Everyone knows that Black Lives Matter. Duh.

But due to racism and slavery and etc. there’s a question that no one is willing to ask: just how much do Black Lives Matter?

Well, thanks to the investigative work of some local newspapers we can finally answer that question!

Gird your loins … the results will startle you.

Before I get into it I want to clarify that in a previous OFTA post I made it seem like individual lives shouldn’t matter, that only group-based averages that flip the numbers on their (correct) head were worth considering. Clearly, that was my confused white supremacy talking. It doesn’t fit in with the Black Lives Matter messaging and could be construed as cold, callous, and dismissive (not to mention racist!), so I’m changing the narrative — individual (Black) lives do matter!

The two sources I used for this include a very recent study by the CBC and a similar, albeit more limited, study by CTV.

Both make sure to highlight the fact that Black and Indigenous people are far more likely to be killed by police (when various mathematical transformations are applied), so we can be fairly certain that the numbers aren’t skewed to support some racist (i.e. white) narrative. The CTV study even quotes Norm Taylor, an expert on Indigenous policing, who describes the numbers as “staggering” and “shocking”, so you know it’s totally balanced and unbiased.

Are your loins sufficiently girded? Here are the numbers…

These numbers are pretty much the same whether the people killed were armed or unarmed but before you go off making ignorant assumptions, it’s important to be reminded that in both tables all lives are given equal weight within the total Canadian population which is, of course, unbelievably racist.

And in case you thought that challenging popular suppressed information was somehow noble or enlightening, here’s an asshole white supremacist with the caucasity to preach about his own non-status-quo “research” (i.e. hate), even going so far as to compare Black People’s experiences to his own (!):

What an ignorant fucking racist piece of shit, huh?

The important take-away from all this is that, obviously, Black Lives Matter anywhere from an estimated 4 to 6 times more than white lives, depending on the numbers used. This explains why when a Black Person is killed by cops it results in mass demonstrations and round-the-clock media coverage, and conversely when a white person is killed, well, who gives a fuck.

In the words of BLM Toronto co-founder Yusra Khogali:

“Plz Allah give me the strength not to cuss/kill these men and white folks out here today. Plz plz plz.”

After posting this irate retort to hateful whites who question the scientifically established primacy of Black People, understandable since clearly her Black opinion matters about 4 to 6 times more than theirs, this brave young woman also hijacked a Pride parade to remind everyone of the (now mathematically derived!) superiority of Black Lives. In a clever twist she was subsequently awarded a Leadership award by the mayor, thus demonstrating just how deep systemic racism runs.

Despite her understandable rage, she’s since somehow managed to tone down her approach to just calling white people “subhuman genetic defects” (do I smell another award?!), but it seems she’s finally getting her positive, inclusive, peaceful message across: Black Lives Matter … considerably more.

---

/sarcasm mode off

Why does this seem to be so regularly and easily glossed over?

White people are overwhelmingly killed by police throughout North America when compared to all other ethnic groups. The numbers, the individual people killed, are there in all the stark statistics. Then they’re deeply massaged by proportional calculations which I’m sure have their uses and provide useful information, but do these calculations outweigh the importance of individual human lives? Not to me.

And wouldn’t it be nice if this was at least part of the discussion?

My intention with this is not to diminish but to raise. Why is it so awful to suggest that all lives matter? By that I mean, literally, every one. Is it because it “misses the bigger picture“? (note the linked report which further confirms my points regarding “proportional” calculations)

I’ve looked at the bigger picture, as suggested, and my conclusion is that the story being told is not an honest one. It’s a distortion of the bigger picture, one that hides individual human lives behind equations. Or is that preferable?

It makes my blood boil to see anyone being brutalized by the state. I believe that the history of posts on this blog will back up this position in multiple ways. Should I care more, or less, about the victims because of the colour of their skin? Fuck that shit — the evidence doesn’t fit. I don’t think it ever has.

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.

