and if you support fascist movements, you're a fascist.
and, i still think that the only good fascist is a dead one.
Friday, December 26, 2025
if you're going to choose to align with the most right-wing, most conservative, most religious political movements that the world has seen in decades, that is your choice, but stop calling yourself a liberal and stop calling yourself a socialist.
you are a fascist.
if you have any intelligence, you should be able to pass the mirror test, to look at yourself and see yourself for what you are.
generate some self-awareness for the movements you are standing with and supporting and be honest with yourself: you are a fascist, and you support fascism.
if george w. bush had gone after the wahabi cultists and salafists, who were mostly in saudi arabia at the time, i would have supported that. i would have supported regime change in saudi arabia as a result of the sept 11 attacks.
however, he didn't do that; he launched a war against a state that did not listen to american demands and hadn't for decades in order to dismantle a difficult state that the militants that attacked the united states had long wanted removed. instead of going after the terrorists, he did exactly what the terrorists wanted him to do. that war eventually extended to a regime change process in syria, which had the same baathist political movement in power.
i did not oppose the iraq war because it was an attack on muslims and i actually don't know anybody that held to that position, at the time. there may have been some backtracking near the end, but the baathists were officially secularists and iraq, despite it's problems, was using the state to redistribute resources in ways that the other states in the area (except syria) were not. iraq had the least muslim government in the middle east, which is exactly why they were targeted.
the arguments at the time were not in solidarity with islamic fundamentalism, which doesn't even make sense, but arguments that toppling the government would create issues with islamic fundamentalism, and that you can't enforce democracy with tanks, you have to let the people do it themselves.
what's happened in the last 20 years is that the liberal media has abandoned it's previous position on iraq, which was correct and principled, and replaced it with horrific talking points written by state media from islamic theocracies, that are in support of the movement for islamic fascism in the area. they've completely flip-flopped from opposing the removal of saddam hussein because it would lead to islamic fascism, which was universally seen as worse, to supporting the islamic fascists themselves on grounds of "religious freedom" and criticizing attempts to bomb or contain them by force. in the process, the liberal media has thoroughly aligned itself with contemporary fascism, and today acts as a mouth piece for fascist governments and as a vector for fascist propaganda, and has even helped generate fascist movements on the ground in the west.
frankly, i'm not even convinced that bush even understood what he did, but his daddy's goons, which he let back into power, took the opportunity to advance the aims of the muslim extremists that bombed him in removing the godless, unislamic, socialist government in iraq, which led to the country being taken over by religious lunatics, which is exactly what the saudis wanted.
obama then had to come in and try to contain the pandora's box that removing the baath party opened up and that is still wreaking havoc across the world. the point was to oppose that pandora's box from opening, and to oppose the forces it would unleash; but, today, the liberal media is aligning itself with the consequences of that pandora's box, and standing in solidarity with, and not in opposition to, the forces it unleashed.
my support for bombing isis is because i opposed toppling saddam hussein, and opposed toppling assad, who, together, were preventing gulf-backed islamic fascists from militarizing the region. i had a clear understanding of that at the time, and i have a clear understanding of the issue now.
i have always supported using the american military to fight the terrorists and i entirely understand that this is a conflict that will last for centuries, as other similar conflicts in history always did. this isn't a three year war, it's a generational conflict. yes. that's a correct observation, and that's the point; they're not going to give up in three years, they're going to keep trying to take over our secular society and enforce their dark age value systems, until we're able to wipe them out and force them to stop. i don't know what to tell people complaining that the war to save them from being enslaved by islam is taking too long, other than that fighting for one's freedom is not like buying fast food, and that things that matter sometimes take a long time. the criticism that we should give up and stop fighting for freedom because it is taking too long to win is amongst the most shallow and stupid arguments that i've ever heard, but you get what you deserve, in the end. if you don't want to fight for your way of life, don't be surprised if it's taken away from you.
i would continue to support overthrowing the governments in saudi arabia and iran, and i now would support overthrowing the al qaeda backed fascist dictatorship that took over syria and i would support driving the taliban out of afghanistan. my solidarity is with the forces of secularism, socialism and modernism. my solidarity is with the apostates fighting for freedom and democracy. i have always and will continue to condemn the religious groups trying to enforce their laws on people that don't want to follow them.
this is actually a deflection by the outgoing representative:
She said she wants Trump to focus on spiking health-care costs and affordability concerns — not what's going on overseas.
"No one cares about the foreign countries. No one cares about the never-ending amount of foreign leaders coming to the White House every single week," she said in a recent interview with NBC News.
the president of the united states has no mandate whatsoever to deal with health care or the economy. these concerns are the exclusive concern of the congress, and particularly the house of representatives.
it's her decision whether she wants to do her job or quit and go home, but it is her responsibility to write these bills, and not his. the president's job is to oversee the military and interact with foreign dignitaries, not to concern himself with domestic policy.
the maga supporters should be asking why ms greene is abandoning her post rather than writing the legislation she campaigned on. it's her job. it's not his job.
tomatoes are actually fairly low in nutrients compared to other fruits for sale in the store. they aren't bad for you, so there isn't any good reason to restrict tomato consumption, and i eat a fair amount of them myself, but i eat them with more nutritious fruits like red peppers, limes and avocados, and/or with high nutrient roots like beets or carrots and high-nutrient greens like kale and broccoli. tomatoes are better thought of as a low nutrient spice, like pepper or salt, whose primary purpose is to add flavour, than as a nutritious part of the meal. however, they aren't quite as useless as lettuce or cucumbers; they're in a middle category, with apples and peaches and pears, of fruits that you can do better than and should if you can, but shouldn't necessarily be actively avoided, if you like them. have a pear or an apple or a tomato if you like, but realize it has almost no nutritional value. if you don't want to do the research, just make sure you always have a red pepper and/or an avocado in any meal you eat with a tomato in it.
i would also suggest buying hydroponic tomatoes to maximize nutrients and to avoid organic tomatoes, as the pesticides that organic farmers use are more dangerous than the ones conventional farming uses.
adding more carotenoids won't do much good. these are very poor sources of vitamin a (your body will convert them to retinol, but only if it has to, and at a much lower efficiency rate than previously thought. humans are in truth actually not very good at converting carotenoids, like beta-carotene and lycopene, into vitamin a. it is advised to seek true retinol, which is only found by eating meat, or consuming milk products, like cheese. i eat a lot of eggs, partially for that reason.) and there is no good science upholding any sort of benefit of lycopene, despite many attempts to find one in order to market tomatoes as healthy fruits. at best, lycopene is a very low potency form of vitamin a. lutein has a more established role to play in eye health, but you're still better off eating an avocado or a bell pepper, or a carrot.
tomatoes don't have much vitamin c and adding more would likely make them more citrusy. that would be a better addition, in my opinion. i'd like that, myself, but americans like sugar in ways that i don't. i prefer tarty citrus foods over sugary cakes and candy, but i'm a little weird. i would drink fresca or sprite when i was a kid by preference and choice, and not coke or pepsi, and i still prefer caffeinated mt dew to any cola, and dr pepper to coke. i used to get key lime or lemon or rhubarb pies for my birthday when i was a little kid, instead of chocolate cake, which i found made me bloated and sick. i preferred a good fruit filling - apple or cherry or rhubarb or lemon or lime - over chocolate filling or icing or sugar. i have always liked sour and have never really liked sweet. i'd get big turks instead of sugary chocolate bars. i'd prefer sour patch kids to smarties.
