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.

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!

The headline read: “Unvaccinated people 8 times more likely to get infected, top doctor says“

Well this I have to see for myself, I thought.

It took me a while of reading through the parts in which government is moving the reporting goalposts before I got to get some sense of where this information came from. I’m assuming it’s from a recently published Public Health Ontario report:

In the past 30 days, unvaccinated individuals were approximately 8.0 times more likely to become a case of COVID-19 compared to fully vaccinated individuals (Figure 2).

My next question was, how do they classify “unvaccinated individuals”?

From the same document, near the end:

Unvaccinated individual refers to individuals that have not received a dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, as well as individuals that are not yet protected from vaccination (0 to 13 days following dose 1 administration).

So you’re “unvaccinated” if you’ve either received no vaccine or you’ve received your first one within the past two weeks. An unspecified number of these people will automatically be moving into the “partially vaccinated” category so maybe let’s not get too excited just yet.

Also note that if you combine the number of partially (16,800 [44.9%]) and fully vaccinated or “breakthrough” (1,988 [5.3%]) cases, you get a slightly higher percentage (50.2%) than unvaccinated cases (49.8%), keeping in mind that “unvaccinated” is interchangeable with “got the vaccine recently” and “didn’t get the vaccine at all”.

The headline could just as accurately have read, “Vaccinated people make up more than half of serious Covid infections”, but the newspapers are all in high gear with incessant DEMANDS FOR COVID PASSPORTS, DAMMIT!!

Putting the logical breaks on all of this obvious straight-outta-Berlin authoritarian bullshit is the simple, recent revelation that the vaccinated are just as likely to transmit COVID as the unvaccinated. Note:

The study identified 469 people with COVID-19, 74% of whom were fully vaccinated, following large public events in the state’s Barnstable County. Testing identified the Delta variant in 90% of virus specimens from 133 people.

The viral load was similar in people who were fully vaccinated and those who were unvaccinated, the CDC said.

High viral loads suggest an increased risk of transmission and raised concern that, unlike with other variants, vaccinated people infected with Delta can transmit the virus, it said.

The finding of the report “is concerning and was a pivotal discovery leading to CDC’s updated mask recommendation,” CDC director Rochelle Walensky said in a statement.

The phenomenon, known as a “leaky vaccine”, is when the fully vaccinated immune system fails to kill the pathogen, allowing it to be re-transmitted. This is why the Center for Disease Control revised their advice on masks, yet again.

So what we end up with is a bunch of vaccinated people who, despite their ostensibly benevolent aims, really end up protecting not society, not the public, not grandma and grandpa, not little baby Kevin, not sick aunt Josie … no one but themselves.

But now, with their elevated social status among “the fully vaccinated”, they may feel more free to socialize and be indoors with all the others like them, all very possibly entirely asymptomatic spreaders. If the high viral load of the Delta variant is a concern, isn’t the “unlikely” scenario of viral mutations, or replication errors, more likely when the numbers are increased?

Seems to me that it’s actually the vaccinated that pose the biggest threat to society, if the science and their incessant preachiness are to be believed. It’s unfortunate that they have so many irresponsible, highly-placed enablers willing to endanger the public and whose best solutions to the mutation-vaccine war is like something out of the Simpsons. In one episode an invasive species of lizard has escaped into Springfield. Initially wanting to eradicate the lizards, Principal Skinner learns that they’re killing all of the pigeons, or “common gutter birds”, which causes him to re-evaluate his position.

Skinner: “Well I was wrong. The Bolivian Tree Lizards are a godsend!”

Lisa: “But isn’t that a bit short-sighted? What happens when we’re overrun with lizards?”

Skinner: “No problem. We simply unleash wave after wave of Chinese Needle Snakes. They’ll wipe out the lizards.”

Lisa: “But aren’t the snakes even worse?”

Skinner: “Yes but we’re prepared for that. We’ve lined up a fabulous type of gorilla that thrives on snake meat.”

Lisa: “But then we’re stuck with gorillas!”

Skinner: “No, that’s the beautiful part. When winter time rolls around the gorillas simply freeze to death.” (walks away satisfied)

“Bart the Mother”, The Simpsons, Season 10, Episode 3

We’re now well beyond stage 3 in the provincial re-opening plans with no end in sight, “leaders” around the worlds are openly acting like tyrants and dictators segregating societies into the obedient and those who must be made to obey, and apparently after a year and a half of getting fucked over businesses everywhere are gagging for the opportunity to limit their numbers of customers in order to go along with this.

