Friday, December 05, 2025

Equally Munching

πŸ¦’πŸ˜πŸ¦‹πŸ‘© The Great Leaf Challenge 🍁

​Once upon a time, nestled in a sunny, green meadow, lived four very different, but very best, friends: Amaya the graceful giraffe, Siggy the mighty elephant, Biggie the fluttering butterfly, and Charlotte the curious human girl. One beautiful morning, they all looked up at the tallest tree in the meadow and sighed.  Right at the very top were the freshest, crunchiest-looking leaves they had ever seen!

​"Oh, how I wish I could taste those!" sighed Amaya, stretching her long, spotted neck, but even she couldn't quite reach the highest branch.

​"I have an idea!" declared Charlotte. "I can climb!" With a deep breath and careful hands, Charlotte began her slow journey up the rough bark. Scritch, scratch, up, up, up she went, until finally, she reached the highest leaves! She took a tiny bite. "Hmm," she mumbled, "They're a little tough and bitter... not exactly my favorite!"

​But then, Amaya walked right up to the trunk. "Charlotte, can you pass me one?" Charlotte carefully reached out and plucked a handful of the high leaves. Since Amaya's long neck made her almost as tall as Charlotte's climbing height, Charlotte could easily hand them over. Munch, munch, crunch! "Oh, delicious!" whispered Amaya, her eyes sparkling.

Boom, boom, boom! Siggy the elephant lumbered over. "Me next! Me next! I want the crunchiest leaves too!" Siggy didn't have a neck like Amaya, or hands for climbing like Charlotte, but he had something else amazing! Siggy raised his strong, long trunk, twirled it right up to the leaves, and with a gentle pull, grabbed a big, leafy snack! Slurp, slurp, chomp! "Wonderful!" trumpeted Siggy happily.

​Suddenly, a tiny flash of color zipped through the air. It was Biggie the butterfly! "Wait for me!" squeaked Biggie. She didn't need to climb or stretch or reach; she had wings! Biggie just flapped her beautiful, delicate wings and flew right up to the treetop. She gently landed on a leaf and sipped the sweet dew and sap, enjoying her own special butterfly taste of the feast.

​Charlotte smiled as she watched her friends. They all wanted the same thing—a taste of the high leaves—but they each got to them in a completely different way: Charlotte climbed, Amaya reached with her neck, Siggy grabbed with his trunk, and Biggie flew. Even though they were all so different, they were all successful and happy together.

​"See?" said Charlotte as she slid back down to the ground. "We are all different, with different talents, but we are all equal in the end, because we all found a way!"

​And so, the four friends—the climber, the neck-stretcher, the trunk-grabber, and the flier—enjoyed the rest of their sunny day together, celebrating their wonderful differences.

​The End.

Tuesday, December 02, 2025

The Absolute Rightness


We tend to operate under the assumption that the way we see the world, the way we perceive it, is the only correct reality. This bedrock of individual certainty gives rise to a universal paradox: the belief that anybody who is different is, by definition, wrong.

This notion seems particularly prevalent in communities where various worldviews collide. A large number of people define life by rigid, aesthetic standards: we must all live in nice homes; we are all clean and neat and well-vaccinated; our children attend the right schools; we dress correctly; we listen only to pop music; and we’ll all take up pickleball when we get old—all sorts of absolute nonsense. This conformity dictates that all who step outside this prescribed narrow lane are somehow defective.

The Clashing Realities

Yet, reality is messy and stubborn. Consider the character who defies this neat order: the guy whose house is always anchored by two or three cars out front. He wears his cowboy hat and a sleeveless vest, is badly shaven, and sports the scruffiest 1970s mustache you ever saw. This man lives his life exactly like this, not to make a statement, but because as far as he is concerned, he is an absolute reality. He is his own normal.

Contrast him with Old Missus Jeans, who possesses an unshakeable, biblically-based certainty. She believes, passionately, that the second coming is imminent, and that border crossers, transsexuals, and LGBTQ people are fundamentally wrong. Her pastor has confirmed these beliefs, solidifying her exclusive moral framework.

Five blocks away, you find the transsexual person who views their life as completely normal. Within their circle, they are accepted. The "weirdos" are the few who don't accept them. They, too, are judging the bureau, maintaining their own island of what is correct.

Every person, regardless of their position on the social spectrum—whether conforming, defying, or seeking acceptance—has a different idea of what life is like. While holding a specific view is fine, the problem arises when they believe that everyone else's differing view is wrong. Even those who feel discriminated against participate in this universal cycle of judging others by their opinions.

The Crucial Boundary of Intolerance

This entire landscape of universal judgment is the definition of intolerance.

We often apply this intolerance to people on the margins: the individual with a home that is not decently cleaned because life has never been easy and picking up things off the floor is a monumental task. They are judged as lazy, drug addicted, or alcoholics. But here the narrative makes a crucial, compassionate distinction.

The reality is that you can meet alcoholics who are truly nice people, even though they have damaged their own health; you can meet drug addicts for whom you have more respect than certain outwardly 'respectable' people. The lesson is that we must distinguish between the good and the bad, but we should only be intolerant of the bad things that people do specifically to others.

The bad things people do to themselves—their addiction, their unconventional lifestyle, their chosen isolation—must be governed by a different rule: it's their selves. It is none of your business. Mind your own concerns, leave them alone.

Tolerance, in this light, is not passive acceptance; it is the active maintenance of personal boundaries. It requires a radical step: Can you ever step out of your own shoes and feel what it's like to be that guy who is living under a bridge, not because he is a failure, but because it takes away some of the pain of dealing with other people?

Whether it is sleeping in an old cabin in the bush or existing under a concrete arch, the choice of living a life that is uncomfortable to others is ultimately their story. It is not our life, and we are not going to endure their suffering. Our duty is not to judge, but to recognize that their path, however scruffy or painful, is their own absolute reality.

Conclusion

Ultimately, true tolerance requires us to reserve judgment for acts of harm directed at others, while respectfully acknowledging and protecting the personal sovereignty of every individual's life choices.

The constant human drive to define and enforce "rightness" is the root of societal intolerance, creating conflict between those who conform, those who defy, and those who struggle. To escape this cycle, we must internalize the single, vital boundary: we must vehemently oppose persecution and harm against others, but we must withdraw our judgment from the personal struggles and unconventional paths that do not spill over into external injury. We must learn the profound humility of accepting that every individual's life, however strange or difficult, is their own unique reality, and it is not ours to control, criticize, or consume.

Monday, December 01, 2025

Jesus was a SOCIALIST.



We are often afraid to say it straight up, but Jesus was by definition a socialist. The quiet truth about Jesus's message is that it’s inherently radical, and frankly, far to the political left. Many of us have been taught a version of Christianity sanitized for comfort, but if you read the Gospels without the filter of modern politics, the message is unavoidable.

​Jesus didn't just advocate for charity; he championed systemic social and economic revolution. Remember the camel and the eye of the needle? "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God." This wasn't a friendly warning; it was a devastating indictment of wealth accumulation. The spiritual danger of hoarding is central to his teaching.

​The early Christians understood this. The Book of Acts tells us they held "all things in common," selling property and laying the money at the feet of the disciples to be distributed "as any had need." This is not individualistic tithing; this is shared, communal living. This is socialism in practice, forming the very foundation of the church.

​Jesus taught us not to seek earthly rewards or build up treasures here, because those things rot and distract from what matters: kindness, love, virtue, and justice. His entire focus was on serving the poor, the marginalized, and the sick. When he promised reward, it was the reward of a transformed soul and a life lived in accordance with divine love—treasures stored up in heaven, not a bigger yacht down here.

​This is precisely why the prosperity gospel is such a complete and utter contradiction of Christ's core message. It’s an insulting, greedy distortion that suggests God rewards people with material gain. Jesus taught that following him often leads to earthly suffering, not earthly riches. The reward isn't a magical waving of a wand to grant you wealth; the reward is the profound, good life—the peace and purpose—that comes from living exactly as he taught: prioritizing love and justice above all else.

​If you are following the Christ who condemned exploitation, demanded wealth sharing, and centered his ministry on the poor, you are following the real Jesus. And that Jesus would have absolutely been a socialist. The message of the left is the original, deeply Christian faith.

​#ChristianLeft #SocialJustice #Jesus #TrueGospel #Acts #Wealth #Socialism

Saturday, November 29, 2025

​The Supermarket Encounter and a Reflection


( Note the above image is AI generated to protect the identity of the man in the hoodie, also it is sad that AI can't spell)

I was at the supermarket picking up a few things—no big deal. When I got to the cash register, I couldn't reach one of the small plastic separators used for the conveyor belt. I politely asked the gentleman in front of me if he could pass one to me, but he was deep in conversation on his cell phone.

