Sunday, August 28, 2016

harper Retires

stephen harper recorded a video of himself announcing his retirement from politics and posted it on social media. No questions. No having to face other humans. All tightly controlled.

It was consistent with the overall pattern of cowardice that marked his career. harper did not like having to face other human beings. he liked to utter brazen lies and ignore questions. Whenever things got to hot he'd find a photo-op or a trip overseas where he could hide from troubling enquiries.

This cowardice was a survival mechanism. Contrary to what some observers have tried to assert, stephen harper was not an intelligent man. Difficult questions would expose the truth that he half-believed his own stupid lies or that he had no clue what he was talking about.

A sad, contemptible man.

Friday, August 12, 2016

More About Hilary-Bots n' Stuff

Infuriatingly, some USA-liberal, Hillary-bot blog tried to guilt "purists" who stupidly won't vote for Hillary Clinton due to "argle-blargle" that it would be their fault about all the people who would be hurt by a Trump victory.

So, to begin, ... un-fuck you you miserable piece of shit. Number one: Bernie Sanders consistently polled as being far better at defeating Trump. But your heroine rigged the game against him and now it's closer than need be.

Secondly; I hate to break it to you US-American liberal, but "All Lives Matter." Unlike Obama, or Bill Clinton, or Carter, this Democratic candidate has a record; which is to say ... blood on her hands. Libyan blood. Iraqi blood. Palestinian blood. Syrian blood. Honduran blood. Not to mention the massive upswing in poverty in the USA as a result of social policies that she supported which came from Obama and her husband.

So, again; fuck you for trying to peddle that moral superiority.

Yes. Trump is a very bad, nasty man. But he's also less likely to start a goddamned nuclear war with Russia!!! Dip-Shit!!

Stuff: Some people say that elections don't matter. Bernie Sanders was nothing. Jeremy Corbyn is nothing. Often-times, more "radical" leftists like Noam Chomsky or the dudes at CommonDreams.Org or CounterPunch.Org. They say we should be "in the streets."

Oh for fuxxsake! "In the streets" doing what exactly??? Getting kettled, tear-gassed and snatched?

What is this "extra-parliamentary" activism you speak of? Perhaps the online bitching and small and large scale demonstrations held by the peace movement that have utterly failed to affect anything?

The law-making process is where power is. That's where things happen. The choice of the radical left to disavow this forum leaves it to our enemies. Their refusal to push for their views in debates with their fellow citizens leads to our isolation and irrelevance.

Saturday, August 6, 2016

Liberal Hillary-Bots

No. It's not "progressive" to support Hillary Clinton. She's a corrupt, mass-murdering, neo-liberal, imperialist scum-bag.

Reading and watching all these US and Canadian liberals twist their minds up into pretzels about how awesome she is and how evil, selfish and deluded her critics are is really just depressing.

I get that there's fear of the ignorant boor Donald Trump's racism and his stirring-up of racist sentiment. But there wouldn't be much fear were it not for the fact of the bipartisan shredding of constitutional rights by both parties and with Obama doing most of the shredding. It's not as if this racism isn't already pretty obvious. Ask a racialized minority person in the US if they're surprised by what the Trump candicacy has exposed. (Please don't think I believe that Canada is a multi-racial paradise. I don't.)

Hillary wouldn't release the transcripts of her speech to the Wall Street criminals. Because she'd be embarrassed by them.

Hillary used to support the massive corporate rights/screwing workers TPP. She claims to oppose it now but her henchpersons refused to put that into the party's platform. And her hand-picked VP candidate is an avid supporter of it.

Hillary will link the USA even tighter into the embrace of the murderous, racist, Netanyahu (and subsequent Israeli racist governments) than Obama did.

Hillary is much more likely to start a war with Russia (which is INSANE) than is Trump.

If I were still me, but a US-American citizen, I just wouldn't be able to bring myself to vote for such a piece-of-shit.

Faced with such a choice, the sane person says "Neither."

