priests.
like judas.
i guess.
i've recently been accused of being offensive, but i really have no filters and don't even know.
Tuesday, July 23, 2024
jd vance is really a throbbing gristle fan. that's what is underlying the weird quote.
===
While you are sitting here right now if someone rang you up you might say that you are in a workshop with Genesis Breyer P-Orridge, but that would be untrue. What you are really experiencing is a massive data input in no particular logical order: tree creaking almost subliminal; floor hard on ass; need to shit soon; am I hungry; do you think that person still likes me; on and on and on. And we filter it. So, who builds the filters? That is the big question, who controls what does and doesn’t come through the filters, when, at any given minute there is this huge waterfall of information pouring in and our senses are picking it all up.
Then we had them do an exercise that was simply “write everything that happens for one minute,” and it took everyone several pages and was not linear and was some of the most beautiful poetry we’ve ever heard.
Our concept of what we interpret as “reality” is completely malleable. And if it’s malleable then anyone can sculpt it. A lot of our war has been to help others realize they can sculpt it themselves by using tools as simple as cut-ups to reveal the secret war in language, showing how easily we are being manipulated to become consumers. Western capitalism is almost a better product than heroin. In the Middle Ages, if you said to people, “We want you to wear the symbols of your enemy on your clothes and pay for it,” they would just say, “You idiot!” But now people can’t wait to wear corporate brands on their body—they brand themselves with their enemy and pay huge sums of money to reinforce this power system. So it’s a huge and very serious war.
======
in fact, i think lou reed once said something similar to that, as well.
bernie's been doing this for a while. if he thinks it's better to call off the hounds for now, he seems to have a plan. ok.
note that bernie is in better mental shape than either biden or trump, despite being older than both of them.
is bernie's patience going to work out?
perhaps his hands are tied. perhaps he's playing it by ear. perhaps he's picking his battles.
what kamala is likely to actually do is what is called pivot, except that she doesn't have a base to pivot from. it follows that when she pivots, what she will actually do, functionally, is abandon.
i've been calling don the coyote, because he's sneaky and smart. you have to be smart to be a coyote. a genius. wiley, even. hence, don the coyote. yet, perhaps the metaphor is now better applied to kamala.
i mean, if this was a normal election cycle, she might pivot away from 'defund the police' and towards a 'tough on crime' messaging. she can't. she's just going to show up and walk away from her voting base on day one, while trump is paying fake wrestling stars to do fake photo ops and building massive levels of support amongst young men.
ugh.
but, bernie is right. for now. chill out. let her tell us what she wants to do first, don't put words in her mouth.
Monday, July 22, 2024
i understand that certain assholes want to ensure that politicians don't do things to reduce rent or take down property values, but there are real world consequences to that kind of greed.
i need to move.
i can't. there's nowhere to move to.
this is creating a serious conflict between myself, my landlords and would-be tenants that want to move in and also have nowhere to move to. it's resulted in police calls. it's tying up the court system, with no end in sight. i've had to lock myself inside the house, while people sit upstairs and wait for me to leave (so they can change the locks), under threat of illegal removal. it's a mexican standoff that's been going on for over a year and could linger on for up to three or four more.
i've never missed a month of rent, and i'm legally allowed to be in the unit i've signed a lease to, the landlords just want to double it and are aggressively trying to throw me out.
it may not be much longer before these kinds of pressures lead to violence or unrest, as frustrated people need to find some way to let out their anger. we can't go on like this, something has to break.
in most cities that i've been to, the downtown core has multi-purpose and multi-level buildings throughout itself as a defining architectural decision. so, for example, some of the places i rented in ottawa had pizza pizzas or chinese restaurants on the main floor, and apartments upstairs.
that essentially doesn't exist in windsor, where all of the buildings are either company-built skyrises (like the chrysler building) or they are single floor commercial spaces. the latter takes up a disproportionate part of downtown windsor, which robs the city of prime real estate.
if they built apartments on top of these businesses, i can promise you people would move in. i'd much rather live within walking distance of the tunnel, night clubs, etc than have to transit in to downtown, which is a pain in the ass, but the only places to live downtown are condos, corporate high rises (of which there are very few) or subsidized units. there's no normal affordable housing.
one of the biggest safety problems in downtown windsor is that nobody lives there. homeless people outnumber residents, and people just go downtown to access services or to go to bars. most of the buildings downtown, where so many people want to live, are subsidized housing. you have to go way out of town to rent a traditional apartment building in windsor.
while there is a 45% vacancy rate in the city's commercial sector, there is a 1% vacancy rate in the city's residential sector. what that tells me is that large amounts of the city are not zoned correctly.
the days of office spaces in a small city like windsor are likely over, and that's ok.
they should convert these offices into apartments. it solves several problems at once.
there's a number of articles up trying to determine what kind of difference the debate made in polling projections and comparing harris or biden to trump and trying to draw conclusions from a 2% difference in a 5% margin and an almost certain bradley effect.
i'm going to say this once and without an in-depth analysis.
right now, voters demonstrate no preference between biden and harris and the debate has had no demonstrable empirical effect on the democrats' polling numbers, which is rather being driven by the weak economy, as measured in terms that matter to working people, rather than terms that matter to stock brokers. this indicates that people that want to vote democrat are voting for the party and not for a candidate. it basically doesn't matter who the face on the party is.
there is currently no empirical evidence to support the idea that harris will perform better than biden, except with black voters, but it is marginal. there is some evidence that harris will perform worse than biden with white voters, but it is marginal.
further, trump is doing extremely well with young male voters, which is a key democratic voting constituency. the swings you are seeing towards trump in key states are happening in the micro-demographic of men between the ages of 18-35, which is a demographic that any democrat needs to win if they hope to secure any election.
by keying in on young male voters, trump is basically pulling the rug out from under the democrats' feet.
harris needs to focus on winning back young men, or she's going to lose states that nobody currently expects are even in play.
the only politician that the democrats have that can counter trump in this key demographic is bernie sanders. harris, conversely, whatever you think of her as an individual, is just about the worst candidate possible to pair against trump.
are the democrats....stupid? it would appear so, kent.
the media is wondering if some of the status quo governors - some of whom are actually very unpopular, like gavin newsom - might try to take a run at kamala harris.
what would be the point of that? they're just different faces on the same set of pro-corporate policies.
i don't think joe biden was a very good president, but he seemed to have a relatively close relationship with bernie sanders, whether it was cynical or practical on biden's end. there's a good argument that bernie is next in line, and not kamala harris.
i'd like to see sanders take a run at the nomination, even if it's just to put some better ideas on the table, because the reality is that people didn't like harris very much in 2020 because her ideas weren't very good, and that's just going to get worse with more power. the media will like kamala harris but she's going to have a very hard time mobilizing base voters in places where she needs to win, like michigan and wisconsin, because those voters aren't going to be enthusiastic about her policies, which are going to be more "centrist" (that is, conservative) and pro-corporate than biden's.
somebody needs to take a run at her from the left and try to mobilize traditional democratic voting constituencies or trump is going to steam roll her in the end.
bernie will be more popular with younger voters than harris will be, and probably across the board, in almost every demographic. there's a reason for that and it is policy based.
her politics suck.
running harris against trump is going to be 2016 all over again, except worse, as harris doesn't have the entrenched base that clinton had.
did i get to joe?
i don't know.
i don't know how i could know. there are known unknowns. you know, that was actually a reasonable analysis. we should skip the lesson in kant, for now.
i know that this site doesn't have much of a real audience, but has generated the attention of certain spooks, and there have been several times when i've wondered if very powerful people in both of the countries on this continent were tuning in. i still don't know who has been stalking me, who bought my house to get to me, etc. it's not some dumb kids in muscle cars.
when i read the news reports, i thought there was going to be a final speech from joe, but it turns out that it was a statement posted to twitter.
does anybody think that joe biden resigned by posting to twitter and instagram?
is it even a prank?
we'll find out when joe wakes up in the morning, at roughly the crack of dawn. gotta start your day nice and early, gotta make the best out of life. is this real, or did somebody resign for him? if so, that's going to go down as one of the best pranks of all time, and will consequently justify itself as trending on youtube.
or, maybe joe is preparing his final epic speech.
remember joe: the white zone is for loading and unloading. if you want to unload, you go to the white zone.
