What about kids who don't want to become parole officers?

Remember: these far-left lunatics are teaching children their lies.

Today's candidate is named Renee Ouellette, a recent graduate in the fake degree known as "Native Studies", who made a "Cree language education package" that doesn't include phrases the modern Red Indian actually needs like "what hours of the day is this rural farm with the valuables in the garage unattended?" but instead the word for "carrot" and "apple".

By now I'm sure you've notice one of the problems. Carrots were totally unknown in Alberta until the white man showed up: while the plants themselves originated in Iran they became popular due to their consumption in Europe. The Europeans (like Columbus, who we celebrated earlier this week) who discovered America brought carrots with them.

But that's actual real history, not myth-making lies taught by "educators" so stupid they actually believe this:

We are on Treaty 6 land and it’s important for people to understand the stories, history and culture with the people who first inhabited this land.
The "this is Treaty 6 land" is of course nonsense, we've established this before. But if Renee is really interested in "the history and culture" of Red Indians than "carrot" shouldn't be on the list. Any Cree who grows carrots is in fact culturally appropriatng Iranian culture. A fatwa upon them.


President Trump is 10,000 times better than any Hollywood star. Now we can prove it.

Editors Note: this post was written in October 2017 but for some reason ended up stuck in draft status. As a result, 3 years to the day after it was supposed to go online we have reposted it as-is.

Do you stay calm, keep smiling and carry on as if he weren't repeatedly invading your space? Or do you turn, look him in the eye, and say loudly and clearly, 'Back up, you creep. Get away from me. I know you love to intimidate women, but you can't intimidate me, so back up.

Maybe not, huh?

This week Hollywood is (belatedly) lining up to denounce the man that they tacitly praised back when they didn't think you'd ever find out about what they always knew he did. The Hildebeast is shocked and appalled that what she knew Harvey Weinstein did has now been exposed. Kevin Smith is ashamed that the man he happily cashed cheques from is now publicly acknowledged to do what Kevin Smith has always known he did.

You may think I'm exaggerating. Nope. Kevin Smith's pal Matt Damon was one of the two A-list actors who pressured the New York Times to drop a story about his "well-known" abuses in 2004. "Progressive" twits like Seth MacFarlane and Tina Fey are now desperately trying to backtrack and claim their jokes were coded attacks. C-list actresses talk about how they were warned about Weinstein, yet nobody bothered to speak out. A-list actresses like Rose McGowan, Gwynneth Paltrow, Angelina Jolie, and Ashley Judd turn out to have been sexually assaulted by Weinstein.

Going back to the Hillary Clinton thing above, do these names sound vaguely familiar to you? They should. October 7 2016, almost exactly a year ago, Rose McGowan said "filthy" in response to media mis-reporting of an old Donald Trump audiotape. You know which audiotape of course.
I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful—I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.

Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything
The problem now is the same thing as the problem then, of course.
  1. Trump is mostly just talking up his game, seeing how earlier he admitted that he pushed to try to sleep with a woman and she wasn't interested in him. He didn't "just grab her by the pussy", he took her furniture shopping and struck out.
  2. Everything that Trump said was absolutely true. In fact, Rose McGowan has basically just admitted it.
That's really the thing to take from the contrast between Trump (who was never accused of sexual assault until the exact millisecond he started to become a credible threat to occupy the White House at which point Hollywood and the media ganged up on him) and Weinstein (who was endlessly being accused of sexual assault dating back a decade and a half but always had Hollywood and the media make the allegations go away): Hollywood leftists are projecting again. They're always projecting. Mark Steyn has just noted that Weinstein was the main voice for the Roman Polanski petition. When faced with a man who actually raped women, the Hollywood Left fall over themselves. When Trump makes a comment, it's proof if his crimes.


Giving Thanks to Christopher Columbus

Today is Thanksgiving in Canada, Columbus Day in America.

Down south, leftists have been very aggressive in trying to defame Columbus as some sort of evil slaveholder who destroyed the peaceful people who were here since time immemorial.

Martok a few years ago was talking with one of the "good Indians" as the old phrase goes: a guy who rejects this #IdleNoMore nonsense and wants to be realistic about what would have happened to North America without Columbus sailing the ocean blue in 1492.