I'd recommend "struggle" but leftists don't know how to struggle anymore. So I'd probably vote Green and then sink into despondent apathy.

Saturday, July 16, 2016

H. R. Clinton Supporters: Evidence of a Debased Political Culture

Basically, if you support Hillary Clinton for president (whether enthusiastically or resignedly), then you're a person who has lost all sense of perspective.

It doesn't matter that a race-baiting, sexist, megalomaniac con-man named Donald Trump is her likeliest opponent.

I would say that what the Left should do is to "fight" either of these monsters once they're elected, but the Left doesn't know how to fight so it's pointless. Regardless, despite the threat of Trump, it's still insufficient for committing the act of moral failure of voting for Hillary Clinton.

Trump's supporters come from the racist, stupid portion of the majority of society who have been suffering grievously under neo-liberalism. Hillary Clinton isn't going to make things better for them. She's going to continue the policies that have screwed all of us over and this is just going to make the racist rubes rallying for Trump even angrier.

What's needed is a president who will lead in constructing policies that will benefit the majority; White, Black, Brown, ...

A vote for Hillary is a vote for more wars. Guaranteed. A vote for Hillary is an endorsement of the murderous coup in Honduras.

A vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for Wall Street.

There's not enough "less" in the "lesser evilism" of candidate Hillary.

Again: The Left should fight back against whomever of these monsters win. But the Left can't fight. But at least the Left shouldn't vote for their own oppression.

Saturday, July 9, 2016

Taking On The Stupid Trolls

First off; my apologies for the formatting. "Blogger" decided to frame everything in white and didn't want to change the margins for quotes. Whatever.

Secondly; I started this post a while ago and at first I didn't want to identify Davis Aurini by name and therefore referred to him as "the writer" but it's become tiresome. So at some point you'll notice I stopped doing that.

Third; As you know, I've pretty much given up on blogging. It doesn't really accomplish anything and I don't expect that this post will accomplish anything either. It's also the case that I've investigated the sorts of insane yammerings of individuals just as cretinous as Davis Aurini before at this blog and I didn't really expect to discover anything new about the depths of depravity that people like him are capable of reaching. However, the rise of Donald Trump, with his incoherent, ignorant speeches; his naked race-baiting; his perversion and hypocrisy (mirrored by the hypocrisy of his "Evangelical" supporters) has helped to encourage an explosion of neo-Nazi rage and stupidity. The size of the retrograde, hideously stupid and ignorant portion of the US-American populace has been made plain for all to see. (And, sadly, the response of too many US-American "progressives" has been to rally behind a corrupt, murderous, cynical Wall Street shill named Hillary Clinton. Fuck those people.)

Davis Aurini is, it's turned out, one of those Trump supporters who has long been demonstrating the racist nature of this entire political bowel movement comprising 25% of the electorate. I figure that it's just time once again to look under the rock and expose the stuff that's crawling around underneath. (A strained metaphor since the things that lurk under rocks are generally harmless, useful creatures and Davis Aurini is the exact opposite.) I won't go so far as to say that Aurini is a con-man, although I would understand it if any of the chumps who gave him money for the documentary on Anita Sarkeesian he was supposed to produce with Jordan Owen, thought that he was one. I only know about Aurini at all from reading David Futrelle's blog "We Hunted the Mammoth." Futrelle used to focus more on anti-feminists but he seems to be expanding from them to racist Nazi's as well. (This is due to the tendency of many "Men's Rights" activists to also be racist Nazis.)

Anyhow, it was all this, plus Aurini's strange reference to leftists, gays, minorities, etc., as "rabbits" that made me decide to waste my time and offer a substantive critique of the writings of a mental dirt-bag.

