Sweden's herd immunity failure doesn't mean what they think it means

It's time for your shocking truth of the day.

The Guardian is lying. I know, I know, you're already trying to imagine which article we're talking about. Well, I guess I won't spoil the surprise.

Just 7.3% of Stockholm’s inhabitants had developed Covid-19 antibodies by the end of April, according to a study, raising concerns that the country’s light-touch approach to the coronavirus may not be helping it build up broad immunity.

The research by Sweden’s public health agency comes as Finland warned it would be risky to welcome Swedish tourists after figures suggested the country’s death rate per capita was the highest in Europe over the seven days to 19 May.

Sweden’s state epidemiologist, Anders Tegnell, said the antibodies figure was “a bit lower than we’d thought”, but added that it reflected the situation some weeks ago and he believed that by now “a little more than 20%” of the capital’s population had probably contracted the virus

However, the public health agency had previously said it expected about 25% to have been infected by 1 May and Tom Britton, a maths professor who helped develop its forecasting model, said the figure from the study was surprising.

“It means either the calculations made by the agency and myself are quite wrong, which is possible, but if that’s the case it’s surprising they are so wrong,” he told the newspaper Dagens Nyheter. “Or more people have been infected than developed antibodies.”

Björn Olsen, a professor of infectious medicine at Uppsala University, said herd immunity was a “dangerous and unrealistic” approach. “I think herd immunity is a long way off, if we ever reach it,” he told Reuters after the release of the antibody findings.

Tegnell has denied herd immunity is a goal in itself, saying Sweden aims instead to slow the spread of the virus enough for health services to cope. But he has also said countries that imposed strict lockdowns could be more vulnerable to a second wave of infections because a smaller percentage of their populations would be immune.
There's quite a bit in here to unpack. The first thing is that the lying leftists at The Guardian are still trying to trick and delude readers into misunderstanding both the British lockdown and the Swedish one. It's true that 7.3% of the population having antibodies is surprisingly low: but Jon Henley either doesn't know (because he's stupid) or is lying about (because he's evil) the fact that every single country is depending on their population developing antibodies. The lockdowns were to keep the hospitals from being overwhelmed. They were not to keep people at all from getting the virus: short of shutting everything down (including hospitals, grocery stores, and possibly utilities including internet and electricity) for 21 days and letting everybody with the Wuhan Flu either get over it or die lonely in their homes. Meanwhile Sweden locked down old age homes and the virus still ripped through them like Mike Morrison through the anus of the 12 year old boy next door.

Generally there are two possible things to takeaway from the antibody results: either the virus is so difficult for the general population to get that we'd all need to spit in each other's faces all day to spread this sucker, or that many people who get the Wuhan Flu don't develop antibodies for it.

The first option at first seems impossible with the nursing home situation, until you remember that those who are least at risk of getting the Wuhan Flu are also least likely to receive/transmit it. In other words, the current shutdowns are overkill but on the flip side "superspreader events" seem relatively rare and easy to predict. Preventing mass infections is therefore relatively easy: Toronto parks can be as full as people not named John Tory want and the community spread will be shockingly low. Large indoor events will have to be curtailed which is unfortunate, and air travel will be a giant pain in the ass for months or even years, but everything from bars to tattoo parlours can reopen relatively quickly.

The second option is scarier if you are in a high risk group and like to stay alive, but ultimately better for those who are in low risk groups and just want things to get back to normal. Not some mythical "new normal". Normal. Like...normal. If the Swedes really have been spreading the virus to each other en masse, which the death toll and number of symptomatic cases the would seem to indicate, then many of the asymptomatic cases are so asymptomatic that the body doesn't develop antibodies at all. This does not bode well for the "wait for vaccine" crowd: if the actual disease doesn't confer antibodies, then a vaccine will be highly unlikely to as well. At best, accurately testing a vaccine will be a huge challenge. Let's say that the 7.3% antibodies represent the correct share of the 25% that were assumed to have contracted the Wuhan Flu and that a vaccine would be as effective as the live virus at inducing antibody generation: that means that only 29.2% of the total population would develop antibodies when exposed to the virus, which means that 2/3rds of the potential vaccine trial patients would give false results. So much for rapid trials of vaccinations! The only remaining question is, of the 70.8% of the general population who don't develop antibodies, are they still likely to get COVID-19? If their body (apparently) fought it off once without antibodies, can it do it again? Indefinitely? Does it take multiple infections to develop them? Again though, the ultimate result of this is that the "wait for a cure/vaccine" strategy that Björn Olsen proposes is extremely long-term if not impossible.

There's a yuuuuge caveat there by the way, did you catch it? The 7.3% of people with antibodies isn't exactly the "general population": it excludes those who are active cases or deaths

One notes that Olsen, who is the Swedish media to-go critic for the Tegnell "first and second wave together" strategy, is plum out of options to push for in both scenarios. He's hungry for a lockdown, but the antibody study that he latched onto in order to bash Sweden's current strategy isn't exactly doing him any favours. One possibility completely negates the lockdown logic, the other severely batters it. Notice he's not being asked to defend the lockdown in lieu of this new concerning information.

Just another lie in The Guardian.

A fool and his woke tourism lifestyle are soon parted

Try to shed a small-ish tear for Rob Anderson.

He's the uranist proprietor of a restaurant in Provincetown, Massachusetts who has been impacted by the government shutdown. Writing a ridiculous article in The Atlantic he tries to tiptoe around the ludicrous Viro Fascists who cheer on government shutdowns.

My partner, Loic, and I are the owners of the Canteen, a casual sandwich-and-lobster-roll restaurant in Provincetown, Massachusetts, a vacation destination at the very tip of Cape Cod. We are grateful for our customers—flattered, even, that a diner might want our food badly enough to scale furniture for it. But now that our first summer with the coronavirus is at hand, I’m terrified.
Open up with talk about "my partner Loic", that's good...that's some good work there. Put their soothing minds at ease. You don't have to explicitly note that both of you are evil poofters, just let them put two and two together.
Known for its open-hearted embrace of outsiders and outcasts, especially the LGBTQ community, Provincetown isn’t the average beach destination.
And there's the second two for you to put together. See, we're just like you, we support disgusting lifestyle choices more than those other places you might be seeing on the news!
Cooped up in large towns and cities, many people heading into their third month of quarantine have been trying to decide whether they should visit their favorite summer destinations this year. My answer is an unsatisfying maybe. Instinctively, we want them to come; in fact, our livelihoods depend on them coming. Businesses like mine are the backbone of the cities and towns where we operate. As we prepare for the summer rush, we are struggling to find the line between helping and hurting our community, and we wonder how we’ll know if we cross it. And we are basing decisions on our own hunches—with little official guidance from authorities from which we could use a lot more help.
"Oh why oh why isn't the government helping us more by giving us guidelines?" Does this sound like the actions of a person who is at all "with it" mentally?
Three schools of thoughts have emerged. First is the salvage-our-summer crowd, who are worried most about the economic viability of our town. They aren’t a monolithic group, nor are they MAGA-flag-waving protesters insisting that they have a right to a salon dye job or 18 holes of golf.
So people who want to go to a salon or a golf course, by sly extension, aren't worried about the "economic viability of their towns"? This is the sort of irregular verbs The Atlantic is so famous for: when I want the economy reopened I'm talking about the economic viability of our town. When they want the economy reopened they "insist they have a right to a dye job".
Red hats are rare in Provincetown, where Hillary Clinton won 88 percent of the vote in 2016. The people pushing our town to reopen believe in science and know the virus is real.
Forgetting for a moment that it's 1000% true that people do have a right to visit a salon or a golf course, isn't it funny that right after talking about "oh our people aren't monolithic" this ass pirate turns around to imply that "the MAGA-flag-waving" folks he just finished besmirching are a monolithic group (that it's okay for you to sneer at).
The people pushing our town to reopen believe in science and know the virus is real. They include business owners who cannot survive without a year’s income and service workers who, in the best of times, live paycheck to paycheck.
Like, say, a salon owner? Also, as for your regular reminder: all those MAGA hat wearers also believe in science...that's why they support Conversion Therapy to cure your disease.
In summer towns, residents count on the income they make during the summer to pay their rent or mortgage for the entire year. Some of them are undocumented workers who can’t collect unemployment and aren’t receiving health-care benefits at all.
There you go Rob, back on point: bring up those poor undocumented workers. Wait, isn't it illegal to hire undocumented workers? I sure hope that social media is banning your article from the platforms on the basis that advocating for an illegal activity is harmful misinformation?
Second, there’s the shut-it-all-down contingent—those who have been calling for a complete ban on summer visitors this year. Many people in this camp are older or living with illnesses. Literally scared for their lives, they argue that making money this July and August will come at the cost of our community's health. And how many deaths are we willing to inflict to save our economy? Two? Twenty? Two hundred?
According to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, the GDP of Barnstable County (where this seaside town is located) had a GDP in 2018 of $14,344,348,000. That's $14B, and presuming that we stick to the (incorrect) $10M/life figure the EPA uses then you should be willing to inflict 1,434 deaths to save your town economy. I can't help notice that you capped it out at a much lower 200. Or even two. Well if you say two than why not one? I only ask because about a week ago a missing kayaker's dead body was found near your town. In 2017 there were 21 car accident deaths in your county as well: were you willing to inflect those deaths to save your precious little town? You apparently are concerned about 20, why not 21?
A third group—which includes me—hopes that, through the right set of rules and regulations, we can limit the spread of the virus while keeping our economy hobbling along.
Spoiler Alert: you can't.
The next day, Loic and I arose after a sleepless night to plot the future of our restaurant, determined never to repeat what had just happened.
Like the sodomy?
We would remove menu items, such as lobster rolls, geared mostly to the weekend crowds and instead push the grilled-cheese sandwiches and vegan grain bowls more popular with townies.
Nice work again nodding to ridiculous belief system of the typical The Atlantic reader: no more of that boo! wicked! innocent lobsters being murdered for (quelle horrors!) visitors), instead some nice vegan bowls for local food only folks!
Later that week, we set up a grocery store in what used to be our dining room, and allowed people to order those items online for delivery or curbside pickup. And we started offering free fruits and vegetables, cleaning supplies, and pantry staples to members of our community in need.
And yet, surprisingly, you're in financial troubles now.
Still, the limits of our power are all too obvious.
If there's anything a Viro Fascist hates, it's limits to their power.
After ordering food and eating it off premise, people have been leaving used cups, forks, and spoons on our grounds rather than throwing them away at home—forcing us to handle items that have been in people’s mouths.
For somebody who takes another man's cock up his ass, Rob Anderson sure got squeamish on us quickly didn't he? Dude, you're in the food services industry: your entire survival is predicated on the theory that you can wash germs off before touching things that ultimately make it into strangers' mouths. Try to put 19 seconds thought into how to make it work the other way.
Hire a bouncer, someone on Facebook chided me later. But margins in our industry are thin, especially now. And when a casual restaurant can’t sell sandwiches without protection from hired muscle, the real problem lies elsewhere.
Low margins, eh? Like you can't be just giving produce away, eh? I'm not in general sympathetic but despite stronger than average profitability, hair salons don't have great margins either. Golf courses have negative margins, so when this tinkerbell complains about people wanting to exercise their human rights bear in mind he's also calling for businesses on either end of his margins going under. Remember the small-ish tear I advised earlier? That's why. This sperm-bumper is quick to dismiss other people wanting to frequent businesses.
Often, when things have been at their worst here, our town’s police officers have walked by, seen what’s happening, and said and done nothing. On paper, of course, this doesn’t make any sense. How can we expect to run a business while also being the sole enforcers of measures meant to keep society safe?
Oh good, more cries for the state to get involved. Part of you wants to remind this useless piece of trash that nobody asked him to be "enforcers" to "keep society safe" in the first place. Try to make sure your staff doesn't get infected. Try to make sure your staff doesn't infect your customers. Understand that in the long run (ie longer than probably 8-12 months) you and every other person and business will ultimately fail at this. You didn't "fail" in any sort of grand mission to save the galaxy.
I run a restaurant in a seaside town. I’m not an epidemiologist or a fortune-teller. But as I’m forced to make what could be life-and-death decisions—with little official support or guidance—I’m left no choice but to pretend I am.
Almost like you're some sort of independent citizen in a functioning western civilized society who doesn't need to have any of these specialized skills in order to decide for himself (and his fellow ass pirate, I supposes) what to enact in his own personal sphere, and similarly what public policies to advocate for.

