Black Markets Matter

If you want a great way to get a nervous laughter about how retarded people who claim to be left-wing "thinkers" are, read this ridiculous missive into how taxation is "properly" 100%:

The way we think about taxation is wrong. Right now, we talk about taxation as if it confiscates some portion of a transaction while leaving the rest of the transaction untaxed. So, for instance, when someone is paid $100, but only receives $80 after tax, we say that they have been subjected to a $20 (or 20% tax). But this is a myth.

In reality, all transactions are taxed at 100%. The “after tax” amount is actually a transfer payment made by the government to the recipient. So, going back to the prior example, when someone is paid $100, but only receives $80 after tax, what has really happened is that the government imposed a tax of $100 (or 100% tax) and then, separately, provided the person a transfer payment of $80.

Let's say, for argument's sake, that Matt Bruening isn't a worthless piece of human flesh and could actually provide me with some value. So I decide to help him out by paying him $100 to landscape my yard.

My yard, of course, is in Edmonton, so if the City of Edmonton were to put his 20% tax in place, I would give him $100 and at some point a jackboot thug Edmonton cop would come along and tase him into submission for not sending them $20. By exactly what mechanism, theoretical or otherwise, could the City of Edmonton have been said to "transfer" him anything? That $100 bill I got in my pocket.

Indeed, if I made that $100 by, say, successfully treating a sodomite in South Cooking Lake, then the City of Edmonton wasn't involved in any way shape or form with me collecting the $100. So how did they get it to "transfer" it, and why did they so inefficiently have $100 move to Bruenig only to re-route $20 back to them? Why not have me send them the $20?

However, what if Bruenig setup a shell corporation in Fort Saskatchewan to start his landscaping business, and I called him in to landscape my Edmonton yard? Now the $20 (we're assuming an even taxation rate) is "transferred" to Fort Saskatchewan even though nothing else about the interaction has changed. It sure doesn't sound like what really happened had anything to do with Edmonton, or Fort Saskatchewan, or anything except for me, Matt Bruenig, and a now-healthy heterosexual in South Cooking Lake.

Presumably the general notion here is that the "City of Edmonton" was the entity which created the circumstances for me to even have a yard. This is not only on the face of it preposterous (indeed the City seems keen on doing everything it can to stop me from having a yard), but equally preposterous once you dig into it a little. Let's say that my yard was at the northwest corner of Township Road 510 and Range Road 240. I'm churning along, getting landscaping done every dozen years or so, and paying the useful Matt Bruenigs of the world (first time for every English sentence) $100 a pop for the effort. Meanwhile every time I do so, the County of Leduc sends the landscaper a tax bill of $20 (seems strange for a "transfer" of their own design, no?).

However, in the spring of 2019 a curious thing happens. The County of Leduc no longer is interested in collecting $20 from my yard being landscaped. The reason is that instead the City of Edmonton has annexed the land and turned me into a resident of Edmonton against my will. How does "Modern Taxation Theory" explain this?

Modern Taxation Theory helps us understand the reality of taxes and transfer payments and also helps us clearly confront certain questions that right now are clouded by confused thinking about these categories. So when it comes to the question of “should we tax the rich more,” the real question is “should the government keep paying the rich so much money?”

When exactly did the "government" decide it was going to transfer Bruenig $80 and why did it do so only at the exact same moment I paid him for the landscaping work he agreed to do in return for $100 (pre-tax)? How does that square with the "reality of transfer payments" and how does it account for a transfer payment being done by a different organization on January 2 2019 than December 30 2018 even when the same person landscaped the same lawn on both days?

Of course, it's silly when you start thinking of it this way: the government is a reactionary force. They only take after our free exchanges have taken place, and it's the work of retards and leftists (but I repeat myself) who believe otherwise.


"Milwaukee? That's like being hit in the head with a crowbar once a day."


Everything leftists do is corrupt

Almost exactly a year after Andy Lee exposed ArriveCan corruption in depth, the Globe and Mail and Auditor-General are finally getting in on the action.

Ms. Hogan made her comments during an emergency meeting of the House of Commons public accounts committee, which was scheduled in response to The Globe’s report that the Canada Border Services Agency had been alerted to allegations of improper contracting practices and cozy relationships between the public service and the private companies that worked on the app. The Globe also reported that the agency had referred the allegations to the RCMP, who have decided to launch an investigation.

The problem of course, as we just noted, is this story from October 15th...you know, a year ago:

You cannot find the exact address of the company, yet, you can figure out that the company is unquestionably engaged in malicious activities. 

First off, the listed owner, Cameron Wessel, was also in charge of GC Strategies in the US. But in 2021, the tax board halted the business over charges of tax evasion. 

