Six degrees of separation

Oh nein, wie furchtbar:

Zur Frage [1: Fefe], wo die 2. Welle bleibt, kam ein weiterhelfender Leserbrief [2] rein:  Fall aus meinem direkten Umfeld  [3′]:  Eine Universitätsstadt in Sachsen-Anhalt, Vierer-WG. Vor einer Woche war dort (!) eine Freundin [4] zu Besuch. Sie wurde später positiv getestet, meldete sich also bei ihren Kontakten. Eine Bewohnerin der besuchten WG [5] ist jetzt ebenfalls erkrankt und wurde daher positiv getestet. Eine weitere Mitbewohnerin [6] der WG hatte mit diesen beiden (nachweislich positiven!) Personen zum Teil über Tage hinweg Kontakt.

Nun – wer die six degrees of separation nicht kennt, liest auf PC-Wiki ggf. bitte wenigstens den ersten Absatz, aber:

Ich habe die 6 Beziehungen markiert – nach der Theorie ist 6 Schritte von DIR  der gesamte Planet.

Zur Illustration? Nun, habt Ihr sicher nur am Rande mitbekommen, aber ich lese ja aus Gründen geistiger Gesundheit nur noch kanadische Nachrichten; die haben zwar genauso einen an der Waffel wie wir, aber ich muss da zumindest nie hin.

Das hat auch eine Nebengeschichte mit einem “gewissen” Special-Interest-Forum und einer jungen Kanadierin, aber das erlaubt mir ein gutes Beispiel:

Nova Scotia gunman used fake police cruiser to flag down victims
Gabriel Wortman … before the shooting, police said,

Da hat also ein Psycho in einer fast 18h rampage ein paar Leute umgebracht, als Cop verkleidet. Nun – der interessantere Teil daran ist: Meiner (siehe 5) Bekannten [1 ] aktueller Stecher [2] sein Arbeitskollege [3] kennt den Cousin [4] des Psychos. Damit wäre ich [5] , und Ihr [6], liebe Leser, der 6th degree of separation, den alle Menschen halt teilen.

So, und nun könnt Ihr Euch überlegen, ob Ihr eher den psychopathischen Massenmörder aus West-Kanada kennt (#6), oder doch Fefes nicht-getestete Corona-verdächtige Bekannte eines anonymen Einsenders. Und was Euch das hilft.

Fairerweise: in Portapique und Umgebung hat der Typ 22 Leute umgebracht. Das Coronavirus hat es in dem Gebiet (Northern Nova Scotia) auf mittlerweile 45 Infizierte und sage und schreibe 0 Tote gebracht (was aber daran liegen mag, dass es da wohl außerhalb von Halifax kein ordentliches Krankenhaus gibt). Es steht trotzdem in der gesamten Provinz (Fläche wie Bayern, nichtmal ein Zehntel der Einwohner)  22 Tote / Tag für den Spinner vs. 60 Tote / 10 Wochen (=0,8 Tote/Tag) für das Virus.

57 dead Canadians

The Islamic Republic of Iran (“islamic republic” being an euphemism for “theocratic dictatorship”) accidentally shot down a commercial airliner, killing 167 passengers and 9 crew.

Now, this opens up a plethora of interesting questions. First: How do you accidentally shoot down an airliner? Traditionally, soldiers are given playing cards with silhouettes of enemy airplanes, like this:

Did this happen because of affirmative action gone bad, because it’s not really that brilliant an idea to have blind people work as air defense soldiers?

But, far more interesting: On this flight from Teheran, Iran to Kiew, Ukraine, 57 of the deceased were Canadians. So: Why the fuck were a full third of the passengers on a flight from a country 10.000 kilometers away from home to another country thousands of miles away from home?

Spies? American spies always pose as Canadians, we know that from the movies.

But this is not a conspiracy blog, this is real-world facts. And the answer is actually quite easy. The fake news media doesn’t exactly make the point, thus neither will I, but I invite you, dear reader, to come to your own conclusion.

