Saturday, December 24, 2016

"Driftglass": Evil or Stupid?

To hear him tell it, the blogger "Driftglass" is a precariously employed former managerial sort who has been fucked-over by corporate imbeciles and right-wing economic policies. Intelligent, aware, embittered, "Driftglass" spends a lot of his time exposing right-wing idiocy and perfidy.

I first encountered his blog in the dark days of the bush II regime when liberals and leftists were all on the same team; in that we knew who the enemy was and we all knew bullshit when we saw it. "Driftglass" (I'll drop the quotation marks from here on in.) is especially good at trashing the hypocrisies and absurdities of right-wing, mainstream pundits, especially the detestable David Brooks.

And this is one thing about liberals: They make sense. They criticize their right-wing opponents in ways that more thorough-going leftists can appreciate. Whereas with right-wing critics of liberal or leftist politicians, you get stuff like "He's a fag." "Kill the bitch." "Cuck!" or some variant of racism. And of course there's the colossal hypocrisy of right-wingers and scandals. A right-wing politician can be found standing over a recently murdered body with blood dripping from their hands and anyone who accuses them of murder is a "leftard conspiracy theorist." Just look at how these "lock 'em up or hang 'em high" "law and order" types stuck by massive hypocrite/buffoon Rob Ford: He of the infamous "zero tolerance for drugs and gangs" who ended up getting caught smoking crack with gangsters. And right-wingers will accuse leftist protesters of being angry to the point of derangement, five seconds before writing about how they'd like to lynch a liberal politician, execute their libtard supporters and then drop a nuclear bomb on Mecca.

Alas though! When one of their own is elected, too many liberals throw all their critical thinking and (worse) principles, out the window. Barack Obama hasn't expanded the war in Afghanistan! Paul Martin did not rob the unemployment insurance program to finance tax-cuts for the wealthy! Bill Cliinton did not throw millions of poor US-Americans into poverty and prisons! Jean Chretien did not slobber over Indonesian despot Suharto and decide that the UBC campus should be a "Charter-free zone" to neutralize protesters. Hillary Clinton didn't back jihaadist nut-bars against Libya's Qaddafi and destroy a country of six million people. Justin Trudeau hasn't pointedly ignored a legal order to provide adequate funding for First Nations youth services, even after cynically voting for an NDP motion that he obey said order and increase that funding. Obama and Hillary haven't backed more jihaadist monsters in Syria forcing millions to flee (thousands drowning in the Mediterranean Sea) while killing tens of thousands in Syria itself!

And on and on it goes. For liberal partisan hacks, anything can be overlooked, and, if people continue to complain, any pathetic, ridiculous rationalizations or excuses will do. "The IMF would have taken us over if Paul Martin hadn't robbed the UI fund!" "Obama is blocked by Republican obstructionists and 'Blue Dog' Democrats!" (Even though he's forever attempting "grand bargains" with the former and supporting the latter against progressive challengers.)

The long and the short of it is that even if liberals' overall beliefs are not idiotic and vile, their partisan behaviour is every bit as contemptible as their right-wing counterparts. (Obviously the NDP isn't immune from this sort of stupidity. Nor is any sort of faction. But the NDP hasn't enjoyed any sort of power in recent years and there's not a lot to talk about at the moment.)

But let's get back to Driftglass. Because he's become insufferable. You see, the Democratic Party coronated the detestable Hillary Clinton as their candidate in the 2016 presidential election. And as a result of the lack of enthusiasm for her, AND as a result of the Electoral College system undermining the results of the actual voting (a system the Democrats were aware of going in) AND as a result of Republican voter suppression laws (which the Democratic leadership has been strangely non-outraged by), Hillary Clinton was narrowly defeated by the quasi-fascist, obnoxious, ignorant buffoon, Donald Trump.

I'd always said that I wouldn't have voted for either of those monsters. Yes. Yes. Trump is a bad man. A horrible man. An ugly-minded racist, sexist, corrupt, greedy, ignorant scum-bag. But a victory for Hillary Clinton would have been seen as a vindication for the vile policies of herself, Barack Obama, and her disgusting husband and former president, Bill Clinton. Policies that have drenched the Middle East (and elsewhere) in blood; shredded human rights domestically' and contributed to global economic insecurity and inequality.

If Donald Trump is the racist maniac who will stab you to death on the sidewalk, Hillary Clinton is the psycho who will hang you buy your wrists in her basement, slit them, and leave you to bleed to death while she goes on about how she can now tolerate Blacks and Gays. (Trump would grab your wallet, whereas Clinton would get your pass-codes from you, as well as your cash and she'd sell your blood on the black market!)

That's why sensible people didn't care who won. Sure, Trump would be terrible. (And he's turned out to be.) But a victory for Hillary Clinton would have meant enough liberals had turned off their brains and were pretending that the dismal economic policies and the horrible, murderous foreign policies, and all the authoritarian bullshit spying policies were acceptable to them. Slowly bleeding to death because the alternative is worse and they can't fucking think of anything different and they can't even pretend that something different is required.

And Driftglass has been among the most obnoxious of the liberals who simply can't fathom how repulsive a candidate Hillary was. During the primaries he feigned incomprehension at the anger of Bernie Sanders' supporters. The dunce couldn't even grasp Sanders' appeal as opposed to Clinton's. Now he's whining about the possibility that some "Bernie Bro's" (a ridiculous term used to describe all of Sanders' supporters as sexist males who simply didn't want the USA's Commander-in-Chief to have a vagina) may have voted for Jill Stein or even (out of spite) Donald Trump.

And, of course, actual Trump supporters could only have been motivated by racism and other dog-whistle politics. They didn't vote in the deluded hopes to get their factories back. They didn't vote out of anger over bail-outs to Wall Street criminals as provided by Obama (who was carrying on the policy originated by george dubya bush) and which would have been continued by the paid stooge Hillary Clinton. Nope. They're all racists. Every last one of them. They're all sexist, racist homophobes. THAT is why they ALL voted for the Donald against the Hillary! They are, all of them, not just most of them, racist, ignorant, sexist, cretins.

(That many are ignorant is obvious though. Anyone who watches knows that sucking the rancid dicks of Wall Street banksters is a bipartisan affair. Anyone who doesn't know that Trump is a con-artist, serial fraudster is obviously ignorant. But ignorance can be fixed. Which is important.)

