Sadly Jeri Ryan isn't kidnapped and kept chained in the basement

Calm down, tranny

Dr. Theresa Tam described Canada as "a series of regional epidemics," with the hardest-hit provinces remaining Ontario and Quebec.

"Even within those jurisdictions, you need to hone in on certain areas," she said as she urged authorities to focus their efforts on hot spots and vulnerable areas such as long-term care homes.



Premier Blaine Higgs has said the health-care worker was in contact with "multiple patients" over a two-week period after returning to the province without self-isolating. The area, near the border with Quebec, will now have to return to tighter restrictions on physical distancing.
No. They. Don't.

This virus will spread. The question is if your health systems are overwhelmed. Provinces refuse to provide this information which means they aren't. Higgs can leave everything alone and the same number of New Brunswick residents will die.

June 2020, January 2021, what's the difference?

What do they think "stop or I'll shoot" means?

Perhaps you've heard the common libertarian refrain that taxation is theft. It's a pretty popular one, and this rundown at libertarianism.org covers the basis of it pretty effectively. What we're interested in here is:

Imagine that I hold you up at gunpoint and take $20 from you. I also leave one of my books behind in exchange. When you see me later without my gun, you call me a thief and demand your money back. “Oh no,” I say, “I am no thief, for I gave you something valuable in exchange. True, you never asked for the book, but it’s a good book, worth much more than $20.”

This reply on my part would be confused. It doesn’t matter that I gave you a good in exchange, and it doesn’t matter whether the book is really worth more than $20. What matters is that I took your money without your consent.

It also does not matter if you benefit greatly from the book.
Libertarians often bring up the "at gunpoint" angle and with good reason. There's another key principle of libertarianism: that the government uses violence to enforce its laws, including the taxation. Canada doesn't jail people for failure to pay taxes like the U.S. does, but you can see this matters not:
  1. I don't pay my taxes
  2. The government says I have to, and sends me a bill
  3. I ignore the bill, but take all my money out of electronic means and keep it in my house
  4. The government sends a bill collector to my house
  5. I refuse to let the bill collector in
  6. The bill collector comes with police officers with guns
  7. I still refuse to let the bill collector in
  8. The cops break down my door and if I try to stop them, they pull out their guns and shoot me
This is not particularly arguable: those who put more than 5 seconds of thought into this have to either themselves turn libertarian or justify the living hell out of it. So we agree that even on this matter, which is serious enough to cause you to be arrested and jailed in American but isn't even an imprisonable offence, the government decree is tantamount to force. As one Objectivist used to say, if you aren't willing to pistol whip a little old lady and then shoot her in the back of the neck for a government program, you can't justify it. Individual morality within libertarianism basically provides the spectrum where that axiom is believed to hold true. However if you break the law, as both a matter of fact and a matter of law than the government can and will use force up to and including shooting you in the head and killing you if you continue to break it and fail to comply with their actions to rectify the matter. You can make the moral case whether a specific law should or should not exist because of this fact, but suffice it to say if you agree that the law exists than you also agree this is what they get to do. This logic is absolute, unassailable, and completely airtight to any and all rational argument. Unfortunately, Donald Trump has publicly agreed with this sentiment. Therefore, in true Trump Derangement Syndrome fashion, everybody is now outraged that he would ever dare imply that such a concept exists.

Looting is illegal. People who loot are (in theory) confronted by the police who will arrest them. This involves pointing guns at them, and if they fail to comply, shooting them for the crime. So yes, as a factual and legal matter when the looting starts the shooting starts. Why is this news? And, as usual with Big Left Tech social media enforcers block the conservatives' "violent speech" while leaving the leftist speech on the same topic alone. FCC chairman Ajit Pai asked why the Iranian head of state is allowed to advocate for violence. Last year the Washinton Examiner noted that when violent leftists threatened Mitch McConnelll he was (deliberately) censored for posting proof of the threats against him.
As McConnell’s campaign manager later pointed out, Twitter had also just recently allowed the phrase #MassacreMitch to be displayed as “trending” — this phrase’s double-meaning is itself a violent threat — yet somehow it is against the rules to bring transparency to the violent threats that increasingly dangerous leftists bring to the door of an elected lawmaker.
Three years ago TownHall.com found plenty of tweets by leftists calling for the murder of numerous GOP officials. Joss Whedon, David Simon, and Everlast all promoted violence against Republicans without any censure from Big Left Tech. We've already seen that Trump causes leftists to lose what little rational thought they may have had. Just remember, TechDirt's Mike Masnick is still falsely claiming there's no bias on social media sites. I guess we can test it. Get somebody to show up at Masnick's house with a gun, beat the living shit out of him, and then hold him hostage and notify the police. Hold the gun directly in his mouth while the SWAT team shows up with snipers and all the rest. Get a leftist Twitter user to post "if this guy doesn't surrender the SWAT team should use lethal force" and then have somebody flag it for moderation. If the social media post is censured by Twitter, the hostage taker doesn't open fire and Masnick lives. If it isn't, then the SWAT team goes home and Masnick gets what the lying leftist deserves.

Another Toronto rapper shot: blame varmint guns in northern B.C.

Surprise surprise, New Zealand is getting a harsh lesson in what happens when the fundamental human right of the citizenry to own weapons in their own defense is stolen away by the state: the state has deprived you of your life and property and isn't very good at protecting the bit of it they leave you as scraps:

The figures, obtained from police under the Official Information Act, show the rates of gun crime went up in both 2018 and 2019.

Last year, there were 3540 occasions where an offender was found with a gun.


On this side of the Pacific Rim, another black-on-black shooting in Toronto, this time right in the middle of (presumably dead) downtown.
TORONTO — Canadian rapper Houdini has died aged 21 after being fatally shot in Toronto.

The up-and-coming hip-hop star was gunned down on May 26 outside a hotel in the downtown area of the city, and later died from his injuries.

Houdini was one of Canada’s most streamed independent rappers last year, with 19.2 million plays on Spotify. He is best known for tracks including Late Nights, Myself, and Backseats.

Police say the wounded include a 15-year-old boy and a 27-year-old woman. Both are expected to recover.
Coming on the heels of Trudeau's ridiculous gun grab that takes a lot of hunting rifles from innocent farmers but somehow lets Toronto negroes pack heat in the middle of the city without so much as a hitch, this looks like only the anecdotal beginning of what New Zealand's own disgusting policies have wrought.
Toronto city councillor Joe Cressy, who represents the area where the shooting took place, expressed his disappointment on Twitter.

"Our vibrant downtown community shaken," Cressy wrote. “While Toronto Police Services investigates and our city’s crisis response team mobilizes to support those affected, collectively as a city we must all loudly reject this violence and work to stop it.”
The reason your "downtown community" is shaken is because fag-loving NDP extremists like you have been constantly pushing to make it more "vibrant" by which you mean non-white. Well this is what you get: tribal criminals constantly committing brazen murders in the middle of the city. This is exactly what Cressy wanted in his city. And he got it. Congrats, pal.

Bonus Toronto shooting coverage: You may have heard from CBC (in since-scrubbed-without-notice article) that the 15 year old boy was dead and the two adults were alive. As always, CBC is quick to rip on you for "fake news" without looking at the beam in their own eye.

Flashback: Over a decade ago I highlighted how the Big Smoke got more violent as it got less white


Edmonton City Parks

It's a virus, not a tornado.

Edmonton City Council is exercising their Viro Fascism by closing four locations that allegedly were used in a non-social-distancing manner. Sodomite loving coward Don Iveson could barely keep the glean out of his evil eye as he made the announcement.

This is disgusting government paternalism at its strongest. This is a parent taking away a kids' soccer ball because he keeps kicking it inside the house.

Actually, wait, sorry, my apologies. This is a parent taking away a kids' soccer ball because they watched a soccer riot in Brazil. It would be bad enough but at least tolerable if Mayor Coward had warned people that bylaw officers would pay special attention to those locations this weekend and fine people for noncompliance. This is insanity overkill on par with the shit we see over in bumfuck Ontario where Ford/Tory scream to the heavens that people are out in public parks.

This is less an issue in Edmonton, but in Toronto what the hell were they thinking? 4M people cooped up in tiny apartments (I'm reminded of my last couple Trawna hotel rooms) for months because the city (unlike many others) closed every park in town, then opened them back up in mid-May during a heat wave, and then complaining that too many people thought "hey I should finally go to the park"? Screw off.

Interim city manager Adam Laughlin said Thursday groups of more than 50 people have regularly been gathering at skateparks and basketball courts, especially at the locations that are being temporarily closed. He said the behaviour has resulted in the need for excessive enforcement after people ignored warnings.

“We permitted opening certain facilities on the basis of good guidelines provided by the province, which we interpret them as our rules,” he said. “The expectation is that individuals follow them and if they do not in this pandemic we will close facilities. It is on Edmontonians to make sure that they’re following these guidelines.”
So which is it? Viro Fascist Adam Laughlin claimed "it's on Edmontonians" but then rather than send enforcers to push the (nonsensical) social distancing rules he's instead closing the entire park.

Well, maybe this saves the Viro Fascist a little manpower to harrass people elsewhere. Nope.
While the closures are in effect, the city will be locking fences and putting up tape at the parks and courts. Laughlin said the city will be closely monitoring the sites for compliance.
Edmonton City Council is out of control. It's time for the non-social distanced mobs to show up at their houses:
Council will revisit the issue at next Thursday’s emergency advisory committee and discuss whether there is a need to close the sites again because of further non-compliance.
Disgusting paternalism at its strongest.

Toronto City Parks



A former RCMP officer weighs in.




They were holding out for #ReleaseTheSnyderCut maybe?

Hey remember the Qatar Papers?

Anti-Propaganda News does, and is wondering why it is we haven't heard a peep about them lately.

Originally, we were told that the Qatar Papers would expose all of the poltical parties in Canada, except Maxime Bernier’s People’s Party of Canada, and that they would be released before the October 2019 election in Canada. It never happened, and Tom Quiggin has left a lot of us wondering if it was just another PsyOp. Now, it’s May, 2020, and Trudeau is destroying Canada. Where are the papers, Tom?

In fairness, Quiggin has been a little busy.

Media buttering Albertans up to demand we reject our most sacred principles

Far-left columnist Lisa Johnson of the Edmonton Journal is asking, almost salivating: COVID-19 has changed everything. Will it change Jason Kenney’s conservative Alberta?

One of the things to note, and Brendan O'Neill noted it about a month ago, is that the polls are probably not accurate reflections of the mood. People locked in under quarantine seem to be insane: how else do you figure that Justin blowing money left right and centre and Legault presiding over a historic Queerbec death roll are both hugely popular?

Kenney’s approval numbers could have been higher but were held back by the government’s handling of the health portfolio, ThinkHQ’s pollsters concluded.
This is exactly why conservative governments need to massively destroy public healthcare. No more government healthcare, no more insisting that government endlessly give it more money to continued lost outcomes.
Cheryl Oates, once press secretary to former premier Notley, said people expect governments to put their agenda aside and put acute needs first.
Oates, of course, isn't telling you that "government funding acute care" is neatly part of her extremist boss's...um, what's the word? Oh, right: agenda.

But this is how leftists like Oates and Rachel Arab work: their desires can never be "agendas". Thanks to pliant media whores like Lisa Johnson, they'll get massive platforms to keep spreading that sick agenda without a hint of opposition.

