Nobody at all (except retarded leftists like Vox) could be surprised by this

Breaking News!

The protests and marches and social media posts that proclaimed #NiggerLivesMoreImportantThanSocietyMotherfucker (abbreviated BLM for some reason) in fact is responsible for more black deaths than the West Coast-East Coast rap feud.
Along with axe-cuts to police budgets, 2020 also saw significant and measurable declines in police stops. In Minneapolis, which seriously discussed defunding police and slashed the police budget by millions, Bloomberg noted that the MPD “has been making an average of 80 percent fewer traffic stops each week since May 25.” May 25th, 2020, was the exact date of George Floyd’s death. In addition to routine automobile stops, stops specifically of suspicious vehicles—defined as those thought to have been involved in a crime—were down 24 percent since the same date. Similarly, suspicious person stops “were down 39 percent since May 25.” The Bloomberg piece pointed out that one obvious explanation for this could be “pullback—police reducing their proactive activity in the wake of public criticism of their performance.” Surely so: and data from Chicago and other cities indicate that Minneapolis officers hardly pulled back alone.

Alongside budget cuts and at least city-wide declines in stops came perhaps the ultimate empirical validation of Broken Windows Theory. BWT, the controversial if oft-validated criminological theory originally proposed by James Q. Wilson and George Kelling, argues that visible signs of crime, chaos, and disorder create urban environments that serve as breeding grounds for further and more extreme misbehavior. Throughout 2020, massive and widely tolerated urban riots swept the country. In Minneapolis, where George Floyd died, rioters destroyed much of a famous and heavily minority business district, and set an active police station on fire with the cops initially inside. In Seattle, Black Bloc and Black Lives Matter activists set up a literal city-state known as CHAZ (or CHOP), within which six people were eventually shot. In Portland (OR), the well-known federal courthouse was attacked for roughly 100 days running, often with M-80 fireworks used as home-made mortars.

The Voxsplaining about this data was it was caused by the economic havoc wreaked by the Wuhan Flu and the associated lockdowns. But as the article notes, while that might explain B&Es or car thefts (ie. the crime wave seen in rural Alberta over the past decade), it's a poor explanation of all the murders.

 “Common sense” aside, considerable statistical evidence indicates that the chaos-and-pullback explanation for the 2020 American totentanz fits the data better than alternative hypotheses such as our economic downturn. First, the relationship between crime and poverty (if that even is the proper causal direction) is far trickier than often supposed, and rates of serious crime such as murder frequently do not increase during recessions and depressions. During the recent Great Recession, murders totaled 16,422 in 2008, 15,399 in 2009, 14,772 in 2010, and 14,661 in 2011—declining by 1,761 between the start of the crisis and the commonly used end date for it.

Data specific to 2020 provide further support for non-economic explanations for the murder surge. While homicides, aggravated assaults, and gun crimes all increased dramatically, crimes focused purely on obtaining money all decreased in frequency during a heavily locked-down year. The CCCJ authors note that: “Residential burglary, larceny, and drug offense rates dropped by 24 percent, 24 percent, and 32 percent from the same period in 2019.” Perhaps most significantly, crime data is tracked on a monthly as well as annual basis, and—as previously cited Minneapolis figures indicated—the largest 2020 increases in violent crime trace directly to the Riot Summer following the death of George Floyd, rather than to the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic. Again as per the CCCJ report: “Homicides… rose significantly beginning in late May and June of 2020.”

This finding gels perfectly with recent history. The increase in murders from roughly 14,000 in 2014 to 17,294 in 2017, following the first wave of Black Lives Matter-associated riots and the resulting police pullback, gained international attention as the “Ferguson Effect.” More broadly, US murders jumped from 8,530 in 1962 to 24,700 in 1991, following a generation or two of criminal justice reforms including the Miranda and Escobedo protocols, the Fruit of the Poisoned Tree doctrine, and a general liberalization of sentencing policies. Other serious violent crimes jumped proportionately, as detailed by Mona Charen in the unfashionable but essential book Do-Gooders. In a sentence so obviously true that only an academic social scientist could deny it, more police policing more effectively decreases crime.

Who dies from all this? Well, in general, it's nigger-on-nigger...remember, white Americans are less likely to be killed by a gun than white Canadians:

And crimes have victims. While I mourn for dead fellow citizens of any color, a sad and absurd reality of both post-Ferguson and summer 2020 violence is that a great many of those killed unnecessarily were black Americans. In Chicago, 81.8 percent of those murdered in 2020 were African Americans, while 3.9 percent of victims were white. The simplest possible sort of number-crunching shows us that, assuming consistent rates of homicide by race, the Windy City’s vertical move from 481 to 748 deaths by violence cost 218 black lives inside one year. Assuming that murders nationwide increased only by 35 percent from 2019’s total of 16,425 and that only 50 percent of these new victims were black, the equivalent toll country-wide would be 2,874 dead black folks, including horrifying victims such as hero cop David Dorn and little eight-year-old Secoriea Turner.


Shiny Pony can't do math

From commenter George Alexander in this John Robson article:

We are constantly being told or advised by PM Trudeau, and other government spokespersons, that there will be enough vaccines available by September, so that everyone who wants to be vaccinated can and will be vaccinated.
That is wonderful !
BUT>> How does Trudeau know how many Canadians will want to be vaccinated ?
AND >> At the present , or the current projected rate of receiving vaccines , stated as being about 2 million per month, enough for 1 million people , going to be administered to perhaps 36 -38 million people would that not mean he perhaps is talking about September 2024 ?
OR>> If by some divine miracle enough vaccines appear by September 2021 what facilities are being planned to administer 36 million doses, which means 72 million injections, in about a 200 day period ,, that is 360,000 doses (injections) per day ?
Is anyone thinking about the logistics of what they are talking about ?

Nobody involved in logistics works for the government. Well, maybe LCBO retailers.

For those wondering, this is also why public healthcare (not needed by everybody, run by the government) can't deliver services to its "customers" within a period of mere weeks or months while privatized groceries (needed by everybody, run by the free market) manages to get foods from around the world into every Canadian's hands every single day from sea to sea to sea.

Except grapefruit for some reason. Has anybody noticed in the past three weeks that Edmonton grocery stores have somehow completely ran out of grapefruit?

@martinbeanz - thanks for your upcoming support for #StopTheSteal and #NewResistance


The tribal rioters and their far-left allies had no intention of starting a "conversation". Indeed, whenever a conversation was in danger of breaking out, they turned thuggish and violent and upped the ante week after week. Those of us who saw that their cause was unjust and based on no evidence, who tried to have a conversation, didn't get very far. "I want to start a conversation" was never permitted by media gatekeepers to devolve into one: it would give away the lie that "racism" was the reason so many niggers get killed while being far more violent than, say, Ashli Babbitt ever was.

Now, for contrast, remember: there's more evidence Biden stole the 2020 election than there is evidence that "systemic racism" exists or that blacks are disproportionately shot by police.

So since we're contrasting, we saw a protest designed to pressure a specific activity (to wit, start a conversation and open discussion and investigation and inquiry into election fraud), it got out of control, and the organizers stopped doing it even though they never intended the outcome. Don't you wish BurnLootMurder thugs had that sort of restraint

I'm sure Warde agrees, which is why I've taken the liberty of already producing his tweet for next December:


"RobinHood is a private company, they can ban whatever they like"

So...uh...why haven't we heard from those guys?

Which guys?

Didn't you read the title to this post? The same folks who assured us that "free speech" wasn't under attack because private companies, not the government, were censoring conservatives. That everything these tech companies did to narrow the range of "acceptable" conversation was totally wonderful and acceptable.

They were wrong, by the way. Free speech isn't just the government throwing you in jail for speaking, though by the way they're totally doing that now. Instead, free speech or more generally freedom of expression, is a cultural standard that involves all people understanding that barring extremely narrow restrictions everybody should be able to say whatever they like, and that media should be designed to facilitate this: both sides of every issue (or, dare we say, both traditional sides and the third edge of the sword...) need to be given the opportunity to make their case, no matter if one side wants to call it "hate speech" or "harmful white supremacy" or some such garbage. You still have to let the "hateful white supremacist" make his case...you never know, he might just be right about it and persuade you!