Ignorance can also mean misinformed. That's where the "fake news" of the corporate media comes in. Not just FOX News, but local radio and television. The "national" news programs of ABC, MSNBC, CBS and CNN. It's all garbage that fails to give people an understanding of their world. If there's no sensible analysis in their lives at all, if all they see is the drivel provided by the mainstream, they're going to see that their living standards are stagnating or declining and that criminals are growing richer and that Barack Obama has presided over it all. They won't even hear the caterwauling of Democrats about Repug obstructionism. That's the grip of the corporate media.

But one thing these people in fly-over country are right about is that their living standards aren't what they were told they'd be in all those bromides about the wonders of the capitalist system and the free market and the American Way.  Much was made of the fact that the "average" Trump supporter had an income of over $70,000. But "average" is just dividing the combined incomes by the number of people. A few wealthy supporters could skew the averages.

Plus, we're also going to be talking about the people who couldn't be bothered with the poisoned choice of Hillary the corporate stooge and Trump the stooge. People who voted for Obama even in 2012 but after eight years of the guy still hadn't seen any rescue from their predicaments and knew that Hillary Clinton was only promising them more of the same.

In the face of the widespread disenchantment with the Democratic Party's bullshit, what does Driftglass do? He spends an entire post cutting and pasting White House press releases about how much Barack Obama did for manufacturing!

If only Driftglass had gone to work sooner! All of those people committing suicide might have reconsidered!

Kevin Lowney lies awake some nights wondering if he should kill himself.
“I am in such pain every night, suicide has on a regular basis crossed my mind just simply to ease the pain. If I did not have responsibilities, especially for my youngest daughter who has problems,” he said.
The 56-year-old former salesman’s struggle with chronic pain is bound up with an array of other issues – medical debts, impoverishment and the prospect of a bleak retirement – contributing to growing numbers of suicides in the US and helping drive a sharp and unusual increase in the mortality rate for middle-aged white Americans in recent years alongside premature deaths from alcohol and drugs.
A study released late last year by two Princeton academics, Anne Case and Angus Deaton, who won the 2014 Nobel prize for economics, revealed that the death rate for white Americans aged 45 to 54 has risen sharply since 1999 after declining for decades. The increase, by 20% over the 14 years to 2013, represents about half a million lives cut short.
Fucking ridiculous; but just the end point for all the Democrat-liberal partisans who tried to claim that the Obama years were good years in the face of all the evidence. (And liberal shills: Don't try to spew anything about the Affordable Care Act. I've already covered that.)

Back when I started this post, Driftglass was the first blogger to resort to what became a terrifyingly popular conspiracy theory, to whit; that Russia's Vladimir Putin stole the election for his puppet, Donald Trump. I say "terrifyingly popular" because this loopy, shit-for-brains notion spread like wild fire amongst liberals who you'd ordinarily credit as being sentient life-forms.

Here's how it goes: Wikileaks released the contents of Democratic National Committee emails and the emails of Clinton campaign head John Podesta. The DNC emails showed that they deliberately conspired with Clinton to side-line Bernie Sanders and render the whole primary process a farce in order to install Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee for president. Podesta's emails detailed more of the same as well as snippets of HRC telling Wall Street bankers that she had one story for them in private and another for the public.

In short: Damaging, true intelligence about Hillary's campaign. From the beginning, the Clinton campaign screamed about Russian hackers trying to help Donald Trump. They had no proof, but Putin has been a useful bogeyman for both parties since forever, so why not? Besides, Trump once compared Obama unfavourably to Putin in one of his mindless tweets, and had spoken admiringly of Putin's actually fighting ISIS. (I deal with Trump's ignorance on the real nature of the GBSWOT here.)

But things really picked up steam when, .... get this, ... ANONYMOUS CIA AGENTS expressed their "STRONG CONFIDENCE" in their own "TOP-SECRET EVIDENCE" that Putin was personally involved in hacking the emails! Driftglass picked up this fresh, steaming heap of bullshit and fucking ran with it. Sadly, pretty much the entire liberal internet fell in love with this utter stupidity as well. Secret CIA evidence??? When has that ever led us astray???

I mean, the FACT that somebody else has admitted to getting the info from a DNC insider doesn't faze anyone. But let's look at it as if Putin was behind it. Is it possible he was? Well, the USA commits cyber-warfare on other countries (Iran comes to mind.) Was spying on Germany's Angela Merkel's cellphone and the entire United Nations. And it routinely meddles in other countries' elections (or just plain invades and deposes governments it doesn't like). Trump was saying nice things about Putin while Clinton was (INSANELY) talking about imposing a "no-fly zone" over Syria in opposition to the wishes of Putin and the Syrian dictatorship. So of course it's possible. Still, proof is nice, isn't it? Before you go running off screaming about "treason" and labelling every alternative media source that said anything critical of Clinton as Russian agents or "useful idiots."

But who honestly believes that this essentially negligible assistance from Putin would make Trump his puppet? Trump is a megalomaniac, narcissistic serial fraudster. He breaks promises as effortlessly as he breathes (stolen line from Rosie DiMoron describing the people of Afghanistan). Once you make someone like Trump the President of the United States of America (which is to say, arguably the most powerful man in the world) you can't control him. I mean, this should go without saying. But apparently the human race is so stupid and ignorant and deluded that one-quarter of US-Americans would vote for this fraudster and another quarter will believe he's Putin's puppet

You see, to hear Driftglass speak it, the Democrats can simply do no wrong. (Except, that is, fail to stand up to Repugnican hatred and bullying.) Is he a chump or a paid stooge? If he's the former, then he really should cut it out with the photoshopping and the blogging, because they don't appear to be paying for themselves and he's just cheer-leading for his own exploitation. But if he's a paid shill? Then that's evil. Doing stupid shit like posting White House press releases to fight against reality. Pushing that ridiculous "Putin stole the election" meme on gullible liberal fools. Perpetuating the Democratic policies of corruption, imperialism and betrayal, as if they're a genuine alternative to Repugnican atrocities.

You know that these Democratic party-shills are stupid, shitty people when they call Edward Snowden a traitor for having exposed the bipartisan mass-surveillance state that Obama expanded when he campaigned on reining it in. If McCain or Romney had been president when these programs were running, idiots like Driftglass and his fans would be apoplectic.Vile hypocrites. Imbeciles standing in the way of humanity finding a better path to survival.

I'll end this by saying that these repeated brain-farts of liberal failure make reading online even more pointless than ever. I really can't read Driftglass anymore. I don''t even care about his amusing take-downs of revolting, moronic puss-ball David Brooks. There's just too goddamned much whining and lying about the Democratic Party's loss to make it worthwhile. It's like listening to Eric Clapton after you've heard he's a racist.