Fortunately there's a cure. My shadow budget was a start. The next step is deporting losers like Zain Velji to whatever shithole country we decide they are now residents of:
Zain Velji, a political strategist who has worked on left-wing political campaigns including for the provincial NDP, said while Kenney has been in relative lock-step with other provinces on his pandemic response, he has lost some points for leadership.

Sticking to the goals of restraining education and health funding while the public’s attention is on the COVID-19 crisis is one way Kenney’s leveraged this moment for his own political agenda, said Velji.
Meanwhile, count on that worthless bitch Rachel Arab to try to paint Alberta's failures under her destructive administration as a model to uphold:
“The rug was already starting to slip out from under Jason Kenney before the pandemic … The growing job losses, the failure to create jobs, the disinterest in diversification — all those things were already starting to pile up,” said Notley.

Kenney might make some reversals, but he’s still devoted to small-government conservatism, she said.

“Even though it appears as though they are capitulating, it turns out they’re just trying to get money from another pot,” said Notley. “If that means pulling money away from autistic kids in schools — so be it,” the opposition leader said referring to funding cuts for educational assistants. “If it means reducing (health care) services in rural communities — so be it.”
The NDP, remember, know nothing about economics. The money being blown on Wuhan Flu responses has to be saved elsewhere.

Kenney, meanwhile, is at least acknowledging the dangers of his overspending. Real Albertans respect this sort of thing. How the electorate treats him defines how many people we need to remove from Alberta by force.
When asked what exactly that means, Kenney said: “Well, it means we are racking up a whack of debt.” The province needs to get through the crisis, but when that’s over, it’s going to have to have a debate over how to deal with it. “I’m not sugarcoating it, I’m just saying this so Albertans are aware there’s some tough choices ahead.”

As always with the Fake News far-left media, they love that provincial sales tax (that steals money out of every Albertan's wallets):
Kenney was asked directly by Global News in early May if a sales tax was possible, long a taboo subject in Alberta, and he suggested it would be part of the debate to get finances under control. Other options could be deeper cuts or a combination of new taxes and cuts.

Derek, of course, is slyly pushing for #WEXIT. As you might guess, it's the real way that Alberta can pivot from the post-COVID world into a global powerhouse.
Derek Fildebrandt, a former Wildrose MLA, UCP member, Freedom Conservative Party founder and now-publisher of right-leaning online magazine, the Western Standard, said while there is always a threat on the right, “it’s always a manageable threat if the mainstream Tory party of the day is willing to tack in that direction.”

A big part of containing that threat today will depend on what recommendations come out of the Fair Deal Panel. The government’s response will be a big indicator of how far Kenney is willing to go to keep those factions animated by western alienation on his side, said Fildebrandt.



Are politicians essential?

No, I'm not asking that question in order to provoke laughter or things being hurled in anger across the room. It's because the question about maintaining Parliament in the age of the Wuhan Flu seems to be a partisan issue in Canada despite all the people in charge agreeing about that opening question. Indeed, the "essential workers" have just refused to do their jobs for the entire summer. In the middle of a crisis.

Joanna Williams tackles this in the United Kingdom context:

‘It is vital that when we are asking other people to work, and go to their places of work if they cannot do so from home, we should not be the ones who are exempt from that… it is essential that we move back to physical ways of working as quickly as possible… Parliament must set an example of how we move back gradually to a fully functioning country again. Our constituents would expect nothing less… How can we say to our schoolchildren, you’re safe going back, some of them, but we’re not? We’re going to hide away. Is that the right message to give to our constituents?’
Who is this champion of class equality? Is it Jess Phillips the self-styled gobby working-class MP for Birmingham Yardley? Or the more likeable Lisa Nandy, whose pitch for Labour leader focused on reconnecting the Labour Party with its erstwhile working-class voters? Of course not. It was the caricature of posh privilege: Jacob Rees-Mogg.

Rees-Mogg’s words were not well received. His speech was shut down by Commons speaker Lindsay Hoyle, who then threatened to suspend parliament altogether if physical distancing rules were breached in the Commons chamber: ‘My priority, and the priority for all, I am sure, is to make sure that those on the estate are safe while business is facilitated.’
Rees-Mogg is close to the mark, but he unfortunately didn't hit it cleanly.

Neither, for even fewer reasons of politeness, did Andrew Scheer. Scheer also had to endure a poorly received push to re-open the Canadian Parliament.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau signaled that the Liberal government would prefer to continue with the emergency proceedings that have been adopted for the past three weeks — two virtual sittings and one in-person sitting each week of a special COVID-19 committee, on which all MPs are members. He left the door open to additional weekly virtual sittings.

But for that to happen, the minority Liberals will need the support of at least one of the main opposition parties.

Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer reiterated Tuesday his party's position that more in-person sittings are necessary, along with a restoration of some of Parliament's powers.

He said the existing thrice-weekly meetings of the modified Commons and the smattering of other committees meeting virtually aren't enough. Among other things, he said the current setup doesn't allow MPs to compel the government to produce documents or to get witnesses to testify.

"This is not a partisan issue, this is about whether or not a democratic country like Canada should have a functional Parliament," Scheer said.

"If members of the Bloc, or the NDP, or the Liberal backbench don't believe that Parliament is an essential service, they should consider why they ran for office in the first place."
The Bloc has been partially receptive. However just like in jolly ol' England the "supporters of the common worker" don't seem interested in giving those workers some good bang for the buck they spend on their elected representatives.
NDP House leader Peter Julian said a return to normal parliamentary proceedings is not in the cards.

"The reality is, we can't have 338 MPs flying to Ottawa next Monday. That would not make sense," he said in an interview.

"What it does is it increases the chances that we're vectors of the virus and we're a long way from being out of the woods in terms of COVID-19."

The NDP believes it has won some major improvements to emergency aid legislation through the current proceedings and intends to keep pushing to close some of the gaps that have left some Canadians without aid, Julian said.

He wants to see the Commons transition over the next few weeks to becoming fully functional using a hybrid model, in which some MPs are in the chamber and others participate virtually. But that will first require working out how to allow MPs to vote electronically, something Julian suggested could be done by June 21.
The problem is that the Andrew Scheers and the Jacob Rees-Moggs of the world aren't looking at this the right way and aren't addressing this matter in the correct fashion. When morons like Peter Julian start spewing their nonsense you throw it back in their face. If Peter Julian isn't required in the House of Commons than he isn't required period. Fire the son of a bitch. I don't mean he resigns his seat ("considers why he ran for office" in the Scheer formulation) and New Westminster-Burnaby holds a byelection to get a new (NDP) candidate: I mean he's no longer got a seat, and New Westminster-Burnaby never again gets or apparently needs a Member of Parliament. After all, the conceit is that the risk is just too-high to let Parliamentarians go into the building...however at the same time we also entertain the conceit that being an MP is an essential service. Julian seems to think it isn't, and he's wrong.

What we need is a leader like Maxime Bernier on steroids who can turn this around on them and say this:
Parliament must be reopened immediately. All 338 Members of Parliament should be encouraged to attend in the same way that in May of 2019 we also encouraged Members to attend this House. This House of Commons is just that: the free people of Canada electing those to represent them. Parliament started in 1341 and for centuries afterwards Members of the House of Commons fought hard -- at the risk of their own lives -- to ensure that Parliament had more and more power and therefore more and more political power was held by the people themselves. We had a rocky beginning: in 1376 Sir Mare was imprisoned for making what the King thought was "non-essential" pushes for more power and respect for Parliament. Under many sovereigns Parliament was not called upon at all except to rubber stamp spending bills. This however was not sufficient for our Roundhead Parliamentary ancestors who kicked off a decade-long Civil War in 1642 that, combined with the 1688 Glorious Revolution, forever established that Parliament was the basis of our democracy.

I call on all Members to be mindful of that heritage, of the blood spilled by our forebears to preserve Parliament. Today is no different: though we do not fear that the Cavaliers loyal to the House of Trudeau will execute MPs from Corner Brook to Coquitlam, we do have to fear a chance -- minimal, but existent -- of being infected by COVID-19. However much like in 1642, the risk to the country of having nothing more than a rubber stamping Short Parliament is surely worth minimal risk of life to a mere 338 Canadians: our country lost ten times that many people to a single battle in April 1917. That single battle was itself in service of a higher cause ultimately less vital to our Dominion than a strong Parliament is in 2020. Jumping over a trench in the Great War was a lot more risky than sitting in our chamber could ever be! We should never lose sight of the undeniable fact, a fact being denied by several Honourable Ministers and their so-called scientific advisors, that being in the same room as a COVID carrier does not automatically confer infection. Furthermore, infection does not automatically confer symptoms. Symptoms meanwhile do not automatically confer hospitalization, and hospitalization does not mean a death sentence. To claim otherwise is to lie, and deceive Canadians, and that is precisely why Parliament must resume: such deceit withers in the disinfecting ultraviolet light which is the debating of our cherished democratic system.

The other Members of this House have done well personally as a result of their election into this grand chamber: they receive a salary that is the envy of all but a small proportion of Canadians with pensions and benefits to match. They are ferried across the country at the taxpayer expense, are honoured by law societies and media outlets and charitable foundations. Their names are forever blazed in the history books of our great nation, their every utterance is given a weight far greater than any of the citizens they are here to represent. Upon leaving this chamber they can move onto profitable endeavours in industry or media or elsewhere in government. Even in the wake of this global pandemic they have continued to have freedom of movement many other Canadians have had to do without. Unlike so many Canadians impacted by government policies they continue to draw their salary even as their workload diminishes. It is now time to give back to the people of Canada who elected them.

Parliament is more important than mere parliamentarians. If Members of Parliament from the Prime Minister to the newest backbencher to the Speaker are to be considered 'essential' to the operations of Canada in the same manner as nurses or grocery clerks, then we must be willing to perform to the same standard. Every caregiver who walks into a hospital may get infected and die: but we all understand that risk has to be taken because otherwise this essential service so vital to Canadian life will not be performed. Every employee at your local grocery chain or convenience store is at a risk of contracting this illness: we don't make ludicrous claims that the customer coming in to buy the food they need to survive "killed them" and justify shutting everything down. We can take reasonable precautions but at the end of the day my message to every Member of Parliament is that your job is essential. For years we have used vehicles with wheels and wings to travel around understanding that the risk was worth the reward, this is more public a risk and a more possible outcome, but it remains true that the calling of our higher mission supercedes any selfish interest in our own personal safety and comfort.

Parliament is by far the most important institution in Canada: in this critical time in our history facing the worst economic collapse since the time Queen Victoria signed the British North America Act, we must meet. We must have the opportunity to debate and deliberate the unhitherto expenditures of money from the public purse. We must be able to, in full view of the public we serve, question and challenge the claims made by unelected advisors to the Minority Government. Canadians deserve a full and frank accounting of what the Government of Canada will be doing, what goals we are aiming to accomplish, when and how we will know if we have succeeded or failed at them, and what information we know for certain and which information we are merely guessing or modelling. Perhaps even more importantly Canadians deserve to know that the decisions that are being made, many of which have larger or longer reaching impacts than any ever before made by the Federal Government, are not being made by a tiny cabal answerable only to a small number of the Members of this House who serve extremely narrow regional and ideological masters and instead are being made by a majority of Parliament who represent every person region and belief system within our shores.