Sunday, July 21, 2024
...and, then i checked the news.
trump is going to utterly annihilate kamala harris. it'll be the greatest election win since the 80s.
that doesn't mean that they'll let him be president again, though.
i want you to ask yourself this question: who will do what they are told more obediently, trump or harris?
the media will tell us what the pentagon wants.
what do i think is actually going on in the united states election?
going back to 2016, my projection was as follows:
- the polls suggest clinton is going to win
- but the media has made it obvious that trump will be the next president, even if clinton wins.
the idea that elections are free and fair in the united states is a kind of axiom in the west, but most of us know it's not true. it's classic doublethink, right out of orwell. the united states is in truth a dictatorial military junta that allows for self-governance at the domestic level and a certain veneer of democracy at the international level, but it intervenes when it's control becomes tenuous. americans vote for presidents to do things like cut taxes and reform health care, but the president's actual role in the constitution is as commander in chief. tax cuts and health care are supposed to be dealt with by congress.
so, it's less that the pentagon wanted trump to win and more that it could not accept clinton. trump was seen as an easily controlled dunce, which is what he turned out to be. clinton was seen as somewhat of a radical, and it wasn't due to her gender, it was due to an intersection of a set of policies that were considered unacceptably liberal in the united states when she was younger and the reality that she demonstrated, as secretary of state, that she was for sale to the highest bidder, and not subject to oversight or control by the pentagon. if some sheikh wants ghadaffi gone, they just need to name the price, and it doesn't matter if that would blow up the balance of power with the turks and russians or lead to world war three (which it essentially did. libya is at the core of ukraine. libya is at the core of syria.).
the pentagon outright flatly and permanently rejected clinton as commander-in-chief, so a soft coup was organized through the media and some razor-thin results in two states and trump was put in charge, as a puppet, to allow for cental command to consolidate. it worked.
now, i told you from day one that biden's foreign policy was going to be a catastrophe but the pentagon seems to have misjudged him. 2020 wasn't seen as a substantive election from the pentagon's perspective, so they let it go through. they made a mistake, and now they need to get biden out of office.
i don't think it's a coincidence that this picked up after the nato conference and i don't think the issue is biden's age so much as i think it is his stubbornness. drunk with power, biden stopped listening to his generals and is becoming a threat to upend the balance of power and potentially create some vicious hot wars. he's lost his mind. biden knows better, or so he thinks. the pentagon doesn't allow for that and, frankly, the pentagon is right: biden does not know better, and biden's foreign policy decisions have been catastrophic across the board, everywhere. so, cue the media shift, and if you listen carefully to biden, he seems to realize he's the victim of a soft coup in motion.
i'm going to shift the narrative a little, then.
biden needs to step down...or else.
"or else what?"
or else he gets removed.
and, that might be why trump got shot at, to set the narrative up. i don't know. i know that when the american media starts moving in lockstep like this, even when they're right, it's because they're being directed by the pentagon, and it's obvious enough what the reason for it is.
Saturday, July 20, 2024
the icc claims the israeli settlements are illegal because the "palestinian people" deserve self-determination.
while i understand what they're attempting to state, and the ruling has a sound legal basis, the ruling is also rooted in complex historical inaccuracies. it would be helpful if we could start by defining what the term "palestinian people" actually means.
there is an interesting article here about the territorial changes in the ottoman empire:
i'll let you sort through it yourself, but it is abundantly obvious that the entire coastal region of the eastern mediterranean was split into ottoman provinces from the mid 16th century until the end of world war one, when the british and french created their own provinces, of which palestine became one (by mimicking ancient roman political divisions).
generally speaking, the ottomans considered the eastern mediterranean coast to be a part of the province of syria:
before the mid 16th century, the region was controlled by other varieties of turks, by crusaders, by arab colonists and by byzantine romans, and while the area was called palestine after the philistines, who were greeks, there was never any sort of palestinian state, or really even a distinct palestinian province after the end of roman rule. the region was broadly seen as southern syria or northern egypt, depending on who was more powerful at the time, and variously under the control of despots in constantinople or on the arab peninsula.
the closest thing to a palestinian state was the crusader states.
so, who are these "palestinian people"?
i don't mean to be disingenuous. the context of the ruling is clear enough, and it is relatively obvious that it intends to refer to the people that lived in the palestinian mandate created by great britain after the first world war, out of the southern parts of the ottoman syrian province. this was a political identity created by a colonial power, and not an indigenous identity, but it is what they mean.
but, who are these people? and where did they come from?
while nobody has ever wanted to admit it, everybody has always known that they were about 80% indigenous converted hebrews and about 20% colonial arabs and turks (with a substantial amount of genetic influx from subsaharan slaves, brought in by arabs). this was obvious enough that ben gurion wrote a book about it, and it has since been confirmed beyond a doubt by modern genetic science.
so, if the "palestinian people" are actually converted hebrews, and we agree in principle that they should have self-determination, what does that actually mean?
it would mean that they need voting rights and land use rights in an israeli state.
because they're actually hebrews.
this is where the ruling gets confused, as it confuses what is a religious conflict between a single ethnic group (hebrews, some of which are jews, and some of which are muslims) with an ethnic conflict between arabs and hebrews, which is not the actual truth, even if it has taken on that form in territorial wars.
if the palestinians are arabs, they are not indigenous to the region, and should seek self-determination outside of it. if the palestinians are hebrews, which they actually are, they should seek self-determination within the hebrew state. there is no logical or legal basis to have a hebrew state that is muslim parallel to a hebrew state that is jewish. that would be like trying to carve pre-revolutionary france up into catholic and calvinist spaces, and we see how that turned out (not good. lots of dead people. for a long time.).
and, that brings us to the actual issue before us, which would be the land use laws and enforced segregation in the hebrew state, which claims to be western and democratic, but has segregation laws that are neither thing and need to be abolished. this is done by supporting a civil rights movement within israel, and not by arguing for parallel states on the same land that will have no future but perpetual warfare.
the icj ruling is consequently misguided, but not for the reasons proposed by netanyahu. the "palestinians" in the west bank, who are mostly muslim hebrews, need to have some right to compensation if the indigenous group, which is the jewish hebrews, wishes to seize the land for itself, which means what? it is hebrews seizing land from hebrews. they are seizing their own land from themselves and then giving preferred status to a member of the indigenous religion over the introduced one, which has the added layer of complexity that they're basically the same fucking religion, anyways.
