"Family home in the Laurentians"

Joel Johannesen on how the Laurentian Elite is just toying with us now.

Other videos depict Johnston heaping praise on Chinese dictator Xi on some of his visits to China, and telling the Chinese that China is like “home” to him.

All in all, it’s not a great record for a guy who is supposedly “neutral” and unconflicted.

Nonetheless, it was first sold by Liberals and their media (but I repeat myself, yadda) as someone who must, surely, MUST be seen as perfectly impartial, because after all, and make no mistake this is The Only Important Thing, Conservative Stephen Harper appointed him as Gov-Gen! Ignore all those so-called “conflicts of interest facts” that are springing up like so many daffodils in spring! Harper y’all!

I’m leary. Maybe I’m cynical too. But I wonder what’s actually going on here. As I said, surely Trudeau knew this would come up even if he doesn’t know how Google works. Surely Johnston knew because he has 14 grandkids. Surely the Chinese, who know Johnston very well, knew. Surely the “news” media all knew because they spend half their day on Twitter getting the “news” from Liberal HQ, NDP HQ, and other lefty tweet sources. Are they really that secure in their positions? Are they now so emboldened and self-assured that Canada is now finally literally, firmly, under their thumbs and there ain’t a damn thing any of us stupids with “unacceptable views” on the right or in the center can do about it? Are they flipping us the bird and having a huge laugh along with Xi Jinping?


It's okay to be white (any other colour is up for some debate)

Greg Hood discusses why Scott Adams got in so much trouble for saying "Ethnic Group A should stay away from Ethnic Group Y if huge swathes of Group Y believe Group A shouldn't exist."

What has happened to Mr. Adams is why many whites are afraid to take their own side or even point out racial double standards. Whites do share some of the blame. However, it’s not just white “suicide.” An abused group may share some responsibility for collaborating with the abuser, but it is not entirely to blame.

White advocates could add that most people pushing segregated graduations are black. Most blacks think race is central to their identity. The whole point of critical race theory is to argue that even formally colorblind institutions are racist because they were built by white people. Most whites do not think race is central to their identity, but today, indifference to race (“colorblindness”) is another form of racism. If racism, ethnocentrism, or racial identity are problems, it’s not white people who suffer from them.

Whatever Scott Adams has said or will say in future, the situation is simple. He took many black activists at their word and said whites should no longer inflict their presence on blacks. That is apparently career-ending and proves that whites are in an impossible position. We can’t be around blacks without being inherently racist but we can’t leave either. We are expected to wallow in endless guilt. If we don’t, we suffer even more punishment, as Scott Adams has learned.

Hood tries to say however that Adams misunderstood the Rasmussen poll by pointing out that a strict mathematical majority of negores think whitey is okay.
Mr. Adams himself says he took the poll at face value.

If Rasmussen itself is too conservative-leaning or somehow not credible, that supports Mr. Adams’s argument. Rasmussen trumped its results as proof that “most voters reject anti-white beliefs.” If the poll had a goal, it was to prove the opposite of Mr. Adams’s point. It wanted to show that most Americans, including blacks, reject “wokeness.”

The best way to summarize Mr. Adams’s position may be that whites need to end a destructive relationship in which they are abused just for existing. If journalists and activists think it is hateful for whites to disengage, that exposes the central contradiction of American race relations. In the view of our rulers, whites and whiteness are harmful, but sparing blacks the agony of being around us is even worse. Whites can neither stay nor leave.

I'm not sure that this should be taken as small comfort. "Only" 46% of niggers think its okay that you be you. When even 1% of people don't think that trannies, who have complete control over who they are, should be 'okay' with being who they claim to be its some sort of murderous health crisis, but it being even money that any nigger you come across thinks that your own innate racial makeup is acceptable must surely present some sort of issue.

It's roughly parallel to how the Derka-Derkas feel about murdering in the name of their child molesting Satanic Prophet mohammed (worms be upon him as God damned him and his followers to burn in hell). Left-wing extremists like University of Ottawa's Stuart Chambers say "don't worry" about finding out that 10% of Muslims in your home country are okay with mass murder (and just don't ask what those numbers rise to when you ask them if they are indirectly okay with mass murder, or go from the general "is extremism wrong" to more specifics like "do you support the Tube Bombers actions and cause") even as your government vows to bring a million or more of them into the country annually.

46% is a shockingly large number. That means more than 1 out of every 20 Americans is a threat to white people. Seems more important of a story than a cartoonist making a rational suggestion based on that fact.


@smirkindirk41 - You're on a roll

Andy Ngo was attacked, and Dirk thought he'd pile it on.

He's hilarious, isn't he. And he wasn't done! When this woman was raped at a party earlier this year, she took to Twitter to painstakingly tell her story.

Which led, obviously, to this:

And they say comedy is dead.


@vexwerewolf - Project much?

I have bad news for Mr. Werewolf: I 100% agree with many (not all, obviously, part of being conservative is having critical thinking skills) of their "hot takes". Let's take a random Tim Pool comment from a couple weeks ago: as part of his ongoing feud with far-left Young Turks host Cenk Uygur, he showed a major news story to disprove Uygur's laughable claim that "equity" isn't something being supported by any even slightly mainstreamed leftists.

He could have picked any such example, really. Here, here's the Government of Canada using "equity of outcome" instead of "equality of opportunity" as the benchmark to whether the vagina/penis breakdown of Canada's Parliament is "good" or not. If that's not really your bag, how about the University of Minnesota?

Can Werewolf tell us why he thinks that Tim Pools "take" is wrong? Uyger claims that that only a dozen fringe activists across the USA use equal outcomes as their metric. It was literally child's play to prove him wrong. In fact, the only way he could have been so wrong was to be doing it deliberately. Ergo, he lied.

Come on, dude: show us the "intentionally bullshit" aspect of that take.

Okay so maybe he didn't mean to include Tim Pool, it was an original edit that he forget to wipe out. How about Steven Crowder? After all he's a bit of an easy punching bag these days after the infamous Daily Wire contract affair. Indeed you have to look back from before that event to find him talking about much else. 

Hey that's about the time some nigger dyke was released from Russian jail in return for the minor concession of letting an apparently decently talented arms dealer back out into the world where he could help Russia obtain more weaponry. What was Crowder's take? Oh, that it put people's lives at risk and was caused entirely by Grinder's drug dependency.

Hey wait, aren't they supposed to be all bad takes? What's "bad" about this take? Britney Grinder was only in Russian jail because she had an illegal substance on her person within their borders: normal people know full well that you can't landing in Singapore with pot, or try to smuggle some cocaine into Saudi Arabia, or even try to buy heroin in Vietnam. It's a bloody travel advisory given by governments of almost all countries.

It looks like Gary Werewolf up here is talking some complete bullshit. An intentionally bad take, one might say. He's so politically insulated from superior conservatives in his day-to-day life that he cannot even fathom somebody might support what they say, and even (as we've just done) take minimal effort in proving the validity of what they say. You can make his opinion completely worthless just by uttering the phrase "actually I agree with what Shapiro said there". He has no counter-argument to such a statement.

Does he know this? Is he deliberately making such a statement knowing its "intentional bullshit" just to get people talking about him (in, perhaps, famous Canadian blogs)? Or is he just as dumb as all leftists and unaware that four of his fingers are pointing back at him (and the other one just hanging there limp)?


The gospel according to Saint Patrick

It's almost bar time on St. Patrick's Day. While people who don't have to work will be lining up at O'Byrnes at 10am, for the rest of us the festivities are a few hours away.