there are lots of sources of vitamin c in western diets and we don't really need more, but it would still be a better option than trying to cram more low potency vitamin a into the fruit, with little to no actual benefit to it.
i'm not opposed to genetically modifying food if there's a potential benefit to it, but i don't see any value in this, and will stick to the red ones.
the tomato industry has been struggling for decades to market it's product as healthy because it's a fruit and it has this perception that people want tomatoes to be healthy because they're fruits. it should abandon this. tomatoes will sell as flavouring without the need to try to market them as healthy. it's enough for them to not be unhealthy - for them to be neutral - for them to be good flavouring agents.
from what i can see, these people are accusing each other of doing the same thing to each other, but it was the fake left (who are authoritarian conservatives masquerading as a left) that started the fight. now, when faced with a counter-attack, they respond as though they're being attacked without cause. but, they started the fight!
the root cause of the problem here that needs to be addressed is the false moral superiority of the fake left that led it to decide it had some objective basis to censor speech it didn't like that is somehow different than when the authoritarian right does the same thing to it.
i'm left with little to no sympathy for the groups being targeted, as they brought this on themselves, and would rather point to the centuries old lesson of free speech that real leftists learned eons ego: if you censor your opponents when you are in power, they will retaliate when they gain power. so, don't do that.
free speech is absolute or it doesn't exist. you can't moderate free speech. and, as chomsky said, free speech means free speech for your opponents, it doesn't mean free speech for you.
....and certainly don't bitch and complain when they do to you what you did to them, if you insist on censoring them, despite the lessons of history that are right in front of you and which you refuse to learn. get off your fucking cross.
these groups are not leftists and are not allies of the left, they are conservative groups in disguise that are seeking to control what you think, feel, write, sing, draw and believe. they can go fuck themselves, and i hope trump's cronies take them down a notch.
i support striking islamic militants everywhere and anywhere they are, for any reason, at any time. they are a scourge, a parasite, a disease, that needs to be eradicated.
the details of trump's claims about nigeria may be a little sketchy, but they are also more solid than the liberal media is claiming. if the basic claim is that isis is killing christians in nigeria, that basic claim is correct.
but it doesn't matter that they're christians. isis might instead be killing secularists, modernists, animists, buddhists, socialists, women, pagans, gays, gypsies, jews, slavs (all groups that isis would target), whatever; isis should be wiped out, regardless of what particular group they are targeting in whatever region. it is not the fact that the islamic fascists are killing christians that makes them a vile parasite that needs to be eradicated, it is the core of their religious beliefs, which have no redeemable qualities, and cannot be tolerated in a civilized global community.
Thursday, December 25, 2025
it's not that polytheism is inherently less stupid than monotheism. i think the idea of multiple gods is logically superior to the idea of one god (if you can convince me that any god exists at all, you're going to have a hard time convincing me there is only one. an existence proof would be unlikely, and a corresponding characteristic theorem that shows uniqueness would strike me as incoherent. proof of the existence of many gods would follow instantly from proof of the existence of one god.), but this is really not the point i'm trying to make. an idea that is distinctly less stupid than another idea is still a stupid idea, and not to be championed because it's less stupid; less stupid is still stupid.
what i find more interesting and appealing about polytheism is the content of the stories, and not the question of existence, which i don't think is worth seriously considering at this point. if religion has any value, it isn't in the theological question (which is resolved. there is neither a monotheistic god nor polytheistic gods and that question should be abandoned and moved on from.) but in the cultural value of the underlying moral teachings and, in today's world, most importantly in the differences between how monotheistic and polytheistic societies see the place of human beings. i prefer pagan polytheism because it is culturally superior, and we do in fact see that in the syncretic forms of christianity that developed in europe and also, more recently, have been developing in south america, where they didn't completely wipe out their indigenous religions. the christians of constantine's time would call the lot of us a bunch of roman pagans, celebrating germanic rituals and holding to icons and romanic laws and cultural traditions. the pope is just a continuation of the office of the high priest of the sun god. da fuck is this?
it's as though you stupid idiots don't even realize you're performing a cannibalistic ritual to dionysus every time you engage in the eucharist.
if you want to be objective about this, it's pretty clear that the greeks and romans, and germans and celts and slavs, eventually conquered the christians, from the inside out. there's almost no trace of the invading christian colonizers left anywhere. we have statues of the old gods everywhere, and people living the old ways everywhere. the pagans won. it's right in front of you. but you don't realize it.
the struggle is in preventing the victory of paganism over christianity from being engulfed in a new round of colonization by muslims, and the decrease in quality of life and enjoyment of existence that would follow from that. i don't want to have to spend my time fighting to save europeanism from encroaching orientalism, i want to spend my time enjoying being a european.
i watched a youtube video the other day about the origins of the flood myth. there's several earlier versions of this myth in sumerian and semitic mythology, as found on bits of clay tablets that are thousands of years older than the one in genesis. i'm not interested in the theological differences; there is no yahweh, there is no enki. it doesn't really matter how many gods are in the story. what is the lesson of the story? how does it change in the different cultures?
in my opinion, the jewish version is a dumbed-down version of a far more complex narrative in the older versions. in the jewish version, god wants to punish us all for not listening to him, so he kills us all. we're taught from a young age that this is a good story, with a good moral, but it isn't at all. it's a horrible story, and the version of god in genesis is a horrific asshole that should be condemned as what he is. we would chain this god up and bring him before the hague and sentence him to death. we would charge this god with hate crimes. this god has little to no redeemable qualities whatsoever; if such a god existed, it would need to be destroyed, and it would be the west that would destroy it, in an epic struggle to restore freedom and assert democracy over tyranny and backwardsness and barbarism. we could not coexist with such a horrible entity. but the jewish scriptures teach us that god's wisdom is infinite, that god made the right choice to kill us all, and we're not to question the wisdom.
well, ok, then.
but the older stories actually show disagreements amongst the gods and invite us to question their decisions. the reason that this one asshole god wanted to kill us all was that we were overpopulating the earth, and too loud, and too smelly and it's pissing him off, so he just seeks to crush us like we would stamp out gross roaches. hey, i can empathize with that a little; it's a far better reason to kill us than that we're gay, or worshipping a cow or something. but in the mesopotamian stories, there is criticism of that decision, and it is clear that the people were taught to question the gods rather than to obey them. was it a just decision? or was this god an asshole and should this god actually be punished for killing us? the mesopotamian stories, like the greek stories we are more familiar with, try to work out these more complex analyses, and subtle moral positions. the gods argue with each other. they can be right or wrong. the stories don't merely declare the monotheistic god infallible and decide it's judgement is unquestionable, they tell us to think for our ourselves and come to our own conclusions. the latter is culturally superior.
