Women and Guns

null

After seeing day after day legions of overweight, pink-haired, hairy, sour-pusses with orangutan armpits, groaning on about being oppressed while being the most undeservedly privileged class of useless know-nothings in the known universe, what does it take to produce real women? Israel knows.

Military service—that’s what. As cultural Marxism and feminism continue to poison the relations between the sexes and society, in a superbly interesting screed from the Council of European Canadians (yes, Canada was founded by Europeans, despite what the Premier Mangina may say), our writer suggests that instead of the propaganda peddled by our fake universities, a real education in the real world would be of much greater benefit. For example, in Israel…

All 18-year old women serve two years in the army along with the men. When they get out guess what happens? They get married and start a family. The fertility rate in Israel reached 3.13 children per female in 2015, the highest rate in the industrial world.

Although there have been objections to women in combat, a definite plus would be a rapid reassessment of where one’s real interests lie. As Dr Johnson said, “Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.”

The effect of combat on women (and men) is to make them suddenly feel a group identity with their fellow soldiers. The local tribesmen with their colourful clothing, bad teeth and exotic beards would be revealed as ruthless killers willing to do almost anything to rape, mutilate and murder any White woman they get their hands on. Women, as a group, tend to think of the personal before the theoretical and so the issue of racial, religious and cultural differences would be transformed into fire, blood and dirt.

Good point. And to appeal to women’s altruism, if they did not want to serve in the military, two years of service in a Peace Corps type of organization in, say, Chad, the Congo, Somalia dishing out AIDS awareness, vaccinations, and clean water and other good things. On top of that, they would get a real education.

This will result in very little actual progress, but it will expose these women to the most horrific social pressures, customs and situations. Child marriage, honour killing, female genital mutilation, polygamy, slavery, second-class status; it’ll be a real education. Some of these women will become casualties, even as some female Peace Corps workers have become rape victims, and the stories of how really, really bad these places are will eventually seep into the public mind.

Almost certainly some of the conscript soldiers referred to earlier will have to be brought in to rescue some of the aid workers just mentioned. We could have a situation of armed women rescuing unarmed women, a scene too delicious for words.

No kidding.

Read the whole piece, you’ll love it. You could bring it up at the next squat-in at the transgender fat collective.

Rebel Yell

Aboriginal Representation on Juries

 

The Liberals just cannot help themselves.

There is saying attributed to Jesus that you had better get the beam out of your own eye before you try to extract the mote in someone else’s.

As the federal Liberals threaten to tamper with jury selection, and overthrow centuries of common law to make theft by Indians of property more easily achieved by the disabling the rights of landowners to self-protection, here is something you need to consider. The federal government has stopped making jury lists of Canadian aboriginals, so that finding aboriginals to sit on juries has been made much more difficult. The reasons are given below.

The Department of Indian Affairs stopped compiling jury lists because of privacy concerns. So says the website Lawnow.

Until 2000, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) compiled lists of First Nations persons for jury rolls. These lists were used in the situation where band electoral lists were not available. In 2001, INAC stopped providing band lists because of privacy concerns.  The key issue in the Kokopenace case was the Ontario government’s efforts to address problems that had arisen since the INAC band lists were not available, as this had an impact on the right to a representative jury.

The Ontario courts relied on a report prepared by Justice F. Iacobucci, First Nations Representation on Ontario Juries (2013) for data on why Aboriginal on-reserve residents were reluctant to participate in the jury selection process. Reasons included:

  • their views about conflict resolution;
  • systemic discrimination experienced by First Nations people within the justice system;
  • a lack of knowledge about the justice system and the jury system;
  • the desire by First Nations leaders to assume greater control of justice matters in their communities; and
  • concerns for the protection of privacy rights.

Additional concerns included some aspects of the content of the questionnaire itself (e.g. penalty for non-response) and the requirement to declare citizenship. The Iocabucci Report concluded that the ad hoc system for identifying jurors was ineffective, and thus, results in a jury roll that is unrepresentative of all First Nations peoples on reserve. While the report focused on the situation in Ontario, Justice Iocabucci noted that the problem with underrepresentation of First Nations peoples on juries exists in a number of Canadian provinces, as well as in New Zealand, Australia and the United States.

“Privacy concerns”?!

Here we see in action the confusion of legal objectives: “privacy concerns”, which are of distinctly secondary importance, are used to trump the availability of jury lists that could be used to increase the number of Indians on juries, which is, to Liberals, of greater importance.

The decisions cited in the Lawnow article make it clear that a jury is not required to be a random selection of all people, and that failure to achieve statistical representation of the entire community is not a bar to effective justice.

