'Vaccine Apartheid'? Who is it really who have not had vaccines? What about Aboriginals and Black and Latino Groups? What about Autistics and the MTHFR gene? Is there room for Diversity, Compassion & Unity? I dreamt of Russell Brand.

Is compassion only for like minded people? Are the minorities in society worth consideration? Are the very people that typically fight politically and spiritually for diversity, forgetting the minorities and diversity of others in their current positions in society? When we regard those as different from us, as the "bad," the "wrong," the "ones who deserve to die," or with statements like; "They should not be given healthcare" or "They should be left behind- they are taking up our hospital beds"... Are we considering context? Are we actually considering the vulnerable? Could the vulnerable also be included in some of the people who can not or will not take the vaccines?

Apparently our global population is 7,929, 833, 700 as of my writing. It has been said by health organizations that only 3 percent of people have adverse reactions or die from the shot. According to my calculator that is 237,895,011 people of the world. Do those millions not get a voice? Is it not reasonable to consider that their 3 percent chance of adverse affects (or even death) is higher than the one percent possibility of them dying from Covid 19 Virus? Is it a completely cut and dry issue? Is blame and shame loving your neighbour or even your enemy? I understand that it is certainly easier to love those on the same page as us. It's easier to love those like us right? Because we are in the right obviously. Right?? Love is mercy, it does not judge, it does not boast and it submits in service to other people's choice. No one said it would be easy.

In the case of vaccines and each person’s personal choice- I am truly Switzerland. People dislike that. I have been accused of being Anti- Vaccination. I have also been accused of being Pro Vaccine. Both have been said in testy tones of judgement. Let me be clear- I am FOR individual choice and context. I believe in CHOICE. Bodily autonomy matters. We have choices when it comes to having children or not, life changing surgeries, and any other important decision- so why is the exception being made in the one case of vaccinations? Why is diversity suddenly a non issue? Did it disappear? Are we suddenly all the same in reactions, genetics (check into the MTHFR gene for example), socio economic status and vulnerabilities? So the previous conversations of "privilege" in our society no longer apply to vaccinations? Are there people who are more able to take time off of work for any perceived side effects, or stay at home when needed, or can find other jobs if they can not take the vaccine, in perhaps a place of "privilege"? There is so much more to this picture than "conspiracy." 

I believe my vaccine status is private. I feel that vaccines can be an incredible gift. I believe that there are different populations whom are affected by this choice more than others. For instance, Aboriginal people are more likely to experience adverse side effects. My uncle, whom is Aboriginal, died from the vaccine but it went un reported. Another family member had to be rushed to the hospital and it again, went unreported. I don't know why this is, but I do know that in emergency situations, reporting may not always be accurate. We need to assume that if a certain population is experiencing more side effects or death (like the Aboriginal leader on La Crete reserve) that they have a right to be wary. There are those who suffer auto immune conditions that the vaccine can protect but then there are those that are higher risk with the vaccine BECAUSE of their conditions. I celebrate that many people can take the vaccine with no ill effects! Including, also, many other Aboriginal people. That is fabulous. With the over 71% vaccination rate in Canada, my country, people should be confident in the decision they have made and that it is working. Living in fear or blaming the unvaccinated for the current medical crisis is a gross negligence of the greater, complex picture. I have a friend whom has heart issues who feels like the vaccine could kill her and I have another friend with different heart issues who felt like the vaccine saved her life. Is one wrong and the other right? Can they both be RIGHT in their own contexts, listening to their own intuition and bodily needs and gut reactions?

I can state what I do not believe in, nor ever have. I do not believe in force. Forcing someone to do something by mandate or by making their life increasingly difficult, so that a choice is no longer a choice is not ethical, to me personally. Throwing ethics around on each side and giving blanket statements is not my favourite approach either. I have had many conversations since the vaccine came into mainstream health over the last few months. Many of my friends have Christian backgrounds, and many have stated to me what Jesus or God would do. I have been told he would NEVER take the vaccine and I have also been told he absolutely would. Both sides were strong in that conviction and had arguments to back themselves up.  Could I offer  a third option? Jesus was above the law in many regards while also respecting aspects of it. Often Jesus spoke about root issues instead of what people wanted him to speak on. He was controversial and threw over temple tables. He could be harsh and he was compassionate but it was always based on context. He looked at the individual. He held lepers. He reamed out hypocrites. I don't think we can say what he would do, in regards to taking the vaccine, because it was always the unexpected. But could it be possible that for different people, he would lay down his life and his choices for them differently depending on context? Could that be possible?

I also believe in self regulation and stepping back from hate to see context. Did you know that most of the people that are not taking vaccines are people of colour? Hispanics, Aboriginals, and Black people make up one of two groups. The other is Christians. Let's look at why that is below.

Recently, I had a vivid dream of Russell Brand. Which was weird, because I have only seen him in one movie and knew of him vaguely from the Katy Perry Documentary years ago. His accent and looks were accurate in my dream, despite not knowing these things about him before I looked him up, which was a large sign to me that I should pay attention to what my subconscious was trying to tell me. In my dream, we talked about vaccine mandates, he was clever and witty but seemed to be on the same page as me..which again felt really odd upon waking... Thus I googled him with that in mind and found this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfxnKgCN3OY

32- 2:20 : "Shaming is always a good technique to get people to do things. If we have learned one thing from protests and demonstrations from the last few years- it's the power of shame to get people to do what you want." (Yahoo news- Earlier this month, Lemon called out unvaccinated people for "taking up the space" in the hospitals from vaccinated people who are "playing by the rules." -End of Yahoo news bit) "That's an interesting bit of authoritarianism if you ask me. It is kind of devoid of compassion and is a very reductive type of argument, because we have not yet looked at what kind of people are not vaccinated and what their reasons might be for not being vaccinated. It doesn't seem to me that it should be simplistically assessed in that manner. That's why when I am always talking about it, I am keen to point out that I myself don't have a strong opinion on what your personal, private medical procedures might be. I am interested in a global perspective of a significant issue and how government, big pharma, and media all interact to create stories that then become truths, that lead to edicts such as this with public figures such as Don Lemon, fist on table, 'leave them behind, shun em, vaccine apartheid.' That kind of language has it's own kind of quality and it should never be applied saying 'this group of people' or 'It's a choice. It's a choice'  but let me tell you there are other issues around choice, that people used to play out in different spheres of the political space. In bodily autonomy and choice. Segregation and inequality. It is very peculiar the way those rules are being discarded in order to facilitate the advantage of this narrative." 

The video goes on to to discuss a New York Times article that speaks upon two types of Americans whom are not getting the vaccine. The first: A mix of people but many are "white, rural, evangelical Christian and politically conservative." Russell Brand remarks at 2:40; "I suppose that comes from the perspective of liberty and libertarianism and if you are saying Christian and rural...they are defining themselves as Christian and their primary authority is a religious rather than government authority that they take their moral and ethical guidance from a spiritual or at least dogmatic (depending on your view of Christianity) rather than what the government wants."

The New York times goes on to discuss the other group are open to the vaccine, but waiting to make their decisions. It states "They are a broad range of people, but tend to be a more diverse and urban group, including many younger people, Black and Latino Americans and Democrats." I personally would like to add, being from Canada and having Aboriginals in my ancestry (as well as Hispanic) that Aboriginals should also be included in this. I know many who have taken the vaccine and have been fine, but many whom are hesitant or whom have greatly suffered. I would also like to include the Autism community, of which I am a part of. Many who have the MTHFR gene. Since this vaccine has a genetic component, would it not be safe to assume that some genetics may not react or have body immersion the same as other genetic environments? Two years is not enough time to study that. Yes, many Autistic people I know believe in the vaccine. Some have been able to get it and others have not. Some have suffered or even died, while others have been perfectly fine...but is it ok for us to take that choice, with such diversity, and enforce it? Or to call these vulnerable people in society "uneducated" or lump them in with "murderers" or "those who cause chaos/death"? Are these statements compassion if we believe compassion is a virtue that has to extend to all, even those whom we disagree with or take different life paths? Are we actually seeing the individuals themselves? Are we even giving people the benefit of the doubt? Or are we assuming context?

3:59 (Stats from the New York Times were screened before); "That in a sense, presents a broad range of views and I would say they are not ridiculous reasons. There is not a percentage of people that are like 'they are going to put a robot in your blood.' It is not like that is it? These are reasonable questions and inquiries, particularly in the climate and context that we are currently in. Most people are feeling a level of distrust...whether or not you believe they are safe, or whether or not they are safe."

An article is shown onscreen from the Kaiser Family Foundation that states; "Many concerns about Covid-19 vaccinations are expressed at higher rates by people of colour compared to White adults." If we are anti racist- which I hope all whom are reading this ARE, than is this not an important fact to consider? If we are for diversity, are we considering the diverse issues surrounding this? The article goes on to talk about missing work from adverse affects (which many diverse economic groups can not afford) or getting to vaccine sites or payments (which does not apply to Canada), or needing types of documentation or providing social security numbers, wait and see groups, or free childcare for being vaccinated or recovering from it...it's layered and complex. 

