i've seen some recent ministry footage lately, and all i have to say is "yikes".
friday, january 6, 2022i guess heroin is expensive, huh al?
0:05
meanwhile, biafra himself is hoisting himself with his own petard by loudly supporting the nazis on the ground in ukraine itself, apparently entirely oblivious as to the nature of what he's actually saying.
0:07
i'm not naive about this. my argument has been that pulling funding is the fastest way to end the fighting. i'm not denying the nature of what's happening, although i am questioning the western framing. what i'm trying to do is better explain it.
in years past, i would have expected biafra to provide a more subtle position than jourgenson, who has obviously been on the payroll of the dnc for years, but we all get old and in need of a pay check from anywhere we can find it, in the end.
i'm reminded of hitchens' comments when asked if he might accept religion, in the end, on his death bed. as usual, he was clear-headed in his response; he acknowledged that he might, that the fear of death may overpower his faculties of reason and that he will inform us right now that he should not be taken seriously if he does do such a thing, in a fit of end of life fear.
you could argue that somebody like roger waters has veered into tin omen territory, but i am trying to stay focused on supporting what is in the interests of the people on the ground, and not the interests of russian oligarchs, american capital or imperialist puppet states put in place by nato intelligence operations.
i am trying to stay honest. that was what people liked about punk rock. it's (very) elder spokespeople should take a moment to remember that.
this is the tin omen video. you may have to click out to youtube, because it pictures images that are real.
0:17
it should be understood that polievre's statements about "maid" (i don't like this term. i would prefer to call it assisted suicide.) are really a dog whistle to his base about restricting abortion rights.
9:48
tuesday, january 3, 2022
the ukrainians are boasting that they've killed 400 russians in a strike, while the russians are claiming it was "only" 63. i don't know what is true, but the russians are broadly the more believable source.
i'm not interested in arguing over the death count. what i want to draw attention to is that the ukrainians are likely exaggerating the death count and clearly boasting about how many russians they killed, like the army of crazy uncles (CRUNK UA) that they are. nobody boasts about killing people or exaggerates death counts, except for terrorists.
america will always minimize death counts because it doesn't want to come off as barbaric. the russians are likewise trying to mute the extent of the loss of life. it is only the ukrainians that are seeking russians scalps to parade as war trophies, to line the streets of their cities along with the military gear they've captured and put on display. these are tactics that one associates with isis, not with nato.
it's the fascistic, barbaric chest boasting that is of concern, and really demonstrates that the russians are grounded in their analysis of the puppet regime in kiev as a developing fascist state.
1:32
"but, zelensky can't be a fascist, he's a jew".
never could more stupid words be ejected from one's fingers.
they're not even the worst any more. i mean, one is dead and the other is now somehow a "moderate zionist".
2:30
google,
please stop bombarding me with porn via your ad servers whenever i use the internet.
examples of porn:
- lingerie ads, when you think i'm female, which is correct
- dating site ads when you think i'm male, which is false
it doesn't matter what gender you think i am, you send me the same porn, regardless. it's disgusting.
is this what google does now, click bait on ubiquitous porn, plastered on every internet site?
i've tried to disable it using your ad center and it doesn't seem to actually work.
send me ads for grammerly or beer or something, but stop with the porn, please. it's frustrating and revolting.
4:50
i check the weather, it's full of porn.
i check the news, it's full of porn.
i google some music, and the results are saturated in porn.
i'm running a chromebook in guest mode, which means i don't have an ad block. how do i disable this?
4:54
i want to take a moment to note that, by running desantis, republicans are about to walk into the same trap that has killed democrats in recent years, which is a failure to understand the importance of the great lakes region.
desantis may be competitive in nevada, but biden will destroy desantis in wisconsin. this is what the map will look like in 2024 if the democrats merely hold the great lakes, including pennsylvania:
desantis may help the republicans in arizona, but the state is trending in the same direction as colorado and may no longer be in play relatively soon. biden will win georgia. that's all fun and everything, but the reality is that it doesn't matter if biden just holds the great lakes.
trump's protectionist messaging was a consequence of good polling and good luck. well, it was mostly luck, but it worked. trump did not deliver, and desantis is your typical free trade republican. desantis cannot compete in the north the way trump could and consequently doesn't have the path trump did.
after the surprise trump upset, we've maybe forgotten that the map is rigged.
it's early. something may happen. yet, this is what i think any democrat run against desantis would produce:
trump managed to temporarily delay the onset of a period of longterm democratic dominance, and desantis cannot repeat that because he doesn't appeal to the north. they're desperately trying to restrict voting rights and gerrymander beyond the point of recognition because they know they're structurally fucked. if republicans want to be competitive in this election and the next 10, they have to regain their foothold in the great lakes. desantis cannot do that and will therefore be a losing candidate.
a more seriously competitive wild card is somebody like chris christie, but a disturbing truth is that the candidate most likely to win for the republicans right now is scott walker.
6:21
wednesday, january 4, 2023
the decision by house democrats to elect a fundamentalist baptist as their leader is disturbing and frightening.
0:08
this is what i want to hear from a real left, right now:
0:27
random memories can be complicated.
my dad had a friend named kirk when he was very young, which he kept into adulthood, until he killed himself. kirk was my godfather. i never learned the reasons for his suicide; i never asked.
i was in the car one time when we were going to kirk's new place.
"kirk lives in kirkwood, now?"
"yeah."
my dad is now suppressing a giggle.
"did they name the place after him, or what?"
he had to pull over to stop laughing.
for years after that, he warned me to not to make him laugh when he was driving.
was it that funny? i think it had some irony that i didn't actually understand. i did not see him laugh that hard many times, though, and he was a good natured person that laughed frequently.
5:02
thursday, january 5, 2023
kevin mccarthy,
have you no sense of decency, sir?
stand aside.
7:23
friday, january 6, 2023
i actually think that making it more difficult to access nicotine would reduce smoking substantively, even if it's front-loaded, and would strongly support a policy of nicotine removal from tobacco for that reason. unlike most recreational drug users, smokers are legitimately enslaved by their addiction. drunks and junkies don't quit because they don't want to; smokers are legitimately victimized by a truly evil industry as a consequence of poor decisions they made as children.
i didn't used to believe that and thought nicotine use was manageable like any other stimulant. the loop i found myself in when i tried to quit was that i wasn't able to stay awake and ended up without any choice but to buy a pack if i wanted to finish an essay or get to work on time. otherwise, my body would shut down and i would need to sleep without finishing the task. that choice wasn't actually available to me. coffee didn't work; i found myself sleeping for 20+ hours at a time for weeks on end. the only thing that worked in keeping me awake was nicotine. i felt like shit when i was smoking, but at least i was awake. i knew that nicotine was a physical addiction and that withdrawal would create actual physical consequences (not just "urges" or "cravings" that could be easily defeated with willpower), but i didn't take it seriously until i was faced with it. that reality - that nicotine addiction is not a social construction but a chemical fact that physically enslaves you - makes it different and more dangerous than almost any other drug. if marijuana should be legalized because it's not addictive and occasional use has no health ramifications, it equally follows that nicotine should be aggressively eradicated and banned because it is so powerfully addictive that it creates a physical dependency that results in inevitable catastrophic health outcomes. nicotine should be classed with and treated the same way as opiates.
if it was harder to find nicotine, i would not have turned to the black market. i would have quit sooner.
the more interesting question is who paid the hill to run this article, and how much it cost to have it printed.