 

The Ontario Court of Appeal emphasized that the right to a representative jury roll is qualified. For example, “it does not require a jury roll in which each group is represented in numbers equivalent to its proportion of the population of the jury as a whole” This would be practically impossible and any attempt to achieve this type of representation would not work with random selection process that is used to choose people to receive jury service notices.

The Ontario Court of Appeal focused on the steps taken by the state to prepare a jury roll that provides a group of people, from which to select a competent and impartial jury. The test arrived at was:

In my view, [wrote the court] to meet its representativeness obligation, the state must make reasonable efforts at each step of creating the jury roll. That includes the state’s actions in compiling the lists, but also in sending the notices, facilitating their delivery and receipt and encouraging the responses to them.  The objective of the state’s actions must be to seek to provide the platform necessary to select an impartial petit jury and to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system by providing groups that bring distinctive perspectives to the jury process with their fair opportunity to be included in the jury roll.

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal 5-2.

The Liberals just cannot help themselves. 

The Double Threat to Liberal Democracy

While the usual types opine about rising populism as the great threat to democracy, the article referenced in the title by Dani Rodrik reminds us of the other enemy of our way of life, which he terms “undemocratic liberalism”:

But fewer analysts have noted that illiberal democracy – or populism – is not the only political threat. Liberal democracy is also being undermined by a tendency to emphasize “liberal” at the expense of “democracy.” In this kind of politics, rulers are insulated from democratic accountability by a panoply of restraints that limit the range of policies they can deliver. Bureaucratic bodies, autonomous regulators, and independent courts set policies, or they are imposed from outside by the rules of the global economy.

The article delves further into a paper by the author and a new book by political theorist Yascha Mounk, “The People vs. Democracy”, that addresses both issues.

Did Hillary pull off the dirtiest trick in US Presidential history?

 

Who? Moi?

The question can now be asked. Michael Goodwin now asks it.

There are many more layers of the onion to peel, but here’s where we are now: It increasingly appears that the Clinton machine was the secret, original source of virtually all the allegations about Trump and Russia that led to the FBI investigation.

In addition, the campaign and its associates, including Steele, were behind the explosion of anonymously sourced media reports during the fall of 2016 about that investigation.

Thus, the Democratic nominee paid for and created allegations against her Republican opponent, gave them to law enforcement, then tipped friendly media to the investigation. And it is almost certain FBI agents supporting Clinton were among the anonymous sources.

In fact, the Clinton connections are so fundamental that there probably would not have been an FBI investigation without her involvement.

That makes hers a brazen work of political genius — and perhaps the dirtiest dirty trick ever played in presidential history. Following her manipulation of the party operation to thwart Bernie Sanders in the primary, Clinton is revealed as relentlessly ruthless in her quest to be president.

The only thing that went wrong is that she lost the election. And based on what we know now, her claims about Trump were false.

Of the charges against four men brought by special counsel Robert Mueller, none involves helping Russia interfere with the election.

And neither the FBI nor Mueller has vouched for the truthfulness of the Blumenthal and Shearer claims or the Steele dossier. ­Instead, the dossier faces defamation lawsuits in the US and England from several people named in it.

So, if the facts alleged are true, and it seems likely that the story is true, the Clinton dezinformatsiya seems to have worked – for a time.

Safe, happy and free

The Guardian has an article today on the world’s happiest, safest, freest society, Finland. I have visited the national historical museum in Helsinki, and saw a replica of a 19th century Finnish peasant’s hut. They were so poor they had no chimneys, and smoke just seeped out of the thatched roof. Only with the coming of the industrial revolution did they achieve wealth through waterpower and mills. There is little agricultural wealth to be found in taiga and post-glacial scrape.

The article points out the degree of cooperation needed to survive in a cold climate. I point out that Finland is not colder than Canada. Average January temperature variation in Helsinki is -2C to -7C. The same figures for Ottawa are -6C to -14C, and I use the capital cities as stand-ins for large countries.

What the article fails to point out is that the Finns are 100% white. I mean really really really white. They almost invented melanin-deficiency.

Nothing can reduce my admiration for a society so industrious, clever, and lawful. But when people burble about the values of  multi-culturalism, they seldom stop to think about how much easier it is to engender trust when everyone is your third and fourth cousin, and the place is mono-cultural. We may have forgotten that fact, but our Canadian French compatriots have not.

They were the first country to decolonize from the Russian Empire, in 1917, and have ever fought their larger neighbour to maintain that independence in the Winter War of 1940. By the way, the Russians believe the Finns still practice powerful folk magic, and are barely Christianized.

