@JeridU - which fundamental human rights do you deny?

Do you agree I have the right to tell a faggot that he can be cured? I mean, we know that we all have the responsibility to educate/remind sodomites about how conversion therapy offers one of only two escape routes from their evil lifestyle choice, but we do also indeed have that right. So looks like "rights and responsibilities" align better than you might think.

What other "responsibility" does Jerid think I need? Well, for that let's turn to (rare a specimen as it may be) an even deeper thinker from me. Again we turn to Ted Byfield's The Book of Ted which at this rate I will have completely reproduced on this blog by the time of our 20th anniversary.

If Chatelaine weds Penthouse, the marriage can't last

I was given the other day the publication of one of the human rights lobby groups which cited and deplored the alarming statistical evidence of social disintegration in Alberta - suicide, juvenile crime, family breakup and so on. It struck me as odd that a civil rights group should deplore such things. If any single factor can be blamed for the contemporary social collapse, it is our ceaseless and impatient insistence upon our "human rights," and our concurrent silence on the subject of human responsibility.

While the causes of our malaise are many, most can be traced to one, notably the seeming failure of the family unit. It in turn is directly attributable to the modern instability of marriage. When the marriage fails, the home breaks up. However "civilized" the divorce (and many are not in the least civilized), the resulting trauma to both parents and children creates many of the other statistics. To solve the problem therefore we must somehow re-establish permanence in the marital partnership. We need a tougher, deeper, more durable commitment that can withstand the storms that all human relationships involve, and emerge from them stronger and more resilient than ever. To achieve this, however, we are going to have to stop yapping about our rights and begin pondering most diligently our responsibilities.

The kind of yapping I'm talking about is eloquently illustrated by certain mass circulation magazines, some addressed to women, some to men. Take, for example, that bountifully profitable Maclean Hunter publication called Chatelaine, which is by a mile Canada's most widely read women's periodical. Much of its content has not changed for generations - advice on cooking, dieting, fashion and home improvement. But in the last ten or so years it has developed a new editorial thrust. This consists in one long, ceaseless and increasingly strident whine for assorted rights. There is the right of women to equal pay, the right of women to equal pensions, the right of women to equal job opportunities, the right of wives to minimum wages, the right of secretaries to refuse to make coffee, the right of mothers to pass child care onto fathers, and on and on. Why is research so retarded on a male birth control pill, demands one article. Why do fifty per cent of married women in their thirties who have good jobs cheat on their husbands? (The answer after about five thousand words: because their husbands are no good in bed.)

The justice of most, if not all, these claims is not in dispute here. The point is that the whine is pretty well the only kind of message which the entire magazine conveys. Its whole communication is described by the single word: GET. There is not the faintest evidence of GIVE. There are no appeals to women to sacrifice their interests to that of their children, no gentle suasions for devotion to husbands, no homilies for the care of aged parents, the nursing of the sick, the bandaging of wounded shins or the healing of wounded hearts. Yet even the most superficial examination of the tough marriages, the ones that work, invariably reveals a wife and mother who does all this and a great deal more besides. And in Canada's biggest and most influential women's magazine it is almost nowhere to be found. This surely is significant.

But it pales into pedantry when contrasted with the implications of Canada's most popular men's magazine. This, as it turns out, is not a Canadian magazine at ail, but an American one that outcirculates all rivals in Canada. It is called Penthouse and its most obvious distinction is the recurrence of four-colour, high-gloss pages full of gynaecology. Its purpose, as every male heart knows but won't admit, is to take the dignity and poise of womanhood and strip it raw, thereby fulfilling some dark desire in the further reaches of our minds that delights in the destruction of innocence. Hence the purer and younger the subject the greater the gratification, so long as it is old enough to look female. This sensation is no more related to art than it is to sex. It is an experience not of body but of mind that comes straight from hell. When women fear and banish it, they are on very certain ground, serving our ultimate interests better than their own, and in moments of lucidity we know it.