the direct analogues between roman, greek, germanic and celtic mythology and jewish mythology are less than the analogues between jewish and sumerian mythology due to the differences in cultural origin. eventual post-captivity judaism was heavily influenced by indo-european zoroastrianism, but that would be like if the greeks decided zeus slaughtered all of the other gods. it's still warped. the overlaps in stories don't really make sense until after alexander conquers the middle east, and they start speaking greek and reading greek literature and philosophy in the region, and jesus eventually emerges as this hebrew socrates. so, the comparison between the version of the flood story in genesis with the different and older flood stories is something that doesn't extend to a comparison between other jewish myths and corresponding stories in greek and roman mythology, more directly. the phoenecian mythology was more similar to the greek mythology, and probably influenced by it, but that doesn't make it's way into the hebrew scriptures, for whatever reason.
the analyses has to stand by analogy. i have to point out that the roman and greek stories are like the sumerian stories in assigning the gods personalities, in developing conflicts between the gods and in telling people to think for themselves, rather than obey their tyrannical lord and then argue that i would rather live in a society where the culture tells us to come to our own conclusions than a culture that tells us everything is burned into stone, and we do, because the pagans won, and that is worth protecting from another round of encroaching monotheism, which is always a massive cultural step backwards and yet is certainly currently pounding at the doors. rome went through a cultural collapse leading to the adoption of christianity, which took centuries to undo, and which we should fight hard to not let happen again.
however, the story of adam is even worse than the story of noah and an urgent and pressing reason to draw particular attention to the need to reconnect with indigenous cultural ideas, before we kill ourselves off. the monotheistic religions teach us that god created this all for us and we are to use it for our benefit. this is a distinct reversal of any indigenous belief system, and from any pagan system i'm aware of, which all teach us that we are a part of an interconnected system that we need to coexist within, rather than that we are in some way distinct from or outside of it. the idea that we are part of an ecological web and need to exist sustainably within it is a superior position to the backwards idea that we are at the top of the food chain, and this all exists for us to do what we want with it. many centuries from now, some smart race of aliens may tell the story of the destruction of human society and conclude that it was the stupid myth of adam that led the stupid humans to destroy their habitat, and destroy themselves. it is imperative that we find a way to undo the effects of the monotheistic religions on western culture in relation to this specific idea that we're outside of ecology and return to the indigenous european idea that we're a part of a ecology instead of being outside of it if we want to survive, and a return to cultural paganism is the best way to do that. the norse may have fought against the skraelings as much as they did against the christians, but they would have thought we were stupid for shitting in our own beds; the ideas of resource economy and sustainable growth were inherent to european culture, before the unsustainable middle eastern cultures, which had already ruined their own lands, brought their disastrous philosophies to us and enforced them on us with violence. whether we are able to reverse this one lingering and subtle but catastrophic and important position of monotheism and return to the indigenous position we once held will determine if we can survive or not.
i hope i've explained why i'm interested in returning to paganism. it's not about the theology. paganism is simply better aligned with freedom and democracy, and with sustainability and sustainable growth. these ought to be the three pillars of western society, moving forwards, if it is to survive the collapse of the global capitalist order.
the french had liberty, equality and fraternity.
we should have freedom, democracy and sustainability.
monotheism has been our biggest retarding force for centuries in getting to a secular society and culture based in reason, and will remain our largest barrier to overcome for the near future.
i am not a cultural christian, i do not celebrate christmas and i do not see christianity as a way to somehow block other religions from infiltrating western culture. if anything, i am a cultural pagan, or a cultural europeanist, and i see little difference between christianity, islam and judaism in terms of their ideology, or their ability to destroy cultures and wipe out societies.
it is difficult to ignore the reality that christianity is a less extreme force for evil in this world than islam is, but that does not make christianity more moderate, and i would thoroughly reject that claim. there's plenty of victims of christianity out there. to the extent that christianity is less extreme than islam, it has little to do with their respective ideological frameworks, which are exactly the same thing, and more to do with differences in the underlying societies. white european culture experienced an enlightenment period that arab culture has not yet experienced and, for that reason, european culture has been able to extricate itself from the retarding influence of the religion and extirpate it from european society in ways that arab culture has to this point failed to succeed in accomplishing.
that is not a beneficial characteristic of christianity, it is a statement of the superiority of the underlying pagan european culture, that was able to throw off the yoke of jewish mythology and reconstitute itself, which is something that persians and others are still struggling with, in finding a pathway towards their eventual evolution out of islam.
as a cultural pagan or europeanist, i see christianity and islam as being identical to each other and equally threatening to the existence of freedom, free societies and democracy, which we can see from a broad view of history are indigenous ideas that, in eurasia, have only survived in northern europe. it would not take much for the tables to reverse.
i am not celebrating saturnalia this month, but if i were to celebrate anything, it would be the solstice, and the ways of the ancestors, and not christian mythology, which should be left behind.
Wednesday, December 24, 2025
the truth is actually the other extreme - not only was jesus a hebrew and a jew, but it is also the case that most palestinians today are not arabs but hebrews.
jesus was a jew, and so were the ancestors of today's west bank palestinians, who live in historical judaea and are the descendants of the hebrews that once inhabited it.
the true palestinians, the philistines, were a greek tribe that lived on the coast (today's gaza) and that settled the region from crete around the year -1200. they were nether related to arabs nor jews. they were physically larger because they were aryans from greece, while the jews were itty bitty semites, stunted by poor nutrition resulting from centuries of middle eastern agriculture.
at this distant point in time, the ancestors of the arabs lived in yemen and somalia. they were south semitic speaking black africans.
what happened after the bar kokhba revolt is that the romans finished the carthaginian genocide by renaming judaea after the greek philistines, who had long lived nearby, thereby wiping the phoenecian jews off the map. the area was from that point known as philistinia, instead of judaea, although the switch was in truth not completely permanent, and roman administrators actually bounced back and forth for a long time afterwards.
when the arabs (from yemen) eventually invaded the region, they inherited the roman maps and the turks then inherited the maps from the arabs. they just took over the roman world and kept much of it in place, including the administrative divisions and also the christian religion, which was still dominant in the region until after the crusades when turks and turko-egyptians finally decided to wipe it out by force. the idea that christians slowly converted to islam for societal and financial gain, to improve their material conditions, is in fact a myth; the truth is that they paid their taxes, and successfully resisted conversion for centuries, both in eastern europe and also on the eastern mediterranean coast. the arabs were already long gone and a distant memory by the point that the turks started getting aggressive about it. the word palestine enters the english language from roman/greek philistine.
but the people that lived there were not greek philistines, they were converted hebrews, and descended from the ancient jews.
in fact, large swaths of what is today called palestine know that they're jews and didn't actually convert to islam until world war one. the multiple turkish genocides in the broader region to wipe out christian and jewish groups were apparently convincing enough to finally do the job, whereas centuries of taxation by islamic theocracies were not. and, whether you realize it or not, you are echoing and continuing this campaign of genocide and ethnic cleansing in the region put in motion by the ottomans every time you deny that jesus was jewish.
there is a long history of trying to deny the jewishness of jesus. this loud, violent yelling through megaphones on the streets that jesus was not a jew but an arab, a group that did not enter the region for several centuries after his death, belongs in the same ideological and intellectual category as blaming the jews for killing jesus, a catholic position that led to pogroms and holocausts.
these people are not leftists, they are nazis and they should be aggressively labelled as what they are.
the claim that jesus, whether fictional or historical, was a palestinian (that is, a philistine) is ridiculously absurd and the people trying to convince you of as much should be laughed at, scorned and derided as outrageously ignorant in the most aggressive ways possible.
these people are not any sort of a left. these people are fascists and represent the far right.