3:39
does nicotine cause cancer?
the scientifically correct response is "yes". the simple answer is that that is the reason that chewing tobacco causes cancer; if it was some other agent in the smoke, you wouldn't get cancer from chewing it. burning plant matter - any plant matter, including marijuana - also creates carcinogens, but this is in addition to the carcinogens created by the nicotine. chewing tobacco has been linked conclusively to cancers of the mouth, as a result of the nicotine in the plant. this is not controversial. claims that e-cigarettes do not cause cancer are widespread due to industry funding, greed and corruption (you can even find government agencies repeating this misinformation) but are not based in science and are not correct.
3:41
it is true that there are not, at this point, empirical studies linking long term e-cigarette use to cancer, for the reason that it is a new technology. that is not a good reason to decide that e-cigarettes are not carcinogenic. an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
3:49
this is a sneaky tactic by the tobacco industry because it cynically corrupts the scientific method to produce a form of misleading and exploitative advertising.
suppose i were to invent a device called a Bullshit Machine that you place your cigarette in before you smoke it. so, you put the cigarette in the Bullshit Machine, then you put the Bullshit Machine in your mouth, and light the cigarette.
does smoking through the Bullshit Machine cause cancer? a cynical response would be that there are no long term empirical studies demonstrating that Bullshit Machines cause cancer for the reason that i just invented it five minutes ago. yet, an intelligent human should be able to see through the bullshit, even if the Bullshit Machine industry succeeds in paying government health "experts" to place their industry misinformation on government websites.
3:55
the correct response, in context, is to reverse the burden of proof.
we know that nicotine causes cancer - that is an indisputable scientific fact. we understand the mechanism by which this happens, which involves nicotine being metabolized into nitrosamines. it consequently falls upon the vaping industry to demonstrate that it's products do not cause cancer, and not upon science to react to cynical word games; it should be assumed that vaping causes cancer until the vaping industry can produce long-term studies that prove that it doesn't.
3:57
as usual, government has utterly failed when tasked to interpret or implement science.
if a ban on nicotine in physical cigarettes does not include a complete ban on e-cigarettes, it will not be worthwhile.
3:59
this report is consequently interesting. vaping is a major growth industry! is it even in the interest of big tobacco to stop manufacturing cigarettes and force consumers to switch to vaping?
4:04
the word game being played by the tobacco industry - and disturbingly being picked up on by government due to big tobacco lobbying efforts - is the same tactic used by factory farming industries to try to whitewash the devastating health ramifications of consuming red meat.
they will claim that nicotine is not "directly" carcinogenic (in vitro), much as advocates of red meat will claim that nitrates are not "directly" carcinogenic. if you fall for this, it's due to your own ignorance. nicotine in your body (in vivo) will be converted into carcinogens, just as nitrates will. there is no chemical, logical or mechanistic basis for arguing that in vivo nicotine is not carcinogenic in any real world context, despite tests suggesting that it might not be carcinogenic in exceedingly controlled in vitro conditions.
4:08
the argument being thrust upon people via the media by government and industry is logically equivalent to arguing that aspirin won't cure your headache if you don't ingest it, so therefore aspirin is not effective at pain relief.
and, it may actually be true that nicotine will not cause cancer if it never enters your body, but that has no clinical or public health ramifications.
4:11
industry marketing functions as brainwashing, and government always acts on behalf of industry. they will then accuse people like myself of spreading "misinformation". in a post-truth society, "misinformation" is an orwellian description of fact.
4:13
we've been through this before.
government has pushed all kinds of dangerous drugs on the population due to industry lobbying, and in the end the truth always asserts itself. i can only guess that the dangerousness of smoking must have been obvious before the 1960s. the fact that e-cigarettes are carcinogenic and will cause substantive public health ramifications in the long run is abundantly apparent, today, to all intelligent people.
4:17
nicotine is not the only carcinogen in cigarette smoke, but nicotine and it's metabolic derivatives are one of the major carcinogens in cigarette smoke. eliminating the burning of plant matter in habitual nicotine consumption will not measurably reduce your cancer risk, because it is in fact the nicotine that is the dominant carcinogen. if you replace the smoke with higher nicotine levels, you could even be increasing your risk of cancer.
there is no safe way to consume nicotine because nicotine, itself, is the problem. i wish that wasn't true, because i like the stimulant effects of nicotine. it is true, and the only safe approach is to avoid nicotine completely.
you can understand the science and learn that the easy way, or you can be misleed by industry brainwashing, as repeated via government propaganda, and learn it to the hard way.
i would support a total ban on all vaping products, immediately.
4:22
air is 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen.
6:15
these are in vivo results.
These results indicate that nicotine nitrosation occurs in the lung, bladder, and heart,
6:27
what has happened over the last few weeks?
i wanted to focus on some music, but decided i had to finish removing the site from the internet back to the start of 2021, first. i then decided to update all of my youtube tags and rebuild my concert playlist. as is frequently the case, that took longer than allocated for.
over the last week, i have been struggling with the consequences of the rapid freeze and thaw that occurred here, which has both created a large amount of dust and a large amount of moisture in the basement. it's mostly just an annoyance, but it's dirty and gross and i have to clean it before i can do anything else. the careful balance i was maintaining to keep the basement habitable just imploded and everything that could go wrong did all at the same time. it went from +10 to -20 to +10 again in a matter of a few days, which froze everything solid and then thawed it completely, which created a mess of dust and condensation. i was out to get some groceries the other day and the grass is already bouncy; contrary to the warnings in the government weather forecasts, the ground has already thawed. there are zero subzero days in the january forecast, right now. the building has also frozen and then rapidly thawed and the heater has consequently been coming on and off to react to the increase in temperature outside, which is both creating a large amount of dust and a build-up of condensation in the parts of the basement that remain cold from the freeze. that didn't happen last year. if the heater had stayed on at full blast this year through the spring warm-up like it did last year, it would have kept everything dry and clean, but the frequent change in temperature from the heat turning off and on this year is producing fluctuating gradients that are causing condensation to build up in the corners, where the heat only reaches when it's on at full blast. constantly changing the inside temperature by turning the heat off and on in the winter is the worst possible thing to do in an old basement like this, and the idiot is just going to destroy his own house through water damage in a foolish attempt to try to save a few dollars on heating. i do have tarps over the corners to stop the air from condensing, so the moisture is minimal, but it's still damp (mostly under the floor) and gross. as the heat has not been sufficient to prevent the floor from cooling down, i now have no choice but to heat it up, which is necessarily going to create moisture in the heat transfer. it's consequently likely going to be gross down here for a while.