It will hopefully be the first normal St. Patrick's Day since 2019. We all know what happened in 2020. In 2021 was obviously more of the same, and while 2022 came close (thanks Truckers!) people were still in general scared of their own shadows.

It's also Friday St. Patrick's Day which should be fun. And with next year's falling on a Saturday it should...wait, what?


That's right, 2024 is a leap year and therefore the days which normally advance by one day per year (7*52=364) advances by two. Which means March 17th 2024 will fall on a Sunday and we will be deprived of the sweetness which is a Saturday St. Patrick's.

We have to wait until 2029 until we finally get to party on a Saturday: start at 10am at O'Byrnes and then finish at 2am at...well, also O'Byrnes. The same O'Byrnes that it will be literally impossible to get into anytime after 4pm today.

Bonus coverage: Isn't it funny that the Irish nationalists who were so horrified that their fellow Irishmen wanted to remain in Britain to the extent they turned murderous now just shrug when Africa conquers their isle in nothing flat?


@Amanda_Sather - Please provide a list of which vandalism in support of conservative causes you endorse

"X is bad, so if Y is less bad than you should be allowed to do Y" is the logical leaps that delusional believers in global warming engage in. Mr. Sather is only the latest to be guilty of it.

As is typical of eco-nutters, the actual facts on the ground don't line up with their beliefs. Alan appears to be in his mid-30s, which means for his entire adult life he hasn't witnessed any manmade global warming. Let's put that aside for now though, and let's assume that Mr. Sather's garbage beliefs at all align with the facts. Let's actually say that X is bad, and then let's also presume that petty vandalism (Y) isn't particularly bad.

With Sather allow conservatives the exact same path forward? For example, say a gun rights advocate (worried that hateful government policies will literally "erase" us) decided to protest a proposed hunting ban by vandalizing this BC mural devoted to dogs?

How about if paint is used on an office building to protest a nearby library letting faggots in dresses read to little kids? Because of course putting some paint onto something that's easily removed is as bad as not caring about child molesters recruiting kids into their evil lifestyle.

That's how this works, right? It's not just something you're excusing specifically because you (stupidly) believe in the same cause as the mammoth protesters, is it?

Edmonton police officers shot and killed

Early this morning, two Edmonton police officers were shot and killed over by Westmount.

Obviously details are sketchy, and more will be learned in the forthcoming hours/days/months. Early reports are that it was a domestic call.

The only thing of note is already the mainstream media can't mention the story without referencing the last EPS officer shot and killed. Before it gets too much traction, remember that Daniel Woodall was an evil faggot who was pushing the radical sodomite agenda when he died, and we should never feel bad about his righteous punishment.


This day in (blog) history

Edmonton hosted the Red Bull "crushed ice" event and inexplicably set the temperature record.


@rollforlearning - The best people in your schools aren't represented and instead you are disgustingly shaming them

Evil dyke (but I'm repeating myself) Shawna is very concerned that children whose parents are swingers aren't going to be "fairly represented" in schools, unless their textbooks and other resources reference (positively, of course) their perverted lifestyle.

As you might have guessed, endorsing an unacceptable perversion is certainly on-brand for Shawna and her ilk. Thinking that these nutters "deserve" representation is equally predictable, even though it's wrong. While she certainly seems interested in teaching kids about swingers (even swinger parents tend not to tell their children until they become adults, in much the same way and for much the same reason they never tell their children about being slum landlords or car thieves),she isn't giving much reason of why she has to. Clearly she's incapable of actual "good faith" engaging, but if she were she should be required to answer this question:

You have kids with socially conservative families in our schools, so how are you representing them with your books and practices?

Unlike uranists and trannies and swingers,we actually have a solid moral and intellectual foundation to our lifestyle. I guarantee that Shawna's "equity library" doesn't have anything by Ted Byfield or Rod Dreher or Jonathon Van Maren.

So why don't the children with the highest calibre of family get their representation? Why is Shawna only promoting illegitimate lifestyle choices?

Oh, right: self-preservation.


The Civil War saw brother face off against brutha

Over at The Atlantic (try not to be shocked), nigger activist Clint Smith has a ridiculous article about how Confederate gravesites aren't black enough, or something.

Outside, lawn mowers buzzed as Black men steered them between tombstones draped in Confederate flags. The oldest marked grave at Blandford dates back to 1702; new funerals are held there every week. Within the cemetery’s 150 acres are the bodies of roughly 30,000 Confederate soldiers, one of the largest mass graves of Confederate servicemen in the country.

These were real men with real lives and real loved ones who died in a bloody war. All wars involve a victor and a vanquished, the the victor goes on to sing about how great a job he did. Smith apparently wants to dance and flail and cheer over their graves, which to be fair is totally what a primitive nigger mentally (if not genealogically) half a foot still in Africa would do.

“I think there’s a Confederate empathy,” he replied. “People will tell you, ‘My great-great-grandmother, my great-great-grandfather are buried out here.’ So they’ve got long southern roots.”

We left the church, and a breeze slid across my face. Many people go to places like Blandford to see a piece of history, but history is not what is reflected in that glass. A few years ago, I decided to travel around America visiting sites that are grappling—or refusing to grapple—with America’s history of slavery. I went to plantations, prisons, cemeteries, museums, memorials, houses, and historical landmarks. As I traveled, I was moved by the people who have committed their lives to telling the story of slavery in all its fullness and humanity. And I was struck by the many people I met who believe a version of history that rests on well-documented falsehoods.

What's wrong with refusing to grapple? After all, as we've covered before, slavery is not some unique thing that white Americans did to blacks. Slavery was a thing the world over where a superior conquering nation took the people from the inferior conquered nation and put them to work. I'm truly sorry to whiners like Clint Smith that his ancestors were so inferior that they became history's punching bag, but I'm not sure what he expected to happen? 10,000 years of human history thrown away the moment slavers got to Africa and thought golly gee, now that they're all the same skin colour as the mud I scrape off my boot when I get bored this just isn't fun anymore?

Also, and this really can't be said enough, for a magazine that insists that niggers are shot by the cops too often or that Ellen Page is a man named Elliot, get off your high horse about "well-documented falsehoods" since your entire trade is in them.

I asked her whether Blandford was concerned that, by presenting itself in such a positive light, it might be distorting its connection to a racist and treasonous cause.

Niggers really like latching onto this "treason" thing about the War Between the States (and they really should try looking in a mirror). Of course, one of the...what's the word....well-documented thing about the Reconstruction Era is that literally nobody considered the Confederate cause to be "treason". Robert E. Lee wasn't included in President Jackson's original pardon but that later turned out to be a mistake (which took way too long to be officially resolved). Union General Josh Chamberlain ordered his troops to salute the surrendering Confederate soldiers, while President Lincoln had the band on the White House lawn play "Dixie". This "going against the policy of the United States Government is treasonous" (which again, BLM niggers love to ignore when it suits them) attitude towards the Civil War literally didn't exist before 9/11. It flies directly in the face, of course, about how the left currently treats sanctuary cities treasonously avoiding ICE (which northern states also did in the years prior to the Civil War regarding fugitive slaves in violation of federal law). It's also, unsurprisingly, incongruous to how other civil wars have been perceived. Which was the "right" side of the Spanish Civil War, for example? War of the Roses? English Civil War? Great Feudal War?

What Clint Smith wants to downplay the U.S. Civil War into is a rebellion by the Confederacy, akin to the Boxer or Northwest versions in Chinanada. Now who's trafficking in falsehoods?