But it is not only in its pornography that Penthouse poisons the societal order. It is in the tacit assertion of certain inalienable male rights - the right of perpetual gratification, the right to possess, exploit and abandon, the right of infidelity, the right of concubinage, the right of progeneration without commitment. And again, where is the call to responsibility? Nowhere does it declare that a man must serve, protect and nourish that which he begets, that his loyalty to his wife must be unreserved and inviolate, that her vulnerability in childbirth lies upon him as a holy obligation, and that his abandonment of that duty is not a declaration of independence but one of a despicable treachery. These things we do not read in Penthouse. Instead we find the ceaseless incantation of the coward who creeps away from the battle during the night. "I value my freedom," he declares, and he may therefore walk on the face of any who threaten it. That is the message of Penthouse. Now it seems obvious that if many couples approach marriage, she with her mind full of Chatelaine and he with his mind full of Penthouse, the amazing fact is not that two out of three marriages fail, but that one out of three succeeds. Unfortunately, however, a two-thirds failure rate inevitably portends the impending doom of the social order. A next generation there always must be. if the conventional family cannot provide it, then the state, furnished with the new and terrible resources of biochemistry, will do so instead with all the Orwellian horror that this implies. So it is time we quit bleating about our rights, and got down to the serious and thrilling business of our responsibilities.

Ted Byfield - November 29, 1982

It's worth noting that Ted did miss out on the third rail of population shoring: insanely high immigration from third world shitholes that slowly import a populace that might be okay with me curing faggots but probably has a few ideas about breweries that Jerid would have issues with.

While Ted's concern is that married couples need to worry more about responsibility than rights, Jerid's is a misguided belief that "society" is giving me some nebulous responsibilities which is much shakier ground. In a marriage I have to be responsible for one person and sacrifice some personal desires to make them happy. Trying to do it for 35 million "Canadians" (less than half of whom actually are) is completely untenable. I'm part of this society, can I give Jerid a list of rights he can't enjoy because he's responsible for my happiness and sanctity?

@abdulh_gilani - Then why doesn't the data reflect this?

Viro Fascist Abdulh actually supported vaccine passports. For that alone I'm calling for the death penalty.

But then his justification for it is almost as bad. This is from October of 2021, so he hadn't gotten the memo yet that he isn't supposed to claim that you wouldn't spread the Wuhan Flu after you took the Pfizer Death Juice.

Likewise he was still clinging to the "it stops you from getting severly (sic) ill" bugaboo that's still floating around but gee they really put the brakes on that one too didn't they?

He must really hate that I was unvaccinated, got COVID, and didn't even notice. That evil pieces of trash like him were ever permitted to spew such nonsense on social media with absolutely zero consequence is a stain on our society from which we may never recover.

The thread started with a rah-rah bit of cheerleading from Doug Ford about Ontario's high vaccination rate in early October of 2021. Let's take a look at how things looked in October of 2021 [pdf].

Hey what do you know, it looks like Doug Ford was right. From September 22nd to October 25th or so the cases were really coming down. The vaccines and the mask rules and the lockdowns all "worked" in the sense that they did what they set out to accomplish and sure there might be some totally unforseen but easy to foresee economic and social costs but when we decided to devote everything to making one specific outcome happen, it happened. We did it!

Uh, hey FACLC, is there a reason the screenshot is so grainy? And while we're on the subject, doesn't it look like it started rising again in early November? Did Ontario start loosening restrictions or huge numbers of unvaccinated migrants moved in?

Oops, sorry about that. Yes that's right, within two months of Doug's humblebrag about vaccines and policy rules, Ontario COVID cases skyrocketed to over 19,000 cases which was almost four times higher than any other level since the Wuhan Institute of Virology accidentally deliberately on orders from Chairman Xi released the virus into the wild. And to answer the tongue-in-cheek question from above, no there wasn't a huge influx of unvaccinated people moving in from other provinces. However, and this is to be fair, there was a significant policy change that was enacted in late October which would start to show in the WuFlu stats sometime around Remembrance Day...

...that's right, it was the same vaccine passport system that our Viro Fascist buddy Abdulh was so in favour of. While the vaccine passports started in September, it was October 25th when they actually meant something: places with vaccine passport enforcement could begin to reopen. Just like Abdulh, Doug Ford believed the experts who were explaining that due to vaccines the transmission and severe incidents could be mitigated.