5:34: "If your life is about survival...coping with the challenges of every day life, a situation I lived in for awhile and it seems like a long while ago now, but you are not thinking so much about like 'oh no...climate change...I'm ... starving...it doesn't seem so relevant."  

6:33: "So when you are talking about Don Lemon who says 'Ban em from beds!" You are talking about poor people, you are talking about people who are dealing with economic realities that someone in my position or Don Lemon's position do not have to concern themselves with...and if you are on the center of left you would not be dismissive about that category of people but in this context suddenly it becomes permissible?...It makes me question the true values of people in that political class. If they can be dismissive of people and groups that they elsewhere claim to be supportive of. Cuz when you put it in those terms you could say that Don Lemon is saying ' It's time to shun Black, Hispanic, Poor, Young people'  Now he would never say that but you are saying that! That is what is being said. That is the danger of reductive, simplistic, propaganda driven news reporting."

8:05 - 10:08: Russel Brand: "The reductiveness of Don Lemon's argument and other people advancing a sort of apartheid type rhetoric around the vaccine is not including the complexity of the issue. This shows you that there is no room for bombast in this argument, no room for hyperbole, condemnation "no we should leave them behind!" or "I'm not doing this!" Wherever you stand on the vaccine issue, you are a human being like me, one day you are going to die, and I'm gonna die. Let's be kind to one another, and rational, and understanding, because otherwise what you are doing is venting anger from elsewhere in your character. It's like  'I don't like life, I don't like people to do that. Grrr.' Become aware of that. Otherwise the vaccine issue will be resolved by either a vaccine will come around that people feel really confident in, or a government might come around that people really really trust...and that other stuff won't go away, because its unresolved. It's unresolved anger. Unresolved hysteria. For me, these statistics make plain that it is impossible to make Don Lemon style condemnations of people. Because imagine if you had childcare considerations, health concerns, were worried about the impact of the vaccine and your inability to deal with the side effects and cope with children...How can you be dismissive and so lacking in compassion when there is evident complexity around many people's lives when it comes to an issue as significant as this one. You can't afford to just wipe people away and shun people when you don't understand the circumstances in their lives. This shaming, the futility of bipolar, combative social discourse...Instead we should be compassionate, inclusive, considerate. "

A clip is shown of Don Lemon saying we should shame and leave behind those whom are not listening to the science etc. I find that Russell's response is exactly what I would say at 10:25- 11:15; "I would say there is a certain line that you can not cross. Particularly if your whole political party is about inclusivity, diversity, compassion..you can not say with this issue- this is the one issue. May I say that if you look at the science it seems that there is room for conversation in many of the areas that these statistics suggest are cause for concern....These are not things that you can just go "NO!" and swipe with a broad sword across a population of people...it seems that people who have been disadvantaged elsewhere that are worthy of compassion and certainly worthy of being heard."  You, regardless of which side you are on, are worthy of being HEARD. You are worthy because you exist. Plain and simple.

Recently I had a response to an email I sent out about unity and vitamin regimes which the respondent stated; “I strongly believe that people who aren't vaccinated are causing significant damage to our health system and are affecting other people's lives by their decision so I really don't want to hear about people who have made that kind of decision." My response back was, "Vaccines ARE a GIFT for those who can take them and I’m thankful for that ability. But for the minorities in genetics and reactions - it’s important to consider them :) We all affect the healthcare system in our choices for sure, but blaming each other probably doesn’t help our stress levels ♥️That said - I do agree that we all have responsibilities in our approach to life and health. I know many on both sides whom have chosen rightfully for themselves and respect that. I’m glad you found the choice that works for you and respect that you strongly believe in it." Then there was no response. Nothing. It was the end of the conversation. If this happens in that case, I can't even imagine how isolated and unvoiced many of the minorities, who have good reasons for doing what they do, are feeling right now. So we are writing off entire people groups, not listening to them, and not allowing their stories because we believe that we are the only ones who could be in the right? The definition of self righteousness is this; "Exhibiting smug or unwarranted confidence in one's own righteousness." Have we all been guilty of this, during this time? I know I have certainly had to combat it in myself. I have really had to ask myself, "Where am I not listening? Am I being cruel or condemning? Did I make an all or nothing statement? Am I letting anxiety and fear rule me? Am I wrong?" And yes, there is a possibility that I may be wrong in whatever choice I choose. Sometimes I sit in silence and wrestle with all the factors, which tends to bring me into existential crisis and depression, until I voice what I am struggling with, write a blog post (lucky you!) and move onward. I keep Gandalf's words constantly in my mind, "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement...“So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.”

Don Lemon clip and then Russell Brands response...then... 11:38; "If I am appealing to anything in you, if there is an area where I am happy to express directly what I mean, is do not be so quick to condemn other people when you do not understand what their perspective is. That is a basic spiritual and Christian value. Be open to other peoples' perspective. Do not assume you know exactly what it is like to be them and approach people with an open heart and recognize with a value such as compassion and kindness you can not pick and choose where it is applied. You have to apply it everywhere. All the good books suggest that that is the approach. And the more something irks, angers, and irritates you, the more you have to look inside yourself. I believe our values should be about how we conduct ourselves, NOT what we tell others to do."

YES! Resounding YES! I have been baffled that because I speak on unity, people have assumed I am pro or anti vax. No. I am simply considering context. Let me tell you, it's not easy when I am shunned, given no responses to correspondence when I have taken a step back, been kind and loving in tone, even when at first I feel attacked, or include social niceties...and my elders, people whom I look up to, people in my extended family, decide to shun me because I am asking to consider with compassion. That is hard for me, but you know what?  I know these are trying times and it is tough to deal with so much right now. And it IS sad and heartbreaking and that can induce anger at all sort of things. Anger is ok to feel sometimes. Directing it or dealing out death and judgement, or who should live and who should die or be blamed - is not for us to do. All we can do is decide what to do with the time WE have…and we are all usually surrounded with only like minded people which makes it more divisive. There is so much more to the picture. I have to remind myself that all I can do is love them, challenge if it is in a context of love, and lead my life by living it. Just like in faith, we can not force those opposing us into it. Choice was given in the proverbial garden/ ancient origin story, for better or worse, and I think it is an important story. I do not think that means giving permission to do horrid things, but unfortunately sometimes people will choose that…but my hope is that MOST people ARE choosing what is best for them, and being careful in the meantime…and some of the greater picture involves other factors.

I support both the vaccinated and unvaccinated because I believe we all have individual context and MUST do what is in our spirits. I believe I protect the vulnerable and children by staying home when sick, trying to keep up my immunity and washing etc. I do not think it is so cut and dry. If we applied that mentality to everything then the minorities of this world would still be having to live in secret…and we are pushing them to live in secret in vaccination status, at a time when we generally know there is diversity? We know bodies and spirits are different, yet not in this one case of the vaccine? Blaming the unvaccinated for all of this, is not looking at the minute details that make up the whole.

12:00: "They! They! They! The more you have 'they' on your lips the more you are on your way to creating serious problems."

I have had conversations with both people who believe in the vaccines and people whom do not...and if the conversation starts dissolving into "us" and "them" which it tends to do on either side...I say, "Wait a minute...we are all in this together. As soon as we talk about people like that, we start dividing, and making perceived enemies." My friends get some of these blog posts and they know this is true. It is quite hard to see ourselves with those we think are against us. But if we can not do that, then where is the hope for respect, unity and compassion? I am not saying it is easy or that we do not need a moment to gather self control...but I am saying, if we concentrate on the ROOT issues, and only take responsibility for ourselves, there will be less hate in the world.

The rest of the video goes on to talk about hypocrisy, and the madness and division of the media, the red lies from CNN and yet we are listening to them? I highly recommend listening to the video above. 14:33 Russell Brand: "Don Lemon has a pretty nice face, he could be a good guy, maybe, I don't know, but I don't agree pretty strongly with what he is saying when it comes to shaming, leaving behind, and not considering complex arguments, being dismissive, not acknowledging the roll of media and creating current suspicion and heightened awareness and all that exists around these issues. And I don't mean right wing or left wing media. I mean the entire integration of government, big business and big pharma. How can that not generate mistrust when you see people revolving doors...(Video goes back to Don Lemon and Russells response for awhile.) Then; "You can't just say science only brings about good things like it's a  lovely, friendly old grandad Science issuing stuff. There has been all sorts of complications, the opioid crisis...science but that is too reductive...that is science as a religion but science is just a bunch of research and investigation that can have major outcomes and one of the many human endeavours that is beautiful and brilliant but if you corral that beneath a corrupted system than the outcomes can be corrupted. You can not use such reductive, simplistic arguments when doing something as dismissing a whole class of people- a significant number of people and saying those people are unworthy of compassion. Once contempt enters into an argument, incredible things become possible, elsewhere on the internet they say we are on the outskirts of civil war or new forms of fascism on the rise, well they may not come from where you think they are going to come from. Particularly when you hear discourse of this kind under the guise of liberalism."