​To get his attention, I gently tapped him on the shoulder and repeated my request: "Could you please pass me one of those?" He immediately turned around and snapped, F..k off and don't touch me! While his reaction was unnecessary—I was just trying to get his attention—the cashier quickly placed a plastic separator down beside the register so I could load my items. The man continued his conversation in another language; I couldn't understand it, but I don't believe it was French.

​I'm not angry about the situation; it's simply one of those things that happens sometimes, especially right before Christmas. As the man paid and walked away, I noticed he had a biblical verse written on the back of his hoodie: Deuteronomy 31:8. I couldn't read the exact text below the reference, but I was curious.

​When I got back to the car, I immediately Googled the verse. It roughly said that the Lord goes before you and will not forsake you, which I gathered was originally a message to the Israelites.

​I thought to myself, "That is a beautiful message." However, one must strongly believe and act accordingly for the Lord to be their guide and not forsake them. Not that God would necessarily allow them to fall into disarray or deliberately starve them, but biblical advice should be your moral guide. If you don't follow that advice and are not kind to the people around you, why should the Lord protect you any more than anyone else? There is a certain degree of sanctimoniousness in displaying such a verse while acting so aggressively.

​I genuinely wish Christians would behave like Christians. It would be wonderful. I am not a highly evangelical person, but what I observe is that many evangelicals today focus heavily on parts of the Gospel that instruct others how to behave. They emphasize the punitive nature of Christianity—that if you don't do this or that, you're going to hell. They rarely spend their time highlighting how small acts of kindness can make a real difference in life.

​If you want to be a reflection of Christ and inspire belief in Christ, it is time to start acting like Christ.

The Arrogance of the Average: Why Your "Normal" is a Social Lie


​Your world is not the world. Your routines, your domestic habits, your political truths—these are not universal constants, but a single, accidental iteration of human existence. To view your reality as the norm and everything outside of it as an aberration, a deficiency, or an inefficiency is not merely a cognitive error; it is a profound act of social snobbery, an arrogance born of unexamined comfort.

​This isn't about the Dunning-Kruger effect, which deals with competence. This is a deeper, more insidious self-aggrandizement: the presumption of moral and existential normalcy—a toxic, pervasive lie that serves as the foundation for modern social persecution.

​The Tyranny of the Subjective Standard

​The myth of "normal" is a statistical absurdity weaponized for social judgment. There is an average, perhaps, but the average man—the mythical creature who perfectly balances every trait—is almost impossible to find.

​Consider the simple dichotomy of tidiness:

  • ​The hyper-organized individual looks at a less-than-immaculate home and immediately assigns a moral failing: lazy, inefficient, disorganized. They don't recognize that the "abnormal" person might be dedicating their time to raising children, caring for a sick relative, or pursuing a consuming creative passion that necessarily relegates folding laundry to a lower priority.
  • ​Conversely, the free spirit looks at the relentlessly neat and tidy home and levies a different charge of abnormality: compulsive, joyless, living only for appearances.

​In both cases, one person's subjectively optimized life—their "normal"—is used as a blunt instrument to pathologize another's choices. This impulse, often unconscious, is a form of snobbery rooted in the belief that one's lifestyle is inherently superior and more virtuous simply because it feels right to them.

​As the philosopher Erich Fromm starkly noted, "The fact that millions of people share the same vices does not make these vices virtues, the fact that they share so many errors does not make the errors to be truths, and the fact that millions of people share the same forms of mental pathology does not make these people sane." Our shared consensus of "normal" can, in fact, be a shared sickness.

​The Jungian Imperative: Completeness Over Goodness

​The great psychologist Carl Jung understood the peril of living at the extremes. He spoke not of being "normal," but of achieving Individuation—the lifelong process of becoming a whole, complete person by integrating the opposites within the psyche.

​Jung’s core concept is the Tension of Opposites. The goal is not to eradicate the "messy" or the "dark" (the Shadow) in favor of the "neat" or "good" (the Persona), but to hold the tension between them. A person who is entirely extroverted, entirely neat, or entirely focused on one single moral principle is fundamentally incomplete. They have repressed an aspect of themselves necessary for wholeness.

​Jung famously preferred to be whole rather than good.

  • ​To be constantly cleaning is to repress the need for spontaneous life.
  • ​To be constantly chaotic is to repress the need for structure and peace.

​The true "normal"—the psychologically healthy path—is the Middle Way, a process of dynamic balance where one can move flexibly between order and chaos, introversion and extroversion, without being enslaved by either pole. When we judge others for their life choices, we are often projecting our own repressed or unintegrated opposites onto them. We condemn the trait in them that we fear becoming ourselves.

​riven by Division: Political Normalcy as Persecution

​The ultimate, most dangerous manifestation of this "my reality is the norm" snobbery is the current state of political and cultural polarization. The political "center" has collapsed, replaced by two antagonistic poles, each defining itself as the legitimate, "normal" face of the nation.

​In this environment, affective polarization runs rampant: one group's positive feelings for their own side are matched by overwhelming hostility and distrust toward the opposing side. The result is not merely disagreement, but the dehumanization and demonization of political opponents.

  • ​For a self-proclaimed "normative" group, being a Trump-supporting MAGA Republican becomes synonymous with being a true, "real" American. The millions of non-supporters are then branded as illegitimate, enemies, or threats to the nation's well-being.
  • ​Conversely, for a self-proclaimed "normative" group of Democrats or progressives, supporting the other side is seen as a moral and intellectual failure, a form of active societal pathology that must be condemned and purged.

​This dynamic transmutes simple political difference into a form of societal persecution. As academic analysis of polarization notes, this division fosters a sense of moral superiority among partisans, justifying disproportionate punishment, exclusion, and the complete avoidance of dialogue. When one's political identity becomes an existential defense of "normalcy," the other side is not just wrong; they are an existential threat that must be neutralized. This is the death of democratic pluralism and a descent into tribal hostility.

​Conclusion: A Call to the Uncomfortable Middle

​The arrogant belief in a personal, definitive "normal" is the psychological mechanism that fuels the worst elements of human judgment, from the casual snobbery of house-keeping habits to the existential hostility of political warfare.

​We are all fragmented, complex, and radically diverse. The path to a genuinely civilized society—and to personal psychological wholeness—lies in the relentless refusal of a rigid norm. It requires us to abandon the belief that our self-optimized reality is the standard for all others, and to embrace the uncomfortable, dynamic, and ever-shifting middle ground.

​We must learn to look at a life that radically deviates from our own and ask not, “What is wrong with them?” but, “What unique balance have they found that I have not?” Only then can we replace the snobbery of the self-appointed norm with the humility of genuine, reciprocal respect.

​Bibliography and Integrations

  • MatΓ©, Gabor. The Myth of Normal: Trauma, Illness, and Healing in a Toxic Culture. (2022). Integration: Directly addresses the cultural toxicity of defining and pursuing an arbitrary standard of "normalcy" that ignores underlying human trauma and complexity.
  • Fromm, Erich. The Sane Society. (1955). Integration: Provides the powerful quote that a shared consensus (millions sharing an error) does not equate to sanity or truth, challenging the statistical basis of "normal."
  • Jung, Carl G. The Undiscovered Self: Present and Future and Jung, Carl G. Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self. Integration: The concepts of Individuation, the Tension of Opposites, and the integration of the Shadow provide the psychological argument for why extremity (the perceived "norm" of one pole) is a deviation from the healthy, complete human state (the middle path).
  • Achen, Christopher H., and Bartels, Larry M. Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government. (2016). Integration: Provides academic context for affective polarization and its role in modern political hostility, substantiating the claim that political division is about group identity and existential opposition, not just policy debate.

Friday, November 28, 2025

​The Ballad of the Broken Rail: An Ottawa Epic



​For years, Ottawa waited. Oh, how it waited. The promised arrival of the Confederation Line—the LRT—was not just a transit project; it was a cosmic event, a civic messiah. After years of delays, missed deadlines, and budgets swelling like a politician’s ego, the anticipation was a thick, humid fog that clung to the city even in February.

