Recalcitrance to Truth: A Tale of Cowardice, Incoherence, and Intolerance


“Be egalitarian regarding persons. Be elitist regarding ideas.” Peter Kreeft

On December 28, 2023, I published a reflection on a former friend’s intolerance titled “The Intolerant Friend: A Former Friend’s Intolerance.” Since then, recently on my blog, there has been a barrage of negative comments, many of which commit various fallacies, including the good ol’ ad hominem fallacy. Two individuals in particular have left the majority of these comments. The first individual known as “Jim” has expressed discontent with my article titled “Truth Under Assault,” who, in a clumsy and incoherent tirade, was fixated on attacking religion, God, and the Catholic Church in particular. The other individual, known as “Don,” trolled my article about the recent presidency of Javier Milei, “The Phenomenon of Javier Milei in Context.” This person was fixated on anything I had written about COVID in this particular blog post, demanding that I do his research for him. You can scroll to the bottom of each blog post and see the exchanges in the comment section for yourself. As you can clearly see, neither of them challenged or refuted any of the arguments I presented. They also refuse to engage with any view that challenges theirs. Their thinking is a classic example of what George Orwell, in 1984, described as doublethink. And can, in part, be wrought by the confusion brought forth by the media and government through doublespeak. In 1984, slogans like war is peace and freedom is slavery were used, and in recent years, institutions like the World Economic Forum have put forward slogans like “you will own nothing and be happy,” and throughout the COVID crisis, we were told to “trust the science,” that “the [COVID] vaccines are extremely safe and effective,” and that “we are in this together.” To the astute observer, it is obvious that all of these slogans are nothing more than propaganda and mind-control tricks, but those who naively trust these institutions will believe this to be in their best interest, no matter how absurd the statement.

In a “plot twist,” it turns out that these two individuals were also former friends and part of the same circle as the former friend that I wrote about in this blog post: “The Intolerant Friend: A Former Friend’s Intolerance”—a post that interestingly applies even more to these two than the individual it was originally written about. See the screenshots below, which shows this message that I received the other day and have accepted to appear as a post today. The full comment given by “Jim,” appears below in larger print.


Whether purposely or unwittingly, “Jim” (known as J.C., full name below) in his last message included an email that shows a forward from him to someone with the initials D.A. (full name below, who I strongly suspect is “Don,” but apparently “Don” denies this, and I suspect if that’s the case, that “Don’s” initials are D.S. or N.M., so my apologies to D.A. if this is indeed true.) Either way, the general thrust of my comments is just as applicable to D.S. and N.M., if not more so, but again, there is no animosity towards any of them. Either way, it’s utter cowardice and outright disrespectful to comment on an old friend’s blog without at least revealing yourself. I will refer to these two individuals by their preferred names: “Jim” and “Don.” As of now, I’m unsure of their preferred pronouns. Perhaps my labeling them cowards for remaining anonymous prompted “Jim” to paste the forwarded email to “Don” as his comment, or perhaps it was a simple copy-paste error. In either case, since “Jim” was the one who, whether intentionally or not, sent his comment with his and “Don’s” real names, they are there for everyone to see. If it was intentional, I congratulate “Jim” on his courage to stand by his words.

What follows is a general reflection and a response to relevant portions of “Jim’s” commentary. Each section can function as a springboard for further exploration and research on a variety of subjects. Some of my commentary will be general remarks, and some will address specific points raised by “Jim.” Although critical, none of this is meant to be an attack but is done in the spirit of truth and love. Normally, I wouldn’t respond at length or create a blog post for these sorts of comments, since I don’t want to set a precedent for future trolling, but because I see value in giving a sort of blueprint for others dealing with similar objections and criticisms. Moreover, I hope that it will serve pedagogical purposes for some of the readers who come across my website and this blog post, and in the unlikely event that it will help open the minds and hearts of people like “Jim” and “Don,” who seem incredibly resistant to anything that challenges their most cherished beliefs. It is important to note that, in the past, I was similarly trusting and credulous about much of what the government, mainstream media, and educational institutions told me. But once my eyes were open, I could not look at the world in the same way. I didn’t arrive at these conclusions because I necessarily wanted them to be true, but based on a careful examination of the evidence and arguments.

After reading “Jim’s” jumbled and confused commentary, I did not know where to begin with my reflection since there were so many issues that needed to be addressed. I felt like a mosquito at a nudist colony.

On Cowardice and Truth

We live in a period when cowardice is encouraged and courage is disparaged. Conformity and compliance are praised everywhere you look. To speak differently is to run the risk of being ostracized and shamed. Speaking the truth will lose you friends. It can cost you your employment. It can lead to your imprisonment and, worse of all, as the Christian martyrs of the past and present, painfully experienced, torturous deaths in the name of defending and worshipping truth personified, the Incarnation of God, Jesus. Such is the price of truth. Very few are willing to pay such a price. Even though, throughout the past few years, I have decided to voice my discontent about the decadence of Western culture and many of the falsehoods pushed forward by the media, government, and our educational institutions, I have a lot of work to do in speaking the truth without fear—it’s not easy and can be uncomfortable. This has come at a cost, but so does remaining silent.

It is worth pointing out that online anonymity fosters cowardice. These days, it is common to hide one’s identity online. We see this frequently when people want to “troll” others, as opposed to genuine dialogue. If you have something meaningful to say, say it, and don’t be afraid to reveal who you are.

