Wednesday, September 11, 2024

why would my government do this?

because justin trudeau is a petty, narcissistic tyrant that doesn't tolerate criticism or dissent.
at
Location:
i want to post an update on the status of this site and my writing, video, music and other art projects, in general.

i've been pointing out for roughly five years that somebody was trying to hack my sites and decided it was probably a government. i've restricted my suspects to the canadian, american, russian and saudi governments, but have long decided that the most likely suspect was my own government in canada, and that they may be trying to make it look like the russians or saudis as a decoy.

my house was purchased in the spring of 2023 and it took a few months for me to become certain that the house was bought by somebody connected to the state trying to take over my sites. they have also been trying to detransition me.

i am in a legal battle with these battle that i am trying to direct into a ticket into subsidized housing. i moved to windsor from ottawa in 2013 to seek a lower cost of living. this started to break up a little around 2018ish and by the end of the pandemic, it was clear that there was nowhere in this country that i could afford to exist in and live the lifestyle i want to live. i need to get into subsidized housing. i don't have any other solution.

in the mean time, i have a team of professional hackers sitting upstairs trying to break into my sites. they have literally broken into my apartment and stolen my passwords on several occasions. they have repeatedly drugged me with testosterone.

i am not going to be able to do anything in relation to any of these art projects until:

1) i'm able to get into a situation where i'm no longer being drugged. i can't function in any capacity when i'm under the influence of the drugs they're giving me.
2) my network is secure.

so, unfortunately, everything is on pause until i can shake these shitheads off, and i don't know how long that's going to take. moving is a necessary but perhaps not sufficient condition.

for this reason, i am hoping there's a change of government in canada as soon as possible, even if it's not in my economic self-interest in the long run.
at
Location:
actually, i think they should give aysenur ezgi eygi a darwin award.

dumb de-dumb-dumb.

hey, at least she didn't get captured and raped by isis, which would have been the most likely outcome if she would have lasted more than a week on the ground.
at
Location:
it is disgusting and immoral to talk about negotiating with hamas, to propose making a deal with them or to suggest israel make concessions or consider a truce or ceasefire with them.

the correct language that the media and political negotiators should be using is "unconditional total surrender", not "cease fire" or "deal".

at
Location:
whatever you think of donald trump's involvement or lack thereof in the capitol hill storming (i don't think he committed any sort of crime and that the supreme court has been correct to throw away the lower court rulings), there's no question that richard nixon posed a far greater threat to democracy than trump has or ever will. claims that trump is the greatest threat to democracy since sliced bread are hyperbole and not based in evidence or facts.
at
Location:
this is insane.

at
Location:
i watched part of the debate and fell asleep half way through.

both of these candidates are peddling in conspiracy theories, half-truths and outright lies. the media will correctly tell you these things about trump, and not mention that they are also true about harris. the harris campaign has apparently picked up some kind of weird qanon type internet conspiracy called "project 2025". i believe trump when he says he hasn't read it, because trump doesn't read much. and these people are not trump people. frankly, most heritage foundation types would be more likely to vote for kamala harris, although they wouldn't have been likely to vote for joe biden.

there is one thing i'm picking up that is different about kamala harris and it should be substantive if it is your ballot issue. hillary clinton was not pro-choice; in fact, she supported a constitutional amendment to restrict roe v. wade. biden has clearly never been pro-choice, even as he has put on a facade as a pragmatic necessity, as a democrat. biden is old enough that he was elected before roe v. wade. i think a lot of young people don't even know that liberals and socialists that are today over the age of 80 are largely not pro-choice, but rather overwhelmingly consider abortion to be immoral. for example, have you ever heard chomsky talk about abortion? it's disorienting, to say the least, and this is chomsky - the captain of the self-ownership team. biden's positions on abortion are out of touch, and he knows it, so he kind of talks around it.

obama was also very wishy-washy on abortion rights:

kerry was personally opposed to abortion as a moral issue, but supported abortion rights, legally and politically. if you're pro-choice, do you find that convincing?

gore was outspokenly anti-abortion at one point:

harris is clearly pro-choice. no caveats. no subtleties. as far as i can tell, she is the first (major party) candidate for president that is clearly unambiguously pro choice, with no second-guessing it.

i have previously suggested to people to be careful about voting for democrats if your ballot issue is abortion as you might get something you're not expecting if you don't do your research. this is still true, at any level. but, harris is different than previous democrats on this issue, as she is believably pro-choice, and unambiguously so.

on every other issue, what i saw was a mess of lies and contradictions, and they both came off as unelectable.
at
Location:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)