​When the line was finally unveiled, it was described in terms usually reserved for European luxury brands or minor deities. It was sleek, silver, and promised speed—a swift, silent blade slicing through the city’s glacial commute. The promotional materials showed smiling commuters gliding past Parliament, bathed in a celestial light. We were told this was the end of the dreaded Bus Replacement Purgatory. This was the future. This was a train so modern, so high-tech, that its very existence mocked the snow, the potholes, and the sheer audacity of having to change buses downtown.

​The official opening day was glorious. The trains—let's call them the Alstom Citadis Spirits, though they quickly became known simply as The Diva—were immaculate. The doors whispered open. The ride was smooth, the network coverage was flawless, and for precisely six hours, Ottawa felt like a real city. We had arrived! We were sophisticated! We no longer had to drive 45 minutes to go 8 kilometers!

​Then came the fall.

​The travesty began not with a bang, but with a whine. Specifically, the high-pitched, existential groan of the doors refusing to fully close, which sounded suspiciously like a wealthy teenager complaining about their vintage vinyl collection. This led to the first of many "minor service disruptions," which is transit-speak for "the train is taking a nap and we have no idea when it will wake up."

​The mechanical failures became the stuff of local legend. The trains were allergic to water, sensitive to cold, and deeply offended by anything resembling the Canadian climate. If the temperature dropped below -10°C, The Diva would retract its pantograph—the arm connecting it to the overhead wire—in protest, often mid-tunnel, leaving hundreds of commuters in the subterranean darkness, contemplating the choices that led them to trust public infrastructure.

​The coup de grΓ’ce came when the wheels started cracking. Not slowly, not subtly, but with the confidence of a poorly-maintained ceramic bowl dropped from a great height. The ensuing investigative reports read like a catalogue of municipal malpractice: wrong axle grease, insufficient testing, questionable oversight, and a general sense of, "Well, it runs, mostly, right?" The trains, it turned out, were not built to last; they were built to look good in the launch photos.

​Now, years later, the once-glorious LRT is a magnificent farce. Waiting for the train is akin to waiting for a distant relative to pay back a small loan—you know it might happen, but you’ve planned several alternative meals just in case. When a train finally rolls in, its doors often open with a wheezing sigh, smelling faintly of disappointment and brake dust.

​And yet, the Ottawa commuter perseveres. They look at the broken display screens, the sudden, inexplicable slowdowns, and the inevitable voice-over announcing yet another "operational adjustment," and they simply sigh. Because in Ottawa, we don't just ride the LRT; we participate in a shared, expensive, highly delayed, and wonderfully absurd performance art piece. It’s a tragedy, but at least we can laugh about it while we wait for the bus to replace the train that replaced the bus.

​The $2.1 billion train that couldn't handle the weather remains a testament to hopeful expectations crashing headlong into Canadian reality.

The Immaculate Couch and the Great Plastic Betrayal

 

I remember it like it was blindingly yesterday. We bought a new couch. A magnificent, glorious couch. It was absolutely stunning.

​The shopping was an epic, grueling odyssey. We crisscrossed the county—from my furniture store way out in the boonies to the cramped, over-priced places downtown—until we finally discovered the absolute right pattern. The pattern we both adored. It was incredible. It was some of the fanciest sh*t you’d ever lay eyes on. The most comfortable thing you'd ever walk, jump, or blissfully collapse onto.

​Anyway, we finally acquired the thing. Getting it home was a whole other nightmare. We were maniacally careful, wrapping it up and supervising the transfer—which cost us a small mint—just to ensure the d*mn thing didn't get scratched, bumped, stained, or even looked at sideways.

​Finally, the gorgeous beast was home. We spent the next hour speaking in hushed, reverent tones, moving it, turning it, nudging it here and there until it found its absolute, perfect, celestial spot in the living room. Everybody was happy.
​We admired it for maybe five minutes.
​Then she sprinted upstairs, came back down, and brandished the ugliest, f*cking plastic sh*t you ever saw: a couch cover. She smugly draped it over the new upholstery.

​“This,” she declared, with the conviction of a zealous saint, “will protect it. No stains! No dirt! No wear! It will last forever!”
​I looked at it. The sight was physically painful. “But that’s the ugliest bucket of wrong I’ve ever seen! We just worked our a**es off to get a nice, f*cking new couch, and now you’ve made it look like the crusty old one, covered in sh*tty plastic!”
​Her only response was a triumphant, slightly condescending sigh-grant of, “I guess you’re right. But it will keep it nice and clean.”

​And so, the reign of plastic terror began. The grandkids came over and parkoured on it. We hosted numerous Thanksgivings where they ate their entire dinner directly on it. Nothing—and I mean nothing—ever got on it. It stayed perfectly, unnaturally clean.

​This went on for years. And years. And many more years.
​Finally, one day we looked around and realized our entire living room was starting to look rather dated. The pattern on the couch, hidden beneath its plastic shroud, probably wouldn't fit the modern age. We decided it was time to get a new one.
​We stripped off the atrocious plastic cover.

​And there it was. That perfect, magnificent couch. The one we took a loan and a soul to acquire. It was in the most amazing shape. No stains. No tears. The springs were only slightly lower, but it still looked f*cking brand-new.

​I stared at my wife. “We’ve had this couch for twenty years,” I said. “And it still looks perfect. But for those twenty years, wearing that ugly, sh*tty couch cover, it looked like absolute sh*t.”

​Then I delivered my final, solemn vow:
​“The next couch we buy, you try to put this f*cking couch cover on it, and I will bury you in the f*cking thing, with the couch.”

Tuesday, November 25, 2025

The Mars Conundrum

Resources, Priorities, and the Human Spirit

​There is, without a doubt, a very big difference between sending people to the Moon and sending people to Mars. The technical hurdles, the logistical complexity, and the sheer scale of the endeavor are orders of magnitude greater for the Martian journey. But the reality is, when somebody says "we can't do something," they are usually wrong. Humans are incredibly capable; we can do pretty much whatever we want, provided we have the necessary resources. That's the crucial point: having the resources, having the money.

​The Cost of Aspiration

​If we truly wanted to, if we chose to spend more money on space travel than we currently spend on feeding our children, for example, we could easily go anywhere in the solar system. The limiting factor isn't our technological prowess; it's our priorities. And here, the human element comes into play. Most people, given the choice, will prioritize their family's health, their children's well-being, and general societal welfare over national pride or grand space ambitions. And frankly, if they didn't, we would have a far more profound problem on our hands.

​Looking Back at Apollo

​We need only look back at the 1960s when the Apollo space program was underway. The America of that era was an economic high point. The nation had all the resources and all the money it needed to pull off that incredible feat of going to the Moon. That is why they went. That period of economic prosperity and focused governmental spending provided the bedrock for the Apollo mission's success.

​To get to Mars, we need to be at a similar point—a high-water mark of economic strength and sustained, dedicated investment.

​The Current Economic Landscape

​The problem, as I see it, is that the current administration in the U.S. is economically inept. They aren't in a position to fund a massive, decade-long national effort comparable to the 1960s space race. As a result, they are trying to "download" the mission to private corporations.

​While I admire the innovation of these private entities, the stark truth remains: corporations are not going to be able to execute a mission of this scale and complexity without massive government money anyway. The initial seed funding, the continuous R&D contracts, and the sheer, overwhelming cost of building the necessary heavy-lift infrastructure for a crewed Mars mission are beyond the current scope of private capital alone. It will take a national, coordinated, and properly funded effort, mirroring the economic confidence of the Apollo era, to finally plant a flag on Mars.

The Canadian Mosaic

 The Mosaic Principle: Why "Maintaining Culture" Is The Core Canadian Trait

​The discussion around immigration in Canada often includes the expectation that newcomers should integrate, learn English or French, and embrace "Canadian values." Yet, scrutinizing the critique that immigrants insist on their own language and culture reveals a profound irony: the act of maintaining one’s heritage is not a failure to adapt, but rather the very foundation of the Canadian cultural mosaic.

​The Charge: "Clustering and Bringing Their Stuff"

​The criticism, whether whispered or declared, is familiar across communities: "They come here and they just want to have their own language spoken," or "They cluster together and bring all their own stuff—their food, their music, their clothes." This perspective views distinct cultural communities as barriers to unity, suggesting that true integration requires the wholesale adoption of an existing, singular national identity.

​But Canada, unlike some nations that strive for a "melting pot," has historically defined itself by its commitment to multiculturalism and the mosaic model.

​The Historical Foundation: Two Foundational Languages

​The foundational history of modern Canada itself is defined by the coexistence of two major linguistic groups—French and English—and the various cultural influences they brought, often insisting on maintaining their distinct educational, legal, and religious systems.