Those "Facebook can ban any groups they like", "Twitter can remove any users for trivial offenses they like", "Apple can remove any app from their store they like" people. For some reason, over the past week they all seem to have vanished off the face of the earth.

I'm sure at this point you know what I'm talking about: the curious "GameStop Revolution" or whatever term we're using to describe it. Zero Hedge has been on the case basically since the beginning.

It's hardly the point of this post to rehash the whole affair, but the developments during the past few days are what caught my eye. It started with Discord banning the group responsible for driving up GameStop and other stocks. Then RobinHood, the stock trading app popular with millennials (apparently), banned trading on any stocks involved in the discussions on the Reddit page (which, strangely enough, has yet to be banned, despite Reddit being pretty heavy-handed themselves).

This got the ire up of a many prominent conservative activists, perhaps recognizing the continued Big Tech trend of deciding anything against what the people in power [note that as Trump could tell you this isn't the same as the people in office! -ed] want is "hateful" and needs to be banned. Statements denouncing RobinHood's bans have been issued by a veritable "who's who" of the modern conservative commentariat including Donald Trump Jr., Tim Pool, Jack Posobiec, Mike Cernovich, Scott Adams, Dave Portnoy, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Wait, hold on, are we sure about that last one?

Yes, the irrational bitch is also upset about this (not rationally upset, of course, she thinks Ted Cruz tried to put a bullet in her brain).
Again though, when this was a different company taking (almost certainly legal) actions against her opponents, she was dead silent. Notice we never saw this tweet:

So what's different this time? After all, leftists can't even make their typical false claims that conservative speech is against human rights or something. In fact, the people that Sandy Cortez is trying to protect are apparently white supremacists, according to CNN and Mother Jones. If the mainstream media says somebody's a white supremacist, then everybody who gives them a platform or defends them is also a white supremacist. Isn't that how this goes? Who knew that the difference between Paul From and AOC was a haircut.

Surprise surprise, there's a double standard at work. It seems to be the typical millennial "this thing I wanted has horrible unintended consequences that impact me now, so I want an exemption that only gets me out of this horrible thing I wanted" mindset at play (last seen when the "gig economy" was killed by the woke politicos who wanted to protect people from "predatory capitalism").

There's really no difference, of course, between RobinHood banning certain stocks from being bought (or sold, or both, or only one and not the other) and Twitter banning certain views from being expressed. On a strict technical level they are (probably) legally allowed to do so. The issue is that both courses of action are unfair, improper, ultimately detrimental, and immoral.

Morality, of course, isn't high on Big Tech's list of qualities. They start a platform and tell everybody you can "be yourself" and "express yourself" and "publish what you want to publish" and suddenly the bounds of discourse are narrowed based entirely on criteria they have decided are important. They start another platform and say you can invest where you want how you want to and then as soon as the big players make a stink they suddenly decide you are investing in the "wrong" stocks. In all of these cases their criteria aren't based on facts or reality, but rather on their own twisted and immoral worldview.

With the RobinHood/Reddit/GameStop saga, it's finally hitting AOC's fanbase. Which is why she now thinks it's wrong while the other purges that conservatives also opposed were considered wonderful.

What does a hotel have that my house doesn't?

Shiny Pony has released a new irrational set of travel restrictions to cover up for his failure to secure vaccine shipments, which nobody should really care about but for almost a year now he's been saying "vaccines are the cure for us all" ad nauseum. It's not true mind you, as most things the Shiny Pony says are lies. But we'll swing back to liberal dishonesty in a minute.

The new policies supplement the old policies, so you still need a negative test done 72 hours (but not 73!) before your airplane takes off, and if you got one 48 hours before your flight was delayed for 26 hours, tough cookies. Unless you travelled from Haiti, where a bunch of blacks are too busy spreading AIDS to worry about the Kung Flu, in which case you're exempted from the testing requirement. Confused? You aren't alone. What about your flight crew who arrived in Rio yesterday, you saw them at the cantina last night, and are back on the plane today? Nah, they coo'.

Not content to have the previous irrational restrictions, the new ones include...
  1. PCR testing (you know, the ones recently 'discovered' to be unreliable) when you arrive, on top of the one you had before you left.
  2. Mandatory paying to stay at a "designated hotel" for the three days you await your test
  3. "Extra surveillance" when you spend your 14 11 day quarantine at home after testing negative
  4. A visit to a "designated government facility" after testing positive
There's a lot of stupidity here to unpack, and it's a credit to the Shiny Pony that in one brief presser he can leave so many headscratchers.

The same experts whose models utterly failed assure us that PCR testing is reliable. But according to McGill's Jonathan Jarry, PCR testing is wonderful and everybody claiming otherwise is just "amplifying noise". So, uh, does that include the Prime Minister of Canada? After all, if you need not one but two PCR tests, and then still have to quarantine for the remainder of your two weeks if both tests come back negative, doesn't this speak to the unreliable nature of the test? To borrow Jarry's analogy from his article, if I discover the book I'm holding doesn't have "A Scandal in Bohemia" in it (after testing for it twice), why do I have to let it sit on my shelf two weeks before I can safely proclaim the story isn't in there?

If only there was some test that could be done in 15 minutes, was relatively cheap, and therefore could classify you as sick or well in less time than it takes the carousel to start spitting out your luggage. Oh wait, there is. So why are we using these tests? Who can say? The media doesn't seem to be asking either.

Also, what's the big deal about hotels [it was said in a near-perfect Seinfeld tone by the way, so please go re-read it with that cadence in mind. -ed] anyways? Why am I spending three days at my own expense in...not only a hotel, but a government authorized hotel? Besides the obvious fact that I'm now put in a Diamond Princess-like environment that increases my risk of contracting the China Virus if I hadn't already been positive, I'm also potentially positive and infecting other people in the hotel...people who might work there and be going home every night to infect the rest of the planet. Or are we all getting dead-bolted inside our hotel rooms like the dictator that Rat Bastard 2.0 is such a fan of?

The use of "I" throughout doesn't literally mean me. As a test revealed in August, sometime before then I already had been exposed to the Wuhan Flu: the antibodies are surging through my bloodstream, so theoretically I should have my immunity passport and be drinking a pint overlooking the University of Sussex right now.

Finally what's up with the government facilities for people who arrive in Canada and tested positive? What makes people who got the Wuhan Flu overseas different than people who got the Wuhan Flu at the Costco on 91st street? Is the plan for all people to be put in these quarantine camps, or only some people? One notices that the fake news presstitutes at CBC and Global never thought to ask this question...or really any questions of value, for that matter. I'm not sure it offhand would have mattered: ask Justin a question that requires a moment's thought that he hasn't been drama-taught beforehand and you'd get a meaningless word salad that even FakePresident Biden would be in awe of. Or he'd just lie. He is a Liberal after all, and Liberals (and liberals) are always lying about everything. If you recall, this is where we came in.

Not only, however, do liberals lie about themselves and their policies but they also lie about conservatives. The illustrative point about liberals lying about conservatives is that they always falsely accuse us of doing the exact thing they themselves are guilty of. Projection is their fundamental identity. So if you want to know what evils a leftist is secretly plotting, you need to look at what they recently have claimed conservatives have done. It's a reliable metric: it covers the Russiagate hoax, Fast and Furious, Benghazi, BLM riots versus the Capitol protest, you name it. So what have conservatives been accused of lately?

Well one of the big stories which I haven't really covered (but places like Blazing Cat Fur have) is the recent ouster of Derek Sloan from the CPC caucus. Far-left lying website PressProgress uncovered that Paul Fromm, who has committed no crime except for having the same view about his race as Sonequa Martin-Green has about hers, donated to Sloan's leadership bid using his first name that literally nobody knows. As a result, the Shiny Pony's criminal buddy Gerald Butts got on the mainstream media that he paid for and started baying for blood, possibly after directing his lap dogs at PP to the story. O'Toole capitulated, yadda yadda yadda, the details aren't really important. The key thing is that Sloan took money from somebody...and that's bad...somehow.