By December it was clear that the vaccines weren't "doing what they were meant to do", or to take an entirely charitable pro-vaccine stance the vaccinations became useless far faster than the experts with all of their "scientific knowledge" had predicted. In January on the downside of this graph, Ontario finally relented and began to follow closely behind Alberta in realizing this was all complete bullshit and wasn't accomplishing their stated goals. The social and economic costs, of course, were still there, but even the single-minded idiocy of "not becoming a superspreader and getting severely ill" wasn't working out.

Don't expect Adulh and his Viro Fascist pals to apologize, of course. They were stupid, we told them they were stupid, and then they simply wanted to forget.


"America as a culturally imperialist Babylon"

Shorter Rod Dreher: If you want a picture of the future, imagine a tranny bubble blower stamping on a human face...for ever

There is no limit to how insane these people and their many, many allies in the establishment will get. As Greene puts it, even the slightest pushback causes them to howl "BIGOTRY!" Don't think that electing Republicans will necessarily stop it. As Nate Hochman has reported in National Review, South Dakota is one of the most socially conservative states in the country, but the Republican legislature there keeps bending over and bracing itself to be rogered by Big Trans, in the guise of Sanford, the major health care system headquartered there. After I highlighted Hochman's great piece, a Republican state official e-mailed to say that it happens quite often that conservative legislators from rural areas are at the mercy of Woke Capitalists, who threaten to take jobs away from these places if the legislators don't bend to their woke will. Fixing this is going to require broad and aggressive legislative action -- and is going to require Republican lawmakers to once and for all put out of their fool heads the idea that Big Business is anything other than the enemy of social and cultural conservatives.
There's a bit of chat about Hungary, which I'm sure is a really nice place, but Dreher's whole schtick is just find another safer patch of ground to make a stand in.
Anyway, did you see that a Maryland judge has held a Catholic hospital liable for refusing to remove the healthy uterus of a woman who wanted to transition to pretending to be a man? So much for religious liberty. Eight years ago, shortly after Obergefell, a family policy scholar addressing a private meeting at which I was present said that for conservatives, the loss of traditional marriage is certainly a big deal, but not even close to the biggest deal. The worst would be if transgender ideology became mainstream. Why? we asked. Because, he said, our civilization is built on the gender binary in ways we don't even think about, because the natural fact of male and female has never been seriously questioned. If we lose the stable gender binary, he said, we will have removed the struts upholding civilization, and everything will fall apart. This man was a well-established academic, but he knew well enough then to insist that we not mention his name. He saw what was coming.

Seven years ago, when I began reporting for the book that became The Benedict Option, I spoke to a prominent Catholic physician who worked at a major, and quite prestigious, US medical facility. He told me (this is quoted in the book) that he would never encourage his children to follow their father's footsteps into medicine, because he could see that very soon, Christian doctors were going to have to choose between their medical licenses, or their consciences. In fact, he told me how strange it is to go to work in his large hospital, and talk to fellow Christian physicians, point out the insanity coming quickly down the pike, and to see that they were oblivious to the implications for their Christian consciences. They had compartmentalized the coming crisis away, because, apparently, they couldn't bear to imagine that they might have to suffer as physicians to defend the gospel truth.

It ends with a nice little niche carving noting that there's space between Trump loyalty and "Never Trump" idiocy.

@KristopherWells - You'd think a groomer who specializes in children under the age of 9 would be self-interested in maintaining the crops

University of Alberta faggot professor Kristopher Wells, whose preference for underage boys is just part of his sodomite identity, objects to the phrase "we must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children" for...reasons.

Also if we're talking about banners and posters emboldening people, the fudge packer who lobbied the government so that he could host secret private time with your sons in schools without your awareness or supervision has to top the list.

@KSI_been - Why do you want to deny more people their fundamental human rights?

Every American has the right to bear arms.

Don't get too excited about this, Yankees: every Canadian also has the right to bear arms. So does every Brit, every Romanian, every Slovakian, every Korean, every Somalian, every Norwegian, every Brazilian, every Mexican, every Iraqi, every Peruvian, and every New Zealander.