It’s mind boggling to think that there are still people who believe and even promote the dangerous claptrap of government & friends at this point. The mountain of horseshit is now so high that one would have to be dangerously delusional, a literal danger to themselves and society at large, not to see it toppling over. On the bright side, there’s probably a Pfizer or J&J drug for that!

Here are some basic facts:

1. COVID vaccine safety and efficacy is not tested by the government. The data is based solely on the vaccine producers’ own testing and given to the government’s “panel of experts” who simply review it. This is quite literally the honour system (see below) and vaccine approval in this case doesn’t mean rigorous testing.
2. The approval process for COVID vaccines has been fast-tracked, skipping various safety protocols (or maybe they exist just for the heck of it?). The “science” is not established and the government regularly updates its information as it’s uncovered.
3. COVID vaccine producer Pfizer was fined $2.9 billion for fraud, described as “blatant and continued disregard of the law … over an extended period of time”, one of numerous fines that the company has paid over the years for engaging in lies and deception. Their history of criminal recklessness in the name of profit (e.g. testing unapproved antibiotics on Nigerian children resulting in numerous deaths), goes back decades.
4. COVID vaccine producer Johnson & Johnson most recently settled a $26 billion lawsuit for downplaying risks of opioids (fraud), and helping to fuel the current North American opioid crisis. J&J has hundreds of thousands of pending litigation and has paid out billions in damages in additional lawsuits, many of them for fraud and misrepresentation.
5. COVID vaccine producer AstraZeneca settled tens of thousands of lawsuits for withholding drug safety information and misleading marketing.
6. COVID vaccine producer Moderna is known for its secrecy and lack of peer review, and for operating primarily for profit.
7. The Canadian government is supposed to require informed consent before drug and vaccine testing can take place in humans. Since, as the government affirms they were never completed, extended clinical trials of COVID vaccines are currently being performed on the mass Canadian public without any such consent.
8. Since they are relatively new, there is understandably no data on the long-term negative effects of any of the current COVID vaccines, thus making claims of “safety” dubious at best. Considering that new and unforeseen side-effects are being discovered on a regular basis it’s not unreasonable to assume that additional long-term effects will be observed. Additionally, efficacy data is subject to different interpretations, especially in the context of incomplete or incompatible data. As such, neither the safety nor efficacy of existing COVID vaccines is established, and based on current trends both parameters appear to be shifting negatively or are at least being called into question.
9. Vaccine makers have been shielded from any legal liability by the federal government over the COVID vaccines. The government has stringent filters on who is eligible for compensation and ultimately it will be taxpayers who will pay for any mistakes or malfeasance on the part of manufacturers. The government says that this is “normal”. In May of this year, despite numerous adverse vaccine reactions to COVID vaccines and 6 months after the initial announcement, the government had yet to consider any claims, stating only that they would be handled by a “third party”. That third party ended up being Ottawa-based RCGT Consulting, an accounting and tax firm.

Putting all of this together: the Canadian government, itself laying claim to a long history of ostensible “genocide” and other reprehensible behaviour, has granted legal immunity to companies that have engaged in mass fraud and deception resulting in death and injury, instead holding the public liable for any fraud or malfeasance, while trusting those same companies to provide the medical community and the public with information on safety and efficacy, information that is being shown to be increasingly “inaccurate” (to put it nicely).

Claims that this is being done for public health conflict strikingly with the government’s refusal to ban cigarettes which kill an estimated 48,000 people each year, often after long bouts in the hospital on respirators and other medical equipment, similar to COVID patients, of whom approximately 26,500 have died since the start of the pandemic a year and a half ago. The excuse of “protecting others” is shown to be a farce when compared to exposure from secondhand smoke, alone affecting roughly the same number of people as died from COVID. And the idea that big tobacco is so deeply entrenched in the system that it can’t be removed is both silly considering that the government pretty much shut down the whole economy, and yet more evidence that COVID measures have little to do with science or “protecting the public”. If rapacious big tobacco has such a hold on government, why wouldn’t big pharma with their history of greed, lies and death? As a result, why should government itself be trusted?

