Why am I paying for a lazy nation's housing?

Twenty-four affordable housing units will be built for Paul First Nation in west Edmonton through funding from the province’s Indigenous Housing Capital Program.

Seniors and Housing Minister Josephine Pon said the provincial and federal governments will together provide $3 million towards the rent and rent-to-own units that will be located near 163 Street and 100 Avenue.

“This is an exciting project to mark the first time that the development funded under the IHCP has offered rent-to-own options to the tenants. We support the Paul Band’s plan to make ownership a reality of its members,” Pon said.

Paul First Nation is working with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to secure up to $4.5 million for the project and $250,000 in seed funding, while the City of Edmonton is providing a $1.5 million grant.

Why are Red Indians getting free money stolen by me to get themselves housed? The background here is that the Red Indians of the Paul Band who live out by Wabamun don't like their commute. They would rather live in the City of Edmonton, but unlike whites who answer this problem by magically using their own money earned from the job they commute to, their solution is "get me to pay" because their own Injun tribe, which they laughably call a "nation", just isn't so.

There's also a "housing crisis" on the Paul Reserve, you see. The same squaws who can't keep their legs together are producing more and more kids. Hey, continue your race if you want etc. etc. etc. The question again becomes "if your so-called nation needs more housing why don't you build some presumably within your own nation?" I don't know if you've ever driven on the Paul Band territory just south of Kapasiwin but we're not exactly talking about Hong Kong here: there's lots of room to build a house.

Admittedly part of the problem is "they can't produce houses there because of the Indian Act", but since that same Indian Act is what they cling to because it's where the free tax money stolen from whitey comes from, it won't ever be solved. So they whine that they need to have a rent-to-own property within the white man territory that their own treaty stipulates isn't for them (yet another treaty violation), and then the provincial/federal/municipal governments combine to take the money taken from the productive whites (and other races) who actually work and use the money from their work to own homes and generate tax revenue, give it to the Red Indians, and then just wash their hands of the economic and cultural consequences.

@bcbluecon - Probably bad and illegal, but not as bad as at first glance

Hey did you hear that Pearson Airport has a new policy? Starting this morning anybody traveling on an African nation's passport will be publicly stripped at the security check-in, beaten with baseball bats, and then forced at gunpoint to pull a wagon carrying those traveling on a European nation's passport. The policy expires at COB tonight.

That sounds like a huge news story. It would top international headlines for months. Every news outlet in the world would be anxious to show video of the practice.

Thanks to a new policy undertaken by the airport, the news media would never get their story. Global News and CBC would be unable to cover it, CNN and the BBC would fall silent, and the New York Times pages would be blank. Why? The airport no longer will allow newsmedia to enter the airport (or even be standing on the grass on the side of the road) without first getting a permit 24-hours in advance. Any horrible policy or action taken by the airport will go totally under the newsmedia radar as long as it happens within a single calendar day.

It is, as Dean notes, probably illegal. It's certainly a major chilling of journalism in Canada. There aren't many arguments in favour of it.

Enter me.

I'm not saying its a good policy or I want it to continue. However, what is a "media crew"? Obviously a CBC cameraman and reporter and boom operator make up a "media crew", as do David Menzies and a cameraman. Yet we all remember during the summer of endless Shiny Pony-caused flight delays that we saw videos like this:

Did that constitute a "media crew"? How about this?

Unless Pearson is also instituting a "travelers cannot also film in the airport" rule what this action does is hurt the mainstream news media while helping independent citizens gain traction. I can't say I'm totally opposed to that! It's hard to declare in anger at their misrepresentation of conservatives those worthless pieces of shit deserve everything coming to them only to turn around and want their woke buddies at Toronto Pearson give them back a favour. While it's true CBC "journalists" are just as capable of getting on a flight and filming by hand inside the terminal, it certainly is a huge step to leveling the playing field. In general, that's a good thing.

Was this new media policy a smart idea? No. A good idea? No. Even permissible? Probably not. Completely irredeemable? Meh, I wouldn't go that far.


We need in on this crap

Canada’s prostitution laws prevent sex workers from obtaining meaningful consent before engaging with clients, a lawyer for an alliance of sex worker rights groups argued in a Toronto courtroom Monday.

The hearing is the first of what is expected to be four days of arguments at the Ontario Superior Court during a constitutional challenge of the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act.

That law was passed by the former Conservative government in 2014, about a year after the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the previous law that prohibited prostitution. In that case, lawyers argued existing provisions were disproportionate, overbroad and put sex workers at risk of harm.

The Canadian Alliance for Sex Work Law Reform is now arguing the new laws are more restrictive than what they replaced and continue to criminalize sex work.

It says the new laws foster stigma, invite targeted violence and remove safe consent.

Michael Rosenberg said in court Monday that the laws making it illegal to advertise or communicate about buying or selling sexual services are “unacceptably dangerous,” in part because they prevent health and safety checks, or meaningful conversations about consent, from happening.

So if criminal laws against prostitution prevent hookers from exercising their speech rights, what about Rat Bastard 2.0's ban on "conversion therapy" by which we can tell morally deficient faggots that their brains and broken and that they can and should be cured?

@BeverlyBain13 - I can't wait to read about how the vestiges of a great civilization collapse when an inferior people try operating them

"The event" which Miss Bain (let's all admit right now she hasn't found a nice man and settled down under the bonds of holy matrimony) refers to was the tragic death last month of our beloved Sovereign, Queen Elizabeth II.

Instead she's writing about the continued movement, based of course on retarded idiocy (as so many things her kind promotes are, of course), to leave the sensible Constitutional Monarchy which the British Empire in its infinite wisdom blessed so many of its realms with and replace them with republics, which with a tiny number of exceptions have all become completely botched and undesirable shitholes within a generation or two.

Barbados fell into darkness earlier this year, and nigger activists in other countries are working hard to replicate that process (especially before another example goes tits-up and even the dumbest nigger in Jamaica starts wondering if any of this is worth it).

You just know that as Bain writes about these "uprisings" she won't dare mention what happened when Her Royal Highness had to endure a variety of similar uprisings by niggers this time still back in niggerland. Let's go through a quick summary:


Separation Year

Year/how the niggers wrecked it



1961: halfway through their Soviet experiment an “austerity budget” decimated their farms and they have been starving to death ever since



1969: after the PM was shot by his own bodyguards (take note, Chrystia Freeland!) a military coup turned the country into a socialist state, later involved in that brutal civil war



1966: whoops, military coups again. After about six of these and a violent tribal/civil war later they actually got kicked out of the Commonwealth for their savage ways

Sierra Leone


1967: after a policy of affirmative action and crackdown on political protests (take note, Justin Trudeau) there was a tightly contested election, a coup, then a counter-coup possibly that same afternoon. Fun fact: this was the last legal slavery in the British Empire when in 1928 blacks finally were banned from enslaving other blacks



1982: thanks to oil money this place was able to pay to keep its violent niggers under control, though please note it’s been deteriorating rapidly since PMOTUS took office



1978: what was their secret for stability? easy: ethnic cleansing ensured only the ruling tribe stuck around (ever met an Arab Zanzibari? Probably not, most are dead!)