That's too much to expect from him though. Just another failed life choice. On second thought, I'll have a lobster roll elsewhere: extra lettuce. Hold the small-ish tear.

This looks familiar...

Rex Murphy: We now have two national crises, and Parliament has abdicated its responsibility.

Bold stuff. Sound familiar? it probably should.


The prime minister is not acting as a prime minister should, or should be allowed to. He has not the right to end the deliberative and accountability functions of Parliament.

Parliament is by far the most important institution in Canada: in this critical time in our history facing the worst economic collapse since the time Queen Victoria signed the British North America Act, we must meet. We must have the opportunity to debate and deliberate the unhitherto expenditures of money from the public purse. We must be able to, in full view of the public we serve, question and challenge the claims made by unelected advisors to the Minority Government.

The question is: Are we a country, or are we not? A country has a Parliament. It has representatives from every district in the country who meet and debate. It sounds national themes. It gives national responses. It cannot shrink to a two-month solo performance in front of a complacent handful of press, and the daily iteration of “we have your back.” That is not a country. It is a sideshow.

Canadians deserve to know that the decisions that are being made, many of which have larger or longer reaching impacts than any ever before made by the Federal Government, are not being made by a tiny cabal answerable only to a small number of the Members of this House who serve extremely narrow regional and ideological masters and instead are being made by a majority of Parliament who represent every person region and belief system within our shores.

Mr. Trudeau has been indoors in a cottage for 50 plus days. His morning standups under the Tent of Commons have passed the tedious stage, passed dreary, passed repetitive, clichéd and annoying. They are as useless as they are arrogant. And that’s a high bar on both. One person, even a PM, is not a government.
Trudeau is either scared of the House of Commons, or he has no regard for it. Perhaps it’s both.

It is wholly wicked and undemocratic to have Canada be led from the front porch of a building the vast majority of Canadians would be arrested for trying to visit, by a man who less than eight months ago failed to obtain the confidence of this House.

The minority in power has opened the sluices on the greatest spending binge in our history, at the precise moment our national economy is, perhaps since the Great Depression itself, at its most feeble, its weakest, its most precarious.

The greatest spending in the weakest economy, millions in emergency relief, businesses by the thousands almost certainly to fail. And somehow this paradox of a closed Commons during a woesome crisis wears on without a bleep.

Canadians deserve a full and frank accounting of what the Government of Canada will be doing, what goals we are aiming to accomplish, when and how we will know if we have succeeded or failed at them, and what information we know for certain and which information we are merely guessing or modelling.

Here’s the rule to follow: If you don’t want to be in the House of Commons, then resign from it. Imitate the military. Show some honour. This rule should apply to all 338.

Here’s the shorter version: Get back or get out.

Anyone who has been chosen to pay this bargain of a price and still rejects the bill is free to abandon this duty forever: but they should be forevermore banished from this House and the sacred mission it has to play in the days ahead.

The lockdown conundrum

Over at the National Post these "experts" we're supposed to listen to are asking why we're doing everything wrong (when, you know, we followed the experts).

The topics they discuss should be familiar to you:

Now we face the unintended consequences: delays in medical care for non-COVID-19 patients, educational impacts, the looming pandemic of mental-health issues, and massive economic repercussions. Widespread restrictions certainly cannot be sustained until an effective and safe vaccine is widely available, which may not occur for years, if ever. And the virus is unlikely to disappear from Canada or the world any time soon.
That's what I said

It is important to point out that more than 95 per cent of COVID-19 deaths occurred in those over 60, compared with none under age 20. Protection of the former group deserves the most attention; this will be easier if limited resources are diverted from other, low-risk groups.
Limited resources means you can't save everyone? I said that on March 6th.

In Canada, the individual rate of death from COVID-19 for people under 65 years of age is six per million people, or 0.0006 per cent. This is roughly equivalent to the risk of dying from a motor vehicle accident during the same time period. In other countries where data are available, 0.6-2.6 per cent of deaths in people below age 65 have occurred in people without known underlying health conditions. Although the risk of death is small in this group, ongoing research to discover the critical risk factors for death from COVID-19 in younger age groups must remain a top priority. This will permit us to better protect those at risk, while loosening restrictions for the majority.
Almost like we need a Pox Party?

It is unlikely that zero infections can be achieved for COVID-19, which fundamentally spreads like influenza or the common cold, including from those without symptoms. The virus causes disease so mild in many people that it can circulate without detection, until it is introduced into a vulnerable population. While some advocate waiting for a vaccine, that would mean continuation of a lockdown for an unknown period of time. This approach ignores how complicated and difficult vaccine development can be. It is entirely possible that in two years we will still not have a vaccine, and very probable that a vaccine will not eliminate the virus entirely. Hence, we need to come to terms with the fact that we cannot eliminate this virus. At best, we can continue to slow its spread, and protect the frail and elderly.
The age of containment is over. Oh, wait, I said that, not them.

Okay look I could do the memory lane thing all day. When you have a total of four physician/professors who specialize in infectious diseases publishing an article about an infectious disease you would hope at least one paragraph doesn't just look like they read through Third Edge of the Sword for 3 hours and then just paraphrased what they saw. Well, fortunately, they do:
Governments now propose that we test and trace all contacts of identified cases of disease. As we embark on this stage, we will find cases that would previously have gone unnoticed. Ironically, the better our testing capacity and the more we look, the more we will find, making it appear that disease is worsening, when it isn’t. This is particularly problematic as restrictions are being lifted. Should we automatically reinstate restrictions when the number of cases increases? No.
That's actually an incredibly insightful point: as we get to (and well past!) where the lockdowns should have ended, we're getting additional testing capacity (in Alberta at least, other provinces results may vary) which will make it look like the number of cases is increasing, in reality we're just catching the milder cases that were explicitly forbidden from getting the tests a month ago. Unfortunately, squeamish governments have decided to re-instate shutdowns if the number of cases rises: that their own policies are the reason for this either never occurs to them or they are deliberately going to blame the citizenry in order to hold onto their power.
Instead we should use local hospital capacity as the guiding principle, ensuring that all patients who need hospital or ICU care can get it. This is not going to be a one-size-fits-all solution: what happens in an urban centre is different from what happens in smaller cities or rural areas of Canada.
Well okay not the whole paragraph. The problem, as I noted in March, is that governments weren't very interested in providing that information. Reporters have been trying in vain to get numbers out of Ohio and Kentucky. Canadian provinces, already well beyond their capacity despite heavy rationing, have also been refusing to provide data about deaths and hospital capacity.

Also of note:
We need a tailored regional approach if the local hospital system gets strained. Germany, for example, chose a local threshold of 50 new cases per 100,000 population per week for when reinstitution of lockdown measures must be considered based on local capacity. The Ontario equivalent using the same threshold would be 7,300 new cases per week, or 1,043 per day. In contrast, Ontario has recommended a much lower provincewide threshold of 200 new community cases of infections per day as a threshold for action. This is based on an estimate of the ability of the system to accommodate the required contact tracing for every diagnosed case at the provincial level. The number of community cases should not be the metric of choice for relaxing restrictions as it is not a reflection of the more critical measure, hospital capacity. In addition, time spent on contact tracing is neither necessary nor feasible for all community cases, as it misses asymptomatic and covert transmission. Instead, testing and contact tracing should be focused mainly on hospitals and long-term care institutions, where the impacts of disease are the highest.

Okay now they're going back to paraphrasing me:
Accepting ongoing sustainable levels of transmission might be a healthier option in the long term. While the lockdown has decreased transmission of the virus in the short run, it has also prevented the development of population immunity in low-risk people. We should embrace the benefits of the development of immunity in a growing segment of the population. Right now, the only means of achieving this is by natural infection. Recent data suggests that the human body reacts no differently to this virus than to other respiratory viruses: it mounts immunity, and once achieved, the virus gets cleared and there is protection from future infection. Given the novelty of the virus we do not have long-term data, but we know from 2003 SARS that immunity may last up to 13 years. Once a vaccine is available that would be the preferred option. However, there is no guarantee of whether and when a vaccine will be available, or how effective it will be, to say nothing of how broad the uptake of it will be in the population.