The Nobel laureate, Orthodox Christian, and Soviet dissident Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn knew better than anyone the price of speaking the truth. He uniquely suffered at both the hands of the Nazi and Soviet regimes. On February 12, 1974, he released the text of his essay, “Live Not by Lies.” Shortly after, he was exiled from the Soviet Union and greeted as a hero in the West. Solzhenitsyn’s words are prophetic:

Yes, at first it will not be fair. Someone will have to temporarily lose his job. For the young who seek to live by truth, this will at first severely complicate life, for their tests and quizzes, too, are stuffed with lies, and so choices will have to be made. But there is no loophole left for anyone who seeks to be honest: Not even for a day, not even in the safest technical occupations can he avoid even a single one of the listed choices—to be made in favor of either truth or lies, in favor of spiritual independence or spiritual servility. And as for him who lacks the courage to defend even his own soul: Let him not brag of his progressive views, boast of his status as an academician or a recognized artist, a distinguished citizen or general. Let him say to himself plainly: I am cattle, I am a coward, I seek only warmth and to eat my fill.

Our friends, “Jim” and “Don,” would greatly benefit from reading a work like The Gulag Archipelago. We could all learn a lot from the wisdom of Solzhenitsyn, who starkly faced the evils of his time. These very same evils are still finding their way into the West, but under different names and different pretenses. Vigilance is paramount.

On Coherence, Logic, and Truth

Despite our great advancements in science and technology, we live in a time when the average person, whether university-educated or not, cannot reason properly. Our education system is failing miserably. Unfortunately, there is a focus on ideology rather than teaching students how to think and write clearly.

In his comment, “Jim” makes a fundamental error in logic in the first line of the first paragraph. He states that “your truth is not the same as other people’s truth.” In this sentence, he reveals his understanding of truth and, ultimately, his worldview. In not so many words, he admits to us that he is a relativist (perhaps he’s unaware of the term). A relativist is someone who believes that absolute truth does not exist. Relativism claims that subjective truths held by particular individuals and cultures are all that exist. And yet, this position is incoherent and self-contradictory since it violates the law of non-contradiction. The law of non-contradiction is fundamental to ALL science, medicine, communication, and everyday living; without this essential truth, neither of these disciplines nor everyday living would be possible. Most simply put, the law of non-contradiction states that a statement cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same sense. In other words, X cannot be X and not X in the same way and at the same time. This talk of “your truth” or “my truth” fails every time. Although we may have preferences as to which ice cream or colour we prefer, this says nothing about objective truth. “Jim” conflates preferences and personal and subjective experience with “truth,” as he states:

Telling your daughter that some opinions are better than others is troubling. It suggests that you believe there is a ranking amongst people, or that you are better than those who disagree with you. It is a perspective that suggests that one can be better than another based on how they think. Abstract in its nature, there is no way to prove this idea, as people are all completely unique and have the freedom to think and feel as they chose. For example, if I state that blue is the best colour and you state that red is the best colour, neither of us are right or wrong, or better than one another. We are simply different. Learning to accept that we are all different is crucial, moreover, teaching our children that we are all different and its okay, is paramount to creating a better future for all people. It is impossible to prove what ideas are better than others as people can passionately and intellectually defend their position. Ultimately, there is not a singular correct way to feel, and that idea makes life beautiful.

In response to this rather muddled way of thinking, I’ll offer several comments. The philosopher Peter Kreeft rightfully stated, “Be egalitarian regarding persons. Be elitist regarding ideas.” I never exclude or discriminate against people for their contingent features (a philosophical term to denote that something could have happened another way), whether it be sex, gender, race, religion, etc.

At the conclusion of this paragraph, he states, “Ultimately, there is not a singular correct way to feel, and that idea makes life beautiful.” This is nothing more than a platitude; I’ve never denied this. In many ways, totally irrelevant to my arguments revolving around objective truth, he again conflates subjectivity with objectivity. Indeed, it would be absurd of me or anyone else to claim there is a singular way to feel; this would reduce us to matter in motion. Uniqueness, individuality, distinct experiences, feelings, etc. are all aspects of personhood and our consciousness and soul. Scientific materialism, the idea that matter and its movement and modifications are fundamental to reality, cannot adequately explain these things. A view that no doubt holds sway with many atheists and agnostics. Especially with someone like “Don.” I think “Jim” is more open to this idea, but his heart is resistant. Given his admirable defense of human “uniqueness,” perhaps it would be worth his time to reflect a bit more deeply on his rejection of God. I think he would benefit from reading my chapter, “The Distinctiveness of the Human Person,” which is found in a book with other chapters written by scientists, philosophers, and theologians.

Another important point is that I embrace diversity in people’s personalities, contingent features, and thoughts—this is how we are able to grow in our understanding of the world. I have friends and acquaintances from all walks of life. However, I do not agree with how we now favour certain groups over others, since this is a form of discrimination, or reverse discrimination, if you will. I oppose this. It is the antithesis of progress, and it sets us back as a society. I also believe in freedom of thought, speech, and expression and vigorously defend people’s rights to freely express themselves. This is why I founded True Freedom Press. I am always willing to dialogue in a respectful manner with people with whom I disagree. But respect is a two-way street. “Jim,” “Don,” and “Tina” (maybe someone else that I know) adopted a tone that was disrespectful and did not actively seek out constructive dialogue. Not to mention disingenuous, given that they know me personally and were friends in the past, it’s worse than cowardly since it involves treachery. Of course it’s their right to proceed in such ways, but to put it rather cringe-worthy (to use an often-thrown-around term).. They could have reached out to me personally and had a civilized discussion if they felt such a pressing need to write express their views to me. You can go take a look at the comments and responses to the two abovementioned posts to see for yourself. 