1966: if you don’t know who Idi Amin is, you’re probably clueless enough to write about “anti-colonial uprisings” in the Caribbean!



1969: you can quibble about the year but that’s when opposition leaders were banned. Baroness Karen von Blixen-Finecke wrote in the 30s about how productive Kenyan farms are. Don’t hear much about them anymore (they chased the productive whites away)



1966: Banda becomes President-for-Life of a one-party state. Nyasaland in 1891 was another example, by the way, of white Britons ending black-on-black slavery. You’re welcome, Beverly.



1972: another one-party state (this one’s name was Kanda instead of Banda), another tribal war, and another case of the whites being the only ones providing any economic activity to pay for it all



1981: whites were chased out, the economy fell to shit, government tightened restrictions, attempted coup, the usual. Add in Islamist influences this century



Ring the bell, jump for joy! This one hasn’t really been wrecked all that much and thanks to (non-conflict) diamonds they’ve seen an increased standard of living. What did Meatloaf sing? One oughta seventeen ain’t bad?



1970: the ruling party decided to ignore the election results which caused a guerilla war that has continued to rage and kill innocent 3 year olds in crossfire. Also if you want real estate in Lesotho be patient: they’re all dying of AIDS too



1971: Unlike other nations on this list they had to be expelled from the British Empire, they kind of wanted to stay. No wonder, 3 years later opposition politicians started to mysteriously die by self-inflicted car bombings

Swaziland or Estwatini or whatever


1973: once that goofball Sobhuza started thinking he was a real king he did things real kings do like...abolish democracy. Oh they finally brought democracy back this century after they saw his economic policies works....and cue economic hardship and a guerilla war which really heated up in 2018



1980: only Turkey might coup more often than this country. Still it’s relatively well-off, I’ve blogged about them before in fact. Like Cuba they’ve turned on the tourism taps



1982: Rhodesia was the breadbasket of Europe. You know how it ends: Mugabe, chasing away productive white farmers, economic hardship amid plenty, starvation, genocide, runaway inflation, and coming up on a half century of civil rights abuses in the name of “anti-colonialism”. This is what Bain is promoting. This is what she wants.

The common theme I want you to observe here is that one certainly can't lay the blame of these countries' misfortunes on "colonialism". Even if colonialism were a bad thing (and it ain't), it was clearly a superior system to the Afro-Marxism nightmare that came next. The phrase "primrose path" is getting a lot of use in 2022, and like everybody who irrationally hates the monarchy, Bev Bain is leading tribal blacks down that path either not knowing or not caring that it also spells their ruin.



@Liv_F I can't wait to put your polluting ass in the gas chamber

The left has weird ideas about "super-cool" things. Government regulation is many things but "super-cool" surely does not make the top 3000.

You know what would be really cool? If guys like West Coast Lass didn't keep demanding that others be imprisoned for generic "offenses" such as "pollution". It's a great buzzword and I'm sure he really thought it would be a knock against Liberal criminal Steven Guilbeault, but replacing the evils of taxation with the even greater evil of criminalization is hardly a measured improvement.

What does it mean to "pollute in Canada"? You might think it a pedantic question but if you plan to "regulate stuff" you have to define the "stuff". Let's start with "pollution". What is pollution? Let's ask the website "Skeptical Science" on a lark.

Although it has some very important and beneficial effects, CO2 meets the legal and encyclopedic definitions of a "pollutant", and human CO2 emissions pose a threat to public health and welfare.

Leaving aside for a moment how sick and tired we all are of being told our lives have to become measurably worse over some nebulous "threat to public health and welfare", I'm sure Liv has no problem using this definition to declare CO2 a "pollutant", so we'll take his word for it.

Already though we can see there's a small problem. If CO2 really is pollution, that can be used to regulate literally everything you do. If Liv has trouble wrapping his head around it, there's an easy solution. We demonstrate it, by taking his demand seriously.

Just imagine a Conservative MP standing up for new super strict and tight regulations making it illegal to pollute. Wouldn't Liv jump up and down and cheer? Whoops, not so fast!

One of the big asks of a national pollution regulatory framework is that it be targeted:

The OBPS applies to facilities that meet the following criteria:

  1. Are located in a backstop jurisdiction (a province or territory in which the federal carbon pollution pricing system applies).
  2. Have reported 50,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent or more in 2014 or a subsequent year to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. 
  3. Carry out a covered activity.

Well we can replace those cumbersome definitions with a much simpler one:

The OBPS applies to only one person: "West Coast Lass"

Much easier. (If you want something more official, just keep (1) above and delcare your house the only part of Canada not in a "backstop jurisdiction") That's right, you are the target of our new anti-pollution law. You wanted it to be ILLEGAL remember? Well now you have your chance to live in the world you want to force onto me and other people who aren't scared of running a gasoline engine for an hour or ten.

Now that we've established CO2 as a pollutant, and defined our target industry, what are the allowable amounts of CO2 we let this anti-freedom nutter consume? That's easy: everything. The moment Liv breathes, we nail his ass to the pavement Derek Chauvin style. The punishment as well cannot be a fine, oh no not a fine! That would merely make polluting expensive, and we want it ILLEGAL remember?

Jail obviously won't work either. For one thing, Liv will continue to breathe in jail and that won't help us one iota in stopping this horrible crime of polluting. For another, building and managing this facility will cause us to generate carbon as well and while sure the law gives us this legal loophole (by virtue of not being West Coast Lass) it just doesn't seem right, does it?

So the answer is simple.

You already agreed this was moral, now we're just quibbling over regulatory details...

@Karen_Banff Did you ask the Elders why they brutally murdered and stole the land from the indiginous inhabitants?

As one of the many official events on "Red Indians are too Primitive to be Educated Day", there was a nice ceremony in the beautiful mountain town of Banff.

Liberal Senator Karen Sorensen, one of Justin's mental midgets, was there in the full bore of officialdom to celebrate murderous land thieves. Wait, what?

Ever take the cruise on Lake Minnewanka? It's pretty nice (if a bit pricey), and once you get through the stupid land acknowledgements there's a brief discussion of a piece of protected beach due to its archeological and historical significance. You see, they found evidence of the Clovis People there, and it's very exciting.