Lately I’ve been thinking about what future generations might think of this age and its people. How will they try explain some of this era’s unusual social phenomena, the strange trends, the bizarre departures from what would more soberly be recognized as common sense?

One thing I know for sure is that enlightened historians of the future will understand that most of the mainstream media is the source of fake news and propaganda while stout stalwarts like Toronto City Life are unwavering bedrock of veracity and accuracy. It is thus my duty to inform future generations of the truth of what we in the current time call “modernity”.

So in this spirit I would like to approach relatively recent trend, the Covid pots & pan salute that’s often represented as a celebration of human tenacity and defiance in the face of the global pandemic.

On this matter the mainstream analysis could not be further from the truth.

Consider, for example, that the nightly cacophony (7:30 to 7:35 in my neighbourhood), is supposed to be directed primarily at healthcare workers.

Clearly this cannot be the case since most such workers are shut up in hospitals or trying to get some shut-eye from what are presumably grueling schedules, which would make loud noise among the worst ways to show appreciation.

The truth of the matter, as told from the first-hand experiences of a contemporary person, is that these clamorous rituals are intended to drive the evil spirits of the Covidae away from people’s homes.

It is widely believed that these malicious spirits come shortly after sunset and so the loud sounds and jubilant cheers are raised to disperse them prior to retiring for the evening.

In this way, says the superstition, the Covidae are swept away by the evening breeze and lose their way in the darkness of the night.

Of course this is preposterous to many a right-thinking person but the curious phenomenon exists nevertheless. Hopefully future analysis will yield a deeper understanding of this unusual shared delusion.

First there’s this:

… a study of COVID-19 infections in Kentucky among people who were previously infected with SAR-CoV-2 shows that unvaccinated individuals are more than twice as likely to be reinfected with COVID-19 than those who were fully vaccinated after initially contracting the virus.

US Center for Disease Control, August 6, 2021

The number of people involved in this study – the sample size – is 438.

Second there’s this:

At least one non-scientist, U.S. Sen. Rand Paul (who previously worked as an eye doctor), went viral on Twitter with a claim that natural infection with COVID-19 offers better protection than the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, both of which have shown to be more than 94 per cent effective in late-stage clinical trials.

Actual scientists such as Gommerman and Kelvin dispute this assertion.

So far, both natural infection and vaccination look like they offer relatively effective and long-lasting protection — at least most of a year, based on when the pandemic and vaccine testing began.

CBC News, January 9, 2021

On top of vaccines being less effective than stated in the near term, they also don’t offer “long-lasting” protection (3 to 4 months is not “most of a year”). Now add to that one more thing that demonstrates that the “actual scientists” were wrong in every possible way:

“The study, led by Tal Patalon and Sivan Gazit at KSM, the system’s research and innovation arm, found in two analyses that never-infected people who were vaccinated in January and February were, in June, July, and the first half of August, six to 13 times more likely to get infected than unvaccinated people who were previously infected with the coronavirus.”

…

“It’s a textbook example of how natural immunity is really better than vaccination,” says Charlotte Thålin, a physician and immunology researcher at Danderyd Hospital and the Karolinska Institute who studies the immune responses to SARS-CoV-2.

Science Magazine, August 26, 2021

The sample size in this study is more than 32,000 people.

So here we have a shoddy study by the CDC with a relatively tiny sample size, along with broadly debunked claims about both vaccine safety (previously unknown side-effects) and efficacy (greatly reduced after about 6 months, hence the current talk of boosters), being broadly and quite arrogantly advertised to convince people that only government-mandated chemicals can give you immunity from Covid and this is why we NEED VACCINE PASSPORTS, NO EXEMPTIONS!! (but honour-system mask exemptions are just fine).

And twenty bucks says we don’t hear a peep about this from our national mainstream propaganda outlets here in Canada.

So what can we glean from this? Either the people constantly pushing vaccines and restrictions using the same old tired rhetoric are incompetent, liars, or just plain ignorant. At this point there simply is no fourth option.