what i want the icj to do for me - please - is to sit down and try and actually define these terms properly in order to clarify what they're actually fucking talking about. their ruling is rendered incoherent without properly defining the terms they're using, but if they were to actually do so, they would find they don't have an issue to adjudicate on, besides the lack of egalitarian land use laws in a country that sees it's particular indigenous denomination of a set of shared cultural beliefs as superior to any other derived one.
i want to remind people that it was the democrats that pushed down all kinds of restrictions on personal freedom during the pandemic, and the republicans that argued against them, and in favour of greater personal liberty. in a state like new york, that likes to party and be free, and where democratic support was suppositioned on the cultural assumption that republicans were crusty old losers and democrats played the saxophone and smoked pot, this was a defining, generational, cultural shift.
older democrats probably don't get it.
i'm both old enough to realize the shift and young enough to have been incredibly annoyed with democrats for severely degrading my summers over 2020, 2021 and even 2022. i have had a different issue to deal with in 2023 and 2024, but i wasn't allowed to cross the border into detroit to have fun between march 2020 and may 2023 and it was the democrats that were responsible for that.
people in their 20s and 30s may never forget that.
like ever.
for the next 50-70 years.
regarding the question of national vs state-level polling, you certainly want to look at state-level polling as superior to national polling, and it is a basic mistake to suggest otherwise. i don't know how else to put it: that is simply wrong. any prof would mark a giant red X over it.
it is also the same mistake that the media made in 2016.
what you do when you try to distribute national polling to state-level polling is make a bunch of crazy assumptions, like that black people in georgia are similar to black people in illinois because they're black, then try to force racist generalizations on to micro-demographics. again, these are misapplied techniques used in branding and marketing, they are not designed for politics. the statisticians actually doing this should know better and they will admit it if you prod them and ask them the right questions, but they're getting paid to do a certain thing, and most of them don't give a fuck.
i would have agreed with 538 a few weeks ago: the democrats have an inherent advantage in the current electoral college system. the game is rigged, so to speak. that wasn't the case 20 years ago, and it may not be the case 20 years from now, but the basic underlying math is that the republicans are seen as psychotic extremists in far too much of the country to give them a serious chance at winning.
the reaction to biden's cognitive decline (which i don't think is substantively worse than 2020. that is, what i'm saying is that you should have realized he was out of it four years ago, and i wonder what effect consistent republican messaging on the point has actually made. it's subconscious. it gets to you. it would be repeat the lie, if it wasn't actually true, but that latter point is merely a happy coincidence; they'd lie to you if it wasn't. it's just easier to repeat the truth, i guess, but it's the same propaganda model, and i suspect it actually worked.) even indicates as much; people are trying to push biden out because they're afraid trump will win. this isn't some shift towards trump, it's a reaction against him.
in context, however, the culmination of recent events has shifted the race, and it follows that 538's model will shift to adjust...in two months. this is a criticism of 538's model (and of nik nanos' model in canada) that i've been making for years, that it is an inherently conservative model designed to measure brand preferences for soda or cereal or some other purchasable commodity that is being misapplied to politics, which are not conservative, but incredibly dynamic. it works on some level for party loyalty in terms of buying memberships or making donations, because that is kind of like buying soda or cereal. sort of. the core voters can be tracked into terms of consumer preferences, but core voters don't swing elections, independents, new voters (often low information) and young people do. however, when people shift political allegiances, as is currently happening, it tends to happen immediately and all at once. not only is 538's model going to have difficulty picking up sudden shifts in voting preferences in michigan or pennsylvania (or new york or oregon), but it's actually designed to smooth them out, meaning you have to wait for several months after the shift has occurred before the conservative models reflect it.
despite the introduction of advanced voting, elections are still snapshots, they aren't averages. you want to look at snapshot polling to make election predictions, not smoothed out conservative averages. my insistence on doing this is against conventional contemporary wisdom, which is in truth not so wise (they actually should and do know better) but is the reason i consistently beat the models when i sit down and do the math carefully. 538's model consequently isn't wrong, exactly, it just has a tremendous time lag built into it that makes it essentially useless for this application, which it wasn't designed for, and that is 538 and nik's fault: they should know not to use this model for this application.
what the model is useful for is tracking political donations, so the parties like it, but you can't use it to predict elections where voting preference is dynamic, and 538 itself should clarify it, because they know it.
now, the flip side of the argument is that you need to ponder this question: will the debate, and the news conference, and trump getting shot at, and him picking a log cabin republican for vp, and the internal revolt against biden, be things that have long term effects on voting preference, or will it actually smooth out? is 538 arguing it will smooth out? i don't actually think they are, but if it does then their model will make an accurate projection, and what you're seeing right now will be a blip that comes out in the wash.
i don't think that's the case. i think these are real shifts that will last at least a year or two, that biden is permanently done for. 538's model is designed to not pick that up until october, by which point it might have actually flipped back, if it were some other scenario. i wouldn't project that.
in some elections, 538's model will work because you don't have dramatic shifts. in this election, it won't work, because you're going to see massive fluctuations, as everybody realizes these are shit options across the board and nobody knows what to do. 538 should acknowledge that his model can't project an accurate result in the presence of massive fluctuations because it is actually designed to negate them and explain that to people so they get it.
however, the 538 site, which i haven't been to in a while, is useful because it shows it's work. ignore the model, and look at the most recent polling. don't take the grading system overly seriously; try to pick out the surveys that use phones (and therefore have random sampling) while mostly ignoring the online polls. those snapshots will tell you what people want today, not what people will pick in november, but if you follow the snapshot polls, you will get better outcomes than the smoothed out averages, unless the situation stabilizes, which i doubt will happen.
Thursday, July 18, 2024
there are even articles up at major newspapers explaining that vance is the first major candidate with facial hair in 75 years.
did the culture change 75 years ago? what happened to make westerners all of a sudden reject facial hair?
something did change, and it is called public health practices. there is no doubt a very clear pictorial representation possible that graphs "advances in public health" directly against "general acceptance of and public comfortableness with beardos", in an inverse causal relationship.
even if he loses badly, the fact that he's on the ticket at all is consequently just another example of america's decline and a demonstration of how it's decided to try to turn the clocks back, even if it as an overshoot past america's high point. this definitely proves beyond any question of a doubt that america is moving backwards and embracing backwardsness.
you could get upset about it, or you could react with some levity and watch rob newman's a history of the world backwards.
vance does have a major weakness, though, and it is all of that disgusting bacteria all over his face. he will need to actually take a shower, first, if we wants to actually become president.