Uh, wait, let's go back to that land acknowledgement. I'm sure Sorensen said or heard similar wording, but let's go over it again (emphasis mine):

In the spirit of respect, reciprocity, and truth, we honour and acknowledge that the townsite of Banff is located on traditional Treaty 7 territory. These sacred lands are a gathering place for the Niitsitapi from the Blackfoot Confederacy, of whom the Siksika, Kainai, and Piikani First Nations are part; the Îyârhe Nakoda of the Chiniki, Bearspaw, and Wesley First Nations; the Tsuut’ina First Nation; the Métis Nation of Alberta, Region III within the historical Northwest Métis Homeland, and many others whose histories, languages, and cultures continue to enrich our vibrant community.

The Bow Valley has also long been important to the Ktunaxa and Secwépemc First Nations who traditionally occupied lands and used the watersheds of the Columbia and Kootenay Rivers and the eastern slopes of the Rockies. The area was also used by the Mountain Cree clan of Chief Peechee, and the Dene of the far north and far south.

Uh, do you notice maybe somebody is missing from that list? Why didn't the Clovis get a mention? After all, the evidence is that the Clovis used the Bow Valley 13,000 years ago. Were they sharing it with the (first mentioned) Blackfoot? Nope! The Blackfoot originally lived in the vicinity of the Sherbrooke/Bangor/Burlington triangle, and if those don't really sound like names of towns around Banff it's because I'm talking about Maine/Vermont/Queerbec! It wasn't until roughly 1200 AD, a scant 300 years before Cabot and Cartier landed on the east coast, before the Blackfoot moved into their current digs.

So, uh, did the Blackfoot steal the land from the Clovis and murder them? Shouldn't they be starting every meeting with land acknowledgements too?

At the very least maybe we shouldn't mention the Blackfoot (or at least stop naming them first)? If you've never heard of the Îyârhe or even any idea how to pronounce it, they are the Stoney tribe, as in Stoney Trail, cook with stones because they didn't bother to have a bronze age, those people. The Lakota is an important addition, that's who they are: the Lakota offshoot of the Sioux. Wait, hold on, you might be dimly remembering something about how the Sioux originally lived around Minnesota/Wisconsin along the south shores of Lake Superior. When did they move to Banff again? Sometime around 1650. Sorry, not 1650 years ago but 1650 In the Year of Our Lord. They got here using the horses that were brought over from Europe (after the Sioux, the Blackfoot, the Clovis, everybody teamed up to exterminate millennia ago), which means if it wasn't for the white man's arrival they wouldn't have even been in Bow Valley. So why are we acknowledging this as their "traditional" lands when we brought them there? It would be like Martha's Vineyard talking about being on the traditional lands of Venezuelan people (which it actually might be, we're getting to that).

Well I guess the Tsuut’ina (another impossible to pronounce name) get the first land acknowledgement now. Or we can go back to calling them the Sarcee that would be handy. Anyways they at least lived in Alberta, right? Well they split from the Dene (again, we'll swing back to that) and lived near the Athabasca and Saskatchewan rivers. Okay, that's a few hundred miles north of Banff but I guess we'll settle that for now. The Sarcee are the ones who originally moved to Alberta and slaughtered the Clovis. Why are we acknowledging their lands again? We're back to celebrating the thieves and murderers!

The Ktunaxa (Kootney) and Secwépemc (Shuswap)? They're both wanderers from BC who claim their territory is...well, pretty much anywhere they glanced in the general direction of. According to the Kootney they've been around for "more than 10,000 years" which means they are quite possibly the murderers we've been looking for. Though I'm not sure they even saw Banff 10,000 years ago: unlike Indian bands in the United States, Canadian records are much more difficult to sift out. The Indian bands of course don't want to admit they just moved here and displaced somebody else, and Canadian scholarship literally has a policy of pretending they formed here from the salt of the land through the magical powers of the Great Crow, so not a lot of useful information is coming from third parties either. [for a movement founded on a 'truth and reconciliation commission they do everything they can to hide the truth, don't they? -ed] American scholars believe that their version of the Kootney arrived sometime between 11,000 BC and...1725

Fortunately for us the Cree are active on both sides of the 49th parallel so we can obtain some good information. The Cree came to Western Canada around 700 AD, so they arrived comfortably before the Europeans. No scholarly research is available when the "Mountain Cree" split off from anybody else. The Dene, who we recall include the Sarcee (in the sense that you can say that the Anglo-Saxons include the Welsh, I suppose), are less so and we're again stuck with the "nobody wants to look into history before David Thompson showed up" problem.

However we can make some educated guesses. The Dene live in the northern parts of Alberta/Saskatchewan/BC, south of the Eskimos and north of the various Plains Indians. Based on the general migration pattern from the Bering Strait, that would place their arrival (sans any more Blackfoot-style east-west moves) near the very end of the Asia-America prehistorical migration. What general migration pattern is that, you ask? Well, funny you should ask:

Admittedly this is a gross oversimplification (and ignore the blue line for now), but the migration patterns of the wandering Mongolians whose ancestors were in modern-day Canada before 1492 will generally follow this rough pattern. Note how little (partially due to whiny Injun activists) detail is available compared to Southeast Asia, Eurasia, and even the original migration out of Africa despite more time and more civilizations to accidentally destroy the evidence while constructing public works. Still, those other links are useful to remember a key animating principle of human migration: we tend not to pass by other cultures on the way to empty land behind them. Indeed the Stoney Indians are a prime example of this: when European settlers began to tame and civilize the lands that they used to roam, they moved to new land where they could again roam freely (and woe to whoever was there to begin with).

This is a long way to say that the Dene didn't move into northern Alberta: they were forced into northern Alberta after the Inuit pushed them out of the Yukon and northern BC. Why did the Inuit do this? Because the Eskimos pushed the Inuit out of Alaska. As a result of this, the Dene moved to northern Alberta and pushed whoever they found there into southern Alberta and Montana (where they were eventually forced out centuries later by the Blackfoot, as mentioned above). This is basically the "bubble in the wallpaper" migration method which settled all of North America, and brings us back to the poor Clovis. Where did they end up?

South, of course. Clovis artifacts are (perhaps for geographical reasons) common in the southern U.S. (Clovis is a town in New Mexico), but have not been found in South America. So they ended up around the Rio Grande where they eventually died out or were assimilated. So while the Blackfoot (and possibly the Kootneys) may have murdered the Clovis people they found they didn't completely genocide the race, so at least Liberal Senator Sorensen hasn't signed on with redskinned Nazis.

Things really get interesting when you look at what has been found in South America: there is strong evidence the Clovis weren't the first people in North America seeing as how it's awfully hard to get from Alaska to South America without crossing or at least closely passing North America first. Mount Verde in Chile appears to have been founded before the Clovis arrived, as was Pedra Furado in Brazil and even some sites in the USA. This means that...drum roll please...


...the Clovis also weren't the original human inhabitants of any of the land they came across and displaced the population living there as well (unless the controversial water migration theory, as highlighted in the blue arrows I told you to disregard for now, gets more reason to be believed).

