Fall Of The West: It's A Dark Age Folks

Oh, I agree. The stupid shit progressives write exudes not just ignorance but pride in being ignorant.

They don't know history. They know portions of it that fit their narrow, vacuous narratives.

They're extremists and reactionaries laying waste to our collective Western heritage.

Any fool who calls someone a 'denier' is a nut not unlike witch hunters of the past.


Contrast this to this twit who is arguing for political idolatry.

It's outrageous as it is, well, dare I say retarded?

Here assertion is the perfect example of what the video above shows.

 "...I urge President Obama to ban firearm possession in America. He is the president of the United States. He can change the country. He can do it today. I believe in him.

I voted for Barack Obama. Twice. During his 2008 presidential campaign, my two daughters, partner, and I ate every meal in our house on Obama placemats. We bought these at our local supermarket, plastic-coated, plate-sized paper rectangles with an image of his face framed by colors of the flag. 

While politically minded, I am not overly patriotic, so this mealtime ritual of American allegiance was odd for me. Still, we looked at the image of his face each day and we believed that he really could be the change in America."

Dim witted political hack?

Try professor in 'gender studies' in academia. 

Don't try and tell me there's no Dark Age.


Here. This is the West today:

"A high school student in Brampton, Ontario was told he could not wear his Halloween costume to school because it allegedly culturally appropriates his own culture.

Joshua Sewerynek, a ninth grade student at St. Thomas Aquinas Secondary School, planned to dress up as part of a mariachi band with his friends. The school, however, stated the Colombian student’s costume is “very offensive” and would not be allowed because “culture is not a costume.”

The Tweets from the school is remarkable in its pompous and paternalistic stupidity. 

It has nothing to do with justice or anything else. Rather, it's rooted in shocking hyper-sensitivity and abject ignorance.

And just who the fuck is determining what is "offensive" anyway? We're at the point where stupid white progressives are telling how other should feel about their own cultures!

Couillard You're Impacting Families With Bombardier Bail Out

My wife is a teacher. Each time she goes out to strike she loses $200 off her pay.

Yes, they chose to strike but the government isn't given them much choice either.

Then they hand Bombardier $1 billion?

I don't think so.

This thing about Bombardier and jobs is a subtle threat.

We keep hearing how Bombardier is the 'pride' of Quebec. A company with pride doesn't A) mismanage their affairs like Bombardier does thus putting jobs in jeopardy and B) grovel to the government for a hand out each friggin time their in trouble.


Deniers Are The New Rationalists

Or skeptics. Either way. It's all good.


Enabling Failure: Bombardier Gets Yet Another Bail Out From Quebec

The timing of the Quebec's government risky decision to hand Bombardier a whopping $1 billion bail out (I'm not agreeing with the notion it's an investment) couldn't have been worse given teachers have been striking.

Let's look at the 'optics' of this shall we?

The government of Quebec is basically saying business comes before education. And the reasons (more like excuses) for dragging Bombardier's sorry ass out of the mud again are predictable if not tiresome at this point.

As is usually the case, the grievances of the teachers is largely of the government's doing. They're the ones messing with class room sizes and children with special needs. The reason? To cut costs as part of responsible spending and it's much easier to play 'tough guy' with teachers than it is with their Bombardier.

I'm all for scaling back spending but how then do they have the temerity to throw $1 billion at Bombardier? A company in perpetual loss mode. They just reported $4.5 billion in losses - again.

Alas, teachers unfortunately don't have the kind of crony leverage Bombardier has. However, their emotional pleas that the government's actions actually impacts students negatively is an accurate one and not far off the usual 'Made in Quebec' angle played by Bombardier.

Does it makes sense to you that we should keep propping Bombardier (and don't forget some of those people earn high salaries which you help to maintain for a private company) based on pride?

Not to me it does.

Bombardier is Canada's GM albatross.

The reason for the wasteful bail out is Bombardier's C-Series planes which aren't selling well despite their quality and the company needs cash flow until they hopefully get the sales they want. And from what I understand, not that crazy a risk.

But how is this our problem?

Customers, turns out, prefer to go with the alternatives offered by Boeing and Airbus. Bombardier entered a highly competitive market inhabited by Americans giants on their own and something tells me part of the risky calculations factored in they could always rely on government assistance to enable their poor business plans.

This is not a company. It's a Crown Corporation by other means. A ward of the state. A company that gets all the bids behind a cynical bidding mechanism with no transparency.

How does a company $9 billion in debt continuously get support from academics like Professor Karl Moore of McGill University despite its horrendous ability to stay afloat on its own? He repeats the same gargle-gaggle incompetent Bombardier execs use to justify their hand out.

Moore called it a 'necessary move' because Bombardier is a 'critical part of our economy representing 2% of the GDP and '95% exports'.

Not to mention all the jobs and companies dependent on this bail-out addicted monstrosity propping a House of Cards.

Yet it can't steer itself into profitability on its own. Bombardier operates in a low-success rate industry with high risks as the Minister of the economy Jacques D'Aoust admitted. But is still gonna give them money, you see?

I don't know what world Moore and politicians live in but where's the 'pride' in having to rely on tax payers to survive?

At some point we need to just let it go and take our medicine because investing $1 billion in a project likely to fail is not sound or responsible.

Nationalize Bombardier if they're so 'critical' to our pride already or else let it sink.

No more bail outs.


Fall Of The West Reason #47585667788889976

It's been a while I've posted under FOTW. Not for lack of content, Lord knows the current Dark Age we're mired in provides plenty. Most of them ended up in The Daily Derp.

This story is as good as any to start it up again.

The idiotic Finns are asking citizens to snitch on each other. Not that we're any better. Quebec has its language police that takes anonymous calls from people "comcerned" (more like offended) about English being present in places. In the USA I seem to recall Obama setting up a snitch lineA couple of them at least.

Liberty you can believe in!

Anyway. This is why the West is falling.


Things T.C. Hates

Can you spot the misleading - with a dash of misplaced smugness - part of the following quote?

"Nope, the Coalition for Affordable City has other priorities. The group has spent more than $9 million to defeat a single item on Tuesday’s local ballot in San Francisco. Proposition E would impose a tax on sugary drinks -- $0.02 per ounce -- and earmark the proceeds for programs to educate children about healthier lifestyle choices as part of a city effort to reduce childhood obesity." 

Let me help you along. Arguing it's 'just' .02 cents per ounce is an age old marketing tactic. Think 'For just $1 a day' you can help feed a child'.

When I used to sell children's encyclopedias (oh yes I did - for one month! Nice books too. Blue with shiny text and print and dinosaurs and shit) I was trained to say stuff like 'it's just $2 a day! and "Take loose loonies and put it in a jar!' as a way to "shame" customers into believing they were depriving their children of education.

What that guy did is no different.