.jpg)
maybe, it was a sneaky trick by don "the coyote" trump to make sure his vp has no chance of succeeding him, but westerners will simply not vote for a man with shit all over his face. that is well established.
some people think it's because facial hair makes men look like they're homeless and can't find access to sanitation facilities, whereas others think it brings up memories of dictators. i have another suggestion.
voters won't vote for men with hair on their face because it makes them look gay. you just don't see many straight men walking around with giant beards, that's more of a gross gay bear thing. in a western cultural context, facial hair should set off your gaydar.
it makes him look like a fag, and that will severely constrain his voting base.
democrats should get that out there, because it's the actual truth; white people, anyways, tend to associate male facial hair with homosexuality. it's a big weakness to exploit.
i mean, he used to shower regularly. this is 2017:
.jpg)
what happened to him?
is he on drugs or something?
there is a phenomenon in american politics called "the empty suit", where these unknown individuals with minimal voting records show up in the midst of crises and manage to trick, i mean unite, the country into voting for them. jd vance is the most recent example of the empty suit, who is quite difficult to defeat.
what makes the empty suit such a difficult opponent is that you can't assign anything to them, so people project whatever they want on to them. what is jd vance? whatever you want him to be, baby.
the last empty suit we had was barack obama and, while i did not like bush very much, i did not fall for obama or his rhetoric. at all. for all his talk of hope and change, he was quite obviously the status quo candidate. i was in truth somewhat partial to john mccain, who was at least known for causing trouble, in a situation where the country needed a rabble-rouser. while mccain saved obama's ass moments before he died, and it is not clear that he would have been a rabble rouser, i was at least right in projecting obama as a status quo candidate, which is what he actually told us about himself.
barack obama actually self-identifies as a conservative.
you're going to hear everything imaginable about this new empty suit, because that is what an empty suit produces. the truth is that he represents the status quo, and you can expect him to do whatever the bankers tell him to do.
while i don't exactly want joe biden to die (not exactly), it would be fitting and ironic if he does die of covid, and an appropriate legacy for him, in the history books. there would be something delicious about it.
that would clarify who the nominee is going to be fairly quickly.
speaking of which....
Tuesday, July 16, 2024
i have to do this to get the point across.
i need to buy some new clothes. my last clothes run was c. 2010 and i bought a lot of second hand jeans and tanktops. i still have essentially all of the tanktops, but the jeans have largely been worn through, and either cut into jeans or put aside for sewing work (i bought a sewing machine that i haven't set up yet).
i'm going to want to wait until i get the results of the hearing. it doesn't make sense for me to spend a lot of money on clothes right now.
however, i think i'm done with pants. i just want to wear skirts and dresses and shorts for now on.
the canadian government is still citing the philips curve.
that should really be disqualifying on it's face, nowadays. there should be a giant cane that swoops out from nowhere and removes you from the press conference, while your arms paddle and swing to try to stay put.
nope.
citing the philips curve should be the last words you're allowed to make in public, in 2024.
Monday, July 15, 2024
i have referenced a few times that a part of the dubya/biden comparison is in the imploded economy. biden has recently actually started campaigning on the economy, citing positive job growth.
this is actually an excellent demonstration of the democrats being completely out of touch with reality. inflation goes up 400%, while wages maybe went up 50% (if you were lucky), and biden thinks strong job numbers are something to run on. the reality on this continent (it's the same thing in canada) is that getting one of these low wage jobs isn't going to let you afford to rent an apartment anymore, let alone buy a house. you end up living with your parents until you're 60, or living in your car if you're already an adult. the inflation in food and rent since 2020, particularly, is absolutely devastating to a huge number of people that can no longer function in this economy.
these are conditions that are comparable not to some of the recessions we've had recently but to the great depression of the 1930s. and, biden wants to run on a strong economy!
trump doesn't have a policy to address this, and he's not going to address it if (when) he wins.
but, the last thing biden should be campaigning on is the strength of an economy where workers have seen their purchasing power halve or quarter, and especially not by citing job growth numbers. people are right to spit in his face.
what's the solution to this problem? well, we're going to need to see some labour action to get wages up, but government can help by increasing the minimum wage. dramatically.
Sunday, July 14, 2024
so, would biden be immune from prosecution if he ordered trump assassinated?
they say it was a kid on the roof, but we've heard that one before. have they done a search of the area for suspicious looking grassy knolls?
i kind of wish it was biden that ordered it, and i kind of wish he hit him. it would kill two birds with one stone.
be careful with those lyndon johnson comparisons.
what next? well, biden had just as well go home and get some sleep. that's going to be hard to beat.
Saturday, July 13, 2024
i didn't realize that my hair was straw-y in the pictures from yesterday. the retards upstairs actually cut my hair last year, which has created this hideous layering effect, which i think is horribly ugly, but i'm not going to be able to level it back out until the front grows a bit more, and the cut has slowed me down several months. i suspect the testosterone i was forcibly drugged with also slowed the rate of growth down.
===
july 13, 2024.
yes, i'm embarrassed by what these disgusting religious morons have done to me and it's been depressing and maddening and frustrating but i refuse to give up. i want them to give up. i want them to fail. i want them to go to jail. i'm going to keep fighting.
that said, i am succeeding in fighting them off and i will continue to fight them off and i will overcome their repeated assaults and forced drugging. i mean, it's bad, but it's manageable.
i want to remind you that i'm 43 years old and i was born xy. all things considered, i'm still doing pretty well. the pictures of me from 2016/2017 are now almost ten years ago, when i was in my mid 30s. i still look relatively young, but i looked *extremely* young then. i'm not going to look like i did ten years ago, again.
i will win, and they will lose. this is a fight we *all* have to win against a violent, extreme, religious ideology that needs to be vanquished from the planet and assigned to the dustbin of history.
(blogger is making it essentially impossible to embed a video from here, which is weird because i've done it before)
Friday, July 12, 2024
there are pictures from march, april and may but i haven't sorted through them yet.
i don't quite look like myself again, yet, but it's getting better, and all i can do is wait for the estrogen to work.
i'm more sad than angry. these people are disgusting, perverted losers and i don't understand why they even care what i look like, but my life has been a struggle to fight them off for months, and it doesn't look like that's going to change soon :(.
"Every dime that we spend needs to be accountable,"
is that doug ford doing a line by line audit?
a right-wing liberal concerned about "fiscal accountability"?
no, it's the supposedly left-wing olivia chow, pulling the usual switcheroo on toronto voters, who once again got suckered by the ndp and are in the process of bracing for an upcoming austerity budget.
if it was doug ford, he'd just call his favourite banker up to ask for more debt, then make sure his family owns shares in the bank. but, municipalities should have access to public debt, and should have a mechanism in which the province takes over.
in canada, the province has total control over the municipality which is a "creature of statute". yet, the city is on it's own for debt, somehow. that's a contradiction that needs to be resolved. if the province wants control over the city, it should take control of the debt; if it wants the city to take on it's own debt, it should change the legislative framework around incorporation so that it is more fully autonomous and can go to the bank of canada directly.
the creepy losers upstairs keep demanding i "look like my father". in fact, i've posted here about how glad i am that i don't look like my hideously ugly dead father and that's the last thing i want, but the idiots are some kind of pseudo-freudians, so everything is about your parents and everything is about sex to them....when the truth is that nothing, for me, is about sex, and nothing is about my parents. freud is the biggest pseudo-intellectual since aristotle, and we can only hope he doesn't do the same level of damage, in the long run.
their "therapy" has little option but to cease and desist. they can't get in here. they keep talking to me when i'm sleeping, though, and i'm in a precarious situation, as they didn't want to give up.
i consequently decided that there was no other option but to bleach my hair a little bit early. i wanted to dye it in may, but i wanted it to be longer than it is. the psychotic losers actually cut the front several times while i was asleep before i realized it.
i dyed it various shades of orange or red several times over the last year, as i was waiting for it to grow in. the result is that it is bleached, but is a strawberry-orange-blonde, with complex hints of orange and red highlights. this was very intentional. right now it is roughly chin length, and the highlight should go grow out as the hair does.
i didn't use the purple, but i might do my roots purple some time in the winter, before the next bleach job in the spring. that would leave the top a bright blue or purple hue.
so, is that it? is it back to normal? no. i'm still struggling with some aspects of the forced drugging, and i will need it at least back to shoulder length before i decide it's back to normal. a consequence of the forced drugging with testosterone that i cannot undo is that my hair is noticeably thinner than normal, and i'll just have to wait for it to grow back in. all i can do is stop them from further drugging me and wait for it to regrow.
so, things are moving in the right direction, but only slowly, and it's going to be a while still before i'm back to productivity.
i'll try to get some pictures up soon. i basically look like i did in 2012/2013 but older, rather than i did after the last estrogen boost in 2016. this is a step backwards in the transition, and not something i wanted, but it's manageable and not catastrophic.
