terrorism (noun):

• The use of violence or the threat of violence, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political goals.
• Resort to terrorizing methods as a means of coercion, or the state of fear and submission produced by the prevalence of such methods
• The act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; a mode of government by terror or intimidation.

Wait…terrorism? Is that accurate?

Yes and Yes!

See previous posts for past examples of media terrorism. Here’s a more current example of how they continue to push their agenda:

People who are unvaccinated against COVID-19 not only place themselves at greater risk of getting infected by the virus, but also increase the infection risk of those around them who have rolled up their sleeves for a jab, according to new Canadian modelling research.

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2022/04/25/remaining-unvaccinated-increases-risk-to-the-vaccinated-says-u-of-t-covid-study.html

This is, of course, based on the same type of modelling that has guided government’s decisions to “protect” the population from the ravages of Covid-19. Note that with the exception of starting values, not a single real-world statistic appears in these models.

It’s not that modelling is necessarily a bad thing. After all, how do you predict something except to build models? If these models are pretty accurate we can call them approximations. If they’re not that accurate then we can call them guesses. And if they contradict actual real-world data? We could call them mistakes (if there’s a later retraction), mental illness (it’s possible!), or if they’re being constantly pushed to advance a very public and blatant political agenda using fear and intimidation despite a plethora of evidence to the contrary, terroristic lies.

Once again, we need only look at the actual numbers to expose the fear-and-lie-based agenda being pushed forward by the Trudeau government and its woke allies like the Toronto Star.

Note that these are rates, not raw numbers (which must undoubtedly be much higher). Also note that these statistic continue to co-mingle people without any Covid vaccination and those who are partially vaccinated up to and including two shots (a goal post that’s been moved at least once since the beginning of this year alone).

At this point the medical community should be researching why a full Covid vaccine regimen seems to make you about twice as likely to be infected than other groups. Maybe they are doing this research, and maybe this is just some strange phenomenon happening in Ontario, but good luck finding any such doubts in any mainstream publication. Instead, birdcage liners like the Toronto Star continue to push the “get vaccinated to protect yourself and others” lie while pushing “models” and other ridiculous fictions in the face of a completely contradictory reality.

How likely are you to die from Covid? How about when compared to the seasonal flu?

While on the topic of reality, and since no one seems to be talking about it except to compare how much more likely one vaccine group might get sick over another, I thought I’d do a little number crunching to see what your chances are of landing in the hospital, the ICU, or even dying from Covid-19 if you’re unvaccinated.

First let’s look at deaths.

Most of the work has been done here already, we just have to divide by 1000 to get a rate per 100 (a.k.a. per cent).

Not fully vaccinated: 0.07 / 1000 = 0.00007%

Fully vaccinated: 0.02 / 1000 = 0.00002%

Vaccinated with booster: 0.06 / 1000 = 0.00006%

For comparison, your estimated chances of dying from the seasonal flu are:

100,000 global deaths / 7,800,000,000 global population = 0.000012821 x 100 = 0.0012%

In other words, if you’re unvaccinated (which doesn’t necessarily mean you haven’t received any shots), you’re about 17 times more likely to die from the common flu than you are with Covid-19.

Note the use of the word “with” as opposed to the directly causative “from”, which further helps to erode the lies we’re being fed on a daily basis.

Moreover, these values are based on the most conservative estimates with results floored (rounded down), but you can plug higher estimates in there to see that it doesn’t make a huge different.

Now let’s look at serious hospitalizations.

In this case I’m only using one data point so this value will almost certainly vary but, again, not a whole lot. We also need to extrapolate a little here since the Ontario website no longer tracks the number of unvaccinated individuals (a metric which appears inexplicably to differ from other metrics on the same page).

28 cases / (14,700,000 Ontario population – 12,000,000 fully vaccinated) = 28 / 2,700,000 = 0.00001037 x 100 = 0.001%

In other words, your chances of landing in the ICU with (not necessarily due to) Covid-19 are one-one-thousandth of a percent. You’re still slightly more likely to die directly from the seasonal flu (0.0012%) than ending up in the ICU with Covid (0.001%).

Finally, let’s have a look at how likely you are to end up in the hospital with Covid-19.

Using a slight variation of the previous calculation:

232 cases / (14,700,000 Ontario population – 12,000,000 fully vaccinated) = 232 / 2,700,000 = 0.000085926 x 100 = 0.0085%

Unfortunately I wasn’t able to find Ontario-specific data but recent influenza hospitalizations reported by the United States’ CDC show a rate of 0.0098%, suggesting quite strongly that the seasonal flu is at this point more likely to land you in a hospital than Covid.

Between the brazen hypocrisy of defaming truckers while gushing support for Ukrainian Nazis, between Trudeau’s blathering about freedom while fawning over Chinese totalitarianism, between all of the bluster about transparency while simultaneously refusing to answer even the most basic questions about why Canadians’ Charter rights were dismissed with the mere wave of a hand, not to mention the overt and ongoing lawlessness, the rotten criminality and tyranny of a federal government that refuses to even think about lifting its Covid mandates is on full display.

If ever there was a real threat to democracy and to Canadians’ freedoms, the most glaring example by far is the reprehensible terrorist Justin Trudeau and his complicit federal government.

Here’s yesterday’s two to three minutes of hate, from the Toronto Star’s very own Bob Hepburn:

We are long past the time of being nice and being empathetic toward anti-vaxxers and trying to win them over with carrots — as opposed to the sticks that are much-needed vaccine passports and stiff restrictions.

It’s time that they — not the vast majority of us who are vaccinated — paid the price.

Ooh, not without a jimmy hat, Bobbie.

Note that stiff restrictions and vaccine passports aren’t needed for “public health”, they’re needed to punish the disobedient and anyone who dares to question the benevolent wisdom of the state or the motives of their beholden media.

