Thursday, April 26, 2018

Does everyone have the right to loiter? Or does it just apply to black folks?

The nerve of Starbucks for kicking two black guys out of one of their shops. No matter what the actual circumstances are, many people think this is a prima facie case of racial discrimination.

I can see the day when some convenience store owner gets accused of anti-black discrimination because he insisted on being paid for the chocolate bar.

"We wasn't doin' nuthin'. We was just grabbin' a few chocolate bars and this shopkeeper called the cops!"

Desmond Cole, Matthew Green, Andray Domise, (all of whom have blocked me on Twitter,) and a raft of other race-obsessed "activists" will be emboldened enough to declare that expecting to be paid for goods and services is just another example of "white supremacy."

What I would like to know is this, is it Starbucks corporate policy that anyone can occupy space in their stores, and use the washrooms etc. even if they have no intention of purchasing any product?

If this is indeed their policy, then yes, denying two black men the right to loiter in one of their stores, while allowing everyone else to loiter there is compelling evidence of racial discrimination.

If not, it's pure BULLSHIT!

It occurs to me, that the more the malevolent left accuses conservatives and libertarians of being racists, the more liberty there will be in honest discussion about racism.

At some point, those on the "right" will have to make a critical decision. Having been accused of being "racists" for every opinion they have, upon any topic under the sun, the libertarians & conservatives will come face to face with a crucial choice.

They will either have to abandon their advocacy of free markets, free speech, freedom of association, property rights, equal rights, and keeping one's earnings from the maws of the likes of Kathleen Wynne,


They will have to yield to the left, shrug their shoulders, and confess.

"Yes. I guess I am a racist."


"I still believe in free markets, free speech, freedom of association, property rights, equal rights, and keeping one's earnings from the maws of the likes of Kathleen Wynne."


Saturday, April 14, 2018

Information Overload; and how to Counter It.

There is too much shit going on right now. I can't get my mind around it all. Buzz. Click. Information overload.

Until a minute ago, I would have attributed the term "Information overload" to Alvin Toffler. I read his Future Shock in high school, and for reasons I can no longer remember, I still count it as one book that strongly influenced me.

Curious as to whether "Information overload" had earned a place in today's lexicon, I googled it, only to discover that Toffler was not the originator of the term.


The term is popularized by Alvin Toffler in his bestselling 1970 book Future Shock, but is mentioned in a 1964 book by Bertram Gross, The Managing of Organizations.[4] Speier et al. (1999) stated:[5]

Information overload occurs when the amount of input to a system exceeds its processing capacity. Decision makers have fairly limited cognitive processing capacity. Consequently, when information overload occurs, it is likely that a reduction in decision quality (italics - mine) will occur.



Ha! Explains why most politicians come across as being total idiots, especially when they opine upon subjects you are intimately familiar with, like, for example, Uber taxi politics. They've simply bitten off more than they can chew. And they are either too frightened, too stupid, or too dishonest to admit it. Or they actually believe they have the knowledge to sort things out.


“The knowledge of the circumstances of which we must make use never exists in concentrated or integrated form,” explains Hayek, “but solely as the dispersed bits of incomplete and frequently contradictory knowledge which all the separate individuals possess.”

I came to realize, right there, that this is not just about São Paulo. It’s about any city in the world. In fact, it’s about every social setting, large or small. It’s about the whole world. Only individuals possess the knowledge that nearly all social scientists — and bureaucracies — imagine that they can, must, and do possess. Anyone who seeks to control the social order is presuming that the unanswerable questions are already answered and proceeds from that point. Hayek is digging deeper to observe that we cannot possibly know what we must know if we seek to design much less rule the world. The knowledge is dispersed and, by its nature, uncollectible.

From a fucking brilliant essay by Jeffrey Tucker, which says, IMHO, the same thing I started out trying to say, only much better.


Now that the traditional media bottleneck, A.K.A. fakestream media has been exposed as irrelevant, it becomes more evident to the average "news" consumer, that the crud they are being fed is just that. Crud.

They trot out so-called "experts" to provide insight. They deliver nothing but hubristic horse shit.

Here is one insight I have to offer. People suffer and die as a result of decisions made by politicians. Maybe politicians are so wise and insightful that they can engineer balance between the suffering they impose, and the welfare checks they send out. But the way I see it right now says it's all bullshit.

The best piece of advice I can offer, in order to mitigate the effects of "information overload" is to tune out almost everything you hear from Corporate Media as being pure BS.

Focus instead upon your own hard-earned knowledge of how the world really works, and upon those sources of "news" that are not just trying to sell you cars, disability lawsuits, bankruptcy protection, or deodorant.


Wherever I look, I see amazing parallels to our own situation.