Thursday, July 11, 2024
an unfortunate corollary of the iraq war is the ignorant position that the middle east wants to be muslim. there is a small area that is inherently arab, and islam is a form of arabic ethnic nationalism, but there's a much broader region hat understands islam as a colonial force and is trying to overthrow it.
the reason i would support an attempt at regime change in iran is that i know that the vast majority of iranians are not religious, and there is a simple reason for it: they're white. the iranian regime has to be imposed by vicious force because it's extremely unpopular with the vast majority of white iranians. conversely, islam is more popular with the invading arabs, who have colonized the region in the west of the country.
the reason assad is still running syria is because it's a secular society that doesn't want islamic rule. the same is true in turkey, but turkey's politics are confused by ethnic divisions that inflate the muslim minority's power. the lebanese are majority christians. eastern europe knows the history of islamic imperialism, which actually kidnapped their children and brainwashed them into slaughtering their own people. likewise, there have been periodic anti-arab uprisings throughout north africa for over a thousand years.
there are counter-examples, but they are almost entirely constrained to the arab core, of which iraq is in. afghanistan was a secular society before the russian invasion, but something rotten happened there in the intervening years. that might be the whole list.
so, don't be confused. islam is a conservative, controlling ideology and it is incredibly unpopular in most of the world because it is incredibly oppressive. iraq was an exception due it's geography, and not the rule.
Wednesday, July 10, 2024
trump will mop the floor with kamala harris so badly that states like oregon and new york will become swing states. that is a bad idea.
she was the most irresponsible vp pick since dan quayle, and that much more so given that she has a real chance of becoming president in the next four years, even if biden runs and wins.
there's really not a good answer. that's the problem.
when bill tried to tell us he didn't inhale, everybody just laughed at him. his presidency was defined around plausible deniability, but there was no plausibility to that denial. if anything, it won him votes, in the end.
did he ever extrapolate, though, on whether he inhaled that cigar?
this was with an employee in the oval office. like, during work hours. with people sitting outside waiting to come in. you couldn't do that on tv nowadays, you'd get cancelled.
the comedians and punditry class, not to mention democrats, are going to make a big deal out of trump having sex with a porn star in a weinstein-like moment (what does a porn star say in response when you call her a slut? it's true. it doesn't excuse the financial cover-up.) and i want you to stop and retreat and not do that.
i'm not endorsing biden, which is a passive vote for trump, but i don't want him to win in a landslide. i don't really want him to win at all, it's just that he's the only other guy running.
a couple of years ago, the liberals in canada tried to go after the ford family for their drug use and it incredibly backfired. it turns out doing drugs is not only not disqualifying but is seen by a large number of voters as cool. this is a vicious indictment on canadian democracy, perhaps, but it is true nonetheless.
pussygate gave trump a bump (no, i mean in the polls, you sick freak), it didn't hurt him. if you make an issue out of trump fucking a porn star, even if t was out of desperation, that is going to make him look a lot cooler than biden, who goes to bed at 7:30 pm on a friday night.
just avoid this. please.
besides. is this really that far out of character for a president?
thomas jefferson had his slave girls. bill clinton had monica lewinsky. when jfk had an affair with marilyn monroe (just to mention one girl of many), was that kind of like fucking a porn star?
there's a lot of important issues to look at. stormy daniels is not one of them.
jon stewart did a skit about the president talking to god where they tried to quote the old testament, but i don't think joe has ever read the bible, or knows what you're talking about. i have repeatedly compared biden to bush - and it seems like it took four years for everybody, including jon stewart, to catch up to me on that one, but now we're there - but biden doesn't know about ecclesiastes or mog or magog or whatever the fuck you're going on about.
if you wanted joe to listen, you should have cited the byrds.
joe knows the byrds.
biden's speech at the nato conference exemplified all of the reasons i suggested not voting for him in 2020.
i understand that americans don't tend to care much about foreign policy, and that some may find his aggressive and bellicose rhetoric to be "leadership" or "inspiring", but my own analysis is that this man's death wish against the russians is worse than any american president since kennedy, and he scares the fucking shit out of me.
the geriatric idiot is going to get us all killed, and what will it matter to him, and his less than five years of life expectancy?
that said, something lost in a lot of the analysis is that trump's decision to shift nato forces eastward to poland was step one in generating the very provoked russian reaction into ukraine (after years of what was aggressive but sort of empty nato expansion on paper, mostly to enforce a protection racket to push arms sales rather than to actually attack the russians). trump shouldn't be blamed for biden's failures, but he did at the least set the situation up. it's not clear that he has the capability or vision to de-escalate, even if he seems like the better choice to give it a try. biden just wants to keep fighting the commies until he dies and will look for a way to keep at it no matter what is presented to him in terms of de-escalation, detente, or even peace. trump at the least seems to want peace with russia; biden very clearly does not, he wants to keep fighting the cold war.
everybody is looking for some way out of this catastrophic election, and i'm worried that the issue of nuclear war is going to get lost or ignored, when it is in truth the most serious issue in front of all of us. biden has brought us closer to nuclear war than at any time since the fall of communism, certainly, and probably since any time since the 1950s. we're just supposed to blame it on putin, but the reality is that that's bullshit. biden is the bigger problem. nobody is even talking about that, except for trump, and he's right to point to it as a very serious concern.
if trump were president yesterday, his nato speech may not have been much to remember, but it would not have left me shaken and frightened the way that biden's did.
