[Editors Note: This interview was originally published on November 30, 2017]
Traditionally journalism has always been a profession which challenges the mainstream narrative and pushes the conversation to those things which nobody is willing to address. As of late, MSM and the reporter culture has shown its true colours as a propaganda arm of liberal demagogues. Most reporters these days are thinly veiled parrots repeating their corporate master’s commands. Gone are the days of investigative journalism and here are the times of bullet-point “need to know” articles and being interested in how many times Donald Trump sips his water. To be sure, Faith Goldy is not one of these journalists. Where there was conflict, Faith went. Where there was a story worth telling, you can be sure Faith was there. In all endeavours, there are safe-players and risk-takers and often taking risks means putting one’s reputation and safety on the line. But despite it all Faith has persevered, and through persistence and an intense curiosity, she continues to give voice to the issues and positions most reporters would rather pull the blanket over.
So with that, I would like to warmly welcome Faith Goldy to our humble abode here at The Warden Post. It is a great pleasure to have our first interview on the website with such a distinguished guest and I can only hope to do justice to the profession by asking the questions our readers want to hear about.
To get the ball rolling, I’d like to bring up a point from the introduction and ask you what you think the biggest threat to the freedom of the press has been in the last decade? Surely, we as a democratic nation (Canada) pride ourselves on having a press free from the meddling of the state in theory but in practice, this is rarely the case.
Naturally, regulatory obstacles like the CRTC’s socialist brick up its rear end alongside the continued sponsorship of our state broadcaster’s tedious claptrap don’t facilitate a truly free media market but the fact of the matter is: It’s not the government or federal spending that pose the greatest threat to freedom of the press. Rather, social tyranny and the potent weapon of ridicule have turned our marketplace of ideas into an echo-chamber. While it’s helpful at times to consider ‘the press’ as a monolith, journalism is a field like any other insofar as it’s made up of individuals. And, as one might anticipate a degree of intellectual lethargy and hive mentality in any profession, journalism is no different. That said, there are those who do work hard, research more rigorously, and think for themselves — but all that comes at a price.
In his canon text, On Liberty, John Stuart Mill contends that social tyranny is more dangerous than governmental tyranny because, “It leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the souls itself.” And so, while the average Canadian journalist today faces relatively little in the way of governmental tyranny (though we have yet to fully realize the impact of M-103), everywhere there are social pressures for journalists to conform to today’s conventional wisdom. Sadly, the source of said pressure is often their peers, who insist every debate worth having is already settled. The most frequent form of social pressure is that of ridicule, which Saul Alinksy properly identified as, “Man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defence. It is irrational and infuriating, and it works as a pressure that forces the weak into making concessions.
The journalist who questions conventional wisdom on Europe’s permanent migration crisis is labelled an ‘Islamophobe’. The journalist who argues national borders are sacrosanct is called a ‘racist’. The journalist who posts to the fact that a right to a wedding cake is nowhere guaranteed in any Constitution is labelled a ‘homophobe’. The journalist who asks why adult drag queens are reading to minors in publicly funded spaces is called ‘transphobic’. The journalist who challenges the demonization of our most affordable forms of energy is labelled a ‘climate denier’. And the journalist who questions the current approach to identity politics in the classroom and mass media is called a ‘white supremacist’ or ‘neo-Nazi’.
The intention of these labels is to brand the dissident as someone — something — so horrible everyone else wants absolutely nothing do with the person in question; ultimately, to isolate them and shut them up. And journalists are social beings just like everyone else — we don’t want to be outcasts, heretics in our own field. And so, for survival, many self-censor and temper their arguments. It’s sad, really. It’s elective intellectual captivity. And it’s led us to a media marketplace wherein intellectual freedom has been traded in for emotional fragility.
We at the Warden Post pride ourselves on being a polished and professional media organization which offers a thoughtful alternative to MSM/buzzfeedesque content which litters the internet today. Do you believe that alternative media and citizen journalism provides a credible and trusted resource for people to discover not only new but critical perspectives?
The growth in alt media and citizen journalism has led to the democratization of data, which I think is a good thing. In the early 1980s, roughly 50 companies controlled the lion’s share of the media market. But today, over 90 percent of America’s media is owned by just six companies. For decades, North Americans flipped through their cable news channels and the pages of their various newspapers thinking they were receiving a balanced media diet. In truth, North Americans were being served the mere illusion of choice and diversity of opinion— really, most media voices were receiving their marching orders from a short list of generals. The good news is: People are becoming deprogrammed. President Trump’s election is a testament to this fact, and public opinion polls placing the MSM’s favourability at an all-time low are as well.
And so, as we embark on the formation of a new market, a new form of determining clout and credibility must be established. No longer will it be production value or platform that determine credibility; rather, discernible respect for subjects and audience, and a capacity for sensible thinking, too.
I can’t begin to tell you how impressed I am with you lads at The Warden Post! The only thing surpassing The Warden Post’s aesthetic is the calibre of its content. The insights and intellectual arguments offered within your pages are an asset to any reader disenchanted by the chaos of the Western world, seeking a more ordered, holistic, purposeful, and moral approach to life. Outlets like yours are the reason the MSM is failing — you’re meeting an appetite they refuse to admit exists.