Will this approach cost more deaths? Sweden, which allowed for more community transmission, is the measure of this strategy. More deaths per capita did occur than in Canada. On the positive side, Sweden’s number of new cases has peaked and Sweden will be better protected against future waves and the need for future restrictions. In the absence of a vaccine, it is a question of paying now or paying later. While the realistic goal of Canada’s lockdown was to delay deaths, it was never going to avoid them entirely. One year from now, Canada and Sweden may well have the same number of deaths per capita, but Canada may have had significantly more economic and social impacts.
Yep, me again. I'll let them have the last word though:
Canada needs a model that uses a hospital capacity-based approach to guide local lifting and reintroduction of more restrictive measures, as necessary. In the absence of hospital strain, consider continuing with a swift release of lockdown measures, to include opening of elementary schools, playgrounds, workplaces, stores and restaurants, while following basic physical distancing rules and voluntary limitations to social gatherings, while continuing to ban mass gatherings and protecting the elderly and those at highest risk.


Sadly Jeri Ryan isn't kidnapped and kept chained in the basement

Calm down, tranny

Dr. Theresa Tam described Canada as "a series of regional epidemics," with the hardest-hit provinces remaining Ontario and Quebec.

"Even within those jurisdictions, you need to hone in on certain areas," she said as she urged authorities to focus their efforts on hot spots and vulnerable areas such as long-term care homes.

Her assessment proved true on Thursday as various provinces experienced setbacks and successes in the fight against the virus.

New Brunswick's provincial legislature abruptly adjourned, a day after officials confirmed a health-care worker who had travelled outside New Brunswick was at the origin of a cluster that has grown to at least six cases in the Campbellton area.

Premier Blaine Higgs has said the health-care worker was in contact with "multiple patients" over a two-week period after returning to the province without self-isolating. The area, near the border with Quebec, will now have to return to tighter restrictions on physical distancing.
No. They. Don't.

This virus will spread. The question is if your health systems are overwhelmed. Provinces refuse to provide this information which means they aren't. Higgs can leave everything alone and the same number of New Brunswick residents will die.

June 2020, January 2021, what's the difference?

What do they think "stop or I'll shoot" means?

Perhaps you've heard the common libertarian refrain that taxation is theft. It's a pretty popular one, and this rundown at libertarianism.org covers the basis of it pretty effectively. What we're interested in here is:

Imagine that I hold you up at gunpoint and take $20 from you. I also leave one of my books behind in exchange. When you see me later without my gun, you call me a thief and demand your money back. “Oh no,” I say, “I am no thief, for I gave you something valuable in exchange. True, you never asked for the book, but it’s a good book, worth much more than $20.”

This reply on my part would be confused. It doesn’t matter that I gave you a good in exchange, and it doesn’t matter whether the book is really worth more than $20. What matters is that I took your money without your consent.

It also does not matter if you benefit greatly from the book.
Libertarians often bring up the "at gunpoint" angle and with good reason. There's another key principle of libertarianism: that the government uses violence to enforce its laws, including the taxation. Canada doesn't jail people for failure to pay taxes like the U.S. does, but you can see this matters not:
  1. I don't pay my taxes
  2. The government says I have to, and sends me a bill
  3. I ignore the bill, but take all my money out of electronic means and keep it in my house
  4. The government sends a bill collector to my house
  5. I refuse to let the bill collector in
  6. The bill collector comes with police officers with guns
  7. I still refuse to let the bill collector in
  8. The cops break down my door and if I try to stop them, they pull out their guns and shoot me
This is not particularly arguable: those who put more than 5 seconds of thought into this have to either themselves turn libertarian or justify the living hell out of it. So we agree that even on this matter, which is serious enough to cause you to be arrested and jailed in American but isn't even an imprisonable offence, the government decree is tantamount to force. As one Objectivist used to say, if you aren't willing to pistol whip a little old lady and then shoot her in the back of the neck for a government program, you can't justify it. Individual morality within libertarianism basically provides the spectrum where that axiom is believed to hold true. However if you break the law, as both a matter of fact and a matter of law than the government can and will use force up to and including shooting you in the head and killing you if you continue to break it and fail to comply with their actions to rectify the matter. You can make the moral case whether a specific law should or should not exist because of this fact, but suffice it to say if you agree that the law exists than you also agree this is what they get to do. This logic is absolute, unassailable, and completely airtight to any and all rational argument. Unfortunately, Donald Trump has publicly agreed with this sentiment. Therefore, in true Trump Derangement Syndrome fashion, everybody is now outraged that he would ever dare imply that such a concept exists.

Looting is illegal. People who loot are (in theory) confronted by the police who will arrest them. This involves pointing guns at them, and if they fail to comply, shooting them for the crime. So yes, as a factual and legal matter when the looting starts the shooting starts. Why is this news? And, as usual with Big Left Tech social media enforcers block the conservatives' "violent speech" while leaving the leftist speech on the same topic alone. FCC chairman Ajit Pai asked why the Iranian head of state is allowed to advocate for violence. Last year the Washinton Examiner noted that when violent leftists threatened Mitch McConnelll he was (deliberately) censored for posting proof of the threats against him.
As McConnell’s campaign manager later pointed out, Twitter had also just recently allowed the phrase #MassacreMitch to be displayed as “trending” — this phrase’s double-meaning is itself a violent threat — yet somehow it is against the rules to bring transparency to the violent threats that increasingly dangerous leftists bring to the door of an elected lawmaker.
Three years ago TownHall.com found plenty of tweets by leftists calling for the murder of numerous GOP officials. Joss Whedon, David Simon, and Everlast all promoted violence against Republicans without any censure from Big Left Tech. We've already seen that Trump causes leftists to lose what little rational thought they may have had. Just remember, TechDirt's Mike Masnick is still falsely claiming there's no bias on social media sites. I guess we can test it. Get somebody to show up at Masnick's house with a gun, beat the living shit out of him, and then hold him hostage and notify the police. Hold the gun directly in his mouth while the SWAT team shows up with snipers and all the rest. Get a leftist Twitter user to post "if this guy doesn't surrender the SWAT team should use lethal force" and then have somebody flag it for moderation. If the social media post is censured by Twitter, the hostage taker doesn't open fire and Masnick lives. If it isn't, then the SWAT team goes home and Masnick gets what the lying leftist deserves.

Another Toronto rapper shot: blame varmint guns in northern B.C.

Surprise surprise, New Zealand is getting a harsh lesson in what happens when the fundamental human right of the citizenry to own weapons in their own defense is stolen away by the state: the state has deprived you of your life and property and isn't very good at protecting the bit of it they leave you as scraps:

The figures, obtained from police under the Official Information Act, show the rates of gun crime went up in both 2018 and 2019.

Last year, there were 3540 occasions where an offender was found with a gun.

And in both of the last two years, the rate of deadly incidents involving a firearm was the highest it had been since 2009.

The number of guns seized by police is also on the rise, up almost 50 percent on five years earlier at 1263 last year.
On this side of the Pacific Rim, another black-on-black shooting in Toronto, this time right in the middle of (presumably dead) downtown.
TORONTO — Canadian rapper Houdini has died aged 21 after being fatally shot in Toronto.

The up-and-coming hip-hop star was gunned down on May 26 outside a hotel in the downtown area of the city, and later died from his injuries.

Houdini was one of Canada’s most streamed independent rappers last year, with 19.2 million plays on Spotify. He is best known for tracks including Late Nights, Myself, and Backseats.

Police say the wounded include a 15-year-old boy and a 27-year-old woman. Both are expected to recover.
Coming on the heels of Trudeau's ridiculous gun grab that takes a lot of hunting rifles from innocent farmers but somehow lets Toronto negroes pack heat in the middle of the city without so much as a hitch, this looks like only the anecdotal beginning of what New Zealand's own disgusting policies have wrought.
Toronto city councillor Joe Cressy, who represents the area where the shooting took place, expressed his disappointment on Twitter.

"Our vibrant downtown community shaken," Cressy wrote. “While Toronto Police Services investigates and our city’s crisis response team mobilizes to support those affected, collectively as a city we must all loudly reject this violence and work to stop it.”
The reason your "downtown community" is shaken is because fag-loving NDP extremists like you have been constantly pushing to make it more "vibrant" by which you mean non-white. Well this is what you get: tribal criminals constantly committing brazen murders in the middle of the city. This is exactly what Cressy wanted in his city. And he got it. Congrats, pal.

Bonus Toronto shooting coverage: You may have heard from CBC (in since-scrubbed-without-notice article) that the 15 year old boy was dead and the two adults were alive. As always, CBC is quick to rip on you for "fake news" without looking at the beam in their own eye.

Flashback: Over a decade ago I highlighted how the Big Smoke got more violent as it got less white


Edmonton City Parks

It's a virus, not a tornado.

Edmonton City Council is exercising their Viro Fascism by closing four locations that allegedly were used in a non-social-distancing manner. Sodomite loving coward Don Iveson could barely keep the glean out of his evil eye as he made the announcement.

This is disgusting government paternalism at its strongest. This is a parent taking away a kids' soccer ball because he keeps kicking it inside the house.

Actually, wait, sorry, my apologies. This is a parent taking away a kids' soccer ball because they watched a soccer riot in Brazil. It would be bad enough but at least tolerable if Mayor Coward had warned people that bylaw officers would pay special attention to those locations this weekend and fine people for noncompliance. This is insanity overkill on par with the shit we see over in bumfuck Ontario where Ford/Tory scream to the heavens that people are out in public parks.

This is less an issue in Edmonton, but in Toronto what the hell were they thinking? 4M people cooped up in tiny apartments (I'm reminded of my last couple Trawna hotel rooms) for months because the city (unlike many others) closed every park in town, then opened them back up in mid-May during a heat wave, and then complaining that too many people thought "hey I should finally go to the park"? Screw off.

Interim city manager Adam Laughlin said Thursday groups of more than 50 people have regularly been gathering at skateparks and basketball courts, especially at the locations that are being temporarily closed. He said the behaviour has resulted in the need for excessive enforcement after people ignored warnings.

“We permitted opening certain facilities on the basis of good guidelines provided by the province, which we interpret them as our rules,” he said. “The expectation is that individuals follow them and if they do not in this pandemic we will close facilities. It is on Edmontonians to make sure that they’re following these guidelines.”
So which is it? Viro Fascist Adam Laughlin claimed "it's on Edmontonians" but then rather than send enforcers to push the (nonsensical) social distancing rules he's instead closing the entire park.