Wednesday, December 7, 2016

Monday, December 5, 2016

Ted Rall on a Clinton Victory

Ted Rall writes about something I considered composing, and comes up with pretty much what I would have. (Just with more details.)

"Hillary's Lost: Should We Care?"

Here's some highlights:

The Cabinet: ... Hillary Clinton’s cabinet would have been composed of the neoliberal militarists who’ve been running things for Obama.
Taxes and the Economy: Clinton proposed a slightly more progressive tax structure during the campaign. She only wanted a $12/hour minimum wage — less than many states and cities. Even though NAFTA and trade were her Achilles’ heels, she didn’t propose a job retraining program or welfare plan for workers displaced by globalization. Largely, she pledged to continue the gradual Obama recovery, which has left most workers behind. 
Privacy and the NSA: Even in the wake of the Edward Snowden revelations (when she called the whistleblower a traitor), Clinton stridently defended the government’s illegal spying against every American.
Healthcare: Obamacare would have remained in place in its present form. A few vague promises to add a “public option” do not amount to a pledge to spend political capital to get it past Congressional Republicans. But premiums are skyrocketing, so Hillarian inaction might have led to wider calls for ACA repeal, a big step backward. (No one knows what Trump will do. Not even him.)
War and Peace: Hillary has a long history of hawkishness. She didn’t push through any peace deals as Secretary of State. During the campaign, she called for a no-fly zone over Syria, a tactic designed to provoke hostilities. And her hot rhetoric so freaked out the government of Russia that Kremlin military analysts worried about World War III if she won. Trump is a hothead. But Hillary might have been more likely to start a war.
And in 2020, we’d be right back where we are now. Four years into President Hillary, the anger that unleashed Trumpism would turn into boiling rage.

So, to summarize: A Cabinet full of right-wing, neo-liberal militarists. Continuance of the economic policies that have impoverished millions and grotesquely reward a tiny few. Expansion of the surveillance state.

About ObamaCare: As I understand it, the ACA denied blood-sucking insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, ... BUT, ... being the pro-market piece-of-shit that it is, the ACA does nothing from allowing the capitalist scum to raise their premiums on everybody to compensate them for having to insure sick people. So, while Hillary-bot, Democratic die-hards are bloviating about how Trump is going to take away their insurance, Obamacare was going to make it unaffordable for a lot of people anyway.

So, I really have to stop and point out the obvious hypocrisy and derangement of Hillary supporters: She did not have ordinary people's best interests at heart. She, like Obama, was a servant of Wall Street. Both parties are. Both parties grovel before the plutocrats for donations.

All of a sudden, because of Donald Trump, progressives think the economy has been doing great under Barack Obama. It hasn't. Wages have stagnated for years. Wall Street engaged in criminal behaviour that almost tanked the global economy were it not for trillions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, and yet Obama protected the banksters and illegally assisted in the destruction of the Occupy Movement that protested this criminality. As a result, 95% of the economic growth since 2008 has gone to the wealthiest 1%.

Democrats delude themselves that this is all the fault of Republican obstructionism. But time and time again, Obama has shown himself unwilling to press hard against them. When he isn't offering them "grand bargains" he's supporting "Blue Dog" Democrats against progressive challengers.

Stop fooling yourselves.

And listen: Yes, the Koch brothers funded the Tea Party. But they Tea Party members have minds (such as they are) of their own. That's why the were able to take down Eric Cantor. That's why the whole Repugnican establishment was shocked and appalled about Trump. Trump was promising to bring back factories by reversing free trade. He was going to force the pharmaceutical companies to bargain with the federal government, rather than just get the taxpayers to sign a blank cheque. He was going to get rid of Obamacare, which, however much liberals might like Obama, was making health care more expensive for people.

Now, I always thought Trump was a con-man. I never supported him. But he was saying things that ordinary US-Americans liked. Because they were and are hurting. And no matter how much deluded, simpering liberal fuck-faces want to believe it; Obama has not been their friend, he has not tried to help them; the capitalist system is still corrupt and inhuman and a failure. (I knew how extensive Trump derangement syndrome can get when I read Antonia Zerbisias praising NAFTA and getting a quote from elitist prick Mickey Cohen, just because Trump says he'll repudiate it.)

Listen: Hillary "won" the popular vote. But people knew the Electoral College existed before the 2016 election. Hillary's people encouraged the Trump candidacy because they thought she'd trounce him easily. Because (as they still refuse to admit) she's actually a really shitty person with a horrible record.

It turns out that Trump isn't going to pursue better relationships with nuclear powered Russia. But liberals wanted us to vote for a candidate who said straight-out that she'd pursue policies that could lead to goddamned fucking war with Russia. The depths of liberal insanity and delusion! Un-fuck you all you insane sons of bitches!

"Lesser evil"? I'm sure the degree of "lesser" is irrelevant to the dead and traumatized across the Middle East and in much of the rest of the Global South as well.

So Trump conned people. Some of them were salt-of-the-earth racists. Some of them just wanted job
opportunities and didn't care about the racism.


Yeah. Just like you fucking Hillary-bots don't care about her victims. The homeless refugees being attacked by neo-Nazis in Europe. The Libyans living under the nut-bar jihaadists Clinton backed in that country's uprising.

Just like we all type on lap-tops powered with raw materials mined by African child-slaves and assembled in Chinese hell-holes that have suicide nets around them to save the trouble of cleaning up the corpses of employees seeking an end to their miserable existences.

The Tea Party is angry. They lash out stupidly because they're stupid and they don't understand the system that's ensnared them. But more and more I have to ask if they're any more stupid that the liberals who delude themselves that Hillary Rodham Clinton was a brilliant humanitarian and not a racist, elitist, corrupt, mass-murderer.

And the people who stayed home? Who didn't vote? Well, maybe they looked at their miserable existences, the falseness of the "hope and change" that the cynical Obama campaign sold to them back in 2008 and decided it simply wasn't worth it. Things are going to suck under Trump and they sucked under Obama and they would have sucked under Clinton.

Tuesday, November 15, 2016

Both Trump & Hillary Supporters Are Stupid

I really don't want to start blogging again. But the US election farce is finally over and I've had some thoughts and sharing bits of them with one or two friends just isn't enough. So I'll express myself here and then quit for a while.

The whole response to this travesty has ratcheted up my misanthropy levels.

Hillary supporters deluding themselves that Trump voters have rejected the way of light and truth and goodness by rejecting Hillary.


Hillary Clinton has blood on her hands. She is evil. She is a servant of an evil ruling class. Same with Obama. If you believe their lies about how they want to help you, then you're a chump.