.02 cents in of itself is peanuts. But on 24 ounces that's essentially .48 cents. And for a low-income individual who probably buys, say, six, that's $2.88 of added costs to the household budget.

They feel the pinch more than those in a better financial position. Usually the ninny-nannies pimping stupid taxes designed to discourage consumption (which they don't. Arguably, they just drive products into a black market).

Taxes are an unfair and poor way - excuse the pun - to change habits.

What else do you expect from a non-critical thinking group like modern journalists?

 To people who think this way, it's (apparently) the price to pay for fighting obesity and civilization. It's how property taxes slowly over time got to be so high. 'They went up Mr. and Mrs. Privileged Property Owner because the cost of maintaining civilization went up!'

Fairness you can believe in.

And it's all bull shit. 

Quote Of The Day

"If you're going to have a hard time making out (financially) this week, Bert, just forget my check. I looked awful out there, anyway."

Philadelphia Eagles fullback Dave Smuckler to owner Bert Bell after the team played before a small crowd. From 'The New Eagles Encylopedia' Ray Didinger.

Imagine hearing that today!


Shiny Toy Governance: Change You Can Believe In

Unsurprisingly, liberals take an unnatural route towards 'equality' by forcing a narrative down. Heaven forbid they let things take its natural flow. Can't have that. No way. 

Justin (stroking his toy car): You're a good guy Matt. Really you are. And Lord only knows you're qualified for the job. Heck, who am I kidding? You're the best man for the job as we all know but that's the problem. You have a penis and not a vagina. I can't have that in my carefully designed social justice plans, see? I hope you understand. See you in drama class Friday?
I'm so happy we got our country back.


Daily Derp: The Reign Of Derp Under The Shiny Toy Liberal Government Begins Now!

'Do anything' governance because children and environment has come.

Saddle up ponies it's gonna be a derpy one!

Lesssss start this thing! /strokes shiny car.


Gun sales continue to rise but gun violence still on long decline.

No wonder Americans needs gun control.


De-romanticizing America's immigrant past:

"....The first “illegal” immigrants were people, like the Chinese, who were banned from entering the U.S.  The Chinese Exclusion Act passed in 1882.  Over the years, immigration laws were passed that restricted certain categories of persons from immigrating, but no numerical limitations or quotas existed.  Those persons barred from immigrating included Asians (except Japanese and Filipinos), prostitutes, paupers, polygamists, persons with “dangerous and loathsome contagious disease,” persons likely to become a public charge, anarchists and radicals, the “feebleminded” and “insane,” and the illiterate.  The vast majority of people who arrived at a port of entry were allowed to enter.  Of course, some people lied about their health and political beliefs and entered “illegally.”  The Immigration Service excluded only 1 percent of the 25 million immigrants from Europe who arrived at Ellis Island between 1880 and World War I."

Timeline of the history of the immigration in the United States.


Swedish blog keeping tabs on its derp.

Fall of the West if this keeps up.


I'm starting to think this mythical 'war on cops' is largely created by the cops. 


Expect more of these kinds of 'shame' rapes in the West not unlike these animals killed their own flesh and blood. She was quite the lovely woman too. 


And utterly depraved.


I always like me a Michael Weiss piece about foreign policy.


You know, since I've been hearing and reading about health care rankings not just from the WHO but several other think-tanks and organizations, Canada has never been considered a world class system.

Like ever. We wallow around the bottom in splendid mediocrity.

But hey. It's "free".


Anecdote time!

Speaking of our awesome and compassionate public health system that is the envy of the world (so I'm told), three months ago I sent in a fax to the knee specialist who performed surgery on my torn ACL about 25 years ago. One of the screws never dissolved and it's a (sometimes painful) nuisance I decided needs removing. I was told if the doctor feels it's a priority I can expect a call quickly (inside three months. Yup, in Canada three months is 'quick') if not....

I guess I'm not a priority as it's basically getting on past the three month period. I left a couple of messages asking to get an idea - it would be too demanding to get a firmer answer of course so I tepidly accept a 'ball park' idea like any third world individual would - when I should expect a call for a date.

No one called me back and nor do I expect a call back.

I will have to keep calling and hope I get my hands on the secretary.

Now that's accountability in health!

Alas, we Canadians accept it because, well, I'm not sure why except maybe for a deep rooted irrational and misinformed fear about not being American or some shit.


Syria and Libya are Obama's (with aid from Hillary) messy creation and now the Russians are solidly involved in the Middle-East.

Foreign policy with a hint of Twist Shandy. Change you can believe in.


Tamir Rice trial:

"Sims concluded in his report that Loehmann’s actions were “objectively reasonable” due to his stated belief that Rice was holding a real firearm and posed a threat. Crawford wrote that the shooting “falls within the realm of reasonableness” defined under the US constitution. McGinty said his office was “not reaching any conclusions” from the reports and would present all evidence to a grand jury."

What a crock of shit. How anyone can conclude this watching the video is beyond me.

The cops over reacted and killed that child.

I reject this disturbing notion that parents shouldn't let their kids play with toy guns in public as well as the idea that people must comply. Even if they don't, it doesn't justify a shooting.


Speaking of police abuse. 

"On Friday, Atlanta Hawks shooting guard Thabo Sefolosha was found not guilty of disorderly conduct, resisting arrest and misdemeanor obstruction of a government administration. His acquittal on all charges in his case against the New York City Police Department was vindication for the Swiss-born star, who had his leg broken in an altercation with police earlier this year, causing him to miss the last four games of the regular season and the entirety of the playoffs..."


So much for fracking affecting drinking water.


Did I mention and argue we're in an intellectual dark age? Universities and colleges are leading the way. 

"Some students at the University of Missouri have called on administrators to remove a statue of founding father Thomas Jefferson, suggesting in a petition and during a recent protest that the campus sculpture is offensive, oppressive, and celebrates a “racist rapist.”

There are some really stupid people on campuses these days.


"How would you like a free butler, maid, chef and chauffeur? Try that and the Department of Labor will sue you for violating the minimum wage, overtime and record-keeping requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act — unless you are Justice Sonia Sotomayor. That’s right. Since 2010, she has hired unpaid interns as her servants. No other justice does this."

Look. My surprise face.


Speaking of liberal preachisms enter notable *Native* American politician Elizabeth Warren and her lack of self-awareness:

"...Kevin Williamson skewers Elizabeth Warren for criticizing Scott Brown’s Wall Street–sourced donations, when she has no compunctions about campaign donations and her endowed salary coming from huge corporate-law firms, which make a solid chunk of their profits from, well, working on Wall Street. But Warren’s close ties to the legal industry are vaguely hypocritical in another way, too: the degree to which large corporate-law firms increasingly resemble the Wall Street banks which Warren demonizes..."

Still with Warren, the title - 'Elizabeth Warren’s Intellectual Purge' - of this WSJ article caught my eye more than anything since it's behind a paywall but it did make me think of think of the nomenklatura.