Basically, Bobbie’s demanding that otherwise perfectly healthy people be discriminated against because they don’t trust the motives behind things like stiff restrictions and vaccine passports. Good thing Bobbie clarified what those motives are.

So what exactly is up Hepburn’s ass here anyway?

I’m fed up with the anti-vaxxers, who seem unbothered by the threat they pose to my health, feeling targeted because they may lose their job, won’t be able to fly on a plane, eat at an indoor restaurant or attend a hockey game or music concert.

You see, poor Bobbie’s health is being threatened (me me me!) because, of course, his vaccination will in no way protect him from the diseased anti-vaxxers, so anyone who questions his obviously brilliant logic and the motives behind all of this insanity should be made to suffer.

Maybe Bob Hepburn is worried that there won’t be enough capacity at the local hospital for when he might need it. Obviously this would be the fault of those selfish fucking anti-vaxxers and not the government, as some delusional idiot named Bob Hepburn suggests.

I’m fed up with the Trumpist-like mobs in Canada hurling pebbles and insults at Justin Trudeau, picketing hospitals, screaming at diners on restaurant patios and demonstrating outside politicians’ homes.

I don’t remember the Star denouncing violence at Black Lives Matters protests, or screaming at diners, or harassing politicians at home. I don’t recall the Star questioning coordinated, violent threats, intimidation, and attacks by BLM against US federal property and personnel carried out over a period of months, in some cases literally wresting control from local governments and law enforcement – no way you can call any of that an attempted insurrection. Damn Trump!

Oh, but I forgot that this sort of comparison must never be made because I have the wrong colour of skin and besides we’ve all already been told what to believe and now just need shut up, kneel, and obey.

I think my favourite boneheaded statement in this piece of drivel has got to be:

Finally, I’m fed up with politicians who are basically protecting these irresponsible people who are making life miserable for all of us.

Bob says it’s actually anti-vaxxers and protesters that are making life miserable. After all, it’s not government and politicians who force lockdowns and restrictions on people, who cut hospital funding, etc. We should put the blame on the people pushing back against the restrictions and not the people enacting them because clearly up is now down, north is south, and we have always been at war with Eastasia.

These “irresponsible people” have no reason to doubt the shady, rushed deals between an admittedly murderous, callous, and oppressive government and their cadre of hugely profitable, deceptive, and dangerous pharma bros. Resistance and questions are illogical, unlike Hepburn’s unquestioning obedience, and these deplorable irresponsibles need to be crushed under the boot of the state. Maybe that’ll learn ’em to doubt politicians and bureaucrats!

And why shouldn’t we trust the perfect creatures of the state with all their omnipotence and omniscience? They “flattened the curve” in May 2020, then again in April, then again in October, then again in November, and again in January of this year. Yep, they know what they’re doing and they have everything under control. Science FTW!

Maybe I’m being too harsh; we’re always learning something new about Covid so what may have been correct back then won’t be correct now. Things that might’ve been effective yesterday may no longer be effective today. Those inconvenient Covid symptoms of last month may no longer be symptoms this month.

There’s just so much we don’t know.

Unless it’s about Covid vaccines, of course, in which case we know all there is to know, with absolute and unfaltering certainty, case closed, discussion ended, “science” has spoken, and now let’s put that shit into everyone as quick as we can and demonize anyone who questions it in any way.

And on that note you can get back to your regularly scheduled book burning.

Recently the Toronto Star had to write an “explanation” of why an article they’d written a couple of days prior came across as overtly inciting hatred against the unvaccinated.

Because, obviously, that’s not what they do.

Obviously.

The follow-up does use the word “sorry”, not because they actually did it but because the formatting of the headlines “sowed confusion”. Not only is this a flaccid half-apology but it’s also bullshit. In fact, they pull this sort of crap regularly, without reservation, and with no apologies.

For example, they give voice to hateful, racist, divisive rhetoric like that of Shree Paradkar who openly lambasts “(mostly) white covidiots” (then swiftly changes her tune when new evidence emerges), and reminds readers that it’s white people that are basically the original source of all evil everywhere.

Then there’s Royson James who not-so-subtly threatens white people with violence, looting, and destruction unless they take a knee to his own unbelievably twisted, racist, ignorant viewpoint.

And lest we forget Vinay Menon who supports screaming obsenity-laced rants against “covidiots” by people like Tom Cruise. “Good for YOU!”, concludes a giddy Mennon in his article.

No, the Toronto Star’s latest attempt to incite hatred, violence, and sow division wasn’t an accident, mistake, or a one-off. This is par for the course at the ignominious rag and has been for some time. They were simply seeing how far they could take it and this time around there were just too many complaints to ignore. You can be certain that they wouldn’t have issued an “explanation” if so many people weren’t “confused”.

Of course they’re not the only ones to do this but they’re among the most consistent and vocal. This toilet paper masquerading as news openly engages in hate speech and incitement to violence (which I thought was a crime here in Canada), and gets away with it every time.

Apparently it’s perfectly fine for some publications to promote hate and violence while those not toeing the line of state propaganda get shut down and criminally charged for “consistently dehumanizing” identifiable groups of people. Clearly white people and the unvaccinated don’t count.

You don’t have to agree with their statements to see that there’s a massive double standard here.

The word “racialized” has been popping up lately like early summer blooms in response to the ongoing protests by Black Lives Matter and similar groups. This is, of course, as it should be because racism and slavery and etc.

But not many people outside of those who sling language around for a living are aware of what the term “racialized” actually means.

So here’s the definition:

In sociology, racialization or ethnicization is the process of ascribing ethnic or racial identities to a relationship, social practice, or group that did not identify itself as such.