Presumably, the case that PressProgress thinks it's making (note it never actually made a case, just yelled "hey this is a thing") is that if you take money from Group X, you might end up doing Group X's bidding. Though this isn't even Group X, this is just Dude Y. Dude Y donated to you, and if you took his money it must mean you're going to enact public policy based on his agenda. It's unclear of course how this worked in the Sloan case: apparently nobody even connected the dots of who their donor was, so enacting his agenda wasn't really possible. However the general principle seems to be, it's bad to even think about taking money from these people as it might impact the laws and regulations you would enact while in government.

That this rule doesn't seem to be particularly evenly enforced shouldn't surprise you either.

Trudeau is guilty of what his lapdogs in PressProgress falsely accused Sloan of

I asked earlier about what the difference was between a hotel and my house. Earlier this morning K'Mpec, who travelled out of the country in October, offered the fairly obvious example. Hotel chains are hurting with the lack of tourism and business travelers: the summer months saw a slight uptick but between the weather and the travel rules and the return of useless lockdowns their business model is collapsing, fast. If you have to stay at home the hotel chains don't see a dime. But if the government were to mandate hotel stays, they would get a boost. And not just any old hotels will get this boost either: you'll notice that the government will designate hotels. This is the same (old) system (that we got rid of) for auto repairs back in the 80s and early 90s: it used to be that when you got into a car accident your insurance company would assign you a repair shop. Naturally they had partnerships with these shops who had little incentive to do quality work: you'd get a shitty repair job and nothing you could do about it. Sure you could stop shopping at that insurance outfit, but by then the damage [pun not intended! -ed] was done and you had gotten hosed. In this case, travelers get hosed by having to stay at a designated hotel for three nights. Just three nights though, how bad could that be?

Well curiously enough, Rat Bastard 2.0 either doesn't have much experience with paying his own way in hotels (I believe it), was told a different number and forgot it and just said a random large number from his brain (I believe it), or is involved in a kickback scam to defraud citizens to his own benefit (nobody should not believe it).
Trudeau added that the cost for this is “expected to be more than $2,000.”
Wait, what? Two grand for three nights in a hotel? Where on earth are they sticking us? What hotels did you designate, the Banff Springs? Let's take a quick look at the hotels in the vicinity of the Pearson International Airport in Mississauga, Canada's main international travel hub (in the photo below I removed hotels under $64 as these almost always are actually hostels). Almost all of the hotels there are under $100 a night, many of them under $80 a night...almost like the hotel business is in trouble or something. In this environment where if I had to pay for my own three nights in a hotel I could pick a bill for under $250, how did the Shiny Pony ramp the cost up by a factor of eight?

For that answer, as you might guess, we turn back to L'Affaire Sloan. Just for fun I thought I'd take a look at hotels who donated to the Liberal Party of Canada. Uh...yeah...how much do you want to bet that more than a few of the names on this list will also turn out to be the designated hotels? The specific hotels by the way have not yet been publicly named, and if the Refugee Hotel saga (or the previous quarantine hotel saga) is any indication never will be.

The Toronto Radisson isn't on the list, you may note, but that may not say a lot. We can only look at the keyword "Radisson" or "Hotel", but the owners of these hotels could have donated on their own as well. Plus the "Greater Toronto Hotel Association" made several donations to the Liberals. All in all fifty hotel-named groups have donated to the Liberal Party of Canada, 16 of which are in Ontario (and therefore pretty close to Pearson, if that tiny province's geography has not completely escaped me). I've attached some screenshots of the search parameters below.

So will the Liberals who accepted hotel money in return for this blatant kickback be forced to resign? Don't hold your breath...though that apparently is the best way to escape these quarantine facilities if you can't arrange for an Uber.

Jean Guerrero is a lying leftist (but I repeat myself)

Academic David Horowitz reminding us that everything any leftist ever says about any conservative is a flat-out lie.

In 1940, a German refugee named Richard Krebs published a memoir called Out of the Night, which was a Book-of-the Month Club selection for that year. He published it under the pseudonym Jan Valtin in fear of reprisals from the Nazis and Communists his memoir exposed.

Krebs had been a longshoreman during the 1930s, a union leader, and a trusted member of the German Communist Party. He was so trusted by the Party that it sent him on an undercover mission to Hamburg to spy on the Nazis. To equip him for the task the Communist Party provided him with a forged Nazi Party card that identified him as a member.

After Krebs returned from his mission, he became critical of the Communists because of their active collaboration with the Nazis in destroying the Weimar Republic. He had the indiscretion to make this opposition public. The Communists retaliated by accusing Krebs of being a Nazi, and “proving” it by publishing on the frontpage of one of Germany’s largest papers Krebs’ membership card in the Nazi Party that the Communists had forged for him, forcing him to flee for his life.

In providing actual “evidence” – however deceptive – the German Communist Party had more respect for the intelligence of their target audiences than progressives in general and Democrats in particular do today, where “guilt by accusation” has become the standard for slandering and cancelling their political opponents, none more obviously than Donald Trump, the 45th president of the United States and the recipient of more votes – over 74 million – than any previous president in American history.

For four years Trump was universally accused by his Democrat opponents – without a shred of evidence – of committing treason with the Russians. The end sought by the Democrats – the destruction of Trump – is apparently sufficient to justify the means. Aside from a few true liberals like Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley, there are no dissenters from this rule on the left. From the outset of his presidency, Trump was tarred and feathered by Democrats and their media allies as a “traitor” a “white supremacist” and a “racist”– again without a shred of credible evidence. To prevent Trump from running for a second term with 74 million supporters he is being crucified now as an inciter of violence and “insurrection” without a credible action or quote to back up the charge. The basis for the claim is that he challenged an election result by calling on key states to de-certify the election results – something the Democrat Party and its legislators did as recently as the 2016 Trump election itself.

What distinguishes Trump from the legions of his supporters who have been accused of thought crimes, slandered and cancelled, is the visibility of his record, which allows 74 million Americans not consumed by racial and characterological hatreds to see how baseless the attacks on him are, and to defend him against the progressive lynch mob.

I happen to be one of those Trump supporters tarred by progressives as a “racist” and “hate monger” based on no evidence whatsoever. The slanders against me are expressions of political malice. They were used by the Washington Post and by numerous major media outlets to smear Florida gubernatorial candidate Ron DeSantis during the 2018 elections. DeSantis’ “crime” as described by the Post: “[He] spoke four times at conferences organized by a conservative activist [me] who has said that African Americans owe their freedom to white people and that the country’s ‘only serious race war’ is against whites.” These are two obviously true and non-racist statements, but not in the witch-hunting atmosphere created by the left.

Even though I am a somewhat private citizen, without the high visibility of Trump, I am unique in one respect: unlike most of the Trump supporters who have been cancelled, defamed and in other ways suppressed by leftwing lies, I have created a uniquely detailed record of my views and activities stretching over the last sixty years in numerous articles and books. My first book was published in 1962, and I have written more than forty since then containing over two million words describing my political and social views in detail. This record provides a fact-based portrait of my views which can be used to measure the brazen dishonesty and malice that now passes for progressive journalism and politics.

A perfect illustration of the dishonesty that has overcome and distorted our political culture can be found in a recent book by an Emmy Award-winning PBS journalist named Jean Guerrero. Her book Hatemonger is a book length libel against Stephen Miller, one of Trump’s key and most brilliant White House advisers, a classical liberal, whom Guerrero portrays as a “white nationalist” and racist. Guerrero uses me – or rather a gross caricature of me – to tar and feather Miller, whose career I helped to advance.

It is important to note at the outset that far from being a fringe character herself, how legitimate Guerrero’s journalistic credentials appear, a fact that illuminates how corrupt the literary establishment’s credentialing agencies – all on the political left – have become. From 2010 to 2013 Guerrero was a Mexico City bureau correspondent for The Wall Street Journal, and Dow Jones Newswires, reporting on Mexico and Central America. Since 2015 she has been an investigative reporter for KPBS in San Diego. Guerrero is a regular contributor to NPR, PBS, Newshour and PRI’s The World, with appearances on MSNBC and CBC among others. Her writing has appeared in The New York Times, Columbia Journalism Review, Wired Magazine and other outlets. Guerrero is the winner of the PEN/FUSION Emerging Writers Prize. Her KPBS series America’s Wall won an Emmy.