I also found it especially peculiar when “Jim” made this bizarre comment under my post: 

“It would be more plausible if you wrote that you are, in fact, a homosexual who has been taught throughout your life that being such is wrong. These lessons have made you incapable of accepting your true self so you instead project an existence of righteousness and intolerance.”

Apparently, because I defend traditional Catholic doctrine on gender, sexuality, and marriage, it implies I’m hateful and homosexual? I think that’s a leap in logic, but as we have seen, logic is not “Jim’s” strong suit. But this comment is troubling for several reasons. He trivializes my heterosexuality and labels me as something that I am not. It’s also insulting to my fiancée, who happens to be a woman. Second, I’ve never had any attraction to men and have always been interested in women. I’ve always only dated women. The other thing is that he conflates homosexual orientation with homosexual activity; the two are not the same in the eyes of Christian doctrine, and I’ve explained this way too many times, but it falls on deaf ears. It is also insulting to the homosexual community since it trivializes their sexuality by labelling someone who is not homosexual as homosexual. What’s more is that there seems to be a mocking tone involved with this comment since I am “incapable of accepting [my] true self.” So, I am labeled a homosexual homophobe. That’s probably the most creative concept he came up with in his entire little rant. It makes me wonder if he is projecting himself and if the reason he’s so irrationally angry towards me is because there’s something else going on. Who knows? Maybe his close friend “Don,” who he used to refer to as his “best friend!” can enlighten us. But enough about that.

Even though it pains me to say this, his entire commentary is rife with contradictions, so much so that it undermines any position he was attempting to defend. In fact, we are left confused as to what exactly he was defending in the first place. It will also turn off any reader who takes logic seriously. Over and over again, he affirms a relativistic understanding of truth on the one hand, but on the other, he attempts to, albeit incoherently, affirm that there is objective truth. However, these two ideas are mutually exclusive; he cannot have it both ways.

Now, let’s consider the implications of relativism. Imagine if someone believed that it was fun to torture and kill babies for fun. Would this person be as equally right as the person who believed in wanting to save and protect babies? Of course not; this is just as false as saying 2 + 2 = 5, but unfortunately, we are at a point where people are believing 2 + 2 = 5. Given “Jim’s” view, neither is better or worse; it’s just a matter of preference, like going to McDonald’s or Burger King. This is what he reduces the truth to. The implications are chilling. It should be obvious to the reflective reader that Communist and Nazi ideologies are morally inferior to the ideals of Judeo-Christian beliefs that were fundamental to the scientific revolution, the foundations of law, and the recognition of the intrinsic value and dignity of all human persons, including the abolishment of slavery.

Then there is his statement, “Telling your daughter that some opinions are better than others is troubling,” which is in and of itself troubling for a number of reasons. First, I was not referring to subjective preferences, feelings, and emotions. Second, it is my hope that after reading this blog post, he will come to realize there is nothing troubling about acknowledging and knowing that certain ideas are better than others; indeed, in spite of himself, he believes this. Third, should we take parenting advice from someone who seems fine with Drag Queen Story Hour? At least, we are left with this impression since he went out of his way to denounce everything I said related to this issue, but not a word about this troubling trend. Indeed, some of these drag queens are child sex offenders. (The particular context of this is made concerning drag queens who are child sex offenders and are participating in “story hour.”) Admittedly, the wording in the original article could have been clearer. (I have since edited this.) “Jim,” in his commentary, states that “referring to drag queens as pedophiles is offensive.” It may be an offensive statement to some, but that doesn’t change the fact that some of these drag queens reading to children are, in fact, child sex offenders. What’s more offensive and inexcusable is child molestation! To be clear, I never stated that transgender people are pedophiles, as he states in his commentary. Transgenderism is a very wide tent. Nevertheless, it is quite reasonable to think that drag queens in general have no business reading stories in skimpy outfits that can potentially expose their male genitalia to children. This is morally reprehensible. It would also be unacceptable to allow a woman in suggestive and revealing clothing to read stories to innocent children. But let’s be clear: the point of the Drag Queen Story hour is to normalize deviant behaviour in impressionable children, which is done under the veneer of empathy and compassion.

It is also worth mentioning, since it was brought up, that I do not absolve religious leaders, including Catholic priests and bishops, of their abhorrent behaviour. They don’t get a free pass. So there isn’t any confusion: I stand against the evil actions of priests past and present, particularly those who have sexually abused children. I think they should be judged with the full force of the law and God’s wrath if they are unrepentant. I also think it is arguably worse for priests to be involved in these scandals since they are supposed to represent God, and this would be a violation of people’s trust. Thus, their accountability is greater than that of a layperson, whether a believer or non-believer.

“Jim” also accuses me of intolerance, ignorance, judgment, and bigotry. Something to point out is that everyone provides a judgment of others, whether positive or negative. Indeed, isn’t he providing negative judgment about my views? The truth is that he believes certain views are “acceptable” and others are “unacceptable.” What is also important to look at is whether what I say is true or not, the context, and the words themselves. I’ve never used words in a derogatory manner to describe people in the LGBTQ+ community.  These writings were originally published in Catholic magazines and were meant to uphold Catholic doctrine. Nowhere in my writings do I not respect the dignity of anyone who is LGBTQ+. I would press him to find one single instance in all of my writings where I suggest this. He views the world through a progressive postmodern lens that does not care for truth. His accusation is patently false. Concerning ignorance and intolerance, I will address these below. I reject the idea that I am a bigot since I treat people equally and see their intrinsic worth that transcends how they identify. To be clear, I have friends who are part of the LGBTQ+ community, and I do not discriminate against them based on how they identify. Having said that, this does not change Catholic doctrine. The two issues are separate, as I have iterated many times.