If it’s my choice to engage in a behaviour like smoking and expose those around me to that risk, one that results in a much higher and prolonged mortality than COVID, then the whole argument against my choice not to be vaccinated falls apart.

Even so, it’s not that I’m necessarily against vaccines but it seems quite obvious that putting trust in such a system and what it’s peddling is delusional bordering on dangerously insane. That vaccines are now increasingly being mandated and forced onto people worldwide puts a whole new and very sinister spin on things.

I recall some people mentioning that it was paranoid to suggest that the COVID excuse was going to be extended indefinitely (variants!) and used as an excuse by the state to impose overt, totalitarian, tyrannical control over the population. To be honest, it seemed a bit alarmist to me too, although there were some warning signs. Well, things have progressed.

So you want the good news or the bad news first?

The good news is that there is no longer any doubt about this, it’s 100% in effect right now. The bad news is that people are too busy packing patios and parks after a year and a half of mental house arrest (all that’s missing is the tracking anklet), and although some local news – which fail to explain how exactly governments have been “handed” all these powers – is predictably pointing fingers abroad to demonstrate growing state authoritarianism, no one here really seems to give a shit. As long as you can have a beer outdoors once in a while, I guess, it’s no longer a terrifying dystopian nightmare of absolute government control and tyranny.

And of course, Canadian mainstream media is simply the propaganda arm of the state (note how all the big networks report exactly the same stories, often verbatim, in order to push a “progressive” narrative while completely ignoring others), so they won’t be doing anything but pushing ever more tyranny.

Without barely a whimper, the “Declaration of Emergency” (O.Reg 264/21) for the province of Ontario was revoked in early June. Cool … no more emergency! Now all that’s left is the bold and progressive “Reopening Ontario” Act — nearly a year old, so obviously not part of a long-term scheme at all. Obviously.

Oh, wait, what’s that right at the top of the Act?

2 (1) The orders made under section 7.0.2 or 7.1 of the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act that have not been revoked as of the day this subsection comes into force are continued as valid and effective orders under this Act and cease to be orders under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act.

Reopening Ontario (A Flexible Response to COVID-19) Act, 2020, S.O. 2020, c. 17

In case you missed that, it means that although it’s no longer an emergency, Doug Ford keeps his “emergency” (i.e. literally dictatorial), powers at least until the end of the the year. Of course, that might “need” to be extended longer (“Flexible”), but just until Ontario is “rebuilt”.

But hey, don’t worry about it. It’s not like Doug is using some sort of martial law to force-close businesses while lining his buddies’ pockets like a banana republic generalisimo, or thinking of imposing curfews like some East German Stasi schmuck, or arbitrarily fucking around with elections like some crazed autocrat, or waving entire sections of the law aside with his hand like some common dictator. Obviously not.

Unfortunately, this is just the tip of a very large and very ugly iceberg of what appears to be a, so far successful, attempt at an authoritarian one-world government. I’m not the only one to point out this trend but what seems to regularly get missed in the analysis is both that it’s happening right here at home and the level of international coordination, not to mention kow-towing deference, that’s being shown to global health “authorities” who simultaneously bemoan the devastation of COVID while encouraging people from all over the world to come together in maskless groups of heavy-breathers in order to “inspire” (just don’t do what they’re doing!), without even a hint of a suggestion of irony or that it’s actually the people who are supposed to be in charge in our so-called “democracy”. I’ve pointed out how Canada is in no way a democracy and never has been, representative or otherwise, neither by definition nor by deed, but now the state has dispensed with the need to crassly lie to people about it.

To paraphrase Ford: it’s open dictatorship, folks!

I was initially planning to write one huge post to cover the very overt, very public scam being perpetrated on the population of the world in the name of health and safety but it would go on for days so the next few posts I’m going to be covering this very obvious takeover by this woke new form of tyrannical totalitarianism. I’ll point out the glaring gap in science, evidence, and increasingly simple common sense that we’re all being forced to swallow in the name of “keeping everyone safe”.

