Raising the Minimum Wage


Many believe that raising wages universally is of exigent concern. Too many have too little. Many cannot produce the funds to pay for life’s necessities. Those of us in the social order who have been bequeathed with enough wealth to live comfortably have an obligation: We must provide an opportunity for the needy to become people of means.
There must be one ingredient in existence to make the recipe of raising wages. This ingredient is the available funding that employers must have on hand with which to reward their employees in the first place. How exactly can it be ensured that companies and businesses attain optimum capital?
The problem in today’s business place is the outsourcing of jobs to foreign countries. Regrettably, workers living in developing nations who are employed by western corporations typically do not spend their dollars buying the merchandise that they themselves manufacture. Those workers purchase goods indigenous to their own lands. Such goods are made by and for their own people. In this fashion, the earnings of the foreign workers are never fully repatriated to the country of the employer, nor the buyer. Instead they are transferred to the money circulations of those developing nations. Accordingly, this begets a procedure of perpetual unremitting monetary drain on western nations in allowing the fabrication of commodities abroad. Foreign laborers are further paid a wage that is typically so insubstantial that the aggregate workers do not have sufficient disposable income on hand in order to buy back the very goods that they are manufacturing.
If products are purchased in relatively the same region where those products are being manufactured and by the same workers who manufactured those goods, we develop isolated economies. Isolated economies, in which the money never leaves the circulation, are superior to today’s economies which are contingent on overseas’ work forces. Not only do employees have the potential to find greater wealth in an economy where the cash flow has no risk of leaking out, but employing firms can achieve greater gains. It is necessary that before wages can be raised, we must ensure that our companies have enough disposable income on hand through the implementation of isolated economies.
Once attaining higher revenue, corporations must come to terms with succouring their underpaid employees. When discussing the minimum wage, it’s critical to remember the well-being of our least fortunate members of the business world: the little guy. The quandary with boosting the current minimum wage through national blanket-style implementation is that very lucrative companies such as Walmart could feasibly bear a wage increase for its employees, whereas small businesses such as a shoemaker operating out of his garage may not have sufficient capital to pay his labourers any additional money. Consequently, the shoemaker may be compelled to lay off some of his staff, his operations would be less efficacious and his earnings would wane, but most urgently, his employees would be now without a job. On that account, this would leave the more profitable companies to endure and monopolize those industries as the little guy is wiped out.
When considering enhancing wages for workers, aim must be taken at the elephant in the room: companies lack an inducement to award their workers with a pay increase, unless they are obliged to do so through the command of law. What should really be done about ameliorating wages is to escalate the minimum wage only for those employers who are fiscally prosperous. A wage increase for workers in more affluent companies can still be carried out responsibly to allow for an acceptable profit for its shareholders and directors. In addition, only in more affluent companies, can workers’ pay can be raised to also allow for enough spare capital needed for the company’s economic growth. Workers’ wages should not be increased for small and impecunious businesses so that those firms may also have the opportunity to earn ample profit and proliferate. If a wage-earner is amenable to working for same wage in lieu of being laid off, because the compensation he currently receives is all that his employer can afford, does government have a right to adjudicate contrarily? Minimum wage should be raised in proportion to the amount of accessible wherewithal that a company has, not in an indiscriminate and sweeping fashion of implementation.


The Campus Bench


[Continued from my instagram post] … I remember looking back at the indoor hallway that ran behind the bench. There were large windows along the hallway giving view to the outside. (The hallway is where this picture was taken from actually.) I looked back at some fellow female university students walking down the hallway looking back at me with a look of confusion. This wasn’t the look of admiration on their faces that acknowledged coolness, toughness or rebelliousness that I truly wanted. No, they were looking down on me as if to ask with their facial expressions “what are you doing to yourself?”

Allow me to stray off topic for a second to state that I honestly, to this day, do not understand how you one can get addicted to these things called cigarettes. It didn’t make me happy. There was no buzz. It made me nauseous and my breathing from each puff and onward made me feel more suffocated. The coughing fit I went into countermanded the “cool” feeling look I was going for. This was supposed to make me look like smoking was my forte.