The important point is that, to put it colloquially, we must love the sinner and hate the sin (something that would require further qualifications but will do for now); God loves us unconditionally regardless of our actions. For instance, I may appreciate and be good friends with someone who is part of the LGBTQ+ community, and I believe they are free to live as they see fit since I believe there is such a thing as free will and self-determination (people are free to reject the Gospel message; there is no compulsion in belief). God’s love allows for our freedom to freely love or reject Him. However, this most certainly does not mean that I believe Catholic doctrine should be changed to accommodate alternate lifestyles. This applies to everyone, whether straight, homosexual, married, not married, etc. You can still be friends and care for people who have different lifestyles than you, but that doesn’t mean this brings into question Christian doctrine; that is an entirely separate conversation.

Catholic philosopher Jacques Maritain put it best when he stated that “Charity has to do with persons; truth, with ideas and the reality attained through them. Perfect charity toward our neighbour and complete fidelity to truth are not only compatible; each calls for the other.” This is why Jesus welcomed all people, even those who were seen as the worst of sinners, but he called them to repent and not remain steadfast in their ways. This applies to every single human, since all humans, according to soteriology (the study of salvation) and hamartiology (the study of sin), fall short of the glory of God. The secular and Christian understandings of compassion and empathy are as far apart as heaven and hell. For a faithful Christian who takes the existence of hell seriously, it is paramount to put repentance at the center of their life because salvation is the ultimate gift, not temporal pleasure. The Catholic philosopher and mathematician Blaise Pascal thought it was madness that people fill their time thinking of temporal things without considering the true meaning of life, which takes seriously the destiny of one’s soul. Pascal stated the following about the human predicament and the tragic preoccupation with ultimately trivial and temporal things:

Thus the fact that there exist men who are indifferent to the loss of their being and the peril of an eternity of wretchedness is against nature. With everything else they are quite different; they fear the most trifling things, foresee and feel them; and the same man who spends so many days and nights in fury and despair at losing some office or at some imaginary affront to his honour is the very one who knows that he is going to lose everything through death but feels neither anxiety nor emotion. It is a monstrous thing to see one and the same heart at once so sensitive to minor things and so strangely insensitive to the greatest.

It should be apparent by now that, although maybe not to him, he thinks that his opinions are better than mine; otherwise, why would he go through the trouble of “correcting” me? Why would he label me a “hateful, missled [sic] gas bag” in a previous comment? It is also a curious thing when he labels me “ignorant and insecure,” but as he clearly demonstrates, he is not articulating himself coherently since he denies first principles (basic rules of logic like the law of non-contradiction). This is the basis of all thinking. This would exemplify maximal ignorance.

This reminds me of an incident that occurred several years ago with the other commentator, “Don,” who, in the middle of a conversation, reacted frustratingly and angrily towards me and said, “I guess I’m not as smart as you” and then proceeded to storm out of the bar. All this for pointing out some basic contradictions in his thought. He claimed to be a nihilist, i.e., someone who believes that all values are unfounded and that life is ultimately meaningless, while in the same breath stating that we have a moral obligation to be concerned about climate change and increasing the number of refugees we accept. I simply pointed out that these two ideas are mutually contradictory. It is a form of cognitive dissonance. But, instead of thanking me for pointing out the error in his thinking, he decided not to speak to me for a couple of years and then, upon further reflection, apologized in 2020. But then again, he doubles down with anonymous insults and provocations via his alter ego, “Don,” after deleting me from Facebook, most likely because of my posts about politics and COVID. It’s rather curious behaviour.

“Donny’s” mot de jour has not changed in close to twenty years: “diatribe,” to describe any piece of writing that disagrees with his dearly held beliefs. He still uses the same tired arguments. Instead of developing an argument of his own, he defers to some peer-reviewed piece that carries a title that supports his presupposed conclusion. It’s almost as though he believes that a peer-reviewed article or series of articles will help him answer the question as to whether he exists or not, or that some study will explain whether there’s meaning in life. All jokes aside, don’t get me wrong, the peer review process is very important (I publish in peer-reviewed philosophy and theology journals), but, in general, any study that will rock consensus views in science and medicine will not be welcome at first, even if the evidence is strong. Overall, science is a self-correcting process, even if scientists do not want to acknowledge conclusions that may counter their presuppositions. These things take time, and there are many reasons why researchers may want to hold on to certain scientific positions. But the set of circumstances surrounding the COVID situation is not your ordinary situation since censorship of dissenting views has reached proportions that are practically unheard of in recent history. It is important to take into account the publications of scientists who publish in alternative outlets, peer-reviewed by other qualified scientists and doctors, but who face censorship and rejection from those who control the funding. It could very well be that the researchers who are censored and whose research isn’t accepted by mainstream journals have superior studies and evidence for their claims. It’s extremely naive to not think that peer review, more often than is admitted, ensures orthodoxy over innovation. 