That's because firearms ownership, as a subset of property rights, belongs to every human being in every political jurisdiction from the moment of birth. The reason is because human rights such as gun ownership is universal, fundamental, and inalienable.

Canada's evil government depriving its citizens of that human right to own handguns and use them within our own private sphere for our own usage doesn't negate that right anymore than the freedom to exercise Christian funeral rites doesn't disappear just because a corrupt government in Saudi Arabia will throw you in jail for attempting it.

There are legislative barriers making it harder for the United States government to enact policies that would seize handguns, but even if they weren't there it wouldn't make doing so smart or good. It simply means that they did a better 18th century job at codifying of those human rights, it didn't create them in the same way that Shiny Pony banning legal handgun transfers (which won't bother most of us, we're already transferring them outside of his control) removed them.

They will always be there, ready for us to exercise those rights to defend ourselves against those who continue to try and take them from us.


@seamonsterCT - I thought "your mask protects me, my mask protects you" though?

Here's the thing, doc. I didn't wear the mask.

On a few small occasions during the Wuhan Flu pandemic I was in a situation where a mask was required, and there wasn't a way around it (like there was at, say, the liquor or grocery store), it did essentially nothing.

For one thing, I poked holes in all of my masks. Sometimes very large holes: at least my thumb could fit through every single one of them. That "did the trick" though. It didn't cover my nose either, and if you want the best bit every time while wearing the hole-filled mask where I coughed or sneezed I made zero effort whatsoever to cover my face. Did you much vaunted study examine the rates in a scenario where people aren't interested in complying with your Viro Fascist tendencies? I didn't think so. Ever notice that the real life data never lined up with the models and the lab studies? Did you ever ask why that was? I knew. That automatically makes me a better scientist than you'll ever be.

When will all you "experts" get it through your stupid heads: we will not comply because you're too stupid to tell us how to live. You deserve no respect and I will not rest until you understand your place.


Let's Talk about how faggots are all mentally ill

Editor's Note: This post was (obviously) intended to post for "Bell Let's Talk" in January of 2018 but got caught up in draft status: five years later is still faster than it took the New York Times to discover there were Presidential scandals from 2008-2016. Meanwhile this year remember Bell Let's Talk took place in the shadow of MAiD...

Bell Let's Talk Day is like a backwards version of Ramadan or Mad Magazine issues: every one comes later and later in the year.

The one thing anybody on social media notices is how many sodomites are promoting this cause. For some reason 'nobody' can fully fathom, those who choose an interior lifestyle choice have mental problems that manifest themselves in everything from anal sex to slitting your own jugular.

I usually make this point every year, what made this year different was I recalled that we finally have a counter-point: a Canadian pornstar who criticized trannies (the most mentally broken of all poofters) committed suicide in California after the intense backlash. The contrast is especially noteworthy when you remember that the lie pillow biters always use to explain away their prestigious self-immolation rate is that it's a result of 'bullying'.

But as everything from Lindsey Shepard to Feynman and Coulter's Love Child tells us, the victims of abuse and 'bullying' isn't those who make this horrible lifestyle choice as much as those who criticize or question -- even mildly -- the validity of their choice.

@acourtney365 - [citation required]

Bullshit. When on earth have niggers done half as much work, let alone twice as much work.


@MarthaLynneOwe1 had a shitty antifascist for a grandpa

Did he ever use the phrase "ANTIFA"?

Hell, did he ever actually describe himself as "antifascist" or did he merely think of himself as a veteran of a war against the Republic of Germany?

And, as always, can you explain why such a committed "antifascist" twice went past a fascist country and just waved and let it get on with its business?


@JohnnyLarue613 - You are an enemy collaborator and therefore are a valid target

Guys like Johnny are the reason I think last year's noble Freedom Convoy were far too nice.

They didn't honk loud enough. Johnny and his Ottawa pals are very anxious to make your life miserable, confident in the notion that we wouldn't make their life miserable in response.