It is wholly wicked and undemocratic to have Canada be led from the front porch of a building the vast majority of Canadians would be arrested for trying to visit, by a man who less than eight months ago failed to obtain the confidence of this House. We are not a technocracy where unelected experts of narrow fringe research are directed to set public policy, nor are we to be governed by snapshot polling without a true public realm free from the manipulations of Big Tech and Big Government in a distorted marketplace of ideas. King Charles' policies were generally popular as well, but that didn't make his eleven years of tyranny any less dangerous, and we have no wish to have to fight the 9 year bloody real world war that resulted. This destructive course of action could easily tear the country apart.

Throughout history Parliament has been a place of meeting: the concept of people forming together is the perfect distillation of our democratic system. If we do not have regular in-person meetings of the Commoners' Representatives than we are no longer a country nor do we deserve to be. The price to save the nation is a statistical blip on the ever-present possibility that any of us at any time for any reason be taken away from this earth. Anyone who has been chosen to pay this bargain of a price and still rejects the bill is free to abandon this duty forever: but they should be forevermore banished from this House and the sacred mission it has to play in the days ahead.


Detroit is technically north of Windsor. Is that why they're confused?

The Wuhan Flu means drug traffickers have stockpiles they can't get rid of before getting caught.

But the NBC story caught my eye for another reason:

The recent busts haven't been confined to stacks of cash. Along the northern border, federal officers have confiscated large quantities of drugs over the past few months.


Wait, so people are smuggling guns into the U.S. from Canada?

Has Bill Blair been notified?


If it wasn't for false equivalence the media wouldn't have any equivalence at all

Donald Trump has done it again.

Conservatives have often wondered "what do we have to do in order to get fair media treatment for our comments on race/religion/sex/sodomitic lifestyle choices?"

The answer: run against Joe Biden.

See? Once Biden is in hot water at the same time, your remarks get downgraded into a false equivalence into being "perceived as racist". [for those keeping score, when a remark is 'racist' that's a crime committed by the speaker...a remark 'perceived as racist' is a crime committed by you, the listener. -ed]

Joe Biden, of course is wrong. "Charlamagne tha God" (ie. Lenard McKelvey, unlike trannies apparently he can't be 'deadnamed') is allowed to be black and not choose Democrat in November 2020. Charlamagne tha God is absolutely black: if you didn't doubt it, he has a negro's lack of sense regarding deadline times...

About 20 minutes into the interview, an aide to Biden can be heard trying to wrap up, saying, "Thank you so much. That's really our time. I apologize."

"You can't do that to black media!" Charlamagne replied, smiling.

White taxpayers have personally protected them enough






Absolutely not.

First off, why are the good people of Saskatchewan still wasting money on these people? We've already discovered that they want to ignore the white man laws that governments are so anxious to force upon the rest of us. To use the parlance of the Viro Fascist Toronto public health official, if they're going to be this selfish than they have no right to PPE provided by social distancing taxpayers.

Then, to add insult to injury, the same lazy Indians who want special powers also want those funded as well.
Bellau also noted a rising dispute in B.C. about what level of government — federal, provincial or Indigenous — should pay the increased costs being incurred by First Nations that have hired security personnel to block or limit access to their communities to prevent outbreaks COVID-19.

You don't have resource revenue. You have money given to you hand over fist by Canadian taxpayers.

And this is a great time to cut you off.


Old and busted: muzzling government scientists. New hotness: muzzling scientists who don't even work for you

Hey remember when everybody was mad about the Right Honourable Stephen Harper (pbuh) "muzzling" scientists? Nobody milked this non-story more than the Shiny Pony himself, a prime example of how the idiot masquerading as a Prime Minister doesn't understand how government works.

I was wondering recently if any scientists in the government's employ disagreed at any point with the decisions being made by Dr. Tam and his cronies. Why hadn't we heard from them? Were they proposing courses of action that the government chose not to take and just deciding to remain quiet? I thought Justin had un-muzzled them...(well, more or less).

I guess I should have mused aloud on here, that way I would have been demonstrated as forward thinking (always more useful than merely being forward thinking.

Trudeau is not only (apparently) muzzling his own scientists, he's also muzzling scientists he's giving money to.

Amir Attaran is a far-left piece of shit who teaches lies to impressionable children at the University of Ottawa. He's also, one should note, not one of the government advisors who would have been "muzzled" under the Right Honourable Stephen Harper (pbuh). He doesn't work for the federal government other than receive grant money. Or rather, he was until he criticized the Little Potato's handling of the Wuhan Flu:

At a House of Commons health committee on Wednesday, professor Amir Attaran of the University of Ottawa’s School of Epidemiology disclosed he was blacklisted from a grant application by Public Health during a routine hearing, according to Blacklock’s Reporter.

Conservative MP Tamara Jansen told Prof. Attaran that nobody has been able to give her a grade on the Public Health Agency management’s response to the pandemic.

“I’ve actually been hearing of some backlash by the agency to those who are vocally critical of their response to the pandemic,” Jansen said to Attaran. “Are you willing to give me a grade? Or could that disadvantage you in your work in some way?”

Attaran answered by giving the agency “a C- or a D” and affirmed that there was retaliation.

“Since the last time I appeared in front of this committee and I was negative about some of those efforts, I was asked to join a grant application with people from the Public Health Agency of Canada and I understand they said they wouldn’t participate unless I stood off of it, which I did, willingly, because I didn’t want to cause trouble for my colleagues,” Attaran said.
The final kicker?
New Democrat MP Don Davies was “shocked” to hear about the alleged intimidation.
Don't you understand how your own side works, Comrade?


But which one do we kill?


At least COVID doesn't kill you while playing shitty rap music

It's a good thing some farmer in Alberta is losing his hunting rifle.

Otherwise violent niggers in the GTA would get their hands on handguns...oh...wait...

"Divine Right" on NuTrek and why woke feminazis ruin male-dominated SciFi franchises

If you've been in conservative Star Trek circles lately you may have seen Guillaume Durocher's comparison of Star Trek: The Next Generation with modern TV and films in general from a conservative Jewish perspective.

As an inspiration, commenter "Divine Right" wrote this missive on the state of modern "nuTrek" and how it compares negatively to yesteryear. It raises a lot of points and contentions: some valid and others less so, but ties it all fairly nicely into how the pussification of society has decimated the sort of things that (mostly male) sci-fi fans are into.

Star Trek very much embodied what liberal American white males of the 1980s and 1990s thought the future would (or should) look like: secular, sexually liberated, humanistic, meritocratic, equitable, and technological – a man’s world, basically. In this world, religion plays practically no role in public life. Problems are solved with diplomacy instead of violence. Money doesn’t exist, so there is no capitalism, greed, or want. People spend their lives bettering humanity and doing other such noble things like negotiating peace with aliens or exploring the universe in one of Starfleet’s advanced starships, each equipped with a plethora of miraculous technologies. In their leisure time, the crews of these starships visit a holographic room, the holodeck, which can conjure any fantasy into a photorealistic facsimile of the real thing.
No argument here except to note that even with this, we have to make a slight distinction. When Gene Roddenberry started out in the 60s he still envisioned an equitably humanistic and meritocratic system with technology (mostly) helping us achieve our dreams, yes. However we also have to consider that a lot of the other stuff was shoehorned in between TOS and TNG with varying degrees of sensibility. Making it more secular wasn't in-and-of-itself that crazy: organized Christian religion was part of the Federation makeup between 1966-1969 but it wasn't huge. Consider it more early post-Christian Europe: many of the beliefs and cultural underpinnings were still there. Uhura explicitly referred to Jesus as the Son of God (the crew assumed space!Roman primitives on a planet were pagan "sun" worshippers when they instead were "son" worshippers), Kirk held a Christmas party on the Enterprise, and the ship had a chapel (and a Chapel). It's not like we expected the entire cast to show up for church every 7th stardate, but you could envision at least some of the crew (Riley for sure, Uhura/Chekov/Chapel most likely, Scotty/McCoy/M'benga possibly as wel) would be church-y folks. Kirk and Spock not so much (unrelated to the Jewishness of the actors) and I believe Sulu was referred to in dialogue at one point as a Confucianist (though the debate about whether that's even a religion likely still hasn't been settled by 2275). Still it wasn't until TNG when the Federation became aggressively secular and aggressively noncapitalist (and technology became even more critical to the role). Neither point particularly impacts the thesis (90s liberal values morphing from 60s liberal values is partially related, though it's worth noting that mainstream liberal centrists mostly stayed still while influencers like Roddenberry are the ones who moved).
Probably the only place in the Western world where this mentality can still be found is California’s Silicon Valley. As in the fictional world of Star Trek, men do most of the work; they advance through meritocracy; and there is something akin to a fraternal culture, irrespective of the prevailing progressive ideology. Silicon Valley is also still largely free of the odious diversity requirements imposed on the rest of society.

That was also once true of Hollywood itself, and it showed in the television they produced — Star Trek, for example. That franchise, spanning hundreds of television hours and a number of theatrical releases, was mostly helmed by men who got their jobs through merit – actors, writers, ship designers, show runners. The main characters of each of the television series were also men. The Original Series (TOS) featured a lead triangle of male actors – Kelley, Shatner, and Nemoy. The sequel, The Next Generation (TNG), featured mostly male characters, certainly all the most popular ones. These characters often featured something educated men are interested in: the second officer is an android; the chief engineer has a technology-supplemented vision; the executive officer is a ladies man and a master strategist who plays games of skill underpinned by mathematical rules; the captain is a wise and cultured authority figure who reads Shakespeare; the security chief is a noble warrior from an alien species whose culture is based around rules of honor.

Spinoffs like Deep Space Nine (DS9) and Voyager were more diverse, but still roughly comported to what the male audience desired. DS9 featured a male captain, and the most popular characters were all men. Voyager had a female captain who mostly avoided gender politics outside of a few instances in the earlier seasons (written by a woman) – a rarity these days. In that show, one of the two most popular characters was a male and the other was a sexy Borg chick, Seven of Nine.

The high point of the franchise, The Next Generation, featured a mostly white liberal cast and various things white liberals liked at the time – sex appeal, food, pseudointellectualism (although handled capably by talented male writers), cutting edge tech, meritocracy, optimism, exploration, and the white man’s moralism.

Starfleet, the Federation’s military and scientific branch, was a rigorous meritocracy, just as Silicon Valley is today. Members were admitted only through a combination of senior officer recommendations, high scholastic achievement, and phenomenally high standardized test scores. Character was also paramount. Crew evaluations feature prominently in several episodes of TNG, and it was made clear to underperforming members that the starship Enterprise cuts a standard above the rest; perform or hit the road.
The only questionable line in this bit is that DS9's most popular characters were all men: Kira was relatively popular because she eschewed the traditional role "helper jobs" like doctor or counsellor and instead was a rough and tumble terrorist: the bad girl tomboy that just needed a man to tame her. That alone spoke to the tendency (that's even more pronounced today) that to be a "strong female" character you needed to act more like a man. A strong female character couldn't be just a wife and mother like a Wilma Flintstone or a Kitty Forman: she had to be Salt or Aeon Flux. She couldn't even be a Dr. Quinn: her femininity is only expressed by her embrace of disgusting sapphic perversions (more on that to come).
In the diverse world of Star Trek, the white writers imagined meritocracy would ensure whites like themselves would still have a position at the top of society (just as in Hollywood then and Silicon Valley now) despite soon becoming a minority in real life America. You’ll notice progressive humans are at the center of the Federation in Star Trek despite being a small minority in that fictional universe as well. That’s by design, conscious or not.