In any event, the constant push to take away people’s freedoms based on shoddy science, manipulation, and often just straight-up lies, amounts to what can very accurately be called an absolute and unquestionable tyranny. The facts are evident and laid bare. Covid is simply a bludgeon to be wielded against the masses, science be fucked.

Dictatorship is also accurate if you compare the playbook that Canada is set to follow after places like Australia where people live under military curfews (actual soldiers walking the streets), violent police checkpoints, are allowed about the same time outside to exercise outside as prisoners in solitary confinement, told not to watch sunsets, told not talk to each other, having their heads kicked into pavement (after being run over and pepper sprayed), having cops show up at their door for simply questioning the wisdom of the state, and so on.

And our own beloved head of state says he absolutely will not back down from this. Oh, but it’s for “public safety”! Yeah … right.

It’s not cattle cars but the fact that the CDC mulls putting people into camps (sorry, “humanitarian settings“), shows that it’s very much an option. If this was an unthinkable option just like the vast amount of garbage that’s been imposed on people over the past year and a half, then by definition they wouldn’t think it, would they? After all, they aren’t proposing gunning people down in the streets as an option. At least not yet.

The demands for government tyranny and medical apartheid (yes, that is exactly what it is), aren’t backed by science or even common sense, this is simply a worldwide conspiracy (no longer just a theory!), for control and domination over people using the excuse of Covid, the hate-based lie of systemic anti-black racism, and the incessant and insane push for “equality” and “inclusivity” which are very obviously anything but. The fact that all Western nations and allies are basically in lock-step, not to mention other stark and direct evidence, demonstrates the simple fact that this was all planned.

And isn’t it just a tad coincidental that the rich, famous, and powerful are getting ready to fly into space? In the meantime we’re all being locked into our homes while we’re supposed to dream of the wonders of space tourism. Seems more like an escape plan for the overlords to me.

P.S. I spent the first 6 years of my life in Czechoslovakia when it laboured under full-on, old-school, Russian-style Communism. I don’t remember too much but between my assessments and those of my parents, I want to assure you, dear reader, that what’s happening now is not only equal to the types of shit that went down over there but is just on the cusp of far exceeding it. The jackboot of the state has arrived, comrade!

What’s to be done?

I truly believe that if change must be made, it must be extra-systemic. While I like to believe that the system is not irredeemable, much like the other “isms” that bowed to Capitalism, I’m sure that with this entire system as well as the underlying misnomer of democracy, neither of which are either the US (a Constitutional Republic), or Canada (a Constitutional Monarchy), we are finally seeing the flaws in its utopian vision. Just like the other isms, our system is susceptible to infiltration by corruption, and I truly believe we have reached the saturation point.

Again, not sure if Wikipedia is the best source for this but if one looks at the various analyses of the Fall of Rome, we find some startling parallels:

• Loss of civic virtue  — A contentious idea but one that with a lot of modern weight.
• Decline of military might due to influx of mercenaries — A concept that’s not so outrageous.
• Rome was declining from day one — Those watching can probably point to a similar pattern both yesterday and today (with similar results).
• Unsound economic policies — That seems to be self-evident.
• Depletion of local resources — Also another self-evident point.
• Endless wars — Getting there.
• Disease — There are stark correlations between poverty and increasing disease. And there’s plenty of poverty. I’m sure you can do the math.
• Environmental degradation — Many people are convinced that we’re well into this one.
• Lead poisoning — There’s some debate about how much lead pipes contributed to the problem, but few people since the ancient Romans believed that ingesting lead was a good idea.
• Barbarian invasions — We have seen some incursions that would fall into this category. In a similar way, the modern-day “Barbarians” are being made synonymous with evil (I’m pretty sure the Barbarians didn’t see themselves that way).

Did I miss anything? Probably, but this seems sufficient to make my point. And this oft-heard refrain is not uncommon, so it’s not as if I’m alone in this, but the usual adjunct is “yeah, but what can we do?”

