the police will only attack you in canada if you're a socialist.

if you're a right-wing protester, they'll bring you coffee and want to hang out.

it's an embarrassing problem that needs to be addressed by more aggressive political oversight. there needs to be a lot of fired police officers in ontario.

we saw this weekend that the toronto police force is full of nazi thugs that will stand and watch right-wing nazi protesters engage in an obvious vicious hate march, without intervening in the slightest. these nazi officers are refusing to enforce the law, because they are in agreement with the nazi protesters. it's that simple.

we already knew that, in canada - that there's a serious problem with the police force being infiltrated by the far right.

and we've known for many years that there is no rule of law in canada, that the parliament will pass laws, and that neither the police nor the courts will enforce them.

as i've stated a few times, it's relatively clear that trump wants to negotiate and what he wants to negotiate is american dominance into the iranian oil market. this is the problem. it's the source of restraint and why it's taking so long. trump doesn't want to pull the trigger because he wants to take control. the mistake he's making is treating iran like a rational actor when it isn't one, which should be abundantly clear. the iranians are repeatedly attacking multiple entities that could completely wipe them out, with little regard to consequence, because they think that everything is determined by their make believe, imaginary god. if trump would give up on his delusion about "making a deal" and just wipe them out, this would be over by now. but he probably wouldn't have done it in the first place if he didn't intend to get an agreement in the end.

socialists and other leftists on the ground seeking regime change and revolutionary overthrow need to look beyond the united states and work to tear down the regime without them. this is regrettable as the americans remain the most powerful force on the planet, but's trump intentions are clear enough. if the iranian left wants to salvage this, it need to get out in front of the us military, and not wait for it to show up.

now, some people might argue that the united states doesn't need iranian oil, but this is a foolish argument. oil is a non-renewable resource. it doesn't matter how much oil the united states has today, it will eventually run out and, when it does, it will need to look elsewhere. it is in america's strategic interest to control as much foreign oil as possible and dump it all into it's petroleum reserves for later. controlling middle eastern oil is not about today, it's about tomorrow.

the trump administration believes that the world will be running on oil for the next several decades. i certainly hope they are wrong, and think the evidence suggests that they are wrong, but that is what they think. on some level, though, they might be right. the united states, and the united states alone, may continue to run on oil for decades to come, while the rest of the world  moves past it. in fact, the  middle east may find itself in the awkward situation relatively soon where the united states is it's only remaining major market. 

the united states clearly thinks controlling oil is a strategic necessity and it thinks that because, at least right now, it has no intention of transitioning to clean energy. so it wants a friendly regime in iran that will send them the oil instead of to china. that's the point. 

socialists on the ground should not care what trump's lame duck plans are, they should take advantage of the situation to dismantle the worst fascist theocracy on the planet and replace it with a mandate from the masses.

the caramel jello is basically a large glass of caramel flavoured soy milk, manipulated to congeal and at with a spoon.

it might be better to just stir it in the glass.

yeah. i made the caramel jello with soy milk, but it looks like it is setting fine, it's just taking a little longer. it's something like caramel pie filling but a little creamier. apparently, it's actually french. i don't think this will need the sauce, which i'll use for the cookies.

the cookie recipe is not going to be very complex. it's a package of mix that you add water and margarine to. i'm going to add the chocolate and butterscotch chips, bake for ten minutes and then add the caramel sauce when it's done. that's it.

one of the last food bank items was a package of peanut butter cookie mix, along with some kind of caramel sauce. i'm not sure exactly what the caramel thing is. it looks like some kind of caramel jello. it has arabic writing on it. there are instructions.

but i suspect i'm going to use the caramel sauce for the peanut butter cookies, instead.

i've also purchased dark chocolate and butter scotch baking chips to put in the cookie dough, so these are going to be peanut butter chocolate-butterscotch chip cookies with caramel topping. and i'm gong to make these things tonight.

the idea that the kurds are being asked to fight america's wars and being drawn into a conflict that isn't theirs, and of which they have a high likelihood of being abandoned, is a false narrative. closer to the truth is that america (with israel) is fighting kurdistan's war for it. the uprisings over the last several decades have all been fundamentally kurdish uprisings. the kurds have been targeted by successive regimes in tehran, and other iranian centres, for centuries. they have immense self-interest in toppling this regime, which is the point. i would not have proposed the idea if it were not in their interest.

there are some things to take note of in the analysis.

the kurds are often presented in western media as a stateless people seeking a state and that is not correct. the kurdish culture is one of a few remaining cultures where statelessness is a way of life, which is the reason they keep generating the interests of anarchists. western (or eastern) anarchist theorists grappling with ways to get out of capitalism should avoid applying their ideas to what is a largely agrarian tribal population. the kurds are not anarchists in a western theoretic or academic sense, but they do live an indigenous way of life that closely approximates the ideas expounded on in academic anarchist literature. the academics try to get empirical studies from the kurds to see if their ideas are usable or not. but the point i'm making is that the idea that the kurds actually want a westphalian nation-state is a misconception. the kurds are stateless and want to remain stateless, and for that reason they seek arrangements with the surrounding countries to allow them to maintain their stateless autonomy. for obvious reasons, none of the states in the surrounding areas can quite deal with them or know what to do with them; they will neither secede nor assimilate. they want to remain in the country, without participating in it. the turks and iranians see them as a threat to turkish and iranian identity (although they are iranians and not turks) while the religious arab states see them as a threat to islam, because they at best follow a syncretic version of islam and in truth are really no muslims at all, as most iranians are not. iranians are on average not any more religious than any other white european people, which is what they largely actually are.