Enjoy!
By now I’m sure you’ve heard all about the Musloid terrorist and registered Democrat who shot up the Pulse gay club in Orlando, Florida.  
"Musloid"? Now, I hate religion as much as the next fellah. And Islam produces its fair share of retrograde values. But this hatred of all Muslims merely shows the writer to be a successfully deluded chump. The elites have given the mouth-breathers a scapegoat to fixate on and the writer (like millions of other mental mediocrities) has fallen for it totally. Your average Muslim is no more deranged and degenerate than your average Christian, or Hindu or Buddhist. "Musloid" is racist, or bigoted.

"Registered Democrat" is an interesting fact. Given that the Democrats are less anti-Muslim that would make sense though. Note: We could also call the shooter a "proud gun owner." We could call him a "homophobe." We could call him a "man." But I suspect linking the killer to any of these groups would strike the writer as irrelevant and unfair.
You’ve probably also heard that his father was running for President in Afghanistan, and that the FBI had interviewed him twice already; that his ex-wife had accused him of assault, that coworkers had reported him to the higher-ups at G4S “the Leading U.S. Security Company” for his hateful statements, and the speculation that there was a second, even a third shooter that nobody is talking about.
Except for the stuff about other shooters, ... yeah, sure.
I’m sure you’ve heard all of this, so I won’t belabour the details.  Instead, I want to look forward.
Oh. Okay. Sorry. Carry on ...
What will be the fallout from this event in the weeks and months to come?  How will the Liberals spin this act of cannibalism between two of their major demographics?
What "demographics"? Gun owners? Homophobes? Adult males? Victims of gun violence? 
The answer lies in understanding the psychology of the r-type rabbit.
Excuse me?
...
Okay. I'm back. According to Wikipedia, "r-type rabbit" refers to "r/K selection theory" ...
In ecologyr/K selection theory relates to the selection of combinations of traits in an organism that trade off between quantity and quality of offspring. The focus upon either increased quantity of offspring at the expense of individual parental investment in r-strategists, or reduced quantity of offspring with a corresponding increased parental investment in K-strategists, varies widely, seemingly to promote success in particular environments.  ...     The theory was popular in the 1970s and 1980s, when it was used as a heuristic device, but lost importance in the early 1990s, when it was criticized by several empirical studies.[4][5] A life-history paradigm has replaced the r/Kselection paradigm but continues to incorporate many of its important themes.[6]
Conservative commentators have been talking about the Victim Olympics; who will be scored higher?  The Gays or the Muslims?  Who will get a pass?
Who is to blame for this tragedy and who will be absolved? The murderer or his victims? From the responses I'd say that the murderous, homophobic gun-owner has taken the heat and his victims got a pass.
This sort of thinking ignores how this hierarchy was created in the first place.  Us K-types prefer explicit hierarchies and distinct rules.  Whenever we examining Leftist insanity we try and put it into logical terms; poor people are higher up than rich people, blacks over whites, women over men, foreigners over natives, et cetera – and we try and create a logical inversion of natural hierachy so as to understand the liberal mind.  
Okay. Now the writer has gone from arbitrarily assigning the murderer to the demographic of "Muslim" (rather than "male" or "gun-owner" or "homophobe and possible closet-case") and is pronouncing on the hierarchical status of "Muslims" and "Gays" for Leftists. He has done this while simultaneously babbling about r/K selection theory which was used to describe the behaviour of different species, and which (it appears) "conservative" nut-bars have appropriated to incoherently describe the behaviour of members of the same species. We should stop right now and clarify a few things:
1. There are two sides here. The murderer and his victims.
2. The murderer's background was Muslim-Afghan. But he was also a human male. He was a homophobe. And he was a gun-owner. He was a lot of things, some of which intersect with the writer's own demographic.
3. The writer is fixated upon the murderer's Muslim background because (as I said earlier) he's a stupid chump who has been successfully distracted by the Great Bullshit War on Terror. (Probably because it appeals to his inherent bigoted nature caused by his intellectual limitations.)
4. Leftists oppose Islamophobia because it is scapegoating. Because state-targeting of defined ethnic groups for surveillance and harassment and persecution is always and everywhere a bad thing.
5. The writer's claims that leftists rank Blacks as higher than Whites, women as higher than men, poor people as higher than rich people, etc., are, at base false. The writer is simply too stupid to understand the reasons why leftists might think that the needs of traditionally oppressed or exploited groups might need more attention than those of previously privileged groups, but that is no reason to coddle him. The writer needs to pull his head out of his filthy ass.