Tuesday, December 23, 2025
to be clear: i've never seen a rodent or any sign of a rodent in the apartment itself. i've seen them crawl over a taped-up hole in the bathroom (underneath the upstairs kitchen, which is where they're really living) and i've heard them scratching at night. i also know that they are transiting through the laundry area.
i haven't seen a roach in here, either. if they are eating anything in here at all, they're keeping the roach population down. there's nothing else for them to eat in here.
so i don't really know if the insulation was left by a mouse, and maybe that's unlikely, except that i have a theory.
i think there's a small mouse around here, and rats upstairs. i've been going after the rats, and having some success in blocking them access. the mouse may see me as an ally for that reason. it might want to nest with me for that reason.
i'll also point out that a mouse would love my diet as it's high in cereals, bacon, cheese, yeast, hemp, avocado and spices.
==============================cycle 6 eaten through, except for four exceptions
- dec 6th: the salsas for the cycle 7 bacon and eggs, together, with cheese and yeast.
- dec 7th: first cycle 7 bacon & eggs. no salsa.
- dec 8th: second cycle 7 bacon & eggs. no salsa.
- dec 9th: first cycle 8 quinoa, with lentils subbed for quinoa (to eat red pepper & broc)
- dec 10th: second cyle 8 quinoa, with lentils subbed for quinoa (to eat red pepper & broc)
- dec 11th/12th: first cycle 7 nachos. 2x juice. plus subway, bmt with bacon.
- dec 13th/14th: second cycle 7 nachos. 2x juice.
- dec 15th: second cycle 7 tomato sandwich, with uncle ben gumbo with dill and garlic, monterrey jack cheese, nutritional yeast, hemp seeds, caesar and frank's.
- dec 16th: first cycle 7 cereal, plus two instant oatmeals with an apple with a touch of chocolate soy.
- dec 17th: second cycle 7 cereal, plus two instant oatmeals and an apple with a touch of chocolate soy.
===================cycle 7 eaten through, except for four exceptions.
- dec 18th: first cycle 8 cereal, plus two instant oatmeals with an apple with a touch of chocolate soy.
- dec 19th: second cycle 8 cereal, plus two instant oatmeals and an apple with a touch of chocolate soy.
- dec 20th: salsa for cycle 8 eggs, together, with cheese and yeast.
- dec 21st: first cycle 8 bacon & eggs. no salsa.
- dec 22nd: second cycle 8 bacon & eggs. no salsa.
- dec 23rd/24th: first cycle 8 nachos. 2x juice.
======
if a mouse has been spying on me, it can see and more importantly smell (mice are nearly blind) that i eat well.
how far have mice been to being domesticated over the last several centuries? i mean house mice. if we weren't so busy trying to kill them, we'd keep them as pets. they like us. we don't like them.
what i'll say about the mouse is that if i can't find any droppings, i won't concern myself with it. i'd have to have a reason to go after it.
it's the rat or rats i want out of here and i'm still studying them to figure out how. it's going to be hard to deal with the problem so long as the upstairs tenants keep food out and in the sink.
i lost yesterday due to the leak and today due to catching up on sleep. i'll be awake overnight and trying to see what they're up to.
as an atheist, i actually think that merry christmas and happy holidays both suck. i'm not any more interested in hanukkah or whatever else than i am in christmas. they're both stupid.
i consequently have two better ideas, which are variations of the same idea:
- have a sexy solstice, which would require a little sass along the sexy part to get right or
- have a saucy saturnalia
to summarize.
- the issue should be sent to the supreme court as a reference question
- the governor general should refuse to sign it, if none of that happens
- if it somehow becomes law, it should be challenged as unconstitutional in the courts, and the courts should strike it down
specifically, the formula for amending the role of the governor-general is in s. 41 of the constitution act, and requires unanimous consent:
Amendment by unanimous consent
Amendment by unanimous consent
41 An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province:
(a) the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;
(b) the right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators by which the province is entitled to be represented at the time this Part comes into force;
(c) subject to section 43, the use of the English or the French language;
if the parliament wishes to amend the existing constitution by adding roles and responsibilities to the office of the governor-general, it should follow the rules to amend the constitution, as they exist in the constitution act, 1982.
this should be seen as unnecessary.
rather, the responsibilities in the act should simply be given to the minister of immigration.
the bill itself would likely be declared unconstitutional if brought before the courts. the constitution determines what roles the governor general has and this role is not in the constitution.
the parliament, or the senate, should ask the supreme court if it is constitutional for the parliament to expand the powers of the governor-general, before proceeding.
if this bill does pass the senate, mary simon should refuse to sign it.
this may result in her being replaced with somebody that will sign it, but it will also draw attention to the issue, and it will certainly become a major election issue in the next cycle.
canadians will not accept any discretionary role for the governor general, whatsoever.
the governor-general is an unelected figurehead. she should not have any discretionary power in government at all.
this is the first i've heard of this, but i would urge the senate to block this bill on the grounds that it is creeping monarchism, and uncanadian for that reason.
these powers should be given to an elected minister, in this case the minister of immigration, and not to an unelected figurehead of the monarch.
most canadians would be baffled by this provision if they were aware of it, and nobody would oppose it more than the british parliament would.
mr carney is identifying himself as a monarchist, and that is a position that is uncanadian and not welcome here.
there was a leak here yesterday that forced to me to stay up past my bedtime and i slept a little in the morning, from about 3:00-7:00, which is unusual. i woke up this morning to find a small amount of insulation beside me.
nothing bit me. i have not found a single dropping anywhere in the apartment.
rather, it almost seems to be a gift and a sign of kindness. a benevolent mouse would think i should want insulation in my bed. right?
does the mouse want to snuggle?
where did this mouse come from?
i'm doubling down on the conclusion that this rodent has taken a liking to me and i'm trying to figure out if it's maternal instinct gone awry or some kind of evil psyop. mammals really don't have instincts, that's a myth. mammals are taught everything. mice are not born knowing how to be a mouse, mice have to be taught how to be mice.
this has to be very, very weird.
the other possibility i'm contemplating is that this is a baby mouse and it's mother is dead or gone and it's reaching out to me in desperation. i'm at least a mammal, right?
i obviously don't want to kill this thing, but i have to.
an invasion of alberta would create tremendous problems for british columbia, which would be blocked from the rest of canada, except via the yukon. further, it would be inevitable that the united states would seek to connect alberta to alaska.
alberta would eventually take yukon and bc with them as the 52nd and 53rd states, whether they like it or not.
alberta does not have independence as a real option.
back in 1995, quebec came very close to declaring independence. in response, the parliament passed some laws, and the supreme court made a ruling that's not very well understood but that says that it would be legal for quebec to separate if they can muster the force to do it but that it is otherwise illegal under canadian law.
that doesn't actually matter very much.
we know today that clinton had been informed of an existing contingency plan written by the pentagon to instantly invade quebec on a declaration of independence. the marines, air force and navy were on guard to invade. quebec came within a few percentage points of becoming the 51st state.
there is a plan to eventually invade montreal in the united states constitution. montreal, it should not be forgotten, was the only major french settlement not taken over in the louisiana purchase, which included major us cities like detroit, chicago, st louis, minneapolis and new orleans. the reason is that the british had already conquered it, at the time.
there is obviously a similar us contingency plan to invade alberta, and it will not take more than six months to trigger.
it follows that alberta may remain in canada or become the 51st state, by force. those are their choices. that is all. there is no alternative.
if alberta wants to get that oil on ships to china, annexation by the united states will not help them do that.