General Mannerheim was their leader in World War 2. His strategy and the immense bravery and battleworthiness of the Finnish people kept the numerically superior Soviets to a draw, meaning that they killed many more Soviet soldiers than they lost themselves. The Germans thought the Finns were, man for man,  their only equals in the art of war.

 

Listen to their national hymn, composed by Sibelius. The “slavery” mentioned in the hymn is that of the Finns to the Russian Empire. Be inspired.

 

 

Pipelines versus peoplekind

The Liberal government is busy making pipelines more difficult to build through revisions to the process by which they will be approved. I have no doubt that between the eco-green tendencies of the Liberal ministers involved, and the need to get oil shipped to refineries, which will suffer. Canada stands to lose many billions of resource revenue through carbon taxation, regulatory lag, and hostility from the greens, many of whom sit in the cabinet (Catherine McKenna) and the PMO (Gerald Butts is the former  head of the Canadian branch of the World Wildlife Federation).

None of that will make an impression on the public, though it will impoverish them relative to places more open to business. But what will convince people we are dealing with an idiot is Justin Airhead’s use of “peoplekind”.

 

 

The scolding, the compelled use of language, the disrespect of a religious viewpoint: every aspect of the bossy know-it-all PC vapidity is on display here, including the crowd’s enthusiastic reaction to Airhead’s correction. Would he have dared interrupt some more politically correct intervenor? Of course not.

In every regime, there comes a moment of self-definition.  Jean Chretien as the strangler of some wanker leftist (good for him), Paul Martin endlessly waffling, Trudeau the elder saying “Just watch me”, Brian Mulroney telling John Turner in false anger “You had an option, Sir” not to confirm Trudeau senior’s patronage appointments.

 

This was when the regime revealed itself. Canadians will recall this moment. There will be more of them. We are being held to the derision of the world, and deservedly so.

John Updike on “Why I am not a dove” or “liberal illusion continues”

I am indebted to Maggie’s Farm, a website collectively put together by a group of sane people, who describe themselves as:

We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn’t pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does “try my best to be just like I am,” and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

This sums up my attitude as well.

 

Now: on to Mr. Updike and his essay, cited on Maggie’s farm and published in American Digest. It dates from the period of the Vietnam war. I cite a sample to show that nothing has changed since the 1970s, that the bien-pensants are still with us in force, evincing their moral superiority while condemning those who  defend their ability to sleep at night in comfortable beds.

 

The protest, from my perspective, was in large part a snobbish dismissal of {President Lyndon} Johnson by the Eastern establishment; Cambridge professors and Manhattan lawyers and their guitar-strumming children thought they could run the country and the world better than this lugubrious bohunk from Texas. These privileged members of a privileged nation believed that their pleasant position could be maintained without anything visibly ugly happening in the world. They were full of aesthetic disdain for their own defenders, the business-suited hirelings drearily pondering geopolitics and its bloody necessities down in Washington. The protesters were spitting on the cops who were trying to keep their property—the USA and its many amenities—intact. A common report in this riotous era was of slum-dwellers throwing rocks and bottles at the firemen come to put out fires; the peace marchers, the upper-middle-class housewives pushing baby carriages along in candlelit processions, seemed to me to be behaving identically, without the excuse of being slum-dwellers.

We may be living in a reprise of the Vietnam War days, with Trump replacing the war as the focal point of outrage. Like Johnson was in his day, Trump is the lugubrious bohunk, this time from Queens instead of depression-era Texas. His crime is to have succeeded that golden child of liberal illusion, Barack Obama, just as Johnson succeeded the anointed one, John F. Kennedy (though I hold that Kennedy was far more honourable and straight than Obama).

Subversion—Democrat Style

 

 

Ion Pacepa was the former boss of the Foreign Intelligence Service in the Securitate, the feared, and highly efficient, secret police in the Ceausescu regime in Romania before the fall of communism. He defected to the US in 1978. He knows a few things about subversion.

In an interesting snippet on PJMedia, Pacepa notes that the tasks of the Securitate included the vilification of any and all who could oppose the ‘Conducator’ in word or deed. The intelligence agencies could fabricate criminal intent in anyone.

Forty years ago, I paid with two death sentences from my native Romania. I had publicly revealed that Ceausescu’s highly praised independence from Moscow was in fact an undercover intelligence dictatorship, designed to transform Romania into a monument to him by annihilating his critics and enemies. “I’ll give you a name, and you’ll build a criminal record for him,” Ceausescu used to tell the head of the Securitate — his Marxist version of the FBI. For him, lying was the first step toward stealing and killing.