After all the damage that I knew I was inflicting upon myself prior to taking the cigarette: the lung cancer risk, the permanent tar on the lungs, the addictive nicotine, the toxins and carcinogens that attacked every cell of my lungs, I did it anyway. I used to be the top marathon runner in high school and I was throwing my ability to do it away for what? Why? Did I just want to be admired and respected? Did I just want to look cool? Would someone help me understand why my brain can’t treat me the way my body treats me; with assiduous intent to keep me alive.

The importance of this first cigarette on this bench on the University of Toronto Mississauga campus was a symbol. It was a landmark. It was when my life began to fall apart in every way. Afterward, smoking became an occasional habit of mine, which despite not even enjoying, I still sought the value that other smokers seemed to glean from the act. This was also the time of my life where I started drinking and wearing skinny jeans. Yes, I made some poor fashion choices. I began alienating my classmates as though I were better than them. I stopped going to my classes altogether and I eventually dropped out of University in the fall of 2011. Why am I so self-destructive?

You might be happy to know that I completely quit smoking in the summer of 2010 after only few months of doing it. I guess my instinct for survival had finally kicked in. This was the time of my life where I started drinking. I started wearing skinny jeans in emulation of the Jonas Brothers, a band I was into at the time. Let’s be honest, their music was terrible. I began alienating my classmates as though I were better than them. I stopped going to my classes altogether after failing most of them and I eventually dropped out of University altogether in the fall of 2011. Why was I so self-destructive? Why am I so self-destructive?

Did I behave like this because I was homesick? Was I depressed? Was it this insidious city (Mississauga) and this insidious university that had done this to me? Was I not ready for University? Did I bite off more than I could chew? Was I in the wrong program? Answer me. Someone.

I want to impart a positive note to all this mess. In the early spring of 2016, I sought proper help and I am thankful for it because it truly saved my life. If there’s a good ending to this story, it’s that I have hope now and I’m grateful for everyday I have on this Earth. I’m headed toward school so I can get a job. I’m functioning almost at 99% of what I used to be (which means my OCD is virtually gone.) I told a professional that sometimes I get a bit down, but she told me that that was in fact normal. She said it’s normal for everyone to have ups and downs. I’m doing a lot better now, just so you know. 🙂

Diversity at University – Good Idea?

What was the original purpose of a country in creating Universities? To answer this question with a simplistic reasoned approach, we predicate the following consecution on the self-evident fact that most countries seem to be established by a homogenous people or ethnic group inhabiting and controlling a given territory of land. The next antecedent here we take for granted is that civilizations usually cultivate scientific research and further study in various faculties of learning. So, it follows that this people establish institutions of higher learning to foster scientific inquiry but most importantly, to pass on wisdom from one generation to the next so its pupils emerge with important skills.  The individual walks away from University having wisdom and skills so that they may competently execute a function which contributes to and benefits society as a whole. And in return for fulfilling this role, society duly compensates this person so that he may eat, own a home, have a family, enjoy life and survive. In this model, there is a symbiotic relationship between the individual and the community.

Well what happens when a given country’s higher institutions begin admitting students from far-off lands, students of a different ethos and nation instead of admitting the country’s natural inhabitants? The most obvious consequence would be that fewer natural citizens belonging to the original ethnostate would be allowed to enroll in their choice of study as there would be fewer study spaces. Accordingly, more foreign students would appropriate study positions in classes that would otherwise be assumed members of the original natural inhabitants of the country.

What would this action by the universities lead to? If there were an increase in foreign immigrants and a decrease in natural citizens graduating from Universities, more foreign students and fewer indigenous citizens would receive job qualifications. Ergo, more foreign immigrants would be employed to perform functions and roles in society which were previously fulfilled by original countrymen. This would, in turn, cause an increased amount of indigenous people to be denied a role in society that they were meant to assume. It would follow that these individuals who have been crowded out must then assume infelicitous functions of society. The resultant incongruity and disharmony that would arise between the worker and the responsibilities of his unsuitable job would transform the original motivations of this individual. That is, one would go from desiring to work for both society and oneself to just being interested in working to support oneself.