Who were they?

"...a category of people within the Soviet Union and other Eastern Bloc countries who held various key administrative positions in all spheres of those countries' activity: government, industry, agriculture, education, etc., whose positions were granted only with approval by the communist party of each country or region."

From the appropriately named Linda Stasti:

"One terrorist group is responsible for more civilian deaths since December 2012 (the Sandy Hook massacre) than Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Hamas and the Taliban. Yet it is the only nearly-state sponsored terrorist group that is not listed by the U.S. State Department as such.

It is the National Rifle Association and for their unending lobbying that’s kept a lid on gun control we now have 428 times more American deaths by gun than deaths by foreign terrorists.

No? Between 2012 and 2015, according to University of Maryland’s Global Terrorism Database, ISIS has murdered approximately 12,138 civilians, Boko Haram,10,092, the Taliban 9,427 and Hamas, 85."

Yes, because the NRA calls on its members to kill people; never mind the heinous torture and rape those terrorist groups engage in.

Intellectually regressive this nonsensical shrill individual.

Linda, give me those stats. They're liable to give you a concussion.


Hm. And what about France's imperialist wars, Depardoo?

"The US? They're a people who have constantly destroyed others," the 66-year-old actor railed in a broadcast Thursday by Paris radio station France Inter, taken from an interview he gave the day before to Russian journalists in Moscow.

"They fought each other, destroyed the Indians, after that they perpetrated slavery, then there was the civil war," he said."

That's a whole lotta stupid right there from Gerard Depardieu.

Lord me. I thought Europeans were supposed to be smart and sophisticated.


Great moments in Hillary Emails.

People still watch and trust 60 Minutes?



We're seeing more and more of these stories.

"Germany is struggling to cope with the 1.5 million migrants it expects to absorb this year and those arriving in Berlin often have to wait days if not weeks to be registered at asylum centres.
The group of twenty who have decided to sue claim they have had to wait more than a week. Their “urgent application” has been confirmed by a court spokesman, Die Welt reports.

The court spokesman said the plaintiffs were seeking to “put pressure on the authorities” by bringing the case, and the court would issue a ruling in the coming days. The spokesman said that the incident was just one of several similar legal cases brought by migrants over the past two weeks."

 I don't think they grasp how this works.


Here you go. This is what liberals think about:

"Can you be liberal and eat at Chick-fil-A?"

Liberalism is dead.



When the truth costs you your job.

"A Chicago investigator who determined that several civilian shootings by police officers were unjustified was fired after resisting orders to reverse those findings, according to internal records of his agency obtained by WBEZ."


More weird and confused assertions from an aimless Obama administration. This from John Kerry:

"...Secretary of State John Kerry on Tuesday called for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to step aside. Kerry said violence could end after a ceasefire “if one man would merely make it known to the world that he doesn't have to be part of the long-term future, he'll help manage Syria out of this mess, and then go off into the sunset as most people do after a period of public life.”

Not too long ago he and Hillary considered him a 'reformer' and a 'friend'.


What do I think about the Volkswagen emissions scandal?


Diesel engines are awesome and I'm glad I leased a TDI.

VW got caught and should pay the necessary fines but I hope it stops there and we don't go over board with hyper reactions. The problem is they did it under a U.S. administration all too willing to make "an example" of companies. Already people have lost their jobs because of the U.S. and its hard nosed stance.

From TTAC:

"It is no surprise that environmental activists are staging protests in reaction to the Volkswagen emission scandal. Members of Greenpeace marched last week outside the VW plant in Wolfsburg, Germany. Somewhere in America, we are sure someone will print off one of those red and white pro-union banners saying “Shame on XYZ Volkswagen” and plant themselves in front of a VW dealership.

But to shame a TDI owner who is possibly already miffed knowing his car may be dropping in value — and possibly gas mileage and torque after the emission fix?

Portland resident Rick Gencarelli found the following note under the windshield wiper of his Jetta TDI over the weekend:
Hello, VW TDI owner. While cute, your TDI is outfitted with a cheating device meant to elude emission standards. Your car is currently polluting at rates higher than nearly any modern gasoline car today. Not to mention VW lied to you and the public, and was founded by Nazis (sad face). Perhaps it’s time to consider a different car.
(Signed) A sympathetic and concerned citizen of Portland.
As the locals say — in a shameless ripoff of Austin, Texas’ motto — “Keep Portland Weird!”
“It’s ridiculous. And very funny, and very Portland,” said Gencarelli in the clip above.
Kudos to Gencarelli for laughing it off, but would you?"

Sheesh. If true, get a grip Sargent SJW.

Don't worry people. Earth will be safe in spite of our intentions to help it.



Speaking of (poor) environmental records, the EPA dwarfs anything companies could ever do.


U.S. foreign policy in Syria as seen from Irannews.org.


And the Moscow Times.

For better or for worse (mostly worse), Quebec's language issues make news around the world. 

This has to have a negative 'unseen' impact on the province.


"...Gentlemen: it’s our duty to report that Barbara Barrett, erstwhile Cimmerian blogger, has been caught engaging in Orwellian “social justice” bully behaviors against REH fans."


French topless women crash Muslim conference.

This I can get behind.

Of course. France.


Enjoy this Generic Brand video.


The truth about organic food.


Good-bye Yogi Berra. There will never be another like you.

The Yankees legend and master humorous is no doubt among the greatest of all catcher.


Nelson Mandela. It's complicated.

Personally, not a fan of revering flawed people.

He had a dark side.

Not sure why this gets set aside.

Dominos pizza heads for Italy.

I'm gonna bet it will work.


When all else fails, just make a racist accusation study shows.


Are schools cultivating victims? Reason's Robby Soave (who covers campus madness) in a conversation with Bill Frezza discusses this topic.


Don't waste your time with people who keep talking about doom and gloom. This includes climate system change extremists. 

Things are good. No matter how many times we're told the shit is about to hit the fan (thus compelling people to demand we 'do something, anything because we're gonna die') we always manage to make out of it.



How to 'check your white privilege' according to progressives.

/points to sign.

Dark. Age.


The Nation feels Obama is a 'foreign policy grandmaster.'

He has an awkward way of conveying it.

"...Within the spectrum of American state power, he has slowly shifted from the coercion of war, occupation, torture, and other forms of unilateral military action toward the more cooperative realm of trade, diplomacy, and mutual security—all in search of a new version of American supremacy. "

Hm. Libya was an act of aggression without Congressional approval and wanted to do the same in Syria where he had to retreat from his 'red line' threat. What's the good professor going on about?

And the Nobel secretary regrets giving Obama the peace prize prematurely. 



How Argentina came close to winning the war over the Falklands against Great Britain in 1982.


The battle ground for the migrant crisis in Europe is in Central Europe; a familiar theme in history.