Pacepa thought he had escaped state subversion against its own people but was shocked to find that the use of corrupted intelligence services to vilify politicians in the West, and in America, was being resurrected. When noting the oily rhetoric of Obama and the suppression of his past (all in line with communist tactics) he writes…

In 2008, however, I suddenly had the feeling of watching Ceausescu’s ghost haunting my adoptive country.
“We are the ones the world is waiting for,” proclaimed Barack Obama during his campaign, while his spiritual adviser Jeremiah Wright was caught on video screaming “God damn America.” The Democratic Party put the icing on the cake, proclaiming Obama an American Messiah. The senator agreed. On June 8, 2008, during a speech in New Hampshire, Obama stated that his presidency would be “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet to heal.” Earlier, an indiscreet video showed a picture of communist idol Che Guevara hanging on a wall behind Obama.
Our media and our political sages regarded Obama’s outrageous rhetoric as just millennial generational talk. For me, it was thinly veiled Ceausescu talk. My former boss’s version usually was: “A man like me is born only once every five hundred years.” Ceausescu also kept a picture of Che in his office.

No wonder Obama was enthusiastically endorsed by the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). In a column entitled “Big Political Shifts Are Underway,” Joelle Fishman, the chairman of the CPUSA Political Action Committee, emphasized that the CPUSA was now part of Obama’s coalition. Nor is it any wonder that when Obama became president, the first open member of a Communist Party was working at the White House. Van Jones (now a CNN contributor) had belonged to an organization named “Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM).”

Is it any wonder that the so-called Russia probe is uncovering more and more nefarious deeds of the agencies corrupted by Obama? Pacepa knows whereof he speaks.

 

Rebel Yell

Addendum: Interview with Ion Pacepa

John Perry Barlow 1947 – 2018

John Perry Barlow was the founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. He died in his sleep at the age of 70 on February 7th. He was a person with whom I wish I could have spent more time. He did a great deal of good on his life.
At a time when the freedom to express oneself on the Internet or anywhere else is under attack, it is important to recall that there is an issue on which liberals and conservatives ought not to differ. Free speech is one of them.
His obituary on the EFF website says of him:

Barlow’s lasting legacy is that he devoted his life to making the Internet into “a world that all may enter without privilege or prejudice accorded by race, economic power, military force, or station of birth . . . a world where anyone, anywhere may express his or her beliefs, no matter how singular, without fear of being coerced into silence or conformity.”

The late John Perry Barlow was a songwriter with the Grateful Dead in his earlier days. Here is a link to his compositions.

————————

When one considers that free speech is now associated with speech that the Muslims and the Left do not like, with “weaponized” discourse, according to the National Post article this morning, it is more than ever imperative to recognize friends of free speech wherever they may be found.

Joseph Brean reports in the National Post:

Traditional free speech advocates are reconsidering the status quo they helped create, in which hate speech is only a Criminal Code charge that requires political approval, and so is rarely prosecuted. There is even talk of resurrecting the defunct and much maligned ban on internet hate speech, Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The latest example was a lecture this week by Omar Mouallem, an Edmonton journalist and board member of free expression group PEN Canada, in which he argued online racists have “weaponized” free speech against Muslims, and Canada should consider a new anti-hate law to stop them.

 

I have said it repeatedly, that the end goal of Islam and the political Left is identical: a fear-driven and conformitarian orthodoxy. They differ in that the ideology in Islam is constant, whereas with the Left it changes daily. I have no doubt that both are pernicious, but which will prevail is as yet unknown.

To the memory of John Perry Barlow, friend of man and friend of freedom. We need more like him. The fight is never over.

Obituary in the Guardian.
The Rolling Stone obituary.

Read David Warren

I have had and continue to have the greatest respect for David Warren but in this speech he overtops himself. You should read this speech he gave recently. It summarizes completely my attitude towards the general trend of Canadian society and the Liberal regime, which he calls the Twisted Nanny state. The specific instance is the checking the boxes issue for receiving funds from Trudeau’s inclusive liberal state.

He has posted a series of essays in recent days that ought to have the widest possible circulation among conservative people.

No State really cares what its people believe, so long as they keep it to themselves, and salute the State’s gods on all State occasions. The State’s gods today may be Abortion and Sodomy and Gender Metamorphosis. We might want to laugh at the idiocy of it. But they are gods, State gods, and every citizen must salute, as we see in this form-ticking exercise. Those who refuse must confront the State’s high opinion of itself.

Remember:

Diversity means ‘uniformity of thought’

Inclusion means ‘exclusion (of whites, males and Christians)’

Progress means ‘anything progressives say it means’.