Well, for starters, let’s cross violence off the list right away. In fact, let’s also take out extortion, intimidation, threats, abduction, imprisonment, corporal punishment, fraud, destruction, theft, covert manipulation, deception, fear, and hypocrisy. These are the tools of government & friends, and the only logical conclusion must be to reject them wholly (especially with that hypocrisy bit).

Violence used in self-defense is probably the only time I would relent, and then only when applied in quid pro quo fashion. This is not in any way illegal under any current laws, though all levels of the regime have adopted the stance that if it’s defense against them, that’s a crime. And so, defending yourself against open aggression by the state is a de facto crime (they certainly aren’t going to be held responsible!)

Not sure if slapping my tormentors upside the head would qualify under these categories, but at least it’s safe to say that it probably wouldn’t change anything. In fact, maybe that’s how they got that way in the first place. It’d feel good though…

Voting is a bad joke and, in fact, some people argue that participating in it is itself a sort of crime. The argument: by choosing the winning candidate, you are forcing others who did not vote in the same way to support your socio-economic-political views via the unchecked extortion of the state. By voting for a non-winner, you are implicitly condoning this extortion (though this is never explicitly true). And even winning candidates often embark on courses of action that are not part of their stated agenda, thereby directly violating their contract with their supporters.

And how are elections kept “fair”? Oh yeah, the government maintains an exclusive monopoly in dictating the results to you (the same government openly committing fraud to maintain their power). If elections are merely the switching up of one figurehead for another, which appears to be the very case (frauds come from one supposed side as easily as the other, etc.), then it’s reasonable to conclude that sticking your little piece of paper into a flimsy and easily tampered-with cardboard box is a waste of time (even if just to mark the ballot in protest).

Further, this idea can be extended to representative voting systems where leaders like Harper and Obama are, in fact, voted in by a vast minority of voters, if at all. Instead, candidates are party-elected leaders, and these leaders are then the titular heads of government. How many people actually, directly voted for Harper and Obama? Were they even actually on the ballot somewhere? (I think they have their own ridings so probably yes, but still…)

So voted in by a majority they were not. Not in any real sense. Rob Ford’s “majority” was 47% of voters (25% of Toronto). Harper achieved a complete, unchallengeable “majority” of 40%. Obama won by a very slim 51%, but was actually chosen by the Electoral College and not directly by voters, similar to Harper. Really, only Rob was actually directly voted in, but reliably by only 25% of Toronto’s citizens.

And much like Rob Ford, the obvious crimes perpetrated by the excluded class go unpunished because of the systemic collusion I keep pointing out. So politics is also not really a solution — it’s a big part of the problem. As are the courts, cops, and many of the people mindlessly (or otherwise) pushing oppression on the masses. Not all, of course, but it seems that these days there are far too many.

So I have to conclude that working within the system is a losing proposition. Not that I want to dissuade anyone from trying to implement positive systemic changes, I just don’t see much chance for success.

Even under optimistic conditions, the system will barely satisfy the needs of any single group as it seeks to balance conflicting interests. Those interests needn’t be in conflict if they were relegated to individual communities, so it’s accurate to say that government is the source of conflict and inequality. And that’s if you don’t ascribe any nefarious aspects to it.

So what is to be done?

I think the answer can be summed up in one word: individualism

Now let’s be very clear about this because there have been many infamous cases of “individualists”  or “sovereign citizens” in the news — widely discussed and regurgitated to remind you of what happens when individuals take matters into their own hands. And I admit, some bad stuff can happen. But compared to the rare lone gunman (one out of how many tens or hundreds of millions?), the government is far more destructive and murderous, so individualism wins by sheer virtue of the numbers.

Simply put, I don’t buy the government-created line of thinking that has us all turning into murderous, criminal brutes the moment that government stops intervening. I just don’t see it. In fact, I see the state as being the primary instigator of violence in most cases (no wonder that we have no domestic police murder statistics).