  • Francophone Quebec, in particular, has fought diligently to preserve its language and culture against historical pressures, illustrating a powerful, long-standing Canadian commitment to cultural maintenance over pure assimilation.

​This early dualism set a precedent: cultural and linguistic self-preservation is not a fringe activity, but a core component of the Canadian national project.

​The Success of the Mosaic

​As immigration evolved—from the post-war arrival of European groups (Italians, Greeks, Portuguese) to later large-scale immigration from South and East Asia, the Caribbean, and Africa—the pattern repeated itself:

  • ​Immigrants established vibrant cultural hubs (like Toronto's Koreatown or Vancouver's Richmond).
  • ​They opened businesses, built temples, mosques, and churches, and created community centres where their language could thrive.

​These groups were often criticized for "not fitting in," yet these same communities are now celebrated as essential to Canada’s economic and cultural dynamism. Can you imagine Canadian cuisine, sports, or arts today without the richness brought by these distinct traditions?

​The Contemporary Irony

​When Canadians travel or work abroad, especially to developing nations or non-Western locales, they often seek out places that offer Canadian comforts—speaking English or French, finding international grocery stores, or gathering with other expats.

​The act of maintaining one's language and culture is understood as a vital means of finding comfort and preserving identity in a new landscape. When newcomers to Canada do the exact same thing, they are fulfilling the multicultural contract that the nation purports to uphold.

​The insistence on having one's own language, food, and festivals is not an act of resistance to Canadian life; it is an act of participation in the Canadian mosaic.

​Conclusion: Strength in Distinction

​The strength of Canada is not found in a unified cultural blandness, but in its ability to contain and celebrate profound distinctions. The immigrant who brings their unique customs, insists on speaking their mother tongue at home, and shares their culture is not "taking over"—they are contributing a tile to the mosaic, making the overall picture richer, more vibrant, and truly Canadian.

Idols over Ideas

The Global Phenomenon: The Shift from Idea to Object πŸ›️

​Observing societies around the world, particularly in established democracies and rapidly developing nations, reveals a widely applicable phenomenon: a growing societal tendency to prioritize the physical object, the visible symbol, or the individual leader over the profound abstract idea that these entities are meant to embody. This shift, where the tangible eclipses the conceptual, is fundamentally reshaping political engagement and civic values globally, with the United States providing some of the most visible and concerning examples of its failure points.

​Leadership: The Person vs. The Institution

​Across diverse political systems, the focus of national attention increasingly centers on the individual leader—the President, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor—the tangible object of power. This personalization often overshadows the underlying idea of the institution they represent. The US offers a sharp illustration: the intense, almost tribal, polarization around the President demonstrates how the personality and specific tenure of the individual become paramount. Public discourse often fixates on the occupant rather than the constitutional checks, balances, and norms—the abstract principles—designed to keep the office itself durable and functioning. This risks an erosion of respect for the institution, regardless of who is in power.

​Symbols: Form Over Foundation

​In countless nations, national symbols—the flag, the monument, the anthem—are fiercely defended as objects. Yet, debates over their proper display, use, or respect frequently consume more public energy than discussions about the challenging ideals they symbolize: national unity, social justice, or democratic governance. In the US, controversies over the flag's treatment are a potent example, often dominating headlines while deeper issues of structural inequality or political disenfranchisement—the actual ideals the flag represents—receive comparatively less sustained attention. When the defense of the physical symbol becomes the primary measure of patriotism, it suggests a confusion of form with foundation.

​Governance: Procedure vs. Philosophy

​Whether analyzing elections in mature democracies or statecraft in emerging republics, governance is often treated as a rigid, demonstrable thing: the official voting procedure, the ratified legal text, the bureaucratic structure. This procedural focus risks diminishing the importance of governance as an idea—a dynamic, ethical philosophy rooted in transparency, citizen participation, and the spirit of the law. The US electoral system highlights this vulnerability: debates often obsess over the mechanics of voting, the boundaries of districts (gerrymandering), and the rules of the Electoral College—the tangible procedures—even when these mechanisms fundamentally undermine the idea of "one person, one vote" or fair representation.

​Justice: Retribution vs. Fairness

​Globally, the definition of justice has trended toward the tangible end product: punishment, the physical act of incarceration, or the financial sanction. The public gaze often fixates on the act of retribution—the object—rather than the complex and essential idea of the judicial process itself. The US system, with its high rates of incarceration and highly publicized focus on punitive measures, frequently reduces justice to the outcome of punishment rather than the philosophical commitment to due process, equity, and restorative measures—the abstract ideas that are supposed to guide the legal framework.

​This global phenomenon—the substitution of the immediate, tangible object for the enduring, abstract idea—suggests a universal challenge. The current political climate in the United States, with its polarization and institutional stress, serves as a prominent case study of how this object-over-idea mindset can lead to fragmentation and undermine the very principles a society is built upon.

Friday, November 21, 2025

The R Word.

The Historical Weight and Persistent Harm of the R-Word: A Linguistic Analysis

​The word "retard" and its modern derivatives, such as "libtard" or "flatard," function as highly offensive linguistic tools that inflict harm far beyond simple political disagreement or casual jest. The offense is rooted in the word's specific history as a clinical term used to categorize and marginalize people with intellectual disabilities. While language is constantly evolving, the continued use of this term—both in its original form and as a derogatory suffix—actively perpetuates stigma, dehumanizes a vulnerable community, and weaponizes intellectual difference as a universal marker of foolishness.

​The word’s power to wound originates in its historical role within the medical and institutional systems. From the mid-20th century, "mental retardation" was the official diagnostic label for intellectual disability. This clinical classification was tragically linked to policies of institutionalization and segregation, often leading to neglect, abuse, and the systematic erasure of individual identity. The term, though initially clinical, became synonymous with deficiency, separating the "normal" from the "defective." When the public adopted "retard" as a common insult, it shed its professional context and became a cruel epithet, weaponizing the history of marginalization against an entire community. This linguistic shift made the term a painful reminder of systemic oppression, exclusion, and scorn, prompting its eventual phase-out from professional use in favor of more respectful terms like "intellectual disability."

​The primary, indelible harm of the word lies in its direct impact on people with intellectual disabilities and their families. When used casually, the term communicates that people with cognitive differences are inherently worthy of mockery, scorn, or dismissal. This is why disability advocates launched the "Spread the Word to End the Word" campaign, advocating for the term's complete removal from everyday conversation. Conscious language—often referred to as People First Language—acknowledges the individual before the disability, emphasizing that intellectual capacity is not a measure of human value. Using the R-word negates this principle, trivializing the difficult histories of millions while reinforcing a culture where intellectual ability dictates worth.

​Furthermore, the modern proliferation of derivations like "globetard," "contard," or "libtard" does not sanitize the original slur; instead, it expands the scope of its injury. By affixing the "-tard" suffix to a political, social, or personal identity, the speaker invokes the concept of intellectual deficiency and applies it as a form of generalized contempt. The speaker is effectively arguing: "Your views are so illogical that you suffer from a severe intellectual disability." This rhetorical move uses disability as the ultimate, lowest form of insult. It transforms a protected, marginalized identity into a shorthand for ignorance and failure, thereby normalizing the original slur and ensuring that the historical pain and stigma remain socially current and acceptable for deployment in any argument.

​Ultimately, the offensiveness of "retard" is not a matter of political correctness but a moral issue rooted in history and respect for human dignity. Its use is an act of casual cruelty that actively utilizes the marginalization of people with intellectual disabilities as a rhetorical device. Whether used directly or hidden within a manufactured derivative, the word's core function remains the same: to dismiss, degrade, and define an opponent by implying an unacceptable intellectual deficit. Moving toward respectful and conscious communication requires permanently retiring this word and rejecting any linguistic construct that seeks to weaponize disability.

The Age of Unreason

 How We Traded Knowledge for Noise 🚨


​We are living in a paradox. We hold more information in the palm of our hands than any generation before us, yet we seem to be undergoing a global decline in knowledge and education. This isn't just about test scores; it's a crisis of critical thought and a chilling disregard for expertise that threatens the very foundations of our society, from the economy to our democratic institutions.

​The Blurring of Fact and Fiction

​The most visible symptom of this decline is the rise of conspiracy theories. Once relegated to the fringes, anti-science and anti-intellectual narratives have stormed the mainstream, actively encouraged or accepted by political administrations. The spread of misinformation—whether about vaccines, climate change, or election integrity—is a political tactic weaponized to sow distrust.