For three glorious weeks in early 2022, they were disavowed of that notion. The only problem, as you can see, is they clung to it afterwards. We didn't break their spirits and continue to honk and "clog streets" until Johnny and every single Ottawa resident either capitulated or was buried in a shallow grave.

Justin and his pals have declared war on you. Don't ever let him play the part of the victim of unnecessary cruelty. It was (and remains) necessary.

Kaufman Institute for Coincidence

This is absolutely hilarious.


@livv_idd - Some of these "ancient sovereign entities" are newer than Rhode Island

As you should know by now, Red Indians don't have "historic rights" other than a bunch of rules which require them to stay on their specially set aside tracts of land. Archie's claim that Crown land has to be sold to Injuns first is complete bullshit and nowhere mentioned in the treaties.

Fortunately, superior white cultural learned how to make white paper and use it to discuss public policies and the pros and cons. Scott Moe is sufficiently non-squishy to utilize this wonder ability which white societies developed (and, relatedly, found this almost-empty continent and built civilizations on it).

In 1905, Saskatchewan was created out of a section of land owned by lazy Red Indians The Hudson's Bay Company. Woke losers might wish it wasn't, but it was.

Meanwhile as we've noted before these "ancient sovereign entities" is complete and utter bullshit. Nobody who was in Saskatchewan in 1491 was "indigenous" to it. Indeed one of Keen's "ancient entities" would presumably be the Métis who Red Indian activists insist need to be granted special rights even though literally by definition white people were here first.

Bell Let's Talk 2023

In a few days we're going to look back at some Bell Let's Talk classics, but this year what many have noted was that MAiD (which was still a thing in 2018, it didn't get much press including on this blog) is now a big thing not just for invalids with terminal cancer but anybody who just feels really really bad.

And since I've noted many a time before that the whole "focus on mental health" is just smokescreen for sodomites to try and validate the deep sense of dread they feel as they on some level understand that their lifestyle choice was wicked and it makes them an inferior person, it stands to reason that if MAiD really is a perfectly okay option to resolve mental health problems, why can't we just cut out the middleman and just have tens of thousands of people honestly divulging to the fags in their life that the two options are conversion therapy or self-removal?


@NathanWiley_ - Correct, the Confederate Flag is far superior to some uranist rag

It's absolutely disgusting to associate the flag of those proud that they chose an evil lifestyle choice over a national emblem of a nation of gentlemen who fell at the end of such a noble war that the victor demanded they be honoured at the war's conclusion.

Cash is King


@frenchdipset - Nobody (except possibly murderers) dies if abortion is banned

As you probably know, last summer the United States Supreme Court overturned the objectively horrible Roe v. Wade ruling, and leftsts like Madam Theis absolutely lost their minds over it.

You can tell by the hysterical blabbering. How are "real flesh-and-blood women" going to die as a result of no court imposed prohibition on State abortion bans? This is a common talking point as long as you realize it literally makes no sense.

At absolutely zero point has anybody opposed abortion in the event that continuing the pregnancy causes a likely risk to the mother's life. Part of the reason is practical: this straight up never happens. As Seth Dillon from the Babylon Bee pointed out, even if the pregnancy does endanger a woman's life in almost all cases the fetus is old enough that the odds of surviving birth are very high.

Let's for a moment replace the actual scenario on the ground -- huge numbers of evil governments making it easier to slaughter babies for the sake of sluts being inconvenienced -- with a happy situation that isn't happening but would be grand:  total, unequivocal, 100% planet-wide abortion ban. How many deaths will really happen in such a situation? Ten? Twelve? Eighteen? Nineteen?

Seeing as how abortion is currently murdering about a million people a year between Canada and the United States, it's unclear how the number of "real flesh and blood" people who die would not only increase but even maintain at the tiniest percentage of the current dearth rate.

It's also worth noting that in such a scenario every death is deserved and I'll cheer it on. After all, in a world where baby murder is outlawed then the only deaths are of the infamous "backalley abortion" cases. And there's no reason anybody with an ounce of horse sense should fret about that.

After all, deaths during "backalley abortions" are caused when scumbag skanks attempt to murder their babies. There's no question about this: she's trying to commit murder.