You can tell the creators desperately wanted to believe this sweet little lie about diverse societies. I’m sure they imagined their tolerance would be reciprocated when they were on the receiving end; we now know that’s not true, unfortunately. Remember, this was the generation that famously cheered President Bill Clinton’s college commencement speech where he lauded the idea of America soon becoming majority minority. The primarily white crowd roared in approval.

In this imagined future, white liberals would still get to feel morally superior to contemporary white conservatives, just as they often strive to in today’s world. In TNG, this is accomplished through various means – cooperation with hostile aliens (demonstrating philosophical supremacy, superiority of intellect and temperament), bravery, tolerance of differences in others, multiculturalism (the show almost never celebrates an earth holiday like Christmas but often supports alien cultures, including breaking Starfleet’s rules of dress for aliens), standing up to corrupt superiors (usually white conservative caricatures).

In the TNG episode The Drumhead, Picard faces down a witch hunting admiral — a woman, no less. The plot revolves around an incident that occurred on the starship Enterprise. Sabotage is suspected, and the situation is tense. The initial evidence points to a low ranking crewman who is later discovered to be of mixed race, one-quarter of the Federation’s most feared enemy. This all but convicts him in the eyes of the admiral’s tribunal. The admiral mercilessly presses her case, threatening to destroy anyone who gets in her way. She’s meant to be a caricature of conservative jingoists of the era – always scared of the Russians, racist against minorities, emotional. In Hollywood’s view of history, those were the people behind the McCarthy hearings, which this episode obviously pulls from.
As always of course, the Hollywood depiction of the McCarthy era always covers up the dirty little secret that liberals really were guilty.
Toward the end of the episode, Captain Picard confronts his antagonist and gives a fine speech about principle, temperament, and morality in the process. The admiral is defeated when a fellow admiral, a black male character, stands up and walks out in disgust at her actions.

This is one of the reasons why fans liked the character of Jean-Luc Picard: he was a decent, honorable man despite not being perfect himself. He had a code he lived by, and he led by example. Men like that sort of thing. Star Trek Picard, in contrast, portrays him as a bumbling moron who is always wrong and continually berated by female underlings. His view of the world is portrayed as naive or just wrong, requiring strong SJW women to take it to the enemy themselves, often employing violence – including rank murder and sadistic violence.

In another episode of TNG, white male commander Riker stands up to his white male superior — an admiral — who wishes to break the terms of a peace treaty to gain a military edge over a mortal enemy. Riker prevents him from doing so and exposes the dastardly plot. Moral of the story: principle trumps Machiavellianism.

Star Trek was very much a pre-Millennial liberal morality play whereby inspired characters (mostly white) would often stand up to authority figures (mostly white) in order to promote a general moral code — a greater authority — among fellow whites.
If you look carefully you may notice that two very distinct concepts are sort of being meshed together in the above passage. Both are correct but both need to be separated. The first is the thing that men enjoy from their fictional characters: men who both represent authority but also confront authority when it's wrong. These at first seem like two disparate paths but not really. It stems from changing from nominally Christian to aggressively secular as previously discussed. Man is to render unto Caesar, but at the same time Caesar is also subject to God's Laws. In passages like 1 Peter 2:16 and Isaiah 1:17 Mankind is implicitly commanded to setup structures of government and society that work to reward good and punish (or at least de-incentivize) wickedness. When an authority like Starfleet is endeavouring to work in sync with God's Laws then they and the officers that are engaged (ha!) in them are themselves doing good and deserve their authority and are working within them. If they fall from that path then it is the job of the moral idealized man (represented by Picard) to fight against them and right the wrong: the measure of a society could be expressed in how often the character an audience is to recognize as a moral centre gets to work with the system to bring down an external threat (yay!) versus working against the system to stop it from being an internal threat (boo!). As a general rule women are not interested in their protagonists performing courageous feats on the battlefield: whether a literal Worf-style battlefield with shields and swords and chariots (or shields and phasers and starships) or a Picard-style battlefield with documents and political systems and legal structures.

However it's also worth noting the distinction between whites and nonwhites about what they want their political structures and swords to be in authority of. The moral code of whites is based on Judeo-Christian histories going back to Ancient Egypt and Rome. If you're getting your moral code based on Chinese/Japanese history for example you're going to end up with a radically different structure: authority existing more for its own sake than to express God's principles, as is the want when you replace a monotheistic moral structure with a polytheistic Buddhist structure where morality is less rigid and Mankind has much more influence in what the world should look like. If you're looking for a moral code based on African history, of course, you're shit out of luck. Instead you get a Marxist underpinned fake history and a nihilistic collectivist worldview being pushed. As Divine Right notes, white liberals sometimes lose sight of the fact that their multiculturalism eventually pushes out the things they find of value.
Consider some of the following things about Star Trek: The Next Generation and ask yourself if any of this would be allowed on television today without controversy.
  • Implied heterosexual attraction is present – Riker and Troi, Picard and Crusher; this is true of the spin-offs as well. The male characters all have numerous romances throughout the show’s run. Even the android, Data, has a romantic encounter with a woman.
  • The black characters are portrayed as white people with dark skin, for the most part. Michael Dorn, Worf, is a proud Klingon warrior; he’s a noble character the audience looks up to for his courage and good sense (even if the writers comically ignored him). Whoopi Goldberg, Guinan, is the show’s Delphic Oracle; she gives advice even to the wise Jean-Luc Picard. Levar Burton, Geordi, is the ship’s chief engineer. He’s a black male nerd who has trouble dating girls but is otherwise a genius.
  • Basically, TNG was what white male liberals of the time hoped the future would be. “Threatening” minority characters would act safe and white, technology would trump superstition, and reason would prevail over emotionalism. The future would be a paradise where all problems had been solved and white men would still have a place at the table they created – it being governed by the same rules they originally put into place.
I'm not sure if "white people with dark skin" is as useful a metric as saying that a character's race was incidental. RedLetterMedia made this point about Winston in Ghostbusters: his being black wasn't really part of his character anymore than Ray being white was part of his character. In TNG when you exclude Worf and Data (characters whose race was tied closely to the fictional alien society they belonged to) the only two characters to have an explicit racial characteristic were Picard (France) and Riker (Alaska). In these, even Riker's was a bit of stretch, I suppose Alaska could have black people or even Eskimos representing them in space, but "big burly man with beard" is how everybody in the world pictured "guy from Alaska" and also how they picture "William T. Riker" unless they've been watching Insurrection on cable lately. Guinan was an alien as well, of course, but she shared her planet with Malcom McDowell, so you need to argue that race was (appropriately enough, based on Whoopi's history with TOS) incidental with her as well. The other alien in the cast, Troi, was chosen to be exotic enough to be interesting but her racial makeup wasn't that important either. (Note Marina Sirtis also played a half-negress in Death Wish 3). "Divine Right" then brings up the one black mark (no pun intended, believe it or not) on Star Trek's wonderful post-racial future: the Ben Sisko refusal to participate in (historically) racially segregated holodeck (fantasy) Vegas. More column-inches have been spilled in Trek fandom on this scene than any other scene this side of "The Best of Both Worlds" which gives you an idea that Divine Right is being slightly disingenuous by bringing it up in any context.
Quark, the alien bartender, is a sexist who steals his employees’ tips and requires women to dress seductively in order to scam male customers at the gambling table. He expresses outrage when his mother starts dressing in clothes, which is forbidden for the house-ridden, oppressed Ferengi female demographic. There is also an episode where he tries to take a picture of the female executive officer in order to make a real-life sex object based on her likeness for a customer. The Ferengi are also obsessed with accumulating wealth and often scam people out of their money.
Despite all of that, Quark is often a moral character (sold medicine and blankets to sick aliens during a war). There is an episode where he points out that Ferengi at their worst aren’t as bad as humans have been in recent memory – no genocides or slavery or concentration camps. Quark is supposed to represent much that is wrong with the contemporary world. He is also representative of the writers’ moral relativism – bad guy isn’t all that bad depending on perspective. But even that reasoning probably wouldn’t allow such a character to exist in modern Star Trek
For those keeping score, I've already written about this roughly a month before Divine Right did: woke media can't even defend its positions by having relatively weak strawmen present inferior arguments they can easily swat down. DS9's second last episode featured Ferenginar doing the 1940s Britain/1960s Canada thing of going hard into the social welfare model, and Rom as the noble enlightened liberal easily countering Quark's lame reactionary complaints. The writers clearly don't understand the Objectivism that they are clumsily putting into Quark's mouth, so Rom easily wins the argument...but at least they have an argument.
  • In DS9, the Bajorans turn away poor immigrants who wish to settle on their planet. Their reasoning: Bajor is poor and can’t support them; they have their own problems to worry about.
  • The Ferengi, Nog, needs a recommendation from a senior officer and phenomenal test scores just to be considered for entry into Starfleet academy. No affirmative action at all.
  • The Cardassian antagonists have segregated their society along gender lines – men serve in the military and women serve as scientists. Female Cardassians think male Cardassians are bad at math and male Cardassians think female Cardassians are emotionally weak, so they are mostly excluded from the military leadership. The few female Cardassians who appear in the earlier seasons are mostly evil – a cruel judge and an intelligence official in the Obsidian Order (KGB equivalent). Dukat, the Cardassian male military officer, is once pitted against his female Obsidian Order boss and turns out to be the more compromising of the two characters before the end.
  • In DS9, multiculturalism can sometimes have a dark side: the diverse, authoritarian, Dominion wages war against the diverse, but cooperative, Federation.
  • There are lots of romantic relationships among friends and not as much of the Millennial hookup culture trash seen in the modern Star Trek iterations.
  • The male characters are often the center of attention – leaders, philosophers, diplomats, family men, scientists, doctors, comic relief.
Again some of the bits here go against the mark: Rom the bumbling genius savant is the "center of attention"? This doesn't seem that crazy. These all fall under his "things Woke Trek" will never again feature, and that one falls flat. The other ones don't seem like "new TV wouldn't do" as much as "neat things about DS9: I like how he directly links in a way I've never considered before the two narrative points everybody knows about The Dominion: twisted mirror of the Federation plus multi-racial/multi-ethnic empire. That it can speak to the downsides of multiculturalism is interesting though in fairness most of the cultures shown within The Dominion are themselves genetically predisposed to be deferential to The Founders and all should probably be considered a monoculture.
But as America’s demographics have changed, so too has the ethos of the Star Trek franchise. Starting with Enterprise (2001 – 2005), the former paragon of stoicism, the Vulcans, are continually denigrated – treated as paternalistic, deceptive, and even belligerent towards other alien races. Notably, Vulcans are more intelligent, more accomplished, and much stronger physically than humans; they are a paragon (sometimes a foil) of what pre-Millennial humanist white males imagined themselves to be … or hoped to be in the far future. Their treatment is odd. It’s almost as if the new – feminist – writers now feel they have to use the Vulcans as stand-ins for the white males they envy.
The Vulcans in Enterprise were probably more deconstructed than denigrated. Obviously I can't speak much to their treatment in nuTrek (I didn't exactly watch a lot of Enterprise either), but part of it surely comes from the melodramatic urges of SJWDiscovery: a cool rational people doesn't fit the narrative well so the "bubbling rage below the surface" depiction of Vulcans had to supplant it. There's definitely some pop psychology at play there as well: the belief it's just not possible for somebody to be (relatively) unemotional. Unsurprisingly, chicks write characters this way.
The new shows by Alex Kurtzman, Discovery and Picard, are helmed by a diverse set of writers decidedly unlike the target audience of straight white males. They’ve predictably produced shows denigrating that demographic: the lead characters are usually female; the male characters are continually insulted by wiser female underlings (Pike, Picard); many of the former straight characters are now gay (Picard, Data, Seven of Nine); aliens which were previously played exclusively – or nearly so – by white actors are now bizarrely multicultural in skin tone, just like humans. Can’t have too many whites on screen, I guess.