6. The writer is (I imagine) going to extrapolate from his pompous appropriation of "r/K selection theory" to assert that leftists as people who advocate for sexual realism and sexual freedom are "r-types" who engage in promiscuity, encourage single-female parent households with multiple children from multiple fathers, and celebrate sexual "deviancy." The writer has already self-identified as a "K-type." Presumably, he is a heterosexual who will (at some point in the future) settle down long-term with a heterosexual female to raise (at most) two to three offspring.
This completely ignores that many female leftists are not promiscuous. They do not have multiple children from multiple fathers. They often form long-term pair-bonds with partners on the basis of equality and have fewer children. Also, most Muslim families would be described as "K-types" according to the writer's criteria. As such, shouldn't they be welcomed by the writer with open arms? Also, it is the Christian right-wing that celebrates the Duggars who have lots and lots of children. And, while the females in the Duggar family appear to adhere to the monogamy so praised by "conservative thinkers" who engage in this "r/K" nonsense, one cannot say the same for some of the Duggar males who try to copulate with as many females as possible (including close family members). 
The fact of the matter is that the writer's attempted use of "r/K selection theory" is fraudulent, laughable bullshit from the start.
Quite frankly, this is like trying to figure out the hierarchy of ‘coolness’ in a High School social scene by creating a chart of brand-name clothing worn, and extracurricular activities performed.  It will be useful for all of three months until the hierarchy suddenly shifts for no apparent reason.
It's already been established that everything the writer has said up to this point is a string of empty assertions.
To understand their hierarchy, 
This hierarchy doesn't exist. The basis for the writer's belief in this leftist hierarchy is the writer's lack of comprehension of numerous facts.
and how they will react, you must understand their psychology – and that, in a certain perverse way, what they’re doing is perfectly sane. 
Except that we're talking about millions of people with motivations the writer is clearly incapable of grasping. 
The morals of a Liberal are the morals of a prey animal; cowardice, treachery, appeasement, irresponsibility, crowding.
And here, the writer throws caution to the wind and goes right off the rails. Rabbits are cowards? Rabbits are treacherous? Rabbits are appeasers? I mean, I get that rabbits are "crowders" but so are Christians pooping out twelve children in a trailer park. But all those other attributes? Where does the writer get that? And where does the writer get the idea that leftists are cowardly, treacherous appeasers? When gays, feminists, peace activists, trade unionists, racialized minorities stand up to the authorities to demand equal rights they're being cowardly? When communists joined the French resistance and risked death to oppose the Nazis, they were cowards? When French right-wingers collaborated they weren't treacherous? When right-wing US-American Islamophobic chumps let others do their fighting for them, they're not cowards??? [I'm not even sure these slanders are appropriate for rabbits!] 
I'm sorry. This is self-evident drivel from start to finish.
They promote social chaos so as to hide themselves in its milieu.
That's bad writing. It's also based on a false assertion; that leftists promote social chaos.
When society has no clearly defined boundaries, or families, or communities, then it has no customs or rules.  
Idiot. "No means no." Is that a clearly defined enough boundary for you? "Police shouldn't murder Black people with impunity." How's that? "People should be paid a living wage." "Children shouldn't go to school hungry." "The state should not be spying on the people." "Don't poison our environment."
I could go on and on. Sadly though, the writer can too. And does.
The Liberal is able to seek out their immediate benefit without censure or consequence – aside from the natural consequences of Mother Nature and the Gods of the Marketplace – but by the time the collapse occurs, they will have out-bred and cheated their way into dominance of the genome.  They’ll have the most iligitimate children, they’ll form the bulk of the mob, and though many of them will be culled once winters hit, their genome will survive. 
But this is all empty-headed, pseudo-scientific garbage with no basis in reality. None of it has any validity so none of it matters.
I'll say one more thing at this time. I considered my blogging to be an excuse to practise writing but mostly to vent. This writer signs his own name to this intellectual dreck because he imagines its profound and something worthy for his CV. As such, while my ungrammatical writings and typos are embarrassing the numerous mistakes of the writer under review here are worse because his efforts are supposed to be finished products. To leave "iligitimate" up uncorrected is just inexcusable. I've noticed numerous boners such as this peppered throughout the piece.
It strikes us K-types – us pragmatic, honourable, loving, and rule-following wolves as a sick and twisted thing to do to your children – but remember, these are prey animals we’re talking about.  The only emotions I’ve ever seen them display are lust and terror.
What insanity!
And terror, in this case, is the key.
This should be good.
If you’re a healthy red-blooded man, then this attack fills you with outrage.