This is the definition that Wikipedia has but, as everyone knows, it’s not an entirely trustworthy source. Perhaps Merriam-Webster’s definition would be more accurate since they’ve demonstrated a sensitivity to the black person’s plight when they updated their definition of “racism” because one person complained:

the act or process of imbuing a person with a consciousness of race distinctions or of giving a racial character to something or making it serve racist ends

After pandering in the same way to white people for years now (I can’t be bothered to include links because there are just so many examples), it is of course right and correct that language be altered at the drop of a hat to match the demands of a single complainant because racism and slavery and etc.

But I digress.

Essentially, using the most woke and accurate definition, “racialized” groups such as black people never had an identity, may not even have realized that they were black, until the evil white man pointed the finger at them and told them they were different.

This could be interpreted as stating that the nasty Caucasian was directly responsible for creating what could be called “Black culture” today but, of course, such an interpretation would be wrong because racism and slavery and etc.

Mind you, people misuse language all the time and this is understandable since most of them are hardly professionals in the field. Even someone who regularly writes, albeit non-professionally, I too misuse words like “privilege”, believing it to mean something other than “white”. It’s been my privilege to help you? I don’t think so, racist!

So let’s see how the term “racialized” is used in its proper context by someone like Shree Paradkar, the Toronto Star’s Race & Gender Columnist:

They [politicians] also dismiss and contemporary manifestations of it [historical racism] — prioritizing colonial profit over Indigenous rights in their territories, immigration laws that sort and sift non-white humans for worthiness to enter Canada, placing impoverished and racialized people in the path of a pandemic. We don’t need a conspiracy; the system does it for us.

This is actually a wonderful example of how racialized people didn’t know that they were any different from white people, who also can’t be poor and face no barriers, until those same racist (i.e. white) assholes made them realize their own differences by systemically discriminating against them.

Moreover:

Colour blindness is privilege and erasure. It means you’re not discriminated against based on the colour of your skin.

There may at this point be some confusion in the reader’s mind about who is doing the “racializing” here — if whitey is “colour blind” you might be tempted to think that it’s parts of the community that’s doing it to themselves but you’d be wrong because racism and slavery and etc.

And really, having never experienced discrimination, how could white people be expected to understand the struggles of black people? That doesn’t mean that white people don’t complain about being the targets of racism but often can’t point to specific personal examples so, let’s be honest and call it for what it is: a bunch of bullshit.

In a recent article, the Toronto Star’s Royson James spells it out in no uncertain terms:

My chiropractor used up 20 per cent of our visit talking about racism. And I think, by the end, he understood that my reality as a Black person — Jamaica-born, Toronto-lived, American-schooled, Africa-disconnected — is so blessed and cursed by Western “privilege” as to render me asymptomatic.

I must work hard all the time to fully grasp the reality of the average Black person. Imagine, then, if you don’t even share the designated melanin content required to have built up a reservoir of common personal experiences.

Here Royson bravely admits that he lives the life of Western “privilege” (which is in quotations because, for obvious reasons, it can’t fully apply to him), and must “work hard” to understand what it’s like to be a black / racialized person living in our racist society.

He goes on to clarify this position by stating:

There are many kinds of Black people, including some who are not “Black” at all. They didn’t get the memo. Born into unusual privilege or endowed with special powers to see past obstacles has rendered them seemingly immune to the racism virus. They swim along, upstream, yes, but unfettered.

In other words, while many black people are never faced with, or are able to ignore the seemingly insurmountable obstacles placed in front of them, they do so without anything holding them back (unfettered / immune to racism), while simultaneously being held back (swimming upstream / obstacles). They didn’t get the memo that they too should be complaining about the oppression of people like them, except of course not like them because they’re not “‘Black’ at all”.

If this seems a little contradictory, Royson goes on to explain:

Even the ones [blacks] who don’t [know that white supremacy requires a denial of black humanity to thrive], understand it and compensate for it on subconscious levels. They compensate by overachieving, underachieving, denying the effects, not giving a damn, or becoming consumed with rage.

To paraphrase, even so-called “privileged” black people understand the mechanisms propping up white supremacy, even if they don’t know that they understand, and compensate for this unknowing comprehension by doing too much, or too little, or just enough, or caring too much, or not caring at all, or every shade of possibility in between. Basically anything and everything, which makes sense considering that black people are all unique individuals, unlike mushy, homogeneous white people who can all safely be lumped into the same category.

The important thing is that black people should always be perceiving themselves through the lens of white racism if they want to perceive the truth.

If this seems like an odd statement that’s probably because you’re incapable of getting it due to your lack of “designated melanin” or, if you do have the legally required amount of tanned skin, because you’re too privileged.

Royson laments the terrible situation that this puts black parents and their kids in:

Black parents must decide early which road to travel. Do you teach your kids that the world is a horrible place for most Black people? Or totally ignore it and just let the kids grow up in blissful ignorance? Be “Canadian” — don’t use an African-sounding name, integrate, no visits to the homeland?

Each decision carries with it a price. Many families bear scars from children still angry with immigrant parents for downplaying their African ancestry — even as parents scream, “I just want you to do better than me. And stay alive.”

The exclusive choice of terrifying your children by filling their heads with fear of whitey, or allowing them to live in “blissful ignorance” of their heritage, is a gut-wrenching one. On the one hand you risk creating a prejudicial stigma justified anxiety in your kids, on the other you risk their wrath because they would’ve liked to know more about where they come from. Such a stark choice … what’s a racialized parent to do?

And you have to frighten your kids if they’re black. Despite the fact that in the US about twice as many white people are consistently killed by cops as black people, children must be taught that because they’re black the exact opposite is true.