the extent of the cold snap in the middle of warm periods before and after it was an unusual and sudden event; all signals are that the rest of the winter will be mild. the extent of our winter this year may very well be restricted to the weekend around the solstice. this is consequently very much an early spring cleaning and i should just wait for the heat to balance out before i react further. i have already tried to explain high school physics to the idiot, and he doesn't understand it. i have no legal grounds to file a complaint and don't know how to better explain the physics to him than i already have.
i'm going to be focusing on a room by room cleaning, which means i'm going to be systematically completing the various tasks i've been unable to finish over the last several years as i go through and clean everything up and out. to start with, i have a new typing machine i have not been able to set up.
it will be quite some time before this page relaunches in a proper fashion, and i've decided i'm ok with that. the writing here is constantly being manipulated by the government (this post has been manipulated as well, and i've tried to correct it, but i know this is futile. this vandalism is perpetual. do not trust anything i've written.), so i'm only leaving one post up at a time in order to prevent them from being able to maintain an archive of vandalized writing that may be potentially used to distort my perspectives or frame me by falsifying statements i didn't type. i don't know the extent of the vandalism, but i cannot leave an archive like this up for the government to take control of, manipulate and then use against me. once i have the typing machine set up, i will no longer be typing here at all. it's not clear when that will happen.
the first thing i need to do is comprehensively clean my bedroom and complete the process of setting everything up in it as i'm doing so.
11:08
step one was to unbrick my mp3 player. this was tricky because the ancient firmware package for it doesn't come with an inf file, which might have been due to licensing issues. my memory is that i purchased this device in 2006, but i can't find evidence that it existed before 2007; it is old, but i've kept using it because devices of this type (it's a device similar to an ipod mini except that it does not require the installation of proprietary software to charge or transfer files to it but rather functions as a plug and play usb key. it looks like an oversized usb key.) are no longer made. it's only 2 gb, but that hasn't been a problem for me. if i were to upgrade it, the size would not be of much consideration; i have been considering upgrading it because the charge is not holding on it for the length it used to and because it would like to be able to play back flac files on it. unfortunately, the device can only play back wav and mp3. i previously thought that i could upgrade the firmware to allow for flac playback, but that firmware update does not actually apply to this device. i might be able to hack it, but i don't want to.
i don't carry a phone, so having a standalone audio player is essential. the device has been non-functional since late october or early november; i'm not entirely certain what happened, but i remember it bricking after not being able to charge it, which leaves me with two possibilities.
first, allow me to explain what this device is.
the sandisk sansa express is a legacy device. the user manual is available here:
this device is from before the internet era; it was created before the normalization of cell phone usage and before the existence of wireless internet in any meaningful sense. it is not an internet ready device, does not have bluetooth or wifi functionality and can not connect to the internet or remotely connect to devices around it. i can not use this device to send emails or texts and can not use this device to read websites on the internet; it is the size of a thumb drive, and how that could be done in the first place is not apparent. this device must be plugged into a usb slot to charge and to have data uploaded to it or deleted from it; it cannot charge wirelessly or connect to any computer remotely. the device can function as a usb key, but i don't use it that way, or not usually.
the device does have an fm radio in it. i have no recollection of using that function.
i'm bringing this up because i've suspected for a while that the police that are trailing me have picked up the radio antenna in the device and decided it is something that it isn't. if you are the police officer that is trailing me and is reading this site, please read the fucking manual to learn what the device actually is. you may be able to hack the fm radio antenna, but the device has no functionality as an internet device and it is not likely that attempting to install tracking software on it will do anything except brick it.
16:01
what happened to the device?
i have bricked this device twice previously. the first was in 2009, and i was able to unbrick it by sorting through the sandisk forums and finding the proper firmware. the second time i bricked the device was in 2015, and i was able to repeat the process and put aside the information. i then vaguely recall accidentally deleting it in 2016 when i did a format and reinstall and could not find it when i went looking for it. since 2015, a soft reset (defined by a key combination on the device's buttons) has always been enough to turn the device on when it gets stuck. the way the device was behaving recently suggests to me that the firmware was somehow erased; if the firmware was still on the device, it would have been pulled back into by resetting it, for the reason that it always was previously. a soft reset would only not work in the event of the firmware having been erased.
there's two ways that could have happened:
1) i may have done it myself, accidentally. i vaguely recall moving data from my recording pc to my typing pc via the mp3 player by using at as a usb key. i am certain that i filled up multiple usb keys and transferred large amounts of data, but whether i specifically used the mp3 player or not is unclear. i was just dumping data to one key after another; exactly which ones were used wasn't something anybody would take specific note of. i then systematically formatted all of the usb keys after transferring the data, as a renewal step; i tend to format things in between processes, as a way of starting oer. this might have accidentally deleted the firmware, although that doesn't strike me as correct; the firmware is not a part of the file structure and should not have been deleted in the format. at the end of the process, the mp3 player was plugged into the typing machine, but i can't remember if it was one of the usb keys that was formatted or if it was just in there to charge. crucially, i believe i was able to partially charge it in the chrombook before it bricked, which also casts doubt on the format hypothesis.
2) the police that are tracking me may have noticed that the device was plugged into the computer (to charge), picked up a radio antenna in it and then tried to hack the radio firmware under the misperception that it was bluetooth and consequently bricked the device.
for a number of reasons related to how the device behaved after it bricked, i think the second option is more likely.
i don't carry internet devices when i'm out with intent. hacking my 20 year old mp3 player isn't going to help you follow me around when i'm out exercising, nor do i understand the point of doing such things.
(i have had to correct this post, unfortunately. please be vigilant in understanding that the government is constantly vandalizing these posts and that i am forced to repeatedly undo the edits. as remarked many times, the purpose of this is not to control any specific narrative or enforce any specific perspective but rather to explicitly assert control and try and "break" me. reading the rat scene in 1984 is the appropriate way to understand this. i'm supposed to submit. i've made it clear that my response is that i just think this is juvenile and am seeking avoidance, instead. governments frequently act like spoiled children; that's not surprising or uncharacteristic. we should always expect our governments and our elected representatives to act like overgrown delinquents, for the reason that that is what they actually are. i don't have time for this stupid bullshit.)
16:26
for now, it's working.
it took me a few tries because i had to install xp sp2 to the typing machine and i had to track down the inf for the install. i have now put that aside and hope i don't lose it again.
that means i can move to reinstalling windows 7 on the typing machine.