Do Red Indians today really believe that it was only a unique "evil" of white Europeans that led to the lands they (now) claim as their own being seized by a colonial power expanding across the earth? Yes, though this really makes no sense on the face of it. For starters, over at L'Anse Aux Meadow there was already a European port being built (but ultimately abandoned). Meanwhile the Vikings routinely were sailing to Labrador to cut down trees as late as the 1400s, so it's not like if only that crazy Columbus hadn't believed the world was round and sat still in Portugal, nobody would have come out this way and the Red Indians would be sitting pretty all by their little lonesome.

In case you were unaware, by the way, Columbus didn't sail to prove the world was a sphere. That's been known since the dawn of sail, and the radius was even first calculated by Eratosthenes around 200BC. However there was some scholarly disagreement about how to turn Eratosthenes' stradia into feet which led to two different calculations of the Earth: Columbus belonged to the Ptolemy camp that believed his measurements were an 18000 mile circumference. As the American Physical Society remarks, had Columbus known the 25000 mile number he wouldn't have risked the trip.

Eventually somebody would have come out this way. Even if you presumed that Europeans didn't ever dare cross the impenetrable ocean in wooden sailing ships, did you think they would stay on the east side of the Atlantic even after (inevitably) building iron steamships? Eventually even without finding North America we would end up orbiting the earth and somebody might just remark "hey, look at that big continent in the middle of what we thought was an unending ocean from Liverpool to Tokyo".

But getting back to the aforementioned good Indian, his question to his kin was what they expected would happen when their stone aged society was found by a far more powerful and far more advanced civilization that came across them. There are a small number of "unconnected" tribes, but even then we're talking about people who don't chat with their more advanced neighbours rather than being totally isolated and unaffected by them: if no European settlers ever went north of Helena or west of Winnipeg and instead simply engaged in long-distance fur trading Red Indians would still be a nomadic people not ever really occupying any land. Face it, when other cultures discovered there was a lot of (essentially empty) land and resources they would be coming for them.

As it was, Canada was discovered by the British. While these days the Brits are scoffed at as "imperialist colonizers" in reality that was pretty much the best possible country to show up here: they made (and, despite the lies of activists, honoured the terms of) treaties even though in reality the tribes who they signed with had little or no actual claim over much of the land they were supposedly signing over. Unlike the French who slaughtered every Beothuk they could find in Newfoundland, or the Spanish who were notoriously bloodthirsty in southern and central America and within 50 years of Columbus had conquered the entire southern continent.

In fairness to the Spanish, they also had by far the more powerful and entrenched 'indigenous' populations to deal with. The Incas and Aztec were actual societies and while not technologically civilized they at least had a rudimentary legal system and standing army.

But what the good Indian brought up, which rarely gets discussed, is what if the Europeans never made it here at all? I sort of discussed this above, but only our own Euro-centrism makes us think of Europe solely the entity that would have made it out here. If there was some imagined cultural block of the Europeans sailing the Atlantic, that still doesn't count the other ocean. I mentioned Tokyo earlier and it wasn't by accident. What if, instead of being found by white Europeans, it was instead found by the yellow Japanese?

Japan was a fair bit behind the Europeans in naval technology and the Pacific is a more formidable ocean, so they weren't sailing it in 1492, or probably even 1592 (the Sengoku period ended in between 1560 and 1615 and that cultural change was also motivated by Europeans discovering Japan: we probably shouldn't allow for that contact in our imaginary world). The Edo period from 1603-1868 would likely be when a no-contact Japan started moving out into the world. While the real Edo period was socially isolationist, if everywhere south and west they sailed other cultures were found it would make sense to sail east. The coastal warships would be evolved into more rugged blue water units that would sail into Hawaii and the Aleutian Islands, and discover in both locations a primitive non-Japanese society that could be conquered easily, and viciously. Continuing east to the Pacific Coast of Canada and the United States they would discover a wild open and untapped wilderness ripe for the taking...with a few pesky non-Japanese tribes (basically Mongolians) to be eliminated. Violently.