Sunday, December 21, 2025
that picture might be real after all, although it's a different picture than the unredacted one taken at the same time, where they are actually looking at the camera, and which looks like a real picture, which is very much my point. we can figure out where and when the picture was purportedly taken. but it still looks like a fake picture.
you should be exceedingly skeptical about all of this.
those kids must have done a lot of work preparing for that musical, and the warm embrace by diana ross seems less creepy and more believable in context, even if the picture still looks fake.
it's a good thing that michael took all the kids for pizza after the show, to reward them for all their hard work.
i don't have the tools or the knowledge to prove the picture is fake, but i've done enough hacked photo editing for satirical purposes to see when something is fake, in a specific way.
not only is that picture fake, it looks like an amateur did it. you get those jagged lines when you paste something in using ms paint.
if you look at this picture carefully, the edges around the redacted person are very jagged and digital and obviously pasted in:
so, i don't know who that was actually a picture of, but i'm going to take a guess.
nobody is looking at the camera, except bill.
- diana ross might be melania knauss, based on her facial expression
- also based on the facial expression, michael jackson might be jared kushner. have you seen pictures of michael jackson staring blankly like that? but that's kushner's trademark.
- bill clinton might be jeffrey epstein, based on the hand-on-shoulder and goofy smile.
if that's the case, mr. kushner seems a little put off by what's been shown to him.
replacing the faces with bill clinton and some black people instead is distracting maga with their biases.
can we get one with bill playing sax on the plane, maybe with arsenio hall?
what have we learned?
you can do a lot with ai nowadays.
- donald trump likes adult women and is kind of creepy about it. they're all adults, from what i can see.
- michael jackson is a pedophile
- bill gates is at the least a creep and is maybe a pedophile
- bill clinton is a pedophile
only the last point is new information.
however.
i don't think this picture is real:
that looks like it's somebody trying to erase evidence by replacing faces with dead or dying people.
careful with this shit.
another night with no scratching. is it possible i got both of them?
the glue trap had a substantive bite taken out of it. i suppose that it's possible that one of them got trapped in it, the other one ate it and in the process ate some of the trap, which killed it.
at some point, i need to try to figure out where it went.
Saturday, December 20, 2025
this is a much greater threat to canada and canadians than lingering anachronisms about british imperialism and should be where essentially all resources by law enforcement are directed.
the islamic fascists actually carry out attacks on a regular basis. they actually kill people. this is actually real.
the indigenous european substrate that we know of mostly had to do with maritime words - words for things like sea, boat and fish. we don't know a lot about them, but they seem to have been maritime-oriented. that's not surprising. from the dawn of history, the time of the sea peoples, to the viking invasions of europe, about all that settled civilization knew about the north men was that they lived in their boats. these immigrants came from the land of ice and snow, on their boats, and they were always mean when they got to the south. that trait is older than the aryan invasion and something that withstood it.
the genetic traits of northern europe would have been connected to an anatolian farming group that was caucasian but not yamnaya, not aryan, and also to a remnant post ice age hunter-gatherer population. the farming group would have come from the caucusus mountains, through armenia, through turkey and spread widely across europe. were they basque-speaking? there is a theory that the basque languages are related to kartvelian languages, and tying the farming expansion genetically to the kartvelian language would make some sense of that, but i don't think that's broadly accepted. not yet. unfortunately, the perception is that they may have been middle eastern in origin because that's what the bible says, and it is what the bible says, but it's not actually what the genetics say. my own opinion is that the obvious is in front of us - they were kartvelians and the basque language is the last trace of them. (the basques overwhelmingly have genetic steppe ancestry like everybody else in europe). i also think the sumerians were a part of this same lineage, and of kartvelian ancestry. on that point, it's worth pointing out that the sumerians were known for their black hair, in their own writings.
the yamnaya themselves came from somewhere around the caucusus but moved north rather than south. this is shortly after the last age, and some kind of flood mythology actually fits the evidence fairly well.
the reality is that we know that nobody had blue eyes at this time because the mutation is more recent than this, but all three groups (yamnaya, proto-basques-kartvelians and european hunter gatherers) would have been different shades of white and the lighter hair was probably already there when the farmers got there, too.
blonde hair has survived multiple population overturns because it is strongly sexually selected for. it is not a trait of dominance.
i was in the bathroom early this morning and i didn't hear anything.
it's too early to say.
i think there were at minimum two and i might have got at most one, but the fact is that the fan is now exactly where they were sleeping, and it's going to cut them into little pieces if they try and force their way back in. they're going to have to sleep somewhere else, maybe closer to their current food source.
why is the nazis' use of the term aryan backwards?
because they were racist.
the nazis were operating on one of a number of competing hypothesis for the indo-european urheimat, a german word that means "homeland". after realizing that the european and indian languages derive from a common source, linguists, archaeologists and anthropologists (this was before watson & crick. there were no geneticists.) sought out to make sense of why and how that could be and try to piece together a theory about it. this is good science and all ideas should be considered, to start. it was actually an australian named gordon chile that came up with the idea that the urheimat was in germany, and a master race of blond-haired and blue-eyed aryans migrated out of germany, across the steppes and into india, bringing european genotypes and phenotypes with them.
there's nothing inherently racist or particularly egregious about this theory. it was a decent guess based on the evidence in front of gordon chile as to how europeans and indians came to speak the same language that made sense in the era of global european colonialism. but it was one of several in existence at the time, and the fact is that we know today that it is wrong.
the theory that turned out to be correct (and proven beyond a doubt by modern genetics) was the one eventually written by marija gimbutas, that proved through careful archaeological work that the aryan urheimat was not in germany but rather in ukraine and that we can trace the spread of the aryans via their grave sites, called kurgans, from ukraine outwards in many directions - to europe, but also to china, to india, to persia, and to asia minor and south to egypt and mesopotamia. these people had horses and wagons and whether they were the absolute first people to invent the wheel or not, they certainly made good use of it to violently conquer and slaughter and replace the people around them. that's not nazism, although many ignorant people continue to think that is. that's actually well-established peer-reviewed and interdisciplinary science.