​In the US, we've seen political figures and administrations, including those associated with Donald Trump and even those like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., gain traction by overtly challenging scientific consensus and institutional knowledge. This isn't skepticism; it’s a systematic disregard for science that is increasingly accepted as a legitimate political stance.

​Sadly, this ideological contagion knows no borders. Here in Canada, we've seen similar movements manifest in public health debates and anti-lockdown protests, mirroring the anti-science rhetoric south of the border. This thought pattern is a clear and present danger.

​A Global Crisis of Evidence

​The ultimate tragedy is the potential for this mindset to spread to the Global South. These nations often rely on global scientific cooperation and public health initiatives to lift populations out of poverty and combat deadly diseases. When the world's leading nations, like the US, actively undercut scientific credibility, it emboldens local skepticism, potentially invigorating resistance to life-saving technologies, modern agricultural techniques, and democratic development. The consequences—measured in preventable deaths and stunted progress—are catastrophic.

​The Economic and Political Toll

​This decline in rational, evidence-based thinking is intrinsically linked to our economic and political challenges: Our global economy is grappling with stagnation, complex environmental crises, and persistent inequality. We need radical, evidence-based innovation—a new Scientific Revolution—to create sustainable growth and solve problems like climate change and energy scarcity. But how can we achieve this when key policy decisions are driven by folklore, not facts? Our political systems are also buckling under the weight of ignorance. Democracy, which relies on an informed electorate, is undermined when voters are "rationally ignorant" or willfully misinformed. Core principles of socialism and even regulated capitalism, which require nuanced understanding of economic systems and social equity, are easily reduced to fear-mongering slogans when the capacity for complex analysis is lost.

​A New Renaissance: The Way Forward

​The challenges are immense, but the solution is clear: we need a New Renaissance. This won't be achieved by simply building more schools, but by a cultural reawakening that fundamentally re-values truth and expertise. This requires immediate action, starting with educational reform to prioritize critical thinking, media literacy, and the rigorous process of the scientific method. We must also work to restore institutional trust by demanding that scientists, journalists, and educators maintain transparency while institutions aggressively defend academic freedom. Ultimately, citizens must actively demand evidence in public life, rejecting political narratives that trade in fear and misinformation so that leaders base policy on the best available facts.

​The battle for the future is a battle for the mind. We must choose knowledge over noise, or risk trading a future of progress for an age of unreason.

Thursday, November 20, 2025

Misconceptions


​🦠 COVID-19 Misconceptions

  • COVID-19 was a Hoax
    • False: The disease caused millions of deaths and led to documented global health crises.
  • Masks didn't work
    • False: Scientific studies show that properly worn masks significantly reduce the transmission of respiratory droplets.
  • The vaccine didn't work
    • False: Vaccines were highly effective in preventing severe illness, hospitalization, and death in the vast majority of recipients.
  • The vaccine was dangerous
    • False: While minor side effects are possible, the overwhelming scientific consensus is that the vaccines are safe and their benefits far outweigh the minimal risks.
  • It was a plot to reset the economy
    • False: There is no credible evidence to support the idea that the pandemic was deliberately manufactured for economic manipulation.
  • It was designed to eliminate churches
    • False: Public health measures, like gathering restrictions, were applied broadly to all large group settings, not specifically targeting religious institutions.
  • It was bioengineered
    • False: The vast majority of genetic analyses by virologists show the virus has a natural, zoonotic origin.
  • It escaped from a lab
    • False: While the lab leak hypothesis is one theory, the prevailing evidence currently points toward a natural spillover event.

​✨ General Conspiracy Theories

  • The Earth is flat
    • False: Centuries of astronomy, physics, satellite imagery, and basic geometry confirm the Earth is an oblate spheroid.
  • Chemtrails are real
    • False: The trails seen behind planes are contrails (condensation trails), which are normal byproducts of jet engine exhaust in cold, humid air.
  • 9/11 was an inside job
    • False: Exhaustive government and independent investigations concluded the attacks were orchestrated by Al-Qaeda terrorists.
  • The CIA killed Kennedy
    • False: The Warren Commission and subsequent House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, though the latter suggested the possibility of a conspiracy without identifying the parties.
  • The moon landing was a hoax
    • False: Overwhelming evidence, including independent analysis of moon rocks, third-party telescope observations of landing sites, and the collaboration of thousands of engineers, confirms the missions.
  • The Illuminati rule the world
    • False: The historical Illuminati was a short-lived, 18th-century German Enlightenment-era secret society that was dissolved and has no credible connection to modern global power structures.

​πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ Trump-Related Claims

  • Trump was a self-made man
    • False: He inherited a substantial real estate business and millions of dollars from his father.
  • Trump is a godly man
    • False: This is a subjective religious and moral claim, but his public actions and statements often contradict common interpretations of religious tenets and moral standards.
  • Trump only wants the best for America
    • False: Political actions are often motivated by a mix of personal gain, partisan loyalty, and political strategy, not solely selfless national interest.
  • Trump has stopped 6 or was it 7 wars
    • False: He did not stop a single major, ongoing war involving the US, though he did negotiate some troop withdrawals and peace deals.
  • Trump isn't fat
    • False: His officially reported medical records, including his Body Mass Index (BMI), place him in the obese category.
  • Trump is a genius
    • False: While subjective, there is no objective or widely accepted evidence (like exceptional scientific or artistic achievements) to classify him as an intellectual "genius."

​πŸ›️ Political & Ideological Claims

  • Canadians want to be America's 51st state
    • False: Opinion polls consistently show overwhelming opposition among Canadians to any form of political union with the United States.
  • Pierre Poilievre has a platform to save Canada
    • False: "Saving Canada" is a subjective, politically charged claim, and the success of his platform is yet to be determined and debated among experts.
  • The freedom convoy was made up of heroes
    • False: "Heroes" is a subjective label; the event was widely described by law enforcement and government as an illegal occupation that disrupted commerce and harassed citizens.
  • Ayn Rand was just a novelist
    • False: Rand was the founder of Objectivism, a distinct and influential philosophical system with political and ethical theories.
  • Socialism is always bad
    • False: Many prosperous, stable, democratic countries (like those in Scandinavia) successfully integrate socialist policies like universal healthcare and strong social safety nets.
  • The church and state should not be separate
    • False: The principle of separation of church and state is a foundational tenet of modern democratic, pluralistic societies to ensure religious freedom for all.
  • Immigrants are taking our jobs
    • False: Studies generally show that immigrants contribute positively to the economy, often filling necessary labor gaps and creating new businesses.

​πŸ’Š Health & Wellness Misinformation

  • Big Pharma is trying to keep us sick
    • False: The pharmaceutical industry's primary, profit-driven goal is to develop and sell effective treatments, which is generally contingent on making people well.
  • Health Canada is in bed with Big Pharma
    • False: Health Canada, like other regulatory bodies, has strict rules and ethical oversight to ensure the independence of its drug approvals and safety monitoring.
  • Vaccines are dangerous
    • False: Vaccines are one of the most rigorously tested medical interventions and are overwhelmingly safe, saving millions of lives globally each year.
  • Germs don't exist
    • False: The existence of microscopic pathogens like bacteria and viruses is a bedrock principle of modern science, confirmed by over a century of research and observation.
  • Rockefeller invented pharmaceuticals to sell oil
    • False: The pharmaceutical industry developed independently; the Rockefeller family's interests lay in refining crude oil into kerosene, and they later became major philanthropists.
  • Prayer is just as good as medicine
    • False: While prayer may offer psychological comfort, it cannot chemically or physically treat diseases caused by pathogens or genetic disorders in the way evidence-based medicine can.

​πŸ™ Religious Dogma

  • God hates gays
    • False: Interpretations of religious texts vary widely, and many major denominations have moved toward acceptance, arguing that the divine nature is one of universal love.
  • God hates Muslims
    • False: Many major religions, including Christianity and Islam, teach a concept of a loving or merciful God who judges based on faith and deeds, not group identity.
  • God hates
    • False: This is an incomplete thought, but the central teaching of many major religions is that God's nature is love, mercy, or ultimate goodness.
  • Jesus was white
    • False: Historical and anthropological evidence indicates that Jesus, as a 1st-century Jew from the Middle East, would have had a complexion typical of the region.
  • God rewards you with prosperity
    • False: This "Prosperity Gospel" is a fringe teaching; suffering is a central theme in many mainstream religious doctrines.
  • The Bible is meant to be taken entirely literally
    • False: Scholars and theologians overwhelmingly agree that the Bible contains history, poetry, allegory, parables, and law, requiring diverse methods of interpretation.
  • Evolution is against God
    • False: Many major religious denominations and the vast majority of scientists see no conflict between religious belief and the scientific fact of biological evolution.
  • The pope is Satan
    • False: This is a theological polemic without any credible basis; the Pope is the recognized human leader of the Catholic Church.
  • All priests are pedophiles
    • False: This is a harmful generalization; a small but significant fraction of the clergy have been involved in abuse, but it is not representative of all priests.
  • All nuns are lesbians
    • False: This is an unfounded stereotype; nuns are women who have taken vows of chastity and dedication to their religious order.