Well, maybe this saves the Viro Fascist a little manpower to harrass people elsewhere. Nope.
While the closures are in effect, the city will be locking fences and putting up tape at the parks and courts. Laughlin said the city will be closely monitoring the sites for compliance.
Edmonton City Council is out of control. It's time for the non-social distanced mobs to show up at their houses:
Council will revisit the issue at next Thursday’s emergency advisory committee and discuss whether there is a need to close the sites again because of further non-compliance.
Disgusting paternalism at its strongest.

Toronto City Parks



A former RCMP officer weighs in.

True North, the think tank and online media organization I run, looked at the questions being asked of Trudeau and found that the CBC dominated these press conferences, being allowed to ask twice as many questions as any other outlet.

CBC journalists were granted 21% of the questions asked between March 13 and April 30. Meanwhile, independent online outlets like True North, Rebel News and Blacklock’s Reporter were blocked from asking a single question.

In a similar study, Blacklock’s found that of the 708 questions put to the Prime Minister, CBC asked 167 of them. CTV asked 90 questions, Global News asked 75, the Toronto Star asked 29, the National Post had 14 and the Sun papers only got 4 questions.

They were holding out for #ReleaseTheSnyderCut maybe?

Hey remember the Qatar Papers?

Anti-Propaganda News does, and is wondering why it is we haven't heard a peep about them lately.

Originally, we were told that the Qatar Papers would expose all of the poltical parties in Canada, except Maxime Bernier’s People’s Party of Canada, and that they would be released before the October 2019 election in Canada. It never happened, and Tom Quiggin has left a lot of us wondering if it was just another PsyOp. Now, it’s May, 2020, and Trudeau is destroying Canada. Where are the papers, Tom?

In fairness, Quiggin has been a little busy.

Media buttering Albertans up to demand we reject our most sacred principles

Far-left columnist Lisa Johnson of the Edmonton Journal is asking, almost salivating: COVID-19 has changed everything. Will it change Jason Kenney’s conservative Alberta?

One of the things to note, and Brendan O'Neill noted it about a month ago, is that the polls are probably not accurate reflections of the mood. People locked in under quarantine seem to be insane: how else do you figure that Justin blowing money left right and centre and Legault presiding over a historic Queerbec death roll are both hugely popular?

Kenney’s approval numbers could have been higher but were held back by the government’s handling of the health portfolio, ThinkHQ’s pollsters concluded.
This is exactly why conservative governments need to massively destroy public healthcare. No more government healthcare, no more insisting that government endlessly give it more money to continued lost outcomes.
Cheryl Oates, once press secretary to former premier Notley, said people expect governments to put their agenda aside and put acute needs first.
Oates, of course, isn't telling you that "government funding acute care" is neatly part of her extremist boss's...um, what's the word? Oh, right: agenda.

But this is how leftists like Oates and Rachel Arab work: their desires can never be "agendas". Thanks to pliant media whores like Lisa Johnson, they'll get massive platforms to keep spreading that sick agenda without a hint of opposition.

Fortunately there's a cure. My shadow budget was a start. The next step is deporting losers like Zain Velji to whatever shithole country we decide they are now residents of:
Zain Velji, a political strategist who has worked on left-wing political campaigns including for the provincial NDP, said while Kenney has been in relative lock-step with other provinces on his pandemic response, he has lost some points for leadership.

Sticking to the goals of restraining education and health funding while the public’s attention is on the COVID-19 crisis is one way Kenney’s leveraged this moment for his own political agenda, said Velji.
Meanwhile, count on that worthless bitch Rachel Arab to try to paint Alberta's failures under her destructive administration as a model to uphold:
“The rug was already starting to slip out from under Jason Kenney before the pandemic … The growing job losses, the failure to create jobs, the disinterest in diversification — all those things were already starting to pile up,” said Notley.

Kenney might make some reversals, but he’s still devoted to small-government conservatism, she said.

“Even though it appears as though they are capitulating, it turns out they’re just trying to get money from another pot,” said Notley. “If that means pulling money away from autistic kids in schools — so be it,” the opposition leader said referring to funding cuts for educational assistants. “If it means reducing (health care) services in rural communities — so be it.”
The NDP, remember, know nothing about economics. The money being blown on Wuhan Flu responses has to be saved elsewhere.

Kenney, meanwhile, is at least acknowledging the dangers of his overspending. Real Albertans respect this sort of thing. How the electorate treats him defines how many people we need to remove from Alberta by force.
When asked what exactly that means, Kenney said: “Well, it means we are racking up a whack of debt.” The province needs to get through the crisis, but when that’s over, it’s going to have to have a debate over how to deal with it. “I’m not sugarcoating it, I’m just saying this so Albertans are aware there’s some tough choices ahead.”

As always with the Fake News far-left media, they love that provincial sales tax (that steals money out of every Albertan's wallets):
Kenney was asked directly by Global News in early May if a sales tax was possible, long a taboo subject in Alberta, and he suggested it would be part of the debate to get finances under control. Other options could be deeper cuts or a combination of new taxes and cuts.

Derek, of course, is slyly pushing for #WEXIT. As you might guess, it's the real way that Alberta can pivot from the post-COVID world into a global powerhouse.
Derek Fildebrandt, a former Wildrose MLA, UCP member, Freedom Conservative Party founder and now-publisher of right-leaning online magazine, the Western Standard, said while there is always a threat on the right, “it’s always a manageable threat if the mainstream Tory party of the day is willing to tack in that direction.”

A big part of containing that threat today will depend on what recommendations come out of the Fair Deal Panel. The government’s response will be a big indicator of how far Kenney is willing to go to keep those factions animated by western alienation on his side, said Fildebrandt.



Are politicians essential?

No, I'm not asking that question in order to provoke laughter or things being hurled in anger across the room. It's because the question about maintaining Parliament in the age of the Wuhan Flu seems to be a partisan issue in Canada despite all the people in charge agreeing about that opening question. Indeed, the "essential workers" have just refused to do their jobs for the entire summer. In the middle of a crisis.

Joanna Williams tackles this in the United Kingdom context:

‘It is vital that when we are asking other people to work, and go to their places of work if they cannot do so from home, we should not be the ones who are exempt from that… it is essential that we move back to physical ways of working as quickly as possible… Parliament must set an example of how we move back gradually to a fully functioning country again. Our constituents would expect nothing less… How can we say to our schoolchildren, you’re safe going back, some of them, but we’re not? We’re going to hide away. Is that the right message to give to our constituents?’
Who is this champion of class equality? Is it Jess Phillips the self-styled gobby working-class MP for Birmingham Yardley? Or the more likeable Lisa Nandy, whose pitch for Labour leader focused on reconnecting the Labour Party with its erstwhile working-class voters? Of course not. It was the caricature of posh privilege: Jacob Rees-Mogg.

Rees-Mogg’s words were not well received. His speech was shut down by Commons speaker Lindsay Hoyle, who then threatened to suspend parliament altogether if physical distancing rules were breached in the Commons chamber: ‘My priority, and the priority for all, I am sure, is to make sure that those on the estate are safe while business is facilitated.’
Rees-Mogg is close to the mark, but he unfortunately didn't hit it cleanly.

Neither, for even fewer reasons of politeness, did Andrew Scheer. Scheer also had to endure a poorly received push to re-open the Canadian Parliament.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau signaled that the Liberal government would prefer to continue with the emergency proceedings that have been adopted for the past three weeks — two virtual sittings and one in-person sitting each week of a special COVID-19 committee, on which all MPs are members. He left the door open to additional weekly virtual sittings.

But for that to happen, the minority Liberals will need the support of at least one of the main opposition parties.

Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer reiterated Tuesday his party's position that more in-person sittings are necessary, along with a restoration of some of Parliament's powers.

He said the existing thrice-weekly meetings of the modified Commons and the smattering of other committees meeting virtually aren't enough. Among other things, he said the current setup doesn't allow MPs to compel the government to produce documents or to get witnesses to testify.

"This is not a partisan issue, this is about whether or not a democratic country like Canada should have a functional Parliament," Scheer said.

"If members of the Bloc, or the NDP, or the Liberal backbench don't believe that Parliament is an essential service, they should consider why they ran for office in the first place."
The Bloc has been partially receptive. However just like in jolly ol' England the "supporters of the common worker" don't seem interested in giving those workers some good bang for the buck they spend on their elected representatives.
NDP House leader Peter Julian said a return to normal parliamentary proceedings is not in the cards.

"The reality is, we can't have 338 MPs flying to Ottawa next Monday. That would not make sense," he said in an interview.

"What it does is it increases the chances that we're vectors of the virus and we're a long way from being out of the woods in terms of COVID-19."

The NDP believes it has won some major improvements to emergency aid legislation through the current proceedings and intends to keep pushing to close some of the gaps that have left some Canadians without aid, Julian said.

He wants to see the Commons transition over the next few weeks to becoming fully functional using a hybrid model, in which some MPs are in the chamber and others participate virtually. But that will first require working out how to allow MPs to vote electronically, something Julian suggested could be done by June 21.
The problem is that the Andrew Scheers and the Jacob Rees-Moggs of the world aren't looking at this the right way and aren't addressing this matter in the correct fashion. When morons like Peter Julian start spewing their nonsense you throw it back in their face. If Peter Julian isn't required in the House of Commons than he isn't required period. Fire the son of a bitch. I don't mean he resigns his seat ("considers why he ran for office" in the Scheer formulation) and New Westminster-Burnaby holds a byelection to get a new (NDP) candidate: I mean he's no longer got a seat, and New Westminster-Burnaby never again gets or apparently needs a Member of Parliament. After all, the conceit is that the risk is just too-high to let Parliamentarians go into the building...however at the same time we also entertain the conceit that being an MP is an essential service. Julian seems to think it isn't, and he's wrong.