The narrative created by the preceding statistical “facts” must be discarded because only the rates of killing are relevant. In other words, if you’re black your chances of being killed, proportional to the size of your racial group, are higher than other groups. The actual number of people killed, however, is more or less irrelevant.

That is, unless you’re a white supremacist whose counter-argument requires a good bit of hateful, reality-bending, racist math. The shockingly bigoted theory goes like this:

Imagine you have two towns. In town A there are only four residents, two black people and two white people. One of those white people is, of course, a racist murderer. In town B there are a hundred people, fifty of whom are black and fifty white. Again, one of the white group is a racist murderer. Naturally.

Now the racist murderers get to work. In town A the killer murders 1 black man. In town B, the murderer there kills 10 black men. Ten people dead is clearly worse than one person dead; seems cut and dry, says the hateful racist math guy — but not so fast!

If we consider the rates of killings, says ignorant whitey, the situation is flipped on its head. In town A where only 2 people were black, the murder rate is 50% (1 out of the 2 was killed), whereas in the town where 50 people were black the murder rate is 20% (10 out of 50 were killed).

Using this mathematical approach, says the fascist cracker, it appears that the 1 death in town A is much worse than the 10 deaths in town B since 50% is noticeably larger than 20%

In reality, argues the Klansman, the actual cost in individual humans lives is far greater in town B where the murder rate is only 20% but the use of murder rates masks, and in this example actually inverts, the reality of the tragedy. And just like this example, claims the hate-monger, the reality of individual human lives lost is the exact opposite of the current mainstream narrative.

By this insane logic, if the number of killings stayed the same but the population doubled, the murder rate would effectively be cut in half.

Except this can’t possibly be true because how could black people be so angry if this was the case? Argue your way out of that one, Hitler!

Anyway, Royson goes on to close his cutting exposition by relating a personal story of systemic racism:

“I remember being in the back seat of the car on what seemed like a regular day, then sirens rang out. In an instant, complete with change in demeanour, in a firm tone my dad said to me:

“Hey … look … LOOK AT ME. OK? … Pay attention. This is how you need to act when you get pulled over by the police. Turn off the radio. BOTH hands on the steering wheel at all times. Answer his questions, clearly and directly. With confidence, but not too much confidence as to not show him up. And whatever you do, no sudden movements.”

Can you imagine being pulled over by the police and having your father fly into a hysterical fit because he can immediately sense a murderous and racist interaction? I know I can’t, but that’s most likely because my white privilege means that I didn’t have fear of people of a certain skin colour constantly pounded into my psyche.

Or no, wait, actually it’s because fear of people of a certain skin colour has been pounded into my psyche than I’m terrified of black men. Yeah. So the same could never be said to apply to any non-white people because, of course, racism and slavery and etc.

Royson doesn’t relate the race of the police in question or how the encounter ended but judging by the tone of the article either he or his dad were brutalized and possibly murdered by the obviously racist white cop.

This narrative is advanced by a subsequent article that Royson wrote about a black personal support worker (PSW) who was given the runaround when he came down with Covid-19 and eventually died.

It’s important to understand here that receiving conflicting medical advice, having to cope with a lack of personal protective equipment, and not receiving adequate medical attention are predominantly black problems. In the words of the anguished family members, “now we see how they treat black people.”

The horrific story of Leonard Rodriques was highlighted by every major newspaper, mentioned in a speech by Premiere Doug Ford, and broadcast by G98.7 FM in Toronto, thus demonstrating the abhorrent treatment of a black man who “died in anonymity”, “lonely” and surrounded by family, known only as “personal support worker victim number 5”. Not like the other four PSWs, whoever they were.

Although there’s (still!) a lack of direct statistical evidence, it’s clear that statistically black people are disproportionately affected by Covid-19. This, my ignorant friend, is why white people congregating in a park is irresponsible while black people congregating for a protest isn’t. The number of lives lost to Covid is nothing compared to those taken by police violence. And comparing the two is bullshit anyway because statistics that don’t support the anti-black racism narrative are irrelevant when even a single black person feels fear or unease. Fact!

Royson draws the obvious conclusion that Leonard represents the targeted assassination of a black man which, by extension, hints at the veiled murderous intentions of the system against all black people everywhere:

He had a visceral fear that white people meant him no good, that if he went to the hospital he would not get proper care. He had seen enough movies and videos and news reports of the treatment of Black people in the U.S. during COVID and before.

…

“He was paranoid, yes,” admits Dorothy. But this is also his reality, in 2020 Toronto.

In America, a Black man can be targeted for wearing a mask, murdered while jogging or for driving a car. Or shot to death, daring to resist a citizen arrest.

The layers accumulate there and here. So, maybe Len was paranoid. But the most paranoid of posters does read: “Just because you are paranoid doesn’t mean they are not out to get you.”

Royson generously includes an aside about the dangers faced by PSWs in general but thankfully manages to steer the ship back to the deluge of anti-black racism.

My own privileged white bias is revealed here when I think of the numerous PSWs that have attended to Sarah over the years. They looked and self-identified primarily as Filipino or East Asian but clearly that wasn’t the case because racism and slavery and etc.

Thankfully, the incessant beating of the anti-black racism drum is not limited to just Royson James. Not by a long shot.

A story by Leanne Delap recounts the harrowing experiences of a black woman, Doctor Liza Egbogah, who endured unbearable racism while shopping for everyday things, shit we white people take for granted:

I was maybe 20 or 22 the first time I got a Chanel bag. I was obsessed with Chanel. We were in Florida and my dad said, ‘You’ve been talking about this Chanel for so long, let’s go buy you a bag.’ Now, I don’t think he understood what a Chanel bag was, but he was like, ‘OK, well, we’ll get it for you.’ When I would carry that bag, people would outright just ask me, ‘Is that fake?” There was just no way in their mind that a Black girl could have a real one. I had Chanel costume earrings, too, and people would assume those were fake as well.