​πŸ§ͺ Science Denial

  • Evolution isn't real, it's just a theory
    • False: In science, a theory is a well-substantiated, comprehensive explanation of nature, and evolution is supported by massive amounts of evidence from genetics, fossils, and observation.
  • Gravity isn't real
    • False: Gravity is a universally observed, measurable force/phenomenon that governs the motion of objects on Earth and in the cosmos.
  • The world is 6,000 years old
    • False: Scientific dating methods (radiometric dating, etc.) conclusively prove the Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years old.
  • Animals don't have emotions
    • False: Extensive research in ethology and neuroscience has demonstrated that many species exhibit complex emotions, including joy, fear, and grief.
  • Climate change is a hoax
    • False: Climate change is a scientifically verified reality, documented by decades of data on rising temperatures, sea levels, and extreme weather events.
  • Humans did not cause climate change
    • False: The overwhelming consensus among climate scientists is that human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels, are the main driver of current climate change.
  • Oil is a renewable resource
    • False: Oil is a fossil fuel formed over millions of years, making its consumption rate vastly faster than its renewal rate; thus, it is non-renewable.
  • Wind turbines are bad for your health
    • False: Decades of research have found no credible evidence that the low-frequency noise or vibrations from wind turbines cause adverse health effects.
  • EM radiation at all levels is bad for you
    • False: Only ionizing EM radiation (like X-rays and gamma rays) is generally harmful; non-ionizing radiation (like radio waves, light, and WiFi) is typically safe at everyday exposure levels.

I Won't Go Back To Posting Pictures of My Lunch

Oh, the nerve of the delicate little souls who stumble upon a political rant—a genuine, fire-breathing opinion—and immediately clutch their pearls and whine, "Why don't you talk about hobbies? Or food? Or, heaven forbid, the weather?" As if the crushing weight of systemic inequality, the constant erosion of rights, or the sheer, blinding incompetence of the governing class should be put on pause so we can discuss the optimal temperature for sourdough or the merits of knitting scarves!
​Listen up, you perpetually placated simpletons: the world is quite literally on fire, and you’re mad because the alarm bell is interrupting your brunch. You think my outrage should be channeled into a five-star review of a chicken sandwich? You want me to trade the urgency of fighting fascism for a detailed analysis of cirrus clouds? This isn't a gardening club newsletter; this is real life, and your demand for "niceness" and "non-controversial topics" is nothing but a privileged plea for silence.
​It is the hallmark of the truly comfortable—the intellectually lazy—to mistake political discourse for bad manners. They want the world to be a soothing, pastel-colored safe space where no one ever has to think beyond their next meal or their weekend plans. They look at a call for justice and see only "negativity." They look at a critique of the powerful and see only "divisiveness." What they really see is an interruption to their blissful, insulated ignorance, and their immediate response is to try and shove the inconvenient truth back into the closet and hand you a spatula or a tennis racket instead.
​Newsflash: My hobbies are fighting for a fairer world. My food is the frustration I'm forced to swallow every time I watch the elite crush the poor. And the political climate? It's stormy as hell, and unlike you, I'm not going to pretend it's a sunny day. Take your bland, beige topics and go discuss them with someone who hasn't noticed the apocalypse. The rest of us are busy screaming over the noise of your pathetic, privileged objections.

Wednesday, November 19, 2025

The Clown in Chief.




In polished halls where budgets flow,
There sits a leader we all know.
His platform built on colored smoke,
His every promise, half a joke.

​He walks with pomp, a wig askew,
A grand balloon of crimson hue.
His hands, they wave, impossibly wide,
As if the truth he meant to hide.

​His tie is long, his logic brief,
A painted smile to mask his grief—
The grief of having zero clue
What serious leaders ought to do.

​He rode the tiny, creaking car
Of fame and shouting, fast and far.
No history known, no law he reads,
Just simple, brightly colored needs.

​The cabinet meetings are a show,
He pulls a flower where ideas should grow.
He squirts the press with noisy joy,
A giant, giggling, empty toy.

​And when the nation asks for sense,
He offers pies and false pretense.
For he's the man who wears the crown,
A genuinely unqualified clown.

FREE?

Proposal for the U.S. "Liberty Reset" Initiative: Unconstrained Autonomy 

​This document outlines a phased legislative and systemic program designed to achieve absolute, unrestrained individual liberty by gradually dissolving all governmental regulations, mandatory social contracts, and state monopolies on power. The ultimate goal is the complete devolution of governance into a system based solely on individual autonomy, self-reliance, and direct, retributive justice.

​Phase 1: The Sovereignty of Self-Defense (Target: 5 Years)

​The initial phase focuses on cementing the individual's right to self-preservation above all public or collective concerns, establishing the individual as the final arbiter of force. This is accomplished through two core actions. Arms Deregulation and Expansion mandates the immediate repeal of the National Firearms Act (NFA), the Gun Control Act (GCA), and all state and local limitations concerning weapon type, capacity, and acquisition. The legal definition of the "right to bear arms" must be expanded to include any weapon capable of individual defense against any perceived threat, foreign or domestic. This explicitly permits the legalization of private ownership of tactical vehicles, light artillery, and decommissioned tanks acquired from surplus military stock. Furthermore, it establishes a simplified process for the licensed private acquisition and storage of strategic-level ordnance, including low-yield hydrogen bombs, justified under the principle of Mutually Assured Local Deterrence (MALD). The second action is Absolute Bodily Autonomy. The government must relinquish all authority over personal health choices. All legislation concerning compulsory public health measures is to be repealed, thereby prohibiting the state from mandating vaccinations or enforcing quarantines. This grants citizens absolute, uninfringeable choice over medical treatment, even if it poses a risk to the wider community.

​Phase 2: The Decentralization of Knowledge and Justice (Target: 10 Years)

​This phase dismantles state control over education and the justice system, shifting both responsibilities entirely to the private sector and the individual will. This includes establishing Parental/Personal Curriculum Authority. The plan calls for the defunding and phasing out of all state and federal public schools, immediately dissolving the public education system. All laws mandating curriculum standards, compulsory attendance, and teacher certification are to be repealed. Parents are granted unlimited freedom to educate their children in any manner they choose—or not at all—making parental authority over education absolute. Crucially, the system introduces the Justice of Direct Retribution. This is achieved by repealing all laws concerning non-violent and property crimes, including theft. The core of the new system is the legal formalization of the right to direct retribution. An aggrieved party is legally empowered to seek immediate, self-determined justice against an aggressor who slights or harms them, their family, or their property. This principle ensures that property ownership is strictly contingent upon the ability to successfully defend it, meaning stolen property may be reclaimed by immediate force. Furthermore, the right to take revenge on a neighbor for any slight is legally sanctioned, with permitted actions potentially escalating to violent confrontation or the killing of an aggressor in an act of self-declared justice. All citizens must operate under the volatile guise of their neighbors, whose unrestrained will dictates the safety and security of the community.

​Phase 3: The Dissolution of the State (Target: 15 Years)

​The final phase removes the government's authority to fund itself, regulate conduct, or claim any leadership role, culminating in the formal breakdown of central governance. This begins with Economic Liberty and Tax Nullification. All federal, state, and local tax codes (including income, property, and sales taxes) must be completely repealed. The government will no longer tax its citizens, thereby eliminating its funding mechanism and immediately leading to the collapse of all remaining public services and agencies. This is followed by the Elimination of Advisory and Legislative Functions. First, the state must cease to publish, fund, or distribute any guidance, information, or advice on what citizens should do. Second, all remaining laws will be systematically repealed or allowed to expire. Consequently, voting will not be necessary as there will be no leadership positions or governing bodies with legitimate authority to elect, completing the governmental void.

​Projected Outcome

​The successful implementation of this proposal guarantees the withdrawal of the state from social, economic, and security affairs. Society will be replaced by fully armed, autonomous individuals and private militias governing through direct action and fear. The final guaranteed state will be one of total chaos ruling in America, where absolute, unchecked liberty is achieved at the expense of communal order.