To the haters of skepticism and critical inquiry there is nothing that exceeds the God-like wisdom and superiority of our benign, loving government and their throngs of “experts”. I’m sure I’ll be called an anti-vaxxer for having the audacity to even think about questioning the COVID vaccines now increasingly being forced onto people around the world using what in any other circumstances would be considered vile state-sponsored hate speech (can violence be far behind?). I’m sure I’ll be labelled a conspiracy theorist for pointing directly to government websites, proud pronouncements by public officials, and undisputed widespread events as evidence to back my claims. I’m sure I’ll be described as crazy for suggesting that we can see what’s happening around us every day instead of being told what reality is by the state.

Deniers of reality will continue to watch people like Trudeau elbow bump instead of shaking hands because, obviously, preventing an air-borne virus is done most effectively not by keeping as far away from others as possible (e.g. shaking hands if absolutely necessary), but by getting up nice and close. Probably this is the same reason why unmasked, unvaccinated children were encouraged to go back to school to mingle — it’s risky for masked adults to get closer than two meters but having often asymptomatic kids within a few feet of those same adults makes perfect sense. Logic! Science!

But hey, don’t worry; it’s for your own good.

Recently, Emily Viegas, a 13-year-old Brampton girl died of Covid. I’m sure you can find more information than I’ve included but here’s a link just in case.

Basically, the story is that the vaccinated father (an essential worker, as if that was somehow relevant), was staying home with the girl to take care of her as both the mother and her brother had also come down with Covid. Seems the dad didn’t want to take Emily to the hospital because he didn’t want to overburden the healthcare system, something the media have been screaming about lately.

In many ways, this would’ve been just another sad story of a Covid victim except certain reprehensible fucks just couldn’t even keep their political agendas in their pants long enough to let Emily’s body grow cold before pushing them; sick assholes like Andrew Boozary, so-called “Doctor”, who proudly advertises that the doctor’s primary task is to be political (not saving lives or reducing suffering), and who was immediately on television when Emily died — the same television warning of hospitals being “on the brink”, a warning that Emily’s father clearly took to heart — while doing his best “human sadness” impression in order to push through his agenda of provincial paid sick days. Oh yeah, and systemic racism … of course.

Because sick days would’ve prevented Emily’s death how, exactly? Maybe by allowing the father to stay home to take care of her? Oh wait … he did. Maybe the mother could’ve stayed at home? Oh wait … she was in the hospital with Covid. Well, obviously the solution is sick days legislation. Logic! Science!

Naturally, Doug Ford caved and now Emily’s father can rest easy knowing that nothing would be different today had this legislation been passed earlier.

I personally don’t have a horse in the sick days race but it’s obvious that Emily’s death was immediately, coldly, disgustingly scooped up by people like Boozary (not the only one, I should mention), in order to push through a political agenda that had absolutely nothing to do with her death.

The fact that people like Boozary are idolized and applauded for their inhuman callousness is a stark reflection of the horrible dregs of humanity that have been slavishly published and worshipped since the start of Covid. People like Boozary are sociopathic monsters, pushing politics and hateful ignorant racism based on abject lies (many examples here on TCL), supported by media networks that are in many ways directly responsible for Emily’s death by frightening her father into avoiding the hospital (of course Boozary made no mention of this obvious fact). And they’re working hand in hand to keep you “informed”.

Why don’t people trust the media, politicians, and increasingly the medical community? Big mystery.

It’s commonly reported that “despite” the fact that black people make up only about 8.8% of Toronto’s population they represent almost a third of people arrested, charged, and incarcerated.

No, it’s not despite but because … it’s exactly because black people make up 8.8% of the population that the other values follow, not despite. If the black population of Toronto was bigger, that number would be different — it’s a direct causation, the cause followed by the effect.

I’ve gone over this topic again and again, showing how the overtly racist, malevolent, destructive, not to mention violent lies propping up Black Lives Matter twist information to appear exactly opposite to what it actually is.

But who gives a shit about accuracy or context when you’re reporting on people’s lives, right?

Apparently not the media and certainly not the academics producing these reports. It’s almost like they have an agenda that they’re trying to promote…

It’s the same reason why the word “disproportionately” is bandied about with zero explanation. Many people assume that this word means that all the numbers are equally weighted, that numbers of individual human beings are being equally compared to other individual human beings, except this is completely false.

I’ve already described at length how numbers are manipulated to turn them on their head in order to support a false narrative, one that’s subsequently propped up with misleading or technical (and conveniently unexplained) jargon that actual means something entirely different — in this case the diametric opposite — in common usage.