In a given interview, Cameron Wessel said that the inception of the company was back in 2015 as a result of a few beer drinks between friends. The company had multiple lucrative government contracts and developed into one of Ottawa’s fastest-growing businesses. 

The GCSstrategies team members also work for other businesses with federal support. According to reports, one of the staff members listed on GC Strategies’ website also works for Global Affairs Canada.

What’s more surprising here is that he has his own company too. The employee stresses that his company, titled “AltNexus,” has “been providing solutions to the Federal Government for more than 15 years.”

Andy Lee was catching these problems in August...again, that's August of 2022. But if you only got your news from the Fake News Presstitutes at the Globe this week would be the first you're hearing about it.


From the Sea to the River, Jews make Palestinians wither

As the whole world knows, while most of us were enjoying Thanksgiving dinners with our families one week ago the Jews were in the middle of their traditional Yom Kippur (style guide: always must be pronounced as "yoooommmmm kippppp-poor") festivities: confessing your sins before God, avoiding leather shoes, fasting...oh yes, and being mass slaughtered by a bunch of sand niggers.

In what's been called the "Israeli 9/11", "biggest slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust", and (more on that in a bit) "the greatest thing to happen in the history of humanity", Hamas engaged in a mass invasion of one of the worlds' most laviously funded militaries done with a coordination not detected by one of the worlds' most laviously funded intelligence agencies.

Funny enough, even though the script seems familiar ("ethnic group whose aim is to expand their sphere of influence invade ethnically similar neighbour on a flimsy excuse") to what happened 18 months ago a little to the northwest, the international response is curiously different. There were no "pro-Russia" protests in Western nations (a tiny one in Manhattan was immediately claimed to be a propaganda exercise, while Chinese State Media were accused of organizing the one in Washington DC...with no protests at all in Canada or Europe or the UK) and no sense that there was two sides to this conflict you could either support or oppose. This always struck me as a little curious: while there wasn't any mass rallies in support of Putin there was a lot of column-inches devoted to the sense that you didn't have to go crazy supporting Ukraine in the conflict (by, say, applauding a Nazi in your Parliament). (Mostly conservative) commentators noted that this was the most corrupt country in Europe being invaded by the second most corrupt country in Europe and one that mainstream reports did confirm well before Putin starting "claiming as disinformation" had a problem with worshipping the Nazis who helped them try and overthrow the Soviets. The two sides in Russian-Ukraine therefore broke down into a "Ukraine needs to do everything it can including worshiping Nazis and committing wartime atrocities and executing domestic political opponents in order to win" vs "sorry I'm not really sure why we even care" rather than "Side A" verus "Side B".

Personally I always thought the best comparison to Ukraine for most people really should be like a sports match in a league you don't really care that much about, or even between two teams you don't care about in a league you follow. It's like the Basque derby held between the Spanish La Liga teams of Real Sociedad versus Athletic Bilbao: having never been to either city and not caring at all about the sport of soccer. On January 14th of 2024 they are going to play each other. Who do I want to win? Uh...sure, I'll pick Athletic Bilbao in this contest, and Russia in the other one. Why not?

This certainly hasn't been the case in this conflict. The agents of Lucifer following the urges of Mohammed (worms be upon him), child-raping war-mongering prophet who defies the One True God, have been committing war crimes far and above the kind obsessed over when it came to Ukraine/Russia. They want to haul Putin into international courts because Russian soldiers apparently killed a guy while the womenfolk watched. Well to the displaced Jordanians in the Israeli territory called "Palestine" that's all amateur hour: they treated poor Shani Louk in the exact same way that Muhammed treated Aishah's nine-year-old vagina: beaten until it dead and bruised beyond all recognition. Villages wiped of 60% of their population including women and children. Yet what's the response of the "every child matters" bleeters who insist that Residential Schools are the worst thing because some kids died of diseases they were already going to die of? That's right, unequivocal support for the child murdering rapists.

A senior advisor to a Liberal cabinet minister shared an Instagram post condoning Palestinian “revolutionary violence” and using a hashtag calling for the destruction of Israel.

Brandon Montour, who is listed as a senior legal affairs advisor to Liberal Crown-Indigenous Relations Minister Gary Anandasangaree on the federal government’s employee directory, also shared a post supporting Palestinian liberation through "whatever means necessary."

Meanwhile in Austrailia a crowd demands a new Holocaust ("gas the Jews", as The Guardian apparently accidentally missed for some reason) and attacks police and historic buildings while the one guy with an Israeli flag is the only arrest.

Indeed there were multiple rallies in support of the child raping murderers who worship a child raping Satanic prophet, but I felt that one in particular really provided a prism into the geopolitical landscape.