To reiterate: as more and more of these natural inhabitants are crowded out of workplaces by foreign workers, more and more of these indigenous people would work out of self-interest and for sheer survival. Consequently, given that fewer people belonging to the original ethnic group are working to enhance and elevate society, the overall standing of the indigenous citizens would collectively begin to decline. Thereupon, living conditions for everyone within this now mixed country would decline as it becomes more ethnically diverse.

One might ask: since the functions in society that were once held by indigenous inhabitants are still being performed by foreigners, why should the quality of life in this now mixed country decline? Well, we have to consider the nature of an immigrant. In general, immigrants from far-away countries with a different ethos seek to live in western nations because they are seeking a better life for themselves. This one very obvious and commonly accepted fact about immigrants intimates an important revelation. The fact that an individual believes there are better living conditions in another country than in his own country and the fact that he is willing to go to great lengths to emigrate from his homeland demonstrates that his nation, his people, the ethnic group from which he originates, is incapable of producing a civilization whose living conditions are equivalent to or exceeding those of the aforementioned country he is immigrating to. Otherwise, why would he immigrate? So, given that this is true, we can see that the potential level to which needy immigrants stand to improve and elevate society can never match nor exceed the quality of society attained collectively by the members of the original native ethnic group alone. Therefore, if the quality of society cultivated by the original inhabitants dwindles, so must dwindle the quality of society in this new ethnically mixed country.



The truth about the attitude held by conservatives and white nationalists in general towards immigration is that a small trickle of immigrants whose numbers are kept to a minimum each year in order to prevent them from making significant unwanted changes to society is tolerable. They don’t prefer this option and it’s not ideal, but right-wingers can tolerate this. If this specific immigration system existed now, the issue of immigration would be ignored and disregarded entirely. In this way, there is a small amount of room for compromise. However, this hypothetical example is not the current immigration policy for most western nations. The truth is that conservatives find fault with “mass” immigration. To be only against mass immigration means that it’s nothing personal against any individual immigrant.

There is an insistence in the party line which is overweeningly presented to us in mainstream media that people of different ethnic backgrounds from various foreign countries can learn to “assimilate in” and can become citizens who end up being no different than the natural population. This conjecture purports that as long as foreigners learn our western languages and dress like us and participate in our customs, then they’re more or less part of the family. This belief also contends that refugees can serve functions in society with the same competence and to the same effect that our original countrymen can do. That’s because this teaching asserts that the differences between ethnic groups are superficial. Of course, there are three conspicuous problems with this idea: the first being that on a practical level, foreign immigrants do not generally assimilate harmoniously. In fact, most immigrants as can be observed in major cities, continue to practice their own religions, speak their own languages among themselves, continue their own traditions and customs and continue wearing clothing customary of their heritage. Secondly, as I evinced above, the sentiment that they can fulfill functions the same way is fallacious because the belief among foreigners that western countries are more desirable than their own reveals that there is a constitutional disparity of value between their kinsmen and ours. After all, what is a country if not a group of people on a plot of land? The third problem with this notion is that differences between ethnic groups are not superficial. The ethos of people of a given race that set those people apart from people of another different race are irrevocably inherent and congenital. This brings me to my ultimate point. When the government of a western country permits an immigrant from a foreign nation to enter said country, that immigrant is not leaving his nation behind. That immigrant is bringing his nation with him. His nation is inherent in him. He, along with the rest of his ethnic kinfolk, are his nation. We must recognize this fact. When governments allow relocation of significant numbers of people from one country to another, they are literally merging two countries together to a degree.

So, the question regarding immigration that we have to ask ourselves before we proceed is this: do we admire the country from where this immigrant is from? Do we, as western citizens, want to mirror this immigrant’s country of origin? The reason for asking this question is that when we import foreign nationals, we are commensurately transforming our nation into that person’s home nation. The truth is that, in western nations today, foreign racially dissimilar peoples are encroaching on the civilization of western European peoples. As a result, western civilizations are dwindling. We must amend the perilous direction in which we travel.