Clinton-Bots shouted down Sanders supporters (the poor deluded putz's) who shouted "No more war!" at the Democratic National Convention with chants of "USA! USA! USA!" When Sanders folded without even a vote, the Hillary-bots condescendingly told the Sandernistas: "Hey. You're candidate lost. Suck it up, buttercups." Then we find out that the primaries were rigged. (Not really a surprise.) Then Hillary gave a big "fuck you!" to the progressive-left by picking a right-wing, anti-choice, pro-TPP Tim Kaine as her running mate. Essentially telling the Democratic left-wing to go vote Green for all she fucking cares. She'll have the majority (?) of Democrats and disaffected Repugs, thank you very much.

And now, it's the Hillary-bots out wailing in the streets about unfair processes.

And then there's the Trump supporters gleefully mocking the "whiners" and "cry-babies" and "sore-losers" ... as if these assholes didn't reject Obama from day one, deny he was a US-American citizen ("he ain't white after all"), and show up at his events with loaded guns and signs about "the blood of tyrants."

As if these Repug scum and imbeciles aren't the biggest fucking whining cry-babies on the planet.

"The system is rigged! (Unless we win.)"

[They're just like the ass-wipe right-wingers up here. The ones who tried to make us believe that corrupt coward stephen harper was the greatest, bravest prime minister EVAH!!! Or the right-wing assholes in Alberta, pretending that decades of pro-business government hadn't left Alberta with almost nothing after years of plunder and that it was the Alberta NDP that was "ruining" the economy.]

The partisan delusion and hypocrisy coming at me from all sides is a little hard to take.

Here's some links:

First, ... one of the best looks at the people who elected Trump (and why). Some of what they say is infuriating stupid garbage. Some of it should make honest people understand how right-wing Democrats failed to get enough votes (almost 47% of the electorate stayed home) to trash the rapist con-man.

Two looks at how deluded liberal hypocrites enabled Obama's expansion of bush II's torture/surveillance state (which Trump now gets to inherit):

"Obama went unchallenged: Now Trump will have a 'kill list'"


"Trump will have vast powers. He can thank Democrats for them"

Oh yeah. One last thing. Some people, whether in total sincerity or just casting around desperately to condemn people for not voting for their scum-bag Hillary Clinton are saying: "You say you're not racist. Fine. You're just saying racism is not a deal-breaker for you."

Right. And those millions of Syrian and Libyan refugees created by Hillary and Obama aren't deal-breakers for you then, right? The millions impoverished and incarcerated by Bill and Hillary aren't deal-breakers? The people made homeless and bankrupt by the whole rotten Wall Street/Insurance Industry atrocities, ... not deal breakers?

And on and on it goes.

If "leftists" mainly rally to preserve the chances of monsters like the current Democratic Party leadership, then it's all pointless and fuck it all.

Wednesday, November 9, 2016

The Racist, Rapist Won

How stupid and/or ignorant would you have to be to vote for a piece-of-shit like Donald Trump?  As stupid as a Canadian "Blogging Tory." As stupid as Davis Aurini. And these people aren't just stupid and/or ignorant. A lot of them are deplorable. (The opposite of "adorable.") We're in for a rough ride world.

But, unlike those self-described "progressives" who turned their brains to shit so that they could endorse a mass-murdering scum-bag like Hillary Clinton, I'm not totally surprised at this result. Nor am I all that bent out of shape about it. Because, unlike them, I saw Hillary Clinton for the rotten candidate she was. Just like I see Barack Obama for the monster that he is. Contrary to their idiot, ignorant, ass-hat delusions, it was Hillary who was the bigger threat for starting World War III.

Trump, being an ignoramus, doesn't know that arming and funding nation-destroying Islamic terrorists is official US state policy. He thinks it's a genuine struggle. As such, he sees Russia's Putin smashing the terrorists in Syria and he says the US should work with him. Or, even allow Putin to do the job by himself. "What do we care?" Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton destroyed Libya and turned the whole place over to the terrorists. If that were really important, there'd have been no way she could have even gotten close to being nominated. But it's all bullshit. So she did.

Trump won in place that voted for Obama by wide margins in past elections. Did they all turn racist inside of four years? Or were these ignorant, deluded, desperate people who saw the Democrats protect Wall Street criminals, sign "free-trade" deals that export jobs (and promise more such job destruction in the future), and continue the useless, expensive wars in the Middle East rather than fix real problems at home. (Again, why these people think a con-artist buffoon like Trump will really help them is beyond me.)

The thing is, I know that I can't reason with most Trump supporters. The ones who like to talk politics are shameless about their own vileness and hypocrisy. I have more in common with liberals. And liberals, those among you not blinded by partisanship, please learn from this debacle.

Monday, November 7, 2016

Both Clinton and Trump Are Unacceptable

Keeping in mind my earlier assertions that the Left's inability to fight back makes any idea of resistance null and void, I am changing my advice for US-Americans from "don't vote for either of the two rotten front-runners" to "oppose the system that gave you two such rotten candidates."

That is the proper position for non-US-American progressives as well.

Yes. Donald Trump is a nasty man. A rapist. A racist. Corrupt. Insane. And many of his supporters are deplorable neo-Nazi, misogynist idiots. But stop debasing yourselves into saying how Hillary Clinton is the "lesser evil."

In the first place; just because Hillary doesn't burp and fart and scratch her crotch on stage, and (being a woman) tends not to sexually assault people, it doesn't mean she isn't thoroughly vile. US-American liberals (like Canadian liberals) are often seemingly intelligent, decent people. But these people are blinded by partisanship into excusing Obama's professed legal power to assassinate US-American citizens. They call Edward Snowden a traitor to his country for revealing Obama's illegal mass-surveillance of everyone on the face of the planet. Obama's slavish devotion to the 1% is obvious for all to see. He illegally crushed the Occupy movement. He's done nothing to rein-in murderously racist police forces. (Could he at least halt the military's program of giving surplus war toys to urban police?) He's done next to nothing on global warming. He's prolonged and expanded the slaughter in the Middle East. On and on I could go. But it is suffice to say that he's a monster.

And now, US and Canadian liberals are uniting in trying to convince themselves and everyone else that Hillary Clinton isn't a monster too. In fact, for all his killing, Obama showed himself to be less bellicose than Clinton when she was his secretary of state. Obama negotiated a very harsh treaty with Iran whereas Clinton wants to destroy Iran. It was Hillary who pushed for the destruction of Libya. Hillary Clinton has an insane level of animus towards Russia's Vladimir Putin. She's talking like a mad woman about imposing a no-fly zone in Syria, whether Russia likes it or not. People talk with some justification about an unstable idiot like Trump with his hands on the nuclear button. But given that Trump has said (among other things) that he thinks it's stupid for the USA to be antagonizing nuclear-armed Russia and China, how can we pretend that he is the greater threat than Hillary? If anything, it will be Hillary Rodham Clinton, the first female US president, who is likelier to get you and all your loved ones vaporized.