At a closer glance, it’s not as simple as he seems to think. In science, the interpretation of data is highly important since it may not lead all researchers to the same conclusion. Plus, since 2020, an unprecedented number of papers that were published were subsequently retracted. I discuss this all in my book, COVID-19: A Dystopian Delusion. Rather recently, a study reviewing deaths caused by COVID vaccines conducted by one of the best-published cardiologists in the history of medicine, Peter McCullough, Yale epidemiologist Harvey Risch, Dr. Paul E. Alexander, and other researchers was retracted from The Lancet. Of course, “Don” will say it’s the methodology! It says so right there, but alas, this reveals more about the journals’ financial interests since it counters the narrative medical-industrial complex.

Be that as it may, some things remain the same.

On Human Dignity

And to be extremely clear, I do not think there is a ranking among people; I believe that everyone is created in the image-likeness of God. Thus, I have an objective basis for respecting everyone’s inherent dignity and also condemning evil actions. One’s dignity is not reducible to contingent features like sexuality, race, sex, gender, political belief, religious belief, etc., but rather to a transcendent reality that grounds our personhood. Atheism, in its various guises, and secularism cannot objectively affirm inherent human dignity but must piggyback on Christian beliefs. Modern atheism is an offshoot of Christianity, as Christian apologists’ book Stealing from God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case clearly illustrates.

Given “Jim’s” and “Don’s” worldviews, they do not have any basis to objectively affirm equal human rights. Here’s an article where I take the famous atheist Richard Dawkins to task on this. Furthermore, secularists, like “Jim” and “Don,” have no basis to objectively condemn certain actions such as rape and murder since, in a naturalistic world (a world devoid of God), morality is the by-product of undirected naturalistic socio-biological evolution; it is merely contingent on how we have evolved; there is no necessary and objective morality.

Fear of Knowledge?

As we established already, some ideas are morally superior to others, and some are true and some are false, but that does not make the person holding such views superior or inferior, since we are judging their ideas and not them.

Holding onto relativism also leads to the constructivist idea of the doctrine of equal validity. This epistemological outlook can be best summarized in the following way: “There are many radically different, yet “equally valid” ways of knowing the world, with science being just one of them.”  Although demonstrably incoherent, it is a view that has become widespread throughout the academy and popular culture. Philosopher Paul A. Boghossian, in his book Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism and Constructivism, explains why this doctrine has wide-reaching implications for epistemology in particular and philosophy and society in general:

Equal validity, then, is a doctrine of considerable significance and not just within the confines of the ivory tower. If the vast number of scholars in the humanities and social sciences who subscribe to it are right, we are not merely making a philosophical mistake of interest to a small number of specialists in the theory of knowledge; we have fundamentally misconceived the principles by which society ought to be organized. There is more than the usual urgency, then, to the question whether they are right.

These strange ideas may come from a place of good intention for some, such as some virtuous reasons to uphold social justice in their minds, and maybe for others not so much, since they want to show they are morally virtuous through virtue signalling to receive a pat on the back. Nevertheless, however muddled and confused that may be, it is a misstep in critical thinking. This is why Boghossian provides a book-length refutation of such views. This challenge of affirming objective truth is vital to all endeavours in life, not just academic pursuits. If all viewpoints and outlooks are equally valid, then it is impossible to ascertain truth and even attempt to attain reliable knowledge of the world.  To be sure, these are repackaged arguments articulated over 2,400 years ago by the pre-Socratic sophist philosopher Protagoras, who asserted that man is the measure of all things.

On Coercion

“Jim” also goes on to state this: “You do not have the right to speak for others, nor do you have the right to control others.” How am I speaking for others? And how am I controlling others? All to the contrary. Did I force “Jim” to visit my website, read my writings, and comment on them anonymously? Of course not; he did this out of his own volition. In terms of freedom, all throughout the COVID fiasco, I supported bodily autonomy and freedom because I saw the lies very early on. I was appalled at how our constitutional rights were taken and the mockery of informed consent. There was ZERO justification for this. This was because, as we can never forget, we were led to believe the big lie that if you don’t follow these mandates, you will kill someone’s grandmother (as if the government cares about anyone’s grandmother). I believe it is safe to assume that “Jim” and “Don” probably supported all the COVID mandates in the name of public health and safety. I would be extremely surprised if “Don” didn’t, since in the past he has indicated affinities toward totalitarian communist regimes (I wouldn’t expect an honest answer). As I can recall, he was a supporter of Justin Trudeau. Trudeau is someone who admires Communist China. Trudeau is a “leader” who has become the ridicule of the world for various reasons, but especially for his authoritarianism and disparagement of millions of Canadians who think differently than him. So, if this is the case, then these two gentlemen support coercion, censorship, and controlling others. It seems to me that the accusations leveled against me are the very thing they are guilty of. This has a name in psychology: projection.


As “Jim” knows, my father is a well-published retired neurosurgeon. His late father was a fine pediatric ophthalmologist. The two were colleagues and friends. Perhaps to “Jim’s” shock, my father also happens to be very much against the COVID vaccines and the whole COVID narrative. Like him, there are many doctors throughout the world, some of whom have been very vocal about the dangers of the COVID vaccines. Other doctors are slowly coming around, and many have remained silent out of fear of losing their positions. I personally know medical doctors who were persecuted by medical boards for speaking against the COVID narrative. I’ve had conversations with doctors who agreed with all my concerns regarding COVID vaccines and the potential dangers, agreeing that nothing of what I was saying was conspiratorial but based on scientific evidence, but would still recommend the vaccine. Why? Because of fear, they follow along and keep a tight lip. If all one does is listen to mainstream sources, they will not know about the great dissidence and skepticism that exists concerning these COVID vaccines. Why were early treatments vilified? Here is an article I wrote about early treatments, which includes a video of a doctor speaking of his right to prescribe early treatments for COVID being stripped.

