I (heart) Residential Schools

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

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

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

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

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

Meanwhile boarding schools are away from home.

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


David Mitchell FACLC on texting vs calling

David Mitchell asks when phone calls became so intrusive:

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

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

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

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

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

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