If you didn't already know, here's a chart of how the Japanese consider other races. Note that their view of whites is coloured (to borrow a term) by how much whites have been able to culturally and technologically compete with them. Those Portuguese sailing ships and Spanish galleons arriving in Nagasaki 450 years ago are the only reason whites are with "everybody else".

Ask Korea or China or Indonesia or any other asian non-Japanese race if you don't believe me. The Japanese would consider the Red Indians as far beneath them as the Red Indians consider dogs, and with much the same ultimate fate: vicious and violent attacks that were not aimed at simply conquering territory but indeed obliterating the backwards non-Japanese people that were living there. Anybody below about 700 on that scale would be not worth keeping around. And since the Red Indians would still be a primitive stone aged people in 1750 without contact with the outside world, those same Japanese armies showing up in ever-increasing number wouldn't rest until they hunted down and removed every single shred of non-Japanese.

So whenever some crazed activist wants to rail about Columbus, remind them of the alternative: an entire continent being wiped out as efficiently as the Beothuk had been. South America might have been a different story, and the entire east coast might have ended up being a race as news of Japan's find reached Europe, but any Red Indians in Alberta owe their very existence today to Christopher Columbus and his discovery of...well...almost America...


The Soup Theory

From Commenter PlusUltra at The Z Blog:

Soup is the last stand of implicit White identity.

It is the final bulwark against the forces of darkness. Throughout the ages, soup has aided the white race in our endeavors of conquest and exploration. Across every frontier, soup has been by our side. From the coldest tundras to the hottest deserts and the muddiest of trenches, soup has been our saving grace in the great racial struggle. Its nutrients have provided us with the energy needed to stand at the apex of mankind.

But because we’ve turned our back on her, we’ve become as ordinary and weak as any other race. If we are to stand once again at the forefront of human progress, strength and conquest, we must once again make soup the cornerstone of our diets

In all honesty though I don't buy it. I mean literally, I don't typically buy soups. I'm not one of these people who opens a can of cream of broccolli in order to make a baked chicken. I laugh at the soup and lentils guy at the Whyte Ave Farmers Market (I don't think he's there this year but he is at the St. Albert one).

Is there a food that could be called the "final bulwark against the forces of darkness"? No, probably not. Is there a drink that could say the same? Probably not, but "shitty unflavoured vodka" is probably the correct answer.


Quick question for Jason Isaacs

Do you also support the death penalty for attempted murder? Jacob Blake, by the way, would qualify.

 How about manslaughter?

 Actual murder? 

Strangely enough, this is the first time the actor has ever endorsed capital punishment. It's illuminating to see how these fascists think.


I (heart) Residential Schools

Today is "Orange Shirt Day", when whiny far-left Red Indian activists try to make it sound like the Residential School system was a bad thing.

This is, of course, based entirely on a lie. Residential schools, in case you didn't already know, were simply how the British took it upon themsleves to exercise their treaty mandate of providing primitive savages with an advanced technical and cultural education. In fact, it was based on a system of education that, while considered horrible by modern "educators" who can't teach Johnny to read in a mere 12 years, was one of the main drivers of British exceptionalism around the globe: specifically boarding schools.

As this history of boarding schools in Britain and Canada notes:

When Thomas Hughes wrote Tom Brown’s School Days in the 1830s, he used Rugby School as the setting, a school that his readers would have seen as strikingly modern. As he admitted at the time, Hughes created the characters of Tom and Dr. Arnold to illustrate how to live a good life and, by analogy, how to build a great nation. All the classic elements of the boarding school novel were there: students mentoring each other, a strong and empathetic teacher, sports and, inevitably, bullying and corporal punishment. With the help of friends and the advice of Dr. Arnold, Tom defeats the bully and becomes a mentor himself. He doesn’t cheat on homework, he plays cricket, and life goes on. What would have struck early readers aren’t the things that strike us today. Corporal punishment, for example, would have seemed familiar, and not at all specific to boarding school.

Indeed, corporal punishment was still a part of public schools in Alberta into the 1990s. And there's of course nothing really wrong with that...spare the rod and spoil the child etc. etc 

Meanwhile boarding schools are away from home.