Whatever individuals decide on, however, is ultimately their choice. I can even understand the feeling that violence may be the only choice. But just because a bunch of be-suited liars decree that it’s now okay to kill and torture in order to support their corrupt junta doesn’t make it any less murder and torture, whether your name is Stephen Harper, Barack Obama, or Elliot Rogers.

Note that individualism doesn’t mean no government, it means voluntary government. It doesn’t mean no police, it means a direct voluntary contract between an individual and the police. Anarchy, despite the incessant attempts to pollute its original meaning, doesn’t mean chaos, it means individual choice, freedom, and responsibility. Community and individualism need not be mutually exclusive.

Individualism begins right where you are now — with you. It begins with a solemn oath to yourself that you will no longer willingly support the corrupt, murderous regime of the state. Doing so with a clear conscience requires an extended oath rejecting violence, extortion, intimidation, etc. In my view, any action taken on such a basis, with due consideration for the rights of your fellow man, is justified and right. The corrupt courts, bleating politicians, and thuggish police can stuff their disgusting laws and declarations back to the last days of Rome where they below — I know I’m not hurting anyone or doing anything wrong!

Individualism requires you to be brave in the face of the machine. It requires you to know that you are not a criminal, no matter what the system’s laws demand. It requires you to know that you don’t willingly harm or defraud your fellow man because you respect their sovereignty in the same way that you expect yours to be (but are also subject to repercussions when that sovereignty is violated). It requires you to know, above all else, that the corrupt state does not grant you these freedoms — you are born with them and anyone who tries to take them away from you without your consent are criminals. By extension, the fact that the Canadian government ensnared without consent the population of Canada (Did you ever consent to be taxed? Were you assigned your SIN before your age of majority? etc.), absolutely makes them criminals — one and all. Those involved in the periphery are accessories, just as with any standard crime. If that doesn’t sit well, there’s also the War Crimes angle, the massive defrauding angle, etc.

I know for a fact that TCL, and perhaps other outlets, are being monitored. Most likely by government organizations working together with private “reputation management” firms.

That’s okay — it’s a public blog! So why is it so wrong for the government to scour these pages when, really, anyone can openly do so? Because:

1. I know they’re not doing it for good or beneficial reasons (i.e. the only possible purpose to collect this is to use it against me or someone else).
2. They’re using my (and your) tax money to do so, and they’re doing it without our consent.

That’s why government surveillance of public sites is equally as despicable — we all know full well they are not doing it to benefit us (and are lying to us about it). Plus, there’s all the illegal stuff they’re doing for our “benefit” too.

I’m particularly conscious of the technological aspects of this because I’m a longtime developer, now software architect (a title I recently acquired), something that I like to believe stems from reasonable competence and experience (20-ish years, give or take). I also run a meager Google Plus group tracking the implications of technology as progressing or regressing individual freedoms. I don’t comment much, just post links and let the context tell the story — and that story is usually bleak and dark. All that stuff I rant about, like the fact that we’re heading for an Orwellian nightmare, that’s based on years of deeper-than-average research in a field in which I specialize. If my qualifications don’t match up to your liking, there are plenty of voices out there in an ever growing chorus saying the same things; you don’t need to believe just me.

But I do hope that you believe me because in among the darkness of systemic oppression I can see slivers of blinding light. The walls are showing cracks, the armour exhibits chinks, and through these cavities I can see a way through. I’m sure that it’s not the only way (getting bogged down by a dogged ideology is not productive), but there is something  — some things, actually — that can be done.

If you’re religiously inclined, this is probably the part where God steps in. If you’re all scientific-like, ditto.

Shall I explain?

I’m sure this isn’t the first time I’ve mentioned how the state and its agencies are getting so bold with our basic, fundamental freedoms that to compare them to East Germany’s post-World-War-2 Stasi is in no way an exaggeration.

A constant, around-the-clock surveillance on all citizens, guilty or innocent, is taking place – that much is now well and publicly established fact. Granted, we don’t have the secret police disappearing people off the streets just yet, but both Harper (Bill S-7) and Obama (NDAA) have made sure that that kind of thing will be all nice and legal when they decide to roll it out. Or they just passed these laws for shits and giggles, maybe? Oh, I know, it’s just for the bad guys, right?