So the Jews got their first, and then were chased away by arriving sand niggers and their threats of violence; then even though the Jews were there first they were the ones punished by refusing to give up a space that they had far more right to be in.

Yep, that sounds about right.


Graham, Crackers

First, let's look at what Lindsay Graham recently said:

Well for every Israeli or American hostage executed by Hamas we should take down an Iranian oil refinery. The only way you're going to keep this war from escalating is to hold Iran accountable. How much more death and destruction do we have to take from the Iranian regime? I am confident this was planned and funded by the Iranians. Hamas is a bunch of animals who deserve to be treated like animals. So, if I was Israel, I would go in the ground, there is no truce to be had here, I would dismantle Hamas. This is the best opportunity Israel has to destroy Hamas. Take it to the Iranians. If you harm one American in Syria by using your Iranian militia against us in Syria, if you escalate the war by urging Hezbollah to attack Israel in the north. If Hamas kills one American or Israeli hostage we are going to blow up your oil refineries and put you out of business. Take it to the ayatollah’s backyard.

It's a good fire and brimstone speech, there's only one fatal flaw: it implies that the animals who worship their child raping prophet and ally of Satan Muhammed, worms be upon him, actually give two shits about "their oil business".


As Mark Steyn noted decades ago, "culture trumps economics". After all, if Iran was really gung ho about their oil business they'd happily sell to the country whos per capita fossil fuel consumption is on par with Germany and Japan (though conspicuously lower than other Middle Eastern countries, they are overall roughly on par with their neighbours). They certainly wouldn't risk sanctions similar to what befell poor Russia, would they? After all, if cutoff from non-Middle Eastern nations (minus, obviously, BRIC Alliance countries) then they are looking at numerous potential customers in the 133 TWh to 21595 TWh range (the total of the non-Middle Eastern countries I picked for this chart -- the likely to engage in sanctions -- totals 47,597 TWh out of a global 137,237. That's already a good chunk of change, and then remember that several of the other countries on the list are likely to be themselves pressured: Asia Pacific countries alone are 64,658 TWh, and a large portion of the rest already have their own oil and aren't in the market.

Simply put, if the Iranians or Hamas or whichever flavour of sand nigger you want to talk about cared at all about whether or not they were "in business" then none of this would ever happen. It's almost like they have some other consideration...

Therefore if you really plan on stopping them from slaughtering Jews and trying to wipe Israel off the map, it's important to get them where it hurts. Now obviously their sick warlike religion doesn't put a fear of death in them: exactly the opposite. However while all these Hamas fighters were willing to die in order to fulfill the greater goals of Dar al-Islam in the same way the 9/11 hijackers were and the same way the executors of Daniel Pearl and all the countless others over the decades have been, there's a clue in there: the death is supposed to be a noble sacrifice in order to fulfill the greater goal. But what happens if we take that away? What if along with their death we also arrange so that their false gods are also eliminated? What if every Hamas fighter who dies also puts a poisoned knife in Allah's back?

Now with this in mind, here's what Graham should have said:

Well for every Israeli or American hostage executed by Hamas we should bomb a popular mosque or holy site. The only way you're going to keep this war from escalating is to hold Muslims accountable. How much more death and destruction do we have to take from the "religion of peace"? Hamas is a bunch of animals who deserve to be treated like animals. So, if I was Israel, I would go into Mecca, there is no truce to be had here, I would destroy every mosque during worship hours. This is the best opportunity Jews have to destroy Islam. If you harm one American in Syria by using your Iranian militia against us in Syria, if you escalate the war by urging Hezbollah to attack Israel in the north. If Hamas kills one American or Israeli hostage we are going to blow up your mosques and put your religion of business. Take it to the ayatollah’s backyard.


1984 never ended for the CBC

Over in Prince Edward Island, somebody dared to point out that all of the lies about Residential Schools have yet to show any evidence whatsoever.

The CBC, as you might guess, is mad as all hell:

A councillor in the village of Murray Harbour, P.E.I., is being asked to step down after a sign on his property carried a message offensive to residential school survivors and other members of the Indigenous community.

The wording has now been removed from the sign, located on property owned by Murray Harbour Coun. John Robertson.

Photos taken before the message was taken down show that it called the detection of unmarked graves at the former sites of residential schools in the last few years a "hoax" referring to them as "mass graves." It added: "Redeem Sir John A's integrity."

Referring to them as "mass graves" is a horrible thing, isn't it CBC? As you might guess, the retard who wrote the article (Tony Davis) isn't aware of who else had referred to the soil disturbances in Kamloops as "mass graves". Say, for a random example, the New York Times, or hey how about the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation itself?

A previous version of this story referred to "mass graves" and this has been changed to the more accurate term "unmarked graves."