So already the two big "issues" that Red Indians and their far-left toys in the CBC always drum up ("abuse" and "ripping children from their families") isn't something at all unique to the Residential Schools: they were a common feature in the most advanced education system on the planet at the time. Indeed, this system was mirrored relatively closely in other British colonies: New Zealand, Australia, America, and India.

India provides an interesting case: in that country as well primitive non-whites were put into the British boarding school system...and thrived. Why do you think everything from your computer support line to your Revenue Canada phone scams are originating from over there? Given that IQs follow race more than country of origin, it's impressive that India is doing as strongly with their racial makeup as they are. Who to thank for that? British education.

It didn't "take" with Red Indians for some reason. We leave it up to the reader to figure out why on earth that might be.


Even Robert Duncan Macneil can't be bothered to remember Star Trek: Voyager

The actors who played Tom Paris and Harry Kim have started a Star Trek: Voyager podcast review show: Apparently though all the good bits are on their Patreon (which of course no conservatives should ever support).


Memo to @vexwerewolf, @chittlins, @Fire_Badger, @Elegant_QueenK, @chrysoleggyon, @baneslay, @anthonyackee2, @gmiller1643, & @anya_something

Today, looking at all the evidence, a Grand Jury decided that the officers involved in the death of Breonna Taylor did nothing criminal and would not be charged.

So naturally, niggers and their unhinged ANTIFA co-conspirators in Louisville immediately began trashing the city. As a result, the Kentucky National Guard has been deployed. This fact alone seems to convince leftists that something was wrong with what the Grand Jury decided (rather than, obviously, something being wrong with the niggers).

Poor "Mr. Rusty Nail", a Trump-hating liberal who slightly cares about the fundamental human rights of (non-white?) store owners, got in big trouble for this one. "Vex" falls into the basic far-left drivel about how caring about property owned by innocents should be less important than life held by criminals.

First off, as you may note, property is life: property is what we purchase with the fruits of our labours. Deny us that property, destroy that property, and you steal away days/months/years of a person's life. Claiming that we should be okay with hardworking innocent people being wontonly deprived of their property in favour of the "life" of somebody who has no respect for that property (and life) of the innocent is ludicrous.

Secondly, before you get the idea that this Vex dude is a devoted adherent to the sanctity of life...when he decides (with no evidence) that a "white supremacist" was the victim of a crime, his concern for human life evaporates away...

(readers curious to how cops "enforce white supremacy", remember that to these losers working a job and keeping your money for yourself and not losing it to thieving niggers is a "white supremacist concept")

Meanwhile, numerous far-left extremists seemed to be confused by the cause-and-effect relationship between nigger riots and the National Guard being activated:

There are more, and all of them seemed to make the same basic mistake: confusing authorities understanding of the backwards thinking held by violent niggers with authorities understanding of fundamental moral truths. To wit: they weren't bracing for unrest because they knew it was the "wrong decision" but because they know that violent and irrational niggers aren't smart and/or civilized enough to accept the decision without committing mass violence.

Ever since Rodney King and O.J. we've known that the tribal impulses of niggers for destruction is activated whenever one of their tribe doesn't get what they have decided is their "just" outcome by an evidence-based and rational justice system. In the hours before the O.J. verdict for example, LAPD were bracing for mass violent unrest: it never happened, because that same justice system decided (whether rightly or wrongly: it's worth noting that even rational and evidence-based approaches to decision making can ultimately be wrong) that based on the evidence available and the interpretation of the law the outcome would be the same outcome that the niggers would accept without going crazy. Had O.J. been found guilty by the courts, niggers would have violently rioted in the streets even though it's almost certain that O.J. was guilty of murder.

Similarly the Grand Jury, having looked at the evidence and the letter of the law, has decided that none of the officers are criminally responsible for Breonna Taylor's death. That decision is probably right, but regardless the fact that violent protests are expected by both authorities and the far-left Twitter mob who isn't smart enough to understand the motivation behind the expectations is enough to give anyone pause.