If any of the pre-Clovis people traveled by land, wherever they tried to settle they were displaced: either by the Clovis or by whoever displaced the Clovis or whoever displaced the displacers yadda yadda yadda. This means, as many of you have grasped, that there isn't a single Indian tribe in all of Canada who has any right to claim they were the "first nation" or "original inhabitants" or "indigenous" or whatever term they come up with this week. The same people Sorensen was sharing the stage with bear the responsibility for the privileges they have as a result of the crimes of their ancestors using the exact same logic that causes the Pope to apologize for teachers teaching students in 1926. It also means that maps so commonly taught to children about which North American tribes lived where are not particularly useful, anymore than a map of 1937 is useful to help explain why what Putin is doing with his military right now is clearly just a civil war and/or a domestic policing operation.

Lets not forget that whenever we say "displaced" what we mean was "either forced off the land that they inhabited or brutally slaughtered for being ethnoculturally different." You know, the same thing that the white Europeans are being raked over the coals over despite the fact that like it or not this is how humans spread across the planet basically until the First World War.

So the next time some loser leftist tries making a land acknowledgement, ask them why they are rewarding land thieves with false claims of legitimacy. (Alternately, say that you are on the traditional territory of the King of England). Nobody in Canada is from a genetic line whose ancestors didn't at some point "take over" the land from the previous "inhabitants": the English were just the last ones to do it (excepting all the immigrants coming into Canada and taking it from the white descendants of the Fathers of Confederation), with the Stoney merely the second last ones, the Blackfoot the third last, and the Cree the fourth last (with the Kootney possibly squeezing in here at any point).

‡ Let's also not forget that whenever we say "inhabitants" we are using it in a very very very very very stretched thin (literally) fashion. As I noted before, for huge tracts of Canada it's on balance probable that a white man was the first human being to ever walk on any particular square foot. The area around Leduc was "inhabited" by whites in 1975 in a very very different sense than it was "inhabited" by the Lakota in 11,475 BC.

Maybe we should replace all land acknowledgements with the Clovis people, or perhaps even the Tupi. It's entirely possible that when Governor DeSantis had some fake refugee Venezuelans shipped to Martha's Vineyard, he was trying to engage in some serious "give the land back to the indigenous people who first settled there" reform!


@CerebroDeQueso_ This is why we can wear blackface without feeling bad

Last week the massive tub of human-shaped lard known as "Lizzo" (real name Melissa Jefferson, though if she legally changed it to that from "Pure Whipped Butter" I wouldn't be surprised), who spends 90% of her time claiming she's oppressed, spent the 10% of her time playing music in a one in a lifetime history opportunity: a classic flute created for President Madison's inauguration and never ever before played was brought out (with cooperation of the Library of Congress and the Secret Service) for her to play first in a tasteful performance within the Library itself, and later for a garish display where she wore basically nothing and shook her ass around in a twerking move which probably displaced so much air and caused so much vibration that it created Hurricane Ian, decimating Florida hundreds of miles away.

Many were disgusted by the performance, of an unslightly woman's ass begging men to please please fuck her or at least buy her lunch, and more than a few noticed the internal contradiction: the whole event certainly seemed like a lot of, oh, what's that word? Privilege. White male nobodies interested in playing the flute would be shot in the neck for trying to retrieve it, but the United States Government gives yet another negress special permission to flaunt the rules.

Rolling Stone, of course, did their usual trick of writing endlessly about the outrage but only showing photos and writing about the in-library performance. Nobody who only read the article had to endure this image.


Matt Walsh wisely notes that the left celebrated the incident as Lizzo "sticking it" to a dead white man, and therefore the conservative backlash might have something to do with our legitimate difference of opinion on the subject of how to treat historical relics like a gift to a U.S. President who was rated above-average by early 20th century historians (with an obvious bias regarding the War of 1812). Sorry Rolling Stone but you don't get to say "hey X is great because it aligns with our political agenda" and then also be upset when others say "hey X is horrible because it aligns with your political agenda". It's like the tranny bathrooms: faggots and their allies get all excited about changing centuries of civilization and then say "get over it, why do you care weirdo" when the proponents of that civilization object. The left deliberately breaks the rules, even theirs, and then gets upset when we turn the tables.

Which of course brings to mind the incident that Cerebro references from 2020: Lizzo in hot water for cultural appropriation. Remember, cultural appropriation is a good thing, but since they say it isn't, we should hold them to that. [I was asked to hyperlink to a Kurt Schlichter article on this topic, but search as much as I tried I can't seem to find anything from him about leftists following their own rules. He really should consider writing about it, he might get one or two or even three articles out of the topic. -ed] 

Fortunately for us, Cerebro performs a much-needed public service. He gives us a free excuse for when "cultural appropriation" is a bad thing: whenever the overarching culture is, in our opinion, "shit". What's good for Catholicism is good for Islam, no?

Or it can just be a "tool" for <insert ideology or geopolitical movement according to taste>  (colonialism, say, or #NiggerLivesMoreImportantThanSocietyMotherFucker) and then -- boom! -- cultural appropriation is back on the menu.

So go ahead and wear that blackface, then talk like the most stereotypical coon you can possibly imagine. This Cerebro dude just gave you the go-ahead.

Slightly unrelated: President Madison's home is about to be turned into a garish "memorial" for slavery to try again to push the claim that American blacks were uniquely affected by it.


Injun Medicine is medical misinformation (promoted by the Canadian Government)

You may be aware that over the past 16 months whiny Red Indians demanded people who didn't do anything wrong "apologize" (and were successful at getting the Pope to admit wrongdoing despite no wrongs being done). In my recent "Red Indian Education Day" post, I referred to my legendary takedown of all 94 TRC recommendations.

Well something caught my eye in that old post, and it's worth comparing to the cult of government doctors that we're seeing with the Wuhan Flu:

22. We call upon those who can effect change within the Canadian health-care system to recognize the value of Aboriginal healing practices and use them in the treatment of Aboriginal patients in collaboration with Aboriginal healers and Elders where requested by Aboriginal patients.
There's that quack medicine again. Those who can effect change within the healthcare system would include people at some point using some sort of medicine. "Aboriginal healing practices" specifically call for a rejection of medical science.

Now hold on hold on hold on.

Ever since March of 2020 we've told that "rejecting science" is the most cardinal of all sins. Last year YouTube decided that anything anti-vaccine was abhorrent and needed to be removed from their servers.

Well claims that Red Indian "healing" works is a false claim that, in the words of the hysterical left, directly puts people in harm (it doesn't, obviously, but that's their phrase not mine). So what's the response of the mainstream media, Big Tech, and woke legislators?

Fuck your science, here's some free tax money to pray to the sky crow!