What we need is a leader like Maxime Bernier on steroids who can turn this around on them and say this:
Parliament must be reopened immediately. All 338 Members of Parliament should be encouraged to attend in the same way that in May of 2019 we also encouraged Members to attend this House. This House of Commons is just that: the free people of Canada electing those to represent them. Parliament started in 1341 and for centuries afterwards Members of the House of Commons fought hard -- at the risk of their own lives -- to ensure that Parliament had more and more power and therefore more and more political power was held by the people themselves. We had a rocky beginning: in 1376 Sir Mare was imprisoned for making what the King thought was "non-essential" pushes for more power and respect for Parliament. Under many sovereigns Parliament was not called upon at all except to rubber stamp spending bills. This however was not sufficient for our Roundhead Parliamentary ancestors who kicked off a decade-long Civil War in 1642 that, combined with the 1688 Glorious Revolution, forever established that Parliament was the basis of our democracy.

I call on all Members to be mindful of that heritage, of the blood spilled by our forebears to preserve Parliament. Today is no different: though we do not fear that the Cavaliers loyal to the House of Trudeau will execute MPs from Corner Brook to Coquitlam, we do have to fear a chance -- minimal, but existent -- of being infected by COVID-19. However much like in 1642, the risk to the country of having nothing more than a rubber stamping Short Parliament is surely worth minimal risk of life to a mere 338 Canadians: our country lost ten times that many people to a single battle in April 1917. That single battle was itself in service of a higher cause ultimately less vital to our Dominion than a strong Parliament is in 2020. Jumping over a trench in the Great War was a lot more risky than sitting in our chamber could ever be! We should never lose sight of the undeniable fact, a fact being denied by several Honourable Ministers and their so-called scientific advisors, that being in the same room as a COVID carrier does not automatically confer infection. Furthermore, infection does not automatically confer symptoms. Symptoms meanwhile do not automatically confer hospitalization, and hospitalization does not mean a death sentence. To claim otherwise is to lie, and deceive Canadians, and that is precisely why Parliament must resume: such deceit withers in the disinfecting ultraviolet light which is the debating of our cherished democratic system.

The other Members of this House have done well personally as a result of their election into this grand chamber: they receive a salary that is the envy of all but a small proportion of Canadians with pensions and benefits to match. They are ferried across the country at the taxpayer expense, are honoured by law societies and media outlets and charitable foundations. Their names are forever blazed in the history books of our great nation, their every utterance is given a weight far greater than any of the citizens they are here to represent. Upon leaving this chamber they can move onto profitable endeavours in industry or media or elsewhere in government. Even in the wake of this global pandemic they have continued to have freedom of movement many other Canadians have had to do without. Unlike so many Canadians impacted by government policies they continue to draw their salary even as their workload diminishes. It is now time to give back to the people of Canada who elected them.

Parliament is more important than mere parliamentarians. If Members of Parliament from the Prime Minister to the newest backbencher to the Speaker are to be considered 'essential' to the operations of Canada in the same manner as nurses or grocery clerks, then we must be willing to perform to the same standard. Every caregiver who walks into a hospital may get infected and die: but we all understand that risk has to be taken because otherwise this essential service so vital to Canadian life will not be performed. Every employee at your local grocery chain or convenience store is at a risk of contracting this illness: we don't make ludicrous claims that the customer coming in to buy the food they need to survive "killed them" and justify shutting everything down. We can take reasonable precautions but at the end of the day my message to every Member of Parliament is that your job is essential. For years we have used vehicles with wheels and wings to travel around understanding that the risk was worth the reward, this is more public a risk and a more possible outcome, but it remains true that the calling of our higher mission supercedes any selfish interest in our own personal safety and comfort.

Parliament is by far the most important institution in Canada: in this critical time in our history facing the worst economic collapse since the time Queen Victoria signed the British North America Act, we must meet. We must have the opportunity to debate and deliberate the unhitherto expenditures of money from the public purse. We must be able to, in full view of the public we serve, question and challenge the claims made by unelected advisors to the Minority Government. Canadians deserve a full and frank accounting of what the Government of Canada will be doing, what goals we are aiming to accomplish, when and how we will know if we have succeeded or failed at them, and what information we know for certain and which information we are merely guessing or modelling. Perhaps even more importantly Canadians deserve to know that the decisions that are being made, many of which have larger or longer reaching impacts than any ever before made by the Federal Government, are not being made by a tiny cabal answerable only to a small number of the Members of this House who serve extremely narrow regional and ideological masters and instead are being made by a majority of Parliament who represent every person region and belief system within our shores.

It is wholly wicked and undemocratic to have Canada be led from the front porch of a building the vast majority of Canadians would be arrested for trying to visit, by a man who less than eight months ago failed to obtain the confidence of this House. We are not a technocracy where unelected experts of narrow fringe research are directed to set public policy, nor are we to be governed by snapshot polling without a true public realm free from the manipulations of Big Tech and Big Government in a distorted marketplace of ideas. King Charles' policies were generally popular as well, but that didn't make his eleven years of tyranny any less dangerous, and we have no wish to have to fight the 9 year bloody real world war that resulted. This destructive course of action could easily tear the country apart.

Throughout history Parliament has been a place of meeting: the concept of people forming together is the perfect distillation of our democratic system. If we do not have regular in-person meetings of the Commoners' Representatives than we are no longer a country nor do we deserve to be. The price to save the nation is a statistical blip on the ever-present possibility that any of us at any time for any reason be taken away from this earth. Anyone who has been chosen to pay this bargain of a price and still rejects the bill is free to abandon this duty forever: but they should be forevermore banished from this House and the sacred mission it has to play in the days ahead.


Detroit is technically north of Windsor. Is that why they're confused?

The Wuhan Flu means drug traffickers have stockpiles they can't get rid of before getting caught.

But the NBC story caught my eye for another reason:

The recent busts haven't been confined to stacks of cash. Along the northern border, federal officers have confiscated large quantities of drugs over the past few months.

From March 21 to May 16, border patrol officers working out of the Detroit field office have seized 2,856 pounds of marijuana, 87 pounds of cocaine, 12 pounds of fentanyl and 12 guns.

“We are definitely seeing an uptick,” said Kris Grogan, spokesman for U.S. Customs and Border Protection in Detroit.
Wait, so people are smuggling guns into the U.S. from Canada?

Has Bill Blair been notified?


If it wasn't for false equivalence the media wouldn't have any equivalence at all

Donald Trump has done it again.

Conservatives have often wondered "what do we have to do in order to get fair media treatment for our comments on race/religion/sex/sodomitic lifestyle choices?"

The answer: run against Joe Biden.

See? Once Biden is in hot water at the same time, your remarks get downgraded into a false equivalence into being "perceived as racist". [for those keeping score, when a remark is 'racist' that's a crime committed by the speaker...a remark 'perceived as racist' is a crime committed by you, the listener. -ed]

Joe Biden, of course is wrong. "Charlamagne tha God" (ie. Lenard McKelvey, unlike trannies apparently he can't be 'deadnamed') is allowed to be black and not choose Democrat in November 2020. Charlamagne tha God is absolutely black: if you didn't doubt it, he has a negro's lack of sense regarding deadline times...

About 20 minutes into the interview, an aide to Biden can be heard trying to wrap up, saying, "Thank you so much. That's really our time. I apologize."

"You can't do that to black media!" Charlamagne replied, smiling.

White taxpayers have personally protected them enough


OTTAWA — Indigenous health authorities that service Western Canadian First Nations say they are experiencing problems accessing enough medical and protective equipment needed to protect their citizens from COVID-19.

Senior representatives from regional First Nations health authorities in Saskatchewan and British Columbia told a Commons committee Friday they need more personal protective equipment.

"We have delays in accessing PPE," said Tara Campbell, executive director of the Northern Inter-Tribal Health Authority in Saskatchewan.

"On-reserve populations' PPE in Saskatchewan are distributed by the province and unfulfilled requests are then forward to the national emergency stockpile."

She also said medical supplies such as thermometers and testing supplies are not readily available and that nursing capacity "remains a critical issue."
Absolutely not.

First off, why are the good people of Saskatchewan still wasting money on these people? We've already discovered that they want to ignore the white man laws that governments are so anxious to force upon the rest of us. To use the parlance of the Viro Fascist Toronto public health official, if they're going to be this selfish than they have no right to PPE provided by social distancing taxpayers.

Then, to add insult to injury, the same lazy Indians who want special powers also want those funded as well.
Bellau also noted a rising dispute in B.C. about what level of government — federal, provincial or Indigenous — should pay the increased costs being incurred by First Nations that have hired security personnel to block or limit access to their communities to prevent outbreaks COVID-19.

"(Indigenous Services Canada) cannot rely on First Nations utilizing our own resource revenue as a means of protecting our communities," she said.
You don't have resource revenue. You have money given to you hand over fist by Canadian taxpayers.

And this is a great time to cut you off.


Old and busted: muzzling government scientists. New hotness: muzzling scientists who don't even work for you

Hey remember when everybody was mad about the Right Honourable Stephen Harper (pbuh) "muzzling" scientists? Nobody milked this non-story more than the Shiny Pony himself, a prime example of how the idiot masquerading as a Prime Minister doesn't understand how government works.

I was wondering recently if any scientists in the government's employ disagreed at any point with the decisions being made by Dr. Tam and his cronies. Why hadn't we heard from them? Were they proposing courses of action that the government chose not to take and just deciding to remain quiet? I thought Justin had un-muzzled them...(well, more or less).

I guess I should have mused aloud on here, that way I would have been demonstrated as forward thinking (always more useful than merely being forward thinking.

Trudeau is not only (apparently) muzzling his own scientists, he's also muzzling scientists he's giving money to.

Amir Attaran is a far-left piece of shit who teaches lies to impressionable children at the University of Ottawa. He's also, one should note, not one of the government advisors who would have been "muzzled" under the Right Honourable Stephen Harper (pbuh). He doesn't work for the federal government other than receive grant money. Or rather, he was until he criticized the Little Potato's handling of the Wuhan Flu:

At a House of Commons health committee on Wednesday, professor Amir Attaran of the University of Ottawa’s School of Epidemiology disclosed he was blacklisted from a grant application by Public Health during a routine hearing, according to Blacklock’s Reporter.

Conservative MP Tamara Jansen told Prof. Attaran that nobody has been able to give her a grade on the Public Health Agency management’s response to the pandemic.

“I’ve actually been hearing of some backlash by the agency to those who are vocally critical of their response to the pandemic,” Jansen said to Attaran. “Are you willing to give me a grade? Or could that disadvantage you in your work in some way?”