Let's consider a minor comparison: last week Edmonton police arrested a suspect involved in a "vicious" assault on a janitor at an LRT station. The race of the suspect was not provided, but let's pretend he was white. Let's also pretend that the arrest did not go well and this guy was shot and killed by EPS. As you know, I've had unkind things to say about corrupt Edmonton cops in the past, and I stand by them all. Let's say that based on the circumstances of the arrest it's iffy if the cops were justified or not. If the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team (ASIRT) and I disagree about that justification I might be upset, I might speak out, I might even write a letter to the editor or a blogpost. What I certainly wouldn't do, and wouldn't even dream of doing, was being upset on behalf of the white race for how they treated this white suspect. He ain't me. I might just as easily take the cops side against him.

So why, when black Breonna Taylor was killed during a police raid, do the niggers so loyally care about how she was treated? I alluded to it numerous times above of course: tribalism. Niggers can't accept that one of their own might be guilty and therefore the action taken against them justified. Before you get all excited, yes I know she committed no crime. But if you remember the saga of Lily Tran, similarly Breonna dated nigger thugs who were the kind of folks to get involved in police shootouts. She may not have committed a legal crime, but her choice of who she spread her legs for itself was a crime of poor judge of character: while not something any jurisdiction can prosecute (nor would you want to live in one that does), it was still a failing of morals and decision making that led to her death. As I wrote about Lily:

Remember thug-girls, the bling bling makes you feel great for a bit, and then your drug-dealing boyfriends get you pumped full of lead.
But that kind of thinking apparently is too logical for the average leftist, so they have decided that Breonna bears zero responsibility for why she got shot. They have confused legal with actual. It's not a crime to date a criminal, likewise (to use my old Lily Tran analogy) it's not a crime to stand in front of a Hell's Angels clubhouse wearing rival gang colours: but both actions are a good way to end up dead.

And while being killed by the Hell's Angels while standing in front of their clubhouse wearing rival colours would certainly be a murder, being killed by the Hell's Angels while standing in front of their clubhouse next to another guy shooting automatic weapons at them may very well not be a murder. Breonna was an unfortunate victim, yes, but the fact that she was killed doesn't mean of course that she was murdered. Anybody with the smallest amount of knowledge of biblical scholars discussing the Sixth Commandment should be able to grasp the distinction. Can @chrysoleggyon? Probably not.


The "root cause of the problem" is tribalism. When a nigger is killed by police, regardless of the justification, niggers turn violent and riot. How do you cure this root cause? Sadly, I don't know the answer. The psychology of how to fix the ridiculous racial cohesion that niggers maintain is beyond my considerable talents. It would be nice if I knew the answer: it would be wonderful if there was some sort of pill Trevor Noah could take and after swallowing it he remarked "you're right: I'm nonwhite and Breonna Taylor is nonwhite but we're also two different people in two different circumstances and I shouldn't take what happened to her so personally". Unfortunately it does not yet exist, and we're stuck in a world where niggers don't understand what the justice system is for. This might be news to A.D. Ackee but the purpose of the justice system is not to "listen to you after you protest once and change the rules because you don't like the skin colour mix of victim and perpetrator". While A.D. Ackee is correct that the justice system is supposed to provide justice, justice is not a synonym for "what leftist idiots want". Justice might set free the cops who shot Breonna Taylor same as it might set free the cop who kneeled on George Floyd's neck same as it might free the farmer who shot Coulten Boushie.

Justice gets it right sometimes, wrong other times, but it also (almost by definition) gets what it says it's supposed to get the vast majority of the time. It's a mistake to think it somehow didn't do the job just because leaders know better than Greg Miller how irrational niggers can be:

And finally of course, what's endless bleating about blacks getting shot while acting black without some idiot bringing the long-discredited myth of "systemic racism" into the mix? None of these are examples of "systemic racism": no matter how many idiotic screeds by far-left idiots @brandy_mancari or anybody reads, it does not exist and no examples of it can be found. Stop and frisk targets high crime neighbourhoods because niggers are orders of magnitude more likely to be criminals and niggers like to live together. US prisoners are majority nigger because niggers are orders of magnitude more likely to be criminals and tend to also be dumb enough to be easily caught. Low income housing is "under-funded" because it's folly to waste money giving housing to people who have never done any of the actual labours that would justify them receiving any money. I would argue low income housing is overfunded because the ideal level of funding is zero.