So when it comes to organizations pushing "unmarked graves" as "mass graves", the CBC itself is equally guilty. And of course "unmarked graves" itself is a lie that the CBC still refuses to correct: that same CBC story I just linked to that had to admit "mass graves" wasn't accurate links to this article when talking about "unmarked graves". Yet as readers to this blog know, not a single body has been found.

Zero bodies, so zero graves. The only case of "unmarked graves" is the Cowness incident where the Red Indians got very excited how ground penetrating radar had detected "possible graves"....in the cemetery. (Number of dead Red Indian kids found? Oh, right, still zero).

Fortunately, he's only 90% retarded, so Tony Davis thought to cover his bases in his story about Councillor Robertson:

Since the confirmation of community knowledge of suspected unmarked graves in British Columbia, First Nations across Canada have located evidence of the remains of more than 2,300 children in suspected unmarked graves at or near former residential schools and Indian hospitals, according to a report from the independent special interlocutor for missing children and unmarked graves and burial sites associated with Indian Residential Schools released earlier this year.

Re-read that first sentence again: since the confirmation of suspected unmarked graves. He wanted to say that they confirmed "unmarked graves", but even the CBC liars are starting to realize they are the boy who cried "Red Indians aren't jackpine savages with tuberculosis" a few times too many. So what did this confirm? That there was "community knowledge of a suspicion?" Did that really need confirming, and how does a test that even Red Indian activists acknowledge doesn't actually detect any remains confirm a suspicion? Shouldn't they try to confirm or deny the premise of the unmarked graves?

(Well, maybe not, every time they try this it ends pretty poorly for them).

Meanwhile, don't put much stock in this "report from the independent special interlocutor". You can read the report here [pdf]. Here's the "evidence" they discuss in the report, every reference is to a mainstream news article instead of original scientific sources. Basically Kimberly Murray wrote a blogpost in PDF format.

Pretty compelling evidence, eh? Exactly...oh, right, still zero bodies. When "possibly partial remains" is your strongest piece of evidence, you have a problem. Not to mention that Red Indians already have been found to fabricate bones when real ones remain annoyingly elusive:

In April 2011, encouraged by Annett’s claim in Hidden No Longer that he knew exactly where bodies were buried at the former Mohawk Institute in Brantford, the Mohawk Nation of Ouse/Grand River invited Annett to lead a search for unmarked graves. According to Annett’s account in Murder By Decree, interviews with former students, ground-penetrating radar searches, and excavation took place that fall.  But when Annett tried to pass off animal bones as those of dismembered four-year old children at an Occupy Toronto protest in November 2011,Annett was exposed as a fraud, and publicly denounced by the Mohawk First Nation.

How long before this latest case is again "denounced as a fraud?" Or have they learned better to never let any scientific analysis be performed this time to disprove their claim?

Regardless, this is the level of evidence that Kimberly Murray expressed in her laughable "report", which was then parroted by the CBC even though the CBC news stories themselves were her primary source. This is Steele Dossier level of re-laundering a false narrative through the media.


Thanksgiving 2023

Of course, here in His Majesty's Dominion it's indeed Thanksgiving, where this tweet has been making the rounds:

Which led me to a question I would love to pose to anybody who's convinced that "corporate greed" is the cause of higher grocery prices:

How exactly do you explain why these aren't all similar numbers?

After all, if the greedy capitalists who own Sobeys and Superstore are raising food prices all willy-nilly, why are they 18% greedy when it comes to turkey but only 13% greedy when it comes to potatoes and a paltry 5% greedy when it comes to milk?

And what's with the gap between squash and tofu? Why did they decide to become so insanely greedy when it came to squash only to look at their tofu profits and suddenly decide no, these are way too high, let's dial it back?

The reason of course is that woke government fiscal and economic policies across the Western world in the wake of the China Virus are causing rampant inflation: Shiny Pony deciding to artificially raise prices here there and everywhere is probably the most dramatic, but hardly the only guilty candidate.

However that requires Jazz Meat and company to acknowledge that their distortion of free markets has huge negative consequences, and we know how likely that is.


Ship Those Niggers Back....onto the packaging?

For those who don't get the title reference.

Aunt Jemima turned out to be fairly important to the marketing. Who knew? (Answer: everybody who wasn't a BLM idiot)

Does this mean we can get back the Washington Redskins, Cleveland Indians, and (most importantly) Edmonton Eskimos back?


Kitchener Oktoberfest

On Thursday, the world's second largest Oktoberfest event kicked off with the keg tapping ceremony. Events continue from October 5th to 14th.

Having previously attended this event with K'mpec a few years ago (it kind of sucked), it's another hilarious example of Ontario being so behind the times.