Rest in Peace,

Mohammad Amin Beiruti, Mohammad Amin Jebelli, Mohammad Asadi Lari, Mohammad Hossein Saket, Mohammad Mahdi Elyasi, Mohammad Saleheh, Mohammed Moeini, Afifa Tarbhai, Aida Farzaneh, Alina Tarbhai, Alireza Pey, Alma Oladi, Alvand Sadeghi, Amir Hossein Saeedinia, Amir Ovaysi, Amirhossein Ghorbani, Amirhossien Ghasemi, Anisa Sadeghi, Arad Zarei, Arash Pourzarabi, Ardalan Ebnoddin Hamidi, Arnica Niazi, Arsan Niazi, Arshia Arbabbahrami, Arvin Morattab, Asal Ovaysi, Asgar Dhirani, Ayeshe Pourghaderi, Bahareh Haj Esfandiari, Bahareh Karami, Behnaz Ebrahimi, Darya Mousavi, Delaram Dadashnejad, Dorina Mousavi, Elnaz Nabiyi, Elsa Jadidi, Evin Arsalani, Faezeh Falsafi, Fareed Arasteh, Farhad Niknam, Farzahen Naderi, Fatemah Pasavand, Fatemeh Kazerani, Fatemeh Mahmoodi, Firouzeh Madani, Forough Khadem, Ghanimat Azhdari, Ghazal Nourian, Hadis Hayatdavoudi, Hamidreza Setare, Hiva Molani, Iman Aghabali, Iman Ghaderpanah, Kamyar Ebnoddin Hamidi, Kasra Saati, Kurdia Molani, Mahdieh Ghassemi, Mahsa Amirliravi, Mandieh Ghavi, Mansour Esnaashary Esfahani, Mansour Pourjam, Maryam Malek, Marzieh Foroutan, Masoumeh Ghavi, Mehdi Eshaghian, Mehdi Sadeghi, Mehraban Badiei Ardestani, Milad Ghasemi Ariani, Milad Nahavandi, Mohsen Salahi, Mojgan Daneshmand, Mojtaba Abbasnezhad, Naser Pourshabanoshibi, Nasim Rahmanifar, Negar Borghei, Niloufar Khamsi Razzaghi, Parinaz Ghaderpanah, Parisa Eghbalian, Pedram Jadidi, Pedram Mousavi, Pooneh Gorji, Razgar Rahimi, Reera Esmaeilion, Roja Omidbakhsh, Saba Saadat, Sadaf Hajiaghavand, Saeed Kadkhodazadeh Kashani, Sahand Sadeghi, Saharnaz Haghjoo, Sajedeh Saraeian, Samira Bashiri, Sara Hamzeei, Sara Mamani, Sara Saadat, Seyednoojan Sadr, Sharieh Faghihi, Shekoufeh Choupannejad, Sheyda Shadkhoo, Siavash Ghafouri-Azar, Sophie Emami, Suzan Golbabapour, Zahra Naghibi, Zeynab Asadi Lari

In case you spot the one or other odd name out; I’ve included the 46 Canadian residents without citizenship, too.

Also, I’d like to emphasize that this is a horrible tragedy. The women were, on average, totally hot. And intelligent, too:

Isn’t that how everyone imagines a photonic energy materials researcher to look?

Nah – just kidding; Ghani was a geographer. The photonic energy materials researcher looked like this:

In rem cerasus

I maybe should apologize to my mostly German readers for writing a lot about Canadian politics in the last months, but instead I’ll recommend not reading the news of your native country, for mental health reasons. Plus,

“Apology is a sign of weakness.”

Also, I could essentially argue exactly the same points about that German parliamentary commission who today austed their president, showing the same level of government “dignity” as liberals in the US now prominently do, but that’s pure politics, not society. If it were a politics problem, it could be solved by hanging a very, very few people whom nobody really likes, anyway. The Canadian event, though, shows how deep the societal problem has gone down over there – but fear not, my fellow Germans; we’re very adept at importing braindead ideas from across the Atlantic.

So, what happened in Canada?

Like every country with a “national” sport, like football for Germany (the real one, not the American one), the Canadians love their hockey (the real one, not the one played on lawns). Of course, this results in a very popular TV show with a very popular commentator on that sports. The guy, for the last 35 years or so, is was a guy named Don Cherry. Don, sharing his first name with Donald Trump, was recently fired for being a racist, sexist xenophobe (he tends to dress like a weird mix between Karl Lagerfeld, KFC’s Colonel Sanders and a drag queen, so I guess the “homophobia” slur was dropped in a rare fresh air of reason).

This was three days ago, and, due to the real popularity of Don Cherry, there’s been a plethora of articles on the subject, most of which could have been written by any 16-years-old feminist with blue hair and 15 minutes of sophistry buzzwords education. Canada, unlike most countries, at least pretends to have an unbiased press, so there was one article that really, really wanted to say “Don Cherry did nothing wrong”, but preferred not to – I assume, for reasons of job security.

Well, the “unbiased press” thing is not true; Canada just has the Toronto Sun, just like the German-speaking countries have the Swiss NZZ and… well, the anglophones the Toronto Sun, obviously. But I wouldn’t be me if I were to ignore low-hanging fruit on the left – I’m just getting older and can only bend down that far. Luckily, there’s Vinay Menon from the Toronto Star.