Let me be clear: neither numbers nor consensus affect the truth; it could be that just one person who is not a scientist or doctor could be right about the COVID narrative, even if the world was against him or her. Just be aware that there are many reputable scientific and medical experts who support a counter-narrative that have been silenced and demonized. If there is nothing to hide, then why silence people? It’s definitely not to protect people. I’ve written a detailed book about COVID that exposes the lies revolving around the mainstream narrative.

He asks, what gives me the right to speak about COVID and to attempt to “influence” others? Well, I’m free to speak and write (at least for now). And since I believe in the objectivity of metaphysical and moral truths, I took it as a moral obligation to expose these lies. In terms of being qualified to comment on the subject, I wrote the following in my book:

Although I am not a scientist or healthcare professional, I have, however, received educational training in logic, philosophy, theology, history, economics, and ethics. I have presented at conferences to philosophers, theologians, and scientists. I have also successfully completed science courses at the university level. I have read widely on science. Furthermore, I wrote a book that interfaced the interactions between science, philosophy, and theology; it was endorsed by world-renowned scientists and philosophers. So, although I am not an expert in medicine or science, my training in logic, philosophy, and other fields allows me to assess the soundness and coherence of arguments regardless of the discipline in question. Logic and other aspects are fundamental to science and medicine, including being aware of the presuppositions involved. Even though pure objectivity is impossible, one should aim to be as objective as possible—science is about questioning and debating, not declaring issues by fiat. It is also subject to revision, especially in the case of COVID-19; we have seen this time and time again. Contradictory evidence to the main claims made in a particular case must be taken seriously and not swept away. Other authors in this book who focus on various aspects of COVID, including psychological elements, have the requisite training in such fields. Pediatric surgeon Enrique Ventureyra (also a contributor to this volume), who for many years was on the frontlines saving children’s lives at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO), is completely horrified with the aggressive vaccine rollout program, which is not seriously taking into account adverse effects and fatalities.

On Truth and Reconciliation

The first point to realize is that we don’t have to be present to opine about history and whether an event occurred or not. Historians have methodologies for ascertaining plausible accounts of what may have transpired. One of these methods includes making inferences to the best explanation by comparing competing hypotheses and analyzing what fits best with the evidence. This has nothing to do with feelings or whether we like the conclusion or not. We mustn’t be so naïve and credulous as to believe everything we are told, and that’s designed to tug at our emotions. Virtue signalling may make some people feel morally righteous, but it does nothing to bring us closer to the truth.

In actuality, no corpses have ever been discovered in these “mass graves” that are located beneath Native American territory and were once home to these residential schools. The supposed skeletons were actually aberrations in the soil, consisting of rock, tree roots, and other non-human objects. The media and politicians pushed this narrative of human remains that there is no evidence for, which resulted in the burning and vandalism of close to one hundred churches. The problem goes much deeper than this, though.

Up until 20 years ago, Residential Schools were viewed as heroic institutions that offered native Canadians a shot at living a civilized life, educated in an official Canadian language. I wonder if “Jim” has considered the good that was brought about by the Residential Schools.

There are many letters written by Natives who resided at these schools and recounted positive experiences. Many natives who were offered these benefits were grateful. Perhaps a conversation with a native who lived at the residential schools and who has a positive view of them would give “Jim” another perspective. However, not all had the same experience, and this is an important thing to realize. The question is, in an objective sense, what was the overall good that resulted from these schools versus the evil? There is nothing wrong with trying to get to the bottom of things and figuring out what happened. Finally, nothing good comes from creating guilt on the shoulders of those who had nothing to do with any of this. We can show compassion for those who may have suffered injustices, but in recent years, it’s relatively untold that there are many letters of gratitude as well. The reality of this situation is much more complex than “Jim” believes, as is the nonsense pushed forward by the lying media. Thus, there is nothing wrong with considering an alternative narrative that provides arguments and evidence for a different side of the story.

The media foments division and undermines unification across communities. History is being abused for political purposes and to divide people. Frances Widdowson, who was an Associate Professor in the Department of Economics, Justice, and Policy Studies at Mount Royal University, lost her position for questioning the accepted narrative on residential schools. This is a violation of academic freedom and actually sends the message that you cannot say certain things, which seemingly goes against what “Jim” said about controlling people. Getting to the truth will help with true reconciliation; why should anyone be afraid of this? 

On Tolerance

On the subject of tolerance, he states: “Your perspectives on many subjects are harsh and would be considered hateful by many. Intolerance is defined as the unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behaviour that differ from one’s own. You have proven emphatically that you are intolerant.”

In recent years, we have seen a dramatic shift in our conception of tolerance. It has gone from meaning the acceptance of the existence of differing views to meaning the acceptance of different views. We jump from the ability to articulate beliefs and claims that we do not agree with to the claim that all beliefs are equally valid. It seems as though “Jim” has fallen into the trap of conflating the existence of differing views with accepting different views; this is known as the “new tolerance.” To tolerate means to disagree. However, according to the new tolerance, embracing someone else’s viewpoint genuinely entails holding that viewpoint to be true, or at the very least, as true as your own. We make a leap from allowing the free expression of opposing views to accepting all viewpoints, and from allowing the expression of beliefs and assertions that we disagree with to declaring that all viewpoints are equally legitimate. The latter is patently false and illogical. Not to mention self-contradictory since those who don’t agree with all viewpoints being equally legitimate are called intolerant; ignoring that disagreement is another perspective.