In Guerrero’s fevered imagination I – an “anti-immigrant white nationalist” created Stephen Miller, and through him, “shaped Trump’s [2016] campaign,” and “was its architect as a central strategy of the new Republican Party.”(Hatemonger, p. 78) Like her whole book this is a brazen invention.

I met Stephen when he was a high school student, and made him the head of my Freedom Center’s modest “Terrorism Awareness Project.” The project’s main achievement was to produce a video about terrorist attacks that was used by the California Joint Task Force on Terror, which was composed of the California Highway Patrol and the FBI. They asked if they could use the film for training purposes.

When Stephen went to Duke University, we made him the head of our Students for Academic Freedom chapter at the school. When he graduated, I recommended him for three congressional staff positions as an exceptionally bright young man. His job with Senator Jeff Sessions led to his appointment as Special Advisor and speechwriter to the Trump campaign, a position I had no hand in.

I told Guerrero in our interview that I had merely recommended Stephen for these congressional positions and had nothing to do with his appointment to the Trump campaign – and then White House. Further, I told her that he was exceptionally bright and his political views were well-developed when I met him, I had little personal contact with him and was not aware that I had any particular influence over his ideas.

Ignoring these facts, Guerrero wrote a malice-laden piece for Politico, promoting her book with the title: “The Man Who Made Stephen Miller.” The subtitle of the article made her purpose in fabricating this story transparent: “Almost 20 years ago, anti-immigration activist David Horowitz cultivated an angry high school student. Now his ideas are coming to life in the Trump administration.”

The purpose of inflating my importance was first to smear me and then to use those lies to smear Miller and Trump. Politico, of course, was a willing accomplice. No fact-checking there.

The reality is this: I have never uttered a sentence or word that is anti-immigrant. On the contrary, as readers of my recent book Blitz: Trump Will Smash the Left and Win know, like Miller and Trump I am pro legal immigration and have pointed out the hypocrisy of the charge that the White House is anti-immigrant, therefore “racist,” because the Trump administration has presided over the influx of millions of legal immigrants including hundreds of thousands if not millions of immigrant “people of color.”

Moreover, I am not what any reasonable person would call an “activist” on immigration issues. I have written in support of legal immigration and against illegal immigration but I have done no organizing nor conducted any actions on the immigration front. I have been an “activist” in only two areas – free speech and school choice. All my other activities have been through my writing and editing. Since I have written so much about my activities and work, such lies are not errors but calculated slanders whose purpose is to destroy a political opponent, and by extension a political movement.

Guerrero goes far beyond the usual “guilt by accusation,” by claiming that the portrait she draws of me is based on her reporting of facts gathered through interviews and research. In her “Acknowledgements,” she claims her book is based on 150 interviews and was “fact-checked” by several individuals. In an “Author’s Note,” she describes her methods this way: “I attributed thoughts and quotations to characters when a) they were stated directly to me by the characters, (b) they were recalled to me by sources who were first-hand participants in conversations with those characters and whose accounts could be verified by other sources, and (c) when I found them directly in court documents and other records.”

Nothing could be further from the truth. This meticulous concern for the facts is simply invented to make her fabrications and slanders seem based in reality instead of the malicious thoughts in her head.

Here’s how Guerrero introduces me in her book (Hatemonger, pp. 74-75): “Horowitz ran the Center for the Study of Popular Culture, later renamed The David Horowitz Freedom Center – his School For Political Warfare. The foundation’s website says it ‘sees its role as that of a battle tank, geared to fight a war that many still don’t recognize … the political left has declared war on America and its constitutional system, and is willing to collaborate with America’s enemies abroad and criminals at home to bring America down.”

Guerrero then purports to describe The Freedom Center’s activities – without actually examining them, and calls them racist: “His School for Political Warfare taught white men to wear the armor of persecuted minorities in their fight to save the United States.” This fits Guerrero’s effort to smear Miller and me as white nationalists but it is a pure invention that is the clear opposite of the facts.

Neither I nor any member of or writer for the Center have targeted “white men” as an audience let alone as a constituency. That is Guerrero’s racism – universal among progressives: any criticism of the left qualifies as “racism.” On the contrary, the Freedom Center’s events have supported and given awards to a large array of minority figures – Herman Cain, Ben Carson, Candace Owens, Adrian Fenty, John Bryant. It has championed school choice for minority children and raised tens of thousands of dollars for minority organizations like Operation Hope.

Guerrero’s claim that my political strategy is to pretend that white men are persecuted like people of color is not only ridiculous – who would even try to get away with such a transparent absurdity? – but outrageous, because what I have actually advocated is exactly the opposite of what she claims.

Everything I have written about political strategy is contained in three books easily accessible to Guerrero. Each book is built around the same theme – Republicans must be champions of America’s underdogs, specifically minorities and the poor. This elephant in the room refutes everything Guerrero accuses me of in her book, which is why she ignores the evidence in favor of her bigoted attack on conservative ideas.

The three books in which I have collected my writings on political strategy are: The Art of Political War and Other Radical Pursuits, 2000; How to Beat the Democrats and Other Subversive Ideas, 2002, and Take No Prisoners: The Battle Plan for Defeating the Left, 2014.

This is what I wrote in 2000 in The Art of Political War: “What to Do: … 2. Give Minorities and the Poor a Shot at the American Dream.” This is how I spelled out this principle: “Welfare paternalism, regulations, taxes and quotas, and metastasizing school bureaucracies are oppressing poor people, minorities and children, and cutting off their opportunities. Republican policies and principles – lower taxes, single standards, school choice, secure streets, and individual responsibility provide the necessary rungs in the ladder of success. Empowering minorities, poor people and working Americans by putting the education dollar directly in their hands, either through ‘opportunity scholarships’ or school vouchers, is the most important single legislative step that Republicans can take in liberating them from the chains with which liberals have shackled them.” (Art of Political War, pp. 35-36)

This is what I have done with my political activism: I had access to the Bush White House and personally proposed that they support a $100 billion voucher plan for inner city kids. They declined. I did the same via Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon to the 2016 Trump campaign. They embraced the proposal but it got lost in a welter of other projects and battles. These actions and writings of mine are hardly compatible with the “white nationalist” views Guerrero maliciously attributes to me, Miller and Trump.

In her Politico article, Guerrero cites a strategy paper I sent to Miller, which was called “Go for the Heart.” It was published as a pamphlet and as a chapter of Take No Prisoners – easily available to Guerrero if the truth meant anything to her. But it does not. According to Guerrero “The paper… did not blame Romney’s [2012] loss on any demographic. Horowitz said the problem was failure to vilify the left.” (Hatemonger, p. 130)

Actually not. This, too, is the opposite what I said – something one could tell from the title itself – Go for the Heart. The reason for Romney’s loss, I argued at the very beginning of the paper, was that Romney didn’t convince voters – particularly minority voters – that he cared about them. “At election time,” I wrote “caring” is not one issue among many. It is the central one.” (Take No Prisoners, p.2)

In order to portray me as a white nationalist Guerrero ignores all the passages in which I advised conservatives exactly how to implement such a strategy. For example: “If Republicans want to persuade minorities they care, they have to stand up for them. They have to defend them. They have to show that Democrats are playing them for suckers, that Democrats are exploiting them, oppressing them, and profiting from their suffering.” (Take No Prisoners, p. 18)

To establish the strategic importance of caring, I cited a CNN exit poll that had asked voters: “What is the most important candidate quality to your vote?” CNN had listed four leadership qualities including strong leadership and sharing one’s values. The first three Romney won by 54%. But he lost the fourth – “cares about people” – by a whopping 81-18 percent. Go for the Heart was written to change this deficit in Republican politics. Republicans, I wrote, spoke like accountants. They needed to speak like champions of the oppressed.