She told me that a lot of people ask why the war was fought. “I say, ‘Well, you get five different historians who have written five different books; I’m going to have five different answers.’ It’s a lot of stuff. But I think from the perspective of my ancestors, it was not slavery. My ancestors were not slaveholders. But my great-great-grandfather fought. He had federal troops coming into Norfolk. He said, ‘Nuh-uh, I’ve got to join the army and defend my home state.’ ”

That an Atlantic writer, who claims to be an insightful expert into nuance and then is totally oblivious to it, fails to note that there can be more than one right answer, shouldn't surprise us. Like all woke leftists, Clint Smith exists to lie and deceive to promote his inferior agenda...by definition, it's the only avenue available to him. As many have noted before, of course, the prevailing attitude in the southern States regarding what legislation should be applicable regarding slavery was that it was up to the citizens of those states to decide. This wasn't exactly an "unheard of" or "treasonous" thought, which Nigger Smith would like you to believe: darling northern intellectuals long before the Civil War (including Henry Adams and Carl Schurz) shared in that belief. The idea that northern and southern states should be allowed to set their own pro- or anti-slavery policies was universal on each side of the Mason-Dixon line and in fact the largest group advocating for a war to change that status were northern abolitionists. On the flip side, of course, the shots fired at Fort Sumner was caused by the belief that a federal jurisdiction in newly-independent land was still federal jurisdiction: and that rather tenuous system (imagine Alberta or Queerbec being told all federal government buildings would remain in Canadian hands no matter what they did; or for that matter all Sudanese buildings in South Sudan or Imperial British buildings in Ireland) was highly unlikely to be the basis for northerners deciding to join the conflict.

That linked CityJournal article is a good read, including a throwaway line digging at social justice liars operating out of the law school of the University of Missouri–Kansas City. Readers who recognize that college's name should pat themselves on the back.

So he shouldn't be surprised that a large number of southerners, whether sympathetic or opposed to slavery, took issue during the Civil War based on the principle of states' rights: they were acting lock-step in favour of men like Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Parker. Lincoln, by the way, had different reasons for fighting the Civil War than several of his compatriots: is this level of nuance more than Clint Smith's tiny brain can handle? The answer is yes. So in his view everybody fighting the U.S. Civil War joined over the exact same wedge issue. He just has to ignore...you know...the actual history.

The great Confederate general Robert E. Lee opposed slavery and freed his slaves. Lee fought on the Confederate side because Virginia was his home and he thought Virginia had the right to be wrong. Lee was an honorable man as well as a great general. His men followed him, many of them hungry and barefoot, because of his personal qualities and because they lived in the South - not because they held a brief for slavery. Shelby Foote describes perplexed Union soldiers asking a captured Confederate, poor and shoeless, why he was fighting when he clearly didn't own any slaves. The soldier answered, "Because you're down here."

The North had a variety of reasons for what they did before during and after the Civil War, and so did the South. With the advantage of the lens of history you can see all of them and how they did and did not align. But not Clint Smith. He thinks just whining "racism" 40,000 times is an answer to anything.

I walked across the street, to another burial ground, this one much smaller. The People’s Memorial Cemetery was founded in 1840 by 28 members of Petersburg’s free Black community. Buried on this land are people who were enslaved; a prominent antislavery writer; Black veterans of the Civil War, World War I, and World War II; and hundreds of other Black residents.

There are far fewer tombstones than at Blandford. There are no flags on the graves. And there are no hourly tours for people to remember the dead.

It sounds like the niggers of Petersburg VA aren't as interested in the affairs of their ancestors as whites are (perhaps knowing your father's identity helps). They don't run good tours, or like to go on tours, or care, or have moved on or moved away. Much like the fighting in the Civil War itself there are probably good (or at least for them understandable) reasons for how this other gravesite is treated: Clint Smith isn't interested in understanding them though: that his own race is ignoring its own gravesite seems enough for his en passant sneer at Virginians honouring their own ancestors who tragically died way too early in The War Between the States.

Founded in 1896, the Sons of Confederate Veterans describes itself as an organization of about 30,000 that aims to preserve “the history and legacy of these heroes, so future generations can understand the motives that animated the Southern Cause.” It is the oldest hereditary organization for men who are descendants of Confederate soldiers. I was wary of going to the celebration alone, so I asked my friend William, who is white, to come with me.

I call bullshit that there's any white so down on his luck that he has to befriend somebody as useless as Smith. Or is this a "I can't be your typical Atlantic black racist, I even have a white friend" cover story?

The entrance to the cemetery was marked by a large stone archway with the words our confederate heroes on it. Maybe a couple hundred people were sitting in folding chairs around a large white gazebo. Children played tag among the trees; people hugged and slapped one another on the back. I felt like I was walking in on someone else’s family reunion. Dixie flags bloomed from the soil like milkweeds. There were baseball caps emblazoned with the Confederate battle flag, biker vests ornamented with the seals of seceding states, and lawn chairs bearing the letters UDC, for the United Daughters of the Confederacy. In front of the gazebo were two flags, one Confederate, one American, standing side by side, as if 700,000 people hadn’t been killed in the epic conflagration between them.

For one thing, neither of the two flags Smith looked at were fighting each other. The Civil War was between entities with these two flags:

For another, despite the occasional Yankee carpetbagger the whole point of the Reconstruction South was...what's the word?...oh yes, reconstruction. Being upset at the Confederate Battle Flag being flown alongside the 1950s United States Flag would be like anger over the British and French flags being flown alongside, or the Russian and German flags. The whole point is that the two sides are supposed to be able to live together in harmony: that's again one of the reason so many Confederates were memorialized in bronze a hundred years ago.

The crowd recited the Pledge of Allegiance, then sang “The Star-Spangled Banner.” After a pause came “Dixie,” the unofficial Confederate anthem. The crowd sang along with a boisterous passion: “Oh, I wish I was in the land of cotton / Old times there are not forgotten / Look away! Look away! Look away! Dixie Land.”

As we just noted, Abraham Lincoln ordered the playing of "Dixie" immediately after the Civil War ended and arranged for numerous other playings.

Gramling then turned his attention to the present-day controversy about Confederate monuments—to the people who are “trying to take away our symbols.” In 2019, according to a report from the Southern Poverty Law Center, there were nearly 2,000 Confederate monuments, place names, and other symbols in public spaces across the country. A follow-up report after last summer’s racial-justice protests found that more than 160 of those symbols had been removed or renamed in 2020.

Gramling said that this was the work of “the American ISIS.” He looked delighted as the crowd murmured its affirmation. “They are nothing better than ISIS in the Middle East. They are trying to destroy history they don’t like.”

I thought about friends of mine who have spent years fighting to have Confederate monuments removed. Many of them are teachers committed to showing their students that we don’t have to accept the status quo. Others are parents who don’t want their kids to grow up in a world where enslavers loom on pedestals. And many are veterans of the civil-rights movement who laid their bodies on the line, fighting against what these statues represented. None of them, I thought as I looked at the smile on Gramling’s face, is a terrorist.

How many of Nigger Smith's friends who demand statues be ripped down were physically ripping them down (and maybe grabbing some nice electronics while in the neighbourhood) do you think? If discussing what a gender mutilation clinic posted on their Facebook page is "terrorism" then what on earth do violent niggers using fire to destroy monuments to people superior to them qualify as?