The truth about us conservatives is that we may like certain aspects of other countries. Sure, we may like another country’s food. We may like aspects of their culture and traditions, but that doesn’t mean we want to become them. We don’t. As much as we, right-wingers, may like aspects of another country, we don’t want to live in that country permanently. That’s why we have our own countries. If someone seeks to settle and become a permanent citizen in an unspecified western country and if this person comes from a country that we westerners do not want our country to follow in the footsteps of, nor is it a country that we want our country to become, nor is it a country we want ours to be like, we should not allow that person entry. We should not allow refugees of any kind to enter our countries. Period.


When peoples of different race, culture, language or customs are brought together into the same geographic region and the conditions are created for intermixing, the ultimate result is naturally a blending of those ethnic groups. The identity and uniqueness of those original cultural groups becomes eroded over time with each passing generation and is progressively replaced by an overwhelming mono-culture. Analogously, if a can of black paint is mixed with a can of white paint in the same container, it forms one entirely new colour. The resulting grey paint doesn’t differ from any other colour because there is no other colour. There is only one colour left. One thing. One entity. If racial diversity is a good thing, as some of our leaders profess it to be, then why bring people of different races together in the same region when the ensuing race-mixing would only bring about less diversity, not more?

God – A Deducible Approach

One thing I’ve noticed about atheists is that they seem to use the principles of science to dismiss the existence of god. Instead however, I believe science supports the existence of god.

The numerous discoveries in physics, chemistry and in other sciences have demonstrated that our universe obeys laws: the laws of nature. For example, the law of conservation of energy states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, rather it can only be transformed from one form of energy to another. Moreover, in chemical reactions, to conform with the law of conservation of mass, there must be the same number of each type of atom on both sides of the arrow. Human beings, for example, are created according to the makeup of their DNA. Our brains are simply a medley of electrical signals and biochemical reactions behaving in accordance with the laws of physics. If we accept these concepts, we are able to conclude therefore that the universe does indeed have order. Science in general seems to be a method of accounting for the phenomenon in the universe.

Furthermore, Newton’s third law of physics states that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If this is true, it leads to the following conclusion: every action is a reaction to another prior action. This substantiates the notion that the universe is ruled by cause and effect or causality, which in turn lends credence to the fact that we are, in the present moment, defined by our past. This also means our future can be hypothetically predicted based on our past.

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a system is always increasing. Accordingly, our universe will reach a point in time when there can be no more disorder. Either that or the universe will reach point in time very close to a state of ultimate disorder. This would be the hypothetical death of the universe. If in fact, this will happen, that our universe is destined for some sort of theoretical death, then logically our universe must have also had a beginning. Isn’t the idea of an eternal universe contradictory to the reality of the present in which change does exist? If I drop a ball onto the floor from my hand, there is change. That is, the ball moves from my hand to the floor. So if we were destined to become a sea of photons as some scientists say we are, then shouldn’t we have already arrived at that stage an eternity ago? Why, if the universe is eternal, is there change? If the natural tendency of our universe is going toward a state of ultimate disorder and in times past, our universe was, by nature, less disordered, that means that whatever the opposite of a sea of photons is was the initial state of our universe. It then begs the question: what forces and powers brought about this primary state of the universe? If you line up a series of dominoes and push the first one over, it therefore necessitates that the line of dominoes had to have been set up at some point beforehand. If I empty a bag of marbles onto the floor from a certain height, the marbles will hit the floor and disburse and go in multiple directions. This therefore implies that, in the beginning, I had to gather the marbles together and put them into the bag. I had to raise the bag to the starting height from where I dropped them.

The crucial point to understand is that the timeline of our universe is a sequence of unfolding events in which one event gives rise to a subsequent event, which in turn, gives rise to another event and so on. This leads one to wonder that if events of times past have engendered the events of the present, what produced the first event to begin with? What tipped over the first domino? What came before cause? Although the answer seems irrational, it is the only rational answer. If we predicate our argument on the premise that our universe does indeed have a beginning, that means that some force must have engendered the progression of events of the universe in the first place. How can such a chain of events originate from nothing? Well, it can’t. That would defy the laws of nature. Therefore, the answer must point to the existence of a force that, in fact, defies the laws of nature. This evinces the existence of the supernatural. As what is the supernatural creator of the universe customarily known? God.