Well, kinda:

The Indigenous Community Support Fund (ICSF) was introduced in March 2020 to provide funding to Indigenous communities and organizations to prevent, prepare for and respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. Throughout fiscal year 2020 to 2021, the Government of Canada allocated $1.095 billion to the ICSF, which provided funding to Indigenous leadership and organizations, including approximately $700 million to First Nations on-reserve, to design and implement community-based solutions to address the specific needs identified by communities and their members. Budget 2021 allocated an additional $760.7 million to the ICSF, including $472 million in direct allocations or needs-based funding for First Nations on-reserve, resulting in a total Government of Canada funding allocation of over $1.855 billion during the past 2 fiscal years (2020 to 2021 and 2021 to 2022). Land-based activities and cultural supports are eligible activities under the ICSF and have been historically funded. Youth winter lodges, on-land sweat lodges adapted to COVID-19 capacity restrictions, traditional food provided to elders and teaching traditional harvesting techniques are examples of previously funded land-based activities.

So a billion bucks a year to spend however the hell they want on whatever quack medicine they feel like. To be fair, much of the Canadian Government really dances around their commitment to this one. They yammer about this "systemic racism" nonsense, they fund midwives which is hardly an "aboriginal healing practice" other than the fact that it's kinda primitive. They also fund a non-capable almost-midwife who just tells you nice things about yourself during pregnancy. Yet, I suppose thankfully enough, they aren't quite ready to let these bozos get inferior healthcare at my expense (only to turn around and blame whitey when their outcomes are inferior)


@DaveJudson - You say that like it's a bad thing

The tragic death of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II have been bringing the typical Republican phlyarologists out to play.

Dave's silly idea is a generically typical version of this. There are of course several problems with this, but two in particular come to mind:

  1. What's the point?
  2. Where's the legitimacy?

So imagine we replace our current head of state (the Governor General speaking on behalf of the King of Canada) with a Governor General who speaks on his own behalf. He would have (presumably even fewer? "no political power" doesn't technically describe the current GG role) no actual authority to do anything but be a Head of State independent of the House and Senate.

So why bother? Just so clueless dolts who somehow object to the physical location our Head of State resides in will shut up about it? A piece of duct tape and a tyre iron can resolve that problem. This is quite a fundamental change in our system which seems to deposit us in the exact existing system except anti-royals can claim ownership of the position. Until, say, a Pierre Poilievre government chooses Don Cherry or Tamara Lich to the role, at which point the same people will decry how this person doesn't "represent who we really are" yadda yadda yadda and demand the new government replace them 1/3 of the way through their "5 year term".

We already have a system where the Governor General or Lieutenant Governor is being chosen by political hacks and where does this lead us? We end up with race-baiting wenches like Mary Simon, entitlement whores like Adrienne Clarkson, stealing cunts like Michelle Jean,psycho bitch sluts like Julie Payette, or anti-royal busybodies like Salma Lakhani. [maybe we need a "no girls allowed" rule as well... -ed] The only decent Governor General of the last quarter century was Daniel Johnson and he only got the job because Right Honourable Stephen Harper (pbuh) was a policy wonk centrist interested in a candidate who could do the job correctly and didn't have a hysterical vagina getting in her way. Can you imagine giving this role and these recipients even more legitimacy than the current status of "relaying messages to the Sovereign without getting your head cut off"?

Which dovetails into the second half of the question. Why should I give this new "nominated holder of supreme executive power" the time of day? As noted, Mary Simon is just a redskin with a good rolodex, it's the fact that rolodex includes the personal phone number of the King of Canada that means anything. The King of Canada gains his legitimacy by being the heir of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth who was the heir of George VI who was the second heir of George V who was the heir of Edward II...

[deleted the part where he continued to recite past Charles II and Charles I by memory... -ed]

...who was the second heir of William I who was the first King of England after its conquest in 1066. William I of course was also William II the Duke of Normandy, descended from Robert the Magnificent and... (why is my editor glaring at me?) ...well, suffice it to say that there's a bit of a historical line.

Canada, of course, was first settled by the British under King James I, who you may recall was the largest British proponent in the divine right of kings. You might say God infused Himself in Canada's first creation. It became, as we all know, a full Dominion under Queen Victoria, achieved its legislative independence under King George V (the first "King of Canada:), (foolishly) repatriated its constitution under Queen Elizabeth II, and is currently ruled by King Charles III. Thus a continuous and (mostly, cough cough interregnum cough cough) unbroken chain of authority from God Himself mandates the ultimate executive authority to which all His Majesty's subjects in Canada can and must owe their allegiance to.

Under Dave's system, pace William Shatner during his comedy roast, who the hell are you people? It's essentially the atheistic morality problem all over again. If the Governor General is just some hack chosen by the party in power (or were we planning to make the GG selection contingent on a unanimous vote?) then it's just some hack. The figurehead overseeing a political process doesn't mean anything if as a figurehead qua figurehead as it were: King Charles III is a figurehead because he's the personification of God's will over English soil (on both sides of the Atlantic, to borrow Dave's phrasing: indigenous and conquered). The legislature rules in service to the Crown. The courts rule in service to the Crown. That means something.


You'd think with the train wreck (I'll post more about this coming up) of failed and failing republics appearing and disappearing over the past couple centuries, it might tamp down a bit of this corybantic discourse. Yet no, even Lord Conrad Black fell into this trap.

They never did bother to explain why the monarch "on the other side of the ocean" is such a problem at the same time "shouldn't we import fewer people from across the ocean" has become the most hated sentence of our time?


@philwrite - Please point to the budget lines to prove this

Lately this has been a common claim from people who think that the evil publicly funded healthcare system is falling apart not because all public systems fall apart but instead because "evil governments have stolen the cash".

(Fun aside: remind them that they can't demand the government run healthcare and then be upset that the wrong government got in)

So the government of Canada supposedly gave provincial governments an extra $1.4B dollars (all non-inflation adjusted, of course). Let's look at the 2022 federal budget [pdf] (which will contain 2021 actuals and will of course have tables full of actual numbers, right?)

Of course not, why would a federal budget contain such silly frivolities. Now you can try to look at the gap between 2020/2021 and 2021/2022 numbers and discern for yourself whether this looks like more money or less than the $1.4B which Phil claims was sent to the provinces.

Instead let's start looking at provincial budgets and see if we can find where this money went! Let's start on the left coast. 

In 2020/2021, the BC Government spent a "mere" $22.231B on "People's Health Care" which sounds about as communist as...well, it actually is.

In 2021/2022 however, they apparently received (a share) of $1.4B in this much ballyhooed extra bit of spending. How much did they "stash away"? Well, they now spend $23.882B which is...uh...$1.651B higher. That means that I'm done. I've proven Phil wrong: the British Columbia government alone spent more on healthcare this year than the entire federal increase. And what outcomes has BC received for their big spending push? Whoops! CBC reports that "B.C.'s health-care crisis is unrelenting". Funny about that.