How insane our political culture is that we sincerely see a lunatic like Hillary Clinton as the "lesser evil" to Donald Trump!

Who are Donald Trump's supporters? Mostly stupid, and/or ignorant people. Most of them are "deplorable." Progressive, anti-Hillary writers would do well not to downplay this reality and ascribe criticisms of Trump's base to elitism and snobbery. They really are noxious. Take, for example, the babbling idiot neo-nazi Davis Aurini. A complete moron. An utter incompetent at the role he's chosen for himself; that of film-maker. A stupid, nasty, racist, sexist piece of sludge. This is the sort of intellectual excrement that Trump attracts. Giving them a victory would be horrible.

What would a Trump presidency be like? Trump, not being beholden to anyone, says whatever he thinks. When he first started this process, apparently he got some people to find out what the Republican base was all fired-up about. (Besides his own "birther" activism about Obama being a Kenyan usurper.) He found out that ordinary Republicans are angry about losing manufacturing jobs to other countries. They're angry about stagnant wages. They're angry about Wall Street corruption. They're angry about the excesses of for-profit health care.

Of course, being ignorant and/or stupid, they blame much of their predicament on poor people, immigrants, Jews, Blacks (who they deem to have jumped ahead of them in the line-up for the "American Dream") and a whole host of other things, including attacks on their brainless, "social conservative" hypocrisies.

But regardless, Trump decided to pander to that. I don't think he had any real hopes of winning at first. Unfortunately for the world, the USA's culture has been debased for decades by right-wing garbage culture like FOX News and the vapid, celebrity-worshipping mentality of the mainstream corporate media in general. Trump is a rich, white man who had his own television show and he's speaking in ways that line-up with their thinking, so despite that he's actually a full-time con-man, they gravitated to him like moths to a flame.

When he won the Republican candidacy, Trump realized he'd need more resources to actually win. Now, being a huge egotist, Trump can't bring himself to lose to a WOMAN. So, he gets funding from other scum-bags like Sheldon Addison, and there goes whatever reasonable stuff he'd said about Israel. Thankfully for his nazi supporters, Trump still says enough nasty things about Blacks and Latinos that they (being imbeciles) can overlook his new pandering to Israel and delude themselves that he'll still go after "the Jews" once he's president.

Trump will probably abandon any pretences about controlling the avariciousness of corporate America if faced with their genuine opposition. He'll only be allowed to retain those policies that benefit capitalists or those to which they are indifferent too. This means his mass deportations, police harassment of Blacks, slashing taxes, and generally making the world safe for billionaires.

Make no mistake about it; a Trump presidency will be horrible. His racist, drooling moronic followers will revel in their moment and all sorts of abuses will result. Given the fact that they're all staggeringly ignorant of how the world works, they'll also push for he most idiotic, counter-productive policies to be imposed upon ordinary people. When these cause the economic misery that they inevitably will, the Trump-fans will blame it all on feminists and minorities and atheists (who bring down he wrath of god upon the earth).

But a Clinton presidency will be horrible too. Because her husband's was horrible. ("Three Strikes You're Out" prison policy, "Ending Welfare As We Know It," de-regulating the financial sector "Financial Modernization Act," and one corporate rights "free trade" deal after another.) Obama's presidency has been a failure. And Hillary's will be even worse. Because unlike Obama, Hillary is psychotically obsessed with using the military against other countries.

Hillary will mean more war, more corporate free trade deals, more profit-friendly health care, more coddling of the rich and corrupt. And more of the stuff that makes Trump's angry, ignorant, bigoted followers angry. Here's the thing about stupid people: Don't make them angry. For reasons known only to themselves, when corporate America takes their jobs away from them, they lash-out at immigrants and GLBT people.

We on the left have to articulate an actual program that makes everyone's lives better, sensible and stupid alike. And cravenly cozying-up to corrupt, psychotic monsters such as are offered by the Democratic Party USA (or the Liberal Party of Canada) is the exact opposite of that. A vote for Hillary or an endorsement of Hillary is an endorsement of mass-murder. It means support for the policies that have created millions of miserable refugees. It means support for the bloody coup in Honduras.

Canadian and US liberals; please, at long last, pull your fucking heads out of your asses and realize that people like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Justin Trudeau, Paul Martin, Dalton McGuinty, Kathleen Wynne, are the scum of the earth and that association with them is defiling.

Sunday, November 6, 2016


Damn this is a beautiful movie!

(It's a link to Iggy Pop's scene in the movie "Dead Man.")

Tuesday, November 1, 2016

Two Books I'm Reading

I feel like blogging about two books that I'm currently reading. The first one is Volume One of Ray Monk's biography of Bertrand Russell: Spirit of Solitude. I'm glad I check it out of the library.

I knew that Bertrand Russell had been an atheist, an opponent of the Vietnam War and even a vocal opponent of World War One. I'd read several of his essays and bits and pieces of his History of Western Philosophy. His "A Free Man's Worship" was a big influence on me. I also know he'd written a huge book on mathematics Principia Mathematica that is famous for being so widely known but so little read. I was a big fan of his political philosophy, especially "Proposed Roads To Freedom" and "Power: A New Social Analysis." Oh yeah. I had a house-mate from China who told me that Russell was a big deal over there due to a famous visit in the 1920s. And, finally, I was impressed and delighted that my home town's university, McMaster, possessed the Russell Archives.

But I didn't know much about him as a person. What did he do in China? Why did he protest against war? Why was he an atheist? Monk's beautifully written book tells the story of the development of Russell as a man, a philosopher and an activist. I've a couple of chapters left to go but I can't wait to read more.

Russell, disappointingly, was highly unstable. His mathematical philosophy and his philosophy of logic appear to have been half-baked semantic arguments. He had a terribly repressed childhood, treated women abominably (even while fighting for their right to vote) and was, in my estimation, highly immature and selfish.

But here and there, often in fact, the brilliant mind does something amazing.

The other book is Martine Rothblatt's Virtually Human: The Promise - And The Peril - Of Digital Immortality. It's a big disappointment. I'm one of those people who believes that human beings are going to start altering our bodies in major ways. I think we're going to combine DNA alteration, nanotechnology and robotics and become mutant cyborgs. I also believe that the brain, being a combination of chemicals and electricity can be replicated by powerful enough computers. We could transfer this activity to a computer and "live" enormous lifespans.