Thankfully, there’s a growing backlash in the United States:

And we’re seeing some fightback from the CCLA on the topic too. But government is just one tiny step away from business, and the same scummy lack of morals and ethics pervades both houses of rot and greed.

Just recently, Bell announced it would be sharing your data with third-parties to bring better-tailored advertising to your mobile phone. According to a contract which would otherwise be viewed as being produced in bad faith (but, you know, big money), Bell reserves the right to do whatever they want, whenever they want, as do most banks and other big business we are forced to deal with at a cost and by law — unless I haven’t heard and the Canadian government is using its own solely legal tender (cash) again?

Oh sure, you can opt-out of the ads, but only whenever they feel like getting to it. Oh, and they’re still gonna track you and share the data with whomever they please — just to be clear.

Rogers recently did something similar, albeit in an opt-in fashion. Funny thing is, if Rogers is the good guy, it really makes you wonder what kind of shit is going on behind the scenes at Bell. As you may recall, Rogers spent months fighting tooth and nail against having to tell the truth in their ads because they claimed it infringed on their freedom of speech.

Simultaneously, our governments are pulling the rugs out from under their citizens by clamping down on unbiased scientific information in exchange for government propaganda, which is almost 100% pro-business and pro-big-money, and increasingly just simply telling their subjects that they’re not entitled to any information or say on things like massive, global, secretive agreements and deals like CETA, which will directly affect most of them negatively for a very long time — importing dirt-cheap European labour while Canadians remain unemployed, higher drug costs (government “subsidies” come out of Canadians’ pockets as taxes, don’t forget), and I’m sure a few other surprises and gotchas too — not like anyone’s allowed to actually see the damned things. But we might get cheaper eau du toilette though!

Even the people who Harper claims that the fast-tracked CETA is supposed to help aren’t happy with it. Ain’t the first time he’s pulled this stunt either. But what does King Harper care?

He’s become so accustomed to getting his way that as he was busy throwing his appointed minions under the bus, he and his helper monkeys became enraged when most news stations refused to air his recent caucus speech because he demanded that only cameras be let in — NO ONE MAY ASK QUESTIONS!

But our benevolent government is throwing us lowly serfs one little bone among all this, they’re going to allow us  to look over results of drug safety analyses of Health Canada. Yeah! Now we’re allowed to see the information produced with the money that is seized from us in order to determine if something might kill us or not. Aren’t we lucky?! Of course, the previous reasoning was that they would be giving away business secrets with this information, which obviously trumps God himself.

Is it just me or is this shit starting to get real old?

To be perfectly honest, there’s nothing I enjoy more than having someone tell me how to operate my own equipment. I mean, a suggestion is one thing. That I don’t mind at all. It doesn’t make any presumptions. But when that short, older man (wearing a Yankees cap!) told me, “you can’t shoot directly into the sun, son”, I could scarcely contain my rage.

I took him to the nearby corner of Yonge-Dundas Square and I showed him a few things.

“You see, sucker”, I thought to myself. “There’s enough ambient light on the sidewalk”, now out-loud, “to illuminate subjects from the front. They’re kind of shadowy, but I think that’s kinda cool. All thanks to this iContrast thingie.”

“Ah!”, he marvelled. “What camera is this? I have an EOS Rebel XSi at home. Is that a Rebel too?”

“No”, I replied, “it’s a … umm …”. I’d forgotten the name. Flipped it over. “Oh, yeah, a Powershot … SX 10 … IS. Fixed lens (can’t stick another lens on there) … but what a lens!”

I went on to extole the virtues of the camera and its lens while flipping through the other photos.

“So, it has all the same software?”

What an odd question.

… Continue Reading

…continued from previous part.

You know, dear reader, the most aggravating thing about this whole affair lately has been that it got me off kilter. Weren’t we talking about Regent Park or something? Dang.