Well, I'm sure that when Phil accused "Con provincial governments" he didn't have John Horgan in mind. So let's look at Alberta, where I've already established public healthcare has too much money and needs to be cut back. The 2022 Alberta budget uses actual documents with numbers, showing that again $20.285B was spent on (non-COVID) healthcare in 2020/2021, decreasing in 2021-2022 to...oh, no, wait, they went up as well, to $21.418B, an increase of $1.1B. Remember this doesn't factor in the COVID numbers (BC presumably does), adding an extra $3.148B. So already one Conservative government has spent $1.1B of the $1.4B...but at least it's working out good for us and oh right there's a "nightmare" healthcare breakdown going on.

Let's do one more for fun. The 2021/2022 Saskatchewan budget called for $6.535B in healthcare spending. The 2020/2021 numbers are, surprise surprise, lower, at a mere $6.362. This is only $0.173B, but already Alberta and Saskatchewan combine for a $1.306B increase in healthcare spending. Unlike Alberta, at least Saskatchewan can rest easy knowing that...no, I lied, Saskatchewan nurses claim they've been in a crisis for over a month now. Don't worry though, flatlanders, the budget is going up to $6.823B in 2022/2023, I'm sure that will fix it!

Ontario and that horribly right-wing Doug Ford are...oh, right, increasing their healthcare spending from $64.4B in 2020/2021 to $71B in 2021/2022. Hey, isn't that increase $6.6B, almost five times higher than the amount that Phil said "conservative provincial governments" were refusing to spend (collectively, nationwide) and would (presumably, the tweet doesn't make it clear) solve the crisis? With so much money going into the healthcare system, finally we've found a oh wait nevermind: Ontario hospitals and long-term care facilities are in crisis.

It's starting to look like Phil's talking out of his ass, doesn't it?

Longtime readers won't be surprised by this, of course. The ultimate problem is public healthcare: so long as it's "free" to users and the financiers never have the chance to audit the books, it will continue to cost more and more and continue to underperform and fail more and more spectacularly. Paying the workers isn't the solution: in fact, every public healthcare worker is already overpaid by a significant margin. Cutting their pay makes a lot more sense. On a more long-term and global solution, a private-public hybrid system might at least partially fix the practical if not the moral problems. However, until all Canadians have the right to refuse to fund the healthcare of people we don't wish to fund (on an individual rather than collective basis, of course), we won't have a fully operable and accomplished system.

What we certainly can't do is take steps forward while also wasting money on a propaganda network that constantly amplifies the misinformation of nurses unions and people like Phil. Which is why the CBC must be disbanded. Then we can work on dismantling a healthcare system in perpetual crisis.

Happy "Red Indians Are Too Primitive to be Educated Day"



It's been a full year since we first covered the ludicrous federally mandated day to believe in a lie: to wit, that the Indian Residential School System was anything other than a gloriously noble yet ultimately impossible attempt to fix the primitive thought patterns inherent in the stone aged-race that greeted early European discoverers when they landed on North America.

There have been a few changes since that horrible summer 2021 where activists who hate the superior British cultural tradition outnumbered loyalists on Dominion Day, and innocent Christians saw their houses of worship decimated by arson attacks as a result of Rat Bastard 2.0 and his Red Indian stooges committing stochastic terrorism, to use a phrase that nobody had heard of until mainstream parents started learning truths about faggots many of us had long warned about.

Indeed, one of the big changes since then is slowly and inexorably the narrative is shifting. When the "215 dead kids" lie was first propagated, I was basically the lone voice in opposition (feel free to post links to others who examined these claims critically in May 2021). Everybody else breathlessly parroted the false statements of tribal actvists without looking carefully at what was actually happened. Today things are clearing up. The New York Post and National Post both covered the story. True North did a 6-part series and some followups on it. Left-wing vaccine proponent Jon Kay talked about it, and some of the geopolitical ramifications. Just two days ago, Rebel Media (as the company was and should be called) released a documentary about the scandal.

However you'll note there's still an insistence to look at the scandal aspect of this story. There were no "mass graves" found. Or even "unmarked graves" (or a discussion about why that would be a bad thing). For that matter, no graves have been discovered. No human bodies have been unearthed. No evidence whatsoever that the Kamloops Residential School has any Injuns kids buried on or near the site whatsoever. In almost all cases (Glavin/Kay/Malcolm in particular, but even "far right" Rebel Media) the story is the media framing the narrative based on what activists say rather than the cold truth about what's under the soil. Leftists like Jon Kay can almost be forgiven for continuing to revere the wider story as the activists frame it, but not entirely. "Everybody acknowledges Residential Schools were horrible", "it's 100% true that it was a horrible crime perpetuated on them", etc. etc. As Kay writes:

The whole mission of Canada’s church-run Residential School system was to assimilate Indigenous people into white Canadian society, usually against their will, while forcing children to leave their families and communities for months or even years at a time. No one disputes that many students were subject to cruel (and sometimes even predatory) treatment and substandard medical care. Certainly, the death rate for Indigenous children attending these schools was much higher than that for children in the general population. No, I never bought into the idea that there was any kind of mass-murder plot going on at these schools. But it hardly seemed far-fetched that some victims of mistreatment and neglect had been buried in unmarked graves—“off the books,” so to speak—by malevolent white teachers, school administrators, and priests seeking to evade responsibility for their actions.

I dispute it. Just like the graves, the basic facts dispute it. Using charged language which activists use deliberately conceal the truth, Kay (it's unclear how much he's studied this) speaks of "forcing children to leave their families and communities" when he's describing every boarding school ever. "Cruel (and sometimes even predatory) treatment" means...physical work and the strap. He'll discuss the death rate for Red Indian kids in Residential Schools but never bother with the word "tuberculosis". He treated it as read that the teachers and administrators who entered the education profession universally hated their redskinned charges to such an extent that they participated in a massive "shoot shovel shut up" plan in the middle of that aforementioned epidemic. Now true, Kay's paragraph above is partly "in character" as his May 2021 self breathlessly believing the media lies, but unlike the "graves! graves everywhere!" aspect which he now acknowledges probably isn't true he doesn't revoke any of his beliefs.

Speaking of TB, to prove a point which I was loudly proclaiming as early as the release of the TRC report, last October Red Indians dug around at the Charles Camsell Sanitorium in Edmonton where TB was treated and were shocked to discover that their "oral history" and "lived truth" of bodies buried in the ground by the hateful and uncaring hospital employees (that bothered to build and fund the bloody facility) was a complete fantasy divorced from the facts. That urban legend hunting is not a good public policy, of course, was never brought up by CTV News.