What if you're a woman? What constitutes "healthy"?

Despite the victims being a group who predominantly work against our interests – and who’ve been voting to bring this very threat to our shores

Gays work against the interests of whom? And gays have voted to bring homophobia to the USA??? What??? 

 – whenever you hear about a mass shooter like this, your first thought will be “If I’d been there with my nine-millimetre heater… or even a smashed beer bottle…

My first instinct upon reading such deluded drivel is to laugh. But then I remember that not only is this guy totally serious; his asinine thought processes have congealed with those of his similarly afflicted brethren to be able to support a major national political party.

This idiot believes that he could have engaged another gunman in a crowded nightclub, or he could have taken out an opponent armed with a semi-automatic assault rifle with a broken beer bottle! They should invent a first-person shooter game that recreates exactly a scenario where you're faced with a gunman who is rampaging in a crowded public setting. You could either be killed or wounded in the opening seconds of the game, or you could actually get a chance to try to live out your fantasies. In the latter instance, the ridiculousness of your thinking would soon be exposed.

” because we do not tolerate people who break the rules. 

Bullshit. You do it all the time. As long as it's done by your side.

This wasn’t a duel – this was a slaughter.  Whenever we find ourselves subjected to an unjust tyranny, one which we cannot immediately fight back against, even then we feel anger and we bide our time.  We may submit temporariliy – but only so that we can rally our forces and strike back against the oppressor.

What is this moron trying to say? Yes. It was a slaughter. It was unjust. He couldn't immediately fight back. Why? Because he wasn't there. He heard about it afterwards. So he'll bide his time. ... Waiting for WHAT? It's OVER! He'll submit temporarily. Submit to what? For how long? Why? What the fuck is he talking about??? Is he hoping to be at the next mass shooting??? What forces is he rallying against what oppressor? Does he even remember what he's talking about?
Not so with the rabbit.  The rabbit – upon suffering abuse, violence, and threat – this is the closest they ever come to feeling love.

Again; Aurini is so incoherent that it's unclear what the rabbit is supposed to be responding to. Being a victim of a mass shooting or just general abuse, violence and threats. And who are the rabbits supposed to be? Gay people who fought for their rights in the face of abuse, violence and threats from homophobes such as Aurini? (In which case, they're not rabbits, are they?)

And what's this about "love"? "Rabbit People" don't experience love, but only something close to it, when they're terrified? Where does he get the idea that gay people, feminists, peace activists, etc., etc., can't experience love??
Their terror morphs into something that’s downright spiritual – a spirituality that’s utterly demonic –

Da fuck??

and they find the same catharsis in Islamic murderers as they do in bug chasing and sharing their wives.  

Um, ... sorry, no. I feel no catharsis upon hearing about an act of terrorism perpetrated by a Muslim. I know of very few people who do. Actually, I don't know of any. Nor are all of the targets of Aurini's ire "bug catchers." And he and (and the rest of the right-wing's) fixation with cuckoldry is probably mere projection.

