June 23, 2014 · By Charles Anthony
A country is not high school.
Canada is rocks and trees, and some 35 million individuals living in a federal state with sovereign provincial governments.
Alberta is not a “person”. And Quebec is not a “student”.
Here’s my message to Americans, and other foreigners: We Canadians are divided, but Americans have never, ever exploited this sectarian divide. (The closest was when Clinton helped Chretien by giving a speech, and Carter allowed Trudeau Snr to speak to Congress.)
May 5, 2014 · By Charles Anthony
Llew Rockwell aims for the heart of libertarianism in The Future of Libertarianism exposing a current debate over the identity of libertarians and the differences between “thick” and “thin” libertarianism as they seem to distinguish themselves today. I shake my head at both sides because they are talking past eachother.
At that point, the question would become: to which principle are thick libertarians more committed, nonaggression or egalitarianism? What if they had to choose?
“What if they had no choice?” — asks the “ugly” libertarian.
It is clear that the “thick” libertarians are in opposition to “patriarchy, hierarchy, inequality, and so on.” in spirit. Those social orders are anathema to the “thick” libertarians. They seem to promote diversity in a very blandly happy way. They can not imagine such things manifesting themselves in a completely non-aggressive society.
The “thin” libertarians should recognize the presence of coersion in “patriachy, hierarcy, inequality, and so on.” as it manifests itself in real life and agree with the “thick” libertarians with the following caveat: Let such societies be free to conduct themselves in the manner of their choosing however it may outwardly appear provided each individual is free to leave peacefully and is never misled to stay.
Then the “thick” libertarians will pounce: “Yeah, but patriarchal societies brainwash their kids and so, they are not REALLY free!”
I suggest the “thin” libertarian should step on middle ground by agreeing: “Yeah, that seems unfair but we both agree that freedom means freedom from violence, theft and fraud, right? Brainwashing is fraud. So, we are in agreement.” Then try to convince the “thick” libertarian that pure voluntaryist free societies could conceivably manifest themselves overtly as “patriarchy, hierarchy, inequality, and so on.” out of fully-informed choice.
Some women like to wear the pants and some men do not.
Some people like television and some people like reading.
Some people like both and have to make choices.
Equality is a nonsensical concept and has only merit as a rhetorical trick to stifle debate by confusing opponents in discussion. Equality is meaningless because preferences and “utility” in common parlance are not inter-personally comparable in any way at all.
I am a libertarian who is perfectly fine with “patriarchy, hierarchy, inequality, and so on.” if they manifest themselves freely. I see nothing wrong with a woman submitting to a man or vice versa if they so choose. The role of the libertarian is to expose when these social arrangements are based on people being coerced, tricked or misled with false information. I expect both “thick” and “thin” libertarians to share that sentiment.
I think it is highly likely that “inequality” in societies continue to develop and the good ones will survive. The good ones are communities where all members are free to oppose the “patriarchy, hierarchy, inequality, and so on.” under which they live without fear of violence and yet they choose to stay because they prefer it.
I would like to offer a 3rd type of libertarian: the “ugly” libertarian.
I am a pessimist. With enough time, the Earth’s resources will be depleted and our affluent lifestyle will no longer be possible on such a large scale as it is now. I do not believe the future looks bright for most of the people on this planet. I suspect that the rest of the animal and plant kingdoms could manage to scrape by in some capacity longer than we. Some of us will have to meet them half-way.
If there ever is to be a hypothetical Libertarianism Of The Future that spreads across the entire human race, I am sorry to say that the only logical one to expect is where we are all reduced to scrounging animals. We will be defacto egalitarian because nobody will have the energy to fight.
April 19, 2014 · By Charles Anthony
Big brother continues to obfuscate the divide between “public” and “private” industry:
HMRC has quietly launched a pilot programme that has released data about VAT registration for research purposes to three private credit ratings agencies: Experian, Equifax and Dun & Bradstreet.
To comply with the law, the private ratings agencies, which determine credit scores for millions of people and businesses, have been contracted to act on behalf of HMRC and are “therefore treated as part of the department” – giving them access to tax data about businesses that would otherwise be confidential.