16:28
sunday, january 8, 2022
as is the general routine, democrats are now all of a sudden in favour of immigration reform, once they can no longer pass legislation. they had two years to undo it and instead repeatedly supported trump's immigration policy. now that the house is controlled by republicans, and it doesn't matter any more, they're back to pretending they care about poor mexicans in order to win votes from latin voters.
the data is clear enough that this strategy is increasingly failing, as latin voters increasingly see through the bullshit. it's like clockwork, and it took but hours to pick up the posturing again.
the reality is that both parties seek to maintain a constant flow of illegal labour into the united states in order to enforce a wage floor in specific industries and that what existing border policies are about is keeping wages low in sectors like farm labour, hospitality and construction. the border control operates as a human resources agency for the continuing plantation system, which was converted into penal labour after the civil war in what amounted to an effective nationalization of slavery by northern capital. if it wasn't for the constant flow of illegal labour, capital would have to follow labour laws and pay their workers. neither party wants that because capital does not want that.
the primary concern of labour unions should be the enforcement of labour laws; an enlightened leftist policy is consequently to address the push factors in order to address the root causes of the illegal migration. due to the longstanding and ongoing reality of the exploitation of the region by american capital, the best way to resolve the illegal migrant problem is to encourage investment from china into central america, in order to build industry in the region that increases exports of raw materials to asia. the chinese will want to keep the labour in the region rather than push it to california, and will consequently support cracking down on the thugs in the region that are supported and propped up by american capital and which systemically push cheap labour out of the region and into the united states for effective exploitation. by keeping the labour in central america for use in chinese industry, a chinese development policy in central america will effectively stop the flow of illegal workers into the united states, which will prevent capital from using it to circumvent labour laws. the illegal migrant problem cannot be resolved without smashing the control of american capital in central america, one way or another. leftist groups on the ground in the region are unlikely to succeed without outside help and it is chinese capital that is most likely to be effective in stepping in and breaking the control of the american-backed thuggery.
i have been calling for years for the americans to resolve the illegal migrant problem by addressing the root cause of their draconian foreign policy, which means shifting from the monroe doctrine to a good neighbour policy. it is abundantly clear that washington does not consider that to be in it's self-interest, but is rather invested in keeping the region in backwardsness in order to continue to exploit it's labour. the chinese are no saviours of central america, but their self-interest aligns with developing the region, whereas the interest of american capital lies in preventing development.
american labour unions should be making it a dominant priority to align with chinese capital investment in the region in order to stop the flow of illegal labour that allows capital to circumvent the enforcement of labour laws in america.
4:54
i am officially fed up.
this is it. i'll be typing from the other room now, or not at all.
8:34
sunday, january 8, 2023
this is it. i'll be typing from the other room now, or not at all.
8:34
today is jan 8, 2023.
i am deciding that i will not post here again until april 1, 2023 at the earliest. it could be longer than that.
the empirical, objective fact is that there's simply no alternative but to completely stop posting in any manner until they leave me alone.
(somebody edited that to indicate that i "feel" there's no choice. fuck off. i don't care what people "feel", and i would never talk like a fucking fag, like that. there's no place for people's "feelings" in objective reality - they are irrelevant, useless things that are logically equivalent to base inaccuracies and which i have no patience for and no interest in. i'm a female, i'm not a faggot. i actually strongly dislike "sensitive men". somebody needs to roughen the faggots up a little. FUCK OFF.)
there will be no archives posted. there will be no digests posted. i will maintain the journal offline until then and decide what to do at that time.
16:23
monday, january 9, 2023
i don't want to go entirely silent, though.
what if i started posting cryptic screenshots, instead?
windows 7 support ends tomorrow. if you still use it, this is your last chance.
i wasn't initially sure if i could do it or not, but i've found a way to build a slipstreamed and customized windows 7 disc and am doing that right now.
this front page will consist of throw away writing. if some retards want to edit it, i''ll find the edits, try to determine the reason for them and then viciously attack them.
7:09
i don't fully understand why the site is being edited, but i get the impression that if i project a certain presentation and make myself less appealing to a certain demographic then i might be able to fuck them off.
7:23
i am not a liberal. i am not a democrat. i rarely vote for or endorse either party. rather, i generally vote for the greens and consistently attack the democrats and liberals.
i am a revolutionary anarchist/socialist.
my politics are not remotely similar to the mainstream fake or center left.
7:25
jan 18, 2023as i understand that it is state actors that are vandalizing my blog, and that they are coming here because they realize the depth of my analysis regarding a number of geopolitical issues, which has confused them as to my backers (i have no backers) and my motives (i like to write, but i'm also drawing attention to my bandcamp site), i feel a responsibility to explain why it is that canada sending missile defense systems to ukraine is foolish.
what are the russians doing? some media is suggesting that the russians are trying to bully the ukrainians into submission, but the premise is nonsensical. i have no direct line to putin, but i assure you that that is not correct and that the theory that promotes it is not taken seriously at this stage in history.
the reason the russians are bombarding ukraine is to take out their air defenses. russia knows that ukraine has a large amount of soviet era air defense systems. russian communications intelligence is not very advanced, but the kremlin likely has records of what was left behind and a good understanding of how effective it is. i was expecting the russians to parachute into kiev; they likely did not do that because they realized that the air defenses were too numerous.
how can russia eliminate the ukrainian air defense systems? if it knows where they are, it could target them, but these are relatively large objects that require something like missiles to take out from a distance, which is a catch-22; if you try to destroy missile defense systems with missiles, what happens? the answer is that your missiles get shot down by the missile systems you're trying to dismantle.
yet, because russian communications intelligence is not very advanced, it mostly doesn't know where the defense systems are, in the first place. nato has overwhelming superiority in intelligence because it has overwhelming superiority in communications technology.
what the russians do know is that they have overwhelming numerical superiority in terms of missile quantity.
we can work this out from there with a little bit of elementary logic. this is game theoretic, but it doesn't require the machinery. let's recall: russia knows roughly how many russian-made missiles are in ukraine (because it manufactured them), but it doesn't know where they are. as it knows how many missiles are there, it can be confident that it has overwhelming numerical superiority by comparing it's own missile stockpile with the number of missiles it placed there. the standard tactic when faced with that scenario, which canadian military personnel will understand well and explain clearly if queried about it, is to bombard the enemy with missiles (the enemy, in context, is ukraine) in order to force them to use up their inferior supply of missiles. the plan is that russia will then be able to assert air supremacy once ukraine has run out of missiles.
the collateral damage of such a tactic is necessarily immense, but this bombardment tactic would be used by nato if it were faced with the same scenario, as well. it was used by nato-aligned countries in the first gulf war against iraq. what you did is just lob missiles at your enemy, in order to trigger their air defense systems into wasting missiles on the incoming targets. if they miss, they hit a hospital or a school or something, but you don't care about that, you care about depleting the missile store. after the enemy has run out of missiles, they are left defenseless and the invasion can proceed.
now, you might therefore argue that we should give ukraine more and more missiles, but this is based on a misunderstanding of the russian tactic. the more defensive missiles you give to ukraine, the more missiles that russia will need to lob into ukraine in order to dismantle the air defenses being sent there to defend it against the bombardment of russian missiles. this arms race to disarm ukraine by bombarding it may cost russia an enormous sum, but the russians are self-sufficient in the production of missiles and nothing short of a mobilization in the west is going to out-produce them. sending kiev a $500 million dollar missile system will just have the effect of creating billions of dollars worth of craters in ukraine.