If one day you wake up and outside your bedroom window you see a violent criminal pistol whip your neighbour, point a handgun at your neighbour's face, and then pulls the trigger only for the gun to backfire and instead metal shrapnel flies into the criminal's skull and kills him, do you feel bad about this? Do you think anything other than some cosmic karma has just happened? He tried to commit murder in cold blood and while attempting it instead caused his own death. Just like a woman killed in a back-alley abortion, he got what he deserved.

It's worth noting, of course, that in such a scenario the shrapnel could also kill your neighbour, and while you would mourn the neighbour's death you still have to appreciate that the killer got what was coming it him. After all, if everything had gone the murderer's way it's not like your neighbour wouldn't be dead: you clearly didn't see it in time to intervene. In this worst case scenario you can mourn the death of the innocent victim, in the same way that whether she succeeds or not (and I presume most backalley abortions kill the baby regardless of whether or not the mother survives) doesn't change anything. The baby, like it or not, was going to die already. At least she won't be murdering any of her future babies.

What this scenario certainly doesn't impress upon you is that we should set public policy to protect murderers from themselves by legalizing murder. Sure if there was some proper gun inspector around, the murderer could have killed your neighbour safely. Yet that would be a horrible idea. Much like all good public policy, when you have an objectively horrible thing (like baby murder), the twin wolf-raised sons of Punishment and Deterrence work wonders. You want to raise the cost of murdering your baby and "if you succeed we'll arrest you and if you fail you might die" meets that pretty nicely.

Death penalty for attempting abortions? Now we're talking! Real bitchy pieces of shit with deplorable hopes and wicked dreams would die as a direct result of that ruling, and I would be the first in line to enjoy a popcorn and watch a trollop hang.


Behind every successful rapist stands Andrew Tate a host of caring women

Ella Whelan writes about the "shocking" and "mysterious" influence of Andrew Tate.

Schoolteachers in Britain are reportedly now asking for special resources on how to tackle the influence of Tate among pupils.

The Times Educational Supplement ran a feature this week on ‘How to respond to boys inspired by Andrew Tate’. It suggests that staff across schools are in need of professional-development training on how to challenge young men when they say things like ‘women should not fly planes’.

Parents are despairing, too. TV presenter Ulrika Jonsson has said she felt ‘sick’ after finding out that her son had watched Tate’s videos. But as with any teenage rebellion, all this pearl-clutching can surely only backfire – lending Tate even more notoriety and inadvertently encouraging young men to see him as transgressive and interesting.

Despite what many feminists seem to fear, Tate’s appeal says little about society’s view of women – after all, his views seem ‘edgy’ precisely because the vast majority of us do not approve of them. What’s more, there will no doubt be many young men enjoying Tate’s videos for their crassness and outrageousness, rather than sitting down and earnestly taking notes.

It reminds me, as so many things do, of something written by the late great Ted Byfield regarding pussified education curricula in 1989:
In the modern curriculum, however, every effort is being made to eliminate the competitive factor. Even academic contests are being taken away; such things as classroom tests are discouraged because they incite competition between the pupils. Field days in elementary schools are often so designed that no individual ever loses because losing is felt to be too disheartening. As for fist lighting, well that is absolutely forbidden. Fighting is "violence" and we all know how awful violence is. That's why stories of war, heroism and villainy are taken from the course of studies. They "encourage violence." Instead, boys are urged to be caring, sharing, loving, gentle, and nice. Yet the fact is the young male rather enjoys violence, and many are certainly prone to indulge in it. In the perfect university, says an Ontario feminist educator, there will be no football because the game is too expensive. However, she adds, there will be much interest in the girls' touch-football team. She means that if girls can't play the game, then the game should not be played. Similarly, what is meant by non-sexist education is feminine education. We teach little boys as though they are little girls, and we use women teachers to do it.

Then, having deprived boys of almost all significant adult male influence throughout the first twelve or fourteen years of their lives, having systematically thwarted most of their instinctive male inclinations, having given them nothing at all to feed their natural appetite for struggle, adventure, and risk, why should we be so surprised to suddenly find them responding with the kind of rage and fury that must seethe within the soul of a rapist? This surely, is exactly what we should have expected. It is no accident that something like four out of five disturbed children are boys.