April 17, 2014 · By Charles Anthony
A few reports of measles are launched into the news-o-sphere while anti-vaxxers are demonized. The Ontario Government adds a few more “required” vaccines to every school child’s immunization schedule while simultaneously permitting children to opt out of the requirement to be vaccinated at all. Methinks there is a lot of nonsense going on in the market for mass immunization.
Modern vaccination can be wonderful on an individual basis but it runs counter to human evolutionary salvation. I am an anti-vaccinator for different curious reasons but I want to explore mass vaccination campaigns solely from an evolutionary perspective. Increasing numbers of weak members of the gene pool make human survival increasingly more expensive and less predictable in the future.
For their own sake, I would rather my sons had a healthy, strong and reliable female gene-pool from which to choose their mates than what the future of mass vaccination has to offer.
March 15, 2014 · By Charles Anthony
Si les federalistes presentent ce menace encore, j’espere que les quebecois remarquent que les questions de 1995 qu’a demande Harper ne sont pas du tout claires elles memes.
That federal referendum would have a simple question: “Should Quebec separate from Canada and become an independent country with no special legal ties to Canada?”
It would also include a second question: “If Quebec separates from Canada, should my community separate from Quebec and remain a part of Canada?”
Harper’s bill specified that if there were no concerns about the ambiguity of either the Quebec or federal referendum questions, a “majority of the ballots cast” would be the benchmark for a successful Yes vote.
Demander au quebecois d’imaginer un Quebec souverain “with no special legal ties to Canada?” est une question irrealiste. Il vaut mieux de leur demander si les quebcois preferent (a) les pommes ou (b) les oranges dans la soupe au legumes.
Pourquoi cette question-la? J’espere que ce n’est pas une menace cache. C’est une question injuste car les quebecois ont le pouvoir de negocier leur demandes legaux.
Que feriez-vous les federalistes, si les quebecois ne repondent pas a l’appel de M. Harper?
Que feriez-vous les federalistes, si les souverainistes relancent la question?
Les Quebecois devraient-ils se separer du Canada en formation d’un etat independant avec une juridique special, flexible et negocie avec le Canada – OUI ou NON?
March 13, 2014 · By Charles Anthony
Bien sur, les banquiers auront de la misere a augmenter leur masse monetaire sans arret dans la Belle Province. Mais je ne comprends pas pourquoi les Rest-O-Canadois ont peur de la circulation du dollar canadien au Quebec.
J’aimerais entendre un “conservative” expliquer ce phenomene.
February 14, 2014 · By Charles Anthony
Whether Scotland is independent from the United Kingdom or not, nobody can stop the Scots from using the Pound Sterling as a currency or as a competing currency.
Canadians dealt with these fears long ago. Scottish separatists would be wise to study Jacques Parizeau’s post-political speaking tour.
February 3, 2014 · By Charles Anthony
Half of minimum wage earners in Ontario work for large corporations.
Raising minimum wage could rescue the economy — CBC
As I was rooting through Rabble, a tiny gem of wisdom twinkled from way at the bottom of a comment by a character called fortunate: “Again, may not be a huge deal for a large company, but for a mom and pop convenience store running 24/7, it will add up, and mom and pop will be staffing the front counter more hours per week, and sending the employee home with less hours per week.”
He gets it.
Large corporations love minimum wage increases because they will always be able to survive the economy. Small businesses operating at the margin get bought by large corporations or go under.
Minimum wage increase legislation is an astonishing socio-economic phenomenon because it plays on the stupidity and selfishness of the common socialists to gain popular support but the effect is the exact nightmare feared by socialists: ever increasing concentrations of property ownership in the hands of a rich elite.
January 1, 2014 · By Charles Anthony
The year 1984 has come but unfortunately has obviously never gone away. I am writing this post for the love of all sisters.
How I wish I had been unborn
Wish I was unliving here
I never understood what a sex crime was long ago when a pair of my favorite pop stars created the soundtrack to the George Orwell movie. Now, for the love of Big Brother, I would like to discuss criminalizing sex and the horrors of criminal sex which oddly seem to be systemic weapons.
Legalization of Prostitution in Canada
First, let me get a few of my relevant biases out of the way:
Prostitutes are predominantly victims. Very few prostitutes freely choose to sell themselves for money or drugs. Most of them are first coerced into becoming drug dependent and then coerced to pay for drug debts.