the logic from ottawa is no doubt that giving them missiles instead of offensive weapons will help them defend themselves without escalating further, but that is not well thought through; it is in truth just going to make the situation worse and prolong the violence even further. this tactic may seem "sensible" because it appeals to "common sense", but common sense is always wrong, and advancing the fallacy of common sense, in context, will only hurt ukraine.
i strongly oppose giving ukraine offensive weapons, but i also realize that giving them more air defense systems can only create further targets, and would consequently do more to harm ukraine than giving them nothing at all.
there's only two feasible options at this point: go all in or completely pull out. there's no place for policies that are perceived of as "sensible" or as a "compromise" at this point - ineffective or out of date weapons sent to the region merely become targets to be destroyed by a russian military with a very deep industrial base. you need to either give them weapons that they can legitimately use to push the russians back (as the british are in the process of doing) or you need to refrain from creating more targets.
i vote for cutting off aid entirely. you might disagree, but the logic is unassailable - if you're not actively and aggressively helping them win, any further half-assed attempted aid is merely helping them lose.
you can't have 30% of a world war. this is binary. whether we will have one or not have one will be decided in the upcoming weeks.
=====
i'm trying to avoid doing math, here. however, i want to explore this slightly.
ukraine understands that the russians are trying to eliminate their missile cache, so they are being selective in their deployment. if they think the russians are legitimately just shooting at residential spaces, the ukrainians will need to save their defense missile and let the russians blow up the buildings. so, the russians need to launch missiles at targets - like hydro plants - that it thinks the ukrainians will have a likelihood of shooting at. however, the russians also need to keep the ukrainians guessing.
this is a game, and the russians are playing a strategy. that strategy is to try to force the ukrainians into wasting as many missiles as possible by targeting regions they cannot allow to be destroyed. if the russians miscalculate, and target a region of too low importance, the ukrainians will let the missile land without shooting at it. the russians also need to occasionally target areas that have no strategic importance to avoid predictability.
1:16
jan 19, 2023
if these war criminals are to be allowed in this country again, they need to be sent to prison for life with no chance of parole. it's not a question of whether they're dangerous, it's a question of whether they're to be properly punished for their crimes against humanity.
yes, ontario is moving to a two-tier health care system and, yes, the prime minister is in support of two-tier health care, as well. this is the biggest political development - the biggest shift in the political spectrum - in two generations. the last political shift of this magnitude that happened in this country was when the conservatives shifted to a free trade platform in the 70s and 80s.
the term "islamophobia" is a juvenile, bigoted, reactionary attempt by a system of violent oppression to create a distraction when human rights advocates correctly accuse it of harming women and homosexuals via enforced and systemic heteropatriarchy. "no, i'm not a homophobe; you're an islamophobe.". the explicit purpose of the term is to give the ideology of religious violence inherent to islam priority over human rights for queer people, when the depravity of islamic "law" comes into conflict with human rights, as it frequently does. as a secular leftist, i strongly believe that queer rights are important and "islamic law" is both trivial and stupid and the only defense they have against that kind of culture shock is to try to co-opt the language, but i will have none of that, i will throw it back in their faces and spit at them for it. people that use the term "islamophobia" as defense should be immediately condemned for their homophobia and thrown out of the room and the discussion should end at that point. this is the new godwin's law. there can be no discourse with such depraved idiots. it is instantly disqualifying language, as it is nothing more than an anti-queer code word and designed for nothing less than to advance religious oppression at the expense of human rights.our government is soft on islamism because it has taken an extremist conservative ideological perspective on "religious freedom". that's become very clear.
this is the day that will go down in history as the moment that islamism defeated democracy, in canada.
welcome to the dark ages.
don't forget your hijab.
i'm embarrassed to be a canadian. we used to stand for something; today, we're the refuge of the world's scum.
i think letting them rot in syria would be humane. they should have been summarily executed years ago. flying them to canada is absurd, and letting them back on the street is outrageous.
to start with, their children should be immediately taken away from them and placed in foster care, where they can be raised in a secular environment without the child abuse of religionism. the chances that these children can be saved from the poisonous ideology if islamism is negligible, but liberals are delusional and stupid in their hopefulness and they will expect outcomes that have no bearing in causality or logic. if they are to be given any chance at all, they must be immediately severed from any relationship with their backwards, horrible, evil mothers - and they must be taught that their mothers are backwards, evil and horrible. these children need to be placed under strict surveillance, as well.
these kids will end up as terrorist fighters; the chances that they won't is remote. i don't operate on hope, i operate on logic and probability. you can kill them now or kill them later, but you will be deluded by the irrationality of your hope into tying your own noose, and they will laugh at you for it, in the end.
21:34
jan 20, 2023
(as always, note that this page is being constantly vandalized by agents of the trudeau government. i van't stare at the screen constantly. be vigilant for attempts to distort it's meaning when reading it.)
the industry has been quick to point out that allowing for-profit private health care clinics to operate does not create resources, which is what the courts in british columbia correctly ruled, and that it therefore makes no sense to suggest that the policy will improve wait times. the idea that allowing for-profit private health care clinics to operate will decrease wait times is not just demonstrably empirically false (quebec has the worst wait times in canada), it is also incoherent and illogical. allowing for-profit private health care clinics to operate will obviously increase average wait times, and every report ever written on the topic makes that abundantly clear. this isn't a good idea that hasn't worked out due to some flaw in implementation, it is an incredibly dumb idea that is obviously wrong and that any intelligent person can obviously see is obviously wrong. do you remember when these very same people told us that privatizing hydro would lead to lower electrical bills? that was obviously stupid and wrong at the time, and look at the outcome of allowing it. are we to allow ford to ruin the health care system, like harris ruined the hydro system? there is no way to even make sense of the suggestion that allowing for-profit private health care clinics to operate will somehow improve wait times, and anybody making that argument to you is either lying to you because they think you're too dumb to understand them or is themselves too dumb to understand what they're saying. it is just simply a contradiction in basic arithmetic that is only possibly arrived at by unclear thinking.
well, unless, you can pay your way to the front of the line, of course, which is the actual point; neither the ford government nor the prime minister care about average wait times, what they care about is wait times for the upper class. the industry is arguing that it will just have the effect of siphoning resources away from the general public and towards the rich, and that's exactly what the intent of the policy is.
the ford government doesn't exactly have a mandate to do this (they campaigned on the opposite of it), but everybody knew they were lying and they are certainly playing to their common sense revolution base. this is what conservatives in ontario have wanted for decades. the end result may be an ndp majority, but if ford is removed from office due to this it will be as a result of a general revolt and not due to his party pushing him out of office.
it is the liberal party pmo's clear support of health care privatization that is the seismic shift in canadian politics, and not only is it not clear that the pmo will be able to take the liberal party with it down this path, it is exceedingly unlikely that trudeau, himself, will survive this process.
trudeau is overstaying his welcome; his clear support for health care privatization, which he has no mandate for, and which very few members of his own party support, will almost certainly result in the long overdue caucus revolt i've been waiting for. a caucus revolt on these terms could have the outcome of pulling the liberal party back from the shift to the extreme right that trudeau has directed, and allow them to moderate back towards the centre.
this is consequently tentatively good news, if the result is that it pushes trudeau out of politics. however, the situation is also exceedingly fragile, and i would ask the party to act sooner than later to fucking get rid of him, already.
what can ontarians do to stop this?
nurses could go on strike. yet, all we can really do is vote them out.
if you are concerned about the far right in canada, be aware that the most dangerous right-wing extremist to be worried about is not some goof on a tractor, but the prime minister himself. the most dangerous fascist in the country is justin trudeau.