In your latest interview with Free Bird Media, you often used the term “optics” and how this contributes to certain viewpoints being taken more seriously than others. Could you expand more on your definition of this word?
It’s not a sophisticated idea, but absolutely mustn’t be overlooked: The way in which an event or course of action is perceived by the public does matter. While the ideas one conveys might feel taboo in the present politically correct climate, if those ideas are rooted in fact and common sense there’s a good chance others are thinking them, too. In order to attract near customers though, it’s not just your words that communicate a message but your image, your peers, and your behaviour that will make or break your chance for success.
Take, for example, two different campaigns waged recently: The “White Lives Matter Rally” in Shelbyville and the “It’s OK to be white” poster campaign across North America. Ostensibly, both campaigns covered a lot of common ground; namely, identity politics and white racial consciousness. However, the optics between the two events couldn’t have been more drastically different and thus yielded a different reception in the press and public sympathy. Photos emerging from Shelbyville depicted unkempt middle-aged men flying ‘White Pride Worldwide’ flags and throwing up the Roman Salute: Objectively, not a good look. It eclipsed any sort of positive debate that might have otherwise followed such an event and did nothing to garner sympathy from the media or public. Conversely, ‘it’s OK to be white’ posters went up across the continent almost overnight. Its message was not threatening or combative. The statement did not read ’it’s better to be white,’ not even, ‘it’s great to be white’ — just OK. And so, when the inevitable mass triggering ensued among the Left as a reaction to the campaign, high profile media folk like Tucker Carlson came out in support of the posters’ messaging and proceeded to engage in important debate before the millions of Americans that make up the audience.
If you believe your idea is worth discussing, don’t LARP so hard you get your side kicked off the debate stage!
To shift the conversation a bit, you recently tweeted “My heart is with civic nationalists, I want to believe. However, a deliberate evisceration of national identities coupled w mass migration has made my head at odds with my heart. Right wing civic nationalists are no better than Leftist do-gooder multicultis — result is ethnocide.” Could you elaborate more on why you believe, specifically from a Canadian perspective that civic nationalism falls short and how this might tie in with the historical national identity of Canada?
Civic Nationalism is built around the keystone of shared citizenship in a democratic state. A “civic nation” isn’t defined by its language or culture, but by its political institutions and liberal principles, which its citizens pledge to uphold. Basically, membership in the civic nation is open to anyone who shares these values. This type of nationalism suggests that in western democracies like Canada, freely chosen principles have replaced cultural heritage as the basis of political solidarity. If only, so the argument goes, we could persuade Serbians or Kosovars, or in the Canadian case, the Quebecois, to replace their visions of ethnic or cultural unity with our vision of civic solidarity, then nationalism need no longer promote ethnic violence and intolerance!
Attractive as this philosophy may sound, civic nationalism is but a comforting illusion built on self-congratulation with wishful thinking. Civic nationalism gets our history wrong, almost necessarily ignoring it all together. Canada, through its inheritance and pre-points system immigration system, has been intentionally and irrefutably European. However, through the introduction of the points system, official state multiculturalism, and the introduction of The Charter (all without an electoral makeup), the character of our nation is rapidly chanting; inasmuch as, Canada is now the nation experiencing the fastest rate of ethnic change in the West.
Within roughly a decade, 100 percent of our population growth will be through immigration. And, if current trends continue, four out of five of those immigrants will be visible minorities, major non-Christian, hailing from Africa, Asia, South America, and the Caribbean (as opposed to traditional source countries like the British Isles, Europe, Scandinavia, and the U.S.).
In order for any immigration to work — let alone of such scale— assimilation among newcomers must take place. In determining if there is a reasonable chance of successful assimilation, the host country must ask itself two questions: Who are we asking to assimilate and what are we asking them to assimilate to? With respect to the ‘who’ component, in the Canadian case, we are recruiting from non-traditional sources wherein the bridge for assimilation is far greater. One needn’t be a political philosopher to understand that the cultures of Canada and Europe are closer than, say, North Africa or the Middle East. And with respect to the ‘what’ — it’s becoming increasingly unclear. What are Canadians values? If our culture is to celebrate all cultures then we are saying our culture is all cultures and therefore no culture in particular. If our values areal values then our values are no values in particular. That’s a confusing message for immigrants. We aren’t providing them with a blueprint for proper assimilation and so we shouldn’t be surprised when sharia motions like M-103 are passed through our federal legislature.
The fact of the matter is: We’re bringing in more and more people with differing values while undergoing a deliberate de-emphasis of our own culture and heritage. This is a recipe for chaos. Without a national identity, national values have no root. In order for civic nationalism to work, a civic consensus must be established and achieving such a thing is made ineffably easier in an increasingly homogeneous society, where competing interests and ends are diminished.
Do you believe that journalists actively avoid demographic statistics and data when covering issues such as violence and immigration?