The insistence to step over ones own feet to exclaim how horrible the IRSS supposedly was seems like a way to try to minimize backlash from (often fellow) progressives. It's the Canadian equivalent of "yes yes blacks are treated so harshly by police but maybe don't burn cities down": "yes yes Injuns were mistreated and Residential Schools have exactly zero redeeming qualities but maybe just maybe try to do honest journalism on this small aspect of the story".

Absolutely not. I rejected it then, I rejected it now. Eventually the entire house of cards will collapse, at least in conservative circles, but for now the truth has to be a lone voice in the wilderness while this perversion called The Truth runs rampant.

A lot of this, credit has to be given, is to Professor Jacques Rouillard at the Dorchester Review which actually bothered to do what the lavishly funded TRC Commission did not: look into what happened to the kids supposedly missing/murdered/converted into body thetans/etc in Kamloops.

In its 2015 report, the TRC identified 3,200 deaths of children at residential schools. Surprisingly, it was unable to record the names of one-third of the children (32%) or for half (49%), the cause of death. At the Kamloops residential school, the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation (NCTR) officially recorded the names of 51 children who died from 1915 to 1964. We have been able to find information on these children from the records in Library and Archives Canada and from death certificates held by the British Columbia Archives’ Genealogy resource online which, it seems, was not consulted by NCTR researchers.

Combining these two sources provides a good picture of the deaths of at least 35 of the 49 students (two are duplicates). Seventeen died in hospital and eight on their own reserves as a result of illness or accidents. Four were the subject of autopsies and seven of coroners’ inquests. As for burial sites, 24 are buried in their home Indian Reserve cemetery, and four at the Kamloops Indian Reserve cemetery.

Sure seems a far cry from 215, doesn't it? Also, it seems like the schools had nothing (or at the least very little) to do with any of the deaths. If they lie about this BIG aspect of Residential Schools, don't get mad at me for thinking they are lying about the rest (we know they are vastly exaggerating the sexual abuse).

So what else has changed a year later, if not my steadfast support for the Indian Residential School System and the belief we need to bring it back?

Well, Shiny Pony got caught skipping memorials for his own "we're such horrible people day" and ended up catching waves. That's a nice side bit of trivia. Though it paid off for the Red Indians, his "apology" turned out to be insufficient, with a true apology only in the form of what it always comes down to with the grievances of a tribe of uncivilized and (apparently) uneducatable layabouts: a boatload of my money being wasted on them.

That's certainly been a practical benefit of the past year. I mean sure the Pope came to Hobemma and (unjustly) apologized for the crime of trying to improve their sorry race, but surprise surprise it comes down to more and more and more and more money.

This year, make sure to celebrate that same as last year: having to go to work to pay the taxes so that the same government who claims they are currently engaged in genocide gets to stay home or go surfing, before coming back to work Monday and wasting more and more of that money on the Red Indian people who, no matter how many classrooms you sit them in or how many cheques you write, never rise to functioning members of a civilized society.


Long to reign over us

Her Royal Highness Queen Elizabeth II died yesterday morning (local time) and I amoung all loyal subjects am devastated. She has been our Sovereign my entire life, the only monarch my parents have ever actually known, and as somehow-Prime-Minister Truss noted (where she -- inappropriately, as Nigel Farage and I agree -- also revealed the new King's regal name before Buck House did) was the rock in which modern Britain was founded. Sure that foundation was rapidly increasing irrelevancy in a world where their great contributions to the world were villainized and minimized, but its unclear what concrete steps Her Majesty could have and failed to take.

I first saw her on the steps of the Capri Centre in Red Deer in 1990. I last saw her in Calgary during the provincial centennial in 2005. She will forever be in my heart: she's MY royal, she's MY Queen, and I'll make sure to keep every bill and coin in which she graces and as quickly as possible dispose of King Charles III (why didn't he just change his name to Henry IX?) currency as I come across it. This was incredibly sad day, as South Park mocked, for Canada and indeed the world: we had hoped Her Majesty would have to attend the funerals of both her son and Justin Trudeau but that sadly has not come to pass.

On my second-most recent visit to the UK I picked up a bottle of Mead from Stonehenge which I admit I drank copious quantities of last night in honour of Queen Elizabeth II. I no longer can say "God Save Our Queen" and it will certainly feel weird singing anything else. Unlike 1952, the Empire's focus will not be so much on the incoming monarch as it will be on the outgoing one, and for good reason. After a relative flurry of monarchical succession in the years after Her Majesty Queen Victoria's death (Edward lasted 9 years, George V was the anomaly with almost 26, followed by the 327 days under Edward VIII and 15 years of George VI) we had just shy of three quarters of a century of stability at "Buck House".

That's highly unlikely to continue, with Charles likely to last less than two decades if not one, William (who is, believe it or not, forty) to be around a quarter century, and by then who can predict poor Prince George's fate? In 1952 the world was greeted with the novelty of the second Queen in slightly over half a century (and the realm's sixth ever) and a girl of whom not a lot was known. That we know all too much about Charles III is one of the reasons we don't really like him.

Perhaps it was Elizabeth's youth which "saved" her early on: it was understood that we would be getting a new monarch for likely a very long period, and therefore it was much more natural to be looking ahead as opposed to looking behind. Or perhaps that in the wake of the Second World War the mindset of the populace was more towards the future which surely must be brighter than the past we all collectively endured. Instead, we have a distant past (which she for many signified, as Joel Abbott noted) which was distinctively brighter and better, with an uncertain but likely darker future both in the poetic sense of the term and a literal sense, with the "green energy" policies which the new Sovereign enthusiastically supported in the form of out-and-out lying to his (we can now confirm) future subjects and various other groups around the world. When she came in we were a world newly at peace looking forward to the economic prosperity that would bring. When she left we were newly at war (psychologically, at the very least) and had angry people demanding that this economic prosperity be abandoned because plastic straws were just too useful.

Alas that sounds like some socioeconomic analysis of the world under Charles III which I am presently at no interest in engaging. This will continue to be a week and weekend of mourning, where I will drink more English (not UK mind you!) beverages and reminisce about a great woman who symbolizes an even greater institution. She is sadly gone but happily no longer the victim of the daily struggles of our mortal toil: I'm happily still here but sadly forced to fight on to stave off the twilight. She couldn't reverse the knob but she could help tamp down the hands on the dimmer switch.

Not a lot survives from 1952. Harry Truman was in the White House, Joe Stalin was in the Kremlin, Chairman Mao had just taken over in China. The British Empire was still a phrase taken seriously: it was not yet a joke, a punchline, and then a hate crime. Truman, Stalin, Mao are all long gone, but, until today, the Queen endured. Most of her cousins in the other European monarchies did not. She was a survivor, and they weren't. Ours is not an age of kings, and those born to royalty have to be pretty nimble.