Attaran answered by giving the agency “a C- or a D” and affirmed that there was retaliation.

“Since the last time I appeared in front of this committee and I was negative about some of those efforts, I was asked to join a grant application with people from the Public Health Agency of Canada and I understand they said they wouldn’t participate unless I stood off of it, which I did, willingly, because I didn’t want to cause trouble for my colleagues,” Attaran said.
The final kicker?
New Democrat MP Don Davies was “shocked” to hear about the alleged intimidation.
Don't you understand how your own side works, Comrade?


But which one do we kill?


At least COVID doesn't kill you while playing shitty rap music

It's a good thing some farmer in Alberta is losing his hunting rifle.

Otherwise violent niggers in the GTA would get their hands on handguns...oh...wait...

"Divine Right" on NuTrek and why woke feminazis ruin male-dominated SciFi franchises

If you've been in conservative Star Trek circles lately you may have seen Guillaume Durocher's comparison of Star Trek: The Next Generation with modern TV and films in general from a conservative Jewish perspective.

As an inspiration, commenter "Divine Right" wrote this missive on the state of modern "nuTrek" and how it compares negatively to yesteryear. It raises a lot of points and contentions: some valid and others less so, but ties it all fairly nicely into how the pussification of society has decimated the sort of things that (mostly male) sci-fi fans are into.

Star Trek very much embodied what liberal American white males of the 1980s and 1990s thought the future would (or should) look like: secular, sexually liberated, humanistic, meritocratic, equitable, and technological – a man’s world, basically. In this world, religion plays practically no role in public life. Problems are solved with diplomacy instead of violence. Money doesn’t exist, so there is no capitalism, greed, or want. People spend their lives bettering humanity and doing other such noble things like negotiating peace with aliens or exploring the universe in one of Starfleet’s advanced starships, each equipped with a plethora of miraculous technologies. In their leisure time, the crews of these starships visit a holographic room, the holodeck, which can conjure any fantasy into a photorealistic facsimile of the real thing.
No argument here except to note that even with this, we have to make a slight distinction. When Gene Roddenberry started out in the 60s he still envisioned an equitably humanistic and meritocratic system with technology (mostly) helping us achieve our dreams, yes. However we also have to consider that a lot of the other stuff was shoehorned in between TOS and TNG with varying degrees of sensibility. Making it more secular wasn't in-and-of-itself that crazy: organized Christian religion was part of the Federation makeup between 1966-1969 but it wasn't huge. Consider it more early post-Christian Europe: many of the beliefs and cultural underpinnings were still there. Uhura explicitly referred to Jesus as the Son of God (the crew assumed space!Roman primitives on a planet were pagan "sun" worshippers when they instead were "son" worshippers), Kirk held a Christmas party on the Enterprise, and the ship had a chapel (and a Chapel). It's not like we expected the entire cast to show up for church every 7th stardate, but you could envision at least some of the crew (Riley for sure, Uhura/Chekov/Chapel most likely, Scotty/McCoy/M'benga possibly as wel) would be church-y folks. Kirk and Spock not so much (unrelated to the Jewishness of the actors) and I believe Sulu was referred to in dialogue at one point as a Confucianist (though the debate about whether that's even a religion likely still hasn't been settled by 2275). Still it wasn't until TNG when the Federation became aggressively secular and aggressively noncapitalist (and technology became even more critical to the role). Neither point particularly impacts the thesis (90s liberal values morphing from 60s liberal values is partially related, though it's worth noting that mainstream liberal centrists mostly stayed still while influencers like Roddenberry are the ones who moved).
Probably the only place in the Western world where this mentality can still be found is California’s Silicon Valley. As in the fictional world of Star Trek, men do most of the work; they advance through meritocracy; and there is something akin to a fraternal culture, irrespective of the prevailing progressive ideology. Silicon Valley is also still largely free of the odious diversity requirements imposed on the rest of society.

That was also once true of Hollywood itself, and it showed in the television they produced — Star Trek, for example. That franchise, spanning hundreds of television hours and a number of theatrical releases, was mostly helmed by men who got their jobs through merit – actors, writers, ship designers, show runners. The main characters of each of the television series were also men. The Original Series (TOS) featured a lead triangle of male actors – Kelley, Shatner, and Nemoy. The sequel, The Next Generation (TNG), featured mostly male characters, certainly all the most popular ones. These characters often featured something educated men are interested in: the second officer is an android; the chief engineer has a technology-supplemented vision; the executive officer is a ladies man and a master strategist who plays games of skill underpinned by mathematical rules; the captain is a wise and cultured authority figure who reads Shakespeare; the security chief is a noble warrior from an alien species whose culture is based around rules of honor.

Spinoffs like Deep Space Nine (DS9) and Voyager were more diverse, but still roughly comported to what the male audience desired. DS9 featured a male captain, and the most popular characters were all men. Voyager had a female captain who mostly avoided gender politics outside of a few instances in the earlier seasons (written by a woman) – a rarity these days. In that show, one of the two most popular characters was a male and the other was a sexy Borg chick, Seven of Nine.

The high point of the franchise, The Next Generation, featured a mostly white liberal cast and various things white liberals liked at the time – sex appeal, food, pseudointellectualism (although handled capably by talented male writers), cutting edge tech, meritocracy, optimism, exploration, and the white man’s moralism.

Starfleet, the Federation’s military and scientific branch, was a rigorous meritocracy, just as Silicon Valley is today. Members were admitted only through a combination of senior officer recommendations, high scholastic achievement, and phenomenally high standardized test scores. Character was also paramount. Crew evaluations feature prominently in several episodes of TNG, and it was made clear to underperforming members that the starship Enterprise cuts a standard above the rest; perform or hit the road.
The only questionable line in this bit is that DS9's most popular characters were all men: Kira was relatively popular because she eschewed the traditional role "helper jobs" like doctor or counsellor and instead was a rough and tumble terrorist: the bad girl tomboy that just needed a man to tame her. That alone spoke to the tendency (that's even more pronounced today) that to be a "strong female" character you needed to act more like a man. A strong female character couldn't be just a wife and mother like a Wilma Flintstone or a Kitty Forman: she had to be Salt or Aeon Flux. She couldn't even be a Dr. Quinn: her femininity is only expressed by her embrace of disgusting sapphic perversions (more on that to come).
In the diverse world of Star Trek, the white writers imagined meritocracy would ensure whites like themselves would still have a position at the top of society (just as in Hollywood then and Silicon Valley now) despite soon becoming a minority in real life America. You’ll notice progressive humans are at the center of the Federation in Star Trek despite being a small minority in that fictional universe as well. That’s by design, conscious or not.

You can tell the creators desperately wanted to believe this sweet little lie about diverse societies. I’m sure they imagined their tolerance would be reciprocated when they were on the receiving end; we now know that’s not true, unfortunately. Remember, this was the generation that famously cheered President Bill Clinton’s college commencement speech where he lauded the idea of America soon becoming majority minority. The primarily white crowd roared in approval.

In this imagined future, white liberals would still get to feel morally superior to contemporary white conservatives, just as they often strive to in today’s world. In TNG, this is accomplished through various means – cooperation with hostile aliens (demonstrating philosophical supremacy, superiority of intellect and temperament), bravery, tolerance of differences in others, multiculturalism (the show almost never celebrates an earth holiday like Christmas but often supports alien cultures, including breaking Starfleet’s rules of dress for aliens), standing up to corrupt superiors (usually white conservative caricatures).

In the TNG episode The Drumhead, Picard faces down a witch hunting admiral — a woman, no less. The plot revolves around an incident that occurred on the starship Enterprise. Sabotage is suspected, and the situation is tense. The initial evidence points to a low ranking crewman who is later discovered to be of mixed race, one-quarter of the Federation’s most feared enemy. This all but convicts him in the eyes of the admiral’s tribunal. The admiral mercilessly presses her case, threatening to destroy anyone who gets in her way. She’s meant to be a caricature of conservative jingoists of the era – always scared of the Russians, racist against minorities, emotional. In Hollywood’s view of history, those were the people behind the McCarthy hearings, which this episode obviously pulls from.
As always of course, the Hollywood depiction of the McCarthy era always covers up the dirty little secret that liberals really were guilty.
Toward the end of the episode, Captain Picard confronts his antagonist and gives a fine speech about principle, temperament, and morality in the process. The admiral is defeated when a fellow admiral, a black male character, stands up and walks out in disgust at her actions.

This is one of the reasons why fans liked the character of Jean-Luc Picard: he was a decent, honorable man despite not being perfect himself. He had a code he lived by, and he led by example. Men like that sort of thing. Star Trek Picard, in contrast, portrays him as a bumbling moron who is always wrong and continually berated by female underlings. His view of the world is portrayed as naive or just wrong, requiring strong SJW women to take it to the enemy themselves, often employing violence – including rank murder and sadistic violence.

In another episode of TNG, white male commander Riker stands up to his white male superior — an admiral — who wishes to break the terms of a peace treaty to gain a military edge over a mortal enemy. Riker prevents him from doing so and exposes the dastardly plot. Moral of the story: principle trumps Machiavellianism.

Star Trek was very much a pre-Millennial liberal morality play whereby inspired characters (mostly white) would often stand up to authority figures (mostly white) in order to promote a general moral code — a greater authority — among fellow whites.
If you look carefully you may notice that two very distinct concepts are sort of being meshed together in the above passage. Both are correct but both need to be separated. The first is the thing that men enjoy from their fictional characters: men who both represent authority but also confront authority when it's wrong. These at first seem like two disparate paths but not really. It stems from changing from nominally Christian to aggressively secular as previously discussed. Man is to render unto Caesar, but at the same time Caesar is also subject to God's Laws. In passages like 1 Peter 2:16 and Isaiah 1:17 Mankind is implicitly commanded to setup structures of government and society that work to reward good and punish (or at least de-incentivize) wickedness. When an authority like Starfleet is endeavouring to work in sync with God's Laws then they and the officers that are engaged (ha!) in them are themselves doing good and deserve their authority and are working within them. If they fall from that path then it is the job of the moral idealized man (represented by Picard) to fight against them and right the wrong: the measure of a society could be expressed in how often the character an audience is to recognize as a moral centre gets to work with the system to bring down an external threat (yay!) versus working against the system to stop it from being an internal threat (boo!). As a general rule women are not interested in their protagonists performing courageous feats on the battlefield: whether a literal Worf-style battlefield with shields and swords and chariots (or shields and phasers and starships) or a Picard-style battlefield with documents and political systems and legal structures.