some of the initial ideas about these aryans are correct - they were gigantic, compared to settled peoples. we understand this today as a consequence not of differences in genetics but of differences in diet. humans are not pea plants like mendel thought; we're not tall and short, and don't come out in some mix of dominance or submission. the nazis would have believed that, but that's wrong for this allele, for this phenotype. rather, height demonstrates tremendous plasticity. if we eat more then we grow more and if we eat less, or less nutritiously, then we stunt. we understand today that the aryan steppe nomads were bigger because they ate better food - more protein, wild grains - and that the settled people were smaller because agriculture had led to overpopulation, poor soil quality, less nutritious foods and deficits of protein. we have also recently learned that the nomads had much larger brains, not because they were superior and more evolved in some way, but rather because poor nutrition resulting from agriculture led to decreases in human brain sizes in settled populations, not just relatively as the bodies shrunk, but actually absolutely. agriculture and civilization really did make the settled peoples small and weak and stupid and the superior nomadic aryans really did just ride in and slaughter them all, like rats biting the heads off of house mice, or like wolves eating domesticated dogs for breakfast.
but aryan is the same word as iran. arya exists as a place name in afghanistan, but not in germany. linguists claim ireland is a false cognate with arya, but i've never been fully convinced. regardless, there are almost no traces of aryan place names in europe that we can't expain by late migration (the alans, for example, settled in france, and disappeared but left a strong trace in human and place names), but there are a great number of place names in the east that we know have been there for centuries.
in fact, the science states without ambiguity that these aryans, from ukraine, that spread their language and genes (r1*) throughout europe and asia, were not very european looking at all, but rather more central asian, in phenotype.
we needed the science of genetics to establish itself before we could properly understand this.
- the aryan race was indeed much larger - 6 or 7 feet tall - than settled agricultural populations, and it was warrior based, but that was not genetic, it was cultural and nutritional. they were also of a slightly darker skinned complexion (not quite olive or brown, but a beige or mixed white) than western europeans and mostly had brown eyes and black hair.
- blonde and red hair do seem to have developed in europe, but those traits were already in europe when the aryans got there. through a process of likely sexual selection (read: monster aryan men raping pretty little blond girls, many times, and over and over), the indigenous non-aryan europeans, who spoke a language with a traceable substrate but that is otherwise almost entirely lost, managed to retain that phenotypic trait, despite the aryan invasion, and not because of it. it is almost the only thing left of the indigenous european population, after the aryan invasion.
- blue eyes spread from finland in a manner that's still not fully understand, but was entirely independent of the aryan invasion into europe, and probably mostly just random genetic drift, aided by slight sexual selection.
this, in fact, repeated for thousands of years, until the mongols were blocked entry by a coalition of slavs and germans. the mongols were the last steppe warriors to threaten europe and no longer spoke an aryan language, but were otherwise what the aryans looked and acted like.
in the end, the steppe cultures were defeated with guns and tanks. agriculture won - smaller brain sizes and all. but these periodic steppe invasions brought genetic diversity with them, which europeans needed to continue to evolve. the fact that the nordic europeans were at the end point of these aryan invasion routes likely did help europeans become a master race and conquer the world in the 17th century, but that was the end of the long war that had been happening since darius.
so, the nazis got this all backwards; the aryans, the yamnaya, were indeed very much a master race, and they did slaughter and kill and replace much of the world. however, they were not europeans in the sense we understand it; they did not have blond hair or blue eyes and were not pasty white but a kind of darker white. they were not the nordic race. the nazis believed the aryans were from germany, and used the terms nordic and aryan interchangeably, but the nordics and aryans were distinctly different groups and the aryans in truth nearly wiped the nordics out, leaving almost nothing of them but the aforementioned phenotypic traits in the places that the nordics were wiped out from. because, hey, blonde chicks are hot.
it's not entirely clear how an actual nazi from the 30s would react to any of this, if explained to them now. they had faith that the nordic race was the master race that populated the continents. the science says that's wrong, that the nordic race was the victim of the aryan invasion and not the cause of it.
an actual contemporary nazi movement in europe or canada would support the following political positions:
- inferior migrant workers should work under the table for the benefit of the aryan race; migrant workers should do the jobs that canadians don't want to do. they might support literal work camps, but that would probably be a little overkill. something like the temporary foreign worker program would be more along the lines of a contemporary version of nazi labour theory.
- competition between like-minded firms should be minimized. rather, the economy should be cartelized and overseen by government. in canada, the word we would use for a nazi cartel would be a crown corporation.
- europe (canada) should massively increase military spending. spending on the military is not just good for self-defence, it is good for the economy.
- there should be massive state expenditure on modernizing infrastructure, like high-speed electric rail networks.
- islam is superior to christianity because islam is a master morality and christianity is a slave morality. chrtistianity should be altered so it is more like islam, and the masses should be converted to the new militant form of christianity. however, the elite know better than to concern themselves with such nonsense and should focus on germanic concepts of culture and religion. the islamified version of christianity would just be a tool to control the masses with, but done in a way that corrects the mistakes made in the earlier roman empires. it is not clear if the nazis would have sought to simply replace christians with muslims if the christians refused to change, but they might have done that. it sounds like something they'd do.
- there is no valid law except the state and the state determines law as it decides. there is no common law.
- communism, marxism, socialism and anarchism are taboo topics, not to be learned about or talked about in any way. proponents of these ideologies should be ostracized, or killed.
- russians are an inferior race because they are half mongoloid and russia needs to be conquered by europe to provide for more living space for europeans. therefore, the nazis would support nato expansion into finland, the baltics, belarus, poland, romania and ukraine.
- generous state subsidies should be provided for the master race, based on re-distributing wealth upwards from the labour of the inferior migrant workers, who do the work that the master race doesn't want to do.
- a new western roman empire, a fourth reich, must emerge that unites all of the west under a single military, social and political command. the romans, after all, were aryans (a claim that is actually correct, in the sense that they meant it, although their use of the term aryan was backwards). therefore, the second reich was properly continued in germania, as the holy roman empire, and the fourth reich must be a new aryan empire that unites the entire germanic world under one control structure. the fourth reich would be something like nato, in construction, but with a unified political command.
- there should be no political boundaries in europe or north america but should rather be complete freedom of movement across the continents.
who does that actually sound like to you?
i would not have voted for robert borden. i think wilfred laurier is the best prime minister the country has ever had, by a large margin, and would have certainly supported laurier, and certainly supported the laurier liberals, and not just because i'm a little bit french canadian.
but these people sound like robert borden. a lot.
they do not even remotely sound like adolf hitler, not even a little.
this has no remote resemblance to nazi ideology. rather, they sound like canadians from the early part of the 20th century.
robert borden, who was prime minister around world war one, campaigned on the slogan "a white canada" and succeeded in almost completely blocking non-white immigrants from entering the country until the pearson-trudeau government opened immigration policy. there were essentially no black, middle eastern or asian people in canada until about 1970; the country was something like 98% european. while the civil rights movement was happening in the united states, canada was an essentially homogeneous white society. this was strongest in the western part of the country, but was due to the fact that the tories were initially in control of the country almost continually up to world war two. this was a very british, conservative party ideology.