17:13 in response to Don Lemon mocking unvaccinated people and horse de wormers: "Making the choice to call Ivermectin a horse dewormer is a propagandist choice, that is a linguistic choice, I've got no opinion on what you should do with your health, but that is an interesting choice and a further decision that makes you believe that perhaps they have an agenda, perhaps they are pushing an agenda and that they are not objectively conveying news. Mainstream media is in serious trouble because it has become entertainment and become propaganda, this is bigger than Don Lemon, whom I am sure as a human being is a lovely guy, but with regard to this particular issue, he is advancing arguments that lead to division that are reductive, that are condemning people, that if you had to look into their eyes you wouldn't be as comfortable condemning. If you had to experience the challenges they are facing with childcare, or go through the reasons they are doubtful about the government I don't think it would be so easy to condemn them.  This is a call for compassion, open mindedness and a understanding of nuance. Not to be reductive about such complex issues but the mainstream media has to do this, thankfully we don't have to do that. We can be open minded..and we will still make mistakes. But we will make mistakes without any obvious intention or agenda...to try to understand the complexity of our world and the many stories that are vying for control of your consciousness." 

I have two types of readers (I think...I was only informed of one category recently.) First my Secular/Pagan/ Liberal Identifying or Open minded (mostly) sisters (and brothers? I dunno.) 

To you dear readers I say;

The rule is to harm none. I know you apply that to vaccines sometimes, but what if it is harming some? The rule is to allow others to decide their own paths. It is not about conversion or about trying to get others on your same path. It is not about stating that vaccines are the only ethical choice, and thereby making those who cannot or will not, feel morally less. What I know you are generally about, because I learned from the beautiful interactions and experiences I have had in your community and friendships in the past, is compassion, awareness, working behind the scenes in positive and hope filled ways and giving the individual autonomy. It is about spiritual mysticism. Mysticism does not have all the answers for other people. That is the beauty of it. You were the controversial healers in the past. You went around patriarchal medicine and gave herbal remedies. Healing women died to help others. Because people like you were different, shunned and thought of as evil, and often victims of misplaced religious zeal, you found ways around majority systems. While you did ground some of your practices in science, you also went against it too for the sake of others. You found remedies that were not always peer reviewed but worked and you used them. Sometimes you made mistakes too and the history certainly isn't perfect, but you know what it is like to be misunderstood, associated with the devil and condemned. Can you not apply that to those who may be different from you? Can you not rise above what our ancestors dealt with? I urge you to stop talking about your positions and start listening for context. I ask you to focus on letting others BE while taking ownership of your own paths. That is the way...

To my Christian sisters (and brothers?) ...I knew a few friends whom are Christian read my posts, but I did not know that others did too (which I recently found out at a Sunday Soccer game.) Especially Conservative Christians...I thought I was too controversial at times? This year alone I was unsubscribed for two conflicting reasons. One said, "With your John O Donnohue posts and mysticism you are too liberal." The other said, "You are too conservative Christian in leaning." I guess we see what we wish to see or from our own contexts?... 

Anyway, to the Christians, dear readers, I say; 

Is it your job to be God? Do you actually believe God is bigger than all these issues? Is Jesus the way, the truth and the life? Was he unconventional and unexpected, and do you honestly think he would always side with you or say what YOU wish he would say? Perhaps you would be better served to live his example instead? Consider many of his words in the gospels. Were they easy to swallow? Were they often contextual? Did he often concentrate on the people who were directly in front of himself, in their contexts and in their individuality? The blind man was treated differently from the adulteress and the leper. In healings, there were times when He told one to be quiet, and another to spread the word. Why? Why was he so seemingly different? Could it be because he saw each situation DIFFERENTLY? They were different timelines in ministry? That he honoured diversity? One day we will all die. Is this issue worth tearing your families and friends apart over? Is there so much more? Can you overcome with compassion, to get to the root issues? Do you honestly want to repeat some of the travesties Christians have made in the past? Yes, Christians were often the ones fighting for the oppressed and some of the first to end slavery, speak up for women, and heal the world. But in other groups, Christianity and misplaced, zealous, individuals lent the Christian name to crusades, harmful patriarchy, witch hunts, and other atrocities because they thought it was what they were "called" to do. Recently we have been studying WW2, and I think that shows the differences in living out Christian faith and just laying CLAIM to it. Many of the Nazis called themselves Christians and laid claim to it. Hitler took over the Christian churches and had them giving his agenda but he actually loathed Christianity. In that case, Christianity was used in name and language and not in deed. Some well intentioned people started believing in it too. But the ill intent was there. HOWEVER, there were many Christians who went to their deaths refusing to get behind the agenda, who smuggled the oppressed and then became the oppressed, because they could not see the minorities being treated wrongly. At that point, they did not even know what was actually happening...they just knew that they had to honour the fact that they were answerable to a higher law than their current governance. Some were called to help in secret, some were called to just live their lives, some were called to fighting or subterfuge, some were called to listen and witness... WE all have DIFFERING roles, but as Christians, there is a call to LOVE THY NEIGHBOUR. NO that does not mean loving only those you believe are doing right. It means loving that perceived enemy. It means laying down your own life in submission to a greater cause. It means listening to the commandments and not judging personal health decisions. It is about honouring God and realizing that there are things beyond your comprehension, and that some contexts are called to a different way of BEING. If you believe in God, why are you not letting God be the judge? Why are you worrying about other people's choices in the first place? Why are you not living your life and doing the hard things because we were not called to an easy path? Don't be unkind or accusatory. In faith, if you are laying claim to that, maybe you should start with yourself and God and go from there?

And to myself, and people in all categories:

Can we leave our personal agendas and find context and compassion? Can we unify instead of divide and go after the root issues? The root issue is that there are MANY ways to live a good, ethical life. And there are other ways to protect people with, or without, the vaccine. We are all part of the human race. Leave contempt at the door. There is complexity here. Find compassion and activate it, even, and especially when, it is tough to do. The path of brambles can often be more rewarding. Let us not be reductive and blame or shame. Instead let us try to add encouragement, even if we are challenging something, let us use words in the end, that also convey love and that try to see, TRULY SEE, the other person. 

Song choices: Get Together - Youngbloods

We shall be Free- Garth Brooks ( warning the images in this video are triggering and hard at times. I also don’t endorse everyone in it or every saying about education as I think misplaced education has caused major issues. However, the lyrics of the song make me cry every time.) 

We Shall Be Free from Melanie Elgin on Vimeo. ( look up without images if you are triggered.) 

In other news, How did I not know this? DARREN CRISS, My favourite Blaine of all time, came out with an EPIC Christmas Album. I am in love, love, love! I may have screeched with my daughter, jumping up and down whilst singing the happiest version of RIVER EVER! If you love Glee, or Blainey boy, or show tunes or Classic Bing Like Christmas, Christmas, Christmas! Check it out! A Very Darren Chrissmas.  EEK. (Yea I realize that this is opposing sentiments of my post but we can have many layers to us right? Oh Joy- Oh bliss)

30 QUESTIONS About Covid 19/ Coronavirus 2020

One of the key signs of a free country, place or relationship, is the toleration of questions. Questions are not answers but they can bring about change, tolerance, acceptance and truth. The world is in conflict over opinions and differences, but there is harmony too. When questions CAN be asked without fear of judgement, anger, retaliation, or indoctrination - then we know we are in safe places. It is important for ourselves to be able to ask OURSELVES the hard or detailed questions about topics that are crucial around us BEFORE we take a full stance...and even then, it is important, above all else, to consider the questions.

(Disclaimer: Just because I put these on here does not mean I do not have my own answers to some of them. Nor does it mean I have completely set myself on ONE determining side. Some of these I am still questioning, others I would surprise many of my friends with where I stand, while still others I am fairly mainstream. Regardless, this is NOT about me but about the questions.)

30 Questions on Covid- 19/ Coronavirus 2020:

1.) How do you feel about the Coronavirus situation in general? Do you have compassion for those whom are dying? Do you also have compassion for those that are healthy and need jobs to survive? Are there ways to honour both? 

2.) Do you believe the government and healthcare has the best interests of the people at heart? If you believe that they believe they do- is that a separate issue?

3.) How does this compare to other pandemics in the past?

4.) How did past pandemics overcome their struggles? Is there a big difference between the Plague or Influenza of the 1900s and what we are dealing with now?

5.) How do you feel about statements like "It's only 6 months, It's only for Christmas, It's only until there is a vaccine"? In history, when statements like that were touted about, did things change permanently? What historical moments followed these movements? Were they followed up with more freedom or less? How long did it take for that country or situation to recover?