Making Don Cherry a martyr for the ignorant is a bad idea

While calling everyone not thinking Don Cherry should be crucified for Wrongthink or at least put in Room 101 with a cage of hungry rats on his stomach ignorant is, of course, a brilliant idea. Sure.

(Honestly: Mr. Menon is the most “reasonable” leftist I found).

Is it too soon to say a few nice things about Donald S. Cherry?

I see what you did here, Vinay. Writing “Donald”, while he’s largely known as “Don”, or by the weird nickname “Grape”, because… Canadians obviously are really into fruits? – and inserting a middle initial, that likens him to Donald J. Trump, doesn’t it? Just mentioning that in case anyone thinks I cut short the “reasoning” for firing Don above.

Probably. Why don’t I just try to humanize Hitler, right?

Wow. Godwin’s law fulfilled in the second sentence. Alright, open season for Nazi comparisons. I love this already.

The headshaking that is taking place from coast to coast to coast after the man in the amazing technicolour dreamcoats self-immolated on live TV is beyond theatrical

Stop right here. You could, as Mr. Agar above (what’s wrong with all those people named after food?), at least use “laughable“. My suggestion would be “embarrassing”, but we’ll get to that later.

These were the rules of engagement with Coach’s Corner[Cherry’s TV show]: it was like going to a bake sale and knowing some of the cupcakes had salmonella.

Is that fetish for Nazi things, like casually dropping vermin in sentences about people you don’t like, an Indian thing – like that affection for Swastikas, just pointing the wrong way (left)?

Saturday night, when Cherry somehow turned a good idea — why everyone should buy a poppy for Remembrance Day — into a grotesque attack on immigrants

Maybe, at this point, for everyone outside Canada, we should quote what Don literally said:

“You people love… You, they come here. Whatever it is. You love our way of life, you love our milk and honey,” he stated on Saturday. “At least you could pay a couple of bucks for poppies or something like that. These guys paid for your way of life that you enjoy in Canada…”

Oh, and we might clear up what a “poppy for Remembrance Day” is, just for all people not living in the (leftovers of the) British empire: To remember the proud British Canadian soldiers defeating the evil Germans in WW1, on November 11, you wear a (usually fake) red poppy flower on your lapel to show respect for the (fallen) soldiers. This, meanwhile, extends to WW2, where the proud Russian British Canadian soldiers defeated the evil Germans again, plus a few wars you might or might not remember, and, of course, not to forget the one guy who managed to get killed by one of his brothers-in-arms trying to shoot at ISIL fighters – yes, we’re really holding up true humanitarian values like “you can’t weigh one person’s life against tens of thousands”, even though the latter faced gruesome deaths in the trenches of WW1″ – that’s state TV; of course the one guy gets equal screentime.

Back to topic:

a grotesque attack on immigrants

See – this is why I choose Vijay’s article: He at least tries to reason that point, something many of his fellow Canadian journalists totally suck at.

Cherry’s “you people” rant against newcomers was one big dog whistle.

Now, if you aren’t a member of some obscure neo-Nazi group or Antifa (if either, please kill yourself), you might not know what “dog-whistle” is supposed to mean. I’ll borrow from urban dictionary:

to make an innocuous statement … that the general population will take a certain meaning from, but a certain group that is “in the know” will take away the secret, intended message. Often involves code words.

In other words, “dogwhistle” is an essentially leftist conspiracy theory (cf.: patriarchy, microagression, privilege) to take perfectly innocuous statements and turning the speaker into Satan himself by insinuating the worst possible intention of the usually reasonable – and, to mention innocuous, again – person.

So, Don Cherry’s crime is “othering”, another leftist – well, it’s not a conspiracy theory, it’s plain lunacy. “Othering” is – well, a dog-whistle for leftists, implying that differentiation between groups of people is, in any (unspecified) way, wrong. Now, in a diverse and open society as most western  countries – and Canada very much – claim to be, it’s totally fine to hold even the most stupid of opinions, but differentiating between individual people – and groups of people – is essentially how not-crazy people can tell Donald, for example, Trump and Donald, for example, Cherry apart – something leftists tend to have problems with, because they don’t really reason very well.

So, to show the completely and perfectly innocuousness, and, in any of the accusations effective innocence, of Don Cherry, let’s illustrate this with a more controversial example:

We should deport those criminal Niggers.