It reminds me of when I started looking into cryptography for the CypherPoker project. I saw a few discussions started by people who had claimed to have come up with “theoretically unbreakable” systems to encrypt, and subsequently decrypt, information.

Without knowing the details of how such systems work, most people would probably accept this claim as possibly being true. Except that in a cryptographic context it makes no sense.

In the academic fields that collectively make up the study of cryptography, the word “theoretically” means “in theory“, or as described in the underlying mathematics. Any encryption that can be shown to be impossible to undo (decrypt) would be “theoretically unbreakable”, which means that once the information is encrypted it can never be retrieved.

Although such a property could be useful (in a hash function, for example), to make the claim that a system is “theoretically unbreakable” and then proceed to describe how encrypted information can be decrypted is completely self-contradictory, even though in common parlance (outside of academia), this is often how the word “theoretically” is used.

The people proposing this “theoretically unbreakable” encryption were nearly universally panned online for their fundamental lack of understanding and seeming lack of even the most basic research.

The proponents should’ve been saying “practically unbreakable”, meaning “in practice” or when attempted in the real world. “Theoretically”, most cryptosystems are breakable (they often have to be), but the good ones are “practically” unbreakable.

In fact, for most such systems the theory includes a description of how long they might take to break if one had access to X number of computers capable of Y number of calculations per second, which demonstrates that no one would be able to break the encryption in any practical amount of time.

A correct understanding of the underlying language can often result in a completely different understanding of the supporting information.

So it should come as no surprise that studies like “Racial Disparity in arrests and charges“, the second of three documents cited as a source for the Ontario Human Right Commission’s “A Disparate Impact” study, makes the claim that black people are “disproportionately” affected by police encounters (with no attempt to explain what that actually means), while the actual numbers — not the misleading proportional percentages — stuffed into reams of tables at the end reveal that the lived reality of individual human beings is completely different.

I was going to post these tables here but there are so many of them that they’d literally go on for pages. I urge you to please have a look and judge for yourself.

You’ll find that with only one or two minor exceptions throughout the data, it’s white people who are overwhelmingly stopped, arrested, and incarcerated by police. When taken in the context of all people (when everyone is considered equally), then it’s white people who are disproportionately affected in nearly every category.

No doubt this is why the Ontario Human Rights Council is so keen on stopping any and all debate about the facts that they themselves present.

The time for debate about whether anti-Black bias exists is over.

Ena Chadha, OHRC interim chief commissioner

Because the last thing that researchers and scientists should be doing is asking questions.

Because debate might cause people to look at the numbers and question why nearly every single one of them runs 180 degrees contrary to the OHRC’s narrative.

Because people might also question why nearly all mainstream media, all levels of government, and the heads of police organizations are goose stepping in synchrony with these lies, misrepresentations, and conveniently missing facts.

It might also bring into question some of the other “systemic racism” charges brought forward by exactly the same people who conveniently jump from one institution and government agency to another to demonstrate just how “widespread” the problem is.

Another constant in this discusionless “discussion” is the regular presentation of statistics based on “self-reported” information. You’ll find this sort of “evidence” in many of the works of Dr. Scot Wortley, the lead researcher behind the OHRC’s reports.

To put this into perspective, consider talking to random teenagers on the street and asking them if they’ve engaged in any illegal activity within the past year. If you found that 90% of respondents said they hadn’t, would you conclude that claims of widespread teen criminality are therefore provably false?

I would be a little loathe to draw such conclusions if there wasn’t some sort of actual scientific evidence showing that teenagers generally don’t lie, but this is apparently where Dr. Wortley draws the line. A handful of aggrieved black people complain about their interactions with police, therefore the police are racist, therefore systemic racism, therefore white equals racist. Q.E.D., no debate allowed.

It’s precisely because this sort of flimsy, unreliable, and sometimes outright fraudulent “research” that has given rise to something called the replication crisis, a problem most prevalent in precisely the types of study that Dr. Wortley is engaged in.

In a nutshell, for a theory to be considered valid it must be independently reproducible; other scientists should be able to produce the same results if they follow the same methods. If not, there’s a major problem!