Monday, July 8, 2024
i'm freaked out about what happened but relieved that the board flashed.
i'm also feeling a lot better
it has been confirmed that there is somebody living upstairs, but i think it's the same people as before. i'l need to carefully adjust.
i'm awaiting a response from the hearing.
hopefully, i can get back to productivity shortly.
i also hope that i don't have to use that jumper a third time in another ten years.
the production machine is fixed. again. what happened?
after clearing the cmos, it booted normally, which tells me it must have been overclocked.
so, i'm going to deduce that the following happened:
1) somebody came in here and overclocked the pc
2) then they tried to update the bios to have the intel me in it
3) the pc shut down and refused to boot
i had to reflash it with a bus pirate, then kickstart it with a 600w power supply (as opposed to the 550 w supply that is normally connected to this board) to get it to turn on due to the attempt to overclock it, which caused the heatsink itself to start smoking. clearing the cmos in the fixed bios then cleared the overclock and it booted up fine.
i don't know if they damaged components or not. i'll have to try one thing at a time. i'm not in the clear on this, yet.
these idiots need to fuck off.
it took me several tries, but i was able to flash the motherboard for the production pc using the bus pirate, which allowed the device to boot up, with a caveat: the motherboard started smoking.
i don't know what happened to the board. i know that i woke up and the machine was off and it looked like somebody ripped the power out of the socket.
did somebody overclock the device?
i'm going to try to clear the cmos and see what happens, but it's smoking in the heat sink (the one connected to the chipset, not the one one the cpu) without any obvious sign of actual heat, so it might be fixable.
if not, i can buy a new board, if i can get the cpu out.
however, this has just gone from very weird to very suspicious.
ten minutes later, somebody knocks on my door without notice (not allowed.) and i can hear all kinds of smashing around upstairs. it sounds like somebody is moving the appliances out.
the media has shifted the goal posts, but france doesn't generally govern with coalitions. the largest party is actually the national rally, and there's a good argument that they should be granted first chance to form government.
that would be hopeless, you claim.
well, given that the phony melanchon is going to be sent home with a nice gold watch (set to standard time, hopefully) for his decades of service to the banks rather than allowed into government, and the fake left has more in common with this so-called far right on first glance, it's worth a try.
the other option, a grand coalition, is clearly what the french bourgeoisie wants and has actually wanted for years. in a real sense, a grand coalition would neither be a failure nor an emergency but actually the idealization of macron's political vision. if he gets it, this will be a stunning victory for macron. macron might want to make the grand coalition permanent, and then dare the left or right to try to topple it.
that outcome is dangerous, but is where france is heading. the two demagogues would be best to realize it and break through what is turning into a prisoner's dilemma by co-operating with each other instead of wasting their time competing with each other. they will accomplish nothing via wasteful competition, but could be a revolutionary parliament that can pass real changes if they work together on common core issues, instead.
it would appear that sean hansel is currently trying to convince law enforcement and banks that he is me by claiming his name is jessica murray.
there is nobody named jessica murray. jessica murray is a common name in real life, but it is a fake name i use on the internet. the girl in these pictures, videos etc is not actually named jessica murray.
rather, my legal name is jessica parent and that is the legal name attached to all of the media on this site. i have used the name jessica murray on the internet since ~2005 to add a layer of obfuscation to identifying me, so that people would have difficulty connecting me to my birth name, which is jason parent. as a transfemale, i did not want to be readily identified as jason parent, but i'm currently left with no option but to clarify my birth identity, because of this loser, sean hansel. i was considering changing my name to jessica murray when i got around to it, but when i legally changed my name in 2022, i changed it to jessica parent and not to jessica murray. i continue to use the name jessica murray on the internet as an obfuscating pseudonym.
i don't know how long sean has been impersonating me online for, but i am unfortunately at this point going to need to try to put sean in jail because the retard won't fuck off and go away.
i have not spoken to sean since ~2010ish, and we did not speak very frequently after ~2004ish. i have not known sean at all during the entire period i've had facebook (after 2007ish) and youtube (after 2005ish) accounts and he's had nothing to do with any of this media or any other component of my life in any abstraction or any way at all. sean was on the outside of my friend group from roughly 1998-2002ish, which was the second half of high school and the first couple of years of university. sean went to the local college, and i went to university, and we didn't stay in touch. we were never close friends.
a mutual friend named jon wanted to start a band in 2001 with himself on guitar, myself on bass and sean on vocals. i wrote a handful of demos for that project that were recorded in 2002 that i later finished as instrumental pieces, because sean's lyrics and vocals were stupid and sucked. for that reason, there are less than 10 songs in my discography with sean as a "guest vocalist". they are all currently considered to be unfinished demos, and all of them were finished as instrumental pieces. i have recently actually taken them down from my main bandcamp sites and left them only on the side project site for rabit is wolf.
jon wanted sean to sing because he thought he was fashionable. it was a marketing decision, not a musical decision. conversely, my role was intended to be as a composer/arranger/producer/musician and mostly exist in a background role, rather than be the center of attention. i would not have chosen sean as a collaborator, and the demos that exist were essentially an accident.
jon was correct in choosing these roles as that best fitted for our personalities. sean likes being the center of attention, and i don't. while i turned out to be a pretty blonde girl when i want to be, i'm still not interested in being the focus of attention, and would have absolutely no interest in singing in a rock band; i would still prefer a production/composition role in the background.
all of the pictures and videos connected to this site on youtube, facebook, etc are of me. none of them are of sean hansel, and sean hansel is not jessica murray; jessica murray is jessica parent is jason parent, and sean hansel is somebody else. sean is not transgendered, he's a straight male that has apparently developed some kind of fetish around pretending to be me. sean has scraggly, dirty blond hair that is poorly taken care of and has never dyed it to my knowledge; i have had hair that is brown, black, orange, red, purple and sometimes blonde and i take very good care of it. my hair is currently reddish-orange and i'm planning to bleach it, soon.
sean does not actually look very much like me at all and it's actually extremely obvious that the pictures and videos are not of sean. my frequent dye jobs are just the most obvious evidence in a pile of obvious evidence. he is only fooling himself and should step away before i have to embarrass him in court.
all of the music connected to the site was written by me, none of it was written by sean. sean is not a musician. sean works in advertising/sales and is a business person.
all of the writing was written by me, none of it was written by sean. sean is an individual of below average intelligence that has few meaningful opinions and can barely spell his own name.
sean is a phony, a fraud, a fake, a liar and an imposter, and now he's also trying to be a thief. he will fail and will be punished for it.
what sean does do is play video games, a lot, and any gaming profiles with the name deathtokoalas or jessica murray may in truth be sean. they're certainly not me, ever, at all. i don't play video games and do not have profiles at gaming sites anywhere.
i do not have an in use twitter account, as i dislike the medium and interface of social media. i'd prefer to post at a blog, but i'm converting this into an offline archive and will only be publishing digests in pdf form. my only twitter account is the one on the side, with the red hair, which is intended as satire. i believe sean uses twitter, so if you're looking for an active twitter account with my identity information, it is unfortunately probably him.
i have tried to set up instagram and tiktok accounts and would like to, as i could actually use these mediums, but cannot because i don't use a mobile phone and they won't let me verify the account with my voip number. *shrug*. sean probably has accounts of these sort, and if you are looking for accounts using names attached to my identity, they are probably him. unfortunately.
the twitter, tiktok and.or instagram accounts in question would have no association with the other accounts linked to from this megasite.
i have a large number of email addresses, some with variations of the name jessica murray (or my old facebook name, jessica amber murray), and some with other names. email addresses from google or microsoft or yahoo are free and anybody can use any name they want to set up an email address. i can't tell you if sean has been using an email address with a name connected to my identity or not, but he might be. i've recently had to connect all my email addresses to my phone number to prevent attempts at identity theft and can prove which addresses are mine. somebody has been trying to steal access to my accounts, and it is a good guess that it is sean.
if you are confused about something, please contact me at death.to.koalas@gmail.com and explain it to me. i would like to better understand the situation and generate evidence to use against sean, legally.
i would call on sean to move on and stop pretending to be me before it is too late and he ends up in jail for being a fucking retard. i don't want to deal with this. at all. i want him to fuck off and go away.
