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 continued doing because I sought the value that other smokers seemed to glean from it. This was also the time of my life where I started drinking. I started wearing skinny jeans in emulation of the members of the band, The Jonas Brothers which I was into at the time. Let’s be honest, their music was terrible. Yes, I made some poor fashion choices. I began alienating my classmates as though I were better than them. I dropped out of school in 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.

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. I want to impart a positive note to all this mess. In the early spring of 2016, I sought proper mental 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 have been going to school since re-enrolling in 2012 so I can get a job one day, hopefully in the sciences. 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.


In order for democracy to function properly, one of its requirements is that the electorate have sufficient knowledge of all candidates running for any given political office. So what percentage of the modern public goes out of their way to research all competing candidates instead of just passively swallowing the political propaganda in the news and in the universities in small increments over time? Not enough.

It stands to reason that if suffrage is a vital human right, it follows that there should be a mandate that the citizen have a healthy knowledge of each candidate. Not only should the citizen know that, but he should have a solid understanding of economics, history, and the political process. What percentage of the public is defined by these attributes?