What I say may be perceived as harsh, but perception and truth are two separate issues. I don’t care what people consider hateful; I care as to whether what I say is hateful since there is no hateful intention when I state these things. Hate and hate speech are terms that are thrown around very loosely in our culture. Second, the truth coincides with love, although the truth can be unkind at times. Kindness does not equate with love. I’m trying to get to the bottom of things and not just accept and regurgitate what the government or the media tells me to believe. Anyone who has been somewhat awake these past three years will realize that many of the lies that we’ve been fed and more are starting to catch on.

It’s also interesting to see if people’s actions are consistent with their words. “Jim” believes himself to be tolerant, but just like “Don,” he deletes people from Facebook with whom he disagrees. I think one can learn a lot about tolerance given these inconsistent actions. I would also consider the things being said of me in some of their previous comments to fit “Jim’s” loose understanding of “hate.” If anything, they’ve revealed themselves to be intolerant. If I was so intolerant, why would I allow those comments to be published on my site?

Final Reflection

In his final analysis, “Jim” states the following:

You are not wrong to believe and think as you chose to do. You are wrong because you chose to disagree and negatively judge others who do not make the same choices as you have. It is clear that you have never tried to understand why people are different. It’s possible you have never been empathetic in your life. If you were truly passionate about people and life, you would try to learn and understand why people are different, not why they are wrong. Spend more time healing and less time shaming.

First, he says I am not wrong for thinking differently, and then he says I am wrong for disagreeing with others. Which is it? This is again self-contradictory. Then he makes the leap in logic that I’ve never tried to understand people who are different. It’s as though “Jim” is all-knowing; he has acquired a divine attribute! Amusingly, when humans remove God from their understanding of the world, they resurrect false idols, which may include deifying themselves. How can he possibly know this? This is very presumptuous. What’s more, he goes on to state that I may have never been empathetic in my life. I’ll just make a brief comment on something a bit more personal. Although “Jim” may have changed significantly over the years, there was always an air of self-entitlement, inconsideration, and selfishness that plagued him, at least for the period we knew each other. Many years ago, our circle of friends would have agreed on this, even though it may not have been vocalized all too often, precisely because we were all empathetic to his plight. Thus, given his track record, he’s really not in a position to judge my ability to empathize, especially not based on his mischaracterizations and misinterpretations of my writings. As the saying goes, “people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.” But don’t get me wrong; at one point, he was my friend and had many good qualities; the same is true of “Don.” I honestly think it’s too bad that people exclude others because of ideological differences. We may be right and others wrong, but exclusion is what I thought “Jim” was saying was wrong, or at least he said: “It suggests that you believe there is a ranking amongst people, or that you are better than those who disagree with you. It is a perspective that suggests that one can be better than another based on how they think.” Isn’t that what he thinks by way of his whole discourse and his action of exclusion since my ideas seem to be morally repugnant to him, hence going out of his way to shame me, something that he says I shouldn’t do? Isn’t this the height of hubris and hypocrisy?

Admittedly, my approach is not for everyone, and depending on the circumstances, I can soften my tone and change my delivery. I think this post has been a mix of the two. Nevertheless, I thank him for bringing some of these things, whether directly or indirectly, to my attention. All of us need to be more compassionate and empathetic and try to understand why people are the way they are, but never at the expense of truth, since authentic compassion and empathy could never exist without truth; truth and love must function in unison. I also have an open heart and an open mind to learning more about the world and everything in it. My views are not static.

Be that as it may, we all deal with things differently, and I hold no animosity towards either one of these two former friends. I do wish them happiness and success. I hope that they each heal from life’s wounds. We all have our hardships and crosses to bear. I also hope that they will have an openness to counter-narratives and views that challenge their way of thinking and that they can take my words for what they are and find some value in my discourse about coherence and logic.

Perhaps in the future, we will all be able to have a civil discourse and come to a deeper understanding of one another and where the truth really lies. I’ll close with philosopher Vernon Howard’s insightful words: “True does not really hurt, rather it is our resistance to its message that causes pain.”

“Jim’s” Comments:

———- Forwarded message ———
From: James Clarke
Date: Thu, Jan 4, 2024, 2:15 p.m.
Subject: My response
To: Abbott, Dustin

Your truth is not the same as other people’s truth. Everyone has the right to think and feel and learn for themselves. You do not have the right to speak for others, nor do you have the right to control others.
Telling your daughter that some opinions are better than others is troubling. It suggests that you believe there is a ranking amongst people, or that you are better than those who disagree with you. It is a perspective that suggests that one can be better than another based on how they think. Abstract in its nature, there is no way to prove this idea, as people are all completely unique and have the freedom to think and feel as they chose. For example, if I state that blue is the best colour and you state that red is the best colour, neither of us are right or wrong, or better than one another. We are simply different. Learning to accept that we are all different is crucial, moreover, teaching our children that we are all different and its okay, is paramount to creating a better future for all people. It is impossible to prove what ideas are better than others as people can passionately and intellectually defend their position. Ultimately, there is not a singular correct way to feel, and that idea makes life beautiful.