Rothblatt's book was supposed to discuss the social and ethical implications of one aspect of this process, as well as the technological feasibility of it. Sadly, the book is a repetitive set of assertions about how this will all be technologically possible in coming decades, combined with very brief discussions of very deep topics about the Mind, personal identity and human rights.

Essentially, we will upload photos, writing, social media presences, and other information into a computer program and it will create a "clone" of our personalities that will interact with us as a "Max Headroom" kind of avatar. After we die, our families can talk to our clone instead of looking at pictures of us.

That's it. That's the entire description of the mind-clone. How does all this work? What happens to the mind-clone after you've died and your children and grand-children have died? Do we really expect four generations from now, people are going to want to spend a lot of time with this mind-clone? What will it be doing for all eternity? Rothblatt has established that being sentient, and human, it will have rights. It can't just be turned-off because that would be murder. So, what?

I'm on page 153 of a 310 page book and I have no clue as to what exactly is supposed to happen. She's just finished saying that our mind clones will learn new languages and that, as a result, "we" will be multilingual. (And won't that be nice?) But why would "I" be multilingual because a computerized facsimile of my personality is? Rothblatt manages to point out that the question of personal identity is a vague, incoherent concept and that, at root, we are all stardust. Fine and dandy. But to leap from there to assert that our mind clones are therefore "us" is not justified. If we don't know who "we" really are and we're all related as the stuff of the universe, what's the point of pursuing "immortality" via a "mind clone"?

I'm so bored I'm thinking of giving up and returning it to the library half unread.

But I do want to share something funny. In a section about whether these computerized humans will go rogue and (somehow or other) attack us, Rothblatt says:

There are sure to be rogue "evil genius" mindclones and bemans, just as there is no shortage of rogue human bad guys. These mindclones are as smart as us, or much smarter. While good social policy would be to identify and fix their problems early with cybertherapeutics, this will not always work and some will fall through the cracks. But these anti-human mindclones are a job for law enforcement, not a reason to ban all virtual humans. Society will have plenty of tools at its disposal for tracking down fleshophobic vitology, including legions of citizen mindclones as adept in the vitological niche as were the cavalry's Native American guides on America's Wild West frontier. (Italics added.)

Given the fact that it's been four decades since we've admitted that the Wild West and "settling the frontier" involved the brutal displacement of the First Nations people, in some cases reaching levels of extermination and genocide, I found it a bit odd to seeing that metaphor of the Native American guides assisting the US cavalry in such a fashion. Then, on the very next page, in a discussion about how the mindclones' humanity and morality will help to check potential anti-social behaviour, Rothblatt admits that humans are not always humane and moral:

It is of course true that spouses kill each other. Hatfields kill McCoys and people who are "folk" one day, like German Christians and German Jews, or Rawandan Hutus and Rawandan Tutsis, can rapidly be deemed nonfamily vermin. Yet these situations are exceptions rather than the rule. They startle us because they are exceptions. These killings occur because of an abandonment of reason, or faulty reason, rather than an exercise of sound reasons. Proof of that is the outcome: The Nazis committed millions of indescribable atrocities and attempted to put its boot on the throat of civilization, yet they lasted barely a decade, and the Rawandan genocidaires shorter than that. Killing is a noproductive strategy. It does not advance our prospects for life, but only appears to, in an illusory fashion, when assessed over a very short period of time.

Amazing ain't it? Rothblatt uses a metaphor involving a process of genocide, to assert that we'll be protected against rogue mindclones, and then on the very next page refers self-righteously to the failure of other cultures' genocidal acts to show how rare such occurrences are! I'd say the USA has profited immensely from exterminating so many Native Americans and stealing their land and resources. Such ignorant and superficial arguments from one of the leading proponents for the creation of digital sentient minds is troubling.

I'm still not sure HOW a mind clone could attack us anyway. What does it DO? Surfs the net for its own amusement and talk to us about what it has found out? Does it set the thermostat in our homes for us? Will it yell at us? (Couldn't we just turn down its volume control?) It's so vague it's absurd.

Rothblatt is right to say these computer programs are inevitable. Indeed, she's helping to make it so. But here we see a case of scientists forging ever ahead with no real understanding of the implications or the purpose.

Sunday, October 30, 2016

The Best Comment

I have something I want to say about the US-American atrocity that some call the 2016 presidential election, but today I just want to post what I think is the best comment on Montreal Simon's over-the-top condemnation of the protesters at the CLC Youth Conference:
"As a working class progressive I'd love it if any of the parties actually represented me. Instead the "best" I can apparently hope for is another out of touch rich boy who markets himself well enough to get otherwise thoughtful people to shill for him whenever anyone else dares point out what an empty suit he is, especially if they do a crappy job of it.

All JT is going to do is turn the more ignorant segments of the population against any sort of progressive or left leaning sentiment as he wraps himself up in it like a security blanket while screwing everybody with the same neoliberal crap that led us here. It'd be nice if the NDP would do their job and be a viable alternative but I guess that's too much to hope for these days.

And yet you fools are here QQing about some people being "rude" to this guy. After Bill Morneau's comments I think you clowns are going to get a real education in what being "rude" looks like in the years to come as people's situations worsen and become more desperate. Voting is of questionable value since we know someone(s) have attempted to interfere with an election at least once, peaceful protests en mass are often met with violent repression by the state while the news media does it's best to look the other way, what exactly are you expecting to happen? You think everyone is going to link arms and sing sunshine and lolipops?

You'll probably still be here, concern trolling people who dare complain about the boot stomping on their faces forever and ever."
Indeed. First Nations' leaders have given Trudeau a failing grade. Perhaps they're just stooges for the party of stephen harper? The Liberals have adopted harper's targets for carbon reduction and are continuing to push bitumen pipelines (whether the FN want them going through their lands or not) and oil tankers to China on the West Coast. The Liberals have decided to continue to give weapons to the monstrous dictatorship of Saudi Arabia, arguing that if we don't, others will. IOW: The same logic that people who sell crack cocaine to teenagers use. His silver-spoon finance minister (who joined his daddy's firm and "rose through the ranks"!) tells young people to acquiesce to the "reality" of precarious employment:
As for Morneau's "job churn," MacEwen notes that the average length of time young Canadians spend working at the same job has remained "remarkably stable since 1976":
If people are jumping from short-term contract to short-term contract with the same employer, that might suggest "the new reality" isn't quite as inevitable as Trudeau and Morneau would have us believe.
His international trade minister plans on ramming a harper regime-negotiated corporate rights bill down our throats, which gives corporations the right to sue for lost revenues should, say, something like laws restricting carbon emissions impact their profits. 
And the Liberals have shamefully betrayed 3 Canadian citizens, tortured by Syria and Egypt on our behalf.
But criticizing any of this is "thuggish."