the elections in iran are not free or fair, but the death of the previous hardliner president and his replacement by a less insane person are suggestive that the regime realizes that it's recent fascist crackdown on it's own people is not sustainable, and it is going to need to cave a little bit if it wants to maintain power.
it might not result in substantive policy changes in the short run, but that is a major change in the regime's direction, especially given the age of the dictator in charge, whose days are numbered.
is this the result of western pressure? i doubt it.
rather, i would suspect that the russians, who are iran's primary partner in the world, convinced the iranian leadership that it can't dominate and control forever, and it needs to find a way to allow for liberalization, in order to prevent collapse.
it's a better outcome than the alternative, but i would avoid getting excited.
does the french debt matter?
kind of.
it's the eu. this is one of the components of sovereignty that eu member states gave up when the eu was created, the ability to control their own sovereign debt. it was a massive victory for the european banking class. now, you can't bail out france the way they should have just bailed out greece.
one of le pen's policies has long been to stop buying private debt and start financing public spending with public debt, instead. in most of the world, this is a hard left socialist policy, but the socialists in france won't touch it, and french media calls it right-wing. i watched the coverage on france's government youtube channel, and it was relatively clear that this policy, while never stated (never. ever.), was at the crux of the bankers' somewhat hysterical response to le pen.
nobody mentioned that le pen actually doesn't support a "frexit", either.
french tv made it very clear that the most important issue in the next parliament is going to be the debt, which i suspect wasn't even discussed by anybody in any party as an election issue. surprise!
but, that's what you get when you vote for the bankers, kids.
don't be like france, kids. don't make that mistake. don't repeat it over and over again.
Sunday, July 7, 2024
the bankers in france have somehow managed to get self-identified leftists to ignore their material conditions and vote for the status quo, by creating a boogeyman of racism that isn't substantively different than the status quo. the bankers are not afraid of marine le pen for her social policies, they are afraid of her for her economic policies.
the narrative is that the parliament is unworkable, but i don't see why the socialists in france wouldn't support austerity now, as they have for decades. french voters apparently have short memories and got distracted. it was the neo-liberal policies of the previous socialist government that created this situation in the first place.
macron will likely still retain control over parliament, and there is very little that melanchon can actually do about it. the only workable coalition is the one that macron wants, which is a grand coalition that includes his centrist parties, the republicans and the socialists, which are the old bankers parties, the status quo.
you can argue that this isn't the parliament's mandate, but it actually is. there's nothing illegitimate about what happened, but it negates any messaging from the voters. what mandate did the voters hand to parliament? when leftists voted for the centrist bloc, they voted to maintain the status quo; when the centrists voted for the leftist bloc, they also voted to maintain the status quo. ergo, the message french voters sent was clearly that they did not want social or economic change and that is therefore the parliament's clear mandate.
that might not be the message they intended to send, but it is the message they actually sent. clearly. unambiguously.
i think that macron should resign and that there should be new parliamentary elections, but i don't expect that to happen. rather, i expect a grand coalition to develop out of the old bankers parties - the socialists and the republicans - and for it to implement vicious austerity. the french people got a little uppity here and will need to be punished for it with vicious cuts to social spending. this will in turn merely generate further support for what is being called the far right, but is being strenuously opposed by the status quo because it is actually a real left.
french voters need to learn the lesson, which is to never trust a banker. unfortunately, they're going to have to learn the hard way. worse, they appear to be slow learners.
the other possible outcome is that the parliament is unworkable and a new election is coming soon, but i don't think that the socialists, who won seats, will allow for that outcome. the socialists will work with macron, and that will be enough to hold the government.
i also want to point out that, while exit polls are very reliable, they are essentially a survey of the population, with a margin of error. this particular election will have a lot of very close results. there is a caveat that the projections may be substantively wrong, and if that happens it will not be because the exit polling was wrong but because the error wasn't properly accounted for. if ~40% of the seats are within 3%, as i believe is the case, the exit polling is of limited predictive value. note that this caveat works in both directions.
there was a concerning ruling in the united states about presidential immunity. the american bourgeois fake left is arguing it proves that the supreme court is a threat to democracy. rather, i think it's a demonstration of why you shouldn't politicize trivial issues and blow them out of proportion to score political points, and a reason for the democrats to take a good hard look at themselves for blowing the capitol hill fiasco out of proportion, and trying to politicize a non-issue and turn it into a specious, polarizing ballot question.
a couple of justices are arguing that the president of the united states is now above the law, and they might be correct, purely logically. if justices were doing math when they worked out their rulings, they'd have no choice but to deduce the clear outcome that the president is now indeed above the law. at some level, we expect our justices to behave in this way, as well. however, anybody who has looked at the issue in any depth at all knows that our court system is not this euclidean, archimedean system of kantian purity, but that, rather, it is the case that justices constantly contradict themselves, frequently in their own rulings. the legal philosophy in opposition to the idea that justices are perfect arbiters of truth and logic is called legal realism and is the same school of thought that produced critical legal studies, from which we got critical race theory. i would argue that, while any pure philosophy requires a dialectic to approximate reality, and that you will be led astray by uncritically following any philosophy, legal realism and critical legal studies are the approach to analysis that best approximates reality.
does the president have the right to assassinate an opponent, then? well, let's see what happens if one tries. i wouldn't expect the court to uphold that idea.
that doesn't mean i like the ruling, although i broadly agree with it.
for the issue at hand, what is trump charged with, exactly? i can't figure out what law he was supposed to have broken, or why this was sent to the supreme court at all. i have said almost nothing about this, because i'm not remotely interested in it, because i don't see a legitimate news story underlying it, but rather see a democratic party desperate to tar it's opponents any way it can and that's willing to sensationalize a story using warped narratives, flawed logic and poor media analysis in order to confuse voters. the only story here is that the democrats tried to blow the situation out of proportion to confuse voters for their own self-interest, and that it spectacularly backfired.
the supreme court should have simply argued that trump didn't actually break any laws, but it instead took advantage of the attempt to generate a politicized ruling by counter-politicizing the situation instead, after the democrats gave it to them as a gift. i can criticize them for that, as it is not archimedean and i wish they were. i don't blame them for it, and it's not a surprising outcome.
(i'm reminded of the part of the debate where biden attempted to criticize trump for firing his general, which was christmas in july for donald trump, who got to remind everybody how much he loves firing people)
the democrats need to actually understand that they no longer control the courts, and they need to take the case as a wake-up call. the democrats have previously been able to rely on the courts to take their side in politicized rulings, of which roe v. wade was actually an example of. that expectation is no longer realistic. if you drop a bullshit case on the lap of this court, it's going to make you pay for it.
biden can always try to test the theory by ordering trump assassinated and see what happens. it's not like he's going to live long enough to go to trial.
