Readers of the above statement will likely fall into two categories: those who knew this all along, and those who will find the statement absurd. I am putting this argument out there for the latter category and hopefully it will be read with an open mind. If you are the type of person who does not have the ability to question their own beliefs, and prefer the comfort of an echo-chamber, then this piece is probably not for you. I will offer only one caveat on my position: Donald Trump will only turn out to be more dangerous in the short-term if he blunders his way into a nuclear war.
Before I begin, I just want to make a couple of things clear. My political leanings would make me either a classical liberal, or perhaps a left-leaning libertarian, depending on the criteria used. I am not a conservative or a Trump supporter, but I have been forced to abandon my support for the Left because of its increasingly alarming and bizarre politics. I care deeply about my country and our precious and rare civilization. I dislike suffering, and wish to act in a way that minimizes it for all people. The reason that I am writing this piece is that I believe that we are being duped, and that this is going to lead to a lot of suffering in the future.
I believe that the tool that is being used to dupe us is political-correctness. It is a very powerful tool because it stifles all argument and creates the perfect conditions for mass manipulation of the population. Those in charge set all of the rules and conditions for conversation and a large percentage of the population becomes afraid to make statements that they know to be true; or worse, are forced to make statements that they know to be untrue. Christopher Hitchens issued a warning about this more than twenty years ago when he said, "There's a police-state coming, get used to it. And it will all be done in the name of niceness". Well, it's arrived.
We currently live in what I would argue is the best civilization ever created in any place or at any time in human history. It isn't perfect, but it is amazing when you consider our humble beginnings and if you compare us to the rest of the planet. If our great civilization were to be compromised past a certain point, there is a strong likelihood that it would never recover. No one knows for sure if the society that we find ourselves in is even our natural state - it might be an anomaly. If it is, we had better be extremely careful with it. I would say, based on a quick look around the world, that our society is an anomaly. The massive amounts of luck combined with the bits of design that got us to this point should not be taken for granted; indeed, this would be a fatal mistake that could devastate our society and leave it severely degraded for future generations. While the current state of our society provides most of us with much freedom and also an excellent quality of life, the future could easily provide only poverty and violence. Be very wary of a desire for too much change.
And now on to my argument:
I have studied Justin Trudeau very carefully for quite some time now and I have not noticed anything that would justify the fawning adulation that is heaped on him by the media. In fact, when I study him, the word that immediately comes to mind is twit. I don't say this lightly or just to be insulting - it is exactly how I feel. Now, to be fair, I also agree with much of the constant criticism that we all hear about Donald Trump. Now that I've gotten this very minor name calling out of the way, I will move on to the important distinctions between the two men.
There are two things about Donald Trump that remind me of George W. Bush. The first of those things is a willingness to acknowledge his country of birth as a great civilization. The second is a natural extension of the first: the need to protect that civilization. And while I have always found both of them painful to listen to, I respect them both for their willingness to engage difficult topics and also to start a fight if necessary. It's as if both of them are blessed with a deeply ingrained and innate sense that their civilization is worth defending. Trump doesn't seem to have the ability or the desire to articulate his position in satisfying terms; however, maybe that quality doesn't need to be articulated, as it's something we can actually see. I think that this allows me to say that the very least you could say about Trump, however you feel about him, is that he is not going to let anything happen to his country without a fight - and that's important. Actually, it is the fundamental quality that is required for a nation's long-term survival in anything resembling desirable conditions.
While Trump is a constant bungler, egomaniac, hot-head, and possibly a corrupt individual, he does not engage in the vile and always eventually deadly game called identity-politics. This is a big deal and it's likely the biggest contributing factor in Trump's victory. So, while Trump has many faults, his basic instinct to protect the US and maintain its status as a great civilization, while avoiding identity-politics all together, is worthy of some respect. He also came right out and said that he "doesn't do political-correctness" - again, worthy of respect.
Justin Trudeau, on the other hand, does not seem to have anything innate about him that is worthy of respect. He has made some very troubling statements that make this very obvious. He has expressed a desire to see Canada as "the first post-national state" and said that "there is no core identity or mainstream in Canada". These are alarming statements, and yet, they have gone largely unnoticed. The reason for this is that the media have given him a free pass in the same way that the mainstream media in the US gave Bill Clinton a free pass after he had executed a mentally ill black man whose IQ was so low that he asked to save his desert until after his execution. Like Trudeau, Clinton was the charming new Liberal and the narrative had to be maintained at any cost. This is exactly the same type of sickly behaviour that we are currently witnessing by the main-stream media towards Justin Trudeau.