Hungary in particular has played its part protecting Europe from invasions.


Clarifying Self-Defence In Canada

From 2012 but still worth a look.


"Cohen echoes Nichols' sentiments, adding that when it comes to defending themselves, Canadians have the most rights inside their own homes.  

"This area is less grey than others. The rule of reasonable force still applies, but most judges will give you the benefit of the doubt," Cohen says. "… You can use any force you deem necessary to remove the burglar from the house and eliminate the threat to yourself."

"You could use a significant amount of force. If you knocked them out and rendered them unconscious, you will probably not be charged with assault," Cohen adds. "But if he was retreating and you hit him in the head with a bat and he was [critically injured], you might have a problem."


Friday Night Music

There Are 270 Countries According To Hillary

What am I missing? What am I not understanding when a former Secretary of State who is running for President claims she was 'the boss of ambassadors in 270 countries' no one corrects her?

Is there a possible explanation for such an error? 

Officially, there are 193 countries in the United Nations.

As for Benghazi, it's not about blaming Hillary about the attack (which wasn't her fault) but the response to it that was particularly unfortunate if not shameful.




Don't laugh. There are people out there who actually believe this sort of nonsense.

Sent to me by someone who braves the banal world of Facebook.


No Real Alternatives In Canada

I don't disagree the Conservative party under Stephen Harper, by the end, became the party of Dale Gribble but my problem is the fact a voter like me had no real alternative.

The Liberals were out of the question as I wasn't interested in voting for a party 'just because'.

I need more of a reason. And this is what really has left me somewhat disillusioned.

On my ballot I had a conservative (who I really didn't want to vote for), a Liberal (emotional babble-speakers), NDP (yeah right) or Bloc Quebecois (let it go already. It's over you xenophobe nationalist bobbleheads).

The two parties that intrigued me were the Libertarian and Pirate parties. Heck, even the Rhinoceros Party would have probably gotten my vote. Anything over the Liberals.

That's my problem and therein lies the advantage to the American Presidential system. In America, you don't vote the party (necessarily). The system gives voters some nuanced leeway allowing them to vote very much their conscience or along interest lines. If they like a candidate regardless of affiliation, they can vote for them.

I would love for that here. Alas, it's not how it works under the Parliamentary system.


Ladies And Gentlemen...

Your new Prime Minister in all his intellectual brilliance:

“There is a level of admiration I actually have for China because their basic dictatorship is allowing them to actually turn their economy around on a dime and say we need to go green, we need to start, you know, investing in solar. There is a flexibility that I know Stephen Harper must dream about: having a dictatorship where you can do whatever you wanted, that I find quite interesting.”

I for one look forward to his sparkling first impressions of Putin's Russia.

Remember Alexandre?

“Castro’s leadership can be something of a burden, too,” he writes. “[Cubans] do occasionally complain, often as an adolescent might complain about a too strict and demanding father.” And it is true, he admits, that the people are given little or no freedom, and that the country is abjectly poor. That, however, is because the tyrannical United States tormented the small island state, forcing Castro into choosing totalitarianism as the surest means to defend his country from America’s mercilessÂimperialism. It is not, suggests Trudeau, Castro’s fault that he is a dictator."

Brilliant. Brav.

Of course, we all know the love affair Castro and Pierre had fondling each other's intellectual masturbation.

Charismatic. Yes.

But commie pinkos at heart too.


Quote Of The Day

From somewhere in the dark abyss called Facebook:

"The only capable way to stop a person with bad intentions with a gun is another person with good intentions with a gun. That is logical. "



I. See. 


Mind. Blown.


Progressives Just Rewrite Things Willy-Nilly

Nice article on how dumbasses conflate government and socialism by Charles C. Cooke AT NRO.

As a commenter points out and I repeatedly remind:

We're in a Dark Age.


"And with this, they're armed with sufficient ignorance to make the claim that the Founding Fathers and what they wrote was socialism all along. Never mind that socialism as a political or social theory didn't show up until the mid 19th century. Remind me why we're not in a Dark Age again?"

And So The Shiny Toy Reign Of Derp Begins

That didn't take long.

On TSFA's:

"The TFSA has become a prominent tool in financial planning for many investors, offering up to $41,000 of contribution room to allow investment income to grow tax-free. The Conservative government increased the annual contribution limit of $5,500 to $10,000 for 2015.

Many investors topped up their TFSA accounts the very next day. But now the investment community is left wondering how – and when – the Liberal government will fulfill its campaign promise to roll back the limit.

“Most of our clients have already made the additional TFSA contribution and are maxed out. Taking it away from people who are trying to be financially responsible for their own future seems incredibly unfair to me,” said Darren Coleman, senior vice-president and portfolio manager with Raymond James Ltd., who manages 170 client households."

Mind you, we knew they were gonna do this. No real big deal but it's an indicator of how they view personal finances. That is, they don't want it in the hands of people. They want them believing in the state to take care of them.

In a previous post I worried about the liberals shallow anti-rich rhetoric and how it could actually impact everyday investors. Too many people dismiss this as just that; rhetoric and that the Liberals will govern from the center.

Taxes will go up for incomes over $200 000. Apparently, this is 'rich' in Canada. The 'savings' is said to go to a tax cut for the middle-class of about $500. 

TFSA's are indeed important investment tools for the average middle-class worker and here the Liberals want to lower its contributions. Not sure why except to assume they want that money to be used for other stuff.

Yet despite its obvious benefits particularly with the fact government funded pensions are under duress along with the demise defined benefits people insist on being ignorant:

"Exactly, the government needs to help the middle class to help try and reduce household debt. The few who have an extra $5K kicking around to put into a TFSA aren't at all reflective of the majority of the population. If reducing the annual TFSA allowance allows spending on programs to actually help average Canadians, that's what we voted for. "

Exactly, the government needs to help the middle class to help try and reduce household debt. The few who have an extra $5K kicking around to put into a TFSA aren't at all reflective of the majority of the population. If reducing the annual TFSA allowance allows spending on programs to actually help average Canadians, that's what we voted for.
There is literally no investment professional or person with a good head for investments who would agree with this left-wing nonsense. No wonder they need the hand of the government to take care of them.

So because someone can't do it someone who can has to pay the price? How in the world is this remotely fair? There they go with their 'the few ergo the rest of us have to pay' jargon. But notice how he misses the point. The point is YOU INVEST WHAT YOU CAN over the lifetime. You don't have to top it to benefit from it. Grow an independent sack of balls already.

On a socio-political level, how is this not 'divisive' legislation that isolates people? Is this not what the liberal media in the USA calls 'voting against your interests'?

Do pray tell and explain. T.C. would just love to hear it.

It's easy for you to do this given the gold plated pensions you will get and will never have cut.