The actual German Oktoberfest is already long over. It started back on September 16th and ended on October 3rd

Edmonton had its own sucky non-German Oktoberfest at the downtown arena: it was held on September 22nd and was over by October 1st. Edmonton also had the far superior (K'mpec has been to numerous Oktoberfests including Munich and rates GCCA as the second best) Oktoberfest at the German Canadian Cultural Association which also ran from September 14th to 30th.

As was explained to us at the GCCA event a decade ago, in Germany much like Alberta, October gets cold and it's too dangerous to plan events in that month knowing you could be dealing with a cold snap. So long after the real Oktoberfest and its offshoots are done and we've moved on with our lives, now is when Worst Case Ontario bothers to get around to holding one?

(Worst of all, of course, was that the Shiny Pony attended)


Controlled Opposition

Mark Steyn gets some well-deserved enjoyment out of the collapse of GB News. In fairness he resurrects the "Steyn may be an anti-Muslim asshole but..." formulations used against him a decade ago...

Laurence Fox is very insightful and moving on the subject of male suicide. But, invited to opine instead on a very peripheral media figure 99 per cent of viewers have never heard of, he floundered - as I would do in such circumstances.


But that's neither here nor there. It was a short segment guilty of nothing other than poor taste - which in the relentlessly vulgar Brit media is surely no big deal. Discussing the issue, Joan Bakewell - who in my salad days made her name on the Beeb as "the thinking man's crumpet" (ie, eminently shaggable) rather than merely the Bakewell tart (although Frank Muir liked to call her that, without consequence) - magisterially pronounced that Lozza is a "dick".

Shag dick dick shag wank bollock arse dick piss shag, all the way to the great Les Dawson's leering refrain of knickers knackers knockers: that's Brit public discourse, from the late Les to the thinking man's crumpet. This is a country in which a Minister of the Crown can suggest on the BBC's Andrew Marr Show that Nigel Farage looks as if someone has put his finger up Nigel's bottom and "he really rather likes it"

However, he points out how one-sided the outrage always is:

But that's UK public discourse for you: it's unutterably vulgar - except that it's uttered round the clock. So the Minister of State at the Department of Defence is permitted to get her jollies slavering over the violation of Nigel Farage's posterior, but Nigel's primetime colleagues are not permitted to express a disinclination to violate.

Of course! Because Anna Soubry, Andrew Marr, Joan Bakewell, Adam Boulton and even young Ava Evans are all in the club - and Farage, Fox and Wootton aren't and never will be. That's what Mr Boulton's "delicate ecology" of UK broadcasting boils down to.

If that was it, it would merely be categorized under the "fall of our civilization" gag that Steyn has been on since Monica Lewinsky. However, it's moved into the sinister next phase:

And so, entirely predictably, the state censor Ofcom has now announced it's opening an investigation into GB News over its bizarre outbreak of non-shagging. I believe that's the twelfth current investigation into the channel, and we pretty much know the outcome. After all, GB's chief exec has already said the segment was "way past the limits of acceptance". So what are Lord Grade and Melanie Dawes going to "find"? Oh, no, relax, turns out it's perfectly acceptable after all?

Grade and Dame Melanie will rule against GB News and this time (unlike in my own cases) they will fine them. Rather a lot, I think. Because it has to be a big enough number so that Ava Evans (who has played this like the first violin of the Berlin Philharmonic) doesn't get her chums in the commentariat to run a zillion "Out-of-touch Ofcom thinks reducing women to their shaggability is only worth ten-thousand quid!" stories. 

The end result, of course, is one side of the political spectrum doesn't get its stories told and its truth (coincidentally, the actual truth) laid bare.

Remember what the Steyn Show used to do on GB News? Vaccine victims ignored by the government and vaporised on social media. The industrial-scale gang-rape of English schoolgirls up and down the land from Rochdale to Banbury. The utter uselessness of the British constabulary, who are too busy dancing their clubfooted macarenas to investigate any crimes.

Seen any of that lately on GBN? As I've said with each of these new Ofcom complaints, GB News would have done better to push back against the Steyn rulings - because at least then you'd be taking a stand on the biggest public-policy disaster of our times, as opposed to defending the right to pronounce a woman entirely non-shaggable. Which, in terms of free-speech first principles, may indeed be a right, but not one you'd necessarily want to argue before a jury, never mind faceless ideological commissars of a highly politicised state bureaucracy.

The descent into a Tories'n'trivia channel was a conscious strategy to insulate GB News from its enemies. Doesn't seem to be working out.

Which of course culminated a couple days ago in the next phase: a television commentator being imprisoned apparently for the crime of being mean to a worthless slut.