Not one mainstream media outlet stopped to ask by what right Trudeau could decide that Canada had no core identity, and why he thought that he was entitled to allow its carefully constructed and unique society to be hollowed out and left to rot by his own personal agenda. He claims to have undertaken this project on behalf of Canadians. The CBC - the country's excessively large public broadcaster and recipient of Trudeau's promise to increase funding if elected - did not invite any serious opposing viewpoints to counter his alarming statements. Every time Trump tweets or makes any kind of statement on any topic, no matter how benign, the media goes into high gear to discredit and mock it. And whenever Trudeau goes for a jog or changes his socks, the entire news industry starts giggling, blushing, and fawning on him in the most disgusting way. Why the glaring contradiction? The media used to complain that Stephen Harper's Conservatives were secretive and overly controlling with information. Trudeau's government has turned out to be even more secretive, and as a result, information is more difficult to acquire through the Freedom of Information program. Still, the media seem interested only in telling us about his latest photo-bomb incident or his latest socks, while displaying a pseudo-journalistic style that can only be described as ditzy.
To aid in Trudeau's dangerous, nihilistic, and suicidal desire to transform our country into a borderless, ghettoized, and completely unrecognizable country, he prefers to use easily spreadable and empty platitudes and avoids serious and rational discussion. For example, he frequently recycles the phrase "diversity is our strength". The glaring stupidity of the statement is quite enough to deal with. The fact that news outlets parrot the idiotic phrase on his behalf actually makes it dangerous. Instead of thinking, a large portion of our society now just repeats the idiotic slogan. I am not sure if Trudeau actually believes the statement, or if he believes that a large enough portion of Canadians are so stupid that the phrase will simply serve its purpose for now.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines diversity as: 1. being diverse; variety. 2. a different kind; a variety. Diverse is defined as: unlike in nature or qualities; varied. Now, what kind of idiot do you have to be to be the Prime Minister, and a former teacher, and to publically state that diversity equals strength? If you had a group made up of, say, a fentanyl dealer, a rapist, a pilot, and a circus clown, you would have a pretty diverse group. Under Trudeau's formula, this should be a pretty strong, harmonious, and desirable group. The harebrained nature of his assertion would be comical if it had not so consistently been pumped into our culture by Trudeau and his volunteer army of compliant halfwits and a corrupt media. Diversity is only one thing: diversity.
If you want to talk about things that are strengths in a civilization like ours, you might start with things like decency, the rule of law, strong institutions, a reliable and fair legal system, a transparent government, a comprehensive and far-sighted immigration policy etc... But no, for Trudeau it's diversity all the way. He is so doggedly determined to peddle his trademark foolishness that he even had the nerve to use the phrase "diversity is our strength" in an official statement after the most recent Islamic terrorist attack in Edmonton. You might think that after such an event he might replace his too often recycled, discredited, and worn out old phrase for something coherent and courageous. If you did think that, you'd be mistaken. In fact, Trudeau's Liberal Party machine is now selling sweatshirts online with the even more idiotic phrase "Diversity over Division". So, further down the rabbit hole we go.
Justin Trudeau's desire to re-engineer our society to his personal liking has taken an even more sinister turn in recent months. His government has forced through two nightmarish Orwellian policies, despite the fact that some very rational, brilliant, and accomplished academics protested strongly with very coherent and sound arguments. I say Orwellian because both policies force citizens to lie to themselves and to lie to others in order to remain in compliance. Bill C16 forces people to deny basic biological science, and M-103 has the Government possibly condemning criticism of the Islamization of Canada, FGM, or child marriage. With Bill C16, you could actually end up in prison for refusing to publically state what you know to be a lie. Because the language in both policies is incoherent and because precise definitions of the terms involved have not been provided, you will never have the ability to know if you are running afoul of the policies. This has a very strong similarity to the way people who lived under Stalin reported feeling about how the NKVD operated.