Unfortunately that seems like a lifetime ago now. And, also unfortunately, I’ve recently very much enjoyed re-connecting with the city again (i.e. more frickin’ pictures). So I’m going to pull some academia out of my butt here and am calling this final installment a “photo essay”. Haha! Wicked. Whoever thought of that one gets a high-five from me!

This implies there will be no words. *snicker*

… Continue Reading

…continued from previous part.

The reason that Honest Ed’s is kid-safe is because of all the nooks and crannies that the little hellions can occupy themselves in. The place is chock-a-block with weird props from all the retired Mirvish shows, plus a bunch of other stuff that Ed collected over the years. Most of it just lying around. At one moment you’re staring into a fun-house mirror, the next you’re enjoying the thrilling rape of Persephone by Hades (bringing us joyous winter every year). Right next to the dirt-cheap sweat pants.

The valuable stuff is all cordoned off with lazily hung caution tape; basically a wishful suggestion. And if you wander around long enough, you get into parts of the store where even the yellow tape is absent. Maybe the stuff is for sale, but he price seems a bit steep for most of Honest Ed’s regulars.

I don’t want to give anyone any ideas but … c’mon! Isn’t this just asking to be robbed?! What kind of an effort would you have to make? Even if you wanted to play Mission Impossible, that ceiling wouldn’t really pose much of a challenge, would it? It would be a really uneventful mission, totally possible. You’d be sorry you bought all that fancy equipment; probably coulda just waltzed in off the street and strolled back out with a 19th century Thai shrine and a few reasonably-priced stainless steel pots.

… Continue Reading

I had a city-sized epiphany yesterday, and if you’ll grant me a moment of your time, dear reader, I’d like to share it with you. In a few parts. Okay, it was a bit of a tipsy revelation, also part of the reason I’m writing about it today.

It all began with my trip to Honest Ed’s.

Actually, it’d begun earlier in the day when I’d met a long-ago co-worker suddenly turned neighbour — a conversation that self-destructed after we’d conducted it ;) ;) – and ended with drinks and friends somewhere on the west end. Well, technically it ended with me flipping through sickeningly unsteady photos, but that’s neither here nor there.

But I’m pretty sure Honest Ed Mirvish’s disturbed vision had a big role to play in the tone of my thoughts, and so contributed to the epiphany I was about to have in a very big way.

I’m not even sure how to begin describing the place. To try is like trying to squeeze one of those morbidly obese guys — the ones with cowboy hats and aviator glasses and locomoting about on struggling motor scooters — into a standard-size kitchen disposal bag. Ba-tam! Can’t be done.

So this won’t be easy, and definitely not complete, but it’s a start.

Well, I guess the most obvious feature is that Ed’s is the granddaddy of all cheapie stores.

The prices are really really good. And, considering how much you’re plunking down for a set of PJs, you can usually expect pretty good value for the money. Better than disposable, one-use sleeping attire, were I forced to quantify it.

However, that “cheap” tag is really wholly inadequate. I trust that if you’ve been, dear reader, you’d agree. For starters, each and every sign is hand-painted. That’s quite a feat considering the amount of product they carry.

Then there’s the wall-to-wall kitsch.

Most of it is actually left over from the multitudes of productions that the Mirvish family have lavished on Toronto over the years. Most of those are equally kitschy, for-the-masses spectacles. Not my flavour, but maybe I haven’t given them a fair shake. Lots of people swear by them. That’s entertainment!

The walls of the double-jointed store (the alley between is integral to the experience), are littered with the famous names that have been in a Mirvish show, or that have personally shaken Ed’s hand. I couldn’t tell you who a lot of the people are, but they seem like a generally classy lot. Lotsa Brylcreem going on there, seems respectably dandy.

However, if that was all to this store, I really don’t think I’d be able to recommend bringing the kids along. Or a heist crew.

Please allow me to elaborate, dear reader.

Continued in next part…