The diverse new cast of Discovery and Picard mostly excludes white males. The only principle white men who did not appear in make-up during Discovery’s first season were either villains or openly gay. The show’s lead is a black woman who’s the best at everything, acts bizarrely hostile towards the crew and later berates the male commanding officer, captain Pike – introduced in season 2. There’s also an assortment of other female archetypes more typically seen in network television crime dramas – the dorky female comic relief, the bestest ever leader, the tech guru.
The curious thing about both Star Trek and Star Wars is this insane belief that their target audience shouldn't be straight white males. They keep trying to "expand the fanbase" by making a property something that it isn't intended to be, basically just trying to milk the I.P. for dollars. It's allegedly too risky to create a new property, but it can't be less risky than sullying your brand by turning off science fiction fans and hoping that chicks and sodomites can fill in the gaps: the former are abnormally obsessed with Mary Sue characters (hence the lame "female archetypes" noted above) and the latter are 2% of the population and likely to die of autoimmune deficiencies related to COVID-19 anyways.
Star Trek: Picard’s white male actors, aside from TNG cameos, are mostly villains when they appear at all. Picard himself is a senile old man who contributes essentially nothing to the show. He is used as the butt of criticism from the cast. It’s clear the writers are using him as a canvas to paint their grievances with the real world. Picard — white male America — stands in the new boss’s empowered way. He lives in luxury as minority characters live in poverty. The (white) institutions he represents are all corrupt and racist. To rectify this injustice, the diverse cast must defy Star Trek convention – up to and including committing acts of cold-blooded murder (even villains don’t deserve that).
It's worth noting how ridiculous the resumption of poverty on Earth was in Star Trek: Picard. As Mike and Rich at RedLetterMedia pointed out it not only spits in something that Gene himself established in the Original Series but also makes no sense within the context: Picard can't have "antique furniture" in his chateau because it's less than 25 years old: the original building burned down offscreen at the time of Star Trek: Generations killing his entire family. The current winery is clearly something he rebuilt, likely in his off-period after Star Trek: Nemesis. As usual, the Kurtzman writing style of ignoring everything just makes the universe ring hollow.
The new shows also – bizarrely — feature a dearth of straight black male actors. TNG had two; Voyager had one; DS9 had several, including a masculine male captain. The feminists who write this newer junk must feel threatened by their masculinity, a common phenomenon in modern Hollywood movies, comic books, and in network television: black men are usually removed (Star Trek), made gay (Marvel’s New Warriors), or turned into female servants (Samuel L. Jackson in Captain Marvel – a pet to Brie Larson). So, they’ve almost entirely been excised as primary leads in the new shows. The mostly unaccomplished female writers of Discovery even reported the more accomplished (read: threatening) black male writer, Walter Mosley, to Human Resources for uttering a racial epithet (in context with writing about racism), causing him to quit the show in disgust.
It was news to me that Walter Mosley's only/main crime was using the word "nigger"...that Mosley himself was a nigger was news as well. This really is safe space sensitivity turned up to 11, especially when you discover why he said it:
"I hadn’t called anyone it. I just told a story about a cop who explained to me, on the streets of Los Angeles, that he stopped all niggers in paddy neighborhoods and all paddies in nigger neighborhoods, because they were usually up to no good. I was telling a true story as I remembered it."
We already, of course, had the snowflakes dialed up to 10.5 when they had two Star Trek: Discovery showrunners fired a year earlier because they "learned across the writers room table while shouting an expletive" at a writer. Let that sink in. A writer was swore at by their boss and got him fired. No wonder the writing on NuTrek is 5th grade calibre at best! Back to "Divine Right"'s article:
Discovery and Picard are both written by a crowd that obviously hates the demographic they are writing for, so they pepper many of the episodes with things they know that demographic will take as insults – female characters insulting male characters, underhanded jokes about masculinity or mansplaining, obnoxious female leads, incompetent white male characters who need female instruction, excessive melodrama, denigration of lore. It’s patently obvious. They aren’t even being subtle about it. The Klingons, once a proud masculine race, are now reduced to xenophobic Trump voters in Discovery. The show runner directly stated this in an interview before the series premiere. Klingons now speak in subhuman, guttural-sounding vocals. They redesigned them to look like hairless Tolkienesque goblins – hideous primitives. Klingons were previously boastful, proud in speech and in manner … threatening black men, basically. Feminist writers can’t have that. Bye. Fundamentally, these new shows struggle because they are written by people wholly unlike the target audience, so they are not able to appeal to them (the same is true of other ruined male franchises like Star Wars – but I’ll save that for another time). These new shows aren’t for the old audience. The new — diverse — show runners have made that clear. Star Trek now serves as a vehicle for airing out racial and gender grievances against the perceived white male audience. It’s akin to planting your tribe’s flag on another tribe’s territory. The aggrieved gets a rush from being able to rub their enemy’s face in their loss. It’s intentional.
I think I covered a lot of this territory already, but it's good seeing it in black and white (pardon the pun). "Divine Right" first notes that when Star Trek: Deep Space Nine had a black male captain with a feminist second-in-command he put her in her place on numerous occasions (the very second episode, if I recall!), and then goes into the anti-capitalist feminist underpinnings between some of what seems to be the most ridiculous of the NuTrek tropes:
What do men like in Star Trek?

Men like technology. So, the writers of Picard introduced a magic wand to the newest iteration.

Men like adventure, not melodrama. So, obviously the female writers feature an inordinate number of episodes of characters crying.

Men like friendships, not … what the writers did to Jean-Luc Picard and Data at the end of Star Trek: Picard. The season finale of the new show ends with Picard confessing his amorous affection for Data, the male android – totally out of character. The writers thought they were being subtle, but it’s clear what they meant. It’s an implied gay relationship between the two most popular male characters in TNG, two characters that were never really that close to begin with. It was meant as a deliberate insult to the audience.
All obviously true. Picard was telling Data to just shut up and get to work as recently as Star Trek: First Contact, and was hardly as close to him as LaForge or Wesley Crusher or Deanna Troi or even Worf. Hell, arguably even Guinan and Riker were closer to him. Turn Picard poofter is just that, an insult. Sodomy has never been an acceptable or desirable lifestyle: they know it, they know we know it, and they still pull this nonsense.
Men like relationships with women, so that’s almost totally ignored – even the subtle implication of male / female attraction; there is some casual sex between characters we hate, but few meaningful or traditional relationships in the newer shows. The female characters in nuTrek are now also disproportionately lesbians (literally – no exaggeration intended), closing off that male fantasy for the audience. For example, the once sexy Seven of Nine is now also a lesbian. I’m sure that was deliberate. The rest of the women are physically unattractive, emotionally disturbed, or otherwise weird.
Men also like ship design, which was a major component of the old shows. They provided countless hours of free fan promotion across message boards and websites, they were cool locations for new episodes, and they inspired fan movies. So, obviously that had to be sidelined in the new shows. The ships, once iconic and profitable selling toy items, are now generic CGI models – totally uninspired trash hastily put together as an afterthought. The new shows can’t sell the merchandise, so the retailers have refused to license much of it.

Another thing men like? Group service – following rules, meritocracy, sacrifice for the tribe, defending territory (even the non-violent philosophical variety), that kind of thing. Well, that’s almost totally absent in Discovery and Picard. The once-honorable and meritocratic military-like Federation is portrayed as corrupt and unequal; the black female lead of Picard berates Jean-Luc in one episode for living “in his fine chateau” while she lived in poverty – again, a totally antithetical concept to the old shows.
The Pensky File's podcasts about Star Trek: Picard often asked why they weren't showing starships anymore: the (white, geeky, male) cohosts both were excited about seeing what starships were going to look like in this timeframe with this CGI technology. They were both obviously disappointed not to get a good answer, but never really examined why. This was why. The bit about group service and defending physical/rhetorical territory is pretty much a less verbose version of which I wrote earlier.
Many of the characters in the new shows act entirely unprofessional towards each other. They are sometimes even cruel or sadistic. The female captain of one Discovery short Trek allowed a bumbling white male crewman (whom the female writers mocked the entire episode) to die horribly and then simply shrugged it off when asked about it, “he was an idiot” (implication: he deserved to die because he was annoying her). I’m guessing this occurs in the new shows because women don’t generally like things such as military service. Sure, women serve in the armed forces, but that’s just a gig for a lot of girls. Tactics, uniforms, codes of behavior, and group work are all things men sit around and think about when they aren’t being paid to do it.
When RedLetterMedia's Mike Stoklasa first heard about Patrick Stewart's involvement in a new Star Trek show he sat down and wrote a partial treatment about his idea for what the show could be: titled "Star Trek: Galaxy" it would feature an aged retired Picard being brought back into service by Geordi LaForge to recover the U.S.S. Galaxy which had been lost since the Dominion War. While a low priority for Starfleet/the Federation, LaForge and his wife were assigned/requested the detail (with his own son and some other members of his engineering academy) and Geordi already had a bad feeling about the brash young captain assigned the recovery effort. To help reign that captain in and also to help Picard get out of seclusion, LaForge pushes Picard to join him. When they get to the ship and start trying to piece together the mystery of what happens to them, they are attacked by a mysterious new foe and Picard needs to take command to save them all. Throughout the season they would piece together the mysteries of what happened to the ship, who these new baddies are, and on the way uncover a new threat to the Federation. The point being that, as he told Rich Evans in that YouTube video, "nerds to this kind of shit all the time". Most of those nerds are, in fact, male. Not all of them, mind you: two of Star Trek's best writers are Diana Duane and the late Dorothy Fontana. But both women understood more than any homo writer working for Star Trek: Discovery ever could. Jeanne Kalogridis (pen name "J. M. Dillard") wrote both the epic Star Trek: The Lost Years and the super-nerdy kitsch "Federation Passport". But wake me up when the female writers of Star Trek: Picard write anything scientifically literate as this:

In general though, yes men are the ones who tend to write their own (non-Mary Sue) fanfiction, or technical backgrounds, or make CGI models or record themselves playing music from the shows they love. Even hippie feminist writers like Margaret Wander Bonanno understood how to write for a Star Trek audience.
Not surprisingly, the biggest internet critic of these two incarnations is an Israeli Jew (I suspect); he compiled many of the clips above. It’s not hard to understand why. Israel is a masculine country that requires compulsory military service, is based around codes of principle (Jewish heritage), is partly multicultural (maybe 20% of the population isn’t Jewish), is group-oriented, and has a high percentage of intellectual figures. These are all things you might vaguely see in Star Trek’s The Federation, especially in The Next Generation.
The biggest supporters of these new incarnations, not surprisingly, are the show’s American writers – along with a few “critics”. These people lack any loyalty to a higher cause (other than themselves), are nihilistic, are sadistic, enjoy berating “the other” (men, whites, themselves even), and have practically no respect for anything they aren’t personally invested with. In other words, they are thoroughly Americanized losers. There would be a college thesis in that observation if we lived in a better timeline. In this one, the world where the bad guys won, you are stuck reading it in a random internet comment.
If that Brit sodomite can get a thesis out of Star Trek surely others can as well. "Divine Right" really ties it all together at the end though:
I think that observation explains much of what is wrong with modern culture: the past, in many ways, was better than the present and probably will end up being better than the near future. That’s intolerable to a lot of political extremists, the very people who put us in this position in the first place. So, the past has to be destroyed; it serves as a foil to the current reigning madness. “Let the past die, kill it if you have to.” That’s why pop culture had to be denigrated. That’s why Star Trek is trash nowadays.
When conquering armies of the ancient world subdued an enemy, they often defaced the conquered tribe’s symbols – destroyed the statues, burned the temples, desecrated anything sacred; both Muslim and Christian conquerors were famous for this. Same thing here. The new regime is burning the cultural bridges so you can’t go back to the better world left behind, the one not ruled by them.
Mark Steyn also noted that modern "woke" media can only appropriate what came before them: they can't write a good female comic book character outside of X-Men...so instead they co-opt Captain Marvel and Thor. They're vultures, not creators.