Because she doesn’t understand – or has paid no attention to the realities and arguments underlying this point of view, Guerrero describes this as “gaslighting” – which she describes as “emotional abuse” and “psychological warfare to derail victims’ sense of reality.” (Hatemonger, p. 78) In other words, Guerrero’s response to conservative perspectives is, “my mind is made up. Don’t confuse me with the facts.”

This is the way Guerrero cancels a lifetime commitment to equality for black Americans, inspired as it happens by my Communist parents. As I have written in several of my books, beginning with my autobiography, Radical Son, my first civil rights demonstration was in a Communist organized May Day march in 1948. My views on how to achieve equality have changed, but not my passion for achieving it.

My entire political strategy is based on persuading voters, and particularly minority voters who make up a key base of the Democrat vote, that Republicans care about them and Democrats don’t. This is the message of all my writings on political strategy, collected in the three books. You could sum up my entire political career in the fact that I spent the last three decades trying to persuade Republicans to take up the cause of minority communities who were being oppressed by Democrat majorities in America’s inner cities.

All my pleas to Republicans fell on deaf ears until Trump came along. My 2020 book Blitz: Trump Will Smash the Left and Win begins with four chapters arguing this point and presenting it as a key to Trump’s success with the voters despite the vilification campaign against him.

It is true that my strategy advice also includes confronting Democrats with the same aggressive tactics they use against conservatives. Democrats call Republicans “racists” and Republicans respond by calling Democrats “liberals.” This is a losing symmetry. My advice to Republicans is to throw the Democrats’ accusations back in their faces – to “fight fire with fire.” The epigraph for Take No Prisoners is a quote from Democrat strategist Chris Lehane: “Everyone has a game plan until you punch them in the mouth.” Democrats punch Republicans in the mouth with the false charge that they are racists. Republicans have no comparable response. My advice was: Expose Democrats as oppressors of minorities and the poor. They’re racists. Call them that.

Not satisfied to utterly misrepresent my strategy for dealing with Democrats, Guerrero, deceitfully describes my “School for Political Warfare” as an effort to train white students to abuse minority students: “In the nineties Horowitz coordinated with right-wing or libertarian lawyers to defend right-wing youths in trouble due to alleged racism, sexism or homophobia…. [Cal State Northridge] was one of several cases Horowitz helped fight, pressuring universities to rewrite sexual harassment and hate speech rules, so that right-wing youths could more freely offend minorities.” (Hatemonger, p. 75)

These are damnable lies. My academic activism has been to defend the rights of all students to be presented with both sides of controversial issues and not be indoctrinated. It also has a powerful free speech dimension: not to be punished for exercising their First Amendment rights. The Academic Bill of Rights I authored protects both leftist and conservative professors from being hired or fired, promoted or demoted, on the basis of their political views. For example, I defended the notorious leftist Ward Churchill when he was fired for an Internet article he wrote. His article called the victims of 9/11 “Nazis” who deserved their fate. It was an exercise of free speech, however repellent, and thus not grounds for firing him. I also defended Bill Maher when his Politically Incorrect show was cancelled after he called the 9/11 attackers heroes and Americans “cowards.”

Because my Academic Bill of Rights was an attempt to protect the Bill of Rights, a resolution affirming its key principles was inserted into the Higher Education Authorization Act by House Speaker John Boehner and was passed by both political parties.

I have a libertarian view of the First Amendment. It is specifically designed to protect speech that some might find offensive. Consequently, I also had my Freedom Center’s legal team defend students on the left as well as the right from being punished or silenced for “offensive” speech. I defended Mexican-American fraternity students at the University of California Riverside, who had designed a T-shirt the left found offensive and were punished by having their fraternity banned for 3 years, which meant the certain death of their club.

In the Riverside case, as in every case we prosecuted, the universities’ own lawyers advised their administrators that their so-called “hate speech rules” were in violation of the First Amendment, and they removed their bans. I reported all of these cases on Frontpagemag.com or in my book Indoctrination U. (2007). The remedy for speech one doesn’t like is not repression but more speech. That’s the American way, something Guerrero obviously needs a remedial course in.

Guerrero’s anti-white, anti-American racism is on display in virtually everything she writes about me. She accuses me, for example, of “romanticizing immoral deeds by white men (Hatemonger, p.78) – such as slavery and genocide.” In the two million words I have published there is not a sentence that would justify this vile claim. I have always condemned slavery, and wrote a book – Uncivil Wars – on that very subject. My apparent crime for Guerrero is pointing out 1) that black Africans were responsible for enslaving all the black Africans shipped to America, and 2) that the American founders – yes, white men – declared for the first time in human history that “all men are created equal” and had a God-given right to liberty, which led to the abolition of slavery.

I have also pointed out that white Americans immediately began freeing the slaves in the northern states, but failed to do so in the southern states because it would lead to a civil war, which the free states might lose (and almost did in the actual Civil War). Nonetheless, 350,000 mainly white Americans eventually gave their lives to free the slaves. Noticing this is hardly “romanticizing immoral deeds by white men.”

Guerrero also slanders me by accusing me of “ignoring the central role of people of color in making once false American ideals of equality and liberty true. Instead, she writes: “he saw this country as a white-forged masterpiece, unfairly demonized by brown hordes.” This is a truly evil invention. I have never used words or expressed sentiments like this. I have never attacked brown people. Indeed, I have Mexican American, Asian and black family members. I have never referred to any racial group as a “horde.”

In fact, I have never characterized a racial group as having one characteristic or trait – which is the kind of racist attitude Guerrero displays about white people. Quite the opposite. I have decried the term “people of color” as itself racist on the grounds that it implies a monolithic viewpoint and commonality of interest between groups that oppress and even murder each other. This is the case with Mexicans descended both from oppressed Indians and their Spanish oppressors who are lumped together as “people of color” – or the parties to the recent Hutu-Tutsi war, which resulted in the massacre of a million black Tutsis by black Hutus.

Guerrero’s malicious portrayal of me as a white racist is not a mistake or oversight. It is a consequence of her racist outlook, which tragically has become a standard outlook on the left. I have written three books containing my views on race: Hating Whitey and Other Progressive Causes (1999), Uncivil Wars: The Controversy Over Slavery (2001), and Progressive Racism (2016). All of them are devoted to celebrating the vision and leadership of Martin Luther King and praising the Civil Rights Movement and the efforts to achieve equality for all races and particularly American blacks. My current views on race and on what the civil rights movement has become were shaped forty years ago by the black scholar Thomas Sowell through his book Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality?

The one book of mine which Guerrero claims to have actually read is Hating Whitey and Other Progressive Causes. It opens with the description of my visit to Martin Luther King’s memorial in Memphis, and is a lament for the abandonment of King’s ideals by the civil rights movement under the leadership of the race hustlers Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. I was particularly disturbed by the tribute in the memorial to the lunatic Elijah Muhammad, murderer of Malcolm X and leader of the largest racist organization in America. Guerrero ignores this.

At my Restoration Weekend – the same at which Governor Ron DeSantis spoke – I have given awards to black leaders, such as Adrian Fenty, the former Democrat mayor of Washington DC, whom I honored for championing inner city kids’ quest for educational equality, and to Operation Hope founder John Bryant, for his work to create economic equality for blacks. I have never slighted let alone ignored the movement that gave birth to the historic Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965, but held it up as a model of what a political protest movement should be.

Guerrero’s attack on me is apparently based on my opposition to the current racism of her political friends on the anti-white, anti-American left. I have indeed pointed out that there is a war on “whiteness” and on white America generally, as anyone with two eyes can see. But I have never done what feminists have done, for example, which is to conflate prejudice against women with the history of this country’s persecution of blacks. This cultural appropriation of black suffering is offensive in the extreme. There is nothing in women’s history comparable to the suffering of blacks under slavery, segregation and Jim Crow discrimination. As for white people, despite the fact that they are under attack they are not by any stretch of the imagination an oppressed “minority.”