6.) Are most of the nurses you know in full support of current protocols or are many whispering their dissent but following the rules out of fear?

7.) Compare the hospital situation in most countries to the overwhelm of hospitals in previous years. Google it. Have hospitals often been understaffed, mismanaged and overworked before? Also have you talked to professionals who deal with the morgues? Do they usually, each season, have over capacity?

8.) Have you gone into a hospital in a overworked region only to find it mostly empty? How do you feel about staff being assigned to one person with a positive case  in one ward at the expense of other departments?

9.) Are some care homes being neglected? Is it easy to make a clear statement on what is happening?

10.) Do you think it crosses a moral line to tell on your neighbour? Can loving your neighbour mean different rules in varying contexts?

11.) Do you think the amount of countries using emergency protocol since 911 has gone increasingly up? What does it mean if that continues to happen in regards to freedom and liberty? Or is it worth the exchange?

12.) Compare having to be tested to find out you have a virus to seeing the obvious signs everywhere (like in the Black Plague or Ebola) Does testing make you feel safer or less secure?

13.) A rule of good science is the requirement to look at the other side and it is never 100 percent settled. Do you feel that science is slanted in any way or is it giving it's due diligence?

14.) Are you pro or anti vaccine? If you are anti- vaccine have you read the past accounts of vaccines and their victories? If you are pro, do you listen to the stories of people who have had legitimate issues with vaccines and their stories? Are mandates ethical and a separate issue from vaccination? 

15.) Have you ever researched the company of VIOXX ( for arthritis) which killed 55,000 plus people? Mereck pulled if off the market because they were sued so they went on to develop HPV vaccine Gardisal ( the same company- different information.) Do you find that there can be adverse side effects to drugs and vaccines or is it better not to question that? Do you think drug companies should be sued over vaccines? Do you think there should be more accountability? Do you prefer not to know the counter issues? Do you believe a vaccine and drugs can both save and destroy lives? Can it be BOTH/ AND? How would that change our approach to people who have differing viewpoints?

16.) Do you think it is possible that there is often an agenda on either side? Is one side more "righteous" in regards to vaccines or approaches to health care? What could an agenda look like?

17.) Are we asking who is developing these vaccines? What do they have to gain besides the obvious boon of curing people, if anything? 

18.) Could vaccines be different for different people in regards to reactions or dangers? Is it possible that some vaccines are toxic while others change the world? Can it be a BOTH situation or is it clearly black and white?

19.) Have you researched the overall death rates in previous years (ex 2015, 2016, 2017) in comparison to the 2020 overall death rate? Do you know many people who had covid? How many of them only had a light cold ? How many had next to influenza symptoms but nothing more? How many were serious? Can this be comparable to other sicknesses? ( This changes from country to country and I am primarily asking Canadians in this question.) 

20.) Could money be part of the equation at all in any of these situations? Even if the people who are down the lines honestly believe in the true nobility of all health care, could there be corruption at the top lines? Can we blame healthcare workers or politicians who are trying their best to make the situation better for coming up with protocols? Should we ask them to consider or is it better to leave the stressed alone? If we do feel the need to bring up counter points how can we do this in a considerate, kind way? Do they deal with opposite concerns of theirs, in a kind and considerate way? Or are the clear lines of what should not be discussed?

21.) How do you feel about the media content each day? Do news titles that constantly tell projected deaths as opposed to deaths happening, cause more fear or less? Is fear a useful tool in fostering compassion and trust?

22.) How would it look if each year the media reported each death and their causes? How often would we hear about Ecoli deaths or Influenza or the sicknesses we have lived with for years? Would we approach those topics differently? How is it comparable? How is it not comparable?

23.) Does the media have an agenda? What could it be?

24.) Are all anti maskers 'bad'? Are all maskers 'sheep'? Do these 'all or nothing' statements help foster an overall trusting and caring environment?

25.) How helpful are masks when cases have gone up since using them? Or is the argument that cases have gone up because people are not wearing masks at home social gatherings? Does the math add up? How do masks help? How do they hinder? Can you flexibly list three reasons on EACH side?

26.) Did Fauci once talk about how masks increased viral pneumonia in the Influenza of the 1900s? Are the bacterial load of breathing in one’s own bacteria in masks healthy for the wearer? Can face shields be just as effective for spittle in most circumstances so at least there is air flow? Why are they not allowed in places like shopping where it is possible to be distanced? What was the science on masks saying a few years ago? Do the contagions pass through most masks, and if so, what is the reason they are being worn besides medical instances in close proximity? Does fresh air build immunity? On a side note socially- Is it important to see facial cues and foster a sense of trust in community? Is it possible to lessen Covid without masks and physical distance and washing? Is it more of a safety blanket or signal? Does it foster a sense of community or are people being divided into 'rebels' and 'sheep'? 

27.) Is it ok for anti mask rallies to be fined when the BLM rallies were not? What is the difference in these situations? Is there hypocrisy involved? Is it right for one protestor group to be favoured over another just because their causes are different? Where do we draw the lines? Is there a double standard according to whom is in charge at the time? What does this mean for our futures in any cause?

28.) Why are some Articles, Doctors and Scientists being censored or buried? Even if some of their arguments are flawed, is that a good way to foster balance, challenge or critical thinking? What does this say about the trust of most individuals to find their own way? Is this a form of control or is it an acceptable practice to weed out "wrong" sources? Why is this necessary now? 

29.) Is choice an important factor in any decision? Most of our choices affect other people, and to be human is to make mistakes, sometimes deadly ones either way...When is it ok, if ever, to take choice away? How do you feel about peace officers enforcing laws against people in your home? How do you feel about fines being in place for breaking 'temporary' laws? Does this cross any charter of rights and freedoms? Is it ok to do this sometimes or can it turn into future encroachments on freedom? The government can do whatever they wish, but is it ok for us to question some of these laws and do we respect those that have the bravery to do so?  How can we foster consideration of other people in our choices without enforcement?

30.) How are you taking care of yourself during these times of stress? How are you fostering community along with individualism? How can you show love but still hold your own opinions? How can you be flexible in thinking but still stand firm in your own ethics?

"I want to beg you, as much as I can, dear sir, to be patient toward all that is unsolved in your heart and to try to love the questions themselves like locked rooms and like books that are written in a very foreign tongue. Do not now seek the answers, which cannot be given you because you would not be able to live them. And the point is, to live everything. Live the questions now. Perhaps you win then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answer. To live the questions, it would seem, you have to first admit the questions to yourself. You have to admit the uncertainty in a world that doesn't value it. You have to be vulnerable in a world that considers it a weakness. You have to be you. You have to live with a child's curiosity."- Rainer Maria Rilke

Song Choice: The Show Must Go On- QUEEN

P.s. To be clear, I do believe that there is a more contagious virus happening and this is NOT an anti virus post. This actually isn’t about my opinions at all. These are rhetorical questions. Another one would be - if you have every single answer - are you ok with other people asking questions? Are you open to changing your mind on any or considering other viewpoints either way? 

https://trialsitenews.com/should-you-get-vaccinated/

Update December 2021: My post on vaccine racial and economic discrimination; https://worldwecreate.blogspot.com/2021/10/vaccine-apartheid-who-is-it-really-who.html?m=1

Another question: Why is the WHO and Oxford medical online not including information  to at least protect immunity or boost it on their sites? Why is there not, at this point in the pandemic, information on what to do when you get Covid and ways to ease suffering? Often pneumonia cases are what kills or hospital protocol - yet most are told to stay home and suffer and get help only when it’s too late. In regular Influenza we are at least told to up our immunity, take vitamin C and other symptom easers, drink lots, rest and definitely go to the hospital at the first signs of distress or insist on a lung x ray if feeling heaviness… and we would get in right away. Why are very sick people told to wait, forced to drive to different towns for care , or immediately put on damaging drugs in some situations? Blaming hospital overload with current and past numbers does not fully add up in most areas. Instead of seeing the flaws in our health care system set up - why are we just blaming whomever is different in approach from us? Why are we not asking our systems for more infrastructure, revitalization and budget accountability? Maybe we need a new approach?  Why are the unvaccinated being blamed when the cases have gone up in vaccinated people as well? Why have the variants directly coincided with the timing of more vx doses? Why has pneumonia gone up the longer society wears masks? 

Why are vaccine deaths being reported as Unknown cause on autopsy? (I have personally known two in my direct family as well as heard stories from other friends.) Part of this is because we haven’t had enough time for science to see the cause on autopsy to perhaps pick up on tiny clots - and many patients did not get a D Dimer test after vaccination… but why is the reporting unfair?  Why are symptoms also going under reported. While there is the legitimate VAERS website, many don’t know about it? A close family member had facial paralysis right after their shot - luckily it eventually eased up but they were advised another dose would be dangerous. Why was their event not followed up and not put on their chart? Why did other people report the same story? Why does this person now have to argue with each new Dr. they see when the Pharmacist and Dr. witnessing the event clearly stated another dose would be dangerous? Are we so blinded by our own agendas that we are not seeing the full picture? Is there less time for data on these newer vaccines as opposed to vaccines in the past? ( See my link on vaccines above…) 

In past history, without social media, if this virus was in your community eventually, you would have noticed more serious aspects, thought of it as a very bad flu, gotten treatment, hoped for a cure but it would not be what it is touted about in the news. Especially in isolated or rural areas. How does media hinder this situation ? 