Bonus Trek comparisons from the comments: Divine Right's post was originally a comment and this comment to his comment has good bits:
Because those episodes spoke to me. They moved me. They changed me. They made me more (or less) than I was before I watched them.

Those damn episodes don’t do anything for me anymore. They’re visual and sonic wallpaper. Background clutter. White noise. Mind droppings. Been there, done that. So f**king tedious.

Thank the Lord for the 'experts' protecting us.

Over in Ark Kansas, the government has been about as successful as governments typically are (emphasis mine):
The possible breach occurred last night when an applicant got illegal access to the system according to Hutchinson. The breach resulted in the website temporarily being taken down.

A team of experts is accessing how the breach occurred and the damage that possibly may have been done. If it is determined that the person who accessed the system gleaned a significant amount of information, those who may be affected will be further notified and monitored.

The Pandemic Unemployment Assistance system helps independent contractors, gig workers, business owners who are self-employed who don’t usually qualify for regular state unemployment benefits.

Secretary of Commerce Mike Preston said the system was created with the help of a third party and they are working with forensics to make sure it is good shape before it’s back online.
Whenever there's a crisis there's a team of experts. First the experts who fix a problem. And then the experts to have to fix the problems caused by the first experts.


The Third Edge of the Sword shadow Alberta budget

Editor's Note: this below blogpost was being worked on when the Wuhan Flu crisis changed everything. As a result, the Operational Expenditures section was completed, but the Capital Budgets section was not. In the wake of dumb jock David Staples' "survey of what has happened to the government’s finances since its budget in February we felt this was a good time to point out what the far-left Edmonton Journal will not: Kenney only took baby steps.

The 2020 Alberta budget is a Star Wars: The Last Jedi level massive bungling of what should have been a sure thing. Instead of propelling forward on the momentum and goodwill established in the 2019 Alberta Election/Star Wars: The Force Awakens, it stumbles on its face by trying too hard to be clever and subverting your expectations on what a SW:TFA sequel/UCP budget is supposed to look like. You walk away confused, mistrustful, and fearful for the future.

As Kenny's spin doctors put it:

Budget 2020 takes a measured approach to fiscal management focused on getting Albertans back to work, making life better for Albertans, and standing up for Alberta. This budget provides the means to effectively and sustainably deliver public services, and enable job creation by using all tools at the government's disposal to support private sector growth.
Effectively and sustainably deliver public services, eh? Is that how you describe adding another $7B to Alberta's debt? With a promise to get that $6.8B down to $0 in a mere three more years? Accepting a linear progression (which lines up fairly well with the budget projection as per the graph), that means that Alberta's debt (currently just over $71B) will be $77.9B by this time in 2021, then $80.6B in 2022, and finally a "mere" $79.9B in 2023.If the Alberta government could continue that rate of roughly $3.5B improvement to the deficit per year (as per the chart) then the debt would remain on the books until 2030. And that's an awfully optimistic projection seeing how the entire Alberta budget is $50 billion and we are expecting a $24.5B surplus in 2029-2030. If we decide that a more modest $3-5B surplus can be maintained year-after-year from 2023 onwards, the Alberta debt should be wiped in... *checks notes*...sixteen to twenty-six years, so the 2039-2051 range.

That. Is. Pathetic.

It's not as pathetic as far-left NDP losers on social media suddenly deciding (as they did with Stephen Harper in 2011) that running deficits is a giant mistake, but it's close. And its totally unnecessary. I could have balanced the budget this year. I could get us out of debt by 2030. And, as a final bonus, I could do it while also solving another problem: far left losers sticking around Alberta and gumming up the works.

So let's begin, shall we? (Okay, I promise no more than 3 more Harry S. Plinkett references)

Step one is simple: let's stop wasting money on silly projects. [can we have Step 1a be "have the Alberta government PDFs allow cut and paste from their unordered lists? -ed]

The Petrochemicals Diversification Program isn't the dumbest thing Rachel Arab's NDP government did by far. On the face of it it's fairly sensible: royalty credits that encourage growth in areas the Shiny Pony federal government is actively trying to quash. So what's with this $1.1B commitment? As the Canadian Taxpayer Federation notes, this isn't just coming from "royalty reductions" but from loan guarantees and direct grants. It would be one thing to say "we are willing to forego an estimated $1.1B in theoretical royalty revenue in return for economic activity expected to generate more than $1.1B in tax revenue over the long term" but that isn't what's happening. So the program, which has only cost us $150 million so far, could be scrapped. What impact, you may ask, does that have to the 2019-2020 budget? Um...none, apparently. Seriously, the PDP doesn't appear on the budget at all.

Okay, what other silly projects can we save money on?
Budget 2020 honours the commitments made in the platform and in Budget 2019. Key examples include:
  1. Ongoing funding of $100 million for a mental health and addiction strategy, $40 million for an opioid response, and $20 million for palliative care.
  2. The government established the Alberta Indigenous Opportunities Corporation to facilitate up to $1 billion in Indigenous investment in natural resource projects and infrastructure.
  3. The Film and Television Tax Credit was introduced, supporting the industry with nearly $22 million in 2020-21, $31 million in 2021-22 and $45 million in 2022-23.
  4. Fifty new prosecutors were funded.
  5. An agreement was put in place to enhance the fight against rural crime with more than 500 additional RCMP officer and civilian positions.
  6. The First Responders and Heroes Fund initiatives will provide $9 million over three years.
  7. The TIER program was implemented and will support $969 million for climate technologies and emissions reduction over the next three years.
  8. A Civil Society Empowerment Fund of $20 million was established to help
    community groups expand and thrive.
The Alberta Budget document didn't number these, but I did. Let's examine each line and I'll explain why we shouldn't be spending it.
  1. Mental health and addiction strategy is a giant black pit of government spending to which zero positive output has been produced. Despite ridiculous lying propaganda from "mental health advocates" (PDF), mental health spending has been constantly on the rise worldwide in the past half decade, and yet mental health rates are going up. More critically, the generation constantly pushed with "mental health awareness" is the one that's the most crazy. So cut it. All of it. Every penny. It's another occurrence of Parkinson's Law: the more mental health spending by governments, the more crazy people. As for "opioid" response, an immediate implementation of a "Stand Your Ground" law and codifying the rights of landowners to defend their property with the same legal protection as defending their physical person would ensure opioid addicts robbing productive Albertans would be taken care of one way or another. So boom: $140M cut from the budget.
  2. How's that working out for ya? If we insist on giving Red Indians $1B in resource investment, that same $1B should be deducted from handouts given to Red Indians by other levels of government. So let's start a little mental ledge on that file, shall we?
  3. Would that be the same far-left media industry that consistently lies about conservatives and promotes their far-left agenda? Sorry, we are giving them $22M/year to cause us harm why exactly? We let Leo the Liar to come to Alberta to film The Revenant, and then he outright lied about global warming in front of millions because of it, and got praise from that faggot Miranda because of it. They can all go piss up a rope and inhale the steam. Let's not even make a change to the budget based on it: let's say that these tax incentives will drive Hollywood and their lying anti-Trump nonsense away. Fine.
  4. No problem with this. Implementation of the legal system is a legitimate function of government.
  5. Ditto, though the blockade-ignoring RCMP needs to be replaced with Alberta Sherrifs who will have the mandate to remove Injuns from rail lines.
  6. Ditt--er, wait. What's the First Responders and Heroes Fund? Oh, it's giving lump sum payments to families of killed police officers. Again, can we ensure this only is used on police officers killed while enforcing sensible laws? Let's just go ahead and say that we can drop the expenses by at least $2M/year that way.
  7. $969M on "climate technologies and emissions reduction"? Can we take this moment to remind everybody which country reduced their emissions last year while also having record growth, despite no government investment in "emissions reduction"? Yeah, let's scrap that.
  8. Hey remember in the Lougheed era when any idiot could get $1000 for his family BBQ? Those were good times. They aren't these times. $20M saved.
So just from this preamble we have saved $1.131 billion. Step two is slashing program expenditures. Healthcare spending amounts to $20,616 million in 2020 alone. How on earth can we drop this down? First step is easy:
The Ernst & Young review of AHS was released on February 3, 2020. The AHS review identified opportunities to reduce costs, while improving system performance. The review identifies a range of long-term savings initiatives with the potential to save taxpayers between $1.5 billion to $1.9 billion annually. AHS will engage staff and clinical leaders to develop a comprehensive implementation plan. While the implementation plan is currently under development, Budget 2020 provides stability to the health care system by investing a total of $15.4 billion per year in AHS operations.
Now Third Edge of the Sword World Headquarters in South Bend, Indiana has a limited staff and budget. We certainly can't compare to the Alberta Health Services (109,000 employees), or Ernst & Young for that matter (270,000 employees). So you think implementing this review must be a difficult task. After all, the full review is a whopping 220 pages, and even the summary is 100 pages. I'm sure coming up with an implementation plan is a lot of work and oh wait, I'm done. Here's the steps, in no particular order:
  • AHS’ executives[15] are paid more than their BC counterparts, but less than comparable positions in Ontario.
    Going forward, all thirteen AHS executives are paid minimum wage. However, they will have a generous bonus structure tied to a single metric: for every $200M cut from the AHS budget year-to-year, they will receive $400,000 in executive bonuses (total value $5.2M for every $200M cut). The CEO will receive an additional $250,000 for every $100M cut from the AHS budget year-to-year.
  • AHS’ unionized employees are paid more than their peers in other Canadian provinces.
    • Alberta pays higher than the Canadian average across employee groups: 7.2% higher for RNs, 5.5% higher for LPNs, 6.8% higher for HCAs, 11.1% higher for HSAA employees and 6.95% higher for AUPE-GSS employees.
    • While AHS has been successful at negotiating a 0% increase to the pay bands in the collective agreements for the past two years, overall costs increased as employees moved up bands.
    Well here's some low hanging fruit. The militant United Nurses of Alberta (currently going apeshit about a 4 year wage freeze) will never be happy. They are already talking about strikes. You will never make them happy. You can never buy them off. So cut their wages. Unionized full-time nurses receive a 12% wage cut that comes into effect April 1st (current contract expires March 31st). Part-time nurses receive a 19% wage cut that also takes effect April 1st. 100% freeze in this "moving up in bands" nonsense. Overtime paid at the standard 50% premium. There's talk about how we need more nurses, right? Cutting union wages frees up some cash. How much cash? It's not easy to say, since the government doesn't disclose how nurses wages impact the system. Doctors salaries represent $5.1B, administration is $482M, ambulance is $510M, $609M in IT, drugs represent $1.7B, and diagnostic services represent $2.4B, so let's cut that out of the budget and drop us down to $9.999B in spending. Let's also assume that nurses wages and benefits represent 1/3 of that remaining chunk which is probably about right. That's $3.3B. Salaries typically only represent half of the cost of an employee, so dropping the wages by around 14% would save $231M per year. Lower salaries tie into lower other metrics, obviously, but let's stick with this one. The E&Y report recommends moving more nurses to FT rather than PT, which I'm on board with, which is why I'm aiming for a 14% reduction. E&Y says moving to FT nurses would save $15M/yr, let's roll that number into my savings.
  • Implement all of the E&Y "W1-W10" recommendations. W9, the FT move, we've already agreed I won't include. The others, however, add up to $440M in savings (I am using the "lowball" number when a range is posted).
  • Share admin assistants and save $6M/yr. I'm not sure how quick that can be implemented, but let's say it's only $1M savings this year.
  • E&Y has six physician optimization opportunities totalling $124M. The final one, radiologist fee reductions, is overly optimistic at $42M so I'm cutting it out. I'm also cutting PO3, the "academic funding review" as it looks long-termish. That's still $77M saved.
  • The Alberta Surgical Initiative: According to AHS, there are approximately 70,000 people in Alberta waiting for surgery; with 50% of these patients deemed to be waiting longer than clinically recommended targets. AHS and AH have proposed a large-scale business case, requiring $669M of investments, to improve access and the coordination and management of surgery. The cost of this initiative is expected to be absorbed with AHS’ current budget.
    This doesn't pass my smell test, but capital expenditure is something I'll get to later.
  • Mental health patients experience on average a 13% longer than expected length of stay across the province.
    Crazy people shouldn't be tying up hospital beds. Who knows how much that simple change could save?
  • Implement an immediate $25 deposit for all non-critical emergency room visits. That deposit would be refunded in all cases where all outpatient evaluations determined that an emergency room visit was required for that particular ailment. The money would be returned with the patient's invoice (which I'll discuss later). Let's say that 1/4 of all emergency room visits are unnecessary. Alberta had 189,852 emergency room visits in 2017-2018. That means that healthcare revenues could be increased by $1.1M by implementing this simple change.
  • Implement all of the clinical utilization opportunities: combined saving (using lowballs again) is $268M (not counting Sale of Capital Care and Carewest which should be under Capital).
  • Implement all the service configuration opportunities: combined saving is $93M.
  • Implement all clinical support services opportunities: combined saving is $161M
  • Implement on-clinical support services opportunities NCSS1-NCSS7: combined saving is $100M. As with all "sustainability programs" (NCSS9) I have little faith of any actual savings.
  • Dismiss all the lawyers and paralegals on staff. Saves $13M.
  • Implement all the supply chain opportunities. E&Y posts savings of $44.7M, but from experience I know that supply chain savings estimates are usually inflated by roughly 20%. So let's call it $37.25 in savings.
The Ernst & Young calls for $1.7B in healthcare savings. I'm proposing a savings for this year of $1.422B. Subtracting the $245M I suggested that they didn't, that means that next year AHS execs can benefit by implementing the more difficult or less likely to succeed suggestions that amount to another $523M is savings. But that's mostly just the results of the E&Y audit. There are some other advantages stemming from reforms that were outside the scope of the audit. The first is bringing in invoices for all patients who consume ("free") public sector healthcare services. They won't have to pay (with the exception of the $25 emergency room deposit, along with charges for semi-private/private rooms and enhanced meal packages), but it's important that all patients see what their healthcare dollars are going to. As I wrote years ago, paying physicians per visit only works when the patient gets a quality visit to the doctor out of it. While not a long-term solution, it both helps improve quality of care and also creates an Overton Window for eliminating public healthcare entirely. By forcing the public system to publish and inform patients about how much the system is costing, we can use at the very least a little social media public shaming to improve the quality of doctors visits. There's another solution of course. It's staring us right in the face: introduce private for-profit healthcare, including the right to build and staff hospitals and perform surgeries. Don't give into temptation, at least at first, to let the public system "buy" healthcare from the private system to improve outcomes. Likewise, make sure that the corrupt WCB has to use the public system, and instead offer the private system to everybody else. How much will this relieve the number of public doctor visits? Couldn't tell you: it's like it would be a free market or something. But even a $500M reduction in that huge $5.1B doctor payment chunk will see positive results. As (movie) Gandalf once said, it could be like the small stones that go on to start an avalanche. The cost savings to the public system in the long term would be tremendous: it would easily make healthcare a less of a drain on the budget.