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

A Question For My Liberal Friends

D'you suppose Liberal MPs slobber all over Henry Kissinger because they're ignoramuses and don't know he's a war criminal? Or do you suppose they do know and they like it?

Thursday, October 6, 2016

"Deus Vult"

Back in July, intrigued by whatever mental stew had inspired the detestable Davis Aurini to refer to left-wingers as "rabbits," I took the time to go through the essay in question line by line. The results of my study was that Aurini is a complete idiot who strings together groundless, often incoherent assertions into meandering, nonsensical "arguments" and upon completing one of his ravings, masturbates himself to his delusions of his brilliance.

By the end of reading his garbage I was too tired to really think about the Latin statement he concluded with, which was "Deus Vult."  About a week later I decided to look it up:
“Deus Vult” (“God wills it” in Latin) was a battle cry called out by Crusaders at the declaration of the First Crusade in 1095. Online, the historical phrase has gained popularity among fans of the strategy video game series Crusader Kings, as well as thealt-right camp on Reddit’s /r/The_Donald and 4chan’s /pol/ (politically incorrect) board, typically in the context of discussions relating to Islamic extremism and the moe anthropomorphized character Christ-chan. The phrase can be seen as the Christian equivalent of “Allahu Akhbar”, an Islamic Arabic expression that is most well-known as the battle cry of Jihadhists in Western cultures.
Isn't that special! The Christian lunk-heads have their own version of the battle cry of their Islamic enemies!

It was almost worth posting about!

But I refrained from another post about Aurini until the wonderful David Futrelle informed his readers about Aurini's absurdly bad attempt to film himself and other "alt-right" (read: "racist") losers as if they were Tarantino-esque bad-asses. Specifically, Aurini tries to imitate the credit sequence of "Reservoir Dogs" wherein the actors playing the criminals walk towards the camera and their names appear in front of them during close-ups as the song "Little Green Bag" plays.

Futrelle and his readers are all quick to point out that Quentin Tarantino is the political opposite of these losers. He supports Black Lives Matter's campaign against racist police brutality and he fucking hates Nazis.

All true. As well as the fact that four dumpy guys in non-descript clothing, plodding down the street pretending to be tough guys is mega-embarrassing when they're all around the age of thirty and not sixteen.

"Film-maker" Davis Aurini manages to appear in one of the scenes when the camera is mounted on a tripod. For the rest of it, this complete fucking moron is absent, being behind the camera. Quentin Tarantino is widely hailed as a film genius for coming up with the astonishingly original idea of having someone else filming while he's acting in front of the camera. And he came up with the master stroke in the 1990's, so there's no reason for Aurini to display himself as such an incompetent shit-head.

Aurini, the "film-maker" also hasn't mastered the arcane secrets of putting titles over-top of moving film. To display the names of the dumpy alt-right racist loser dweebs in this travesty, he resorts to inserting stills of them with their names displayed.

My god! This was a embarrassingly childish concept to dream up in the first place. And it's a "homage" to a director who would loathe everything its participants stand for. But to top it all off, it's execution is shockingly, laughably horrendous.

To think that this waste of sperm considers himself an "intellectual."

"Intelligence" is an invented concept. We can't really measure it since we don't really know what it is. And some people can be really "intelligent" in some areas and not so in others. But sometimes, there's enough evidence and general patterns of behaviour for us to know when someone is STUPID. Aurini is one such case. Too stupid to know he's stupid. So stupid that he think's he's smart. But he's really just stupid.

Monday, October 3, 2016

Positive Proposals

Just saying that since I've stopped blogging on a regular basis, and have relegated myself to merely reading and observing, I've not noticed much in the way of positive, world-changing proposals coming out of the Left-wing. Instead I'm seeing lots and lots of descriptions:

  • Donald Trump is a monster and we have to vote for Hillary Clinton
  • Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are both monsters and we shouldn't vote for either of them
  • The war in Syria is a catastrophe
  • The USA has fucked-up the Middle East
  • We've passed the point of no return for global warming
  • Black Lives Matter vs the police and revolting media shills like Sean Hannity
  • Anti-fracking protesters under corporate and government assault
  • New trade deals are horrible corporation-empowering travesties
  • Israel is acting abominably (as usual)
  • Justin Trudeau's Liberals slobbering over war criminal Henry Kissinger
  • stephen harper got a new job as Assistant-Shit-Licker-In-Chief at some corporate law firm

And etc., etc., There are some hints of positive thinking and acting among the Left: There was the Bernie Sanders insurgency (which more and more I'm thinking was a Pied Piper scam from the start) and stated aims to vote Green Party USA and thereby reject the corporate duopoly.  This is also seen in the support for Jeremy Corbyn and the left-wing resurgence in the British Labour Party, mirrored in a small way by the "Momentum" grouplet in Canada which (together with other undercurrents) has produced such charming moments as when Tom Mulcair confidently claimed the title of "socialist" for the NDP only a few short years after he strove mightily to fulfil Jack Layton's desire to have that "divisive" word removed from the party's constitution.

"Black Lives Matter" and "Idle No More" are pushing for positive things too. Besides demanding the end of their systemic abuse, they're demanding policies that will make their lives better. Just HOW they'll achieve their aims is a complete mystery. Blacks in the USA and First Nations here in Canada are political minorities; electorally insignificant in the case of the First Nations and, for the USA, those places where Blacks are not insignificant, the Repugnicans have implemented voting laws and other policies to steal their votes from them. Their demands are generally ignored by the mainstream media. And they are physically abused (even murdered) with near-impunity by the forces of the state.

Let's say that Jeremy Corbyn wins power as the head of a majority Labour government. What then? He's already under constant assault from Blair-ites in his own party. He'll have the right-wing fascist tabloids whipping up their moronic readerships into frenzies over refugees, taxation, single-mothers and terrorism. The whole slurry of incoherent hateful delusions will be constantly referred to. The capitalists will work mightily to sabotage him and blame their own deliberate economic damage to his 1960's social-democratic platform.

By which I mean that the same forces that destroyed the great postwar compromise of 1945-1970 will destroy any attempt to return to that compromise in 2016. The power imbalances that existed then are even more lop-sidedly in favour of the forces of destruction now.