In the social “sciences”, the lack of replication or reproducibility is getting increasingly worse with each passing year. In fact, it would be accurate to say that a lot of the so-called research requires a good dose of ignorance, gullibility, and blind faith to be believed because other people carrying out the same experiments will often produce startlingly different results. But that requires skepticism and questions.

Imagine buying a light bulb that was claimed to “work everywhere” but in reality only lit up when screwed into one specific socket in the manufacturer’s testing facility — that’s the level of “science” at work here.

Personally I’d call that a fraud but if you prefer the word “lie” I won’t argue with you — the conclusion drawn is the same either way.

Part of my regular morning routine includes scanning some of the dailies to see what’s been happening while I’ve been asleep. I tend to focus on news produced internationally because not only is local (i.e. Canadian) news irretrievably biased, it’s also woefully myopic. If I relied on them exclusively to tell me what’s happening around the world I’d be a very dull boy indeed.

But occasionally there’s an article, like the one in today’s Toronto Star, that inadvertently provides enough entertainment value to be worth a read.

Here we’re introduced to the work of the Founders Fund (not to be confused with the Founders Fund), a business incubator “by women, for women”.

At the outset it’s important to note that I take absolutely no issue with ladies supporting each other to build business. In fact, I think it’s great!

It sucks that a similar men-for-men organization would be screamed out of existence, this despite the fact that the growing inequality gap means that nearly as many men might also be helped out of increasingly abject poverty, not to mention increasing obscurity, but I don’t want to dwell on that.

What struck me as funny is the liberal use of words like “diversity” and “inclusivity” in the literature of the organization.

Really? Overtly excluding roughly half of the earth’s population is “diverse” and “inclusive”? I must be using the old, non-woke dictionary here.

I had to chuckle when I read that the fund (which keeps 50% of its members’ fees), supports “women-identifying entrepreneurs”. So it’s not just biological women who can apply for funding, it can also be any dude who’s willing to throw on a dress and call themselves a lady.

Honestly, though, that sounds pretty damn sexist.

Why would women need to wear dresses and even “act like a lady” to be considered women? I would expect that any guy walking into the Founders Fund offices claiming to be a woman, no matter how “cisnormative” and stereotypically masculine they may seem, would be considered for funding. Surely no one else, including any medical professional, has the right to override one’s self-identification.

It’s a funny corner this exclusively “inclusive” mindset has painted itself into.

The Star article goes over some of the types of businesses that are being supported by the Fund, such as Alder Apparel, which has chosen to focus on the apparently dismal dearth of “functional and fashionable women’s outdoor clothing”. A quick Google search seems to suggest otherwise but I’ll be the first to admit that the subjective world of fashion mostly escapes me so I could definitely be wrong there.

Although a number of prominent images on Alder’s site, not to mention many of those that appear in their extended image galleries, appear to feature traditional “thin, white and athletic” models (an image that Alder claims to be challenging), there’s a handful of differing body types and races on display so, I guess, racist patriarchy smashed?

The Founders Fund has invested in other ventures such as a pricey panic-attack app (which prior to the funding had for some reason somehow excluded “Black, Indigenous and people of colour communities”), athletic hijabs, something called a “a family mealtime experience”, a company that produces “gender-inclusive underwear for people ‘who defy gender norms.'”, and my contextual favourite, a “peer-based program to enhance students’ critical-thinking skills.”

Not mentioned is the fact that both the Fund and Alder, perhaps others, seem to be connected to Shopify, the same Ottawa-headquartered company that provided the building blocks for the government’s contact-tracing app.

I wonder if that “critical-thinking” program will touch on some of these subjects. Oughta be a hoot.

There’s a lot of news happening around the world and it’s simply not possible to cover it all. That’s understandable.

And even though some of that news is tragic, only a handful of it can possibly make the front page. I get it.

Every news outlet is (supposed to be) different and editorial decisions that include which stories to run will necessarily produce a bias. That’s fair.

Or at least it would be fair if there was even a hint of balance between the outlets. It would be fair if there was an occasionally alternative voice, if they weren’t all in lock-step, pushing forward a very obvious agenda.

Case in point: everyone remembers Treyvon Martin, the young black man whose name we’re all supposed to perennially keep on our lips, killed by a “racist white man” in Florida in on his grandmother’s front lawn after going out to buy some Skittles.