5:29
jan 21, 2023
when the christians tried to ban alcohol in north america, we fought them and won. if the muslims try to do the same thing, we will defeat them as well.
heavy alcohol use is bad for your liver and bad for your brain, but the liver exists to remove toxins from your body, and you need to put that in perspective. in a list of potential cancer risk factors, alcohol would pale in comparison to not just tobacco but also to marijuana, to air pollution from burning carbon and to red meat. that the state is focusing on restricting alcohol use while providing waivers for ground beef is ideologically and politically motivated.
drinkers tend to smoke a lot (i have cut out alcohol in order to cut out tobacco) and studies that control for the effects of nicotine use in drinking populations have largely demonstrated that the risk factor for "head and mouth cancers" is tied to nicotine and not to alcohol:
last decade, before the muslims took over, the state told you that moderate wine consumption was good for your health. remember?
they don't care - it's just an excuse to force their religion on you..
welcome to the dark ages.
don't forget your hijab.
13:47
“If we see that Germany is winning the war, we ought to help Russia; and if that Russia is winning, we ought to help Germany, and in that way let them kill as many as possible.” - senator harry truman, 1941
i can't find the quote right now, but this was not an original idea of harry truman. i believe the source is cables sent by william dodd, but that might be imprecise; the google search algorithm has been corrupted by liberal idiocy and has since become impossible to use as an actual research tool. you can't search for nazis on google without the search engine deciding you must be one, yourself, and cutting off access. searching google for nazism just throws back links to the simon wiesenthal centre.
it was, nonetheless, american policy through the 30s to covertly (and sometimes not so covertly) arm the nazis with the intent of creating a problem for the russians. the quote is something like "it is in the interests of america to let the nazis and commies kill each other for a few years, in order to weaken them both". this insight was entirely correct.
regimes have changed since, but continental drift is very slow and the basic geopolitics of the region is essentially the same. the german reluctance to spend too much of it's financial and defense resources fighting a pointless war against russia needs to be understood in the proper historical context of ongoing american imperial treachery, which sees germany as a threat rather than as an ally.
21:47
jan 22, 2023
this is a smart tactic by anti-nato forces in sweden: if the turks want to threaten to deny entry, go out of your way to piss off the turks, then. if i was in sweden, i'd be burning effigies of erdogan in front of the turkish embassy every day, to try to block entry to nato.
unfortunately, biden thinks that sweden entering nato is a strategic victory. the swedes are certainly an asset. erdogan may want to quickly shut the fuck up.
10:30
jan 24, 2023
if the united states was ever really a democracy, it has not been one in recent years. gore was blocked by the military and bush was handed power (something that was broadcast before the election), the fairness of the 2004 election has always been suspect, 2008 was a choreographed stunt, the candidates in 2012 were identical, the democratic party justice department sabotaged clinton in 2016 because the pentagon was afraid of her and the 2020 election was obviously as choreographed as the 2008 one, starting with the clearly rigged democratic primaries.
now, as the justice department moves to eliminate yet another personality from the presidency, what the country is demonstrating is a lack of stability in positions of power, as the pentagon is unable to settle on a puppet. this is typical of military dictatorships.
trump was the anything-but-hillary solution, and then they had to get rid of him by plugging in an 80 year-old half-senile oligarch, under the expectation that he would clear out in four years. now, biden has apparently changed his mind, and wants to run again.
not so fast, joe - you were put in power as a caretaker, and you will be taken down by the justice department if you won't live up to the deal.
the situation is a lot more fragile than it looks from the outside. what we know is that clinton is banned from running, that trump is banned from running and that biden is now banned from running, as well. the pentagon would appear to prefer easy to control figureheads, rather than feisty decision makers.
the presidency in 2024 is now wide open, but it is unlikely to matter much. the real lesson is that the pentagon is getting complacent, which is inevitable, and that the presidency no longer has any meaningful authority. the united states is a military dictatorship, where puppet civilian leaders are disposed of via scandal when they don't do what they're instructed to.
kamala harris is really exactly what the pentagon wants, and that might be what we're going to get, and potentially very soon.
now, if only the liberal party had the same resolve, in removing tired figureheads that overstay their welcome.
19:37
jan 27, 2023
the notwithstanding clause was explicitly included in the 1982 constitution act in order to ensure that the charter was not in contravention of ss. 92-95 of the constitution.
while i would prefer the clause to be more carefully worded, there is not a constitutional issue at play and sending the issue to the supreme court is merely a political stunt that is a waste of time. there is no ambiguity as to the outcome, which is that the court will uphold the use of the clause for the reason that it is an explicitly written part of the constitution. the court cannot strike out parts of the constitution as unconstitutional. any requested reference by the liberals would merely have the effect of providing a precedent to cite for future use of the clause.
the media in this country is bizarrely applauding this stunt for the obvious reason that it doesn't understand the futility of it. the supreme court is a serious body that has important concerns to deal with, and a stunt like this should be roundly condemned as an abuse of power.
what the notwithstanding clause exists to enforce is that ss. 92-95 ultimately overrule the charter, if the legislature insists on invoking the division of powers. it is necessary to ensure consistency in the 1867 constitution act. otherwise, the charter would be a power grab by the federal government that allowed it to overrule ss. 92-95.
the problem with the clause is that it is too broad, but it is not the role of the court to narrow it and it won't do it.
it is worth pointing out that bill 96 clearly infringes s. 23 of the charter, which is not suspended by s. 33. however, the use of the notwithstanding clause in the secularism bill is legally valid, if unnecessarily heavy-handed. i have argued that the way to protect the secularism bill (which i support) from frivolous legal challenges is to point to existing precedent that restricts political/religious activity in the public service. in the united states, they have the hatch act; in canada, we have similar rules that erect a barrier between political/religious activity and the functioning of government. religion is something to be done at home and something that has no place in the public service, which should be aggressively secularized to ensure that it is not corrupted by non-governmental political/religious interest groups. i would like to see similar legislation passed in ontario.
i think this act should be applied to restrict the use of religious symbols in the public service workforce, in ontario:
10:30
in 2013, the conservative party created the utterly bourgeois and deeply frightening "office of religious freedom", which was a direct affront on the country's secular institutions and the existing culture of religious subordination. when justin trudeau was elected in 2016, he rightfully abolished the office.