In all these comments, Guerrero’s political hatreds are on nauseating display. The only principle guiding her writing is to smear me as a white racist, and grossly exaggerate my influence on Miller and Trump. Her motive in demonizing me is transparent in her claim that through Stephen Miller I shaped the Trump campaign and White House. In fact, Trump wrote about his support for inner city minorities and the school choice movement in his 2000 book The America We Deserve, before I ever heard of Stephen Miller. Though I applaud Trump’s achievements for civil rights, I had nothing to do with his honoring Martin Luther King with a national park, or his decisive role in passing the Criminal Justice Reform Act – long desired by the black community and ignored by the Democrats – the Opportunity Zones he created with Tim Scott and his unprecedented support for Historically Black Colleges. The racist slanders against me, like the racist slanders against Trump supporters, are mini-versions of the slanders intended to vilify and destroy America’s 45th president.

Jean Guerrero is a typical “woke” journalist: an anti-American racist and a pathological liar. As a result, her “reporting” is worthless – a clumsy fiction at best, but a poisonous one throughout. A free press – once a pillar of America’s democracy – is for the moment dead in our beleaguered country. This is a national tragedy because a free press is the main bulwark against the incipient fascism of a political left which no longer is content to contend with its opposition but actively seeks to criminalize and suppress it.


BellLetsTalk: Fags trannies and BIPOC are all depressed losers because of their internal failures

Today is Bell Let's Talk Day where the phone giant donates money to mental health initiatives. Sounds nice, right?

Yeah, not so much: in reality it ends up just being a sort of inverse purity spiral where different (mostly far-left) groups wallow in their own failures under the guise of victimhood, insisting that they need (free, mind you) treatment for their own "safety" and "security" and all those typical woke buzzwords.

But as I wrote about it here four years ago, the only ones committing suicide because of their internal characteristics are the faggots and trannies..who admittedly have broken brains, but thanks to activists in the psychological academia two decades ago cannot be cured by today's over-credentialed but under-wisdom'd reams of "mental health professionals". After all, they refuse to accept that their brains are broken too, which really impedes treatment.

Not that I have a lot of faith in general in the successes of the psychology profession. Let's look at a little book I've had on my shelf since Junior High School: Collings Gem Body Language written by David Lambert. It was one of my earliest educations into how the psychology profession, along with all the social sciences, just didn't have the intellectual rigour we expected from hard science. We can't tell you much about the subatomic interactions in an aluminum molecule but that's mostly a result of computers not being powerful enough: we can pretty much nail down hydrogen (and we could long before computers in fact). But the human brain is just beyond a full understanding, and that book is a great example. In it, a variety of examples of body language are demonstrated. When you're sitting on a subway seat and the girl next to you crosses her leg furthest from you onto the one closest too you, it's a sign that she's sexually attracted to you: she's mimicking the folds of her vagina and inviting your gaze to travel between her legs. Well, it's either that or she just prefers crossing her legs that way. Or she's signaling lack of interest in the guy on the other side of her. Probably one of those three. So hey, if you wanted to use that body language to determine if she was willing to go for coffee sometime we actually have no information for you. It's all over the "tome" (that's awfully lofty a phrase though, it's literally a little book).

Oh but that's only the Faculty of Arts side of psychology, right? The courses taught under the Faculty of Science are much better than that, correct? The definitive undergraduate textbook remains "Biopsychology" by John P.J. Pinel (from UBC, as it happens). It at the very least has more useful information than pop (or Faculty of Arts academic) psychology books, but you'll certainly want to grab a version from before he threw a pointless tranny preamble into Chapter 13. It does, by the way, include the example of David Reimer, who medical science tried to make into a girl (and early results were encouraging) before he ended up...committing suicide. Go figure. Chapter 15, about drugs and their effects, is the biochemical example to this though: the opposite of drug tolerance (body builds up resistance to the effect of a drug) is drug sensitization, where after exposure the body develops sensitivity to the drug. This can happen with the same chemical to different people, or to the same person with the same chemical at different times. Can you predict what will happen beforehand? Nope. In fact, Pinel only casually mentions sensitivity twice in the entire book, despite being the subject of numerous official health and safety warnings from the Alberta Government.

Mental health and suicides are on a lot of people's minds lately, of course, because that same Alberta government and thousands of others from around the world have irrationally decided to sacrifice people's mental/physical/economic health in order to protect us from an ineffective ChiCom bioweapon. Currently within my own circle of friends and extended family and folks I can picture if you tell me their name, we have lost exactly zero people to the Wuhan Flu but lost one and almost lost another to suicide as a result of the rapidly-diminishing job and prosperity prospects in Western Canada. In Japan there were more October suicides than Wuhan Flu deaths to date. These lockdowns are seriously increasing the suicide rate, and this year's theme of Bell Let's Talk is "needed now more than ever".

Of course, the problem is that there's an intrinsic difference between economic rationales for suicide and the mentally ill rationales for suicide. Curing people of their mental health issues will save suicides for youth with irrational levels of despair (cutters, poofters, etc). It's less clear that extra counsellors making six figures are going to reduce suicides for oilfield workers facing huge debts and numerous political leaders explicitly telling them they will never get a good job ever again and actively trying to discourage employers from hiring you.

Isn't it curious that the politicians who are trying to actively harm the lives of workers in the energy sector are never deplatformed for "hurtful" statements? Or that lockdown fetishists who advocate policies that harm the "disenfranchised" are never similarly impacted. 

So this year for Bell Let's Talk let's stop pretending that pissing around pretending the cure for economically-inspired suicides will cure men like Benjamin "Gwen" Benaway.



Chicago Catholics have gotten into the venison business:

A spokesperson for the archdiocese assured CBS 2 no illegal hunting is going on at the cemetery, which made us ask about lawful hunting. That’s when we discovered deer are being killed on this property, by licensed professionals with permission from the church.

“Lay your loved ones to rest here, but let us kill the beautiful animals that are walking around. How right is that?” Tammy said.

The herd is apparently too big, causing safety issues, but when CBS 2 asked about specific examples, we weren’t given any by the Archdiocese.
As expected, the weirdo "you can't hurt an animal ever" crowd came in with their unrealistic expectations.
Whatever the problem, the animal lovers thought of a solution.

“What they should be doing is tranquilizing the deer and relocating them,” Tammy said.

“Look at their eyes. They’re so beautiful. How could you kill them?” Franks said.
Easy: you pull the trigger. When an animal needs it, an animal gets it (I actually had to kill not one but two cats in 2020).

Helpful hint, it's a lot easier than tranquilizing and relocating them.


Can you spot the difference?

From Haverford College warning students that during a pandemic they shouldn't protest for safety purposes:

From Toronto Mayor John Tory reacting to anti-lockdown protests: Quick, what's the difference between them? Well, the big one is that the Haverford statement also spoke out in favour of the protesters' cause, which Tory has not. He isn't even willing to say "I agree that you have the inalienable right to this protest but I'm begging you not to do it."

Roger Kimball on FakePresident Biden

A broken political order that puts a senile moron into office by virtue of hiding him and the truths about him (and Hunter) from the populace:

Really, it is an amazing, not to say an ominous, spectacle. As one Twitter wit put it, Donald Trump brought peace to the Middle East, Joe Biden brought war to Washington. 

The ostensible reason for turning the capital of the United States into an armed camp is to protect the mostly virtual inauguration of China’s Big Guy, Joe Biden, against the onslaught of all those “right-wing extremists,” “white supremacists,” etc. that the magical magus Donald Trump is mobilizing through secret “dog whistles” and other shamanistic practices. 

The trouble is, all those “right-wing extremists,” like President Trump’s supposed “incitement” of the crowd at his “Save America” rally on January 6, are a figment of Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer’s addled imaginations. Yes, that meme is assiduously, not to say preposterously, circulated and amplified by the media, social and anti-social alike. But those threatening hordes do not exist.

Just so, the violent mob scene at the Capitol on January 6 was not an “insurrection” or an act of “domestic terrorism” but rather, as Tucker Carlson put it, a political protest that “got out of hand.” 

Here’s something else that has got out of hand: the American political order. 