However it's also worth noting the distinction between whites and nonwhites about what they want their political structures and swords to be in authority of. The moral code of whites is based on Judeo-Christian histories going back to Ancient Egypt and Rome. If you're getting your moral code based on Chinese/Japanese history for example you're going to end up with a radically different structure: authority existing more for its own sake than to express God's principles, as is the want when you replace a monotheistic moral structure with a polytheistic Buddhist structure where morality is less rigid and Mankind has much more influence in what the world should look like. If you're looking for a moral code based on African history, of course, you're shit out of luck. Instead you get a Marxist underpinned fake history and a nihilistic collectivist worldview being pushed. As Divine Right notes, white liberals sometimes lose sight of the fact that their multiculturalism eventually pushes out the things they find of value.
Consider some of the following things about Star Trek: The Next Generation and ask yourself if any of this would be allowed on television today without controversy.
  • Implied heterosexual attraction is present – Riker and Troi, Picard and Crusher; this is true of the spin-offs as well. The male characters all have numerous romances throughout the show’s run. Even the android, Data, has a romantic encounter with a woman.
  • The black characters are portrayed as white people with dark skin, for the most part. Michael Dorn, Worf, is a proud Klingon warrior; he’s a noble character the audience looks up to for his courage and good sense (even if the writers comically ignored him). Whoopi Goldberg, Guinan, is the show’s Delphic Oracle; she gives advice even to the wise Jean-Luc Picard. Levar Burton, Geordi, is the ship’s chief engineer. He’s a black male nerd who has trouble dating girls but is otherwise a genius.
  • Basically, TNG was what white male liberals of the time hoped the future would be. “Threatening” minority characters would act safe and white, technology would trump superstition, and reason would prevail over emotionalism. The future would be a paradise where all problems had been solved and white men would still have a place at the table they created – it being governed by the same rules they originally put into place.
I'm not sure if "white people with dark skin" is as useful a metric as saying that a character's race was incidental. RedLetterMedia made this point about Winston in Ghostbusters: his being black wasn't really part of his character anymore than Ray being white was part of his character. In TNG when you exclude Worf and Data (characters whose race was tied closely to the fictional alien society they belonged to) the only two characters to have an explicit racial characteristic were Picard (France) and Riker (Alaska). In these, even Riker's was a bit of stretch, I suppose Alaska could have black people or even Eskimos representing them in space, but "big burly man with beard" is how everybody in the world pictured "guy from Alaska" and also how they picture "William T. Riker" unless they've been watching Insurrection on cable lately. Guinan was an alien as well, of course, but she shared her planet with Malcom McDowell, so you need to argue that race was (appropriately enough, based on Whoopi's history with TOS) incidental with her as well. The other alien in the cast, Troi, was chosen to be exotic enough to be interesting but her racial makeup wasn't that important either. (Note Marina Sirtis also played a half-negress in Death Wish 3). "Divine Right" then brings up the one black mark (no pun intended, believe it or not) on Star Trek's wonderful post-racial future: the Ben Sisko refusal to participate in (historically) racially segregated holodeck (fantasy) Vegas. More column-inches have been spilled in Trek fandom on this scene than any other scene this side of "The Best of Both Worlds" which gives you an idea that Divine Right is being slightly disingenuous by bringing it up in any context.
Quark, the alien bartender, is a sexist who steals his employees’ tips and requires women to dress seductively in order to scam male customers at the gambling table. He expresses outrage when his mother starts dressing in clothes, which is forbidden for the house-ridden, oppressed Ferengi female demographic. There is also an episode where he tries to take a picture of the female executive officer in order to make a real-life sex object based on her likeness for a customer. The Ferengi are also obsessed with accumulating wealth and often scam people out of their money.
Despite all of that, Quark is often a moral character (sold medicine and blankets to sick aliens during a war). There is an episode where he points out that Ferengi at their worst aren’t as bad as humans have been in recent memory – no genocides or slavery or concentration camps. Quark is supposed to represent much that is wrong with the contemporary world. He is also representative of the writers’ moral relativism – bad guy isn’t all that bad depending on perspective. But even that reasoning probably wouldn’t allow such a character to exist in modern Star Trek
For those keeping score, I've already written about this roughly a month before Divine Right did: woke media can't even defend its positions by having relatively weak strawmen present inferior arguments they can easily swat down. DS9's second last episode featured Ferenginar doing the 1940s Britain/1960s Canada thing of going hard into the social welfare model, and Rom as the noble enlightened liberal easily countering Quark's lame reactionary complaints. The writers clearly don't understand the Objectivism that they are clumsily putting into Quark's mouth, so Rom easily wins the argument...but at least they have an argument.
  • In DS9, the Bajorans turn away poor immigrants who wish to settle on their planet. Their reasoning: Bajor is poor and can’t support them; they have their own problems to worry about.
  • The Ferengi, Nog, needs a recommendation from a senior officer and phenomenal test scores just to be considered for entry into Starfleet academy. No affirmative action at all.
  • The Cardassian antagonists have segregated their society along gender lines – men serve in the military and women serve as scientists. Female Cardassians think male Cardassians are bad at math and male Cardassians think female Cardassians are emotionally weak, so they are mostly excluded from the military leadership. The few female Cardassians who appear in the earlier seasons are mostly evil – a cruel judge and an intelligence official in the Obsidian Order (KGB equivalent). Dukat, the Cardassian male military officer, is once pitted against his female Obsidian Order boss and turns out to be the more compromising of the two characters before the end.
  • In DS9, multiculturalism can sometimes have a dark side: the diverse, authoritarian, Dominion wages war against the diverse, but cooperative, Federation.
  • There are lots of romantic relationships among friends and not as much of the Millennial hookup culture trash seen in the modern Star Trek iterations.
  • The male characters are often the center of attention – leaders, philosophers, diplomats, family men, scientists, doctors, comic relief.
Again some of the bits here go against the mark: Rom the bumbling genius savant is the "center of attention"? This doesn't seem that crazy. These all fall under his "things Woke Trek" will never again feature, and that one falls flat. The other ones don't seem like "new TV wouldn't do" as much as "neat things about DS9: I like how he directly links in a way I've never considered before the two narrative points everybody knows about The Dominion: twisted mirror of the Federation plus multi-racial/multi-ethnic empire. That it can speak to the downsides of multiculturalism is interesting though in fairness most of the cultures shown within The Dominion are themselves genetically predisposed to be deferential to The Founders and all should probably be considered a monoculture.
But as America’s demographics have changed, so too has the ethos of the Star Trek franchise. Starting with Enterprise (2001 – 2005), the former paragon of stoicism, the Vulcans, are continually denigrated – treated as paternalistic, deceptive, and even belligerent towards other alien races. Notably, Vulcans are more intelligent, more accomplished, and much stronger physically than humans; they are a paragon (sometimes a foil) of what pre-Millennial humanist white males imagined themselves to be … or hoped to be in the far future. Their treatment is odd. It’s almost as if the new – feminist – writers now feel they have to use the Vulcans as stand-ins for the white males they envy.
The Vulcans in Enterprise were probably more deconstructed than denigrated. Obviously I can't speak much to their treatment in nuTrek (I didn't exactly watch a lot of Enterprise either), but part of it surely comes from the melodramatic urges of SJWDiscovery: a cool rational people doesn't fit the narrative well so the "bubbling rage below the surface" depiction of Vulcans had to supplant it. There's definitely some pop psychology at play there as well: the belief it's just not possible for somebody to be (relatively) unemotional. Unsurprisingly, chicks write characters this way.
The new shows by Alex Kurtzman, Discovery and Picard, are helmed by a diverse set of writers decidedly unlike the target audience of straight white males. They’ve predictably produced shows denigrating that demographic: the lead characters are usually female; the male characters are continually insulted by wiser female underlings (Pike, Picard); many of the former straight characters are now gay (Picard, Data, Seven of Nine); aliens which were previously played exclusively – or nearly so – by white actors are now bizarrely multicultural in skin tone, just like humans. Can’t have too many whites on screen, I guess.