Gramling urged all who were present to understand the true meaning of the Confederacy and to “take back the narrative.” When his speech ended, two men in front of William and me started swinging large Confederate flags with unsettling fervor. Another speech was given. Another song was sung. Wreaths were laid. The honor guard then lifted its rifles and fired into the sky three times. The first shot took me by surprise, and my knees buckled. I shut my eyes for the second shot, and again for the third. I felt a tightening of muscles inside my mouth, muscles I hadn’t known were there.

We found the one nigger in America who's scared of guns (I mean in general, not in the more specific sense of the business end of the homeowner's gun whose living room he found himself in at 2am)!

It was then, in the late 1800s, that the myth of the Lost Cause began to take hold. The myth was an attempt to recast the Confederacy as something predicated on family and heritage rather than what it was: a traitorous effort to extend the bondage of millions of Black people. The myth asserts that the Civil War was fought by honorable men protecting their communities, and not about slavery at all.

Clint Smith really is that retarded.

I know you think it must be a prank and that you'll look more closely at the URL and discover that it's actually some sort of fake page, but here we are. As noted above, there can be multiple reasons for the exact same action.

None of them are "traitorous" of course, we've covered that ground too. He seems to think it's some sort of gotcha that indeed he can find people who got their bees in a bonnet in 1883 specifically to keep black slaves. Yet on the floor of a legislative body to this very day you can not only hear multiple arguments in favour of legislation, but in fact hear arguments in favour of legislation that politicians are making in bad faith. The NDP, whose leader is an anti-Indian terrorist, claims that he and his party are standing up for the poor beleaguered citizens of Kashmir when in reality this is just Jazz Meat demanding that the criminal organizations he supports be given free reign in their campaign of terror.

How many northerners who pushed for the Civil War were really that keen on letting niggers in another part of the country go free? While there certainly were abolitionist movements (it was unheard of in the 1st through 18th centuries, a popular thing in the 19th century, and basically nonexistent by a quarter through the 20th -- which is why Clint Smith's pointless virtue signalling opposing the notion of slavery in the 21st is so laughable) it wasn't the only reason for the North to fight the South. After all, there was slavery in several other countries at that time and Washington and New York weren't sending men to go die in them.

Indeed Abraham Lincoln didn't intend to end slavery in the South had the war been won more quickly. He wasn't alone:

Explaining Northern purposes continues to vex historians, in part because Northerners gave varied answers to the question. Most Northerners saw preserving the Union as the war’s central purpose, and proved willing to take measures against slavery in order to achieve that aim. But some Northerners sought to restore the Union to the antebellum status quo, and others sought to thoroughly transform the South into a free labor, egalitarian society. Did Northerners possess a common aim, and language for expressing it?

That the Civil War wasn't "slavery bad people fighting slavery good people" is partly why Reconstruction was so successful and why the South didn't turn into a guerilla quadmire.

In his biography of Grant, Ron Chernow says the Union general believed that “had Lee resisted surrender and encouraged his army to wage guerrilla warfare, it would have spawned infinite trouble. ... Such was Lee’s unrivaled stature that his acceptance of defeat reconciled many diehard rebels to follow his example.”

Thanks to Lee, we became a functioning country again within about 15 years, instead of becoming Serbia, Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam, Rwanda and on and on and on.

It's only our own ignorant times, led by the ignorant leftsts who morphed Clint Smith into the dumb nigger he is today, that altered that social construct.

The early 1900s saw a boom in Confederate-monument building. The monuments were meant to reinforce white supremacy in an era when Black communities were being terrorized and Black social and political mobility impeded.
See? The entire (successful) aims of Reconstruction are spat on by this pathetic excuse for a human being. I'm not going to take lectures from men who are stupid enough to think "white supremacy" influences any institutes of officialdom in the third decade of the twenty-first century.
After the speeches, I began talking with a man named Jeff, who had a long salt-and-pepper ponytail and wore a denim vest adorned with Confederate badges. He told me that several of his ancestors had fought for the Confederacy. I asked what he thought of the event. “Well,” he said, “I think if anyone never knew the truth, they heard it today.”

He spoke about the importance of the Confederate flag and monuments, contending that they were essential pieces of history. “They need to be there for generations in the future, because they need to know the truth. They can’t learn the truth if you do away with history. You’ll never learn. And once you do away with that type of thing, you become a slave.”

I was startled by his choice of words but couldn’t tell whether it was intentionally provocative or rhetorical coincidence.

I'd like to think Jeff was rubbing it in your face (it's easy and fun to do) but he probably didn't care about you that much. Or he could just be trying to get niggers to stop thinking everything that has to do with slavery involves you. Even in the Continental United States that's a ridiculously narrow minded notion. Spending more than 16 seconds listening to people smarter than Ta-Nehisi Coates (which shouldn't take you more than 14 seconds to find) would teach you a lesson or two about that. You don't even have to listen to anybody but another American black!
I asked Jeff whether he thought slavery had played a role in the start of the Civil War. “Oh, just a very small part. I mean, we can’t deny it was there. We know slave blocks existed.” But only a small number of plantations even had slaves, he said.

It was a remarkable contortion of history, reflecting a century of Lost Cause propaganda.

And yet the vast majority of Southern farmers were Yeomen with no slaves. Jeff is probably confusing plantation with farm, but again Smith makes it seem like Jeff is unaware that his direct ancestors enslaved 63 billion people from 1619 to the day before yesterday.

Two children ran behind me, chasing a ball. Jeff smiled. He told me that he doesn’t call it the “Civil War,” because that distorts the truth. “We call it the ‘War Between the States’ or ‘of Northern Aggression’ against us,” he said. “Southern people don’t call it the Civil War, because they know it was an invasion … If you stayed up north, ain’t nothing would’ve happened.”

When Jeff said “nothing would’ve happened,” I wondered if he had forgotten the millions of Black people who would have remained enslaved, those for whom the status quo would have meant ongoing bondage. Or did he remember but not care?

Why should Jeff care? If the South had won the Civil War slavery would probably have ended up being abolished around the same time the Ottomans abolished it. Indeed regular readers will remember that whites had to stop niggers from enslaving each other when Britain took over Sierra Leone in 1928, so if you want a generally end-of-the-line date slavery would have ended that's a good bet (though Saudi Arabia held on until The Beatles). Slavery could have been ended in the Middle East decades earlier by letting the Kaiser just go do his thing, even earlier if the British hadn't intervened in the Russo-Turkish War. What's Clint Smith's opinion of the Treaty of San Stefano? Doesn't he care that all those innocent slaves (and Slavs) in the Ottoman Empire suffered ongoing status quo bondage?

He doesn't, of course, and like Jeff not caring about the fate of plantation workers in Georgia a century before his birth we don't need to get worked up about it. I'm sure there are a lot of Bulgarian Jews less than thrilled about the outcome of the Russo-Turkish War and would much prefer that the slave-holding Ottomans kicked the slave-liberating Russians ass six ways from Sunday.

“We used to be able to stand on the monuments on Monument Avenue [in Richmond, Virginia]—those Lee and Jackson monuments. We can’t do it anymore, ’cause it ain’t safe. Someone’s gonna drive by and shoot me. You know, that’s what I’m afraid of.”

I thought that scenario was unlikely; cities have spent millions of dollars on police protection for white nationalists and neo-Nazis, people far more extreme than the Sons of Confederate Veterans. I found it a little ironic that these monuments had been erected in part to instill fear in Black communities, and now Jason was the one who felt scared.