My fellow white devils, can you imagine the sheer audacity of someone asking you if some luxury good you’ve recently purchased is real?! And even if that did happen (yeah, as if), how good would it feel if you could psychically access your accuser’s mind to preemptively judge the derisive thoughts they were thinking about you? Huh? Yeah, let that one percolate for a bit, racist.

If only this tale of awful anti-black hate ended there:

Fast-forward 10 years to 2010 and that’s when I said to myself, ‘Oh you know what, I’ve worked very hard, I’m going to treat myself to a (fancy designer) bag. I had been in practice for a few years by then and I was all excited. I thought that trip to Bloor Street would be a reflection of all my hard work. I expected champagne to be poured!

Spending $3,000 of your own hard-earned money on a bag is a huge deal. What did I get? No smile, a look like possibly I’m lost. No one wanted to help me. I wanted to walk out — this was supposed to be a celebratory experience, a treat to myself, and I felt like a suspect.

This egregious example is really a whole new level of evil. For starters, Liza’s expectations of champagne were unfulfilled. Didn’t they know that she was expecting it? Didn’t they know she was celebrating? Couldn’t they read her mind like she could read theirs? Outrageous!

I suppose it might be suggested that Liza’s expectations were set by the experiences of friends or family, maybe online reviews, but that doesn’t negate the fact that she had a horrible customer experience. And she’s black. Therefore racism and slavery and etc.

After all, it’s not like any white person has ever experienced dismissive, ignorant, or rude sales staff. No, never happens. Ever.

Donning her brave girl pants, Liza did what any person of colour would do when confronted with such burning hate:

… I stood my ground and I told them the bag I wanted. They swiped my card and put it in the bag. I knew they were supposed to put the special sticker on the bag, and finish it up with a flourish and a ribbon. It’s a small thing, but I wanted the full, normal treatment. I had to ask for the sales associate to put on the ribbon and the sticker.

I left feeling so deflated, after I had built up this big experience in my head.

No champagne! No sticker! No ribbon! WHERE THE FUCK DOES THIS RACIST SHIT END?!?!?!?!?

Sorry, it’s so easy to get carried away. It’s just that rich black people with a whole article dedicated to their experience in a national publication have, basically, no voice or recourse in the midst of this sort of shameful bigotry. As Liza sums up:

I want to show them they don’t deserve my money if they don’t treat me with respect. Ever since then, I’ve bought everything in Toronto online, so I don’t have to deal with uncomfortable experiences. I travel a lot, so I make my big purchases in New York or Miami, where I get great service. I guess in those places they are used to seeing more Black people with money. And yes, I finally got my champagne.

Now I can’t personally vouch for the sales service in New York or Miami, but it’s nice to see rich black people finally getting a flute of champagne and a bow on their purchases, just like the ubiquitously wonderful sales service all us Caucasians receive.

As soon as I have more than $10 per week to spend on my privileged white lifestyle of wantonly blowing cash on luxury goods like food (for two people and a cat), I have no doubt that I’ll be able to confirm this state of affairs.

I mean, I often seem to receive shitty customer service but obviously that can’t be the case, just like my experiences with poverty and history of being directly refused jobs, opportunities, and support because of the colour of my skin. All lies and exaggerations, incidentally, and irrelevant anyway because I’m white.

In fact, the unchecked threats of physical violence, racist insults, and police encounters I claim to have experienced on the streets of Toronto (all lies and exaggerations, of course), pale in comparison to someone like Liza — no champagne, no bow; there are no words for this sort of hate except maybe “No justice, no peace”.

It’s no wonder that literally every major newspaper, most large corporations, TV and radio stations, the Toronto police, and local / provincial / federal governments are all in lockstep with the anti-black racism movement. This is, quite obviously, systemic racism against black people and has been thus for decades, not the other way around as some deluded white supremacists might suggest. Obviously.

So it’s refreshing when writers with a national platform like Shree Paradkar call out white “Covidiots” for their callous disregard for public safety over the May Two-Four weekend while simultaneously pointing out that “Had that been a sea of Black and brown folks, we’d be having a very different conversation today”. With the mass protests against anti-black racism, we have been blessed with the opportunity to see that indeed the conversation is very different. Note, for example, how many examples one finds in the mainstream media criticizing the BLM protests for not practicing social distancing and endangering society at large; the variety is truly dizzying. Now try to find a single positive, supportive article; good luck!

Shree should also be praised for taking up the mantle of exposing toxic masculinity, another topic that would otherwise be relegated to a dusty corner because no one is talking about it. So original. So brave.

I’ve learned that because I’m a white middle-aged man I’m literally evil incarnate, full of destructive and uncontrollable rage and racism.

I’ve also learned that any uncomfortable encounter between a white person and a black person necessarily implies white supremacy, a burning desire for the black person to “Just work on the plantations, dammit.”

When a “Karen” (an umbrella — but definitely not racist — term for a vocal white woman), complains about a black person’s behaviour to the cops, it couldn’t possibly be because of the frustration of perceived disparity between how laws are enforced (unless those laws target black people, of course), it must be because she wishes she had slaves picking her cotton crop.

Maybe I’m wrong. I don’t know this “Karen” but I don’t need to because she’s white. Therefore racist. Case closed.

As a lesson for all us white devils, Shree quotes a black University of Toronto professor:

First of all I’m not interested in you asking me how I’m doing, I’m interested in you telling me what you’re going to do about the impact of what I’m experiencing right now.