I watched the Senate hearings for Bill C16 and thought that they were a great disappointment. I, like many other Canadians, had always considered the Senate to be our country's "chamber of sober second thought". I can tell you that on the side of the government, there was very little that was sober about the hearings and there wasn't much thought happening. It was very quickly apparent that Bill C16 was going to go through no matter what. I watched Liberal Senator, Serge Joyal behave in a way that made me wonder if he was a serious alcoholic. He started off with a rant about genocide - as if transgendered people in Canada would be suddenly wiped out in a fit of genocide if the Liberal bill didn't pass. The guy singlehandedly degraded my confidence in our Senate. Please remember that this Senator gets a pretty fat paycheque and a pretty fat pension, while the rest of us are expected to perform our jobs in a logical way and to also bring value to the economy while we work. It was a disgrace. There was also the absurdity of Ratna Omidvar, another Senator. She attempted a very squalid maneuver via carelessly presenting some misleading and dishonest information and then suggesting that she couldn't elaborate because the committee wouldn't allow her time to finish. The chairman did allow her to finish - nice try Ms. Omidvar - and predictably, she embarrassingly tapered off into nothing. It was cringe-making. I urge all Canadians to watch these two videos of the hearings and make up their own minds. It's important, and everyone should see exactly what is happening under the Trudeau Liberals.
Bill C16 is completely unnecessary. In fact, many transgendered people spoke out against the Bill. It is very clear that it actually has nothing to do with transgendered people. The Bill is simply another tool to reinforce political-correctness for sinister motives and for future sinister plans. Transgendered people just happen to be pawns in the case of this Bill.
After the Bill C16 disaster I was simply too tired out to watch the hearings for M-103. And I knew, from what I had witnessed with Bill C16, that M-103 was going to pass no matter what evidence was presented. M-103 is also completely unnecessary. The Liberal who brought it forward, Iqra khalid, has connections with people who are openly very hostile towards Israel. I find it quite troubling that the Liberals are allowing our political processes to be used as a tool to help fuel religious disputes originating in the Middle East. Why would Trudeau allow this to go on? Well, one answer is that it helps with the furthering of his indoctrination of the Canadian population into his political-correctness cult. Why else would the Government of Canada feel the need to pass a Parliamentary Motion to specifically condemn criticism of one religion? I remember the great lawyer, Edward Greenspan, saying that Canada needed fewer laws, and not more. Canada is possibly the most open and tolerant society on earth. It is more than a little insulting that the Liberals think that Canadians behave so badly that the government needs to put laws and policies in place in order to police all of our language and thoughts. Or do they think that? I think that they probably do not, and that they are pre-emptively laying the groundwork to radically alter the makeup of our society and to use political-correctness to stifle opposition to the plan.
Trudeau's government has managed to pass off their sinister schemes as benign humanitarian necessities. The dishonesty of the tactic should tell us all we need to know about him. There is nothing benign or necessary about his policies and his intentions are not good. The Liberal Party has put in place a group of advisors who have stated that Canada should triple its population by the year 2100. Where will these people come from? After Trudeau gets his desired policies in place, no one will be able to criticize his actions for fear of acting contrary to M-103 or going against a mob-enforced political-correctness. If the Trudeau government decided to allow unlimited immigration from a country whose population overwhelmingly believes that death by stoning is an appropriate punishment for crimes like adultery or blasphemy, and whose economy consists mainly of piracy, murder, and rape, no one would be able to criticize the plan for fear of being called a racist, bigot, Islamophobe, homophobe, transphobe, and general hater of all good and noble things. They are good and virtuous you are bad and evil for asking questions. This sounds slightly funny - but it is what's happening. If you follow politics closely, and are not in an echo-chamber, then you already know this.
We need only look to Europe to see the end results of the type of policies that Trudeau is hoping to smuggle into our society under the banner of diversity and inclusion. In Sweden, Britain, Germany, France, and Belgium, the results are plain to see. It is a fact that some people with some beliefs do not assimilate at all into our society. They don't want to and it is foolish and patronizing to expect them to. There are endless examples to demonstrate that this is the case, and they are very easy to find.
