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.

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.

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.

The Toronto Star ran an article yesterday about going to the dentist while pandemicking.

I’d very recently gone myself with a chipped tooth so I can confirm everything that I read as being entirely accurate. I wasn’t asked “a lot” of questions but that’s an entirely subjective measure so I’ll leave it at that.

There wasn’t anything really exceptional about the write-up except for a brief line about halfway through:

Many dentists are now using a [pre-procedural] hydrogen peroxide-based rinse, which is thought to also help with viruses.

It wasn’t the insertion of a link to a name-brand mouth rinse product in this sentence that I found curious, even though it came across as a sort of stealth advertisement, it was the statement that hydrogen peroxide was in the rinse.

Ah, I thought, so that’s why the mouthwash tasted a little different. Dentist never bothered to tell me what was in it. I can’t say that I’m bothered by the chemical’s presence but it would still have been nice for the dentist to let me know what I was swishing with.

Whatevs.

But it got me wondering just how effective hydrogen peroxide is in dealing with viruses like Covid. So I did some research and it turns out it’s pretty efficacious. But there’s a catch.

According to information provided by the city, achieving the “high-level of disinfection” that actually kills bacteria and viruses requires that the chemical be kept in the mouth anywhere from 30 to 45 minutes depending on the variety used. I sure as hell didn’t swish for that long and I doubt most patients do.

Even “low-level disinfection” that kills “some” bacteria and viruses needs you to rinse for a minimum of 10 minutes, which I also wasn’t anywhere close to achieving.

As far I know, hydrogen peroxide is generally safe so it’s highly unlikely that rinsing with it will cause any problems. But at the same time, it seems that the way it’s being used also doesn’t offer many benefits in terms of virus protection.

I’ll readily admit that my familiarity with this topic is pretty shallow but it does seem that this particular portion of a dental visit is more wishful thinking than a proven solution, at least in the way that it’s being used presently.

It makes me wonder what other things are being done for our “protection” that, although they may be entirely benign, also don’t offer the stated benefits.

“Crisis actors” are people who have volunteered or been hired to play victims in emergency drills and training scenarios. This is a well-known and undisputed practice.

Somewhat less undisputed are the various theories floating around on the internet about crisis actors being employed by governments and large corporations to covertly produce knowingly fake “emergency” scenarios in order to promote an (often hidden) agenda.

Are crisis actors used to promote propagandist narratives? I’m not entirely convinced but given the types of things that governments openly get up to on a daily basis I certainly wouldn’t put it above them.

This is what’s running through my mind as I read articles on people protesting the imposition of face masks here in the city. They (the protesters), are invariably presented as idiots, “mostly white”, “Karens”, and other openly derisive and overtly racist terms to show the world just how despicable (and white), it is to question popular opinions and the wisdom of our benign and loving government.

Thing is, based on some of the things I’ve seen and heard I don’t entirely disagree.

Notwithstanding the unbelievable levels of blatant anti-white rhetoric being pumped out by nearly every facet of the establishment, the people being exemplified in these articles really do come across as a little dull. In fact, my own interactions with similar protests in the past has led me to the same conclusion.

When I’ve approached such people and told them that I agree with their cause, albeit for different reasons, I would’ve expected that they would be pleased to have both an ally and additional arguments to back their position. Instead, I’m often met with stone-faced ignorance, by which I mean that they quite literally turn their back and ignore me like I didn’t exist.

I can’t help wondering, are these people disinfo actors? Are they being put out there to demonstrate how stupid and ignorant one would look if one also questions the established wisdom of the authorities? Have I challenged their mission of painting dissidents as dangerous imbeciles in a way that they don’t know how to deal with?

As I said, knowing the well-established and proven public facts of how governments operate makes these suspicions perfectly reasonable. That they would engage in covert, soft censorship certainly isn’t beyond the pale for them.

Consider, for example, that the only anti-mask arguments being “advertised” like this have to do with the efficacy of face coverings, the size of the particles involved, and the illusory “rights and freedoms” of the protesters.

Why not, for example, question the general safety of masks given that the government itself provides exemptions for people with health issues?

Doesn’t that put borderline and undiagnosed individuals at dire risk of severe medical problems, especially during this hot and humid summer we’ve been having? Is it justifiable to knowingly put certain people in harm’s way — as admitted by the government in its own directives — in order to make others feel safe, especially when Covid numbers in the city are at a historic low? And if face masks are so risk-free then why have any exemptions at all, especially for people with underlying respiratory problems?