Got it? You might think that you had no hand in creating the problems that black people are experiencing but, in reality, you’re 100% culpable. Yeah, your skin colour makes you a vicious anti-black criminal, even if no one can point out any actual examples of this abhorrent behaviour by you personally. In fact, if you’re white and not constantly denigrating and belittling yourself for not supporting your continuing denigration and belittling, you’re a racist. You might also want to show your respect for a black man whose life was cut short when an officer kneeled on his neck by kneeling in the same way. It’s a very thoughtful gesture, especially if you’re white.

But have no doubt, if you’re a hateful, violent, oppressive man you’re also a heartless rapist (you want to rape even if you don’t have the balls to go through with it), and subsequently the source of all the world’s ills. If only someone was talking about this topic and not constantly preaching how amazing and righteous men are. Down with the patriarchy! #MeToo

Identify as heterosexual? Fuck you, you auto-celebrated, auto-protected and auto-privileged asshole.

If you happen to be a privileged, middle-aged, cisnormative white man in today’s society, it’s literally everywhere that your hateful, misogynistic, homophobic existence is being promoted to the detriment of everyone else. Oh, you have a differing opinion? Got some information and “facts” that contradict the “status quo”? Well cry me a river and SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU BELLOWING, DOMINEERING ASSHOLE!! FUCK YOU FOR BEING BORN YOU!!! FUCK YOU FOR EXISTING!!!! FUCK EVERYONE WHO SHARES YOUR PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS!!!!!

Ugh, got carried away again. So easy when you’re confronted with the overbearing and derisive screams of a racist patriarchy (i.e. all white men everywhere).

Now imagine how a black person feels, because racism and slavery and etc.

Yesterday, Toronto Star contributing columnist Don Tapscott of the Blockchain Research Institute wrote an interesting article. There’s a good chunk of it that I don’t agree with, or that largely misses the big picture, or that’s outright dim, but there are parts that have me feeling positive.

Here’s where I raised an expectantly optimistic eyebrow:

… the next era of the digital economy could bring epoch prosperity, with new networked models of global problem-solving to realize such a dream.

To meet these new challenges, the time has come for Canada to reimagine its social contract — the basic expectation between business, government and civil society.

This “social contract” that’s so often regurgitated in order to justify the ongoing control by the state of the people is not only a perversion of any concept of morality, justice, fairness, or human rights, but it’s also an assault on intelligence that requires you to simultaneously hold mindbogglingly self-contradictory statements while denying the reality that’s right in front of you. Any semblance of logic or common sense must be ejected in its defense.

Consider this mushy-headed blather:

Canada is learning the truth about the horrific history of our Indigenous population, which in turn now has tools to speak out and organize collective action.
…
People everywhere are “mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.” As such they have become vulnerable to populism, xenophobia and scapegoating minority ethnic groups, races and religions for problems. Centrist parties are in rapid decline and extremist right-wing parties from Hungary and Poland to France and Germany are on the rise.
…
We need to protect the security of personhood and end the system of digital feudalism. Individuals should own and profit from the data they create. We need new laws …

Let’s reword this without pretending that things happen in a vacuum:

Canadians are learning about the horrors largely imposed by the government on natives, citizens are being driven to extremes due to the policies and actions of their governments, and people are subject to “digital feudalism” within a system created by and maintained by the government. What’s the answer? Of course, it’s more government (i.e. new laws, regulations, bureaucracy)

Like I said … nonsensical mush.

That being said, if “reimagining” the so-called social contract means actually thinking about it (and bringing such thoughts to their inevitable conclusion), then I’m all for it. Yeah, people should think a little deeper about why and how they became the property of the government and if, maybe, they don’t need to be owned for their own safety.

Here’s the part in the article where I actually smiled:

We must adopt new models for citizen engagement in our government. In blockchain we have found one such model, with the possibility of embedding electoral promises into smart contracts.

Now, while the part about sticking electoral promises into smart contracts is shockingly naive (that’ll definitely stop politicians and bureaucrats from breaking their promises and lying to people), getting the public to use blockchain-based and cryptographic solutions is a good way to sway them towards the idea that lies, threats, theft, violence, and other criminality may not necessarily be the price that has to be paid in order to live in a “civilized society”.

Realizing that there are realistic alternatives to the unrelenting fist of the state, in other words, might cause people to take up the mantle of their own rights and responsibilities and maybe, just maybe, understand that the government is composed of the very same type of people that it’s ostensibly protecting them from.

Do we really need a bloated, deceptive, overpriced middleman to build and maintain roads, schools, and sewers? Are we really so violent that we need others like us to wield a much greater violence over us? If we disagree with who gets state benefits, would it not be better if we could directly decide not to provide them instead of having them seized and distributed against our will? Are people really so greedy and selfish that the goodwill organizations that exist now, under government, would cease to exist without the shackles of law and red tape?(*) Would corporations be able to put us into strangleholds without the protections of the state to maintain their patents, copyrights, and other “intellectual property”? Would monopolies exist without the state (the biggest monopoly of them all), protecting them against competition by throwing up barriers and putting down groundswells of resistance?

* I know from direct, firsthand experience that contrary to the opinions of “deliberately deceptive or recklessly ignorant” pundits like the New York Time’s David Brooks, who is quoted in the Blockchain Research Institute’s “manifesto” as proof that “the social fabric, the safety net and the human capital sources just aren’t strong enough”, there would be ample resources and willingness to help those in need — without government. Yeah, I’m calling a steaming pile of bullshit here.

The mere existence of such questions in broader discourse would be a very good thing indeed. Instead of sneering derision and vapid dismissal, people might be prompted to think about solutions to problems instead of simply accepting “necessary evils”. After all, voting for a lesser evil is still voting for evil. Why not spend that time and energy creating something good instead?

I wrote about this exact thing about 6 years ago. I’d like to believe that I was ahead of my time but in reality what I was discussing back then wasn’t either new or original, I just had to be both open and skeptical enough to discover it.