the nazis, on the other hand, aggressively prevented anybody that wasn't white from trying to migrate. if you were considered sufficiently european, you could come in and out of germany, but you could not leave germany if you were jewish, black, gypsy, slavic (they thought poles, czechs and ukrainians were "mongoloids") or gay, as you were under essential house arrest until you could be enslaved by the master race.
the nazis would have scoffed at the concept of expelling the inferior races, as it would mean that the gemans would be forced to work in the factories. conservatives, on the other hand, are in favour of keeping out immigrants precisely because they steal their jobs.
the nazis were weird and hard to understand using contemporary political ideas. they were a kind of vulgar marxist on some level, in the sense that they sought to use marxist ideology to advance the interests of an upper class, rather than the interests of a proletariat. they sought to use marxism against the marxists. being a communist, marxist, socialist or anarchist would get you sent to the work camps, partly because they'd call you a jew because they thought socialism was jewish. the nazis were actually kind of more like modern liberals, economically; it was a type of state capitalism. they were not very conservative in any sense of the term, except the most culturally narrowest, as inheritors of the prussian junker class system.
the nazis also loved islam because they saw it is a militaristic version of christianty and aligned with muslim groups to fight the british everywhere and anywhere. the purpose of what these people in the article are trying to do is reduce muslim migration to canada, but the nazis were actually in favour of muslim immigration and actually sought to build military and political alliances with muslims, often against christians, wherever they went. the nazis showed no aversion to arabs, turks, north africans or iranians, unless they were mistaken as jews.
these people are probably better described as trying to bring back the british empire than trying to bring back nazi europe and they may have some valid points to make, in that regard. if canadian law attempts to criminalize speech of this sort (it does not, in truth. that claim is false.), then the problem would be with canadian law, which would need to be corrected to allow for a more free exchange of ideas, but that isn;t actually the case. canadians should not be ashamed of their history or afraid to identify as who they are
Friday, December 19, 2025
i was able to confirm that the math i posted this morning is correct. so i need to get $3200 in the account before dec 31st and i need to get the transfer process in motion asap. i appear to have to do it by phone because there is no branch location for the brokerage and the online application doesn't have information about the rdsp, but i wasn't able to get through this afternoon. i sat on hold for two hours before the line accidentally disconnected, and when i called back it said they were closed. i'll need to call early on monday morning.
i took my rodent trap out this afternoon when they came to install the fan and it looks like something got caught and gnawed itself right through it. i put a few more out to see what happens, but i may have to rethink this.
the fan itself might scare them a little, but it's probably not a long term answer.
i must finish the legal writing this weekend because i'm running out of time. i'll post another update post and get back to the apartment writeups after i do that.
this has been a major concern since this mess started, as it is well understood that ukraine is full of russian spies and that, in the long run, the premise that kiev is going to tilt to berlin rather than moscow is laughable.
giving any sort of privileged information to ukraine is just handing it over to russia and, while i am not afraid of the russians and understand that we need to treat them as allies instead of as enemies if we want to succeed in containing the chinese and the arabs, who are the true threats to western culture, that's still not a good idea, in the short run.
something i need to do next though is apply to wipe out my remaining student loan using the dtc i was just approved for. i should have done that years ago, but it would have required me to get a doctor to sign off on being "severely, permanently disabled", which was harder to do before they set up the cdb. i couldn't bring myself to do it. so i just let it sit. nowadays, doctor are doing it so people can get the money. the threshold has fallen.
it's already been done.
i really just need to get a doctor to sign the paperwork, and the remaining $11000 in collections is cancelled.
even if i can't, that should be a minor concern, with all of this grant money, eventually. it's s hiccup, now, and not a block.
and that should get my credit score up a little without having to get a fucking credit card, which i don't want. i'd rather get a small line of credit, but if i don't need one, and i don't, then i don't want one.
am i rich all of a sudden?
no.
however, if i do this right, i should be able to take the money from the rdsp, the chb and the cdb and pool it together to buy a house shortly before or right after i turn 60. if i'm able to stay where i am for a while, i should be able to put quite a bit aside for that purpose. i'm not sure exactly how much to expect from the cohb yet, or if it backdates, but if it's over $400/month, it could make sense for me to just take the money they give me for subsidized housing and put it directly in the rdsp, until 2029, to eventually use it to buy a house with. i should be able to eat with the money from odsp. that gives me the $200+/month cdb to spend on things and go out with, which functionally doubles for the summer months, as i don't go out much over the winter. i might also find myself getting tax refunds for the first time since i signed up for odsp, because i still have $120K in education carryover amounts. for that reason, it might actually make more sense for me to pay taxes on taking the money out of the rdsp in 2040 and put it right int the tfsa to get the subsequent tax refunds on the unused tuition amounts than it does for me to carefully take it out in bits under the tax threshold, because the cra will just send me back the amount it takes out in taxes, anyways. i'll need to double check that.
all of this together should let me put something like $150K, minimum, into a mortgage. i don't need or want a fancy, rich person house in the suburbs. i'm in great health. so i'm happy to get a small, working class house in a working class neighbourhood for under $250K and i actually think prices are going to crash if i wait it out another 5-10 years. i should be able to pay essentially all of this down with the grants and bonds in the rdsp, and the interest generated from it.
if i wait until the cohb runs out and in the end use it to buy, and i'm paying almost nothing on rent when i do because my mortgage is almost paid down, and i use whatever is left in the rdsp to pay the rest down after 2040, the $1500+ in odsp i get for the remaining years, followed by the $2000+ in oas/gis/gains after that, which is more than odsp, should be enough for me to live fairly well. if i have no rent and no mortgage, and no taxes, $25000/yr is really fairly cushy. i don't travel, and at some point (which may have already passed), i'll be too told to go out. i haven't gone anywhere in years, as it is, due to circumstances. i'm realizing the culture is changing and i'm not so interested in what the kids are listening to anymore. i'll just want to spend that on working on my art, and staying in shape. i could build a kick ass studio in a paid for little house with $20,000/year and if i can stay in shape and keep my brain working well because i'm working on finishing the art i could live until i'm 95.
at some point, when i'm doddering and teetering, or in a wheelchair and can't go on, i'll sell the house and move into an apartment.
not rich - no. but comfortable.
i saw myself at the precipice, on the brink of disaster, and walked away from it. it's due to no fault of my own, but capitalism is a fucking shitty system to navigate through and it can shoot you in the face if you're not careful, and i need to adjust to make sure that doesn't happen again.
i'm going to get through this. i'm going to survive. i'm going to be ok.
i think my math for the max contributions to the rdsp was flawed. i'm getting conflicting information. i'm going to call a different umber in the morning, and begin the transfer process right way.
as i filed in 2025, i can carryover funds back to 2015, but that's apparently not really true. i understand that they'll match the 3x contributions first and the 2x contributions second but initially assumed the algorithm was smart and they'd either carryover the 2x contributions until they get used or let me match the 2015 contributions first, then the 3x and then the 2x so that i can actually carryover the 2x from 2015. if that were the case, as i initially thought, my max contribution for 2025 would be either:
$3500 for 2015-2021, with a $10500 grant and the ability to pick the 2x for 2015 back up when the 3x runs out (that would be smartest), or;
$1500 (for 2015), with a $3500 grant, plus $500/yr for the next 7000/3 dollars, which is 2333.33, which is five years and a bit. that would $3833.33 total for 2025. under this scenario, because it's the end of the year, if i just wanted to make sure i didn't miss out on 2015, i'd just get the $1500 in as a first priority.
