernism has been inverse-civilization.  This might be the first time Westernism has started to shift towards real civilization.


[1] Piketty, Thomas, and Arthur Goldhammer. Capital in the Twenty-first Century. Print. Page 158.

[2] White Man’s Burden

[3] Athenian Slaves

[4] Piketty, Thomas, and Arthur Goldhammer. Capital in the Twenty-first Century. Print. Page 593.

[5] Why David Suzuki called Justin Trudeau a twerp

[6] “Slavemaking Ants: Taking over the colony…”

Charlie Hebdo Has the Right to Free Speech—As Do We.


Charlie Hebdo has the right to utilize free speech.  However, sane members of the general public should employ their rights to free speech to condemn Charlie Hebdo’s juvenile fetish for trivializing the death of Muslim children.

Charlie Hebdo will say they are actually making social commentary.  Again, this is easy to test:  Would they ever depict the death of French or American children in the same fashion?  Of course not.

Thus, Charlie Hebdo’s true motive is to toy around with images of dead Muslim children.  I’m sure they think they are being very clever by disguising it as social commentary, but their true motives are pretty clear.

Charlie Hebdo’s Imperialist Agenda Is All Too Obvious


The cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo will pretend they are being satirical, utilizing free speech, and representing the truly radical when the reality is that they are driven by Western elitist and imperialist motives.  To say they are obedient to Western imperialist forces is an understatement when they are the type that try to ignite such fires when they are not even burning.

The ‘Je Suis Charlie’ movement was a complete farce and showed so many qualities of Western Devadom: being an excessive crybaby, blowing things out of proportion, putting on a grand display, simulating depth and sincerity, pretending to be a dissident while being squarely in line with elitist/imperialist agendas.  Westerners involved in the movement behaved as if they were facing systematic oppression like the third estate of pre-revolutionary France.  A single act of terrorism is not systematic oppression.  If the French government were prohibiting free speech and using unjust violence to enforce such measures, that would count as systematic oppression and rebellion against such would constitute real defiance and rebellion.  However, when the Western political elite (who have more blood on their hands than any independent terrorists) are willing to join the Paris march, what great oppressive monster are people truly standing up to?  What bravery is there marching behind those who use the most advanced military weapons to slaughter and subdue the rest of the planet? 

Capture Paris March (4)

The cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo seem to love depicting the death of Muslims.  They will make up excuses that they are actually pointing out religious hypocrisy or making a social critique.  In my opinion, they are merely finding excuses to justify their juvenile desire to depict the death of Muslims as something trivial.

They are first and foremost trying to trivialize the death of Muslims to serve an imperialist agenda.  It’s a form of propaganda.  The cartoonists are fully aware that they are sending a subliminal message that Middle Eastern lives are expendable.  However, they will then add extra accessories to the images to make it look like they are doing some type of social critique.

It’s easy to figure out whether or not such things are a tool for Western imperialism or not.  One merely needs to ask: “Would these cartoonists ever depict French or American children in the same fashion?”

Dorianism and Western Devadom


Western “civilization” has never qualified as true civilization—it’s always just been Spartan-style slave-making versus Athenian-style slave-making (which fundamentally rests on Spartan-style slave-making.)  Spartan and Athenian-style slave-makers are still present.  Harper and Trudeau voting in Bill C-51 was an extension of their desire to maintain oppression for others and control for the slave-makers.

Dorianism (Spartan-style slave-making) includes both sophism as well as physical Spartanism. Western Devadom (Athenian-style slave-making) fundamentally rests on Dorianism and takes advantage of playing “good cop” to the Dorian “bad cop” while still enjoying all the privileges of being a fundamentally “bad cop” underneath it all.  Athenian-style slave-makers pathologically use the tactic of sticking extremely close to Dorianism in all fields and sectors of society, but giving everything a tiny tweak or adjustment to impart an air of liberalism and progressiveness (that isn’t actually there.)  Western Devadom is Dorianism with a phoney-liberal makeover.

For example, Justin Trudeau voted in favour of Bill C-51 but said he would make a few tiny adjustments.  That way, he creates the appearance of liberalism while maintaining the same basic oppression.

The phoney-democracy of the Athenians was used to cover up what Athenian society fundamentally rested on: elitism, oppression, and slave-making.  The Athenian slave-owners wanted democracy for themselves, a minority elite that excluded women and slaves.  Free speech in the West was largely pushed through by the Western Deva-types (phoney-liberals/Athenian-style slave-makers) because the “masters” wanted the ability to say anything they wanted.  For example, Voltaire defended free speech not because he wanted to support that which was morally right, but to serve his own elitist self-interest.  Not surprisingly, Voltaire defended slavery.

The ability to vote in parliamentary elections and rights like free speech have been extended to include women and all citizens.  There are no longer any slaves (formally speaking—wage-slavery still exists but there are no people formally categorized as slaves.)  Athenian slave-makers aren’t truly interested in democracy or free speech, just slave-making.  Thus, now that representative democracy and free speech are getting in the way of slave-making, they want to suppress even that.

If Voltaire was alive today, he would support oppressive measures like Bill C-51 which suppress free speech.  Men like Voltaire don’t truly care about free speech except for themselves and other slave-makers.

Even the Rich Can Enjoy Capitalism with a Basic Income


Even many within the 1% should be willing to accept capitalism that involves a basic income where there is no poverty, and people compete for relative rather than absolute wealth.

Why would some people who have so much money under the current system prefer a system where they are still well off, but have less (in absolute terms)?  Because their relative rank would go up (in terms of wealth/recognition etc.)

Redeeming personality-types are found in all fields and sectors of society as are sinister personality-types.  Some genuinely kind-hearted people do find their way into realms of affluence.

They have a lot under the current system, but what they don’t realize is they would have MORE under a system where there is LESS inequality.  In a less oppressive society where there is no poverty (and only minor inequality,) there is greater truth.  Greater truth only threatens sinister personality-types that hurt others to get ahead in society.  Someone like Oprah would also be successful in a world without poverty.  However, many people who did questionable things to become richer than her might have a much harder time doing so in a humane society.  Thus, her relative rank goes up.

And it’s not just about wealth either.  In a world of zero poverty and genuine honesty, more compassionate human beings receive greater recognition and are actually less inhibited in their service to humanity.

Nobody’s perfect.  I feel Oprah has promoted excessive materialism and a very specious form of spirituality (i.e. colourful, but empty.)  I don’t like how she lauds the United States, describing it as “the greatest country in the world,” as if the ascendancy of Rome should eclipse the ruthlessness of its empire.

Having said that, I do think she is somebody who genuinely wants to alleve human suffering.  Leading up to the Iraq war, she did have a show that expressed her distaste of violence over peace.  However, it was met with the typical hysterical ultra-nationalism that applauds itself in suppressing any criticism or dissent.

So many of us have so much to say but can’t because there is no platform where such words are considered acceptable without sinister personalities taking advantage of the convenience of oppressing on behalf of (arbitrarily accepted) intellectual authorities.  Zero poverty allows truly resilient personalities to survive long enough to defend truth.

The more genuine characters within the 1% actually advance in terms of relative wealth/recognition in a society where there is no poverty at all.  Thus, there is some impetus for the rich to favour their wealth being redistributed fairly and properly (especially since the idea of property was arbitrary and anti-democratic to begin with.)

Ending poverty is also just the right thing to do and success within a system that is fundamentally elitist/oppressive is like being a major success in North Korea—is that really something we applaud?