"Save America" was a good slogan. "New Trump Army" is another. If you really want to get the left's panties in a bunch (I'm looking at you Richard Levine) call us the "New Resistance"

As the years go by, historians, if the censors allow them access to the documents and give them leave to publish their findings, will count the 2016 presidential election as the last fair and open democratic election. 

Beginning with the election of 2020, the game was rigged. 

I know, I know, we are not supposed to say that, and Twitter, Forbes, Facebook, and other woke guardians of the status quo will frown upon the suggestion. 

But every honest person knows that the 2020 election was rigged. 

The statistician William M. Briggs has a handy round-up of the evidence. He also makes the commonsense observation, “If a party cheats, and is in charge of investigating accusations of cheating, and if the media calls the cheating a conspiracy theory, and if the rulers move to expel those who question the cheating, as has already happened, then that party will win by virtue of its power.”

That, as he goes on to observe, “is the way power works.” 

I have a few thoughts about the election fraud that I'll try to get to over the coming weeks. If you follow me on YouTube you may have seen some of them already.

The central fact to appreciate about Donald Trump is that he was elected without the permission, and over the incredulous objections, of the woke oligarchy that governs us. 

(h/t The Smallest Minority


The end of the internet

There's a lot of good stuff in this Quillette post by Allen Farrington about Big Tech's anti-conservative bias:

Bizarrely, conservatives reacted to this development by lamenting the lack of arbitrary government intervention in private enterprise, while their liberal opponents celebrated corporate squashing of individual expression. If you don’t like it, build your own app.

Arguably more important, if less sensational, has been the coordinated nuking of the efforts of those Trump fans who did, in fact, build their own app. Google and Apple banned conservative social media aspirant Parler from their app stores, effectively throttling its only viable distribution channels. Amazon then went a step further and revoked Parler’s right to host its site on its web service, AWS. For good measure, authentication service Okta and internet-to-telecoms interface platform Twilio withdrew their infrastructure too. If you don’t like it, build your own internet.
Culminating in (of note considering what happened with V-Dare's founder):
Operation Choke Point. This was a Department of Justice initiative that ran from 2013 to 2015 and which involved pressuring banks and payment processors with threats of costly compliance measures. These sanctions were extra-legal punishment for facilitating the financing of legal but ideologically disfavoured businesses such as payday lenders, firearms and ammunition dealers, escort services, and more. Of course, there is no recourse, legal or even practical, to being cut off from banking. If banks won’t serve you, you cannot access modern payment rails, and so you cannot run a business at all. If you don’t like it, build your own money.
He even ends with a Lord of the Rings analogy:
We might call the solution of the Quillette editors the Uncle Ben approach: that with great power comes great responsibility, and that if this power exists, it should be dealt with as responsibly as possible. My proposed solution, on the other hand, is that of Elrond: nobody can wield this power, and those most confident they would use it for good are precisely those who must not be allowed to have it. While I’m sure Claire Lehmann would make a decent Galadriel and would not succumb to the temptation to abuse this power, there are far too many Boromirs for the possibility to be an acceptable risk. The ring must be destroyed.

But the real meat comes from the comment by "Mysterion", and his frankly honest and concerning look at the future:

Key point here. Everyone outside the US, no matter what their position on censorship, must now believe there is now a huge problem with free speech and the internet.

Either you believe

  1. that the banning of Trump was essential to democracy, or
  2. you believe it was a threat to democracy

If you believe 1, you have to ask yourself whether a ban would be forthcoming from Twitter if you had a Trump_2 in your own country. Twitter hasn’t banned the Chinese government from its service, or any authoritarian leaders abroad as far as I know.

If you think that it is essential to democracy that an authoritarian in your country should be banned, can you really defend the idea that decision should be in the hands of a foreign corporation?

It just isn’t a viable position to believe that a ban should in place and that Twitter should decide, if you live outside the US.

If you believe 2, then the position is, of course, even worse. A transnational commons is now being policed by a US corporate with the ability to decide what can be said in the public square in other countries. It is not even under the potential/notional control of foreign voters (as it is in the US).

Remember the dictionary entry that was updated to render the phrase “sexual preference” offensive moments after Amy Barratt said it. Anyone and anything could be misrepresented as a violation of some unspecified code in unpredictable ways and banned. In the words of the Sex Pistols - no one is innocent.

This seems to be the line taken by Merkel and EU leaders. We should expect an EU initiative to split Twitter and Facebook into separate legal entities, with the EU legal entity under the suasion of the EU. The internet is likely to balkanise as a result.

This logic is implacable. Whatever your position on censorship or free speech, we are heading towards regionally controlled areas of the internet.

What else did she expect?

Tamara K at the Books Bikes Boomsticks Blog (there's a mouthful!) tried asking Twitter users why grocery baggers deserve minimum wage. It went as well as you might expect.

She was perhaps unaware that, since the social network is actively removing conservatives, therefore the only people still on the platform skew hard-left? It's one of the reasons I routinely bug journalists asking why their news stories on "online reaction" don't include such caveats.


Sophie Trudeau gets jungle fever, Canadian taxpayers get the bill

I somehow missed this when it first came out, though I was fairly occupied in the week of August 21st, but Harrington Lake renovations were being performed simply because Justin "Rat Bastard 2.0" Trudeau is unable to sexually satisfy his wife.

Canada’s National Capital Commission (NCC), the federal agency that manages national heritage properties including the Prime Minister’s homes, was directed to construct a sprawling second mansion at Harrington Lake by the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) in late 2019 — shortly after the federal election in October and just days following turbulence in the marriage of Justin Trudeau and Sophie Gregoire, a source inside the PMO tells The Chronicle.

The $8.6 million in federal spending was not publicly disclosed until April of this year, which included $3 million to renovate the main house, $2.5 million to reconstruct and relocate what has been described as a caretaker’s house on the grounds, and $3.6 million to construct a second mansion that is intended for the Trudeaus’ use.

Just days after Gregoire threatened to divorce Trudeau last October, when she first began refusing to sleep under the same roof with him, the PMO ordered the NCC to proceed with millions of dollars in unplanned projects at the Prime Ministerial retreat.
This isn't the only time Sophie's interest in a British nigger hurt the working people who get robbed by the federal government either...remember the infamous WE Charity trip where she and Elba both got the Wuhan Flu and then never infected her husband? Yep, also paid for by taxpayers.

Ditto the Shiny Pony's Costa Rica trip that was an excuse to get the grey in his beard (and escape his wife who hates him almost as much as a random Albertan), and in all likelihood his recent secret trip to Barbados.

Despite the (typical, but inexplicable) fascination women have to men in the Trudeau family, apparently Shiny Pony is such a lousy husband and lover that his wife has to seek BBC in the land of the BBC.

But it's the rest of us who play the role of sugar daddy.

Deep Space Nine on Blu-Ray

Will Star Trek: Deep Space Nine ever be released on Blu-Ray? No.

Will it ever get an HD remaster? No.

Recently on their 2021 "State of the Podcast" show The Pensky File broached the topic, speculating that when machine learning reaches the next pinnacle of automatic HD remastering in the next 3-7 years that we'll end up being able to download torrents of HD DS9.

You can watch a minor example from CaptRobau on YouTube...warning, you'll need to watch this fullscreen on a laptop screen or larger to notice much improvement:

As a minor aside, why is the go-to episode always "Sacrifice of Angels"? Why not an HD restoration of the battle between the USS Odyssey and the Jem'Hdar back in season two? I personally think this is one of the great moments in all of Trek...

Anyways I mentioned you'd want to watch on a larger screen, because the results are...underwhelming. At least from the scenes we've been shown, the technology isn't quite there yet. If it ever will be: after all, there's some information that's simply forever lost because of how VFX and 35mm elements were combined in the 80s and 90s.



Daniel Greenfield back in 2015 wrote on the Woke Left and how they try to turn conservatives' inherent human decency into the proverbial rope to hang yourself with:

It’s impossible to have a rational conversation with a crybully because it doesn’t walk to talk to you; it wants to loudly broadcast its feelings. As one Yale crybully wrote, “I don’t want to debate. I want to talk about my pain.” My pain. Me. Stop arguing with me and start paying attention to me right now.