While the Star article represents only an incrementally tiny shift in consciousness, at least it seems to be a shift in the right direction.

The Toronto Star’s editorial board has broached a horrific new viewpoint: that entrenched, tyrannical, absolute, unaccountable state power is the answer to Donald Trump’s “runaway train” presidency. It’s a great solution, they say, and it’ll do wonders for Canada!

Being the norm for modern mass media, this is not called totalitarianism, state tyranny, fascism, communism, etc. but instead euphemistically named the “deep state”. This is merely a renaming of a frightening and ghoulish ideology in order to make it more palatable.

Consider what something like fascism actually entails:

• … dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and commerce

There are variations surrounding this definition but this is a good midpoint for comparison.

Of course, this could easily describe communism and socialism too and that is perhaps one of the fundamental reasons why Germany’s flavour of “right-wing” ideology was called National Socialism.

All of these collectivist ideals, from communism/socialism to fascism to monarchism to so-called “moderate” examples like democracies, are all fundamentally the same: absolute, total, unquestionable government control of everything.

Some forms of government are more overt about these aspirations than others but they are, and must necessarily be, all undeniably alike.

After all, if a government doesn’t wield coercive (i.e. violent/threatening) control over it’s citizens, how can it rule … by leading through example? Through the presentation of popular voluntary ideas? Don’t be silly! people must be forced into abiding by the will of the omniscient bureaucrats and demiurgic politicians. That’s why the world’s problems are almost all solved!

Of course, the past is littered with examples of how wonderful this type of thinking is.

The Star is essentially trying to warm people to the institution of yet another round of mass horror, destruction, and suffering and they believe that you’re daft enough not to notice any parallels between what they’re pushing and what history has demonstrated time and again.

Since they won’t do so, let us compare.

Fascism’s “dictatorial power”, or rule by one entrenched person or entity (especially un-elected), is described lovingly by The Star as:

…elements of Washington’s established power class…Career officials…the bureaucracies that carry on the day-to-day business of governing, operating with long-established norms of behaviour…

These groups are described in heroic terms as the “non-partisan civil service, whose mission is to serve whichever government is in office”, but are then praised for not supporting whoever’s in power in order to maintain “well-established ways of doing things.”

In other words, the virtue of un-elected and entrenched interests is that they serve whoever’s in power while refusing to serve whoever’s in power when “well-established ways of doing things” are threatened.

To put it more briefly, they serve whoever’s in power unless it goes against what they do.

Makes perfect sense! Much logic! Wow!

The “forcible suppression of opposition” part of a fascist/communist/socialist/democratic system is touched on peripherally in the above paragraph, though The Star never explicitly states this. They do repeatedly mention the FBI though which, as everyone knows, does their job through gentle persuasion and kind words in order to protect the establishment.

No…wait…they use guns, violence and threats.

My mistake!

So, yeah, “forcible suppression of opposition” to the established order that The Star droolingly idolizes.

Regarding “control of industry and commerce”, that pretty much describes government to a “T”. Between the Federal Reserve’s fiddling with interest rates, to the numerous licensing and legislative hoops that any business owner must jump through, to taxation and government fees, to the numerous ways that governments grant monopolies — it’s actually much easier and shorter to ask how government doesn’t control industry and commerce.

The topic of overt government control of the economy is quite extensive. Here in Canada it’s estimated that the government has direct control over roughly 60% of the economy and there are many indirect ways that are not immediately obvious. This isn’t a major departure from classical fascist economic models or those of communists/socialists, as I’ve maintained since the beginning.

The Star paints the opposition to Trump as a dichotomy between “left” and “right” political viewpoints but these are ultimately nothing more than minuscule iterations within a myopic, totalitarian, government-above-all mindset. The opposite of absolute state authority isn’t more absolute state authority, and giving it a different name doesn’t make it so. The solution to the problems of government isn’t more government.

Only the dangerously blind, naive, or stupid would propose that the powers of un-elected officials (not that elected ones are necessarily better), or unchecked authority of Übermensch bureaucrats are the way to establish freedom, justice, and a modicum of equality. It requires an abject refusal to examine the reality of history to make the claim that this time, totalitarian government will definitely work!

This is the ominous age that humanity has once again entered, one in which national publications like the Toronto Star openly espouse the wisdom and benevolence of the state, a violent, bureaucratic, coercive, unaccountable entity which has almost without exception always lead to some of the most horrific chapters in human history.

If it all amounts to a “deep state,” then we won’t apologize for that.

P.S. There are some points in this post that may seem contentious, such as the lumping together of fascism, communism/socialism, and democratic government. To the casual observer who has spent up to 12 of their most formative years in government indoctrination (public schools), this may seem like nonsense, but upon closer examination it becomes exceedingly clear that various forms of governments are, by far and large, mostly the same thing. That some happen to result in more mass abuses of human rights than others is partially luck and partially illusion, an inability to see what is clearly and starkly in front of one’s face every day. These are, however, topics for another day.

P.P.S. The Star Editorial Board must not even read their own editorials!

If, for some bizarre reason, you happen to read this blog and you’re a Ford supporter, first off, kudos for making it this far without losing your shit (or at least keeping it out of my face). Second, I’m going to propose that we have something in common.

I’m totally serious.

Assuming that the Ontario Press Council had ruled against the Toronto Star, and the Globe and Mail, etc., would you agree that the Council should have some real teeth to go after infractions? Maybe monetary penalties? Maybe something tougher? Well me too.

Oh, I think the ruling was right on, and I would’ve been surprised at anything else. But I would want these oversight agencies, while being diligently transparent, to have the power to affect and mandate some actual change. Change like holding Ford to account, for starters.