The diverse new cast of Discovery and Picard mostly excludes white males. The only principle white men who did not appear in make-up during Discovery’s first season were either villains or openly gay. The show’s lead is a black woman who’s the best at everything, acts bizarrely hostile towards the crew and later berates the male commanding officer, captain Pike – introduced in season 2. There’s also an assortment of other female archetypes more typically seen in network television crime dramas – the dorky female comic relief, the bestest ever leader, the tech guru.
The curious thing about both Star Trek and Star Wars is this insane belief that their target audience shouldn't be straight white males. They keep trying to "expand the fanbase" by making a property something that it isn't intended to be, basically just trying to milk the I.P. for dollars. It's allegedly too risky to create a new property, but it can't be less risky than sullying your brand by turning off science fiction fans and hoping that chicks and sodomites can fill in the gaps: the former are abnormally obsessed with Mary Sue characters (hence the lame "female archetypes" noted above) and the latter are 2% of the population and likely to die of autoimmune deficiencies related to COVID-19 anyways.
Star Trek: Picard’s white male actors, aside from TNG cameos, are mostly villains when they appear at all. Picard himself is a senile old man who contributes essentially nothing to the show. He is used as the butt of criticism from the cast. It’s clear the writers are using him as a canvas to paint their grievances with the real world. Picard — white male America — stands in the new boss’s empowered way. He lives in luxury as minority characters live in poverty. The (white) institutions he represents are all corrupt and racist. To rectify this injustice, the diverse cast must defy Star Trek convention – up to and including committing acts of cold-blooded murder (even villains don’t deserve that).
It's worth noting how ridiculous the resumption of poverty on Earth was in Star Trek: Picard. As Mike and Rich at RedLetterMedia pointed out it not only spits in something that Gene himself established in the Original Series but also makes no sense within the context: Picard can't have "antique furniture" in his chateau because it's less than 25 years old: the original building burned down offscreen at the time of Star Trek: Generations killing his entire family. The current winery is clearly something he rebuilt, likely in his off-period after Star Trek: Nemesis. As usual, the Kurtzman writing style of ignoring everything just makes the universe ring hollow.
The new shows also – bizarrely — feature a dearth of straight black male actors. TNG had two; Voyager had one; DS9 had several, including a masculine male captain. The feminists who write this newer junk must feel threatened by their masculinity, a common phenomenon in modern Hollywood movies, comic books, and in network television: black men are usually removed (Star Trek), made gay (Marvel’s New Warriors), or turned into female servants (Samuel L. Jackson in Captain Marvel – a pet to Brie Larson). So, they’ve almost entirely been excised as primary leads in the new shows. The mostly unaccomplished female writers of Discovery even reported the more accomplished (read: threatening) black male writer, Walter Mosley, to Human Resources for uttering a racial epithet (in context with writing about racism), causing him to quit the show in disgust.
It was news to me that Walter Mosley's only/main crime was using the word "nigger"...that Mosley himself was a nigger was news as well. This really is safe space sensitivity turned up to 11, especially when you discover why he said it:
"I hadn’t called anyone it. I just told a story about a cop who explained to me, on the streets of Los Angeles, that he stopped all niggers in paddy neighborhoods and all paddies in nigger neighborhoods, because they were usually up to no good. I was telling a true story as I remembered it."
We already, of course, had the snowflakes dialed up to 10.5 when they had two Star Trek: Discovery showrunners fired a year earlier because they "learned across the writers room table while shouting an expletive" at a writer. Let that sink in. A writer was swore at by their boss and got him fired. No wonder the writing on NuTrek is 5th grade calibre at best! Back to "Divine Right"'s article:
Discovery and Picard are both written by a crowd that obviously hates the demographic they are writing for, so they pepper many of the episodes with things they know that demographic will take as insults – female characters insulting male characters, underhanded jokes about masculinity or mansplaining, obnoxious female leads, incompetent white male characters who need female instruction, excessive melodrama, denigration of lore. It’s patently obvious. They aren’t even being subtle about it. The Klingons, once a proud masculine race, are now reduced to xenophobic Trump voters in Discovery. The show runner directly stated this in an interview before the series premiere. Klingons now speak in subhuman, guttural-sounding vocals. They redesigned them to look like hairless Tolkienesque goblins – hideous primitives. Klingons were previously boastful, proud in speech and in manner … threatening black men, basically. Feminist writers can’t have that. Bye. Fundamentally, these new shows struggle because they are written by people wholly unlike the target audience, so they are not able to appeal to them (the same is true of other ruined male franchises like Star Wars – but I’ll save that for another time). These new shows aren’t for the old audience. The new — diverse — show runners have made that clear. Star Trek now serves as a vehicle for airing out racial and gender grievances against the perceived white male audience. It’s akin to planting your tribe’s flag on another tribe’s territory. The aggrieved gets a rush from being able to rub their enemy’s face in their loss. It’s intentional.
I think I covered a lot of this territory already, but it's good seeing it in black and white (pardon the pun). "Divine Right" first notes that when Star Trek: Deep Space Nine had a black male captain with a feminist second-in-command he put her in her place on numerous occasions (the very second episode, if I recall!), and then goes into the anti-capitalist feminist underpinnings between some of what seems to be the most ridiculous of the NuTrek tropes:
What do men like in Star Trek?

Men like technology. So, the writers of Picard introduced a magic wand to the newest iteration.

Men like adventure, not melodrama. So, obviously the female writers feature an inordinate number of episodes of characters crying.

Men like friendships, not … what the writers did to Jean-Luc Picard and Data at the end of Star Trek: Picard. The season finale of the new show ends with Picard confessing his amorous affection for Data, the male android – totally out of character. The writers thought they were being subtle, but it’s clear what they meant. It’s an implied gay relationship between the two most popular male characters in TNG, two characters that were never really that close to begin with. It was meant as a deliberate insult to the audience.
All obviously true. Picard was telling Data to just shut up and get to work as recently as Star Trek: First Contact, and was hardly as close to him as LaForge or Wesley Crusher or Deanna Troi or even Worf. Hell, arguably even Guinan and Riker were closer to him. Turn Picard poofter is just that, an insult. Sodomy has never been an acceptable or desirable lifestyle: they know it, they know we know it, and they still pull this nonsense.
Men like relationships with women, so that’s almost totally ignored – even the subtle implication of male / female attraction; there is some casual sex between characters we hate, but few meaningful or traditional relationships in the newer shows. The female characters in nuTrek are now also disproportionately lesbians (literally – no exaggeration intended), closing off that male fantasy for the audience. For example, the once sexy Seven of Nine is now also a lesbian. I’m sure that was deliberate. The rest of the women are physically unattractive, emotionally disturbed, or otherwise weird.
Men also like ship design, which was a major component of the old shows. They provided countless hours of free fan promotion across message boards and websites, they were cool locations for new episodes, and they inspired fan movies. So, obviously that had to be sidelined in the new shows. The ships, once iconic and profitable selling toy items, are now generic CGI models – totally uninspired trash hastily put together as an afterthought. The new shows can’t sell the merchandise, so the retailers have refused to license much of it.

Another thing men like? Group service – following rules, meritocracy, sacrifice for the tribe, defending territory (even the non-violent philosophical variety), that kind of thing. Well, that’s almost totally absent in Discovery and Picard. The once-honorable and meritocratic military-like Federation is portrayed as corrupt and unequal; the black female lead of Picard berates Jean-Luc in one episode for living “in his fine chateau” while she lived in poverty – again, a totally antithetical concept to the old shows.
The Pensky File's podcasts about Star Trek: Picard often asked why they weren't showing starships anymore: the (white, geeky, male) cohosts both were excited about seeing what starships were going to look like in this timeframe with this CGI technology. They were both obviously disappointed not to get a good answer, but never really examined why. This was why. The bit about group service and defending physical/rhetorical territory is pretty much a less verbose version of which I wrote earlier.
Many of the characters in the new shows act entirely unprofessional towards each other. They are sometimes even cruel or sadistic. The female captain of one Discovery short Trek allowed a bumbling white male crewman (whom the female writers mocked the entire episode) to die horribly and then simply shrugged it off when asked about it, “he was an idiot” (implication: he deserved to die because he was annoying her). I’m guessing this occurs in the new shows because women don’t generally like things such as military service. Sure, women serve in the armed forces, but that’s just a gig for a lot of girls. Tactics, uniforms, codes of behavior, and group work are all things men sit around and think about when they aren’t being paid to do it.
When RedLetterMedia's Mike Stoklasa first heard about Patrick Stewart's involvement in a new Star Trek show he sat down and wrote a partial treatment about his idea for what the show could be: titled "Star Trek: Galaxy" it would feature an aged retired Picard being brought back into service by Geordi LaForge to recover the U.S.S. Galaxy which had been lost since the Dominion War. While a low priority for Starfleet/the Federation, LaForge and his wife were assigned/requested the detail (with his own son and some other members of his engineering academy) and Geordi already had a bad feeling about the brash young captain assigned the recovery effort. To help reign that captain in and also to help Picard get out of seclusion, LaForge pushes Picard to join him. When they get to the ship and start trying to piece together the mystery of what happens to them, they are attacked by a mysterious new foe and Picard needs to take command to save them all. Throughout the season they would piece together the mysteries of what happened to the ship, who these new baddies are, and on the way uncover a new threat to the Federation. The point being that, as he told Rich Evans in that YouTube video, "nerds to this kind of shit all the time". Most of those nerds are, in fact, male. Not all of them, mind you: two of Star Trek's best writers are Diana Duane and the late Dorothy Fontana. But both women understood more than any homo writer working for Star Trek: Discovery ever could. Jeanne Kalogridis (pen name "J. M. Dillard") wrote both the epic Star Trek: The Lost Years and the super-nerdy kitsch "Federation Passport". But wake me up when the female writers of Star Trek: Picard write anything scientifically literate as this:

In general though, yes men are the ones who tend to write their own (non-Mary Sue) fanfiction, or technical backgrounds, or make CGI models or record themselves playing music from the shows they love. Even hippie feminist writers like Margaret Wander Bonanno understood how to write for a Star Trek audience.
Not surprisingly, the biggest internet critic of these two incarnations is an Israeli Jew (I suspect); he compiled many of the clips above. It’s not hard to understand why. Israel is a masculine country that requires compulsory military service, is based around codes of principle (Jewish heritage), is partly multicultural (maybe 20% of the population isn’t Jewish), is group-oriented, and has a high percentage of intellectual figures. These are all things you might vaguely see in Star Trek’s The Federation, especially in The Next Generation.
The biggest supporters of these new incarnations, not surprisingly, are the show’s American writers – along with a few “critics”. These people lack any loyalty to a higher cause (other than themselves), are nihilistic, are sadistic, enjoy berating “the other” (men, whites, themselves even), and have practically no respect for anything they aren’t personally invested with. In other words, they are thoroughly Americanized losers. There would be a college thesis in that observation if we lived in a better timeline. In this one, the world where the bad guys won, you are stuck reading it in a random internet comment.
If that Brit sodomite can get a thesis out of Star Trek surely others can as well. "Divine Right" really ties it all together at the end though:
I think that observation explains much of what is wrong with modern culture: the past, in many ways, was better than the present and probably will end up being better than the near future. That’s intolerable to a lot of political extremists, the very people who put us in this position in the first place. So, the past has to be destroyed; it serves as a foil to the current reigning madness. “Let the past die, kill it if you have to.” That’s why pop culture had to be denigrated. That’s why Star Trek is trash nowadays.
When conquering armies of the ancient world subdued an enemy, they often defaced the conquered tribe’s symbols – destroyed the statues, burned the temples, desecrated anything sacred; both Muslim and Christian conquerors were famous for this. Same thing here. The new regime is burning the cultural bridges so you can’t go back to the better world left behind, the one not ruled by them.
Mark Steyn also noted that modern "woke" media can only appropriate what came before them: they can't write a good female comic book character outside of X-Men...so instead they co-opt Captain Marvel and Thor. They're vultures, not creators.

Bonus Trek comparisons from the comments: Divine Right's post was originally a comment and this comment to his comment has good bits:
Because those episodes spoke to me. They moved me. They changed me. They made me more (or less) than I was before I watched them.

Those damn episodes don’t do anything for me anymore. They’re visual and sonic wallpaper. Background clutter. White noise. Mind droppings. Been there, done that. So f**king tedious.