Why are Drs getting in trouble for recommending ways to bolster immunity? Most of us are smart enough to know it’s not in the place of hand washing, time tested vaccinations or proper health care - so why does it cause such a fuss? Why are Drs. whom are legitimately helping people in unconventional ways being fired when we already have staff shortages? Especially if they are knowledgeable and respected in their fields? Can’t most of us decipher that vitamins may not save us but dosing can aid in bolstering immunity and body function? 

An Analogy of My Experience in the Autism Community for Political Movements. Rhetoric - is it Justice? Is it Inclusion? "Social Justice" and the Context of Intent.

"There does come a point (when a seeker) has so much information- we have read so many books and heard so many opinions- that we have to turn away from more knowledge and sift through what we have gathered. Away from the opinions and judgements of others, in a place where we feel safe and at ease, we need to examine each idea, belief and practice and measure it against our own soul. Those that resonate and feel right we keep and synthesize into our belief system. Those that do not we respectfully put away from us. Not everything is for everybody. We all have our own unique path. It is up to us to find it." Barbara Moore

I have been nurturing my path. This is a bit of context to why I do not hop on many trends, social justice movements, or get involved with current rhetoric. That is not to say that some of these things will not be noble and true for others. We each must weigh our knowledge against our experiences, contexts and souls.   

Years ago when I got diagnosed with Autism ( Aspergers Syndrome at the time)  I was immersed quickly into a new community. At first it was inclusive and I found forever friends and a place I belonged. The years went by and one day, I found my blog being unfollowed by many Autistics. It was only recently that I found out that the main reason was because I still often used the terms I was diagnosed with.  "Aspergers Syndrome" and "Aspie." I tried to use Autistic more often but "Aspie" had become a term of endearment to myself and my son who had grown up with it as a nickname since he was a toddler. As a teen he still loved it. 

My friend Sam addresses this travesty in THIS (CLICK) post;
"I have been rejected as a speaker at some autistic-run conferences, even as I had stronger credentials and proposals than the other speakers, based again on the name of my book. (I don’t mind anymore, there are many other conferences. Just a sad fact.) Several autistic advocates have been forced or bullied to change the name of their website, company, or community social media page because it contained the word Asperger(s) or Aspie or some other word that implied , even made up words! Some well-meaning autistic individuals (or Aspies) have turned away from helping others because of the continual debating, shaming, and anger over the name they call themselves. Others have left a community that they were led to believe was built on support and inclusion."

In the last five years, I have been corrected, as an autistic, for not using the right terms for MYSELF like a capital or following with “person“ after autistic. I was challenged BY other Autistics for not talking about neurodiversity or ableism properly. I was told I was ableist a few times, Me- who struggles being capable on a daily level in many ways due to executive functioning and sensory issues! Not only was this hurtful but it didn't feel like the inclusive place I originally joined. Other times it was by well meaning "advocates" or parents of Autistics who were not autistic themselves but knew all the autistic jargon and were “advocating” *for* me and *AT* me. They made me feel confused.

There was even division of the “ scale of autism” where mostly non autistics, parents and “educators” judged the verbal and non verbal and put them in the categories of “high functioning” and “low functioning." Luckily, there were articles written on that proving that low functioning in one circumstance like a non verbal confined to a wheel chair was high functioning in another (when they used their device to write epic stories.) Or on a simpler level - when a person can be both high functioning and low functioning on the same day and it renders it moot. CLICK HERE for a quick article on the topic (the best I've read. A MUST for anyone advocating for Autism.) I don’t think it’s the actual experience to be so literally black or white about it in both autism or skin colour or any other difference. Because on the scale, in their own context, each person has different treatment. Many experience trauma in different ways. Some also experience love on different levels. 

I was “educated” by some (and self educated quickly there after) on the jargon. I tried to use the "correct terms" often for a few years. I fought hard. I called myself an advocate. I was immersed in the jargon and even expected friends and family to use it with the misplaced idea that the correct dialogue was what made them truly love, understand and respect me. But then I realized that the INTENT of words is completely separate from the "appropriate" words. Many words that are used for social justice as "noble" or in place of "dubious history" are also monetized. 

As Sam writes HERE (CLICK for the amazing full article): "For the record, DSM-V, the ‘Physicians Bible’ that created the ‘newer’ autism spectrum diagnosis, is largely backed by special interest groups with financial gain at heart, particularly pharmaceutical and health insurance companies, who are known for their greed and ill treatment of citizens and have victimize millions. The diagnosis criteria of Aspergers transitioning to the umbrella spectrum disorder was not changed for pure-at-heart reasons. It was changed primarily to assist in filling the deep-pocketed big businesses. Many word origins are rooted in tainted soil. In addition, Dr. Asperger is partially credited for laying the foundation for ‘autism’ conditions." (In the article she also addresses Dr. Aspergers "Nazi connections." I have found this particular accusation being thrown around in other places casually for anyone who is in disagreement with radical leftists. When you dig deeper in research done with neutrality or find the truth between both sides, often (sometimes it is valid) what is found is speculation at best and word twisting for an agenda at worst.)

A couple years into my Autism / Aspergers journey, I learned that the widely funded and accepted group “ autism speaks” was actually quite damaging to most autistics in the name of helping and tolerance. Many autistics who could verbalize in writing wrote against it. Often parents of autistics supported it. There were numerous reasons I felt uncomfortable with the motives and portrayals of autistic people from the organization that was supposed to be speaking FOR us. Phrases like “Autistics matter” just brought home the narrative to me that, “Wait did we not matter before?” I knew my wiring had caused some issues around reciprocity and love. But constantly telling me phrases like that made me feel LESS like I belonged. People jumped on the bandwagon because they thought it was helping or that they were nobly on the “right side of history.” Articles citing vaccinations as causing autism and fear mongering were passed on. Which made myself and my children feel like a disease to be eradicated. Articles celebrating ABA therapy (which some autistics stand behind but many found abusive) were tried by loving parents because it sounded like the right thing to do. 

At that stage I definitely did not want to be autistic. Why would I want to be or celebrate my differences, when the very people who were supposed to be "speaking up for me"  were telling me how different I was and re enforcing my wounds and the history of autism at me all the time even if it wasn’t ALL my exact experience?  Had I not been loved solely because of autism? That dialogue got in my head and made me feel even more of a minority. I admit to a darker stage, when for awhile I felt like a bit of a martyr. Some of these are a legitimate phases of learning to live with being a minority. I knew that I had some instances of judgement or cruelty based on my differences (all prejudices and cruelty are clearly wrong) but I never thought of these mindsets as a generalization world wide. That would have been a dangerous thought pattern to have.

Did I have misunderstandings based on my brain wiring? All the time. Was I not loved due to autism? Honestly, yes, sometimes. Did I encounter some blatant discrimination? Yes. A few times, especially in medical situations. One particular person set me into months long depression at the accusations she geared towards me. My husband was appalled at the treatment. I cried for three hours straight after. That was just one degrading time of many.

On the other side of the coin, over the years I found a few select medical practitioners who treated me differently in a good way. They took into account my differences under stress, anxiety and sensory and chose to work with me. It was imperative that they did not treat me as equal but unique. Yet, they also needed to give me equal respect as a human being.

I can see where people can easily generalize whole institutions based on experiences or a few bad experiences of their friends. I honestly have a problem with the nursing profession more than I should. In some cases it was justified. There are practices that need to change. For my part, I had to own my generalizations and engage in cognitive behavioural therapy to recognize that all nurses are not bad or discriminatory. I had to learn (and still get setbacks) that the system is not all flawed. I still have a problem with a lot of it and high anxiety with new nurses. I still would like to see some changes. Most of my experiences have been negative, however the positive is becoming more prominent the more I find allies context to context. I’m learning there will always be good with the bad...it can’t all be generalized and judged. 

Maybe “Autism speaks“ started out with good intentions too but society took it and over time it became widely damaging in the name of tolerance? I actually can't answer that question as I stopped engaging in conversations about it. I do know a few autistics who thought it did some good. They are in the minority but whom am I to judge their positive experience?

I was highly against “autism speaks" and spoke out against it with many other autistics over the years. I became confused when I learned that there were a few autistics who were verbal and writing online who were FOR autism speaks and some like John Elder even spoke for them. On forums (before Instagram) I was shocked to find that there were actually autistics being against autistics in the name of advocacy fighting over the true or noble way to advocate for change. I had one autistic girl target and bully me for having a family and more than one child. I had to block her from my email. 