Oh, I almost forgot, speaking of drains on the budget: The Indigenous Health Program needs to be cut to zero. The reserves are a federal responsibility. The myth that "medicine bag" treaty requirements mean anything when it comes to advanced healthcare developed by white man technology has long since been debunked. Between that, the Elbow River Healing Lodge and Kainai Continuing Care Centre being shut down, ending the Indigenous Urban Opioid Emergency Response, a total shutdown of the Mental Health Capacity Building (bonus: ending support for mentally ill trannies), abolishing the poorly named "Wisdom Council", and ending various other outlets by which tax dollars are being wasted on Red Indians who we keep being told are "Nations" and therefore are responsible for their own healthcare. How many tax dollars? Well, unsurprisingly they go to great lengths to keep us from finding out. Nowhere on the Alberta Health nor AHS budgets will they tell us how much the white man pays to provide healthcare to a race that inexplicably thinks they are sovereign.

Take the Kainai Continuing Care Centre for example: 25 long-term beds. Long-term care costs white people an out-of-pocket expense of $1620/mo, which would be $486,000/yr. But Kainai has a staff of 60 people: the out-of-pocket costs would only pay them $8100/year and wouldn't provide a penny to keeping the lights on or maintaining the building. If we assume they make a "palty" average of $62000/yr (unionized, remember!), now the facility costs $3.7M, again not including maintenance. And do Red Indians pay the $1620/month? Or do you and I? According ot the CCIC guidebook they do...unless the qualify for special assistance (so they don't).

We're left having to make some wild guesses: but if Alberta Health Services ended all of its Red Indian-specific healthcare initiatives and either provided healthcare equally to everybody who didn't live on the reserve, and refused to provide any healthcare to those who do live on the reserve, I conservatively estimate a savings of $200M/yr. Remember that $1B from earlier? It's down to $800M now. Yay!

We can also, obviously, stop wasting money on coddling faggots. Again, dollar figures are not available and this probably only comes to $2M/year. Still, every little bit helps, and they deserve not a dime of it anyways.

So I have dropped healthcare spending in Alberta by $1.6B in Year One, plus whatever drop in doctor fees gets paid out. Not bad, now let's move onto one that's even easier: Education.

The first step in Education is again immediate and easy: as you may recall from last year, Alberta teachers are supporting so-called "climate strikes" every Friday. As a result, STARTING IMMEDIATELY ALL TEACHER SALARIES WILL BE CUT BY 20%. Take 20% of the week off school? Lose 20% of your pay. And since roughly 65% of the cost of education in Alberta is teacher's salaries (not including 6% being their taxpayer-funded pension) then we are talking an immediate savings of $1.31B. The Fraser Institute says in 2015/2016 Alberta spent $4.5B in teachers salaries which would mean a savings of $900M. I'm going to guess the gap is caused by Rachel Arab blowing taxpayer money on lazy and ineffectual ATA teachers who spend classrooom time teaching lies to your children.

Now that we've got the low hanging fruit, what else can we delve into? First is easy: since the Alberta Teacher's Association is a criminal enterprise, declare war on them. That 6% ($393M) pension top-up? Eliminate it. Today. Again, the ATA is a criminal organization. Jason C. Schilling is a criminal. Arrest and convict him within days, or give up on saving Alberta entirely. And take away their funding streams. Cut the evil criminal organization off at the head.

Next, Red Indians who live on reserves will no longer have their schools paid for by Alberta taxpayers. It's a waste. A complete waste. Their culture doesn't take education seriously. Their children disrupt classrooms and make education less efficient for the students whose parents value learning. They don't even attend. The numbers almost speak for themselves.
In 2018-19, 43.1 per cent of self-identified First Nations, Métis, and Inuit students achieved the acceptable standard on grade 6 and 9 provincial achievement tests in Mathematics and 5.2 per cent achieved the standard of excellence.
In 2017-18, 64.4 per cent of self-identified First Nations, Métis, and Inuit students completed high school within five years of entering grade 10. (2018-19 data available June 2020)
What a waste. I know people who have worked schools near reservations: the students there have truency rates exceeding 50%, and the school board mandates that teachers don't take action against the students. White Alberta taxpayers are getting ripped off, and it's time that ended. I would instantly cut all public funding for Status Indians. Your "nation" can pay for your child's education. Unless we're bringing back Residential Schools, I'm not interested in spending the cash. And with 43.9% of 2.8% of the Alberta population living on-reserve, that means a guaranteed cut of $81M. Likely more, since I'm going to wager than Red Indian education isn't as cost-effective. If we want to cut off Status Indians entirely, that increases the savings to $183M.

Next we can move onto Advanced Education. Recently the Doug Ford government made news mandating a free speech code for all post-secondary institutions. Alberta can go one further: to avoid situations like Ryerson or University of Ottawa, Universities and their student unions will be required to have free speech codes. Failure to comply will result in immediate funding cuts. For those keeping track, that means the University of Alberta will have their funding immediately cut for this year. That alone will represent a one-time savings of $637.7M dollars. Now the UofA, and all post-secondary institutions, can eliminate this threat in the future by also enacting policies that require all student union fees be optional and opt-in. That will include surcharges related to workout facilities and student newspapers. Additional savings going forward would involve a 10% overall cut to operational funding this year, and an additional 8% cut next year. As per the chart, you can see that this would represent a $1.19B savings over two years.

So there's the two biggest drains of the provincial budget taken care of quite nicely. I have just saved $2.36B in Education and $1.6B in healthcare, which represents just under $3.9 billion cut from the provincial budget without even doing the one thing for future years that will solve this problem forever.

Now let's take a giant mallot to some other departments. [PDF] (all lines and references will be from this document) This is less of the "angry scalpel" method I have been using up until this point.