For a brief moment the media reluctantly wavered in their “racist white man” tirade when pictures of the killer began circulating. Turned out that, if anything, he was Hispanic or Latino. The story wouldn’t have been any better if Treyvon had been killed by a green Martian but the point I’m trying to make is how it was immediately spun into a “yet another racist white man kills an unarmed, innocent black child” narrative.

The brief moment was followed by renewed attempts attempts to paint George Zimmerman as a “white Hispanic“, as idiotic as that sounds. But if race is based on physical characteristics and ethnicity is based on culture and upbringing, as the increasingly absurd news kept promoting, then surely “Latino Catholic” would be far more accurate. Or since Catholicism is widely understood to have been founded in what is now Italy, maybe his ethnicity should be Italian? And since his mother is Peruvian and undoubtedly injected some of her culture into his upbringing, wouldn’t it have made sense to call him Hispanic? How about “Latino Hispanic-Italian”?

Come to think of it, it’s absurd to call someone a Latino Hispanic if they have Latino racial characteristics and Hispanic cultural roots, but this precisely the lengths that the media insist on to ensure that their narrative of a murderous “racist white Hispanic” (emphasis on “white”), is maintained.

And what kind of fucked up demarcation are we supposed to engage in to determine when someone has sufficiently “Latino” (or “Black”, or whatever), physical characteristics? Who gets to decide, and on what basis, who qualifies as predominantly black or Latino or white or Asian or Indigenous, and how is this not unbelievably racist and segregationist?

Yet this is precisely what the incoherent media demand, all so they can continue the narrative that yet another “racist white man” killed an unarmed, innocent black child.

And it was this completely false and ridiculously twisted narrative that spawned the Black Lives Movement which aims, ostensibly, to end “systemic” racism against black people, especially in the context of the police.

Except Zimmerman is neither white nor a cop. And the “stand your ground” laws that Zimmerman successfully used to get away with it aren’t mentioned at all by BLM.

But why should that matter when yet another “racist white man” kills an unarmed, innocent black boy?

Let’s contrast this against a very recent murder in North Carolina in which a 25-year-old black man walked up to a 5-year-old white boy playing in front of his house, put a gun up to his head, and literally executed him in front of his two young sisters.

The handful of US news outlets that bothered to report on this were careful to include “allegedly” in the headlines (was Zimmerman described as the “alleged” killer?), and made sure to remind their audience that the motive for the murder was unclear (flip the skin colours and it’s instantly “racism”, case closed).

Here in Toronto you won’t find a single mention of this story anywhere.

I searched CityNews, CBC News, Global News, the Toronto Star, National Post, Globe and Mail, and Toronto Sun, and although there’s an occasional article about racist (i.e. white) North Carolina cops being fired, apparently the news out of the same state of a little white boy being brutally murdered on his front lawn in front of his sisters by a black man simply isn’t worthy of even a mere mention. Is that because the victim is white or because the perpetrator is black? Maybe a little of both.

But none of this is new.

Everyone’s heard of Treyvon Martin and the immediate rage that followed his death but who’s even heard of Cannon Hinnant?

Everyone knows about George Floyd, maybe not so much about his less-than-angelic past, and who has any idea of who Timothy Coffman was? Where’s the outrage and protests for Corey West? What about Tony Timpa?

Everyone remembers Rodney King but who remembers Reginald Denny?

Due to sheer numbers, there are bound to be far more examples of these kinds of things happening to white people than to black people. The way these incidents are constantly ignored by the media, onlookers, and society in general, goes a long way in explaining why we simply don’t hear about them and why examples of such injustice, when black people are victims, flood every media channel out there.

I’m not suggesting that it’s acceptable when black people (or anyone!) are brutalized, what I’m asking is why similar incidents are nearly completely ignored when the much more numerous victims are white?

And who bothers to mention that in the US, white hate crime victims outnumber victims of anti-semitism, anti-Islamism, or anti-LGBTQ-ism, often by a large margin. The media go to great lengths to make it seem that the exact opposite is true. In fact, behind black people, white people are the second most likely group to be hated on of any racial, ethnic, gender, or sexual orientation group — as long as every individual is considered equally.

And even though they occupy the number one position for hate crime victims, black people are only slightly less likely to be hit by lightning (0.0002% = 1 ÷ 500,000), than they are to be the victim of a hate crime (0.0007% = 2,325 ÷ 328,200,000 total US population).