Frankly? I got tired. Not only did I have a family to raise but I was also dealing with chronically low blood levels (ferritin and hemoglobin), autoimmune disease and my own limitations. I just wanted to be me. 

I heard idealizations of representation on the media and in shows. But when I actually thought about it personally, I didn’t want a world where autistics were represented in every movie or the leading role more often, or talked as much about neurotypicals. That wasn't a reality. We are a minority and that would be weird. I realized I didn’t want full equality for equality sake. I wanted full humanity. Would more representation help? I found at times, it hindered when done improperly. I realized equal rights was not often equal. Some aspects reminded me of communism (which is a utopian ideal but anyone who has studied history knows that Stalin caused more deaths than Hitler and communism perpetuates it's own violence. Read Gulag Archipelago for more. Especially if you are a fan of Marxist philosophy.) 

The very people who need more rights in the first place end up having their rights ignored because they are different. Because they do require a few different approaches due to their own contexts, histories, tolerances, languages, styles, different economic stats, disease or addiction, DNA or co conditions, lifestyle traits etc. Unfortunately, we can not all be equal in everything. We have glorious differences to be celebrated and wonderful similarities to focus on. We can help each other where we are at odds. I realized I actually never wanted equality in treatment but equality as a human being whom is both unique and common. 

Ultimately I wanted and want to be treated as a saying in the autism community goes;
“Different NOT less.” 
Never less. But I definitely want to acknowledge the beauty and hardship of differences. 

An example: If I was treated the same in a sensory environment I would fail. If I was held up to a normally wired (neurotypical) person I would fail. In my journey, I had to learn to accept the terrible abuse and mental hospital mistakes in the past, as part of the cultural PAST. It did not mean I supported or thought that treatment was ok. It did not mean that sometimes those travesties are not still committed. But by not erasing history and the previous times, there were reminders and lessons. 

A lot of my journey through autism advocacy and my experiences with the health care institution is eerily akin to what is happening now and with the police narrative. This was a huge dose of needed perspective. 

For me, it came down to owning what I can change personally. I teach my children to never use autism/ aspergers/ disability/ illness/ difference as excuses but as an explanations. There is a key difference there. It is empowering. And hopefully a bridge or mode to understanding. 

My biggest lesson was self acceptance. I WAS/AM autistic. Yes, it often means I am the minority for processing and communication in a group of people. Sometimes this is obvious and at other times invisible. Sometimes invisibility made it worse and I almost wished I “showed“ more or could “mask” less. Other times invisibility made it better, but then I’d be angry that was the case on behalf of others who couldn’t be that way, or the parts of myself that became sick from masking. Both were terrible in different ways. On the flip side, sometimes it was a boon to be different. It gave me advantages. I’d be silly to think it wasn’t an asset too at times to be how I was. 

So all this lead up to this moment in time. This is my context and story. This is why I decided that I didn’t want to be called an advocate for autism or anything else. Often advocacy starts out with love and nobility but easily gets lost in it's own rhetoric and languages and creates new problems or forgets WHY it is doing what it is. Sometimes in the name of loving people it forgets the actual case by case person TO love. It’s easy to get lost in proper terms that seem to be noble or about love and forget the very flawed people who have stood by us and love us. I’m not saying the abusive, discriminatory language should go unsanctioned. I'm also not saying that I will not "advocate" on behalf of those I love or myself. To me it is reminiscent of when I stopped using the term "Christian." It was tied up in too many opposing belief systems, insinuations, movements, and judgements. I couldn't use it anymore even if some of my friends felt it was the right term for them. I could respect that. I ask them to respect my decision.

I know movements can also be crucial and there is a time and place for everything. I definitely played all parts in my own autism journey and maybe I will again in the future depending on circumstance and context. Maybe each one was legitimate? Some of it can easily be boiled down to ages and stages. But in my context now? I’m more wary.

I prefer now to work my social change person to person, telling stories, sharing others stories. Sometimes I send things in a moment of passion or thinking and mistakenly think people are in the same context as me even though, through these experiences, I’ve learned they are often not. There’s a part of me that forgets. I’m also human and make mistakes. I can rarely articulate what I want except  in writing or music. I still use music the most to communicate whom I am or what I want or my feelings to my children and husband because my writing is still misinterpreted. Often I don’t have words or say the wrong thing or assume someone will understand. I prefer to listen to both sides. I do take a stance but that stance is often not what I portray or what people know. It takes deep thoughtful meditation to get there and I can’t explain it ( also how I feel about beliefs.) 

I worry that the words we use actually make the issues worse. When “white Privilege “ is constantly talked about or “ white supremacist's " it becomes even MORE of a problem. It does not mean there is not racism or that all people have some form of privilege. There is a difference between actual racism and the belief of "systemic racism". I have been educated on both. I find that there is much that needs more discussion and research that is not from a biased political scheme. Telling people who don’t use the proper terms that they are ablest, racist, anti whatever or asking to “educate” them is also a form of bullying. How dare we tell other people what to call themselves? How dare we ask people to constantly remember all the proper terms? It goes both ways. In the end, many of the terms are a socially constructed form of cultural appropriateness. Do we need to change some words? Yes. Often the reason why we change words are not as noble as we think. Intent of the word is more important than the word itself. Context is everything. Sure, if in a loving relationship, there is a time and place to ask for certain terms or to ask for certain words to be left out of the equation. Love conquers all.

I personally believe diffusing, focusing on statements such as: “Here is what love looks like" "This is a story of love" "This is an example of  WHY you matter" or "Look at this person who thrives and are just like YOU!” Empowering speech and people instead of using speech that victimizes and martyrs. I hated being victimized in the autism rhetoric yet some organizations still thrive and are being applauded by many today who do just that. Part of me has to be ok with the good parts they do and not see it as completely polarized. Many other advocacy groups for LGBTQ to race to ableism are getting lost in their own language insistence and policing. It’s sad because what they are trying to achieve in most cases is noble and true. Judgements, bullying, racism, hate, policing loved ones and the silencing culture is not ok. It’s never ok. Even in the name of “justice” or “educating.” 

I’ve been burned too recently by advocacy in the name of tolerance to join up with any. I see too many patterns that I’ve lived through. I do believe in kindness, inclusion, love, true justice based case to case, merit (which has also become a dirty word), grace, patience... 

I do have a huge heart for minorities. For making the world better. For peace and equality of humanity. But not equality overall. From my perspective and experiences, that ends up being unjust and unequal. Recognizing differences, celebrating them when possible, working on owning our life stories and improving where we can and helping those who cannot help themselves is a credo I can support. I believe in living our best lives, not out of guilt or shame for differences, but out of celebration.

Sometimes the loudest voices actually aren’t often the kindest. They are the meanest or hurt people who are hiding behind rhetoric to push what may seem noble but cruelty can mask as kindness. Kindness takes the conversations, the time, the respect, the heart, and an aspect of home. Home is a place where there are boundaries like a door to be closed or opened. A home is place where safety should be offered to all who enter with true intent. Anyone, no matter their differences, can be treated with respect. They may challenge or disagree inside the home but a true home offers an ability to have fair treatment. Which doesn’t mean each child will get the exact same room but a room that expresses both their differences as people (and celebrates them!) and gives the similarities of being human also expressed in their rooms. Home provides shelter to grow. It provides a place to earn merit and learn how to be decent. But it’s also a place to activate grace when the fallibility of being human kicks in.

Kindness begins in the home. It ripples outward. Those whom are placed directly in our paths should have an aspect of it given to them from us and vice versa. If we put an ideal and rhetoric before people we put issues before relationships. It doesn’t mean the issues don’t matter but it does mean that we begin to see heart and hearth. Home is a place where differences matter because they do. We are not all the same. My son with freckles and moles needs extra attention in the heat/sunshine. My daughter with hyper flexibility has to attend physiotherapy. I can’t cook or drive in most places. It would be a travesty and injustice to treat our very human differences as either wrong or put them all on the same level. We will have different needs at different times. Contextual stories help erase hate. And when there are times when we are threatened by more - in an ideological home- we can lock the doors and invite in those who will respect humanity at all levels even if the conversation may hold nuances of difference.

This is my personal context. It’s my story and my opinions. This is my freedom of speech from living in a country that still allows for the expression of all. That matters. That is being threatened in seemingly noble ways but we need to look at all we will lose- especially for those we are fighting FOR.

I’m going to be fallible. I’m going to be right at times too. The new silencing culture that bans books, tears down statues, cancels talk shows based on a long ago transgression, holds mistakes from the past as the current present, polices languages etc.all in the name of making things "better" is forgetting the crucial lessons we learn about the good and the bad of history. There are ways to honour the good while taking lessons from the bad. An example would be to either move the statue to a museum acknowledging the part it played in history with a write up of the benefits and the terrible. Or to erect a new statue next to it celebrating the very aspect that was unsupported in the past. Re writing history the way we wish it could be, is a travesty. Re writing our future starts now.