this week, he created an office for "combating islamophobia" that is the same thing as the office he abolished in 2016, except that it prioritizes the promotion of one religion (islam) at the expense of all others. i strongly opposed the office of religious freedom, but at least it did not explicitly prioritize any one religion.
such an office should not and cannot continue to exist under s. 2 of the constitution. who is going to enforce that?
concerns about the direction of this government in relation to it's blatant and clear promotion of islam are not overblown and it is fundamental that canadians understand what is happening at the highest levels. our deep state wants an easy to control, pliable population that does what it says and is governed with fear. our deep state is sick of the insolence of germanic anarchism and the culture of freedom designed by ancient germano-celtic western tribal traditions. it looks at the despotism of saudi arabia not with contempt but with jealousy, and seeks to import the social order there by importing the population. that is the kind of society that they want to exist here and are taking concrete steps to create here. this bourgeois enforcement of religion as a tool of control is best described in simple language by engels in socialism: scientific and utopian.
this is not the first step towards the forcible islamicization of canada and it won't be the last one. neither the conservatives nor the ndp, in their current alignments, will be of any help in fighting this. the country requires a political secularist movement, like the one that exists in quebec (modeled after the french constitution), and like the separation of church and state movements that have historically existed in the united states.
if allowed to operate unhindered, the state will convert us all to islam by the sword. that is what they want.
what is this office going to do? it is going to organize and conduct severe attacks on free speech. be ready for this - know your enemy and know how to fight it.
19:10
jan 29, 2023
while i did see the first three star wars movies as a young child (i was born in 1981), it was due to a decision by my father to watch them and i do not have any particularly fond memories of them. i preferred et: the extra-terrestrial to star wars; a film series that i actually enjoyed as a child was not star wars but the indiana jones franchise.
i have neither seen any subsequent star wars film, nor would i have any interest in watching them.
while i enjoyed watching reruns of the original star trek series as a teenager, i did not spend much time watching the next generation when it was on tv (the next generation never went into syndication, did it?) and did not have any interest in the other star trek franchises. the original series was superior because it focused less on presenting realistic technology and more on traditional literary and theatre themes; the best original star trek episodes were the ones that focused on themes from greek mythology, not the ones that geek out on pretentious misapplications of physics or technology. the next generation misunderstood the value of the original series.
i enjoyed watching the x-files, up until they cancelled the original series. i have not kept up with the various franchise continuations since then. it's really less that they canceled the x-files and more that they shifted it off television, but i wasn't about to follow it to a milk-the-consumer model of capitalism. they're scientologists, and you can tell.
i have never purchased cable, as an adult, and have not watched anything on television except the news and the odd rerun of 90s shows since the very early 00s. i have often not owned a television at all, or just used old televisions i found on the curb to stream youtube, starting as far back as the mid 00s (i currently do not have a television and have not since 2018. i used a television i found on the curb from 2013-2018 that i left in the previous apartment and from 2007-2011, but just used it as an external monitor to stream online media to a bigger screen (i did not pay for cable). i stayed places from 2011-2013 and 2006-2007 that had tvs, but rarely to never watched them. i did not have a tv from 2003-2005. i only ever watched the news while eating from 2000-2003.). i have paid no attention to contemporary films since earlier than that; i tuned out in the mid 90s.
i'm certain that i've seen less than five films released since 2005 and probably less than ten released since 2000, and they would be restricted to blockbuster films like the lord of the rings. i am fairly confident in stating that i have not seen a single film, hollywood or not, released after the year 2010.
i'm not just explaining that i stopped watching cable tv or hollywood films in the mid 90s, i'm pointing out that the existence of the personal computer made the medium of television (and film via television) completely irrelevant. that was 25-30 years ago, and for the entirety of that period i have spent the time that most people would spend staring at a television set reading or writing online, instead.
it is possible that i might have spent more time watching television if the educational value of the programming was higher, but when given the opportunity between using the internet or watching tv, there has never been any possibility that i will choose the latter. at this point in my life, the idea of wasting time watching television or wasting time watching a film seems like an utterly bizarre anachronism to me.
19:18
i am, however, going to deconstruct the term, because it is in the news.
a phobia is, by definition, something that is irrational. the term is appended to various roots to indicate an irrational fear of the concept described by the root, such as an irrational fear of homosexuals. homosexuality is an individual choice (i am a liberal. i think homosexuality is a harmless choice, and should be respected as a harmless choice. only harmful behaviour should be criticized or restricted. there is obviously no such thing as god and no time to waste debating it or other childish nonsense of the sort and there is no gay gene or any logic indicating that there should be one. sorry. harmless choices are of no concern to others, and those attempting to interfere with individualism in this manner should be condemned as fascists. queer people don't need to justify themselves to anybody, and if you don't like their harmless decisions then you can and should fuck off.), and homosexuals do not pose any threat to the people around them, so a fear of homosexuality is necessarily irrational.
a fear of islam is not properly categorized as a phobia for the reason that a fear of islam is entirely rational, like a fear of a pack of rabid dogs seen running wild in the street is. unlike homosexuality, islam is a political ideology of organized violence designed to monopolize power within an ethnic aristocracy (by and for that ethnic aristocracy), that perpetuates itself via genocide and that will certainly and necessarily inflict horrific and substantive human rights abuses on all people around it, if given power. unlike homosexuality, following islam is not a harmless individual choice without social consequence; a choice to follow islam, and it is a choice, is an explicit decision to consciously take part in organized political activity that exists with the explicit intent of writing rules to enforce on other people. muslims themselves will tell you that the religion exists of little more than the sharia code, and that sharia is both the ends and means of islam, without which there would be no reason to have islam. in that sense, conflating fear of homosexuality and fear of islam is not just a difference in scale but a serious category error.
in the west, we are still recovering from the trauma that was inflicted upon us by the thousand year despotic rule of the tyrannical catholic church, a tyranny that only truly began to be dismantled by the glorious french revolution and which took longer to dismantle in the colonies. in quebec, the tyranny of the catholic church was not overthrown until the 1960s. in parts of the united states, christianity still retains it's iron fist of oppression and dominance, even in the 21st century.
a hefty fear of ideologies and systems of control that are similar to christianity is a healthy protection mechanism in the west, as we are still recovering from the trauma resulting from the damage inflicted upon us by judeo-christian colonialism, which destroyed our history and our culture in the midst of a cultural and literal genocide against us and left us in backwardsness and ignorance. any society emerged or emerging from a dark age should be fearful of influences that want to turn the clocks back. when we see ideologies and systems of control similar to christianity begin to take hold, we would be wise to be fearful of them and to take protective steps in order to prevent ourselves from repeating the same mistake, which caused the west so much trauma and bloodshed and held us back from achieving our potential for so long.