Perhaps the truth of the matter is somewhere in the middle: masks aren’t without risks but the government has deemed those risks (to individual human lives), acceptable. Similarly, the safety and efficacy of flu vaccines seem like highly germane and timely topics but you won’t hear anything even resembling a balanced discussion about them, just like the absurd and one-sided rhetoric being promulgated to support BLM. Why would individual human lives matter when there’s a false narrative based on twisted statistical aggregates, nonsensical comparisons, and “community effects” instead?

I’ve even been accused of “tricking” people and abusing their various mental conditions (only revealed after the fact), simply by having them conclude their own thought processes through a line of fairly simple and direct questioning.

“I have ADHD you asshole! You tricked me into saying that I’m okay with censorship and state murder just because I said that the government should kill anyone who disagrees! FUCK YOOOOUUUUUU!1!!!!!” This is an actual quote from an online discussion I was involved in, obviously not on the same topic but still indicative of the types of responses I’ve received.

After being accused of “weaponizing facts” and using “magical logic” for the umpteenth time I finally gave up. Their own opinions, as expressed by them, are as nothing to how they feel, and I certainly won’t convince them that what they say is what they actually mean. And heaven forbid I should engage in “bully tactics” like quoting them to demonstrate inconsistent or self-contradictory arguments.

Yes, questions are stupid (and racist, misogynistic, white supremacist, etc.), especially when someone’s own answers might lead them to conclusions that might make them feel uncomfortable. The horror. Just stab me already.

So it’s been about a week since our betters passed a municipal bylaw requiring the imposition of mandatory indoor masks pretty much everywhere except schools and daycare, transportation (noting that the TTC has its own bylaws), medical facilities, and residential buildings.

There are some neat specifics for businesses, like bars, which can legally allow patrons indoors:

*The bylaw allows for temporary removal of a mask or face covering when receiving services (such as having a meal) or while actively engaging in an athletic or fitness activity.

How thoughtful! You’re allowed to temporarily lift your mask to shove a fry in your mouth or down a few gulps of lager.

The implied stupidity makes it really hard to take it seriously. And I suspect this is why many people doubt government so-called experts and advisors. After all, this is the same caliber of people who brought us things like the smoking bylaw that penalizes business owners if they fail to police a 9 meter (29.5 feet) radius in front of their premises, a distance that often extends well into the street if not all the way across.

I haven’t heard of anyone being rounded up into cattle cars yet so for me the mask bylaw has so far been only a mild irritant. And there are loopholes in it that are big enough to drive a truck through. Nevertheless, I sympathize with the people who see this as a slippery slope.

Developments like the increasingly indefinite emergency measures being introduced by Doug Ford’s lackeys, when compared with something like the 9/11 anti-terror laws that over the years have never really abated, tend to produce some very plausible conclusions even if those conclusions haven’t yet been borne out.

When Doug Ford claims it’s not a power grab are we to assume he’s being honest? The oxymoron doth run deep there.

So is it so surprising when we find people resisting increasingly dictatorial demands by the state even as that same state tells us that Covid infections are way down “but we have to be ready for the next wave”? Sounds an awful lot like arbitrary, indefinite lockdowns and a complete stripping of people’s rights in the name of “public health measures“.

On top of that, it seems that in their frenzied efforts to impose their controls, governments may actually be openly violating the laws of their masters, something I realized while observing an interaction at a bank between a woman refusing to wear a mask and a front-door security officer refusing her access (to her own money).

The woman was showing the rent-a-cop the bylaw and claiming she had an illness, therefore couldn’t wear a mask. The diminutive female guard asked the woman what kind of illness she had and even after she was told it was asthma there was a lot of hemming and hawing.

At first I thought, how shitty of the government to make the businesses and ultimately their employees responsible for facing people’s wrath in increasingly tense times. Besides, I doubt most of these Covid bouncers have any training in determining which illnesses may or may not qualify so putting the onus on them to make safety decisions seems quite reckless.

Moreover, aren’t there provincial health privacy laws that specifically prevent random people demanding answers to exactly these types of questions? Aren’t business owners opening themselves up to lawsuits if they follow the city bylaw? Or do municipal laws supersede provincial legislation now?

Maybe until they get their act together we should #defundthestate

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.