I’m going to be both confident in my stances and suffer low self esteem sometimes. I am going to both live with misery and joy. And that makes me human. That makes me alive. I refuse to be policed by friends and family. That is my personal right as it should be for all. Challenges in context and with kindness are entirely different matters. I don't love conflict, but I’ll dive into tough conversations. I will apologize for hurt caused if I see it or if it is asked of me. I will also try my best to live in integrity and kindness. I always felt like an alien and still often do, but I know I’m also human ... And that’s where we are the same and what I try to focus on while still telling my story and celebrating and respecting our differences. 

I actually felt Sam expressed this better than I could accurately;

Post Edit: My husband suggested I make it clear that I believe in equal rights of humanity which is different from treating everyone the same. He said people may think I am against equality but see, those are two very different concepts. Emotions and hype can cause the lack of distinction. I thought it was clear so I urge you to re read my words if it is not.

Song Choice: Mind is A Prison- Alec Benjamin  "...Then I tied up my linen with five strips of ribbon I found. Scaled the side of the building. I ran to the hills till they found me. And they put me back in my cell. All by myself, alone with my thoughts again. I guess my mind is a prison and I'm never gonna get out
So they tranquilized me, analyzed me, threw me back in my cage.Then they tied me to an IV, told me I was insane. I'm a prisoner, a visitor inside of my brain. And no matter what I do, they try to keep me in chains Sometimes I think too much, yeah, I get so caught up I'm always stuck in my head I wish I could escape, I tried to yesterday Took all the sheets off my bed...Said even if it's true, no matter what I do. I'm never gonna escapeI won't give up on hope, secure another rope And try for another day..."

Liberal or Conservative? Living in Twilight. "Both Sidism"? Polarizing Society. Playing Defence in a Dangerous but Beautiful Game.

There are people who belong to the daytime and sunshine. They choose bright sunlight for their perspectives. There are people who belong to the night and moon. They pick the darkness to thrive and survive. Both ask me to choose a darn side. I get sent articles of sunshine, if I send a few out about the moon. I am asked to educate myself on the moon, if I focus on the sun. Most people trust that I will read up on both and contemplate the moon and the sun, if I have the time. But sometimes it is forgotten that there is a liminal space called dusk/ twilight... or two liminal spaces, in fact, as there is also dawn. They are both brief. They are often forgotten or heavily celebrated for an instant. Some romanticize them while others scoff at their brevity. Some will say, "Twilight is not a time of day...it's either day or night." Yet dawn and dusk still have their moment. They are legitimate in their own way. They belong to both dark and light, yet are also fully neither. Both the sun and the moon pull them. I have people whom I love and whom love me, who are both on far political ends of Liberal and Conservative. Some are more extreme than others. Some have delivered deep wounds to me in the past and present. I have learned to live with both.

“But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.” Titus 3:9

In politics, I generally score Liberal or Libertarian on all the tests I take to tell me how to vote. Yes, I take those tests because I hate politics. But politics have become the new monoculture. There were a few years I refused to vote because I thought it was pointless as I figured that all the candidates lie, go back on their promises, and build platforms based on what their demographic wants to hear. But then I began to vote again simply for the fact that I love my country and wish it to remain as it is...a democracy. Which meant I needed to value the act of voting itself as a Canadian. In the past my vote relied heavily on the freedom to homeschool my children. However, I vote differently in each election. I also try to pick a candidate that seems the most honest. At times that can be the exact opposite of the party I voted for before. It is contextual to me. But I am odd.

In light of my varied articles, I was accused of being a "both sidest in the name of pseudo intellectualism and polite kindness." At first I was insulted. But then I realized that I do not wish to be an intellectual, nor do I pride myself on that concept anymore, so that wasn’t a loss. As for polite kindness? After that particular week, where both sides had asked me to defend myself or educate myself, I came to realize that it is not easy exercising polite kindness. It is no small thing to see merit in both sides. Kindness is not a weakness and requires the fortitude I often don't feel I possess.

“And to aspire to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we instructed you, so that you may walk properly before outsiders and be dependent on no one.” 1 Thessalonians 4:11-12

I think a bit differently than a lot of people due to many factors. But I can ironically forget and assume people know my context. I once sent out an email, which some recipient’s thought was terrible, others applauded, and many were in the middle about. My first mistake was that I sent it to part of the wrong email group list who would not understand where I was coming from. My second was that I didn’t fully understand how many people equate a link, or article, or video with the sender as “their truth” or “full support.” That assumption never happened with books. At least when I was a teenager, no one assumed if a book was given, that it was the full truth of the person sharing it. Plus, I thought me stating, "I do not support all these people or know their contexts" made that clear. It didn't. I mistakenly called the email truth and perspectives. I didn’t even realize a week later how wrong that could go, until a friend gently pointed out what she thought. I was astounded. In my mind I thought, we must search for truths in all things, find different perspectives and that many things can look different from an opposing angle. I chose the angle that was not my typical. Looking back I realize how unclear that was. Yikes. But to me in that moment - It was crystal. I also forgot about heightened emotions in that particular context. Many people were being attached to rhetoric and stances in their emotional and spiritual lives. I forgot to give consideration for this fact. I was once again being a paradox and forgetting my own context, and their emotional context, in the name of context! “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” Matthew 7:12

I come from a conservative background while being a person who is compassionate at perspectives and scores liberal. I had years of therapy to discuss some of the underlying issues I had in this regard. Many conservative people were close friends of mine who knew my context and loved me, but made it clear I was wrong. In some cases I was blatantly told I would burn in hell for eternity for multitude aspects of my BEING. Ironically, the varied people who thought I would burn didn’t usually agree upon the aspects I would burn for. They were united in agreeing I was going to hell, but divided on the WHY.

 

“Finally, all of you, have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind. Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain blessing.” 1 Peter 3:8-9

My husband is more conservative than I am. He likes politics. A few years ago he started to heavily explore political topics with varied speakers. It caused issues in our marriage. I actually had to have therapy for it! The therapist told me to try to give him a few hours in the week to hear what was important to him in these topics and then I could also have some time for my interests to share. It sounded fair. 

The first year I hated most of the resources and podcasts. He chose from a lot of what liberals call the "alt right." That label isn't always accurate. Most were actually libertarians or many other diverse groups. Let me say- he did NOT agree with all of them, but he was interested in hearing them. I was programmed to react the most strongly to the ‘triple evil’ of  ‘white,’ ‘male’ and ‘semi conservative sounding.’ People like Dave Rueben, Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, Louder with Crowder, Art of Manliness (Brett Mckay), etc. I researched from the liberal side of things and found much to dislike. Unfortunately, I did not give consideration to the obvious bias of liberal articles. But despite forming my opinions of these men from liberal articles and podcasters, I tried to keep an open mind. My husband mattered more to me. I wanted to see what he saw, while still being ME. By the year mark, I could listen and disagree with most of them, but still see a person behind the rhetoric instead of the devil incarnate. After the second year, I learned contexts, and one of these people became a personal favorite. Isn’t that interesting? When we regularly engage and hear someone’s story, we become more understanding. Maybe we even find humane similarities? Often we just do not take the time for what is quite different from our own opinions. It takes too much effort and emotion. 

“And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.” James 3:18

I began to hear their voices as familiar and I saw some merit or intelligence to a few topics. Did that mean I stood by everything they said or did? Absolutely not, but there were voices that slowly, begrudgingly, I began to like and agree with more often then before. At first I disliked Jordan Peterson a lot. I read his first book and disputed half of it in book study. But my husband was allowed to listen to a podcast every second night. He chose JP. I chose Alan Watts. We switched. It takes me at least 2 hours to fall asleep. I would get hooked by the dialogue and find myself hearing the entire episode. Eventually I began to recognize great guts, intelligence and found that I could in fact, source a few labeled ‘conservatives’ (JP is actually a self described centrist) as on my reading list. But see? Perspectives and tolerance of differences takes TIME and trust and context. That took over a year of hearing his voice (and his second book) to win me over. I still will "argue" some points when we listen but more often than not, I find myself respecting and listening.

I find it weird how people cannot separate a book, podcast, film, music choice, or art from the creator, person, artist or belief system. I find it odd, that if I like Jordan Peterson, some people accuse me of being anti feminist or anti- trans when that could not be farther from the truth. I believe in free speech and JP is a huge contender for it. I find it odd that when I say I read Glennon Doyle, it's assumed I back her up all her ideas and followed her on social media. I did not. I find it odd that because I like shows like Easy A, some of my conservative friends think I have no moral compass. Ironically the show’s theme used to apply more to my conservative friends, but later I found the opposite in how I was being labeled, diced and attacked by some of my liberal community. The films’ commentary on people’s judgments seemed to apply to both groups. I find it weird when people find out my favorite show is Glee and label me immediately, especially if they have not even viewed some episodes I love from later seasons. They do not understand that watching and absorbing the songs inspired some of my best actions in life. 