The overwhelming fear snaps their amygdala, and for the first time in their life they are at peace.  Those who are kind to them remind them of how contemptible they are; those who are cruel accept them as they truly are.
They love Big Brother, and they love Room 101.

What drivel. I'm sorry Mr. Aurini, but you're a pompous ass. Your method of argument is to string together a series of groundless assertions. I suspect that this is due to a derangement of the right-winger's neurological system that makes it impossible for them to think about a single topic for longer than ten seconds. This might be a manifestation of a reverse Oedipus/Electra complex that makes right-wing males desire to suck their father's cocks and female right-wingers to eat-out their mother's pussies. It's downright and utterly demonic.
As the weeks and months progress, the Left will use this terrorist act as justification for bringing in more migrants; 

No. No they didn't. If you had any idea what you're talking about you wouldn't have written such stupid tripe.

they will say that it was Donald Trump’s Islamophobia that drove this Musloid to murder, 

No. It was the shooter's homophobia. And now, it seems, his torment at having homosexual desires himself. And it was the NRA that made it so easy for him to have an assault rifle. Nobody has blamed Trump. Although Trump blamed Obama. You stupid fuck.

that it was white male homophobia which created his virulent hatred of gays, 

And here we see the sad effects of delusion and cowardice. Aurini is an out-and-out homophobe. This very article is full of it. He does not like gays. He sees them as contemptible rabbit-people acting against his interests. But don't accuse him of being a homophobe. He's a white (supremacist) male (anti-feminist) homophobe. But don't label him as such because it hurts his fee-feez, and it also might make him have to acknowledge the consequences of his words and actions. What a putz.

and that the solution is to hug a Mulsim and give him free resources.

The leftists DID reach out to Muslims to say that they did not reflexively blame them for what his man of Muslim background (who, incidentally, did not appear to be very religious) did. 

Gun control will be the solution.  

"Every time a psychotic individual takes his legally purchased assault rifles and conducts a massacre in a public place, the libtards start in on their gun control agenda!"

Well, of course we do. It seems to be the most rational response to the problem. What do the gun-nuts propose? Nothing. They say the problem is unsolvable and that, therefore there is nothing that can be done or should be tried.

More parades, more public indoctrination.  A greater security state,

The Orwellian security state is a bipartisan project of both the Democratic and Republican parties. The hysterical fears and contemptible bigotry of right-wingers such as Aurini help to feed it and justify it. Most leftists oppose it on principle.

not to monitor potential terrorists, but to monitor those of us who are calling out Islam for what it is:

Wrong again you stupid fuck. Obama has used this guy's homophobic rampage to justify the monitoring of potential terrorists and to take away the right to buy a gun of anyone who has been put on a "no-fly list." This tends to happen to Muslims by the way. Islamophobes, not so much. Unless they start making threats about killing the Kenyan-Muslim Communist-Fascist Dictator Terrorist-Sympathizer in the White House.

In other words, you've gotten it completely wrong and ass-backwards once again Mr. Aurini. Your deluded, paranoid world view has caused you to imagine yourself as the victim. For people who claim to be strong and proud and brave, right-wingers seem to spend an inordinate amount of time whining about how they're being victimized and downtrodden.

a religion of death and demons, a religion which glorifies in the psychological torture of boys and girls, a religion which has been a deadly threat to our civilization since its child-raping “prophet” first decided to become a desert bandit.

I think all religions are bullshit. So it doesn't matter to me one way or another to read criticisms of Islam and Mohammed. If he had sexual relations with a 9-year old and raped a woman after he'd had all the men in her family slaughtered, then that's bad and anyone trying to defend it is fucked-up. I do object to the sectarian nonsense of Christian Islamophobes. Or any criticism of Islam that is rooted in bigotry and hypocrisy, such as that which fails to mention the violence of Christians; the pedophilia of the Catholic Church; the violence of Jewish extremist; the misogyny rife within all these idiotic cults.
The rabbits love the pedophile, the single mother, the graffiti artist, the tyrant, and the drug addict; of course they’ll love the terrorist. 