Clint was today years old when he learned that nigger savagery is a concern to decent ordinary folk. And yes, the state has to spend money when niggers get violent. Why, Clint never thinks to ask, do the people he slanders as "white nationalists and neo-Nazis" cost the state so much to protect? Why, it's because scumbags like him hear (superior) arguments they can't counter and just get uppity, violently attacking marchers and property and causing millions in damage. Why does Jason have to worry? Ask the good people in Charlottesville who were injured and their property destroyed by Antifa.

The Louisville Daily Courier, for example, warned nonslaveholding white southerners about the slippery slope of abolition: “Do they wish to send their children to schools in which the negro children of the vicinity are taught? Do they wish to give the negro the right to appear in the witness box to testify against them?” The paper threatened that Black men would sleep with white women and “amalgamate together the two races in violation of God’s will.”

Wow, look at how unhinged and crazy these people were...they were wrong about the nigger in the witness box though, they still are only to be found in the defendant's chair.

A small courtyard called the Field of Angels memorializes the 2,200 enslaved children who died in St. John the Baptist Parish from 1823 to 1863. Their names are carved into granite slabs that encircle the space. My tour guide, Yvonne, the site’s director of operations, explained that most had died of malnutrition or disease. Yvonne, who is Black, added that there were stories of some enslaved mothers killing their own babies, rather than sentencing them to a life of slavery.

You can take the abortions away from the negress but you can't take the negress away from abortions, can you?

Did the white visitors, I asked her, experience the space differently from the Black visitors? She told me that the most common question she gets from white visitors is “I know slavery was bad … I don’t mean it this way, but … Were there any good slave owners?”

She took a deep breath, her frustration visible. She had the look of someone professionally committed to patience but personally exhausted by the toll it takes.

“I really give a short but nuanced answer to that,” she said. “Regardless of how these individuals fed the people that they owned, regardless of how they clothed them, regardless of if they never laid a hand on them, they were still sanctioning the system … You can’t say, ‘Hey, this person kidnapped your child, but they fed them well. They were a good person.’ How absurd does that sound?”

According to Clint and Yvonne, the entirety of human history before 1820 was full of evil people sanctioning an evil system. What a pathetic and horrible way to live your life. No wonder your own people continue to get such a thrill of enslaving you.

Would Jeff’s story change, I wonder, if he went to the Whitney? Would his sense of what slavery was, and what his ancestors fought for, survive his coming face-to-face with the Whitney’s murdered rebels and lost children? Would he still be proud?

Let's hope so.


@JournalismTMU - This is why you only hire straight white men

To paraphrase Kate McMillan, the best argument in favour of only hiring straight white males is that then it's never a big deal if you subsequently have to fire them.

In this particular case, apparently media companies have to devote extra resources when they hire nonwhite women who would utterly fail without them: for those keeping score, that's objectively confirming that they are in fact inferior.

Every newsroom who hires a negress has a hiring manager who has utterly failed at his job. (Case in point: the ridiculous bro-haha over Lisa LaFlamme)

Related: a worthless cunt has been fired right after winning a fake award for "adversity" she never actually faced.

Everything Michael Knowles said about trans-testicles is 100.00% true

If anything, he doesn't go far enough by only talking about trannies and not the evil faggot agenda it has been running parallel to.


This day in (blog) history


Hey remind me again, does anybody care about Hilary Clinton's emails?


@mocndu - Pretending to know what somebody looks like naked is "sexual harassment" while advocating for physical rape is a-okay?

This is seriously how demented some people are. When @thisisop raised an issue with Maya Higa comparing deepfakes with the time she regrets sleeping with a guy at a party, stinky here denounced him as an "incel". (see our extended coverage of this issue here)

As we've established, everybody who calls a man an incel is telling him he should rape a woman and he'll be a better person.

Only one side needs to shut up forever, stoink, and you see them every time you pass a mirror.


@NewlunJen - Don't all plays involve "lying"?

Trigger warnings were a parody of themselves about 15 seconds after they came along.

This newest (well, 4 months old) case is a play at Princeton which looks absolutely horrible despite their best claims to make it sound like it has nuggets of interest.

Self-harm through burning is discussed during the scene where Portia and Quincy are on the stage left balcony (Act II), the scene after Quincy and Vincent talk to the Administration (Act II), and On The Other Side of Failure (Act II, cue: Quincy enters holding a broom).
Internalized homophobia is discussed in the scene where Ambrose and Vincent talk in the gym (Act I, cue: Ambrose leaves the Marmorei in the gym), throughout I Love You, I Swear, and depicted in the scene before I Love You, I Swear
Stalking is discussed in the scene after Quincy sees the saints for the first time (Act I, cue: Saint Jude leaves), and depicted in the scene transitions at the end of Where Can I Run
However, the big bit that caught Christina Sommers attention (and apparently the enthusiastic support of Jen) was this bit:
Lying/manipulation is discussed in The One Who Pulls The Strings (Act I, cue: Portia tries to leave the newsroom), the scene where Beatrix is interviewed by Portia (Act II, cue: Beatrix and Portia bring out the interview chairs), the scene after Where Can I Run reprise (Act II, cue: Quincy storms off with the saints) and the final scene (Act II, cue: the pyre is wheeled in by the Marmorei), and depicted in the scene where Vincent and Beatrix are in the newspaper archives

The first thing you think of is how weak and pathetic these poor students are that they are troubled by a fictional depiction of lying.

The second thing, which really destroys it all, is a reminder that the play is 100% lying, as almost all plays are. For example, at some point on stage you're going to see a woman named Lana Gaige: the problem is at no point during the event does she accurately state her name as Lana...instead she acts (pretends/lies) as if her name was really "Ambrose", while another person on stage named Tobias Nguyen falsely says his name is "Vincent" and constantly refers to Lana by the false name "Ambrose". Indeed the entire conversation isn't true: they are claiming events and feelings which they haven't experienced or felt. Almost like, and try to follow along carefully with me on this, as a fictional work everything discussed is a lie.

There are no real people named Quincy, Vincent, Beatrix, nor Portia. It's all a lie: one wonders if other plays without "lying/deception" being triggered would cause these poor darlings' minds to blow open.


@ArtificiallyGi1 - Parents have one key advantage over "professionals"

Nowadays you're hearing a lot about how the medical and education professions have decided that they must seize children (if not physically, at least ideologically) from their parents.

One of the problems, which GiGi apparently hasn't grasped, is that these "professionals" who train and learn for years spend it learning, and then teaching, the lies of the faggot agenda. As "awareness" and "resources" continue to expand regarding mental health, it's curious that nobody notices the key metrics that these professionals claim to be trying to prevent keep rising.

The way parents keep their child's trust is by always speaking out against this evil lifestyle choice: not by letting credentialed morons take the reigns.


@FleaBetty - Which principled conservative did you vote for as CPC leader?

Betty isn't a fan of Pierre Poilievre (and not for the reasons she should be). She insists the party needs a new leader.

Why? What's her rationale? During the CPC leadership race we saw a lot of candidates and a lot of ink (not on this blog for reasons I may get into one day) be spilled. The top contenders were, of course:

  1. Pierre Poilievre
  2. Jean Charest
  3. Leslyn Lewis
  4. Roman Baber
  5. Scott Aitchison

Other candidates who dropped out earlier include Patrick Brown, Bobby Singh,Marc Dalton,Leona Alleslev, Joel Etienne, and Grant Abraham. The other big name who didn't even apply this time was Derek Sloan who ran for leader in 2020.

Which one did Betty support? She didn't seem to like Roman Baber and never once mentioned Leslyn Lewis or Scott Aitchison. So Charest then? But the only time she even mentioned Charest was to attack Poilievre.