All laws related to the sex industry must be repealed. It should not be illegal for prostitutes to sell nor should it be illegal for customers to buy.
When seemingly “conservative” folks feel obligated to enforce morality, I feel a need to throw cream pies in their faces. I never understood the haphazard arguments from the Real Women crowd. It does not make sense for them to steer the debate away from personal responsibility and keep it controlled by forces outside of the family. The only sense I can make out of the prudish conservative opposition to liberal prostitution laws is that it is neurotic blow-back from their own prudish culture: spouses who do not put out and do not want to admit it. If the market for prostitution was unrestricted, the value of a “home-maker” could be more accurately assessed. Follow the money, I say.
Rape and Genital Mutilation
I am lumping these two horrors together because I do not see an interesting difference between them. Here are some more relevant biases of mine: I believe in God and He made us in His image. I can not prove that belief nor do I care to prove it. It is an article of faith for me. I am Catholic too, by the way.
Rape and genital mutilation convince me of the existence of Satan.
Most systemic genital mutilation throughout the world is perpetrated by men against women. All of this evil behavior must stop. It is time for all men throughout the world to stamp these demonic practices out. I want to quickly get male circumcision out of the way. As I said, I am Catholic — I come from a tradition that seems infected with secret homosexual child abusers at all levels of the oppressive hierarchy under the guise of a disciplined chaste patriarchy. I believe most of the priesthood is filled with virtuous men but nobody can tell them apart.
Like a secret covenant, I believe male circumcision is a relic of bizarre forms of enforcing social cohesion in religious hierarchies. In the context of genital mutilation, I believe the essential motivation behind male circumcision is the same as with female circumcision: sexual and social control. However, female mutilation is far worse of a sexual assault to a woman than cutting off a foreskin is to a man.
Teen Dies in Hospital
The issue flared up in the media over the summer after 13-year-old Suhair al Bata’a died undergoing the surgery in a hospital northeast of Cairo. The family’s lawyer said a health report showed the teen died of “a sharp drop in blood pressure resulting from shock trauma.”
Anti-Female Genital Mutilation campaigners mark progress in Egypt
This happened in a hospital! I would go into shock too if somebody held me down and cut off precious parts of my genitalia.
Female genital mutilation is categorically evil in action and intention. Out in the wild, it usually consists of searing off the girl’s clitoris with a hot metal or coal. In many cultures, the aim is to remove any loose genitalia as well. The mutilation is clearly perpetrated to make it darn near impossible for a woman to enjoy sex the way God intended. This is disturbed and evil patriarchy. I am trying to think of what type of woman would deserve such a life-long imposition and so far, the woman who pulled at her son’s testicles until she tore them off is the first to come to mind. Cheaters, cold-fishers and refusers come to mind too but sadly, they are with us to stay.
That is right, guys. A woman pulled her son’s balls off. Who the hell was she trying to punish?? I am trying to imagine the physical strength needed to rip off the flesh —- that alone gives me nightmares. It certainly was not quick and dirty. How this woman assaulted her own child is singularly the most horrible non-lethal assault a man could fear. If ever there could be a scientifically objective definition of the minimum threshold of evil perpetrated by a woman upon a man, the actions of this mother would fit the bill. Since this assault was perpetrated by a woman, the analysis is far more curious than the is/ought divide will ever be because no woman can feel the nauseating pain perpetrated by this woman in how she crippled her own male child. I am convinced this reciprocal, extreme and absolute ignorance between the sexes is part of God’s intelligent design. It is no accident that a woman does not know what it is like to get kicked in the balls nor that a man has no idea how menstrual, labor or child-birthing pains feel.
The best reason is obviously to lead the male to protect his reproductive ability. As far as perpetuating the species is concerned, there is no other part of his body that is more important and a man needs to be able to trust a woman on that. However, the other obvious reason is to protect women. Kicking a guy in the balls gives a woman a chance to defend herself from a male whom God designed to be stronger. A woman in such a position needs as much of an advantage as possible and God gave it to her. I doubt you women see it as such a magically powerful attack but you should. There is no other non-lethal blow that can stop a man in his tracks or scare him to death. Try to think of the exact opposite of unique pleasure of orgasm. You do not even have to kick him. It takes very little force to exert extreme pain. God made us to feel extreme pain with less force than it takes to spin a coin on a table.