The Rotherham child sex scandal is a perfect example of where political-correctness and identity-politics will take a society. This unbelievable and nightmarish saga took place in Britain, lasted for about twenty years, and has not been sufficiently covered by the media. I follow current events a lot and was completely unaware of it and learned of it only very recently while listening to an episode of The Rubin Report. What happened was that a group of Pakistani/British Muslims decided that they should spend their time raping and torturing British girls between the ages of eleven and sixteen. There were at least 1400 victims and the activities included rape, torture, murder, sexual trafficking, extortion, beatings, gang rapes, and an attack on a young girl with a hammer after she told one of the men she was pregnant, and many other things that are too disgusting to repeat and are now on the public record. There were also other offenders who undertook similar activities with young boys; one had at least 80 victims.
This story is disgusting enough on its own. The tragedy deepens severely when you find out that police and other officials had known about the goings on for about a decade before anyone began to do anything at all. They had even received information revealing the names of some of the perpetrators. The reason for the country's inaction is truly sickening and depressing: no one did anything about it for fear of offending the Muslim community and possibly stirring up accusations of racism. Just let that sink in for a few minutes. You might wish to think that this story was cooked up by some Alt-Right Nazi propaganda machine but you would be wrong. It did happen and it is all now public information; although, no one likes to talk about it. The wives of some of the perpetrators didn't mind talking about it and publically stated that the children who had been raped and tortured deserved it because "they were immodest before Allah".
How was this attitude allowed to work its way into such an established and civilized society? Do you think that maybe a couple of decades of pumping identity-politics and political-correctness into the culture might have something to do with it? A leaked document between the police and social service agencies contained the following statement: "There are sensitivities of ethnicity with potential to endanger the harmony of community relationships. Great care will be taken in drafting ...this report to ensure that its findings embrace Rotherham's qualities of diversity. It is imperative that suggestions of a wider cultural phenomenon are avoided." A Yorkshire lawyer, named Adel Weir, was investigating ways to reduce prostitution amongst young girls. After reporting to an official that young girls were being targeted by Asian men, she had the following experience: "She said you must never refer to that again. You must never refer to Asian men. And her other response was to book me on a two-day ethnicity and diversity course to raise my awareness of ethnic issues..." Theresa May blamed the "dereliction of duty" on "institutionalized political-correctness". MP Denis MacShane blamed a culture of "not wanting to rock the multicultural boat". Once officials had no choice but to rock the multicultural boat, or risk having it rocked for them, they didn't even have the honesty or courage to name the real cause. All they could manage to do was state publically that the men were "Asian". This caused immediate alarm - and rightfully so - in the local Sikh and Hindu communities, and representatives demanded that the truth be told and that the perpetrators be described as Pakistani Muslims, because that's what they were. Imagine being so vile and so doltish that you would allow more than a thousand girls to be tortured and raped so as not to offend anyone or appear racist, and then you make an extremely racist blanket statement by implicating a whole group of people who had nothing to do with it. How stupid would a society be to have to set up that trap for themselves? None of it would have happened if the poison of political-correctness had not been passed off as a virtue. A real and age-old virtue is honesty. Had that real virtue been followed, the Rotherham scandal wouldn't have happened.
We could go on to talk about the Sidney rape gangs, the Swedish rape gangs, the endless swimming-pool assaults on young girls in Germany, or incidences of gangs of Muslim men storming into nude swims in Europe and threatening and spitting on people for being "indecent" and being "sluts", but I think that any reader should get the point by now and anyone can easily find way too many stories to read or keep track of with a quick Google search. I think that I should relate one more story, and this one has to do with animals.
A Danish animal protection worker reported that, in Muslim Ghettos, her organization has seen cats being used as footballs; kittens walking around with their intestines hanging out after their stomachs were cut open; and other horrific treatment of animals by migrants. When an animal cruelty prevention volunteer drove to the area to recue an injured cat, her van was swarmed and she was assaulted and had to flee without the cat. The organization says they no longer send anyone into the area for safety reasons. Again, Mr. Trudeau, I don't agree that "diversity equals strength".
What kind of society offers up its children as a sacrifice to sadists, rapists, and murderers in order to appease the diversity and political-correctness gods? What kind of twisted death-cults are identity-politics and political-correctness? How weak, pathetic, and emasculated does a country have to be to allow this to go on? And how far does the rot have to creep in before citizens wake up? For some European countries it's too late. It's gone too far and much violence and suffering is now likely to follow, along with a severe degradation of their societies.