Destination Fringe: the 2022 Edmonton Fringe Festival

After a two year break due to the Wuhan Flu overreaction, the Edmonton Fringe festival has returned with a vengeance smaller but at least attend-able entry. Though I'm out of town until midway through, at the very least I'll be able to report later on the size and attendance of the show, which in this post-lockdown world is pretty much how we need to rate festivals (I also missed Heritage Festival which was similarly much better than the previous year's debacle).

 We cannot possibly consider the disastrous 2021 Fringe as a legitimate entry. Cover charges to get into the beer gardens??

If I get to any shows or plays this year, you'll also find the reviews of such on this page, so feel free to smash that bookmark button! And just like 2019, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, and indeed all the way back to 2007, my fringing experience comes with exactly one rule:

No fags.


Happy Dominion Day

It's Dominion Day again, the day that we celebrate the British for coming to this basically empty continent, ending the savage practices on the land which had uniquely been unchanged since the Ice Age, conquering the despicable French who thought having a decent wine selection made them a legitimate culture, and creating the bountiful lands we see before us.

I know, I know, a useless tit of a Liberal renamed it Canada Day and as you'll recall from last week more useless tits with Liberal memberships in their fellow poofter's asses want to rename it yet again.

As always though we stand ready to celebrate our great British Colony and everything it achieved (and mourning the few things it failed).


If you don't already have plans tomorrow....



@Kim_1968220 - Stop the overdramatic crying about "muh rights and free-dumbs"

Kim hates when people "cry" about people protesting fundamental human rights (recognized over centuries).

Everybody got that? Good.

Hey, so the U.S. Supreme Court agreed that the modern day abortion -- where a human life is ripped into shreds on the flimsy claim that it can't be a real human since he/she cannot move around independently -- is totally something which governments can permit or restrict. It didn't reverse Roe vs. Wade in the sense that it didn't explicitly state that an unborn child (despite all medical evidence to the contrary) has the right to life and all women who try to kill one should be hung from a gallows, but baby steps to pardon the pun.

Why do I bring this up? Well, because unlike piddling little rights like freedom of movement, freedom of association, freedom of religion, this freedom to get abortions isn't a fundamental human right. When people complained in trucker convoys about losing these rights Kim accused them of crying. So is she similarly accusing the hordes of sluts attempting insurrections across America right now of crying even when some of them literally are?

Well take a look for yourself.
Wow, unlike Tamara Lich that sounds an awful lot like crying. Putting aside the fact that men don't have any abortion rights and many sit in jail because of it, those are pretty hysterical rantings there.

Which one is it, Kim? Are you opposed to "crying" about perceived loss of rights or not? If yes, apply it to your side which clearly is on the far shakier ground.


@bruceskelhorne - Can we keep murderous women out of secure airport areas?

Now that Roe vs. Wade got the final verdict that even Bader-Ginsburg predicted would happen we're seeing even more people who claimed mandating vaccinations (a medical process) were okay because of the unproven contention that not getting vaccinated caused other people harm, while abortions (a murder) are okay because they ignore the biological fact that a human life is killed 100% of the time in the process.

Ignore that for today and give Bruce all the points of his garbage argument: he didn't lose any rights to refuse a vaccine and women have the right to an abortion. That being said, why can't we setup our society the way the Viro Fascists did over the past year?

Every woman has the right to get an abortion.

Women who have had abortions (remember, public healthcare means we will always know) however cannot work for the federally regulated industries, cannot board airplanes or trains, and are forbidden to enter bars and restaurants. [the looser thighs that caused the abortion to begin with are less likely without access to nightclubs, a handy additional consequence! -ed]

If you have an abortion outside of Canada you must be quarantined until you're no longer a threat to more babies (ie. until you're sterile by either your own choice or by the ravishes of time)

Nobody is preventing you from having an abortion. However since you're acknowledged as an unrepentant murderer for safety reasons we have to limit your role in society. You have that abortion right you wanted so badly, but all choices have consequences and Prime Minister Lewis has determined this is the consequence for yours, and actions which motivate you to choose otherwise are for the good of the economy.


The familiar trajectory of trans-testicles like @TheJessieKirk: morally and intellectually superior conservative views require censorship

It took a while due to a couple computer issues and a lost password that turned out to take forever to figure out, my editor finally got his Twitter account up and running, and we could start posting the blogposts we've been making since last October.

One of them was pointing out that this faggot named Jessie Kirk, who's even more mentally ill than even the typical sodomite, thought that author J.K. Rowling was "harming" people by pointing out the unpleasant truth: Jessie will never be a woman. He can cut off all the parts of him that make him think he's a man, "feminize" his face, and it doesn't matter. He won't be a woman.

Claiming it's "harmful" is of course referencing the suicide rate of trannies, which believe it or not is even higher than it is for poofters. The claim by these retarded activists of course is that it's caused by "hurtful speech" such as the "hateful" statements of J.K. Rowling such as....er...."why don't you acknowledge that the fact of your biology means its unfair to have you compete in women's only sporting events"?

Yep, that's all it takes to drive them to suicide. Which of course was the point of the original post: if that's all it takes, then clearly your mental health is even worse off than we previously thought. If simple things like the truth set you off, then eventually one of these "harmful truths" will have bled through past the social media censorship regime they are working so hard to implement and the end result will be a suicide.

To wit: if this is all it takes to kill you, you're going to be killed by it. It's like a severe hemophiliac getting a minor injury (like sodomy it has a fairly effective cure so you have to imagine a scenario where they refuse treatment and instead demand a month to express pride in their condition). It will be fatal, but in this scenario there's only so long before we can protect them from the greater world. If this same "hemophilia pride" individual tried to go out into the wider world than their tragic death would be inevitable.

What was this dude's response? Simple: to whine like a woman that nobody should be allowed to speak the truth to him.

As the post title notes, I'm better than him in every conceivable way. I freely admit he'll never be able to be as good a man as I am, and even if he was just a garden variety faggot who didn't cut off his balls he'd still have the disease of his lifestyle choice weighing him down. Yet if even hearing that causes him such distress?

There are men better than me. Sean Connery is dead, but there's still Clint Eastwood. I'm sure a couple more examples could come to mind. Steven James Anderson, and....well, if we work hard we'll come up with a few more. The point being, if an example of a man who was better than me was brought up, my response wouldn't be to slit my wrists. For ass pirates like Jessie Kirk, that's not the case.

I don't know how I'll die. BBQ fire, duel with another mathematician, lung cancer, or firefight with some nigger trying to steal my car. There are a lot of possibilities. Unlike Jessie Kirk, the answer won't be AIDS, monkeypox, or suicide. We all die from something, it's only a matter of time.

Curing his illness, not covering up the truth about it, is the only way to cure him.