We don’t have to get all medieval on anyone’s ass, just get a little closer to what they do in the private sector, as Ford and friends so wisely suggest.

You may have heard the term “paywall” — it’s when a web site limits the amount of content that you can see unless you sign up with them for a fee. This typically happens after you’ve viewed a predetermined number of articles, and that number is reset on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis (depending on their setup).

All of Toronto’s major daily newspapers have put up paywalls, including the Toronto Star, Toronto Sun, Globe and Mail, and National Post.

And they’re all just awful.

Much hooplah was made about a developer that bypassed the New York Times paywall a couple of years ago, yet little (if anything), has changed since. David Hayes, the developer who cracked the NYT paywall, claims it took him a lunch hour to write the bookmarklet that bypasses the newspaper’s paywall.

A couple of days ago when Sarah was hitting the Star’s paywall I decided to take a quick look at what would be involved in getting around it. Twenty minuted later I had bypassed the paywalls of all of the above papers, including the New York Times (before I’d read anything on the topic, I should add). It took another 30 minutes to produce a small, generic site script that makes the dewalling process just a little easier and faster.

I’m not blowing my own horn here. I’m no super genius and this “hack” could be accomplished by anyone with rudimentary web development experience. In fact, both Hayes’ code and my own are almost unnecessary; with a few extra steps, you can bypass these paywalls with no extra software or crazy hacking skills. Chances are good that you already know how to do it.

I can see some extra benefit to a utility that would assist in automatically navigating the paywall beyond the first article — so that you could click on the web page links instead of having to load article by article — but this was more of a proof-of-concept thing, and the proven concept is that paywalls are unfortunately simple to defeat.

I’m not currently posting my dewalling code publicly. However, I will detail why this problem exists, and what the papers can do to fix it (if you’re from any of the aforementioned newspapers, feel free to give me a shout).

So Why Are Developers So Dumb?

I don’t think they are :) And to be honest, I totally get why things were done this way.

When a typical web browser grabs the web page you request, it sends out some limited information for the listening web server on the other end. This includes listing the browser’s capabilities (what kinds of content it can handle), specifying what it’s looking for (usually the URL of the web page), and cookies.

The receiving web server has that, plus an IP address, to identify an individual reader over the internet.

The IP isn’t unique to you, it’s unique to your internet connection which may be shared by many devices (like the the internet box thing, a.k.a. residential router, in your home). Browser capabilities can’t be assumed to be unique, again, because of that shared internet connection thing. And cookies can be cleared with the click of a button.

Given these limitations, how are web developers supposed to identify unique readers while ensuring that other legitimate readers can still access the site?

Better to err on the side of caution and just use cookies, sometimes along with IP, rather than accidentally block readers. Paywalls are necessarily leaky.

So What Should They Do?

This is a tough one.

It’s tough because it puts the limitations of technology up against corporate culture and profits.

What this does is really call up the need for reflection on how the papers profit from their content, and to me it’s an all-or-nothing proposition.

One option is for the papers go all-in and make certain articles, sections, features, etc. fully pay-only. That means having to log in to access them, otherwise it’s an excerpt, or some sort of teaser, to the general hoi poloi.

Another, more Zuckerbergian option is to offer access in exchange for personal information. I’m not necessarily averse to this, but it also requires a content lock-down of some sort.

The current paywall solution is somewhere just above both of these, being easily circumventable but still acting as a deterrent to the average web user.

I would gravitate towards the nothing end of the scale with a nag solution where on every X views of an article, the non-subscribed reader receives a temporary pop-over message suggesting that they subscribe. IP address on the server could be used to determine how often to do this — it seems unlikely that shared connections would all be connecting to the same content source, and even so, all it would produce is a nagging reminder that people really do like the content. It’d be sort of like a local rating system with an option to subscribe.

Beyond that, there could be a mild nag every time, for non-subscribed users. This starts to get close to being just plain old fashioned inline advertising, which would be the next solution before nothing at all (full, free access to everything).

Of course, since the papers have full control over their sites, there’s theoretically no limit on how inline advertising could be accomplished. There’s the always classy Toronto Sun wall-to-wall background…

…but if that’s not the newspaper’s style, I’m sure there are other and more elegant approaches.

Ultimately, the decision is whether or not to lock away content. Logins are reliable, which is why they’re so popular. Identifying users without them is inherently unreliable. Either content can be locked away completely, or it should be assumed to be open to everyone. The seemingly in-between paywall solution is actually in the second family by reasons which I’ve explained earlier.

Astute web developers will point out that other mechanisms are available to bypass some of these limitations: Flash shared objects, or persistent browser databases. While these are a step beyond simple cookies, both are easily deleted as part of most modern browers’ cache management. In other words, they’re not much better than anything mentioned so far.

Browsers impose these limits to provide a level of privacy protection, and without requiring readers to manually enter additional information like a username and password, it’s tough if not impossible to pinpoint an individual human being. Without this exactness, any paywall or content blocking system is bound to be flimsy. The solution, at least at the present time, won’t involve technology; it’ll require high-level decisions about what will be locked away from the general public and what won’t.

Have you ever wondered where you can find Toronto’s latte-sipping urban elites? Do you want to know where you can observe the “pinko left-wing kook” in its native habitat?

Well wonder no more!

The Star has graciously mapped it out for you in glorious hipstervision:

Robbie’s having a rough day. Maybe it has something to do with that pesky crack tape that just won’t seem to go away. Maybe it’s because he just can’t make any friends.

“I don’t care if you’re 2 years old, 20 years old or 200 years old, you’re not going to live for free,” Ford said. Of TCHC chief executive Gene Jones, he said, “Obviously he has fixed the problem. Is it perfect? No.” Turning to a left-leaning critic, he yelled, “You! You’re the problem!”