A crybully’s pain isn’t caused by poverty, disease or an elephant stepping on its toes. Instead it’s caused by the existence of other people who don’t take its ridiculous claims of suffering seriously.


That’s how the victimocracy is ruled.

The campus crymobs demand that everyone who isn’t a crybully shut up and never speak again on pain of having to undergo privilege training sessions by otherwise unemployable identity politics studies majors.

And that is just the crymob with a permanent university position and a paycheck. The great dream of the crybully is to force every student to submit to daily crybullying. The crybully is just a weak, cowardly government licensed bully who wants a job bullying people for life while talking about his suffering.

Sound familiar? Finally:

The crybully embodies the left. He is an oppressed oppressor. An abusive victim. A self-righteous hypocrite. A loudmouth censor. A civil rights activist who wants to take everyone’s rights away.

Now where have we seen that before?  

Defund Libraries

An Arizona librarian was fired for the "crime" of speaking out against #NiggerLivesMoreImportantThanSocietyMotherFucker and endorsing the view that libraries need to be neutral and (actually) inclusive

The ALA found a dissident worthy of crushing in bookmobile librarian Ron Kelley. Kelley devoted his life to diversity and inclusion, not in the way that woke college students pretend to by posting platitudes on Twitter and attending the occasional Black Lives Matter protest, but in real ways that left him poorer than he started and eventually out of a job. 
His own takedown of their BurnLootMurder advocacy is worth a read:
The propagandistic posting below, apparently forwarded from the current president of ABOS, about the Black Lives Matter organization is extremely unwise. Overt politicization of this list-serv will destroy this forum. Do members want a political battlefield, strong-armed by ALA-sanctioned propaganda, or an open exchange forum for outreach improvement? Or, truly, in the heart of our festering Culture Wars, are only dictated political perspectives permitted about library outreach programs in these discussions? Such ham-handed, totalitarian directives are apparently endorsed by ABOS, as well as the ALA, to the obvious exclusion of other views. Will this ABOS discussion group kick out (censor) individuals who advocate for a non-political forum?

It’s an old adage that is increasingly under attack: Libraries should provide aid and information to ALL who seek it and not function as a politicized, prejudicial Advocacy Factory.

Diversity? Inclusion? 82% of American librarians are women. Why no interest in gender diversity in this genre of workplace? Or is the presumption here that of the usual “social justice” template, that all males are innately oppressors, naturally affluent, born cursed, and they don’t like “women’s work?” Or are men relatively illiterate? Which stereotype suffices to righteously ignore this glaring stat about women’s dominance of the library world?

Here, below, are some Black authors with alternative perspectives on the Black Lives Matter movement, and/or beyond. I’ve read/viewed some of this material, but not all of it. I formally endorse nothing, I do not know all of which every individual advocates, but recognize that the fundamental purpose of a library is to provide a broad range of information/materials for ALL patrons, and a wide realm of fact and opinion, not solely bending to a favorite, dictated ideological line. A much-needed “diversity of viewpoints,” perhaps the greatest diversity of them all, cuts across race, class, and gender.

Libraries – and this discussion forum — should remain apolitical. ALA — and ABOS, apparently now in tow by the neck — adheres to one-dimensional thought in heralding a single political view while implicitly dismissing/censoring other perspectives, something akin to Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, or Orwell’s masterpieces. Ignoring some strains of thought — and relentlessly highlighting, and overtly advocating for, others — is a discrete form of censorship, as any librarian knows in collection development.

Library workers are supposed to be informed. They ought to be readers, and open wide the doors to ALL visitors, not shut – or narrow — them.

And a librarians’ job should be to serve their communities’ respective needs, not to manipulate information and tell people what to think.

The ALA email below solicits activism in the Black Lives Matter movement and offers “resources on educating yourself.” In this regard, do you think that this grossly prejudicial email would dare to encompass the following?
There are many more alternative Black perspectives, but they are not popularly heralded by those with vested ideological devotion to Marxism, post-Modernism, and/or, generally, the “social justice” narratives of the political Left, i.e. the likes of the American Library Association. The ALA has long since failed – by conscious political design – to be an objective arbiter of what is or is not “fake news.” (See, for example, its endorsement of the prejudicial and partisan ideology of “critical librarianship,” which rejects the aims of an objective neutrality. Examine also what brand of individual speaks at the ALA’s conventions, both national and sectional. And who/what is forbidden its forum.)
Over the past few years, critical librarianship has become a force that pervades every area of our work, from reference to library instruction, collection development, cataloging, and storytime. Biweekly #critlib Twitter chats (crit​lib.org) address topics across all areas of librarianship. Many librarians are thinking about how they can fight for social justice in their work, which raises the question of whether that work reflects the neutrality that has long been a value in our profession.

One tenet of critical librarianship is that neutrality is not only unachievable, it is harmful to oppressed groups in our society. In a world that is fundamentally unequal, neutrality upholds inequality and represents indifference to the marginalization of members of our community. If the majority of what is published represents a white, male, Christian, heteronormative worldview, then we are not supporting the interests of other members of our communities by primarily buying those works.

As Megan Fox notes in her article,  Ron Kelley has his own bona fides that should put his accusers to shame. Instead, they fired him for simply disagreeing with them:

In my current library job, one of my responsibilities is to serve the Navajo Nation that strides the eastern side of Arizona. (God help them during the Hell they are going through in the current pandemic). I have written proposals (my ideas, my initiatives) and landed TWO grants to get books and movies – about the Navajo, and some other Native Americans, including the Hopi – for use by the Navajo community and others. The first grant was expressly devised to acquire books and movies created BY NAVAJO individuals who defined their OWN experience and community—memoirs, poetry, films, and on and on. Whatever I was able to find…The later, second, grant was to get books and movies by anyone about the Navajo. This recent effort has been to get as many perspectives as possible, to widen and inform the results of the first grant.

I also went out of my way (beyond bookmobile duties) to land a THIRD grant (I also wrote that proposal – by my own initiative) to get a few thousand dollars-worth of educational/technological tools for a “STEM” project at a Navajo school in Leupp, Arizona. I joined with a wonderful library coworker whose expertise was to set up a program at that school, and she further partnered with an educational center in Phoenix to get the project accomplished.

MAYBE one of my persecutors at ABOS has done something vaguely like that.

But I’m still not finished pulling myself out of the extremists’ cesspool. If you’re lying down on the floor, flustered with shock that your routine stereotypes of dissenters don’t stick in my direction, don’t stand up yet.

Don't think for a second that the situation at tax-funded Canadian libraries aren't even worse...the question becomes will anybody be willing to speak out about it?


I'm sure they aren't connected...

Alexandra Kitty: more than 230 Hamilton hospital workers have gotten the Wuhan Flu.

If hospitals in Hamilton cannot contain a virus, they have failed.


Public healthcare in Ontario scores another Chinese animal virus victory!

But back to the big black eye Hamilton Health Sciences has because that’s a lot of workers who have the cooties.

So, what do we know?

  1. Masks don’t work!
  2. Sanitation with cancer-causing disinfectants doesn’t work!
  3. Social distancing doesn’t work!
  4. Lockdowns don’t work!
  5. Isolation doesn’t work!

There is your real-life proof. The world is a living laboratory and here is Mother Nature — our intrepid truth-loving scientist — letting the world know in no uncertain terms that HHS is an epic fail in their knowledge base.

Say it with me, gang…

Masks don’t work. Masks don’t work. (Repeat until it sinks in).

Lockdowns don’r work. Lockdowns don’t work. (Repeat until it sinks in).

Meanwhile, courtesy of Blazing Cat Fur, Hamilton is in the news for another reason: Ontario Has A Stay-At-Home Order, So Why Are 5 Movies Filming In Hamilton?

Meanwhile (BCF again): anti-lockdown protesters in Hamilton are charged. Next time bring a film camera or a stethoscope, guys!

Related: Change your business from a hair salon to a film production company and you get to stay open!