For Trudeau, this appears to be only a game. He knows that political-correctness and identity-politics are currently very trendy and that he can get away with a fair bit of it. He tweets all identity-politics all the time and his whole cabinet does the same. He seems to have an entire army of empty-headed diversity peddlers at his disposal and they all seem completely unimpeded by any sort of conscience or far-sightedness. What price will the politicians who peddled this deadly poison have to pay? Likely, they will pay nothing. They will finish their terms and then retire into very upscale areas where they won't have to be subjected to the damage and chaos that they have left behind. It is depressing watching all of this unfold and it is depressing to know that a sufficient percentage of the population is gullible enough to go along with it. It is also frustrating when you contemplate the fact the racism accusations that are levelled at anyone who dares question our immigration policies are actually tools used to avoid suspicion of actual racism. I will explain.
It is not those on the Right who are the racists; although, some of them are. The real racism comes from the Left, with all of its diversity talk, political-correctness, and endless virtue-signalling. The politically-correct types and the diversity-is-our-strength types and their ilk, are actually engaging in what Michael Gerson called "the soft bigotry of low expectations". They also engage in flat-out racism when they praise an elected person who is, say, South Asian and wears a turban, for the sole reason that the person is not a white male. It's done in the same tones and with the same sickening and patronizing attitude that a mother displays while praising her toddler for using the toilet for the first time. It's blatantly racist and anyone who does it should be ashamed of themselves. We are currently experiencing this with Jagmeet Singh, who just won the leadership of the Federal NDP. Those on the Right only want to know about two things: his character and his policy proposals. The Left only wants to talk about his race. They won't shut up about it, even for a second. And of course, from Justin Trudeau's CBC, we get: "Jagmeet Singh, the first turban-wearing Sikh to sit..." This is actual racism and the Left owns it.
Let's talk about racism a little bit more. The Left has been using the accusation to create a climate of fear and to stop people from asking questions. I am going now to throw their accusations back at them and more people should start doing the same. I am not a racist and I don't like racists. I believe that people are individuals and should be treated as such. I think that a majority of the Right currently thinks this way. It is the Left that wants only to categorize people into identifiable groups and then to rate each group on things like victim-status or on their level of perceived oppression. The result of this is that there are individuals within marginalized groups who are facing actual oppression from both sides. They have to face the fascist elements within their own communities and they also have to face the racist left-leaning groups who insist that they are only a member part of an identifiable victim group. To demonstrate this point, I will give a short version of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's story. I encourage people to do further reading about and from her.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a Somali-born activist. She became a Dutch politician and eventually ended up in the United Sates. She was subjected to FGM but did manage to escape an arranged marriage to a distant relative and ended up in Holland. She tried to warn Dutch politicians that there were dangerous Islamic radicals in the country and that they meant business and that they were something to watch out for. The Dutch politicians wouldn't hear it because they were obsessed with multiculturalism and political-correctness. She then tried to make a movie about the difficulties that women in Muslim societies face and paired up with a filmmaker named Theo van Gogh. Van Gogh was then brutally murdered in middle of the street by a Muslim fascist and Ayaan had to go into hiding. So here we have it again. Who are the real racists and sexists? An intelligent and articulate woman comes forward and gives a dire warning about brutality and vicious misogyny, and warns that there's lots more coming, and the Left says: Don't be silly dear girl; you're just part of this oppressed group. Run along now. It's appalling that anyone on the Left is even allowed to use the word racism. It's very clear that they don't have the foggiest idea what the word even means.
Then we have the racism that results from using cheap virtue-signaling for personal political gain. Justin Trudeau and the Liberal's virtue-signalling contain two vile elements. One is the obvious feeling of superiority that would be required in order to make someone feel as though an entire group of people is somehow inferior, and that they are lying helpless and waiting for the approval and assistance of the superior and highly moral virtue-signaller. The second element is the obviously deceptive and demagogic practice of pandering to various groups of people as if all of the members of each group were exactly the same - this is the very definition of racism. Trudeau and his Party do this, while constantly reminding Canadians not to be racist.