Yes. And race, too. Evidence suggests there are dramatic racial differences in crime rates. In the United States, for example, Asians have the lowest rates, followed by whites, and then Hispanics. Blacks have notably high crime rates. This pattern holds true for virtually all crime categories and for virtually all age groups. Moreover, evidence suggests that if there is police racial bias in arrests it is negligible. But facts are racist so it’s for the best that journalists actively avoid them.
How do you think we can remove the taboo which often encompasses these issues? Surely people have to speak up but how do we get those people in authority to address the concern of an unrepresented majority?
By refusing to shut up, even when vilified. Throughout the 1970s, to argue in defence of homosexuality would be considered an absolute anathema to your public and personal life. It would have been considered taboo, degenerate, and downright wrong. Today, the opposite is true. Say homosexuality is unnatural and there’s a very good chance you’ll be fired and your big city friends will abandon you. The Overton window can and does move.
More broadly, I think Right wing folk need to cease thinking in electoral cycles and think about a cultural shift which might indeed take decades to achieve. The Left and Mohammedans think in generations, we should too. Our aim should not only be to gain political power but podiums in the classroom, media, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and in unions too. This will thus create spaces in daily life where people will feel emboldened to share facts, reason, and commonsensical ideas (all of which are on our side), as opposed to being muted by contemporary gatekeepers of the politically correct norm.
Millennials have often been noted as being bright-eyed and unrealistically optimistic, yet a large portion of those involving themselves in free-speech issues and voicing taboo opinions come from a young adult (and predominantly male) demographic. Why do you think this specific group of people has decided to set themselves up as a counterculture to the accepted norm of today’s culture?
Hegel had a point! I think there is something to be said of dialectics. We tried one thesis and it’s not working. Naturally, the pendulum will swing towards and antithesis and perhaps we’ll arrive at a healthy synthesis within our lifetime. There is an appetite for the taboo, for controversial ideas, and another way. And who can blame Millennials? There’s a strong argument to be made that the generational torch they’re being offered is unacceptably low on oil. Not to cast all Boomers with the same brush (I sincerely don’t — many were raising families and going to work, thus unable to man the picket lines, eyeball to eyeball with their unwedded, childless, gender bending peers, keen on making a social experiment of our nation’s future); however, the revolutions of the 60s led to a breakaway from tradition. For example, the Sexual Revolution changed gender roles and the structure of the family, while the effect of the Anti-War Revolution and ethos was anti-patriotism and country.
What I find fascinating is that many of the Millennials I have encountered want the best parts of yesteryear — be it in regard to immigration, a moral civic consensus, the role of the state, or a classical interpretation of our fundamental rights. What they desire is something they never experienced, and yet intuit is more ordered and preferable to their present endowment.
To the left, it might seem contradictory that a young woman is willing to take up the cause of “the patriarchy” and champion the concerns of the supposedly oppressive. How would you reply to those women who would accuse you of “internalized oppression” or of suppressing your own sex?
I’d tell them that the North American housewife is the most privileged profession on the face of the planet and I sincerely hope that I should be so fortunate as to one day achieve such status. I can’t wait to spend my days cooking for my family, tending to our household, properly raising the next generation, and ensuring my husband is intellectual, emotionally, and physically stimulated at home.
From our conversations, you’ve hinted at how Christianity has had an impact on your beliefs and the direction of your career. Do you think that the Christian narrative has a place in the public sphere as opposed to being something you keep to oneself?
Whether one wishes to admit it or not, the heritage of the West is unmistakably Christian. It is only since our nation’s recent adoption of perverted ‘tolerance’ that Christians have afforded themselves the dispensation from protecting our heritage from assault. This practice of servile appeasement and cowardly silence in the face of persecution and erosion of our inheritance must cease. To hell with the fragile sensibilities of the atheist and the self-hating Left! Christian civilizations are the envy of the world. Our art, architecture, literature, philosophers, and moral code are of higher quality than those offered by other religions or godless schemas alike.
Freedom of religion does not mean the freedom to pray behind closed doors in your own home; rather, it affords us to bring our faith to the fulsome light of the public sphere — to build hospitals and schools, to create charities and, indeed, to preach the Truth of the Gospel. Not only can our faith be shared in the public sphere — it must. Otherwise, the continued practise of hiding our light under a bushel in the face of what can only be described as a Holy War on all fronts will allow for the metastasis of the European caliphate and will eventually produce another Crusade.
Just before we finish I would like to ask something that has been on all our minds with regards to your career: What’s next for Faith Goldy?
I’ve just launched an independent YouTube channel under my own name! I’ll be posting regular videos there — both investigative and editorial in nature. EVERYONE: GO SUBSCRIBE (and tell your friends)!
Lastly, with these interviews, I always want to leave on an optimistic note and give you the opportunity to address our readers and fans. Often the average person feels so voiceless and without a platform, so if you could give a word of advice to those wishing to get involved in the ongoing debate how can they participate and take part in the larger dialogue?
Weaponize yourself: Read, watch, listen. Many great men have asked the same questions on the hearts and minds of our civilization in decline today. One needn’t reinvent the wheel. Familiarize yourself with the arguments and sound reasoning behind both sides. Then, apply the theories to the reality we now face. After you’ve thought about an issue critically, engage in debate — everywhere.
You can follow and support Faith’s efforts here today!