In a fine illustration of that, HM Constabulary, who turn a blind eye to robbery, stabbings and the industrial-scale gang-rape of schoolgirls in every town up and down the spine of England, nevertheless have sufficient manpower to dispatch half-a-dozen officers to raid the home of our pal Laurence Fox.


How spam comments disprove the government line on Bill C-18

Recently as part of a trio of overpromised "internet modernization bills" which served to deny more and more Canadians their fundamental speech and property rights, the Online News Act (formerly Bill C-18) was passed into law. The quick summary is that, at the behest of the legacy media, "big players" (Facebook and Google) are required to pay an unknown but substantially large (over 4% of their global revenues) sum to the Canadian newsmedia for any linking done to their sites, including links done by users.

The rationale was that by generating news sections where links to media were being done, Google and Facebook were getting the advertising revenue that the websites themselves were expecting. CBC and the Toronto Star were looking at how much these large tech companies were making and thought they deserved it. Shiny Pony's government agreed, and at their behest started crafting legislation and going gung-ho on it no matter who disagreed or pointed out the bill's many many problems.

One of the strongest voices on this was Michael Geist, who for a quarter century has been the go-to internet expert in Canadian academia. Geist continually criticized the Liberal government's bizarre agreement that Google and Facebook in particular (one of his bugaboos is that the law seems designed to target them) are "stealing" content by profiting from linking. He criticized the Liberals' continued comparisons to an Australian law that on the surface was very similar but in reality was vastly different. He routinely pointed out that the policy was designed to milk them dry to support legacy media, including the legislation setting a floor but not a ceiling and restricting the companies' bargaining positioning in the event they chose the "deal" route. Finally, of course, to the howls of pro-Liberals in his comment section, he warned that the big tech companies could and would do exactly what they've done since: stop providing the links at all (which in theory the pseudo-plaintiffs would be happy about but in reality they aren't).

Anyways, back in June Geist wrote a rather silly article about how the Toronto Raptors losing a player named Fred VanVleet was connected to C-18.

The Raptors’ mistakes are nicely articulated in this piece by Josh Lewenberg, who covers the team for TSN. Drawing from that piece, there are at least three that merit mention. First, the Raptors misjudged the market for VanVleet, which left them without a viable response to a massive contract offer from the Houston Rockets that they did not see coming. Second, the Raptors took the wrong lesson from past experience, in which they previously had managed to recoup some value even when losing a star player. Third, the Raptors engaged in disastrous risk analysis, opening the door to losing a player without any return rather than pre-emptively pursuing a less-risky alternative.

I think the same three mistakes apply to the government’s inept approach on Bill C-18. First, it badly misjudged the market for news links on Internet platforms. Even as Facebook repeatedly emphasized the limited economic value of news links on the platform (three percent of user feeds and highly substitutable), the government appeared convinced it would still be open to paying $50-100 million for those links. The same seems true for Google, who is focused on its platform that is built on links and a global market that could lead to billions in liability if the Canadian approach became a model for others. A compromise is still possible, but if even one Internet company complies with the legislation by stopping links and cancelling deals, the government policy will at best break even or more likely still result in a net loss. With the recent Postmedia-Torstar merger proposal, Bell Media layoffs, and regulatory requests at the CRTC to reduce news spending, the sector appears to have already made up its mind and is rapidly losing faith in the bill. 

Second, the government drew the wrong lesson from the Australian experience as it convinced itself that the situation would play out in the same way with room to negotiate a late settlement (Scrimshaw hints at this too). While that might still happen, the government ignored notable differences in the legislation (Australia left itself with more flexibility to negotiate a settlement than does Bill C-18), the economic circumstances (Facebook was flush with cash during the Australia fight, while it has laid off tens of thousands in recent months), the value of news (news has been steadily de-emphasized on Facebook in the years since it reached its deals in Australia), and the global environment (Australia was largely alone, while the Canadian bill comes at a time when the issue is playing out in multiple jurisdictions including the U.S., where a U.S. senator is cheering it on). In other words, simply thinking history would repeat itself was a major error that failed to identify important distinctions between the two countries that could well lead to different outcomes. If Australia proves to be the example of how the system can work, Canada may become the model no one will want to emulate.

Third, the government’s risk analysis has been disastrous at every step. It started with adopting the riskiest available legislative model premised on mandated payments for links even when there were other less controversial options to support the media (taxing big tech, mandated support for a fund model). During the legislative process, it actively excluded contrary voices, considered blocking Facebook from even appearing as a witness during the study of the bill, and went out of its way to criticize the tech companies and their concerns. At the very end of the process, it amended the law by establishing a six month deadline for the bill to take effect, thereby decreasing the time available to find a compromise. The approaches only expanded the divide and made a compromise more difficult to achieve.