The thing to remember about virtue-signallers is that they are either attempting to con you, or they have a psychological mechanism that, unknown to them, is working against them in order to reveal a thought that wants force its way out into the world. I think that with Justin Trudeau, it is likely part of a simple con-job. If I am wrong and it is of the second type (psychological mechanism), then it has been beautifully put by Christopher Hitchens, in Hitch 22: " Whenever I hear some bigmouth in Washington or the Christian heartland banging on about the evils of sodomy or whatever, I mentally enter his name in my notebook and contentedly set my watch. Sooner rather than later, he will be discovered down on his weary and well-worn knees in some dreary motel or latrine, with an expired Visa card, having tried to pay well over the odds to be peed upon by some Apache transvestite." I have been around for a while and know that this psychological phenomenon exists, and that it is highly reliable. Ted Haggard, a powerful mega-pastor, was an extremely vocal opponent of homosexuality, until he was caught in a hotel doing crystal-meth with a male prostitute - not that there's anything wrong with that. It is the hypocrisy that is the real problem. There are many more cases like that and I hope that someone with some formal psychology training might write me and tell me if there is a technical name for this extremely reliable and endlessly repeating sequence of events. We have the virtue-signalling and then the very predictable behaviour that directly contradicts that virtue-signalling.
Justin Trudeau is a master virtue-signaller. He also makes much use of the identity-politics game while constantly enforcing the political-correctness cult. Even when there is an Islamic terrorist attack in our country, he refuses to name the root cause. We then have to be shown a parade of "experts", who dishonestly tell us that the attacks have nothing to do with Islam. We know this is wrong because the people who commit acts of terrorism actually tell us that they are doing it under the direction of their religion. And if you read the texts, you will discover that those who commit terrorist attacks are following their religion correctly. This fact is too much to take for some people and so they convince themselves that the attackers are somehow misrepresenting Islam. Justin Trudeau is all too eager to help spread this delusion, as long as it helps him further his political-correctness and identity-politics cult. He is either too stupid or naïve to see the danger that this creates, or he can see it but is so corrupt and immoral that he plows forward anyway.
I cannot accept the idea that the population of Canada is so weak and so vapid that it will sit by and only parrot idiotic slogans while the core structure of its civilization is hollowed out by a spoiled twit who would still be a ski-instructor or a teacher if he had not had an extremely wealthy and well connected marketing machine behind him. I do not trust him to protect our country and I am highly suspicious of his true motives. I know that he is fond of making flattering and inappropriate statements about murderous dictators and I know that he refuses to comment honestly on FGM, child marriage, or Islamic terrorism. I know that he has called himself a "feminist", but seems to have no interest in even attempting to protect real victims who are female. He frequently bangs on about gender-politics but shows no signs of attempting to slow down FGM in Canada. But then, I guess you'd have to be willing to name the thing before you could begin to fix it. In my opinion, Justin Trudeau is not for the middle-class, as he claims. I think he will destroy the middle-class and leave it wrecked and ruined and full of racial tension and violence. This will all happen while ditzy news anchors are giggling about his selection of socks.
I will no doubt be accused, by those who can't think or read, of being a racist for writing this piece. To those people I will only say that I am not a racist, nor am I anti-immigration, and that much of my inspiration for this piece comes from people with Muslim backgrounds, African American thinkers, Russian and Polish writers, Jewish writers, as well as a long list of British writers. Our civilization is far too precious to sit by and say or do nothing while we witness its demise. If you are, like me, a person with a natural instinct to the Left, but find that the Left is going insane, then please join others in speaking up. There are many more of us than people realize; and the more of us that speak up, the better our chances of surviving this fight. I have included a list below, of very serious and intelligent people who have helped me to reshape my political views in the last few years. They are the real fighters for true liberalism and for our civilization. If you are wishing to expand your views and open up your mind, then you might spend some time watching or reading these people. Studying them will make you a better thinker, and much less likely to be duped by con-artists.
I will close by saying that I hate Donald Trump, and that I am sickened by the thought that Justin Trudeau is a worse choice. However, it is the case that if I was forced to pick between the two leaders I would have to pick Trump - a depressing thought - and then say to Justin Trudeau: take your identity-politics, your political-correctness, and your sleazy virtue-signalling, and go fuck yourself.
As with anything that I write, I am open to corrections and also open to posting opposing viewpoints on my site.
Here is a list of interesting and thoughtful people: Dave Rubin, Candace Owens, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Camille Paglia, Gad Saad, Larry Elder, Jordan B Peterson, Sam Harris, Maajid Newaz, Joe Rogan, Bret Weinstein, Christina Sommers, Douglas Murray, Sarah Haider