Thursday, April 12, 2018

Intelligence Vs. Knowledge

​​ I had my picture taken with Ezra Levant during a talk he did a few years back in Toronto. The man is, IMHO, quite brilliant, notwithstanding the horseshit he, and some of his Rebel Media associates, put out to support the Uber taxi brokerage. It only goes to show that, no matter how razor sharp a mind you have, you can still be lulled into talking absolute nonsense if you lack sufficient knowledge.

The flip-side of this coin, of course, is the so-called "knowledgeable fool." I have known many of these in my lifetime - people who seem to have encyclopedic knowledge of every subject under the sun, but remain nevertheless, utter fools.

​​ I am sure you all know such people.

​​ Then we have, on occasion, spectacular exceptions, like those who lack both knowledge and intelligence, like our current Prime Minister, yet who are taken seriously by dangerously large numbers of people.... including those who like his hair.

​​ I liken it to a computer. A powerful processor is the equivalent of intelligence. A large disc drive is the equivalent of knowledge. One without the other is rather useless.

​​ If I had to choose, I would go for the larger processor.

​​ My memory sucks. But there is no doubt in my mind that the general opinions I hold to this day are the result of countless surveys of data, and personal experiences I have had in my lifetime.

​​ Even though I have long forgotten the specific reasons why I think the way I do to this day, I am confident that it is the result of a step by step progression of stacking one brick on top of another to construct an edifice.

​​ Leftists adhere strongly to their own horseshit because they have also constructed similar intellectual edifices based upon Marxist bullshit and wishful thinking. (No person should have to work for less than X dollars per hour, and so on.)

​​ A mathematician is someone who first had to learn that 1 + 1 = 2. Every thing else he knows is based upon it. (And now we have cultural Marxists even challenging that theory. Afrocentric math, anyone?)

​​ His comprehension of E=MC^2 does not require that he re-question his belief that 1+1=2.

​​ I hope it is apparent to the reader that I am just spewing a lot of horse-shit here as I play around with my keyboard.

​​ But even at that, the thoughts I am expressing, are the result of an evolution.

​​ General evaluation? I think I am in the ballpark.


Friday, April 6, 2018

Once again, the members of Hamilton City Council demonstrate their lofty devotion to principle, and their statesmanlike courage, by boldly supporting Matthew Green's motion to condemn a form of mental illness, namely "Islamaphobia."

Here is the report I got from Hamilton's CATCH newsletter,


A motion by Green to recognize January 29 as the Day of Remembrance and Action on Islamophobia and to ask the province and federal government to do the same was approved unanimously. It also reaffirms council’s “strong opposition to Islamophobia, like all forms of racism, hate, xenophobia and bigotry."

At City Council, January 24 Minutes p9-10 (16-0)

For: Collins, Conley, Eisenberger, Farr, Ferguson, Green, Jackson, A Johnson, B Johnson, Merulla, Partridge, Pasuta, Pearson, Skelly, Vanderbeek, Whitehead

Against: none

Right off the bat, the faliliar rat smell ought to be tickling your nose. Why single out one out of a long list of phobias for condemnation? Is it out of concern for the sufferers of Islamaphobia?

Or might it be simple pandering to certain constituents with voting rights?

The answer is too obvious to articulate.

The motion goes further, as it reaffirms council's, "“strong opposition to Islamophobia, like all forms of racism, hate, xenophobia and bigotry."

In the old days, it used to be safe for politicians to "affirm" their strong support of mom's apple pie. Today you would be probably be called a racist for making such a declaration. These days, political fashions change faster than the climate.

Therefore, this "reaffirmation" of the condemnation of one type of mental disability is cleverly bundled in with "all forms of racism, hate, xenophobia and bigotry," as a flip-side-of-the-coin ruse.

Gee wiz. Who wouldn't be opposed to, "all forms of racism, hate, xenophobia and bigotry," in this day and age? (Other than your humble author.)

I would like to offer an example. I do so with great reluctance. I genuinely fear repercussions from people who wield political power. It's not that I am brave. It's probably because I am dumbly incognizant of possible repercussions, but here goes,

I am an atheist. Without tangible evidence, I refuse to accept the claim that the universe was created by some all-poweful cosmic being. As Ayn Rand said, "the universe is not a haunted house."

Now, as much as I am familiar with both Islam and Christianity, both creeds subscribe to the belief in a supreme cosmic being, who's behavioural edicts are mysteroiusly passed down to certain chosen humans. I think the idea is nonsense. I would go further, and state my opinion that people who believe in such nonsense are generally simple in the head.

I could be dead wrong. After all, I have been wrong about one or two things in the past.

Maybe these primitive superstitions will prove to be as incontestible as Man Made Global Warming. But I doubt it.

The question then becomes, does my opinion that Islam is no different from any other religious superstition turn me into an "Islamaphobe?"