The fact is that Breonna Taylor's tragic death was not a criminal matter, anymore than it's your fault if you swat a mosquito and the sound of your slap causes a chain reaction which results in a car crashing into a pole killing the driver. Causing a death does not equate to murder and the result of the investigation is that sanity prevailed by backing up that basic fact.

Prevailed in the court house at least. Out in the far-left social media sphere, basic facts are thrown out the window by the angry progressives listed above and so very many others.

Bonus irrationality from the pre-sized brains of the Woke:

Protesters invited Black women to form a line at the front of the march as they continued east and called on each other to "protect Black women."
Doesn't that sound a lot like the negresses became a human shield?


David Mitchell FACLC on texting vs calling

David Mitchell asks when phone calls became so intrusive:

When and why did the very idea of making a phone call turn into something so intrusive?

When texting appeared, I suppose, but why?
Speak for yourself Mitchell. Years and years ago when I started being old enough to stay at home without supervision, one of the things I did when home by myself (besides think to myself "wouldn't it be wonderful if there was some sort of international network of computers I could look stuff up on") was enjoy not answering the phone when it rang because it was never for me.

Did we have call display and an answering machine? Nope, at least not at first. It didn't matter though because the call was never for me: unless it was my parents calling in which case anything they had to tell me could wait until they got home. Even if they were calling to say they'd be late, they'd be eventually so I just didn't pick up.

This was long before text messaging was a thing.
The point is, replying to an email is a massive chore. Replying to a text can be a small chore. Answering the phone, and having a quick chat is no chore at all, and nor is listening to an answer phone message, so let's not be afraid to do it.

After all, we managed it in the presumably more formal old days. People say that before mobiles we were less in thrall to our phones, but they're misremembering. If the house phone rang, it didn't matter what you were doing, you ran to answer it. And you answered it in its own special room of the house, whilst standing up
So much for the "no matter what you were doing" myth. It wasn't true for me and I'm sure I wasn't the only one. In fact I delighted in training myself to not go running to the phone like Pavlov's dogs.

Bonus David Mitchell on the telephone: I really wish I could get some idiots who think I want to talk with them on the phone more than once a year to stop calling more than once a week and then sounding mad that I don't want to talk on the phone. Ever.
I'm no good at all at getting people off the phone I'm terrible at doing that transition thing where you subtly indicate that although of course my true pleasure would be if this call could simply go on all day and long into the night to be ended only when one of us falls asleep or dies of starvation nonetheless in this imperfect world of ours...


David Hasselhoff Seth Macfarlane Roast Comedy Central

Editors Note: this post was written in August 2010 but for some reason ended up stuck in draft status. As a result, 10 years to the day after it was supposed to go online we have reposted it as-is.

Saturday night I watched the Roast of David Hasselhoff on Comedy Network. As I mentioned on Twitter, Canada's comedy network was able to include all the fucks they wanted, yet censored out an AIDS joke at Pam Anderson's expense.

Family Guy creator Seth Macfarlane was the host, and other than a way-too-long Simpsons related joke from Gilbert Gottfried and a few South Park gags, people left Macfarlane alone.

Because of this, I just while putting away dishes came up with a few gags that while not particularly red-band material, tear that liberal piece of trash up a little.

Seth Macfarlane, ladies and gentlemen, the luckiest man in Hollwood. You know, a lot of people don't know this, but Seth was supposed to be on one of the planes involved in 9/11, but missed it. So really, really, the luckiest man in Hollywood. He survived 9/11 and has no less than three hit shows on FOX -- well, two plus The Cleveland Show -- but that isn't what makes him the luckiest man in Hollywood. No, its because he's the only creative talent in Tinseltown who doesn't have to worry about having his work stolen by Seth Macfarlane
As I mentioned, The Cleveland Show is pretty bad. In fact, that show is so terrible that after its first airing Jesse Jackson called Mark Fuhrman to apologize.
Seth Macfarlane is a pretty liberal guy, we all know he loves to burn prominent conservatives. It's a little unfair though: if Sarah Palin was as simple as she was portrayed on Family Guy she'd be one of its writers.