Left-Wing Media Unsurprsingly Piling On Harper; Enthusiastically Ushers In Shiny Toy Governance

Lord, Lord, Lord. Lord Me.

And so begins Canada's love affair with its version of a Lightbringer. The narrative suggests Trudeau's victory was "real" while Harper's three time elections was an anomaly or worse manufactured campaigns.

Right. Nothing manufactured about Trudeau. Man of the people.

First in comes The Guardian. 

The Guardian harping on Harper's penchant for manipulation is comical. As if this is a exception rather than the rule for politicians and political strategists. They all try and manipulate. Liberal and progressives like to emotionally manipulate. Trudeau's angle is to present himself as compassionate and makes sure his persona gives this impression. He manipulates that. Obama in the United States does the same exact thing. 

Then the CBC - who probably held a private vigil praying to Gaia and celebrated like it was 1999 - couldn't resist poking Harper.

Both articles are what you would expect from the left. When I read stuff like that it only strengthens my resolve to defund the CBC and privatize its sorry ass. Not Rex Murphy though. Him he provides much happiness for me.

And there's this strange but typically predictable piece from the New York Times.

Apparently when Conservatives win, it somehow lacks legitimacy. To wit:

"...And gone, too, will be the Conservative habit of pushing policies at home that were popular with Mr. Harper’s right wing but divisive to the larger electorate..."

Eat shit you hams. What 'larger' electorate? The one that gave him three governments (two majorities) in a row? That one? The 66% who didn't vote for him? Them? Will they apply the same illogical nonsense to Trudeau when he enacts policy that divide the fucken 62% that didn't vote for him? The Liberals 'swept into power' using the exact same 'fractured vote'.

Honestly, the left is exhausting in their vapidness and deliberate disingenuous interpretation of, well, life.

Canadian law bans corporations and labor unions from making political donations, and imposes fairly low limits on personal donations. So the Conservatives used sophisticated software to develop and promote political issues that would draw large numbers of small donations from supporters, even if found little support in the rest of the population."

And this is bad why? Because the other parties can't match that kind of support?

Only in the mind of the envious left does small donations from supporters is evil. I think they know their own base can't ever rival conservatives on this front. Never mind the law didn't preclude the Liberals and NDP from doing the same. Thing is, they have a base that doesn't fork over coin when it matters. But the conservatives do, so naturally, NO FAIR!

Alas, only misogynist racists vote Conservative! Never mind that the Conservatives are filled with people in their ranks from diverse backgrounds. Morons.

They also keep talking about how Trudeau and his Liberals "swept into power"... with the same fractured vote totals that put the conservatives into power.

Fine. Your guy got in. Have fun manufacturing the narrative.


I found a hole in the narrative.

Liberals and progressives are not fans of inheritances and families who live off the wealth built by their ancestors. It's been argued that families who build wealth and die need to put that wealth back into the 'social pot' and not to family members for posterity.


What do you think the Trudeau's are?

Old money built by their ancestors.

Pierre didn't build it nor did his sons.

Cartoon Of The Day

More Thoughts On The Results

Well. Not really *thoughts* in as much it's a rant.

North America now has two faux-populist left-wing putzes endowed with a natural ability to pulverize us with empty platitudes in power to protect the parasite class.

One a community organizer and the other drama teacher.

Canada got its charismatic Obama Light.
And boy is the media happy they got their guy. Now watch the narrative spin into high drive.


Anyone notice something?


Conservative minded people are not flipping out.

You know, like how the emotional fan boys in the other parties did last time.

You forgot that embarrassing freak out which included the infamous (including from political operatives!) '66% of Canadians didn't vote for Harper', eh?

Something tells me, as I noted in a previous post, they don't give a shit that this time it's the reverse.


On a serious note, I worry about the Liberals on the following fronts:

-Taxes. Although something tells me they will reneg on a few promises made because Harper did in fact have things going in the right direction. The issue that will impact it...

-...May be climate change. This one worries me. The interests pushing this agenda and narrative have little interest in science at this point. There's no such thing as 'climate denier' or 'anti-science'. The policies that come with climate change can do serious damage to people's lives.

-Investments. It's no secret the new enemy for progressives is a block of citizens tagged as the '1%' who are said to be *rigging* the system preventing the rest of us from moving ahead. Aside from the fact this conspiratorial nonsense should be dismissed outright from a sensible mindset, it's an awful example of populist and divisive rhetoric. I don't see how demonizing the wealthy is healthy or has anything to do with improving the middle-class. Worse, there's a macabre thinking that if you tax everything in sight it will somehow 'equalize' things. No it won't. All it would do is hasten the race to the bottom while keeping everyone exactly where they are - or worse.

Example. You increase taxes on capital gains. This will not lead to any desired impact since the rich can easily move capital around - as in, anywhere in the world where they can protect it - as they ought to. If we lose that kind of liquidity it's not good for investment in the economy at large. Public spending is not a good alternative to this. Moreover, it will only make it that much harder for net savers who want to grow their investments thus preventing them from entering a higher class.

The thinking is if we tax the rich (who already pay the over whelming majority of the taxes so it's a blatant lie to begin with), there will be more money for the society at large. It makes no sense on any level except to confiscate wealth. They'd rather deny you the tools that help you become wealthy so long as it fits the neat little narrative.

It's not rocket science people. Connect the fricken dots.

-Liberty. This is a tough one as already the idea of liberty in Canada is a non-entity. However, the liberals have earned their mettle as a party that's moved from the center to the left. And when you pull left you enter the collectivist zone. This is not good for individual liberty. 'For all Canadians' is a catch-all phrase of nothingness and only means 'one size fits all'. There is no such thing as one law that benefits us all. Issues on gun control, marijuana use, private education and health will be key here.

-Foreign policy. This is where I think the Liberals may show their amateurism. Trudeau has displayed like on economic matters, he's not ready to tackle this area. If you think Obama badly misread and misplayed Putin and Russia, I wonder how Trudeau will face off against him. Agree or disagree with him, Harper was the first leader in the West to call Putin's bluff. Canada's foreign policy was clear and consistent. Pro-Israel, stand up to Russia, not bend to the UN and ignore Kyoto.

-The power of charisma. Harper was mechanically a sound politician. However, in hindsight, I think he knew he couldn't manage in his stoic manner forces that enjoy cults of the personality. Trudeau had the name and charisma to convince Canadians 10 years of stability under a dry leader was enough.


61% Of Canadians Didn't Vote For Trudeau!!

My oh my, I thought the country would have at least given the guy who emotionally spews out empty populist platitudes with no resume a minority.

Even Harper, who was far more seasoned and experienced as a politician and policy wonk got a minority first time out. So much for the 'let's see what a drama teacher with no experience can do'!

Meh. I'm such an extremist who doesn't give people chances.

On another note.
Oh look here, 61% of the population didn't vote for the Liberals!

Does that mean Trudeau must govern accordingly?