No man can appreciate the pains of child-birth and other things endured by women. He has to trust her about them. With this reciprocal sexual ignorance in mind, I posit that the actions of this woman are worse than rape. I want to analyze this offense as coldly as it was perpetrated and as forcefully as it should be judged.
Put aside the horrifying pain inflicted upon her child for the time being. I will address that later. For the time being, let us assume her son was anaesthetized and did not feel her assault. The actions of this woman result in making it impossible for her son to:
1) have sex
2) have children
I ask women: What actions could a man do to a woman if he had the same goals (make her sterile and make it impossible for her to have sex) in mind? How might a man do this to a woman WITHOUT inflicting pain upon her? What category of criminal would you describe such motivation?
In my opinion, either one of those above motives is enough to equate her with a child-rapist, murder, torturer and worse-than-the-worst bad baby-eating demon. Yet, she did both and more to her own child. From a purely scientific basis, the actions of this mother were extinctual. She destroyed her family in one of the most slowly and painful ways possible with a life-time of physical and emotional suffering for her own child of only 6 years old —- if he is lucky! Imagine the Indian monsters who raped a Delhi woman with an iron rod among other things and the Kenyan dogs who raped and paralyzed a girl being a group of fathers raping their daughters.
Now, I want to return to the horrifying pain inflicted upon her child.
Women, you may not know the pain felt by such an assault. I am here to give you some semblance of understanding about how bad it is. If you try to test a man this way, the kindest justice you deserve is to be banished from civilization. I do not believe you would deserve the privileges of a civilized retaliation — much less so if you did this to a man’s son. I challenge any man to disagree with me on this one.
Who the hell is “Chelsea” Manning???????
Bradley Manning does not want a sex change. The “Chelsea” persona is not his creation. “Chelsea” is an evil twisted story sold to a gullible public by his captors.
Bradley Manning, a gay man, had the biggest balls in the military and the brass had to cut them off. Shame on everybody who was so happy to hear about a successful sex-change-made-possible and ignored the American hero’s individuality and ignored the obvious control of the media and ignored that he did not even have a fair trial.
Manning was locked up naked and cold for a year in solitary confinement. Why?
Manning was constantly watched in this state. Who?
Manning was sexually humiliated repeatedly until…. his hair grew long enough to parade him outside as a woman to a stupid gullible public. By the way, there is only 1 photograph out there of the “Chelsea” fabrication. No video…. yet. Any ideas why??? Hmmm??
Bradley Manning is being turned into a woman against his will as a sick punishment and an example. There is a movie about this sort of thing called Victim(2010) which leads the audience to believe the supposed “victim” is no victim at all and deserves this punishment — unlike Bradley Manning’s situation. How convenient.
1984 — the music
There is a deliberate typographical error in the title of this post. Does anybody know or understand why the Eurythmics titled their piece by creating one single concatenated word — i.e., sexcrime — as opposed to keeping the two words separate?
October 20, 2013 · By Jonathan McLeod
I have, at times, been rather critical of Stephen Harper and the Conservative government. Their record has been spotty, even on economic matters (supposedly his area of wonk-y strength). However, under Harper, the Conservatives have remained consistently strong in one area, trade. The current deal (in principle) with the E.U. is no exception.
The trade deal is strong from top to bottom, almost. It will significantly increase access to the vast European market, and, better still, will allow Canadians the freedom to buy a lot more European goods. Unfortunately, there are a few drawbacks.
Canada had to concede to the repressive intellectual property regulations that Europe has on prescription drugs. This will actually hurt all Canadians, as individuals and provinces will, eventually, be spending more on drugs.
In addition to the IP issue, the trade deal reinforces Canada’s supply management system for dairy, eggs and poultry. Sure, the noose of supply management has been loosened a bit – allowing a little more European cheese into the Canadian market – but it’s still around our collective neck.
Mr. Harper’s government has appeared open, at times, to eliminating supply management. One can only hope that this trade deal isn’t indicative of continuing special privilege that certain farmers will receive. It might be the case that Mr. Harper is working incrementally towards the elimination of supply management, and the increased cheese quota is just a first step.
I have further thoughts on the trade deal at the Commons.