however, i'm realizing that what it's going to do is force me to use the $3500 for 2015-2021 and just drop the 2x for 2015 and there's no way to actually access it. as a corollary, that means i'd better get the 2x for 2016 in over 2026 or i'll lose it, too.
the new max contribution for 2025 remains $3500 and the new max contribution for 2026 becomes $500*5, for 2022-2026, plus 3000/2 is $1500, but that is $1000 from 2016 and 500 for 2017.
after that, it would continually take $500 from the current year at $1500 and then 9000/2 from subsequent years, until i'm caught up. that would mean i'd max out at $5000/yr until i run out.
for 2027, the first $500 would be for 2017 and the next $4000 would be for 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021.
for 2028, the first $4000 would be for 2022, 2023, 2024 and 2025 and the next $500 would be for 2026.
for 2029, the first $500 would be for 2026 and the next $3000 would be for 2027, 2028, 2029. so max contributions would be decreased to $3500 + $500 and max payout would be at $7000+ $1500 = $8500.
for 2030, max contributions would be $1500 at $4500.
i would consequently cash out at 10500*4 + 1500 + 7000 + 4500 = 55000 and would have some room to catch up if i miss maxing out after 2027. with the bonds, total payout is $71000.
however, i don't have $3500 and it doesn't look like i'm going to get it. i have $3375. however, i have $110 coming in on jan 5, $75 on jan 10 and $200 on jan 15th, in addition to the $408 on jan 31st and some unclear amount for the cohb in late january or early february.
i was thinking about going to money mart and taking a small loan for the remaining $125, but i'm deciding that doesn't make sense.
instead, i'm going to just put $3200 in for 2025 now and the other $300 in early in the year. the difference would be a few days of interest.
i can still max out 2026 by adding $300 (for 2021 )plus $2500 (for 2022, 23, 24, 25, 26) plus (10500 - 2800*3)/2 = 1050 (for 2016, 2017) to max out at 2800*3 + 1050*2 = 10500. that would be 3850.
i would then max out 2027 by adding $950 for 2017, $3000 for 2018,19,20 and $550 for 2021.
i would max out 2028 by adding $450 for 2021, $4000 for 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025 and $50 for 2026.
i would max out 2029 by adding $950 for 2026 and $3000 for 2027, 2028, 2029, for $3950.
2030 would still be $1500 to max out.
that would still be a total of 3200*3 + 10500*3 + 1500 + 3950*2 + 4500 = $55000.
(i fell asleep at around 5:00 this morning and woke up around 11:30)
the esdc will send me something at the start of the year to verify, but i want to put that aside, as i'm pretty sure it's correct. today, i want to call esdc to verify, then call national bank to start the transfer process.
Thursday, December 18, 2025
there's an old saying, "wouldn't even harm a mouse".
i have some rodents in my ceiling. they appear to be eating out of the kitchen in the apartment upstairs and nesting in the crawl space behind my laundry area, which i can't really get at, and which has a tremendous draft. rodents are pesky, and i can't say with certainty that they aren't coming in here, but i have all of the food sealed quite tightly and i haven't seen any traces of them in here. i've only seen the droppings in the laundry and i only hear them in the ceiling. there's no signs of chew marks on anything, and there's nothing missing.
i have gotten a few glimpses of them crawling around in the ceiling; i think they're large mice, but they might be small rats. i don't know. i'll have to catch a few to be sure.
however, if it's a mouse, and i think it is, this mouse is not afraid of me. it runs right by the taped over hole in the ceiling when i'm in the bathroom and seems to be nesting exactly where i spend the most time. it even squeaks when i come in to the bathroom, as though it's happy to see me. it seems to think i'm it's friend.
this is making me wonder where these rodents came from, as they seem more like domesticated mice than sewer rats. or, maybe it's a psy-op jedi mind trick by the sneaky rat, to trick me into thinking it's a cuddly wittle mouse, so i won't kill it. whatever the truth is, i have to get them out of here.
i'm unhappy about this. i don't want to kill them; they aren't brainless roaches or mind-hive ants, they have some level of intelligence, as i'm experiencing. but i have no option. they're truly disgusting, filthy creatures.
would i not even harm a mouse? the mouse seems to think so. and i wish i could just scare them off, but that's not going to work.
there are some glue traps set in two places and i'll probably know what i'm dealing with in a day or two.
it was clearly a tactical/strategic mistake for canada to avoid levying export taxes on the united states in an attempt to appease them. our liberals are appeasing donald trump. why would anyone have expected otherwise? we might have had leverage to trade something with the united states, to gain concessions and preferable outcomes. now, we have nothing to trade, so they're just going to bully us around and tell us what to do, instead.
carney has bent over backwards to do everything trump has ordered him to do, including changing domestic legislation, and it has had no effect on donald trump at all, other than to embolden him.
but, if we just give them the sudetenland, like they ask for, they'll surely behave more reasonably.
as the old saying goes, it appears as though we've been playing checkers, while the americans are playing a game of chess against us.
we don't just look weak and easily manipulated. we look stupid.
and we don't even realize it.
it's not too late to levy export taxes in an attempt to gain leverage, but it won't have the same effect, it will look weak and desperate.
that being said, there is a smart analysis, here. what does donald trump want out of this? i think that if you're careful in your analysis of his behaviour, it's to conclude that the outcome isn't really the goal. trump is not driven by results. that is the part of this that the too rational liberal party can't get it's head around. if we're rational why isn't he rational, too?
logically, you ought to be able to give a lion hunks of meat everyday, and have a happy well-fed lion, but it won't act that way. the lion needs to be a lion; it needs to hunt.
for donald trump, this is all performative. he doesn't care if he gets the best deal for america, in the end. it doesn't matter if carney does everything ordered of him. trump wants to negotiate. that's why he likes the arabs so much, under the facade.
i am highly critical of middle eastern religion, and i am also highly critical of market economics. in fact, these things go hand in hand. it was carthaginian markets that ruled the mediterrannean before the romans showed up and burned them down. the romans intentionally destroyed their history, so we know much less about this than we should, but we know that if you show up at a market - a bazaar - in northern africa even today and you offer to just buy something at an advertised price, they will throw you out. paying an advertised price for something is insulting. no - they want to barter, they want to negotiate, they want to trade, they want to make a deal.
we need to stop appeasing donald trump and start arguing with him.
if we give him a good argument, a good tussle, a good fight, a sporting competition, but to be clear are sure to let him win in the end, we're much more likely to come out of this ahead than if we show up and prostrate ourselves and make ourselves look compliant and weak.
trudeau's mistake is that he won the debate. carney's mistake is that he's not debating with him at all.
we have british liberals as our natural governing party in this country but we're not taking advantage of it and don't even realize that that's what donald trump is. we need to look at it like a good sprightly dog hunt.
send them john manley as the new ambassador and tell him to play his surname up a little.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)