Maybe she was still loyal to the old guard. Erin O'Toole was the previous leader and no wait she doesn't like him either. Andrew Scheer? No, apparently all he does is "bad mouth the Prime Minister". The Right Honourable Stephen J. Harper (pbuh)? He apparently "sold the country to the Chinese".

I think by now you see the point: Betty is a liar. Her opposition to Pierre Poilievre will only last until the "cons choose a new leader" at which point she'll instantly pivot to disliking them. I mean on one level that's fine, that's politics. However, she's trying to make it sound as if she's demanding the Conservatives pick a new leader to win her vote back, when there's nothing they can do short of educating her in how retarded her beliefs are.

For somebody upset that Scheer "badmouths the PM" she sure badmouthed every notable Conservative in the country. For somebody worried about "selling the country to the Chinese" she sure supports the leader who is corruptly in bed with Communist China and colluded with them to keep the Conservatives out of power. Armed with this sort of information, the best thing to happen is for Pierre to face off with her in real life.

And then when she runs and disappears forever in shame vowing never to tweet or even vote again, we can move onto the next retarded leftist, and over and over and over again.

It's easier at this point to keep a leader and remove the bad aspects of the electorate (though Prime Minister Derek Sloan has a great ring to it).

@MarysePoulin6 - The timeline is murder became wrong, then Guns and Roses formed; not the other way around

Like all baby-murder-loving leftists, Mary here is "raging" that an entirely reasonable and predictable Supreme Court ruling took place last year in the United States.

As a result she seems to think its a "gotcha" that in the 1990s a Conservative government tried enacting sensible legislation based on the worldview that murdering your own child is a heinous act that should be discouraged and punished.

Crazy, huh?

What she can't quite explain is her weird temporal attack: yes, music was better before all the good artists died out. What does that have to do with abortion?

Abortion was morally evil in 1991. Abortion is morally evil in 2023 (or 2022 when Mary wrote this). Abortion was morally evil in 1923 as well, not to mention 1823, 1766, 1219, 784, 218, 218 B.C., 995 B.C., 1744 B.C, etc. etc. etc. Murdering your own baby has never not been fundamentally wicked and evil.

The only difference over this entire time period was science and technology: technology made it easier to murder your baby in the same way that sniper rifles make it easier to execute abortion-supporting politicians. Science gave us a deeper understanding of the processes of birth and when life began. In 1744 B.C. they had no idea what a 5 day old fetus looked like. In 1219 you could remove a three week old fetus and have no idea what species you were looking at. Today we know in detail how the two zygotes merge to create life. In other words we have a greater understanding of how the world works, and we have also developed new capabilities to do evil upon the world.

So it's not clear whats wrong with re-instating a piece of 1991 legislation regarding the criminal code. Had Canada been successful back when Nirvana was performing, as many as 953,427 lives could have been saved between 1996 and 2005 alone. That's 1,469,477 potentially saved lives in the 1991-2005 timeframe. (Note that this is only a proxy measure as the statistics do not differentiate between medically necessary abortions and presumably some women would still break the law and hopefully suffer cosmically after the death of their child).

Being "right back" on the side of morality sounds like a good idea, Mary. When can we start?


"Jimi Hendrix deceased, drugs. Janis Joplin deceased, alcohol. Mama Cass deceased, ham sandwich."

Martok and I were at the bar last weekend and "Pretty Noose" was playing. "Great song, sucks that he hung himself" was his remark which got us talking: was Pearl Jam the only grunge band that had a happy ending?

Let's run through the list Austin Powers style.

  1. Nirvana: Let's get the biggest and most obvious one out of the way. Kurt Cobain died tragically on April 5th 1994 from a tragic self-inflicted long-range shotgun blast.
  2. Soundgarden:Since it was his song that started the conversation, let's move onto Chris Cornell. Oddly enough I actually remember when I learned he died, which was also the case with Cobain. Unlike Cobain he didn't die at the height of his popularity, though its worth noting his biggest ever hit came in 2006.
  3. Stone Temple Pilots: Scott Weiland actually died only a couple of years before Cornell, which is a shock since I always remember him having died years and years ago. Fun fact, STP reunited and played a music festival in Calgary in 2008: Martok attended but I didn't. He also saw Chris Cornell play in Edmonton in 2016.
  4. Blind Melon: Blind Melon was much less of a famous band, and didn't have nearly as many big hits as some of the others on this list. It was most famous actually for the much-publicized incident where lead singer Shannon Hoon urinated on the crowd in Vancouver. This was a big deal (though K'mpec has noted that as recently as 2022 despite the pandemic Hugh Dillon from The Headstones is still spitting on people), and the next time Hoon made the news was two years later when he was found dead on tour from a cocaine-induced heart attack.
  5. Smashing Pumpkins: Everybody from the Smashing Pumpkins is still alive, everybody, calm down. They just all wish each other dead which is more or less the same thing in the music world. Their breakup in the year 2000 pretty much officially marked the end of the grunge era. Billy Corgan was pretty much at Harlan Ellison levels of famously grumpy by the time their music made it onto the Batman Forever soundtrack.
  6. Alice in Chains: Alice and Chains was part of the original Seattle grunge scene. While not as huge as some of these other acts, they were solid and well regarded in their own right. Until 2002, of course, when lead singer Layne Stanley died from an overdose of speed. This might have been who I was confusing Scott Weiland with.
  7. Mad Season:We're out of the "Big 5" of Grunge (the Pumpkins and Blind Melon don't make the list, and obviously Pearl Jam isn't going to appear), but Mad Season is one of those Velvet Underground level of anybody who loves grunge loves them. In 1997 Layne Stanley left the band, and then in 1999 bassist and founder John Saunders left this mortal coil.
  8. Temple of the Dog: Okay I'm kind of cheating here. I just finished saying the Big 5 wouldn't on this list, however Temple of the Dog is just Pearl Jam plus Chris Cornell.
  9. 7 Year Bitch: I'm sure somewhere somebody is muttering "7 Year Bitch is Riotgrrl, not Grunge", but between the violent murder of their musical idol Mia Zapata and the 1992 death caused by drinking and heroin of Stephanie Sargeant certainly puts them squarely in the tragedy section.
  10. Sublime: Okay now surely half of you are complaining, but Grunge.com had no problem calling Sublime a grunge band so don't go looking at me funny. Obviously if you've heard of Sublime you'll know that their lead singer Bradley Nowell died in 1998 and on the bright side it's the only real reason anybody has heard of Sublime.
  11. Screaming Trees: Screaming Trees, like Mad Season, was in the solid B- or even C-grade of grunge bands. It's unclear what actually killed founding member Mark Lanegan last year at a relatively young age (he survived COVID).
  12. Bush: Like the Pumpkins they didn't have to deal with the death of any key members of the band. Also like the Pumpkins, they have to deal with the egotistical antics of their lead singer.
  13. Pennywise: Pennywise is another "not really grunge but kinda" group. They certainly have enough tragedy to become an honourary member. The only song worth mentioning of theirs, Bro Hymn, was written after numerous friends of bassist Jason Thirsk died in the late 80s and early 90s. By 1996 the song was re-released "for Jason" after he also died of a Kurt Cobain.


RIP Norm Macdonald

I know, I know, he died ages ago now. But with the exception of one joke (wait, why can't you have it on to avoid a copyright strike?) here's the longest version of Norm's roast available.

According to Bob Saget, there's almost 20 minutes of original footage highly unlikely ever to see the light of day.