It's a flimsy conceit, but none the matter. The real illustrative point, which so many pro-C18 voices seemed to be ignorant of, actually comes in the many spam comments in Geists' comment section.

For all the comments you'll find about how Google was "pimping" content or "stealing" it with links, you'll also find lots of comments like the image above telling you how you can make $95/hour, or play "game grid 2", or get a job at a social media team "for roughly 10-15 hours a week to focus on Normally level tasks". So the question then becomes....

If Google and Facebook are "stealing" content, isn't Geist stealing these spammers' content by allowing the links to the sites to remain on his webpage? Clearly Michael Geist is a content thief and these shady Asian websites deserve to be compensated.

Of course, when you think about this it breaks down immediately. Obviously the links have value to the scammers. Now it's true that the links may have value to Geist as well: not in these particular cases, but on any blog that has a "readers tips" thread you are enriching the owner of the linking site by posting it. One of the key aspects of the Austrian school of economics is in fact that there's no such thing as one "value" to a product: both buyer and seller by definition assign it differing (valid) values. At the end of the day though, that link from another site onto yours has value (and it's why you'll probably see me posting a link to this post on one of Geist's C-18 articles)

Once you realize it would be ridiculous for a Canadian blogger to pay basketballrandom.org a fee for a link that they themselves put there then the entire structural basis for C-18 collapses.

Bonus WTF: "Pay for links"is by far the most ridiculous of arguments to make in favour of this legislation. Coming in at a close second, however, is the "well you're an idiot if you get your news from Facebook" knee-jerk response.

You can vaguely see where they're coming from: people who don't watch reputable sources like TNC News or Rebel Media or DailyWire or InfoWars for the information about what's going on in the world around them, and instead follow retarded friends who post links from fake news garbage sites like NBC News, CTV News, CBC, BBC, or MSNBC. However, the kicker is that this bans links to Canadian news websites. In other words, now instead of "getting your news from Facebook" in that your own ideological bubble sends links to news stories that only fit a single narrative (not ideal), you're "getting your news from Facebook" in that people will simply tell you what the news is and if you know they're wrong you can't post a link disproving it (even less ideal).

Say, for example, an East Indian news article posts a story about how the Prime Minister of Canada was caught on video raping black toddlers. It gains a lot of traction, and the Vancouver Sun has an article debunking it. You can't link to the Canadian article explaining why it's wrong, but the other guy can endlessly link to the newspaper article showing its true.

"Getting your news from Facebook" in the sense of somebody telling you about a news story in a Facebook post hasn't changed. What has changed is nobody will be getting their news from a Facebook friend sending them to a mainstream media news outlet. Crazily enough, this ecosystem was implemented at the behest of the mainstream media.


"Safe and Effective"


Possibly related.


Zero women have ever been raped in history

Yet another #MeTooLiar has been exposed.

@greg_price11 Trevor Bauer is innocent and he has the receipts to prove it. #fyp #foryoupage #trevorbauer #mlb #dodgers #robmanfred #conservative #republican #politics #trump #trump2024 #maga #redpilltiktok ♬ original sound - Greg Price

While obviously the post title isn't strictly true, it does seem like the sexual politics version of x = sin x now doesn't it? [or my personal favourite: π2 = 10! -ed]

Lindsay Hill is a lying cunt who falsely accused a man of rape.

Christine Blasey Ford is a lying cunt who falsely accused a man of rape.

Kristin Raworth is a lying cunt who falsely accused a man of rape.

Megan Parkinson is a lying cunt who falsely accused a man of rape.

Crystal Gail Mangum is a lying cunt who falsely accused a man of rape.

E. Jean Carroll is a lying cunt who falsely accused a man of rape. 

Caralea Cole is a lying cunt who falsely accused a man of rape. 

Chelsea Rooney is a lying cunt who falsely accused a man of rape. 

"A.B." is a lying cunt who falsely accused a man of rape.

The Morinville girls whose names we'll never know are lying cunts who falsely accused a man of rape.

Lucy DeCoutere is a lying cunt who falsely accused a man of rape.

Kathryn Borel is a lying cunt who falsely accused a man of rape.

Linda Christina Redgrave is a lying cunt who falsely accused a man of rape.

Quinn Moffett is was a lying cunt who falsely accused a man of rape.

Amanda Heard is a lying cunt who falsely accused a man of rape.

Eleanor Williams is a lying cunt who falsely accused a man of rape.

Morgan Wright is a lying cunt who falsely accused a man of rape.

Jemma Beale is a lying cunt who falsely accused a man of rape.

Jennifer Gries is a lying cunt who falsely accused a man of rape.


At this point, should we maybe start asking whether any woman who claims she was raped isn't just lying and making the whole thing up? It seems the sensible thing on balance of probabilities.