I bring this up because remember when people yapped on about '2/3 of Canadians didn't vote for Harper' thus demanding he, you know, govern according to their needs? There were even online petitions from change.org.


Will they accept their logic now?

Of course not. Aside from the fact they're were moronic for even thinking it, you really expect them to practice what they screamed?

In any event, the people have spoken.

Move on.

Selective Morality

A group of us visited the Baseball Hall of Fame in the picturesque town of Cooperstown this past Saturday. It was a long day but well worth the excursion as avid sports fans.

Among the varied topics of discussion was, inevitably, the fact Pete Rose hasn't been inducted because of his connections to gambling while he was in the Major Leagues. Rose lied sure but the Hall is not a place to judge morality or else a good bunch of those players would not be in starting with Ty Cobb.

As a baseball player, Rose (or Bonds or McGwire for that matter) belong in the Hall. You can but judge them on their play on the field. With Rose, I recognize he gambled and broke a basic trust covenant between him, the fans and the game. However, at some point the Crusade gives the sense of misplaced self-righteousness.

We seem unwilling to pass Rose a moment of forgiveness. It would help if he would, you know, admit to it though.

Regardless, I would love to see the standards we're stamping on Rose applied to politicians. Apparently, a politician's private or past record can't be used against them. It never seems to keep them from getting elected to public office.

Enough already. Point made.

Now reserve some of that selective morality for our politicians.

And another thing. Induct Tim Raines you boobs!

Trudeau's Divide

Pierre's son has often said Harper *divides* Canadianswithout much self-awareness about how his own rhetoric is divisive.

Apparently it's appropriate to attack a segment of the population based on populist bull shit.

Whenever I see the left jibber-jabber on like tiresome children about the "1%" all I see is the politics of envy. A tactic that seems to infest the progressive ranks in North America.

This is okay though according to that side.

Trudeau and his unimaginative, emotional driven shtick is not my bag. Who am I kidding? He bores me to tears.

Alas, looks like he may very well form the next government. We've already gotten glimpse of what a Trudeau PM would look like and it's amateurism all down. It's what Canadians seem to crave for some odd reason.

Obama Light has arrived.


Tell you what, demonize the rich enough and you'll get what you deserve.

Money is highly mobile.

Remember that.


About that middle-class thing.

People do realize the mere idea the Liberals actually (insanely I add) talked about doing away with income splitting is problematic, right?

Justin is trying so hard to be *different* he's attacking key parts of retirement and tax planning for middle-class income earners. 

Left-wing policies generally hurt the poor and middle-class.

This is the mind set Canadians may have to deal with for the next few years.

Go F**K Yourself John Oliver

God these liberal comedians are annoying nerds.

Go fuck yourself you ignorant moronic progressive.

And take Mike Myers with you.

These idiots would prefer an inexperienced, sophomoric, drama Queen with ridiculous vapid populist slogans and terrible economic policies that will whack (not save, whack) the middle class (which liberals excel at).

You vote Trudeau you're voting for Obama Light. And in case you haven't noticed, the United States under that administration has been marked by aimless leadership and divisive, cynical politics. A tone set by its leader. Not Congress. His leader and his team.

Expect the exact same thing under Trudeau. Amateur hour in Canada is coming.

You gang of emotionally driven  morons.


Quote Of The Day

"Do not blame Caesar, blame the people of Rome who have so enthusiastically acclaimed and adored him and rejoiced in their loss of freedom and danced in his path and gave him triumphal processions. Blame the people who hail him when he speaks in the Forum of the 'new, wonderful, good society' which shall now be Rome's, interpreted to mean: more money, more ease, more security, more living fatly at the expense of the industrious." 

Marcus Tullius Cicero

Early Federal Elections Prediction

The Liberals are projected to form the next government.

And they can thank Ontario for that.

How Canadians can calculate Justin Trudeau and the left-leaning Liberals (party of centrism my ass) is ready to run a government is beyond me to contemplate. Most unfortunate.

Alberta is going the opposite with the conservatives - as they ought to.

Quebec for its part is leaning NDP while B.C. are a mixed bag.

Government Money Management: School Of Bernie Madoff

How crazy is the idea of personal retirement accounts like 401ks and RSSPs being confiscated by increasingly cash-strapped governments?

Not cray-cray at all. In fact, it's likely and they've already started making noises about it.

This is not a good development at all. For people like me who are good with their money, I don't need 'economic policy experts' or politicians or any other member of an elite telling me how I should manage my money.

Indeed, it may not even stop there. They may even force you to invest in certain types of 'safe' investments like money markets, GICs and T-bills 'for your own good'.

It's a slow hostile take over of your money.

And you will have let it happen because you believe in the dubious notion bureaucrats will take care of you 'cradle to crave' under a system of depressed mediocrity. All because you were too lazy, disinterested or fearful of doing it yourself.

You know, one of the key virtues we used to be taught was the idea of self-reliance. Know how to do basic stuff. Like change a tire, cook, handle a rifle or shot gun, fish and hunt, etc. It shouldn't be any different with money. People need to seize control of their finances.

Yet, it seems like while the concept of self-reliance is sometimes espoused the actions of government tell a different story. To me it comes off as 'yeah, you *should* know how to do it but in the meantime take some of this to *help* you' whenever I hear politicians speaks.

I personally don't think they have our best interest in mind and if they do they have a grotesque view on how to achieve ways to help people. This is why I don't accept politicians takes on finance. It's too intensely personal and all they know how to do is direct a one-size fits all scheme.

When will people understand that if they abdicate their responsibilit  and willingly hand off that task to bureaucrats they're in effect entering a situation not unlike the one we witnessed under Bernie Madoff? The government can't possibly ensure we save for retirement adequately on any level with any certainty. They are just too many variables and factors involved. They could provide some ways, sure, like an RRSP but the idea of going beyond voluntary action is fast becoming a reality.

The concept of 'social security' and 'pensions' is indeed an important one. However, the way they calculate future amounts has proven to be flawed because of something called human nature. That is, it's magnificent penchant for unpredictability.

In my older age, I've come to the conclusion trying to predict future values is an absurd guessing game not unlike sports gambling. Lotsa educated guessing and some may even be good at it but overall, it's a fool's game.

It's often based on figures and trends that assume too many factors when it comes to human activity (littered with virtues and vices) that threaten to destroy any structured scheme devised through something called entropy. For example, in the case of government security of any kind, they didn't foresee people living longer or the worker to retiree ratio dwindling.

Always remember, these values are based on actuarial premises that while sometimes accurate are just as vulnerable to mistakes.

Government managed pension plans, we now know, are in effect bankrupt and it's alarming how many people out there don't seem to grasp the basic math of this problem.