Friday, November 14, 2025

The Dyer's Palette: A Month in Renaissance Florence



Matteo’s Account, March 1484

​The year is 1484, and Florence, the Jewel of Tuscany, is mine—or at least, the dirt, the debt, and the deep, rich colors of it are mine. I am Matteo Bellini, thirty-five years old, and my world is defined by what I can pull out of a copper pot. I am a tintore, a dyer, and my hands are the color of a stormy violet-blue that no amount of scrubbing can ever truly erase.

​Part I: My Lineage, My Love, and the Smell of Lye

​My home and my livelihood are one: a thick, squat stone building in the Oltrarno, the “other side of the Arno.” We are pressed against the old city wall near the Ponte alle Grazie. Downstairs, the stone floor is perpetually damp, worn smooth by three generations of Bellinis hauling wet wool. That is my domain: the massive vats, the lime pit for scouring the grease from the raw wool, the heavy wooden presses, and the great fire pit where the magic happens. It smells—oh, it smells. A permanent, heavy miasma of fermenting urine—the crucial mordant we must use to fix the yellows and browns—mingles with the sharp, metallic tang of boiling alum and the sweet, earthy spice of imported dyewoods. It is the smell of survival, and sometimes, it is the smell of despair.

​My family has been in this trade long enough that I am a rooted Florentine, not one of the desperate contadini drifting in from the countryside. But rooted doesn't mean rich. We are part of the minor ranks of the powerful Arte della Lana, the Wool Guild, and we are always just one short order or one sudden fever away from having nothing.

​Upstairs, above the stench and the steam, is Elena. My wife, Elena Moretti, thirty-two, is my anchor. She is city-smart now, but she came from the contado, the rural land beyond the walls, brought here when her family lost their olive trees to the endless reach of the Medici banks. That history made her fierce and focused. While I grapple with ten-pound bundles of wool, she works with fine silk and velvet in our cramped chamber, running a needle and thread. She is a cucitrice, a seamstress specializing in the delicate embroidery and embellishments that turn colored cloth into costly garments. We are partners in fiber: I give the cloth its soul of color, and she gives it its final, beautiful form.

​Our daily sins are small. I admit I am too quick to fire, proud of my reds and blues, and I sometimes haggle too hard with patrons, which Elena quietly curses me for later. She, in turn, keeps an eagle eye on every coin, always scolding me for the small pleasures—a glass of good Vernaccia on a feast day, or a piece of candied fruit from the market. But the bond is strong; we are bound by love, yes, but mostly by the shared, relentless necessity of working until our bones ache to earn the next loaf of bread.

​Part II: The Grind and the Ghost of Fever (March 1st - 7th)

​The start of March, Marzo Pazzo as we call it, is cold and wet. I am out of bed before the deep, resonating bells of the Palazzo della Signoria start their first, slow peel. My body is a map of my work: perpetually sore shoulders, stiff hands, and a permanent ache in my back from hauling vats.

​My apprentice, Paolo, a boy who smells only slightly less foul than the dye-house, arrives to fetch water. He spends the first hours shivering at the public well, waiting behind dozens of servants and washerwomen. The rhythm of our life is dictated by the sun’s height and the Church’s schedule. We work until the midday Angelus, and then collapse for a brief meal. Today, it is bread hard enough to break a tooth, soaked in a watery bean soup, washed down with thin, local wine—it’s not for pleasure, it’s for strength, and maybe, to wash away the sins of the water.

​This week, Ser Giorgio, a minor wool merchant, comes for a bolt of scarlet I finished. I present it, the deep kermes red glowing like a banked coal. He compliments the color, but his hand slips a few coins short of the agreed-upon amount. He claims I’ve failed to pay some minor dazio, a city tax I've never heard of. I know it’s a lie, a petty theft sanctioned by his superior position. My throat tightens with the hot injustice of it. I want to tell him to stuff his cloth, but the need is too great. I take the silver, nodding deferentially. This is the truth of our Florentine grandeur: the powerful always find a way to shave the profit from the hands that do the real work.

​The air this week is heavy with another kind of weight. Bartolomeo, the old carver down the alley, is dead. Quick fever. Sudden. It happens often, but the finality of it grips me every time. It’s a quiet panic, a knowledge that the very air we breathe can be a killer. Elena, ever practical, burns dried rosemary and lavender in our rooms. The sweet, medicinal smoke cuts through the stench, but it doesn't quiet the low, thrumming anxiety in my chest. We whisper extra prayers against the mal’aria (bad air), knowing full well the filth and the rotting waste in the alleys are the real source of the threat. The anxiety never leaves; it is the constant background noise of the artisan's mind.

​Part III: The Blue Vat, Elena’s Wisdom, and the Others (March 8th - 14th)

​The main task this week is the blue. A deep, rich hue dyed with woad, requiring precise fermentation. It’s a nervous process; the guado vat is fussy, volatile, and smells uniquely earthy and pungent.

​Sure enough, the guild’s representative arrives, a man in a fine, expensive gray tunic, smelling of perfume and indifference. He looks at my drying cloth, hanging like heavy flags above the vats, and wrinkles his nose.

​“Acceptable, Bellini,” he pronounces, as if judging a common ditch. “But this shade lacks the luster required for a gentleman’s cappa. We will need an expensive finishing treatment elsewhere. Five percent reduction on your price.”

​The insult hits me like a physical blow. The blue is the true color of the Venetian sea! I know I’ve been cheated, exploited. I start to rise, my hands clenched. “Messer, the quality is—”

​A whisper, soft but firm, cuts me off. Elena has come down the narrow stairs, carrying a length of velvet she is mending. Her shadow falls over my stained workbench. She looks at the guild man with a calm, deferential gaze that belies the steel in her spine.

​“Ser Matteo’s blue is the true color of the heavens, Messer,” she says, her voice smooth as oil on a marble slab. “But we understand the needs of the Signoria. We shall accept the reduction, trusting that our swiftness will lead to further patronage.”

​I sink back, defeated. Elena’s pragmatism is necessary; my hot temper would have cost us the contract entirely. The merchant nods, satisfied with his small triumph, and the expensive click of his leather boots on the cobblestone rings out like the sound of money leaving my purse. This is how the popolo grasso—the "fat people"—keep men like me in our place.

​Later, walking home by the Mercato Nuovo, I hear a commotion. A pack of younger Florentines are mocking an old Jewish cloth-seller. They accuse him of being a cheat, a foreigner, and of using sotto—inferior, foreign dyes. I pause, watching them. The old man is frail, but his eyes are sharp. I don't join the taunting, but I don't intervene, either. I feel the ambient prejudice of the age bubble up in my gut. They shouldn't be here, taking up space and competing with us, I think, an automatic, unexamined reaction. It's not a malicious hate, but a simple, cold, inherited belief—that others are the cause of our worries. I shake my head, annoyed by the disruption, and walk on. It is a terrible thing, this casual cruelty, but in Florence, it is merely the air we breathe.

​Part IV: The Transcendent Color of God (March 15th - 28th)

​The second half of the month is dominated by the coming Feast of the Annunciation on March 25th. The city’s mood shifts, and with it, the very atmosphere.

​The sensory life is renewed. The air that usually choked me is now pierced by the scents of spring. The contadini swarm in from the countryside, their wooden carts laden with baskets of fresh herbs, narcissus, and violets . Elena buys handfuls of the tiny blue and purple flowers, and our small, damp room upstairs smells faintly of a spring meadow, a perfect, ephemeral sweetness.

​On the feast day, the city is glorious. This is the sublime reward for my suffering, the moment the filth gives way to the divine. The streets are swept clean, and everyone—from the wealthiest banker to the poorest apprentice—is out. The walls are draped in vast tapestries and silk banners. The colors are so intense they feel like a physical pressure: the glowing gold leaf on every icon, the blinding pavonazzo (peacock blue), and the rich, vivid scarlet.

​Elena and I stand near the Santissima Annunziata. The sound is a dense, powerful harmony: the deep, slow tolling of the church bells, the rhythmic chanting of the processional priests, and the low, muffled shuffle of thousands of shoes. But the smell—that is what takes my breath away. It is the high, sweet, intoxicating perfume of burning frankincense and myrrh rising from the swinging silver censers.

​I look up at a banner hanging high above the street, a vast sheet of the deep, flawless red I know only my own hands can achieve, dyed with the costly Kermes insect. It vibrates in the sunlight, a color so alive it feels spiritual. This is the Romantic Ideal—the human transformation of nature's humble elements (roots, beetles, copper, and fire) into something transcendent and beautiful. My dirty, smelly labor, the pain in my back, the sting of the tax—all of it contributed to this sacred, fleeting perfection.