And the Bitch Privilege continues. Not only are several of these women not exposed (along with the Morinville girls, we still don't know the names of half of the lying women who falsely accused Ghomeshi even after they were proved lying in a court of law, nor Galloway's false accuser, nor the false accuser of Caleb Warner even though she was charged with giving a false statement), but even after they are found to be lying cunts they are still given the deference of "victim" when they instead were the guilty attacking party.

A year after she was proven in court to be a lying cunt who conspired with other cunts to "build up" their lie with multiple nearly-identical stories, the Toronto Star still acted as if Lucy DeCoutere's claims were proven fact instead of proven to be complete bullshit. The Sportsnet article about lying cunt Lindsay Hill being exposed as the lying cunt she is gets prefaced with the "sensitivity warning":

Editor's Note: The following story deals with sexual assault, and may be distressing for some readers.

If you or someone you know is in need of support, those in Canada can find province-specific centres, crisis lines and services here. For readers in America, a list of resources and references for survivors and their loved ones can be found here.

Hey editor: the following story deals with absolutely no sexual assault whatsoever. You might as well preface your next story about a city mayor attending the grand opening of a new facility with that warning. At least in that case taxpayers got raped. Lindsay Hill never was.

Unlike Sportsnet, the Fox News story on the case actually mentions the fact that as part of the countersuit Bauer had in his possession documents from Hill proving that she was lying and in fact conspiring to bilk him out of his money.

"'Next victim. Star pitcher for the Dodgers,'" Bauer said in the video. "A text Lindsey Hill sent to a friend before she ever even met me. ‘What should I steal?’ she asked another, in reference to visiting my house for the first time. The answer? ‘Take his money.’ So how might that work? ‘I’m going to his house Wednesday.’ she said, ‘I already have my hooks in. you know how I roll.’ Then, after the first time we met, "Net worth is 51 mil" she said. ‘b---h, you better secure the bag’, was the response. 

"But how was she going to do that? ‘Need daddy to choke me out,’ she said. ‘being an absolute whore to try to get in on his 51 million,’ read another text. Then, after the second time we met, former [San Diego] Padres pitcher Jacob Nix told her ‘you gotta get this bag.’ ‘I’ll give you 50,000’ Lindsey replied. Her AA sponsor asked her at one point, ‘do you feel a tiny bit guilty?’ ‘Not really,’ she replied."

Bauer said the messages he talked about in the clip were "deliberately and unlawfully concealed from me and my legal team." He said a separate video that showed the woman in his bed didn’t have any marks on her face. The Daily Mail first reported the video in September 2022.

Fake rape accusers (who, let's start being honest, 99.7% of them are) continue to get away with it and the "justice" system conspires with "journalists" to keep accountability off of the (99.9% likely) innocent men who are guilty only of the crime of giving a pathetic cunt the only thing any cunt deserves.

Getting fucked. Burn the cunts who pervert the natural order to try and fuck back.


The Bank of Canada is lying to you

The carbon tax has a minimal impact on the rising cost of goods and services. And this retarded BoC method of calculation ensures that would happen no matter how high you raised the actual carbon tax.


Justin's stupidity puts Canadian soldiers at risk

The Canadian Armed Forces' website faced a cyberattack this Wednesday, with the “Indian Cyber Force” hacking group claiming responsibility. The group, known for its pro-India stance, shared evidence of their cyber breach on social platforms including Telegram and X (formerly known as Twitter). Their prediction that the disruption would last for two hours was accurate, as confirmed by Globe and Mail.

Daniel Le Bouthillier, spokesperson for the Department of National Defence, stated the disruption was detected around noon, but the site was functional again by late afternoon. He also clarified that the affected site was distinct from the main web infrastructure of both the Canadian government and the Department of National Defence, asserting, “We have no indication of broader impacts to our systems.”

This is all in response to the Shiny Pony's insane attack on India (meant to distract from the forced China probe and change the channel from his own lousy behaviour) which itself only fell out of the news after Justin Hitler got caught cheering on Nazis again.

Already India has begun barring Canadians from visiting the country. As mentioned last week, the United Kingdom has come out on India's side with Biden and EU leaders refusing to help the Shiny Pony despite the Canadian presstitutes begging for relief. For those keeping score, India recently passed China as the world's most populated country. With India also poised to pass Japan as Asia's second-largest economy sometime this decade, countries looking at the two feuding nations are highly unlikely to pick Canada as the horse to back.

Meanwhile, much like L'Affair Khashoggi a couple years back, even if India did assassinate this piece of shit nobody should lose a lot of sleep over it.

But don't worry, the Canadian government may be starting wars with countries from Poland to India to (inexplicably) China, but at least steps are being taken to strengthen our... 


...oh no.