@JoshuaDoerksen - For the taxes I pay any government employee who can't produce a passport in 45 seconds deserves the chair

Much like Shiny Pony, Josh believes in the wonder that big government can do.

Yet for all they talk about how much they love big government, they can't seem to reconcile that with the fact that they really really suck at it.

Surprisingly absolutely nobody, last summer as the world began to remove Wuhan Flu restrictions based 100% on the incontrovertible science (which hadn't changed) and absolutely 0% nothing to do with the noble Freedom Convoy who stormed Ottawa and inspired the world to demand action, people around the globe decided two full years was enough practicing for 15-minute cities and they would like to go out and see this great big exciting planet again.

The problem was, of course, most people only renew their passports for 5 year intervals and nobody was interested in paying to renew it while it was useless as a result of the sort of Viro Fascism that these same incompetents engaged in. As a result, there was a surge of passport applications and renewals that began last spring (again, totally randomly, immediately in the wake of the Freedom Convoy). Everybody in the world knew this was going to happen and everybody took action to deal with the looming cris...haha, just kidding.

Public Service Canada still was letting everybody work from home, with all the hard nosed dedication to completing their day to day tasks such a lifestyle encourages. No additional resources were devoted to dealing with passport demand spikes.

Every country saw a spike last year, and some like the UK still had longer waits despite taking efforts to relieve the pressure. Of course seeing how Rat Bastard 2.0 was still denying the unvaccinated their human right to travel at that time, Canada should have seen less demand than other countries. Israel devoted extra resources but then shunted them away to Ukrainians fleeing the police action ongoing in that country. Canada ended up looking more like Bhutan, who ran out of passports last summer, than Germany, who saw their passport wait rise from 10 days to...18 days...

Germany seems to be the only country to learn from what happened to the Americans in 2021, when their passport offices saw strain and then again resources applied to fix the problem.

Now while Josh is correct that we never had 48 hour passport service, this is disingenuous (a phrase that we use about 83 times a month to describe a leftists' argument): the whole reason for the 48 hour emergency service was to expedite requests that were so backlogged that people applied for a passport months in advance (long before the official 6 1/2 weeks) and then 48 hours ahead of their flight still hadn't received it.

The "garbage service" whose honour Josh was leaping to defend after it was so brutally impinged in the earlier thread was of course the situation that led to a situation where 48 hour emergency passport processings were being held.

I noted earlier that Canada was looking a lot like a third world country than a first world one with the passport troubles. While you may try to defend the situation by pointing to America or Israel or Germany or Israel, we go back to where we started this all off:

Canadians are raped by confiscatory taxation that's supposed to prevent all of this!

The tax burden of Canadians is justified by scumbags on the left because of all that the benevolent government does for us. While Canada isn't the highest taxed realm in the OECD, adjusted for rising government debt and the size of the public sector would make us pretty close.

Curiously, despite being a known issue, there isn't really any literature or studies that compare the taxpayer burden in this fashion. Let's say 50% of your population are government workers. Therefore even though your income tax may claim to only collect 46% of your revenue, 23% of that isn't really income revenue, as it's already been collected from the actual economy and paid out to the government worker (and their negative value). Conversely, diverting tax revenue away from individuals in the form of taking on debt is a shell game that can artificially lower income tax revenue (while it does actually lower actual revenue in a given year, the economy as a whole is too smart to fall for it and shrinks as a result of business awareness of the looming threat).

Norway (7 weeks wait due to backlog, half a week longer than the Canadian "normal") is similarly a highly taxed country but at least in return for that money being stolen from the hands of hardworking Norwegians they get a passport in return.

Also, I'm not sure that "other countries tax you through the nose and then screw this up" is exactly the best defense. It might make people realize there's a systemic and institutional issue at play here, and demand change accordingly. Indeed during the Harper government, Canada actually did a lot to speed and simplify the passport process: in a typical year you could renew within minutes and hold your new passport within days. In other words, we started from a better position than many other countries, and in 2022 we threw that advantage entirely away.

Part of the problem, indeed, was that passports continued to expire during the period the Canadian state made them worthless. In the same way the USA has extended green cards, why couldn't the Canadian government have done the same with passports? Send a mailout to every person whose passport expired between March 2020 and December 2022 and give them a special option to one-click receive a new (free) passport that didn't expire until December 2022: after which they would need to renew using the standard pay-up methodology. I didn't let my passport lapse, you Viro Fascists denied it to me: why am I on the hook for this?

As the post title noted, if the Canadian government insists on holding all the power, then they either execute their duties in a reasonable manner, or reasonable people are perfectly justified in performing their own executions.


The most open and transparent government* ever

* If you doubt it, just ask them!

Back on February 10th, Shiny Pony's government ended the mask mandate for Service Canada (ie. passport offices). Seeing as how you need to take your mask off to verify your identity at the same office, it seemed absolutely ridiculous.

How was the policy decided on? It wasn't, they just claimed in the House of Commons that it was, and quietly moved behind the scenes to make the change before anybody noticed they were lying.

Falk grilled the Liberal MPs present at the committee meeting, asking “Why is a mask mandate appropriate for Service Canada but not necessary in other federal government settings?”

Social Development minister Karina Gould responded to Falk, telling her, “My understanding is masks now are encouraged but are not required.”

Falk shot back at Gould, telling her, “That’s a policy change?” to which Gould replied, “That’s been a very recent policy change.”

Gould confirmed with Falk that the COVID-related masking mandate for Service Canada offices was suspended as of February 10. She gave no reason as to why the mask mandate was only lifted now, and why those who did not wear a mask were denied service.

Not at all related: Rat Bastard 2.0 goes out of his way to violate legal FOIP requirements.

Oh wait, there's more: The Liberal Party of Canada invents the use of non-disclosure agreements to make government even less transparent than ever before!


The CBC celebrates the mutilation of dead animals. I didn't have that in my 2023 scorecard.

The quote of the day, however, comes in the MSN comments (remember: the CBC refuses to allow comments about Red Indians on their platform as that nasty truth keeps coming out) from "Ramsey Orta", in response to the claim from "Clarence Tugeye" that:

Disconnection from traditional activities and practices are what led them to incarceration. There is a distinct correlation between decolonization and better outcomes.
No. there is no causal relationship at all. You made the false claim that there is a "distinct correlation". Please provide one methodologically sound study that supports your point.

And no, the research on criminal recidivism does not in any support your claim. In fact, over 70 years of research says the opposite. We have studied programs that have pursued cultural goals at the expense of known risk factors and have found them to be criminogenic; they make the problem worse.

Culture can certainly be a responsivity factor, but it is not a risk factor. The risk factors remain:
(a) criminal/antisocial history,
(b) criminal/antisocial values/impulse control;
(c) antisocial/criminal personality disorder(s);
(d) antisocial peers/associates;
(e) family;
(f) substance abuse;
(g) education/employment; and
(h) leisure and recreation.

One final point worth making to the cheerleaders for this type of programing, there are nearly 500 different tribes in Canada, each with their own cultures. Which of these diverse cultures takes precedence in this "sensitive" programing?



@mochamomma is guilty of murdering an innocent girl

Kelly Hurst has blood on her hands. Back in 2021, she tweeted about the "social/political determinants of health" and when my cousin read this tweet she became so distraught that she slit her own wrists.

I lost a family member due to this disgusting wench and I demand that she see the inside of a prison cell for her crime. The best bit is, Hurst totally agrees with that which is why I look forward to her immediately saying that she will turn herself in and plead guilty as charged.