My general interpretation of Hamilton City Council's condemnation of "Islamaphobia," suggests to me that I ought not express my thoughts on this subject.

Non-compliance would constitute a form of blasphemy. It's not an irrational fear of Islam that is being targeted by Hamilton's politicians. It is any opinion that is less than laudatory of Islam (for some reason, as distinct from Christianity, in which case, anything goes.)

And I will go one step further in my blasphemous ways... and I hope at the very least that this is open to debate,

Seems to me that those parts of the world where Christianity has been dominant have been the most successful in terms of acheiving the highest standards of living ever known on this planet. Nor has it escaped my attention that the Christian world is the one into which so many of those dominated by other religions and creeds, is the one that so many people are trying to get into. (Which of course begs the question: do they wish to turn their new countries into their old countries? Is that a question I am allowed to ask? Or does that mke me a "phobe?")

Which brings me to the other item of vilification to draw the wrath of Hamilton's saintly politicians, "xenophobia."

Xenophobia – fear of foreigners

I don't think Xenophobia is necessarily an irrational fear. History is full of people for whom xenophobia was not irrational at all. Just ask the Incas or the Aztecs.

Sometimes foreign invasions, whether armed, or migratory, can have devastating consequences to the host populations. Therefore, I don't think xenophobia ought to be summarily dismissed as a form of mental illness, nor condemned as a politically, and legally sanctionable point of view.

What was Missing?

Anyone who has been paying attention over the last 50 years is aware of, or should be, once it has been pointed out to them, is the demonization of white people. Despite the courageous virtue signals from the members of Hamilton's City Council, and despite overwhelming evidence of hatred and demonization of white people (see video clips below) ....

Not one. NOT ONE of Hamilton's esteemed politicians even thought about, much less "strongly opposed," .........

Blancophobia – fear of white people or Caucasians

Can you not see it?

We are being told that racism is rampant in our society, yet the evidense is so sparse that the government has hired a Nigerian immigrant, at taxpayer's expense, to invite every member of a visible minority who ever got a crooked look from a Service Canada employee, or had someone to tell them to get off of his lawn, to come into his office and document the event, so that some left-wing "professor" from McMaster can compile and "analyse" these episodes of "racism."

All of this while Oprah Winfrey boldly announces that white people need to die, and Malema admits that he is not calling for the slaughter of white people in South Africa, "for now."

Here is a question I would ask the members of Hamilton's City Council,

If it were a tossup between a black guy being questioned by the police, or doubted by Service Canada, or had trouble flagging a taxi, or.... the appeals by white South African refugees looking for political assylum, in the event that warnings of a pending white genocide in that country turn out not to be exagerated, which one would you prioritise?

The whites?

Anyone who has read this far has proven that they are interested enough in the subject to have given it serious thought.

Therefore, when it comes to the expected response from politicians we all know exactly the political response to expect.

Whichever Way the Wind Blows.

Older people who were marinated in racism have to die. She's talking about the most un-racist people who have ever populated the earth.

I've been driving a cab for over forty years. I am intimately familiar with people who have been "marinated" in racism. It an't the white folks.

Another example of a person who has been "marinated" in the hatred of white people,

The Latest SJW Nonsense: Christian Privilege

Why Lindsay Shepherd is no longer a Leftist

The Ugly Truth About Diversity | Katie Hopkins and Stefan Molyneux

What Do Feminists Actually Want?

Sunday, April 1, 2018

Interesting Hitler stuff.

Personally. I think the guy was full of shit, just like most politicians. I'm confident that, had I been alive at the time, I would have ended up in one of Hitler's gulags.

Or maybe on the Russian front.

Or maybe not. I might have caved in to popular opinion, kept my thoughts to myself, bowed and scraped, and hoped for a job or posting that didn't actually involve blood, and guts, and killing.

I remember the time I saw a dead guy lying in the street. I had just finished a taxi shift, when the gas guy pointed down the street and said to me, "dead guy over there."

I then walked up to the yellow tape to get a closer look. A detective came up to me and shooed me away. He said, "you don't want to see this."

But he was wrong, because I want to know about this world I live in. I don't see an advantage in denying to oneself full knowledge of the situation we are all in, nor hoping to glean some insight into the question of why this is the way it is.

And that is why I bought a copy of Mein Kempf, though at my first attempt, I didn't get too far into it because I found it irrelevant and boring. I intend to take a second stab at it. I feel a need to know just how evil the man was, without relying upon other people to tell me, "you don't want to see this."

I'd rather make up my own mind about these things, thank you very much.

That's also why I have an interest in Hitler's speeches.

Why Lindsay Shepherd is no longer a Leftist

The Ugly Truth About Diversity | Katie Hopkins and Stefan Molyneux

What Do Feminists Actually Want?

Mark Weber explains Myths about WW2