The overall numbers are minuscule no matter how you look at them, yet hate crimes against everyone except white people are regularly played up in the media. Why is that?

And to what lengths will the media go to defend, justify, and “explain” violence against a white person when they would balk at even the hint of a suggestion that a black person be criticized and analyzed in the same way?

When they claim that they want to “dismantle white supremacy”, are they advocating that everyone simply be left to their own devices or that it be replaced with the dominance of another group? Has anyone bothered to ask this question?

Don’t even get me started on the constantly evolving definition of what constitutes “white privilege” which now is supposed to mean how a white person’s life isn’t made more difficult because of the colour of their skin. I can write at length on this topic with plenty of personal, first-hand experiences of exactly how my life was made more difficult specifically, directly, and very openly because I’m white (and a man). I bet plenty of other white people have similar experiences to share, at least until it’s decided to shift the definition again.

Despite the daily avalanche of examples we see demonstrating something entirely different (I’m working my way through a detailed write-up about the OHRC’s latest road apple), we’re supposed to believe that black people are being “systematically targeted for demise” (according to BLM), and being oppressed by “white supremacy” and “white privilege” everywhere.

In the words of Jeanie Bueller, “dry that one out and you can fertilize the lawn.”

I took a trip to a local grocery store this morning to get some coffee and bread. I was surprised to see a line formed outside of the front doors, similar to ones we’ve seen not so long ago.

“That’s weird,” I thought as I peeked into the seemingly empty store expecting it to be visibly busy, so I asked the security guard why people were being held back.

He told me that there were only two cashiers working and that the lines to pay were causing unacceptable congestion. I couldn’t tell if this was true from outside so I just shrugged my shoulders and plodded back into line.

My little detour managed to lose me a few spots so I ended up waiting for an additional 10 minutes, not because the line was long but because the tiny trickle of people leaving/entering was excruciatingly slow.

In all, roughly 5 people had left by the time I got inside the spacious store. Not exactly the deluge that I was given as a reason for being kept outside in the first place. But maybe the crowd was inside, away from view?

Nope.

As I circled the store there I counted no more than 30 people inside, and no one at the checkouts. There was only one entrance / exit so unless these “long lines” spontaneously de-materialized into thin air, where did all of the shoppers disappear to?

I got a sort-of answer to my question when I strolled up to pay for my purchases at the still-completely-empty checkout. (This is not an exaggeration, there were literally no people in line).

I told the cashier that people were being made to wait outside based on a claim that the store, or at least the cashiers, were crowded. Except … where were all the people?

She turned to me and with a heavy, sputtering Filipino accent said, “only have two cashiers working so need to limit lines. Too many people!”

“Yeah, I already heard that. But what lines?”

“Would you like bags, sir?” she replied, seemingly ignoring my question.

I leaned in and made an obvious show of looking around to try to spot these imaginary “lines” of people, then asked again, “what lines?”

She stared at me blankly for a moment, as if the question had overloaded her brain, and only managed to blurt out “bags?” a second time before turning away. Didn’t even wait for my response.

I decided to ask one more time. “I’m sorry, what lines are you talking about? Was it very busy earlier?”

She turned around and, once again seemingly ignoring the obvious revelation that she and store security had been shoveling bullshit, cocked her head to the side with noticeable annoyance (I guess at having to hold up the throngs of invisible people waiting behind me), and asked once again if I wanted bags.

I decided to drop the questions. I knew it wasn’t a language barrier; she’d already used the same words I had. This was possibly an example of cognitive dissonance on full display. Or maybe it was a form of genuine mental illness in which she was hallucinating long lines of people where there were none. Maybe this was what life is like in the government’s “new reality”.

This could almost be a humorous anecdote if it wasn’t so indicative of the general public’s unwillingness / inability to see the reality that’s quite literally right in front of them.

When the police or military brutalize them, kick in their house doors, or violently pull them out of their cars for staying out too late or not obeying the newest set of arbitrary government dictates, as is being done in Australia (be sure to read the last few paragraphs!), a virtuous example being promoted here in Canada, these same people will ostensibly deny that what they’re experiencing actually exists. And we can be certain that this won’t be the result of a philosophical inquisition into the nature of reality.

It’s hard to know when a line has been crossed when that line doesn’t even exist.