After all, while her intent was to complain about her physical pain caused by schools telling a lying race hustler to take a hike that doesn't matter nearly as much as the impact: a girl barely out of university killing herself as a result.

Again, some of you may disagree with that, but Hurst cannot. She is, by her own admission, guilty of murder.

Evander Kane, warchief

Last week I made a joke about Evander Kane during a hilarious Oilers loss.

Not to be outdone, the Alexander First Nation (not first, not a nation, but there was an Alexander at least) decided to join in by giving him an Indian Name: Hits Like a Buffalo.

I would have gone with Dances With Wolves (Without Their Consent) myself...


@risahoshinomd - Were you this much of a whiny bitch in 2018 too?

No, seriously, how did you possibly endure living before a well-publicized pandemic pushed governments into masking others and demanding worthless vaccine passports? You wonder why we call you and your ilk Viro Fascists and refused to follow your rules

Nobody cares what you say when you're wearing...well...anything.


George "Gorilla" Floyd destroyed more lives than Communism

Ann Coulter:

During the first few months of the pandemic, violent crime plummeted everywhere. You couldn’t have missed it. The Washington Post, Politico, Voice of America, Cambridge University, and on and on and on—even the Times itself!—reported that violent crime had virtually disappeared in cities around the world due to the COVID shutdowns.

And then on May 25, a fentanyl addict with a bad ticker died in police custody in Minneapolis, whereupon the depolicing demands of Black Lives Matter swept the nation with the active encouragement of all organs of elite liberal opinion, especially the Times.

Cops, the only people who seem to really believe “black lives matter,” risking their lives to bring safety to dangerous neighborhoods, were viciously slandered and kneecapped at every turn. Again, especially by the Times.

You’ll never guess what happened next.

After going into free fall during the first 10 weeks of the pandemic, homicides and aggravated assaults in the U.S. rose by about 35% from Floyd’s death to the end of June. Burglaries, mostly commercial, shot up by an eye-popping 190% the last week of May—the height of looting during the “mostly peaceful protests.”

Other countries, also affected by the pandemic, saw no such rise in violent crime.

During the Summer of Floyd, murders increased by 42% in the 21 largest U.S. cities. By the end of 2020, the national murder rate had increased by 30%. That’s double the next largest hike on record, in 1968, the heyday of the country’s last experiment with liberal crime policies, when the murder rate rose by a comparatively paltry 12.7%.


Book/movie review: The Hound of the Baskervilles

This afternoon I watched the 1959 Christopher Lee/Peter Cushing classic The Hound of the Baskervilles based on the legendary Sherlock Holmes book.

Having read the book a couple of times (most recently about 6 years ago I think) I remembered many if not all of the details of the plot. There were some minor changes between the book and the film (Stapleton's wife posed as his daughter, not his sister, there's a drunk bishop for some reason, Sir Henry being in South Africa instead of Ontario, completely removing the Lady Lyons subplot, replacing the London hotel shenanigans with a spider attack), but in general the story remains the same.

Here's the basic plot synopsis:

  • A visitor arrives at Baker Street needing Holmes' help to save the new master of Baskerville Hall
  • Holmes sends Watson to go to Devonshire with Sir Henry as he's "clearly too busy"
  • Watson takes an agonizingly long time dealing with red herrings and extraneous filler
  • Holmes miraculously turns out to have been secretly been around the whole time and knew who the killer was since the beginning but was simply dicking around and wasting time
  • They fail, but it turns out they didn't because the victim of the first murder was a case of mistaken identity
  • They succeed in saving Sir Henry from the crazed dog that really did exist

The actor who played Watson did an okay job, and seeing as how this particular story is basically Watson's, I think they made a mistake in not casting somebody more charismatic, but perhaps they thought Peter Cushing's Holmes needed to be contrasted against him. Cushing did a great job with Holmes, but what you're left with watching this film is how insanely boring Christopher Lee is when he's not evil. You keep waiting for him to be evil and he isn't.

I just really can't get over how much unnecessary filler is in this story. I'm not going to blame the film, since it's a sin from the actual book. I understand its considered a classic but it's maddeningly long. As Douglas Adams once wrote in one of his Hitchhikers books, you can stretch descriptions out and lengthen your novel but your readers will never forgive you. 

It's guff. It doesn't advance the action. It makes for nice fat books such as the American market thrives on, but it doesn't actually get you anywhere You don't, in short, want to know. 
As you're going through that second and third act of the movie, much like in the book, I'm half screaming at Holmes what on earth are you waiting for? The movie, unlike the book, doesn't at least end with another scene of Holmes explaining the details that we already should have known. After the hound was dead and Sir Henry wasn't, the movie has one minute of Holmes and Watson in their smoking room having a thematic discussion and then boom! credits!

@immrincognito - You totally can. Try it sometime!

It's probably a good idea to always assume leftists are lying. They really almost always are. 99.9% of the words out of the mouth of every leftist is a complete fabrication of reality. A man who tells you that Putin disproves religion is somebody who you can never trust. So if he yells the theatre is on fire, just believe it as much as anything else he says.

That being said, next time you are bored and in a "crowded theatre" (whenever that happens), you can totally yell out "fire!" I've done it, and I'll give you a little hint: absolutely nothing happens.

This being the 21st century of course you don't have to even yell. Just pull the fire alarm (which is essentially yelling 'fire' over and over again in a crowded theatre) and watch in shock and horror as...people barely do anything. Last month I was in West Edmonton Mall when the fire alarm went off, and people went about their day continuing to shop for almost 20 minutes before the alarm was turned off. Nobody died at the exits, or even piled up and survived.

Typically when somebody "shouts fire" in a modern building, the only danger of anybody dying is that everybody ignores what you and/or the alarm is saying, and might die in the event there's an actual fire.

Of course, most of the time you read about "fire in a crowded theatre" you'll learn that in the United States that jurisprudence was already overturned a half century ago, that the ruling's original purpose was to imprison progressives who opposed government policy, etc etc etc.

As Cosh notes, this is now extremely well-known as a lazy and inaccurate trope, which is why Incognito calling somebody "simplistic" before using the 'fire' analogy is particularly hilarious.

It's like "government is just a name to describe us all working together" (which, as that same Hitchens noted a quarter century ago, implies that in 1930s Germany a bunch of Jews committed suicide).


@brownsugar7878 - I was "disgusted" they didn't go far enough

Jazz Meat Sing is a fag lover and a terrorist. He is absolutely evil and can and must be stopped by any means necessary and at any cost.

None of this is up for debate. Last year in Peterborough Ontario, the worthless piece of shit whose death would be a cause for celebration didn't get anywhere near that glorious standard.

Instead, he was...wait for it...openly criticized in public.

So scary. Poor little snowflake (except snowflakes are pure and white). And yet even that mild level of pushing back against him and his unspeakably evil agenda caused Maxine a bad case of the vapors.

Bad news for you, sweetheart: Jazz Meat deserved 10,000,000 times worse than he got last year, and I'll hold a massive street party on the day it happens.

Play your cards right and you might even get an invitation.


South Park nailed Meghan Markle (in the second funnest way to do so)

@cinefeminism - We already know Jews murder prophets and wallets, but babies too?


Fake Rabbi Dan Bogard pretends to be religious in order to push his far-left agenda (and keep him and his wife in the nws)

Nicole Morse is a mentally ill chick who thinks that "Thou Shalt Not Murder" is a New Testament creation.

Together, they (falsely) make Judaism a religion deserving of being permanently wiped off the map.