Moreover, other warning signs were there. What does the little boy do when he leaves his namby-pamby classroom and arrives home? Answer: he watches rock videos which show women being beaten, mauled, and raped, reads comic books that celebrate sado-masochism, listens to music that pounds his hearing into insensibility, and sees movies which combine make-believe science with barbarian carnage and show females being dragged about by the hair. That is his entertainment. His instinctive appetites having been starved all day, are now fed with poison. Consider this, and you stop wondering why there is so much sex crime. You begin wondering why there isn't more.

@SmithHarobed - you live on white man's land and every day you should get on your knees in thanks

Some savage squaw got to be a lawyer thanks to affirmative action, and we're all supposed to be impressed. (Looks like she came close to being one of those MMIW though, she got pretty badly bloodied on her lower face, possibly during an attempted rape by a family member).

In response, Harold here wants to "acknowledge he lives on treaty land". He doesn't though, other than the really reductive and frankly useless sense of "somebody signed a treaty involving this patch of land once". Harold better not go to Europe, he'll never be able to even start a conversation as he rattles off all the treaties of where he happens to be standing.

I am grateful and acknowledge that I am standing on Armistice of Cherasco and Convention of Turin and Treaty of Paris and Treaty of Arganjuez and the other Treaty of Paris and Treaty of Stupingi and Treaty of Zurich and Treaty of Turin and the other Treaty of Turin and the other other Treaty of Turin and Treaty of Worms land. Thank you Queen Maria Theresa for your wisdom and grace.
-@SmithHarobed while visiting Cagliari, presumably

No, of course, Harold lives in Saskatchewan. Indeed, according to the treaty he is explicitly on white man's land. So is Aly Bear, of course. There's only one problem: she's in violation of said Treaty by being on white man's land.

The Cree and Saulteaux Tribes of Indians, and all other the Indians inhabiting the district hereinafter described and defined, do hereby cede, release, surrenderand yield up to the Government of the Dominion of Canada, for Her Majestythe Queen, and Her successors forever, all their rights, titles andprivileges whatsoever, to the lands included within the following limits

Those limits, by the way, don't include the steps of the Saskatchewan Legislative Building in Regina that you see Bear standing on in the original tweet.

While we're on the subject, Aly Bear is going to use this posting to "advocate" and foster dissent against His Majesty the King amongst the Red Indian population.

“I never thought about being a chief, but my dad’s been a chief, so I knew what it was about, and it made sense,” Bear says. She adds that using her legal training for advocacy purposes was also appropriate, given her reasons for getting into law in the first place.

“Working for a law firm, you sometimes must be careful about what you say when it comes to advocating, and you may not want to offend people in general or clients,” she says. “But as far as I am concerned, my people are dying, and if I can’t speak up for that, then I’m not in the right place. So being an FSIN chief allows me to do what I want.”

That again puts her in violation of Treaty 4 (emphasis mine)!

And the undersigned Chiefs and Headmen, on their own behalf and on behalf of all other Indians inhabiting the tract within ceded, do hereby solemnly promise and engage to strictly observe this treaty, and also to conduct and behave themselves as good and loyal subjects of Her Majesty the Queen. They promise and engage that they will, in all respects, obey and abide by the law, that they will maintain peace and good order between each other, and between themselves and other tribes of Indians and between themselves and others of Her Majesty's subjects, whether Indians, Half-breeds, or whites, now inhabiting or hereafter to inhabit any part of the said ceded tract; and that they will not molest the person or property of any inhabitant of such ceded tract, or the property of Her Majesty the Queen, or interfere with or trouble any person passing or travelling through the said tract, or any part thereof, and that they will assist the officers of Her Majesty in bringing to justice and punishment any Indian offending against the stipulations of this treaty, or infringing the laws in force in the country so ceded.

Harold should be happy he lives on white man's land. He should be outraged that nobody is putting this bitch in the prison she so richly deserves.