I've mentioned the concept "so stupid that they're insane" before. I think Aurini has entered that zone now. (If he hadn't already.) Comparing single mothers to pedophiles and terrorists is just offensive. (Comparing graffiti artists to them is hilarious though!)

 Their hatred and anomie is reserved for the strong, the just, the beautiful, and the righteous.
Speaking of hilarious!!
Davis, you smelly turd: Calling yourself "strong, just, beautiful and righteous" doesn't make it so. The truth is that you're an incredibly stupid, confused individual. You're a bigot and a dweeb. You can't make convincing arguments because your brain lacks the capacity for sustained thought.

The divide between the left and the right will continue to grow because of this.  Those who retain an ounce of human sanity will align with Trump; those who have traded predator ethics for those of prey will align with Hillary.  Dialogue between the two sides – close to non-existent already – will continue to evaporate.

It would be nice at some point if you could provide a single goddamned sentence that explains what Trump has to do with any of this.
The elites will use this as an excuse to attack racism, nationalism, and the traditional family; wolves are a threat to their agenda, they’d much rather cattle who never see the blood of the abattoir thanks to their rose-tinted glasses.  Islam will be emboldened; and your average woman will continue to vote for rapefugees, not racists.

Okay. At least Aurini is admitting to be a racist. According to Futrelle, Aurini has only admitted to sympathizing with "white nationalism." Anyway, it figures. Aurini is a moron. He's probably been laughed at for his moronic utterances on numerous occasions. His stupid behaviour has probably cost him a great deal over the years. Being too stupid to know he's stupid means he's too stupid to figure out an intelligent way out of his predicament. So he retreats into the comforting delusions of racism. Being proud of your skin colour is generally the domain of people looking for scapegoats to account for their own failings.

Aurini is going to start going on about how all Muslim men are rapists now. Which is sickening given that he's willing to give the benefit of the doubt to a guy caught out-and-out sexually assaulting a passed-out woman behind a dumpster. White guys tend not to rape you see. Even the proverbial pervert hiding in the bushes could conceivably just be looking for a romantic partner. But every Muslim man is a rapist. This, according to Aurini has nothing to do with misogyny and everything to do with their Arab-ness or their Muslim-ness. Because Aurini doesn't like the idea of "misogyny." Read on ...

Woman?  Perhaps girl would be more appropriate.  Raised on narcissism, solipsism, and social media, your average girl graduating High School has been inundated with images of American Soldiers marching in cherry-red high-heeled shoes; of weak White men bowing down before the dictates of the diversity crowd.  Her erotic fantasies have been focused on pretty-boy homosexuals and yaoi porn, and having never suffered any adversity in her life, she cannot begin to fathom the threat that exists.

Again; a string of assertions without a shred of evidence. Zero nuance. Sweeping generalizations. Ridiculous really.
Compare her mental image of Western masculinity to that of the the Orlando shooter – the Boston Bombers – the Paris attackers – or the jihadis who behead innocents: instead of graduating from pretty-boy Luke Skywalker to bad-boy Han Solo, her first tingles will happen when she matures beyond the safe sexuality of anime characters to the blood-dripping blade of a third-world savage.

What a shitty writer/thinker you are. This is just garbage. I can't even follow you here. Thank gawd for that.
ͼ-Ѻ-ͽ
They attempted this narrative during San Bernardino, but they jumped the gun.  They celebrated the Great White Criminal before all the details were in, and were left with egg on their faces.

Whereas white-nationalist, Nazi, gun-nuts have never jumped the gun about anything. Remember Anders Breivik? The Norwegian Nazi? The right-wingers jumped straight from blaming the massacre on a Muslim terrorist to defending the actual killer when he turned out to be one of theirs. So fuck right off Aurini.