Why do we judge people by sole statements and factors? Can human beings be complex and nuanced and full or paradox? If we are made in the image of a God that created intricate wonders beyond our current science, how much more precious and mysterious are we? “You are fearfully and wonderfully made.” Psalm 139:14

My daughter is an ENFJ. She cannot even be in the room when Ben Shapiro is on. She has a visceral reaction. It makes sense because her ENFJ personality thrives on harmony. Shapiro is NOT a harmonizer. My daughter sometimes agrees with aspects of the content, but cannot stand his approach or harshness of point. Julianna cares deeply for the wounded and will approach life that way. She needs to honor that. Just as many ENFJs will feel the same. As long as she still sees Shapiro as a fellow human being, it is ok for her to listen to other voices that work on her level more often. But the same cannot be expected of all personality types. I need to honor that I am the paradox as an INFJ. I WILL see merit to both sides. When I truly listen I find undercurrents of humanity in each. It’s not a better way of being…but it’s not less either. I don’t expect it from my friends but I am ME and will still work out my perspectives in this way. I ask for respect from those who work differently. I strive to give the same respect back. “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be call sons of God.” Matthew 5:9

People are so complex. We can be paradoxes or enjoy opposites and still hold on to our morality. We can have stances but still engage with the other "side." Ironically, when I became slightly more vocal about conservative links I had seen, when I previously had given plenty before from the other side, I was given grief from many self identified liberals. I’ve since learned to refrain on sending links on most topics. Back when I was still on social media, there was a day called Blackout Tuesday. I did not participate due to multiple reasons. I was called a white supremacist simply because I did not post a black box. It astounded me that people thought this was an indication of how I viewed anyone different from me. 

“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.” Matthew 7:1-4

One of my favorite companies banned J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter merchandise. Oddly the small company was known for carrying her products, so it was surprising when, due to a statement Rowling tweeted about gender issues, they labeled her as a trans hater and discontinued her books. At the time, I was still on social media, so I left a comment asking: Since when do we expect all of our authors, celebrities, businesses and people to be infallible and rise to a level of perfectionism? They make mistakes, sometimes large ones, but don’t we all? How is it right to then delete our complete associations with things that are still wonderfully good, just because of a mistake? Why are we bowing to perfectionism in speech or deed? Does it mean people can do whatever and hurt whatever? No, but does it mean we can enjoy fandom, art and beauty regardless of the creators lifestyle choices or poor living etc. I imagine that if we banned all of the people who made mistakes - we would no longer be reading, watching, savoring art or learning - because half of our history is terrible. When the memories and history of a people is erased, it is easier to rule them. People are flawed. So we stop listening to Michael Jackson or stop reading J.K. or stop enjoying a Picasso? Not that I particularly see Picasso as art, but each to their own. Where will the line end? When will we stop censoring in the name of freedom while ironically taking freedom away? We expect freedom of speech but then we heavily sanction people who exercise it? No, it doesn’t mean we excuse terrible behavior or put up some personal boundaries, but if companies ban authors they don’t agree with where will it end? Who will decide? And how will we find the person who will always be 100% politically correct? We change people story by story. We ask for better treatment in the context of our relationships and that changes the world. Harry Potter spoke to many outcasts. The books and films carried me through depression. J.K. is brilliant for creating it. Does it mean she’s not human or that we will agree with every life decision? Banning an entire world just because she created it, seems counterproductive to the true issues.

In the feed thereafter I was the top commentator for likes, but I was also equated with Hitler and called a homophobic, trans phobic, and an anti Semitist. What??? Luckily, the one very rude comment deleted it after other strangers supported me and disputed their comment, but the damage was done to a degree. And this is part of the reason why I am no longer on social media. I strive to take both support and disagreement with a grain of salt. Both can change on a dime. Neither should define me. I should only define myself through the One Whom Sees. “The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light, but if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!” Mathew 5:22- 23 

The very people who praise me can dispute and vice versa. This is the price of freedom, the truth of the ego, and a matter of perspectives taking. Of course, I struggle with it many times. But let me be clear. I am NOT a victim. I have been before. Sometimes I can not help but feel victimized and fight the specific injustice, but I refuse to define myself from that narrative simply because there have been some hardships.

I'm human so I naturally go through all the stages of grief when friends turn on me, or misunderstand, or accuse, or assume I am not "educated." I circle back to rage often until I can calm down. It takes some self-control to not answer in kindness and sometimes I fail. “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.” Matthew 5:12 

The silencing culture astounds me. The policing of jargon is damaging. I honestly never thought I would see the day when liberals would be just as cruel to me, and cause as much hurt, as the fundamentalist Christians did. I don't know which one was worse- people knowing your context and judging and being cruel- or people not knowing your context and being judgmental and cruel? I guess both are bad in equally different ways.

“But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare.” Jeremiah 29:7

And so… I have found this to be true. Everyone has the capability to be cruel on any political spectrum. One is not more worthy than the other, liberal or conservative, or the many other parties. One is not more "noble" than the other. Both have merits. The opposing political structures also have massive downfalls. If we are basing our worth on a stance, our foundations will easily crumble. 

“Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.” Matthew 5:24-27

On the flip side, I have had friends/family who disagreed with my sources or links, but have been above and beyond understanding and kind, from both sides. They knew what their foundation was built on. They had opinions but since their love was built on Solid Rock, they choose to SEE the face of another. I have had friends that I will stick by whom have stuck by me, even when we disagree. When I am asked how I can be friends with people who have belief systems that can be downright degrading to certain lifestyles...I say, "Honestly, I don't agree with that system of beliefs and it's been aimed at me, at times, in a different way...but in the end, I love these people and they love me. They make mistakes. They are fallible humans. But I don't work the way of only being friends with what I agree with constantly (or at least I don’t feel I should work that way.) I feel if I did that I wouldn't have any friends as I fall on both sides. I can also be perceived as insulting too." My husband aids me in this mentality. He is my fierce protector, my memory and calm voice. I disliked that he opened up my world in many ways to politics, but I'm also indebted to him for walking alongside me, in the navigation of all the tricky emotions that are packed into the choices we make.

“If you faint in the day of adversity, your strength is small. Rescue those who are being taken away to death; hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter. If you say, “Behold, we did not know this,” does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who keeps watch over your soul know it, and will he not repay man according to his work?” Proverbs 24:10-12

I’ve been told that I can be defensive. Perhaps it is because I have been friends with both teams my entire life, defending both, to a degree, some more than others in politics, beliefs and many stances. But that does not mean I have unchangeable core values. My core value is this; “He answered, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind and love your neighbour as yourself.” Luke 10:27 

I’ve tried to be less defensive but then I realized that I am better at playing defense. Offence often makes me uncomfortable or I quickly retreat. I’m not a star player generally. Being a goalie would be my nightmare...but I’m good at defending once a play is in motion. That’s not a bad thing. “But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect.” 1 Peter 3:15 I need to remember timing is everything. Gentleness and respect are crucial. Sometimes I’m pulled off the field altogether or decide to sit out. But in general I was made to be on defense. I defend for everyone who is in my playing field ... and I need to respect that in myself. I also need to respect the offence players even when the aggression makes me feel attacked. I have to remember to respect that role and it’s legitimacy. I need to respect the kicker or star player as elite in their realm. Does it mean we can’t try each other’s roles or stop playing the game? No, but it does mean that there is room for each player to be their best typically when they can. “Gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.” Galatians 5:23

I know enough of both sides of the political scheme that I could easily just conform to whomever I am with. But I have done that before and paid a hefty price inside of myself. To quote a movie I've always hated (Princess Bride. Another example that I can learn and quote from something I don't fully enjoy or support.) "Life is pain and anyone who tells you differently is trying to sell you something." I choose pain WITH love. I hope for gentleness and self-control. I am living in dusk filled twilight. I do not expect you to join me. But I ask that you respect it as legitimate as living in sunshine or moonlight. I love the entire twenty-four hour span of the day, but I need to be twilight dusk or twilight dawn.

“Kindness is often mistaken for softness, and, let me tell you, friends... That is a mistake you don't want to make. Kind people are not born that way; they do not stumble into it. Kind people are forged in fire and darkness and imploding stars. They have steel cores. Throw a punch and you're going to break your hand. Kind people are kind because they know firsthand that life isn’t.” GeekDawson

                                                   
In the end it’s all rhetoric to me that’s socially constructed. Intent and context to context matters most. Song Choice; Living in Twilight- the Weepies
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9G2B0qaT5IU
Honestly, this expresses me best. I could easily be a full hermit. I have in the past besides my immediate family and may need to go to that mode for a bit soon for my sanity but at the same time I avidly love the people in my life and am still grateful even if there are many mixed feelings. But music expresses me best;