As far as I can see, the only real solution is to grandfather in a group of people (let the Baby Boomers finish their Anaconda-like digestion) offer a couple of options to another (e.g. Millennials and Gen X) and tell future generations 'You're on your own. Save your fucken money and stop asking for free shit.'

As for company pension plans, again, pension plans sink governments and it's no different with business. The sole function of a business is to give a job to people and pay them a salary/commission for their services based on their perceived/concrete market value. That's it. I know. Not part of the narrative but it's the truth. Business is not there to sooth your soul, make you chicken soup and ensure you get that vegan lunch item while you exercise your right pray to Gaia at 3pm because you're special.

I know. I'm being mean but let's get back down to the basics and understand what's expected of each other. Company A needs a worker. Worker shows up. They agree to terms. Company pays worker. Worker then uses money to live. End of the equation.

Nobody should be getting stuck in between this sacred voluntary activity. Ah. But they do and it's called the coercive action of government. And this is where we end up in all sorts of expensive, regulatory, and arbitrary messes.

A corporation or business is not a babysitter and forcing people to save their money is a form of nannyism or enabling. I can't stress this enough. If and only if a company feels it's justified to offer more all the more power to them and its employees. But to force one and all into social benefits schemes is in fact part of the problem.

The number one objective of a business is not to make the precious snow flake is not micro-aggressed or to sell a fucken cake to a client it chooses not to sell to.

It's priority is to grow and earn profits to ensure its survival. Everything flows from this and when government gets involved they get in the way of this objective making it harder and harder to achieve.

This is the key to everything.

And so it is with people's money. Money is yours.  Why in the world would you hand over part of it to a bureaucracy and technocracy of enablers? Because you will get that 'free' MRI nine months after you need it? Aren't you better off taking a small amount off each pay and sinking it into an account to pay for an MRI out of pocket within two weeks? Isn't this true respect for your health both physically and mentally?

But T.C. the system is rigged! The 1% are taking all the wealth because I can't make ends meet!

You're an idiot if you believe all that populist bull shit.

The reason why you feel *poorer* is because of all the fucken taxes you pay from high sales taxes, to taxes on goods and services, carbon taxes, gas taxes and so on. Add it all up on top of your income taxes. THAT'S WHY YOU FEEL POOR. Not because the fucken Koch brothers are magically stealing money from your pay check in some sort of undefined scheme to rape us.

Grow up.

Taxes kill. And when you have less in your pocket you dip into debt to pay for things. And now you enter the nether-regions of high interest - the cost of borrowing money.

Now you're in a death-spiral.

But again, this has nothing to do with 1% rich people.

Let me repeat. You're a retard if you believe this.

The truth is the concept of saving is all but dead in North America and in some cases I've read people (like Paul Krugman and other unsavory progressives) actually argue it's a 'bad' thing.

It's ludicrous to chastise someone for being responsible enough to save money for a rainy day. To dismiss, the power of saving as something as money 'just sitting there doing nothing' is typical of a one-dimensional mind set with a retarded understanding of finance and how you can make your income turn into wealth.

This takes a certain amount of abstract thinking to fully grasp how income becomes wealth. Not to mention how schemes like, for instance, minimum wage laws actually negatively impact the job market and the ability for businesses to manage money. Look at it this way, by imposing a government perception on business that operates ostensibly in a free market you're asking that business to make adjustments they otherwise would not engage in. It's an unnatural impact no matter how you convince yourself it's for 'the good of all'.

I have my reservations it's about that in any event. Government forcing a bakery to make a cake for a gay couple against its wishes and fining them for not doing so has nothing to do with justice or creating a "fair" economic system in my view. The second the government gets involved one side will benefit while the other will not. But I digress.

You need to build a savings nest for many reasons from getting credit, for paying for an unforeseen event to taking advantage of opportunities that may arise like buying rental income property.

Savings is freedom.

Getting free shit from the government, on the other hand, is slavery on two fronts. You're slaves to their kinky promises and you end up paying for it on the back-end through taxes. 

You don't realize it but in addition to the Visa or Mastercard, you're in perpetual debt - through taxes - to the government.


Reclaim your liberty. And there's no better way to do that than seizing control of how you manage your money.

Which is why I advocate a basic financial course on money matters not in high school but starting in elementary schools.

Repeat after me: Saving is freedom. Debt is slavery.


Canadian Election: The Parties By Spending Promises

From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation:

"For fiscal 2016-17, the cost of promises made by the Liberals is $10.1 billion, followed by the NDP at $5.7 billion and the Conservatives at $256 million. By fiscal 2019-20, the NDP promises to spend an additional $16 billion per year, followed by the Liberals at $10.8 billion and the Conservatives at $923 million.

Recall that our $612 billion federal debt currently costs taxpayers $26 billion per year in interest payments alone,” added Wudrick. “Unfortunately, none of the parties have proposed to pay down debt, and one is promising more debt. We remain hopeful that whichever party forms government after October 19th will take concrete steps to address this elephant in the room.”
Notice the Liberals out 'free shit' the NDP by double the amount.  And no, that the fact the Liberals want to outspend everyone is not proof they're more compassionate. Just more willing to use other people's money to give things to people.

Not compassionate - or cool - to me.

Quote Of The Day

History Professor Alan E. Steinweis:

“Ben Carson’s statements about gun control are difficult to fathom….The Jews of Germany constituted less than 1 percent of the country’s population. It is preposterous to argue that the possession of firearms would have enabled them to mount resistance against a systematic program of persecution implemented by a modern bureaucracy, enforced by a well-armed police state, and either supported or tolerated by the majority of the German population.”

What's so preposterous? At least they'd have a fighting chance, no? At least some could save themselves while taking out some Nazis, no?

Honestly, I don't get this quote at all. Indeed, I find it somewhat unconscionable. He's basically saying they were doomed so why fight? It's insane as it is immoral.

Since when is it 'preposterous' for people to be armed? That they constituted only 1% of the population doesn't follow they shouldn't be armed because 'bigger force' in front of them. It's irrelevant to the principle and right to self-defense. So any minority should not be armed? Is this what he's saying?

If this be so, why should the American revolutionaries had been armed? What about Hungarians and Poles who protested communism?  Why bother because the Soviets had all the guns, right? Why should the Kurds be armed, right?

The only preposterous notion I see here comes from the professor.

The 2A is not about hunting or militias or anything like that. It's exactly what it's meant to be. The right for people to bear arms because the idea of government tyranny is the rule and not the exception in world history. 

Those who argue otherwise ignore or rewrite this tidbit about human history.


Another way to look at this is the hypothetical scenario where the houses on your street decide to come get your stuff, have you no right to defend yourself with arms?

History is but about attacks on villages, castles, kingdoms etc.

Has anyone learned anything from Lord of the Rings which is a good analogy of human warfare? Sheesh.

Humans have a right to bear an arm. It falls directly in line with laws of nature when it comes to human aggression.

End of the fucken discussion.