to that end, it's worth pointing out that the ethnic divisions in iran are something that the kurds are aware of. the kurds are not likely to try to conquer the arab or indian parts of the iranian geopolitical space but rather to restrict themselves to the iranian plateau and the areas of iran that are inhabited by iranian speakers, which is the north and central parts. there is a slice of iran that is arab and a slice of iran that is indian or pakistani. the kurds will not want anything to do with conquering or governing these regions.

in the end, the kurdish goal will not be to conquer territory, to establish a state or to take over tehran, but to retreat back to the mountains. their goal will be a constitutional framework that allows for kurdish sovereignty in iran, not a kurdish state separate from iran. they value their statelessness. they don't want a state. thus, some commentators will argue that the kurds have been betrayed or taken advantage of, but the question before them is whether they can get the agreements they want, and not whether they can capture territory or build industry. in that sense, they are happy to be "betrayed" and they want to be "abandoned". they want the centralized states to fuck off and leave them alone.

it is consequently true that the kurds are an incomplete solution to regime change in iran, but that's not important in supporting it. as the kurds do not want to govern iran, the collapse of the iranian state in the kurdish regions, and the regions close to the kurdish regions, has no real or direct relevance on the iranian regime, except to act as a catalyst for a further uprising. the point is for the kurds to act as inspiration and perhaps as allies for the other ethnic iranian groups to tear down a government that is largely seen as enforcing arabic colonization on them. 

conversely, the regime is likely to find itself with a lingering support base in the arabic provinces of the southwest of the country, and the kurds are likely to seek avoiding getting into that fight. if iran collapses altogether, those areas may even find themselves governed by baghdad.

so, there's certain subtleties with the kurds that our media doesn't seem to understand well. the idea that we're taking advantage of them or abandoning them is not quite right, as what they actually want is isolation and stateless sovereignty. it is true that america has had some leaders that don't quite respect them, but it has really never been true that the americans have turned against them, in a way that is important to them, which is why they keep coming back. they are not naive about shifting alliances. they live in a reality where friendship is always tenuous and alliances are always shifting. western analysts may see something wrong with america's shifting priorities, but that is just real life to indigenous peoples, and has been for thousands of years.

if the kurds do launch an offensive, be rest assured that they will be seeking their own objectives and acting out of their own agency and in their own self-interest. they are not a pawn to be moved around on the board but a queen parked in the middle of it, controlling movement in every direction.

that being said, i want to point out that the iranians have fired at both turkey and at nato assets on cyprus. there are grounds to invoke article 5, although it doesn't appear like that's being taken seriously right now.

the iranian state cannot be reasoned with, it must be destroyed. i would support invoking article 5.

it's actually rather clear that what trump is trying to articulate in his call for other powers to escort their own damned traffic through the strait of hormuz is that it's not america's responsibility to protect non-american ships from attack by iran. trump isn't asking for help in controlling the straits, he's pointing out that it's not america's fucking problem if iran shoots at you, and america isn't going to get bogged down protecting global shipping.

he's right. if the british want to protect their interests, let them do that themselves. why should america do that?

personally, i would rather see the world avoid the straits. don't send your warships there to protect your merchant vessels, reroute them. and let the gulf countries figure out on their own that they have to fight these guys the easy way or the hard way. then, let iran suffer the consequences of blockading itself.

no effort should be put into escorting vessels. effort should be put into sending troops, including local troops from close countries, to control the straits and into dismantling iran's missile capabilities. iran should be permanently driven from the coast, which should be annexed by the uae or oman, as a consequence and as punishment.

it's spring in iran.

it's spring in iran.

IT'S SPRING IN IRAN.

wooh!

the fire will clean it. the fire will make it better.

awaken the fire.

awaken the sun.

wake up, iran. it's been too long.

it is time for iran to exit it's dark age and re-enter the light.

just.

stop.

drop.

and burn.

you are going to dance in the fire until the institutions burn.

and when they force you to stop you will refuse.

that's it. it's over.

iran,

this is how you're going to do this. listen up. get ready.

what you're going to do is have the most barn-storming, zoroaster-channeling, rebirthing, sun-worshipping nowruz in iranian history. you are going to wake the sun up with a bang. and the regime will crumble.

hurry along now. get to it.

time is of the essence.

what is incitement of hatred in canada?

Public incitement of hatred

319 (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Wilful promotion of hatred

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Wilful promotion of antisemitism

(2.1) Everyone who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Defences

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

Defences — subsection (2.1)

(3.1) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2.1)

(a) if they establish that the statements communicated were true;

(b) if, in good faith, they expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds they believed them to be true; or

(d) if, in good faith, they intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of antisemitism toward Jews.

Forfeiture

(4) If a person is convicted of an offence under subsection (1), (2) or (2.1) or section 318, anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, on such conviction, may, in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding provincial court judge or judge to be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.

Exemption from seizure of communication facilities

(5) Subsections 199(6) and (7) apply, with any modifications that the circumstances require, to subsection (1), (2) or (2.1) or section 318.

Consent

(6) No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2) or (2.1) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-319.html

i saw several signs in the paper held by participants in the anti-israel hate march that clearly qualify as public incitement to hatred and it seems as though there were no elated arrests. these laws exist and are not being enforced.

it would appear as though the police require better training to help them better identify incitement to hatred and make more arrests.