Agriculure and Forestry: Having a little more familiarity with this ministry than several others, I can tell you that several lines are relatively trimmed down. However, "Agriculture Income Support", "Processing, Trade and Intergovernmental Relations" and "Canadian Agricultural Partnetship" can be take a 10% cut. Unfortunately debt servicing is non-negotiable. The remainder can be cut by 5%. Total savings of $52M

Social Services: Again applying Parkinson's Law, let's stop pretending that more social workers does more good. The Ministry of Children's Services will have its budget cut by 35%, bringing its operating expense from $1.6B to $1.063B for a savings of $573M. One of the key notes from the budget is this line:
The federal government’s An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis Children, Youth and Families came into effect January 1, 2020. It affirms Indigenous people’s jurisdiction for Indigenous child and family services, and sets national standards and principles for Indigenous children.
Sounds like an important job...for the Ministry of Social Services run by the Stony Creek Indian Reserve. Going forward the Alberta Ministry of Children's Services will not spend a single dime on a single child who is the offspring of a Status Indian. If these are really "nations" who have "national standards and principles" then let them pay for it, not white Alberta taxpayers. I will only include the $10M wasted on "Policy, Innovation and Indigenous Connections" in my payback of lost Red Indian monies, but the end result should be minimal impact on non-Injun Albertans: after all, Red Indians have much higher rates of child abuse and neglect than all other races for reasons which escape me.
The ministry supports Alberta’s communities to be strong, resilient and violence-free. There is $135 million budgeted in 2020-21 for Community Supports and Family Safety, which includes a new $7 million Civil Society Empowerment Fund to support non-profit organizations and charities to address pressing social challenges, and an additional $1.2 million for sexual assault services. In 2020-21, the ministry will invest an additional $5 million to build on successful partnerships supporting employment opportunities for Albertans with disabilities.
To modify Elaine on Seinfeld: cut, cut, cut cut cut.
From 2015 to 2019, caseloads increased by 17 per cent for Assured Income for Severely Handicapped (AISH), 14 per cent for Persons with Developmental Disabilities (PDD), and 30 per cent for Family Support for Children with Disabilities (FSCD) over the same time period. AISH benefit rates continue to be much higher than other provinces.
That's because everybody on AISH is faking it. fake, fake, fake fake f...wait I just did this one. The Ministry of Community and Social Services has a Kenney operating budget of $3.9B. I would cut AISH entirely (since every "recipient" is a lying fake). Similarly, Homeless and Outreach Support Services would be gone. I would cut the remaining budget by 20%, for a total savings of $1.97 billion dollars.

Again, since administration of justice is a valid function of government, I will be relatively easy on the Ministry of Justice and Solicitor General: the entire Alberta Human Rights Apparatus would be utterly destroyed and cancelled: those involved in that department would be fired and blacklisted to ensure they and their SJW nonsense never troubles the Albertan citizenry ever again. The other major structural change, in accordance with this report from the Canadian Constitution Foundation (PDF) the Victims Restitution and Compensation Payment Act (2001) will be revoked and a fresh Civil Fortfeiture Act will be implemented in which civil forfeiture is a funded office (resulting in an additional $10M/yr in administrative costs) that will only be permitted to initiate civil forfeiture when a specific victim of the illegal property is identified and after a court hearing in which both sides will be permitted argument but only the property owner will be permitted cross-examination. The only revenue to the Government of Alberta will be civil fortfeiture cases in which the Crown itself was the victim. Otherwise the only cuts I would engage in this department is drop the Correctional Services and Resolution and Court Administration Services by 5% each. The total savings for this department therefore would be $21M ($31M in savings, $10M in new expenses).

The Ministry for Culture, Multiculturalism, and the Status of Women can endure some pretty significant cuts. The Frogophone Secretariat (what, is he a horse?) can go away and never come back as can the "Status of Women and Multiculturalism" and the entire Arts grant program: there's no reason for conservative Albertans to be working to fund their political opponents. Community and Voluntary Support Services can be cut by 10%, the remaining departments cut by 25% for a savings of $74.67M.

Economic Development, Trade, and Tourism is another department that provides dubious levels of benefit. I would suggest a 10% cut across the board excepting Tourism Alberta being cut 5%. That's a $14M savings.

The Ministry of Energy should also get a 5% across the board cut except the entire "Climate Change" budget being eliminated, and Carbon Capture and Storage expenses cut by 50%. There would be a corresponding decrease in the Orphan Well Abandonment and Energy Regulation levies, so those lines would not be counted in the calculation, which results in a $112M savings. Long term I would expect that the cost of Energy Regulation fall by 50% over the next 5 years, and Carbon Capture disappears entirely.

The Ministry of Environment and Parks made big headlines this week over their upcoming closure of (mostly Injun) park areas. In other words, the existing budget did some good work. Let's see what could be done better though. For starters...
In 2020-21, $2 million is allocated to undertake a feasibility study of the three reservoir options within the Bow Reservoir Water Management Project. The study consisting of stakeholder and First Nation engagement, site investigation, geotechnical investigation and a drilling program will identify a preferred site for future dam development consideration.
Cut the $2M to $1.75M because there will be no "First Nation engagement". They can stay on their little reserve and stew while the Big People manage things. This will be part of an across-the-board 10% cut (excepting a 5% cut for Parks, which we've already seen is doing a lot). This would be a $49M cut, however I am going to call it even because the ridiculous "TIER" income would be scaled back by an equivalent amount.

The Executive Council has a budget of $16.64M. It always smells like the Department of Administrative Affairs to me. 10% cut, $1.7M savings.

Under the Kenney budget, the Ministry of Indigenous Relations costs almost $222M dollars, including $10M to manage the infamous Alberta Indigenous Opportunities Corporation. So I guess we agreed to keep that, right? So in other words, this Ministry will be cut by...*does math on a notepad for 45 minutes*...$211.6M dollars. In fact, the management of the Corporation can fall under Labour and Immigration. This Ministry would be gone. Kaput. Destroyed. Would we be missing anything important? Let's look at the "Key Objectives" to make sure:
  • 1.1 Provide oversight to the Alberta Indigenous Opportunities Corporation to work towards Indigenous groups’ ownership in major resource projects.
  • 1.2 Administer the Litigation Fund to support Indigenous Peoples’ advocacy for responsible resource development that advances Alberta’s interests.
  • 1.3 Lead Alberta’s legal duty to consult, including advocating for a streamlined federal Aboriginal consultation process to provide clear timelines and legal certainty for project proponents and Indigenous communities.
  • 1.4 Lead Alberta’s response to the Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.
  • 1.5 Work with other government ministries, the federal government and First Nations to resolve land-related negotiations.
  • 1.6 Support the economic, social and community self-reliance of Indigenous communities by funding projects through the First Nations Development Fund, the Employment Partnerships Program, and the Aboriginal
    Business Investment Fund.
My turn...
  1. Ministry of Labour can do that.
  2. They can fund their own advocacy. Tides seems to be doing all the heavy lifting for them anyways.
  3. There's no "legal duty" to consult on a bunch of whiny municipalities.
  4. Squaws get murdered by their own jackpine savage relations, this is well known.
  5. Land-related negotiations sound like intergovernmental or municipal affairs issues.
  6. If they are "self reliant nations" then they can go be self-reliant. Why would white Alberta taxpayers have to foot the bill?
Moving on... Infrastructure is left alone, we'll cover it when we get to the capital side of the budget. Labour would get a 10% across the board cut, excepting "Safe, Fair and Healthy Workplaces" which would be cut by 60% and both Alberta Workers Compensation lines which would be cut out entirely. After all, the Worker's Compensation Board has nothing to do with the government (we're always told by the government). So let's make it true, and get a savings of $70M.

Looking at Municipal Affairs the biggest single expense is something called "Municipal Sustainability Initiative".
All municipalities in Alberta are eligible for funding based on the terms set out in their long-term MSI funding agreement. For the purpose of municipal grants, improvement districts, special areas, Metis Settlements and the Townsite of Redwood Meadows are considered municipalities. Municipalities determine projects and activities to be funded based on local priorities within the general criteria set out in the program guidelines and are encouraged to take a long-term approach to planning for capital projects. Municipalities may choose to contribute funds for use towards eligible MSI projects to other municipalities, regional services commissions or non-profit organizations.
Non-profit organizations? Seeing how City of Edmonton and City of Calgary waste this money on faggot organizations, I think we can trim some fat here. Going forward, only capital projects related for approved government services will be permitted. No more sodomy crosswalks, no more drag queen hiring libraries. I imagine there can be a good 50% cut on that budget line alone. Similarly, remove "grants in place of taxes" entirely. The Federal Grant Programs expenses won't be changing, obviously, as that's Justin's money. With fewer grants to manage the administrative management line should be cut by 20%, and the balance cut by 10%. That's a savings of $550M.

The Ministry of Seniors and Housing is also ripe for some juicy cuts: the Alberta Social Housing Corporation can have its budget slashed by 75% in its first year. The "Housing" line of the balance sheet can go away entirely. The rest can be cut by 5%. Total savings of $231M. Oh, and in the following year the Alberta Seniors Benefit can be cut an additional 10%.

For Service Alberta we're probably best pushing for a 10% cut across the board except for Enterprise and Shared Services, as it provides ERP Planning for the whole Alberta Government which we're in the middle of shrinking. That activity itself will slightly overtax the ERP system at the beginning but see rapid reduction in expenses. 15% for the first year is reasonable but that budget should be getting 25-50% annual cuts going forward. That should be $95M in savings.

Transportation is an interesting one. A lot of mix of good stuff to keep and bad stuff to chuck.
In 2020-21, $308.1 million allocated for Provincial Highway Maintenance and Preservation will allow highway pavement to be restored to good driving condition at the most cost-effective time and maintain key highway infrastructure to an acceptable level.
Is this including secondary highways? If so, slash it. I don't think so, though.
An investment of $59.8 million is budgeted for the Alberta Transportation Green Transit Incentives Program (GreenTRIP) in 2020-21. GreenTRIP provides funding support for local, regional and inter-municipal public transit throughout Alberta.
Cut it.
In 2020-21, $343.1 million will be invested for LRT expansion in Calgary and Edmonton and pre-construction work.
Cut it.
Collaborate with First Nation communities, through the First Nations Water Tie-In Program, to support solutions for reliable access to safe drinking water to improve human and environmental health, by reducing or eliminating boil water advisories and providing reliable wastewater management systems. This program is allocated $12.8 million in 2020-21.
Why are Red Indians so bad at managing their water? No matter. "Self-governing" and all that nonsense.

Maybe it's the SimCity player in me, but I don't think more than a 5% cut is advisable at this stage. Again excluding federal grant money, and ring road debt servicing, that saves $64M.

Finally on the Operation side we hit up Treasury Board and Finance. Unfortunately, as the Americans say, much of these are non-discretionary spending. Those that can be cut by 5% will be, that saves $54M. Total First year spending cuts: $7.995 BILLION. Remember when I said I could balance the budget this year? I did, with an extra billion surplus. And that's the operational budget. How about the capital expenditures? Again, I will be using this document [PDF] for all the relevent lines.

For AgFor, most of this is devoted to fire protection on Crown lands, and probably should be left alone.

Advanced Education was planning on spending $54M on the University of Alberta. As previously discussed, we'll get that back.

Culture, Multiculturalism and Status of Women was planning on spending a whopping $61M, of which all lines except the "General Information Technology" line can be cut for a savings of $58M.

Education can have the existing captial funding for white man schools as sadly the schools are already under construction. However there are a whopping 43 schools in Alberta exclusively for Red Indians. Sadly we can't sell the buildings for cash, but we can place a stop work on any still under construction. I can't find any records for this, so let's just hope there's some savings there.

Editor's Note: I'm sure there would have been more savings.