Upcoming Canadian Elections: Slim Pickings For Those Who Hold Classical Liberal/Libertarian Values And Principles

What is there, from a classical liberal point of view, to say about the upcoming election on October 19?

Not much.

None of the parties are particularly strong on classical liberal (libertarian) principles. Each party has some positions (the Liberals are looking to make access to information freer which can only help transparency while claiming they will legalize marijuana. The NDP, for its part, has taken the right stance against the abhorrent Bill C-51. And the conservatives actually have sane ideas on the personal finance side that are interesting from a libertarian perspective. For instance, expanding the TFSA scheme - which to a guy like me who doesn't contribute to an RRSP is a great option- and the possibility of voluntary pension plan contributions. This development in true thinking is great for people who have means because the government just claws it back down the road anyway thus fostering unnecessary ill-feeling towards the government. A person who is forced to contribute for all their working lives should never have it clawed back because they had the temerity to succeed. This is not right or even moral on any level. Last the Conservatives have actually been good on trade as the Trans-Pacific deal shows) but overall they remain as coercive and statist as ever.

The PC still spend too much and are vulnerable to wasteful 'bail out' options and may be a tad too ready to join wars abroad. Although I agree with their position on Kyoto and climate change.

The NDP, for example, want to introduce a national $15 a day daycare. Which is obscene and ludicrous if you ask me. Quebec's model has been a financial disaster laced with mediocrity, bureaucratic minutiae, strikes, corruption and unrealistic and arbitrary figures like "$15 a day". It costs waayyyy more than that to run a daycare and someone will have to pay the difference. In Quebec, $7.30 a day actually costs tax payers much more than that. Somewhere in the neighborhood of $90 because it costs about $100 a day to run a subsidized daycare.

Hello. McFly! The money is better when it's in your pockets!

No one should be surprised. Yet, someone in the NDP thought it be a swell idea to bring this monstrosity to the Federal level while promising to not increase income taxes.

Hello. McFly! Does anyone believe that?

Do people really need this? Haven't people figured out it's better to have no increase in income taxes ergo more disposable income to decide how to spend their money? Or have people become so lazy or have just come to accept the grotesque notion bureaucrats know better than them?

The Liberals flirted with the horrible idea of abolishing income splitting and are all too ready to cynically jump on the "1%" populism nonsense.

The options are slim for a classical liberal as you can see. None are outright winners on matters of individual sovereignty.

For me it comes down to which of three threaten the chance for more classical liberal principles to enter the national consciousness. While I don't think the conservatives are the party to foster this possibility despite potentially being most open to it, Canada doesn't need to pull left at this point in my view. Liberal, progressive, socialist policies and rhetoric stand opposite to the classical liberal/libertarian position.

'The government ought to' ideal should give way to 'I ought to...'


Welcome To Enlightened Scandinavia

Where the gender gap rate is great!

But rape rates are sky high! For obvious reasons.

It's amazing how the people refuse to connect dots.

And rather than debate, Sweden is gripped by the censorship and banning disease. It's a bacteria that can ultimately send Sweden to the emergency room.

While countries, aside from those that make up Scandinavia, like the UK and Germany are not too far off.

As I've noted in the past, stop looking to Scandinavia and Europe for ideas. They're a disaster.

More on Sweden PCism run amok.


Welcome To Our Bizarro Dark Age

Everyone has a problem now as we've discussed endlessly here. Everyone finds something to be outraged about.

While I've carefully culled a rather disturbing amount of articles that cover the malaise of perpetual anger that grips people these days, I think you might enjoy this site where it's all in one stop.

Read at your own peril.

I found this site after reading a ridiculous and absolutely retarded article in The Washington Post where some Wonker has a problem with people buying expensive sandwiches.

Yes, you idiot. The *rich* get better food, cars, watches, houses, education - you name it. Stop acting like a whiny, envious bitch pretending to be some sort of social justice warrior buffoon and accept this reality. I'm not *rich* although morons on the left may claim I am (meh. I do well for myself) but I'm able to, through simple money management, to buy the occasional luxury item.

I shut up and aim to get something. Complaining incessantly and using '1%' lingo is for losers.

Sorry. But this is the cold hard truth. We don't need envious parasitical people. We need doers with their heads screwed on right.

There's nothing controversial in what I'm saying. It's in our DNA to want this.

I don't know where to begin with this aside from the fact it's utterly pointless and rooted in the usual envious projections progressives have come to excel at.

No one is forcing anyone to buy anything they don't want to buy. And if people with disposable income choose to sink $12 in a sandwich all the friggin power to them.

How is railing against this pass off as rigorous social commentary? It's vapidity for its own vapid sake.

Is the choice by some to purchase expensive sandwiches coming at the expense of removing choice by those with less income? No. Quite frankly, this is where a sane and sober mind will conclude it's not worth making an issue of it because there really isn't one.

There still remains a vast array of sandwiches on the market to please every pallet and wallet. It has no value except, I think, to remove choice at the top because someone at the bottom can't get it.

But if this asshole had his way, he'd even ban the choice. 

Which, of course, is a sad way to think and the race to the bottom progressives seem to want. Except they call it 'social justice' or something.

And then came this from England.

"...Third year Oxford student Annie Teriba is best know for her driving role in the iconoclastic #Rhodesmustfall campaign to remove “racist” historical statues of Cecil Rhodes from campus, and for forcing the Oxford Union to declare themselves “institutionally racist” and mandate racial awareness workshops for committee members, because they organised a cocktail party called “The Colonial Comeback.”

Oxford. Fucken Oxford allows for minds like this to rot their halls? What kind of intellectually limp and weak people run that fucken school? Therein lies the problem. Universities and Colleges don't have the balls to toss these trouble-making clowns out. They don't add to the intellectual process. They diminish it; ridicule it. They're sinister in their bankrupted minds.

Jolly old England has lost its mind and Germany is not too far behind.

Notice the neat trick here. She basically made herself a victim of her own delusional constructs of what constitutes rape and other crimes. It's all about finding your 'victim niche'. The story isn't about rape. It's about her.

Comic books have been playing this psychopath tendency for decades. You know, the criminal genius who concocts a plan to make himself look like the hero in order to get the population on his side so he can go on plotting to ruthlessly kill and take over whatever it is they want.

The excellent show Gotham just did it.

Is Trump crazy? Maybe. Carson? Perhaps.

Sanders and Hillary are equal to the task. Though I think Sanders banal and vapid notions on economics are possibly the craziest.

But Social Justice Retards take crazy to a whole new level.

It's a Dark Age. And that's that.


A Bizarro Dark Age.



History Clip: The Great War

I'm always working on a Daily Derp but in the meantime enjoy this video.


Happy Thanksgiving

Ah. The days when Fatman had his place:

Try and pull this today with all the perpetually outraged SJW retards out there.