it is not helpful at this point to physically attack muslims, for the reason that they are not yet numerically dominant. violence is not a preferred outcome, so conflict avoidance should be sought until it is too late; we will know it is too late when they are enforcing their laws in place of our own with violence. yet, we would be wise to be fearful of a future reality where they are numerically dominant and seek to alter public policy today to prevent that outcome in the future. we have no obligation to welcome religious people into our society, and i do not take offense to claims that i am not welcoming to the faithful; i agree that i am not welcoming to or tolerant of people of faith, and do not want them to exist in the society i inhabit. i would prefer to live in a society with an immigration system that discriminated against people of faith, in an explicit attempt to keep them out. the irreligious deserve a place where they can exist in freedom without the coercion of religious laws and without the oppression of faith and that place is the west. let the religious stay in their own culture; i don't want them in mine.
i am not entirely sure how people expect me to react when called an "islamophobe". am i supposed to deny such a thing? as explained, the language is disqualifying, but i actually fully agree (and will volunteer the information!) that i am terribly mortified of the devastating effects that islam will have on the anarchistic nature of western culture if steps are not taken to place a firewall around government to protect it from the influence of islam and if steps are not taken to prevent the spread of islam in the west. dawkins correctly described religion as a virus, but it's worse than a virus, it is a cancer. when intelligent people find a cancer early, they root it out, they don't claim that cancer is nothing to fear, and watch it spread, only to be overtaken and strangled by it. i am not naive; i understand that islam will destroy the secularism and relative freedom we have won in the west through great bloodshed and through immense and justified struggle, if we let it. that is certainly something to be fearful of!
a hefty fear of ideologies and systems of control that are similar to christianity is a healthy protection mechanism in the west, as we are still recovering from the trauma resulting from the damage inflicted upon us by judeo-christian colonialism, which destroyed our history and our culture in the midst of a cultural and literal genocide against us and left us in backwardsness and ignorance. any society emerged or emerging from a dark age should be fearful of influences that want to turn the clocks back. when we see ideologies and systems of control similar to christianity begin to take hold, we would be wise to be fearful of them and to take protective steps in order to prevent ourselves from repeating the same mistake, which caused the west so much trauma and bloodshed and held us back from achieving our potential for so long.
it is not helpful at this point to physically attack muslims, for the reason that they are not yet numerically dominant. violence is not a preferred outcome, so conflict avoidance should be sought until it is too late; we will know it is too late when they are enforcing their laws in place of our own with violence. yet, we would be wise to be fearful of a future reality where they are numerically dominant and seek to alter public policy today to prevent that outcome in the future. we have no obligation to welcome religious people into our society, and i do not take offense to claims that i am not welcoming to the faithful; i agree that i am not welcoming to or tolerant of people of faith, and do not want them to exist in the society i inhabit. i would prefer to live in a society with an immigration system that discriminated against people of faith, in an explicit attempt to keep them out. the irreligious deserve a place where they can exist in freedom without the coercion of religious laws and without the oppression of faith and that place is the west. let the religious stay in their own culture; i don't want them in mine.
i am not entirely sure how people expect me to react when called an "islamophobe". am i supposed to deny such a thing? as explained, the language is disqualifying, but i actually fully agree (and will volunteer the information!) that i am terribly mortified of the devastating effects that islam will have on the anarchistic nature of western culture if steps are not taken to place a firewall around government to protect it from the influence of islam and if steps are not taken to prevent the spread of islam in the west. dawkins correctly described religion as a virus, but it's worse than a virus, it is a cancer. when intelligent people find a cancer early, they root it out, they don't claim that cancer is nothing to fear, and watch it spread, only to be overtaken and strangled by it. i am not naive; i understand that islam will destroy the secularism and relative freedom we have won in the west through great bloodshed and through immense and justified struggle, if we let it. that is certainly something to be fearful of!
we fought very hard over many centuries to assign the religion of the invading christian crusaders and roman colonists to the dung heap of history and it will have been all for nothing if we just let these colonizing muslims take the place of the long vanquished christians. we won! we cannot lose now, that cannot happen; it would be an affront upon our ancestors, and all those that died fighting for our freedom from christianity. it is best to alter policy to avoid the inevitable conflict. it took us 1000 years to throw off the judeo-christian yoke, and we will struggle for 10000 more years to emancipate ourselves from islam, if we must. i speak for generations of future freedom fighters that have yet to be born and will never give up this struggle. secularism and freedom will always win against the despotism of religious tyranny, as time approaches infinity.
my strictly rational fear of islam is both immeasurably deep and entirely healthy, and if you are smart then you should fear islam, as well. we will not be able to collectively protect ourselves from the very realistic threat that islam poses to our secular and democratic society until we are able to develop a healthy fear of it.
jan 31, 2023my strictly rational fear of islam is both immeasurably deep and entirely healthy, and if you are smart then you should fear islam, as well. we will not be able to collectively protect ourselves from the very realistic threat that islam poses to our secular and democratic society until we are able to develop a healthy fear of it.
they mined everything, both on the land and in the sea. it's the primary reason the russians were slowed down.
18:29
good. that's free expression.
and, fuck you, too, indonesia: you're a backwards shithole cesspool of garbage.
18:32
what is this debate actually about?
free speech in canada is legally defined by s. 2 of the constitution, which prevents the state from interfering with free expression. does this person claim that the state is interfering with her right to free expression? if so, how?
in order to get to that outcome, she would have to make the argument that a university is a public space, which i would support, but which would be inconsistent with the concept of property rights held by most of the people arguing that the speaker's rights are being infringed upon. they seem not to understand that they're contradicting themselves.
there are two ways to analyze the situation:
1) the university is private property, in which case the phrase "free speech on campus" is a collection of meaningless words strung together to form a legally incoherent idea of no value or
2) the university is a public space and restricting speaking of any kind is a s. 2 infringement, the value of which is to be determined by an oakes test.
as mentioned, i would argue that the university is a publicly funded space and that s. 2 should have some application, within limits. whatever restricted speech rights may be applicable on campus, a university also needs to be able to protect it's reputation and not allow non-academic viewpoints to be propagated in it's halls, which is what this is actually about; if s. 2 has some value on campus, the university must retain the right to remove non-scholars that are masquerading as scholars from it's property, as well. the university cannot be a place to disseminate falsehoods and ignorance under the facade of "free speech". this talk does not appear to have much educational value and that is generally the case with these "free speech on campus" types that get pushed off campus by university administration - the truth is that they're almost invariably trying to use the university as a venue to host talks that have little to no educational value and should be taking place in a non-academic setting, instead. however, you can't argue that the university is private property (which almost everybody complaining about this will do) and that people neither employed by it nor enrolled in it have rights to free expression on that private property; that is merely a contradiction of the concept of private property.
the law in canada is unambiguously always going to pick 1 over 2, but not absolutely. there are plenty of examples where the court has treated the university like a public space. i would strongly doubt that this would be one of them.
the speaker should simply speak in a space she is welcome to speak in and that is more appropriate to the value of her talk, such as a bingo hall, and should understand that she will potentially be charged with trespassing if she insists on speaking on what the law has long decided is mostly to be treated as private property without an invitation.
18:54