The Left might not have rules, but they hate being called out as hypocrites (remember – High School Rule of Cool).  This time around, because they didn’t “mistakenly” blame it on White men, they’ll be able to blame it on White men; and blame us they shall.

Self-pitying, grandiose dip-shit.
Our mission as Men of the West – as men of God, of Civilization, of Honour, and Beauty – is to take upon ourselves the task of building ourselves up so that we might rebuild civilization.  To reclaim the potency and virility of the Crusading Knight, and to be prepared at all times to fight these heretics and give them an ignoble death.  The prayer of Saint Benedict’s medal comes to mind:
Eius in obitu nostro praesentia muniamur!
May we be strengthened by his presence in the hour of our death!
If we are to die, let us die as heroes, slaughtering the forces of darkness that are railed against us.  Pray for the strength of ten men during your final hour, because one of us is worth a hundred of them.
Deus Vult.

Yes. And you demonstrate your honour and all that other bullshit by making shitty movies and blaming feminists, Muslims and Black people for all of society's ills.

[I just noticed that Aurini stupidly tells his readers to pray for the strength of ten men, before going on to say that he and his allies are already worth a hundred of their enemies. So why the fuck would you pray to be ten when you're already supposedly a hundred?? As with the rest of his shit-festering, Aurini has confused himself, stumbled over his own feet and fallen on his face. What a joke. He can't keep a straight thought in his head for even the length of a twenty word sentence!]

So, what have we learned? In the grand scheme of things, nothing really. The last time I did one of these investigations I just re-established that most right-wing thinking is garbage. Nothing's changed. I will give Davis Aurini credit for utterly demonic levels of stupidity. It makes me proud to know he's a Canadian.

Wednesday, June 15, 2016

June Post

I've had five days straight off of work and a lot's been happening in the world. Blogging is a waste of time but I've got time to waste today so ...

"Elbow-gate": - Ramming through legislation without debate is icky. NDP working with the Conservatives for any purpose is icky. The delaying tactics were silly. But Liberals do them too. Trudeau's choice of words showed that he lost his temper. I don't think he hurt anyone physically but he came off looking petulant and entitled.

The whole thing reflected badly upon everyone involved.

Jian Ghomeshi: -

Ahh. This is more boring than I remember it being.

Ghomeshi should have been convicted anyway. What any of those women did after the FACT that he hit them from out of nowhere is irrelevant to the FACT that out of nowhere he hit those women without first obtaining "consent."

I was going to say something about US politics, but I'll just toss those two little opinions out into the ether and leave it at that.


Friday, May 27, 2016

Brief Return On harper's Departure



So, stephen harper is retiring and plans to open a consulting group that dispenses foreign policy "expertise" (which is really just a polite fiction whereupon his corporate masters reward him for his services to keep him quiet until such a time, if ever, when they can kill him and whatever secrets he has on them go with him to his grave).*

*[Unlike most other things, it's impossible to go wrong on foreign policy. The only people who suffer will be the poor people from mainly non-white countries who will die. They absolutely don't count in the eyes of the Masters of the Universe. If harper wanted to pretend to dispense actual economic policy advice, it would have a good chance of being demonstrably bad, money-losing advice.]

So, the corporate media is praising him. No surprise there. In so doing, they only cement their devotion to a man who showed a complete and utter contempt for the foundational principles of parliamentary democracy.

Not enough is being said about his disgusting race-baiting as he flailed about in his last desperate days. His covering up of war crimes. His unilateral abrogation of our Treaty obligations to the First Nations. His brutalizing of protesters. His dizzying economic incompetence. His betrayal of veterans. The people murdered by his deregulatory policies.

We aren't reminded of his inherent cowardice. Whether it was running from hard questions when it was clear his interlocutor would not be satisfied with brazen lies and evasions, or whether it was abandoning his own colleagues to their fates when as their "great leader" he slithered away to a broom closet during a gun-man's rampage on Parliament Hill, ... harper's whole career was marked by cowardice.

A stupid, contemptible man. Too repulsive to even be funny.