Saturday, July 6, 2024
justin trudeau wouldn't know a cunning plan if it stood up in the house of commons with a cunning plan tshirt and demanded it be taken note of as a cunning plan, and then sang the cunning plan song, as it was being ejected from the house by the speaker.
i don't know how a person plans their way out of being disliked.
it's politics. people have shelf lives and expire. trudeau is curdling up and needs to be thrown away.
but, them damned liberals and their infinite growth, right?
there was some concern that these women wouldn't be prosecuted, or would even be seen as victims. *barf*.
i'm not going to pontificate about this from a basement in canada, as i don't know what this woman experienced, what she did, what material support she provided to a terrorist group, etc. but, there has to be legal consequences for knowingly participating in a terrorist group like isis.
i didn't answer the question.
do i think biden should drop out?
not exactly.
however, i think that prominent democrats should to try to force him out, and see if they can. the only conceivable alternative is kamala harris, who is unlikely to win an election against anybody. yet, the reality is that she's almost certainly either going to take over when biden dies, or have to use section 4 of the 25th amendment when biden embarrasses himself one moment too far. the latter is a real possibility.
a democratic purist may suggest that, as harris is certain to take over, it is harris that should run at the top of the ticket. ok. there's an argument for that. the flip side is that biden has, to this point, been the stronger candidate. that might be changing.
if the democrats think that harris should be at the top of the ticket, they should mutiny and force biden out. however, i don't see any reason to suggest he should step down.
i thought i had an intestinal parasite a few years ago. i couldn't prove it, and i still can't, but i'm not convinced it is gone, or that it was never there.
that's the problem: i can't prove it. these things breed rapidly, and have been evolving for billions of years longer than we have. we're ultimately descended from them, very distantly. they're very sneaky.
what i learned doing research is that there's been murmurs in the western medical community for decades that the prevalence of parasites in western populations is dramatically higher than western governments want to acknowledge. american science conquered parasites sometime in the middle of the cold war with progressive sanitation practices. therefore, you only get parasites in backwards third world countries like mexico, china, cuba and russia.
so, you might have a parasite eating your brain, too, but the difference between you and a descendant of joseph kennedy is that you don't have access to the doctors or the medical equipment that he has, so he found his parasite and removed it, and you will never find yours, you'll just get dementia and die young, instead.
i am not fan of any of the kennedys. i don't know who killed jfk, but they did the world a favour, because jfk wasn't somebody that should have had his finger on the button. jfk was a deranged lunatic with a death wish that almost started world war three like five times. rfk seemed far more put together, but he was no less arrogant, and just as dangerous. it's less that rfk junior is the mental midget in the clan and more that the society has evolved since the 60s. if jfk walked through a time portal and ran for office tomorrow, you wouldn't like him any more than you like his half-retarded nephew, and you should realize that.
i have not posted about rfk jr and i'm not going to.
let us never speak of him again.
Friday, July 5, 2024
a small group of pro-hamas idiots blocked the pride parade in toronto, because they don't hate gay people. not at all. i would have went around them, but the parade organizers apparently didn't want to give them a headline.
i read a part of their vomited out manifesto, which declared solidarity with "palestinian homophobes", who don't "deserve this". that's a complicated moral question, as some of them do deserve this, which is the actual factual reason they're getting it, while others perhaps don't. blanket statements, in context, are not appropriate.
there appear to have been at least a couple of gay people in the group, unfortunately. in response to their solidarity, these "palestinian homophobes" would instantly kill and probably decapitate our naive canadian gay anti-semites. i believe the contemporary penalty for being gay in palestine is being thrown off of a building to your death. in iran, who is funding this, they execute you with construction equipment, and rip your head off your body. in public. like, with a crane. it's a huge mess.
the term "useful idiot" is most appropriate.
Wednesday, July 3, 2024
the trudeau government is in trouble and set to badly lose the next election. i've been waiting to see if they're going to alter some policies or pick a hill to die on, and it's become clear that the pmo would rather get crucified than win the election. this is expectedly foolish behaviour from an overwhelmingly juvenile collection of staffers put together by an overgrown child.
the opposition is focusing on the carbon tax, but this is red meat for it's base and not what is driving poll numbers. canada is dealing with an overpopulation problem, but it was the harper government that increased immigration to unsustainable levels in order to try to change the population dynamics in the country (in canada, brown people tend to be religious conservatives and vote for the tories, something that is also true in britain, which is a better way to understand canadian politics, and something the pmo refuses to understand, because it's mostly composed of people that went to school in the united states and get their politics from cenk uygur), and all that trudeau has done is hold to the policy set by harper. i've been pointing out for years that trudeau is just harper lite and historians will look back at the harper-trudeau years. trudeau is to harper as clinton was to reagan; trudeau was elected to overturn much of what harper did, but has instead been a caretaker government that has simply enforced the reforms made by harper, without adding much of anything at all of it's own (save a few poorly thought out ideas enforced on them by their coalition partners, the ndp). even the carbon tax, as it exists, is a dusted off harper policy. the consequences of overpopulation in canada include a housing crisis and inflation, which has been worsened by energy prices, which has been caused by global instability. the number of people that actually believe the false narrative that inflation was caused by printing money, or that it was decreased by monetary policy, is very low, and the number of people voting for decreased spending will be even lower. almost nobody in canada wants decreased government spending or reduced government services.
rather, i would suspect that the actual driver of trudeau's low poll numbers, which are concentrated mostly in young people, is the selection of internet reform bills. young people can no longer access half of the internet via facebook, and while the pmo has blamed facebook, it's pretty clear that young people are blaming the pmo. nor do young people want their speech restricted by an over-reach of government.
these bills are unpopular and are probably what is actually driving trudeau's numbers down. it's not an exaggeration to state that, for many young people, trudeau ruined the internet.
this is a problem for two reasons.
the first is that the bills are supported by trudeau's political base, which is actually retired people that are voting for his father, and are afraid of the internet, because it's something new and scary and unknown. these bills are reactionary in the worst sense, but they are a reflection of the pmo's actual voting coalition, which is reactionary to it's core. the old folks love the guy, it's the kids that hate him. second, it is abundantly clear that trudeau believes in the idea of these bills and that trudeau, who has the psychology of a true believer, who is a dirty utopian idealist, will happily climb up on the cross to die for his beliefs, and is going to take the party and the country down with him.
the bills are illiberal. this is not a reaction against liberalism, but a reaction against illiberalism.
the party should mutiny against the leader and pull back on these illiberal policies, in order to try to rebuild it's base. a few years ago, it was the conservatives that were dead in the water when their aging base died. somehow, the liberals have managed to seize generational defeat from the hands of clear victory by becoming nanny state conservatives. when the seniors die, the liberals will have nobody left to vote for them, and evaporate into history. if they don't pull back from the brink, we're going to have some serious problems in this country, which is extremely liberal, and yet which has no liberal political representation to vote for. that is an algorithm for the rise of a populist movement, which trudeau has created by pushing forward illiberal policies, and which he claims to be trying to fight against.
i'm further left than most people, and i would be disenfranchised anyways, but what they're doing is multiplying me two or three planks to the centre, and creating a generation of disenfranchised voters that are also economically poor voters that are susceptible to demagoguery as a result of their disenfranchisement and their lack of economic status. these are not conservative voters and will not be interested in voting for the natural opposition in this country, these are disenfranchised liberals that can no longer support the governing party, because it no longer reflects the ideals and values of the country's majority and are going to end up supporting some kind of alt-right because they are liberals and it is at least libertarian, and not because it is economically or socially right-wing.
trudeau is clintonizing canada, and turning toronto into detroit. they need to get him out of there before it's too late.
the best thing trudeau can do to stop a populist movement in canada is resign, because he's the reason one is developing, and not an antidote or solution to it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)