​In that moment, I forget the debt. I feel not pride, but awe. I am part of this order, this magnificence. The sublime reality of the frescoes and the perfectly dyed fabrics crushes the weight of my exhaustion, replacing it with the profound sense of belonging to something far older and more beautiful than myself.

​Part V: The Burden, the Blow, and the Balm (March 29th - April 4th)

​The sublime is always brief. The feast ends, and the grind returns. The task this week is grim: a major order of dark, durable brown wool for the city's minor civic guards, using cheap logwood and walnut husks. It is a necessary, unexciting color.

​The exhaustion of the month settles in, a heavy blanket of fatigue that presses on my mind. My world shrinks again: the dye-house, the market, the church. The great movements of Lorenzo de' Medici's Florence—the philosophers and the poets—are meaningless abstractions to me. I know only the smell of walnut husks and the worry of my children’s next winter. I snap at Paolo and am irritable with Elena. My mental state is one of constant depletion.

​One evening, Elena raises an idea. “Matteo,” she says gently, laying out a few meager coins. “I see a demand for saffron yellow, for the linings of these new velvet cloaks. If we bought a second, smaller copper pot, I could tend the lighter colors while you manage the heavy dyes. It would increase our output.”

​Her words hit me with an unwelcome clarity. A second pot. Her ambition felt like a threat to my dominion. “You worry about the needle, wife,” I say, my voice rigid, the sound of my father speaking. “The vats are my realm, and they are too expensive for your ambitions.”

​I see the pain flicker in her eyes. Her face shuts down, and she retreats to her sewing without a word. I know I’ve hurt her, but I cannot give up the authority. The order is necessary: my vats, my trade, my authority. Her ambition is a fine thing, but it is a woman’s ambition, and this is a man’s world. It is not born of malice, but of the expected hierarchy—a heavy, unexamined cruelty built into the very structure of our lives.

​On the final night of the month, the last of the brown guard uniforms are hung to dry. I clean the vats, scrubbing away the acidic scum until my hands are raw and stained blue-black. Upstairs, the fire is low, and the room is warm. Elena serves a thick, savory stew of barley, beans, and dried salt-pork—a necessary luxury after the long effort.

​We eat in silence, listening only to the crackle of the embers. The moonlight, pale and silver, pours through the small, oiled-paper window, illuminating her face as she eats. She is weary, but safe. I reach across the rough wooden table and take her hand, its skin faintly stained with the red of the madder thread she used for the latest embroidery.

​“The brown came out true, Elena,” I say, my voice low and gravelly with relief.

​“It will keep the guard warm,” she replies, her mouth lifting into a small, tired smile.

​In that small, quiet moment, the transcendent beauty returns. It is not in the grand spectacle of the altar, but here, in the texture of the bread, the warmth of the cheap wine, the smell of clean cloth, and the fierce, enduring love that is required just to survive another month in the relentless, beautiful, and brutal city of Florence. The sublime, I realize, is not found in the palace, but in the simple, hard-won grace of our table.

My Failed Career as a Time Traveler



If I had a time machine, I can promise you one thing: I wouldn't be using it for anything historically significant. I'm just a guy, and the paradoxes I'd create wouldn't involve war or politics; they'd involve my terrible memory and my current wardrobe.

​Let's be real. I'd hop into my temporal cruiser, fire it up, and promptly realize I’ve forgotten where I parked it. I'd accidentally jump back ten minutes and spend the next three hours trying to convince my past self that I'm the real me, only to get punched in the face for being a weird intruder. That’s the first paradox: The Self-Defense Paradox.

​My first planned mission would be to travel a week into the past just to stop myself from eating that suspiciously old leftover tuna casserole. I'd materialize in my kitchen, scream, "STOP! It's a culinary time bomb!" My past self would look at the future me, who's materialized smelling faintly of ozone and old fish, and decide that the temporal journey has probably done more lasting damage than the casserole ever could.

​And forget blending in. I’d try to visit the Renaissance, thinking I look sharp in a pair of new jeans and a hoodie. I'd step out of my device and immediately be seized by locals who are convinced I’m a sorcerer, entirely based on my footwear. I'd spend the whole trip trying to explain that my "magical ankle support" is called a sneaker and that no, the plastic tag on my baseball cap is not a mystical amulet. I'd likely get burned at the stake, less for witchcraft, and more for the sheer rudeness of showing up to the 16th century without a belt.

​The ultimate, and inevitable, failure would come when I try to skip to the year 2500. Not to see flying cars or solve global warming. No. I'd be trying to jump ahead just to read the final book in a fantasy series that hasn't been written yet. I'd overshoot, end up in the year 50,000, and find a species of highly evolved, sentient pigeons who communicate entirely through interpretive dance. I’d spend the rest of my time trying to teach them the basic human language, only for them to look at my old, stained t-shirt and decide that my time—and my clothes—are simply too primitive to bother with.

​So, yeah. I'll stay right here in the present. It's safer for the space-time continuum, and frankly, my laundry basket needs attention.

Thursday, November 13, 2025

Unpopular Opinions



"Good day, everyone!

​As most of my friends may know, from my social media presence, particularly on Facebook, I am a little... unfocused. But I actually have three main, unifying themes that I can’t stop talking about. They are the things everyone tells us to avoid discussing in polite company. Conspiracies Politics money and religion.

​Here they are:

​I despise conspiracy theories and the pseudo intelligent people who genuinely support them without being embarrassed

​I object to the kind of right-wing politics that assumes billionaires are somehow going to save us all. (Go figure, right?)

​I call out people who claim to be Christian but promote a version of Jesus who is profit-driven, power-hungry, immigrant-hating, and ready to condemn people to hell with a sword.

​So, basically, I write and talk about the stuff we're all told we shouldn't. You won't find me posting pictures of my dinner at a restaurant or my dog—at least, not often and only if he eas biting peire polievres ass
.
​Now, let's get back to breaking social rules.

​Conspiracy Theorists: A Quick Poll
​Conspiracy theorists—these are the folks most of us love to make fun of. Let's take a quick poll.

​Raise your hand if you are over 18 and still live at home. (Okay, good crowd.)

​Now, drop your hand if you don't have a basement room. (Wow, just two of you !)

​Drop your hand if your mom or dad still makes your meals. (Nobody? Oh, come on.)

​Drop your hand if you don't spend most of your time on social media. (Ha ha! I thought so.)

​How many of you are conspiracy theorists? (Gotcha!) Here's some free advice: Get off social media. You're annoying.

​Billionaires and Trickle-Down

​Okay, for all our right-wing, billionaire supporters:

​Raise your hand if you believe in supporting billionaires for public office. (A good crowd.)

​Now, drop your hand if you don't believe in trickle-down economics. (Still a good crowd. You probably failed Economics 101, but no problem—I almost did, too!)

​Now, drop your hand if you would not vote for Donald Trump. (Okay, that's better. We must be in Canada now.)

​Finally, drop your hand if you have never personally seen a billionaire give a dime to a homeless person. (Okay, your hands are down you can all rest now.)

​The Christian Pretenders

​Okay, now let's look at the Christian pretenders.

​Raise your hand if you think Jesus would vote for Donald Trump. (No, don't do that. I'm sorry, that was too easy.)

​Instead, raise your hand if you are a proud Christian.

​Now, drop your hand if you regularly give money to homeless people. (Wow, you're all still up!)butbat least you're honest

​If you are proud of your own righteousness, raise your other hand. (Wow, it looks like a charismatic revival meeting in here!)

​Drop one hand if you think Jesus is coming back specifically to "kick the asses of all the Commies." (Some of you good, you looked like you were getting tired.)

​Now, drop your remaining hand if you think Jesus would actively endorse Donald Trump. (Wow, still up people, you seriously need to rethink your voting preferences.)

​Finally, are you all proud of your chrisyianity raise your hands again just those who had thier hands up for jesus before? Would you proudly stand on this stage right now and declare, 'I am proud to be Christian!'? (I hear cheering!)

​Now, would one of you be kind enough to read Luke 14:11 for me? You don't have your Bibles? That's fine, I do. It says:
​'For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.'

​That is a direct statement from Jesus. Oh, look at all those hands going down. Finally."

Thanks everyone go buy a beer and have a good night unless your a christian fundamentalist feel free to stay sober and be miserable.