Nobody is articulating any serious means by which to attack this power imbalance. Nobody is articulating any coherent revolutionary plan. (You know; like "Workers As Citizens.") Instead we're all content to run on that hamster wheel talking about Israel and police brutality and neo-liberal corruption to ours, and our specie's, dying days.

Saturday, September 24, 2016

The Obama Fan

So on FaceBook there was a meme with all the leading figures of the bush II regime pictured besides a list of their several crimes including torture and illegal wars of aggression. It was posted in a group someone had hooked me up to so I didn't know many of the people posting.

Three comments about the evil, perfidious Repugnicans and how they should be forced to pay for what they did.

I posted "I prefer to look forward, not backwards."

Some youngster liberal posted "Da - what??"

I said "I'm quoting Barack Obama."

The liberal said I was probably quoting him "maybe out of context or in a sense of "back to business". He's not trivializing nor should anyone".

I said "That's the worst response you could have given. Give your head a shake."

He posted: "Da -what?" Then followed this with:
I am saying he wasn't trivializing it. He is NOT SAYING that it should be ignored, nor forgiven and forgotten.

How does refusing to investigate and prosecute crimes against humanity get a pass? How does one "get back to business" after crimes such as war and torture? (In reality of course, Obama got "back to business" by engaging in more war crimes and other atrocities. But that would be too much for the wittle pwogwessive wibowull to even begin to process.)

Right now I'm remembering how beleagured Bernie Sanders chumps shouted "No more war!" at the 2016 convention only to be drowned-out by Hillarybot scum shouting "USA! USA!"

Sunday, September 18, 2016

The Rob Ford Fan

At work it's mostly all immigrants. West Indians and South Asians mainly. But lots of Jamaicans, Arabs, Africans too. Whites are definitely in the minority on the shop floor. It's a lot of fun. Young women from India innocently flirting with young Jamaican men. Chinese and Indian people speaking Hindi to each other. Comments about one another's cultures that have none of the venom of majority population racism.

We're not colour-blind. I'm "the hard-working white guy." If we're referring to someone who is Black, we say "the Black lady" or "the Egyptian guy" so newcomers to the place know who we're referring to.

Anyhow, one day I found myself working with one of the other white people there. An older woman who's been there for over thirty years. I'd seen her in the lunch-room reading the Toronto Sun. We talked as we worked. She's completely bought into the Sun's pathological hatred of Justin Trudeau. (I don't like Trudeau, but for different reasons.) She referred mockingly to his obnoxious selfies and the reports about the Chinese girls swooning for him at the G20 conference.

Out of nowhere she says "I miss Rob Ford."

I laugh and ask her why.

She says "Everyone liked him."

I replied: "I didn't. He ruined public transportation. He said he could $3 billion in gravy. He guaranteed he could do it without cutting services. Then he cut bus routes; talked about closing libraries. He was a total hypocrite about drugs and gangs."

I stopped myself before I ended up preaching. She, of course, had nothing to say. Her affection for Rob Ford wasn't based on any coherent understanding of his "policies" or their consequences. He was just a regular shlub. He wasn't slick. He spoke in ways people like her understand.

We work in silence for a few moments then her face twists into a snarl and she snaps: "I can't believe we've got 6 hours still to go!"

To me, this outburst was a reflex. An outlet for her frustration at hearing her beloved, dearly departed Rob Ford being criticized with damning (and damnable) facts. I don't think it was directed at me. She's too nice and polite for that.  It was just inarticulate rage.

Later, during one of the breaks, she pointed to a story in the Sun about some activists trying to get air-shows banned because they traumatize immigrants and refugees from war-torn countries. She sneered about immigrants being "upset." I said "traumatized." She said "Yeah, 'traumatized'" with the same level of contempt.

Not the slightest bit of empathy or any attempt to understand how maybe having your home destroyed and loved-ones killed by one of those deafening abominations might actually be traumatic and that the suffering caused by hearing the death-bringer again might be more important that the thrill of spectators.

You know, I honestly believe that Rob Ford genuinely cared about people who were right in front of him. Aside from his homophobia, I don't think he really hated any group of people. But he could not grasp abstract principles and he was too lazy and stupid to really figure out how things worked. And he could be the most caring person in the world one second and then a callous, boorish bully the next.

Such people should be able to vote. But there need to be filters in place so that they don't run for office. They shouldn't be pandered to. They can choose to vote for an "intelligent" (or at least non-Rob Ford/Donald Trump) sort of "conservative" candidate or they can stay home.

Sunday, September 11, 2016

Jason Kenney

So, Jason Kenney had the luxury afforded by a six-figure income, to ponder at his leisure about a move to Alberta provincial politics. Ostensibly he was going to "unite the right" against the upstart Alberta NDP government of Rachael Notley.

Only things haven't turned out that way. Jason Kenney is a Catholic social conservative whose views are, perhaps informed by his being (perhaps) a self-hating, closeted homosexual. (I only mention this to convey the intensity of his social conservatism.) As a social conservative, he will be far to the right of the values of the Alberta PC's, who were much more interested in a "fiscal conservatism" of the greedy, earth-destroying, money-grubbing oil pimps who ran that party. So he's not really welcome there and he won't really bring them into the fold.

Kenney appeals more to the version of "conservatism" practised by Wild Rose Party. (This "conservatism" involves sending threats of rape and murder to female politicians they don't like, with the leadership offering milder barbs about how it's illegal to beat them up.)

But the Wild Rose Party already has a leader and he has no plans of stepping aside from his little fiefdom and the party grass-roots has no desire to merge with the Alberta PC's.

So, in other words, there's really no place for Jason Kenney in Alberta politics. The Alberta PC's don't want him because they don't like him. And the Wild Rose sorta likes him, but not that much, and they don't want to be re-absorbed by the rump PC's.

Only Kenney's arrogance and stupidity prevented him from anticipating this reality. So now he's driving around the backroads of Alberta hoping people will take him in for the night and give him a meal. After all, he's only making something like $170,000 a year. (For a job he's not doing because he's campaigning in Alberta.)

And don't just nod your head and agree with me. Try to think about how stupid Kenney must be to have done something so stupid. And remember that stephen harper endorsed him. Because stephen harper is not a smart man. Despite what some people say.

These people are turds. Stupid turds.

Sunday, August 28, 2016

harper Retires

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

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

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

A sad, contemptible man.

Friday, August 12, 2016

More About Hilary-Bots n' Stuff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saturday, August 6, 2016

Liberal Hillary-Bots

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saturday, July 16, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saturday, July 9, 2016

Taking On The Stupid Trolls

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Da fuck??

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gun control will be the solution.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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