Referring to drag queens as pedophiles is offensive. There have even thousands of cases of sexual and child abuse by catholic priests over hundreds of years and it continues currently. How can you refer to Trans gender people as pedophilic when your illustrious church and its priests have been proven guilty of this disgusting crime so many times. How many blind eyes can you turn? Your comment categorizes an entire group of people as pedophiles. This is impossible to prove and deeply ignorant. It is bigotry. Every human being is born with the right to live with a sense of decency. You don’t have to agree with other people’s choices, but know that their’s aren’t your choices to make. Using your beliefs to judge other people, mostly people you have never met and don’t know and understand, makes you intolerant and hateful as it would appear you haven’t made any attempt to understand how they feel. You can disagree with another’s life choice without being negative or judgemental.

Making reference to a book that seemingly denies any wrong doing by the church, with regards to residential schools and indigenous children, does not prove that nothing awful or evil happened. You have the right to choose not to believe what others believe. A sense of empathy may silence you before you decide to voice your feelings. It is so important to remember that your truth is not necessarily another’s truth. Truth is abstract, there can be many truths and it can change form, but it is never singular. There is no mention of the potential truth of the allegations in your article, only your version of denial.
Perhaps a visit to an indigenous community would help you. Ask their elders about their experiences. After all, you werent even alive when these “alleged” atrocities occurred, making your opinion as much of a guess as mine. I choose to challenge you on this as I am capable of empathy. If I were a member of an indigenous tribe and I witnessed or experienced these events, it would be brutally painful to have my truth denied, especially if the denial originated from a member of one of the alleged perpetrators.

Regarding vaccines and covid, I chose to consult with my father who was an MD, as well as my family doctor when I wanted to make my decision of whether to get vaccinated or not. I trust these people and their opinions. I don’t have to explain any further. You have the right to do the same. Spending this much energy trying to convince me that vaccines, including mRna, are dangerous seems exhausting and wasteful. I don’t consult the Vatican, the church, or anyone else who isn’t an MD when considering my medical future. You are not a medical doctor. You are not qualified to make these judgements. I am not a medical doctor either. I sought the wisdom of those who are capable, experienced, educated, and most importantly, had my interests in heart when providing advice.
The entire paragraph about covid was written to deter and debunk what others believe to be true. You have the right to believe what you want. What gives you the right to attempt to influence others? What makes you believe you are qualified or educated enough to make these massive judgements. Your truth is for you. It is not the only truth. You must accept this fact.

Morally repugnant? The church doesn’t make laws. The government makes laws. Our government makes mistakes, everyone does. Religion should never be used when governing a population. Catholicism is one of many versions of Christianity. One is not better than the others, just different. Too many variables to even try to determine who has the most appropriate approach.

Global politics are overwhelming at best. There are so many ideologies that it is impossible to determine what is right or wrong. Populations change their perspective seemingly every few years based on events and politicians. I do not advise anyone to attempt to persuade or dissuade others regarding politics. It is every individual’s right to decide how they feel and how they want to vote or act. Left, right, middle. All have success’ and failures over the years. There is no right or wrong when deciding your political aspirations. Those choices are for you. My choices are for me. My choices are not your concern. When I read your paragraph about war and politics, it seems obvious that you subscribe to the right wing of the political spectrum. That is your choice.

The church can say what they want about lgtbq+. It holds little to no weight. So unfortunate for anyone who is part of that community who also believes in Christianity, as they must feel constantly and harshly judged and ridiculed. The church does not decide who is officially married or which relationships are acceptable. The government issues a marriage license to adults. My sister in law married her wife this year and the ceremony was beautiful. They are happy and healthy. That’s all you need to know. Your opinion about their union is inconsequential and unwanted. I feel the same about any same sex marriage.

You have made you choices in life and believe what you chose to believe. This is your right. Focus on your life. Work on yourself. Be healthy and happy. The only life you can control is your own. Your entire article gives the impression that you do not approve of any “alternate lifestyle” and you go to lengths to support your opinions.
My first response was an exercise to see if you were able to listen to a perspective that was opposite to your own. Your response was defensive. You discounted everything I wrote and suggested there was no substance. A literal “I know you are but what am I” response. My second note was a more intense attempt to trigger an emotional response. I was clearly successful as you wrote endlessly about how stupid I must be, based solely on two short messages. As if you can judge a person so well. As if you are “the one” who understands all and you alone hold the answers. You don’t see the world as I do. That is life. People don’t have to agree. Your perspectives on many subjects are harsh and would be considered hateful by many. Intolerance is defined as the unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behaviour that differ from one’s own. You have proven emphatically that you are intolerant.
You are not wrong to believe and think as you chose to do. You are wrong because you chose to disagree and negatively judge others who do not make the same choices as you have. It is clear that you have never tried to understand why people are different. It’s possible you have never been empathetic in your life. If you were truly passionate about people and life, you would try to learn and understand why people are different, not why they are wrong. Spend more time healing and less time shaming.
There is some truth for you.


4 thoughts on “Recalcitrance to Truth: A Tale of Cowardice, Incoherence, and Intolerance”

    1. This is a very lengthy post. While I think you make good points throughout, I think one thing you need to consider is that one of the most powerful argumentative and tactical tools of the left is simply wasting your time. A Quick summary of an opponents error or major fallacy may be all or more than they deserve. Aspects of what you describe here would fall under the category of “sealioning”, a tactic where a critic falsely claims good faith questioning of your argument with the simple goal of exhausting the target by demanding ever longer and extensively researched responses. When the target finally catches on and stops responding, they’ll claim bad faith on the part of the target. Long short, not everyone deserves or is entitled to response.

      1. Scott Ventureyra

        You’re right in your assessment. That’s why we must ask ourselves if Milei is right in his critique of the left. It was also cathartic to respond to intolerant, hypocritical, incoherent, and cowardly commentators.