Luckily for me, I’m not a Canadian TV host; I’m sure I’d go to court for murder one because of all the heart attacks this would have caused, but let’s see what’s “wrong” with that:

In politics, it’s necessary to be able to express yourself in short, easily understandable sentences. So, instead of leftist idiotic malevolence, let’s put the opposing position in politically correct language: “No, we should open our borders to [whatever PC term for black is currently fashionable] rapists and murderers”.

Sure, there are some on the lunatic left that would approve of that, but even those aren’t stupid enough to not know they are a borderline mad fringe minority. As every western society likes to write in their constitutions, human beings are born with the ability to reason, so… you can’t reasonably argue this counter-argument, so you use what might be reasonably called a dog-whistle: use a “bad” word (“Nazi”), and all dogs jump and attack. Saves you the intellectual stress of arguing your point, which – well, you can’t even really say, because nobody would agree with anything you can say that has any real-life content and consequences (if you’re a leftist, that is).

So, what – and who – could take offense from that? Criminal Niggers? I honestly think they are despicable people and should be deported. I don’t really see anyone reasonably arguing against that, so fuck them. Non-criminal black people, for my word usage? Why? Don’t they think criminals are despicable? Well – deport them, too; fuck them. Do they? Then: Why are they offended? I was not talking about them. PC journalists not even personally affected by my statement? For what reason? Do they like criminals who could be deported? If so: Can we deport them, too? If not: can we change deportation laws? Any case: fuck them.

If you can’t follow my line of thought, please read it again. If you really, really don’t want to use your brain on an actually quite easy thing as this: Take five minutes to reflect on your life. If you can actually make a counter-point: I do have a very open comments section, feel free to compare me with Hitler. I’d love to hear a reasonable counter-argument not just relying on emotions – “oh look, those criminal negro murderer has so cute eyes, do you really want to see him die in a Nigerian Coltan mine?” (No, but I don’t have to, and – fuck him)

Back to topic. What was Don Cherry’s problem, again?

He turned a call for unity into an us-and-them snit steeped in stupidity.

“Us” and “them”. I see. Now, Vijay, again, there are different groups of people. I’m sure you love the intersectional feminists’ 500 genderqueer furry-planes, so… are they all the same? Or not? Could it be you are a bigot? Could it be, that, when immigrating to Canada, some people’s forefathers were able to spell the name of a random food like Mr. Cherry’s or Mr. Agar’s, and there’s a group of people who couldn’t spell melon correctly, Mr. Menon? Why is that, in any way, stupid?

the three words that came out of my mouth … was “go” and the last one was “yourself.”

Fuck. Welcome to the internet.

Yes, for the first time in my life, I told Don Cherry, a man for whom I will always have a soft spot, to do something that is anatomically impossible.

See… I haven’t heard from Don Cherry in all my life (until three days ago), and I’m just using his name for cheap clickbait from an international audience, but I’m quite sure that it’s illegal in Canada to question someone’s gender, and I’m not so sure that doesn’t extend to dildos, so I’m very sure that Mr. Cherry is able to fuck himself. You also probably never spent a thought on the etymology of this English expression which, unfortunately, has made it’s way into the German language. The Brother’s Grimm would have used “Go (have a) shit”, the more vulgar Turkish expression would involve either a goat, pig or your mother.

Good talk.

And seconds later, I felt blinding shame.

That’s the reasonable part of your brain screaming to be noticed. Unfortunately, we’re only 30% through this article, and you ignored it. But we can skip a lot.

“The only time I’ve ever really been mad is when I get criticized for honouring the troops,” he told me in 2011, …“I can’t understand it. I guess it’s not the thing to do. But you tell me why I’m wrong.”

I shrugged.

See – that’s a very Canadian thing to say. As a German, the answer would be a lot easier.

But this idea — it’s not the thing to do — is why I’m now second-guessing my own visceral reaction to his appalling commentary on Saturday.

See  – that’s why this article is so intriguing for me. Those are essentially easy questions to answer. I’m not a German-born Canadian, but neither am I a leftist or female, so I can empathize. Canada prides itself on being an immigrant country – and Canada was an Entente country in WW1, while Turkey was on the opposing side. What if you’re a now 3rd generation Canadian whose grandmother came to Canada after she lost her husband to Allied forces? What about the Kurdish people, who were essentially genocided, and nobody gave a fuck?

See – this would be a very interesting topic to talk about, but this would go far too far. If I, personally, were to emigrate to Canada, I’d feel very weird to wear a soldier-honoring poppy on Remembrance Day. Not that I’m not grateful for the Allied forces not killing both my granddads, but I’d feel like a total bigot if I’d publicly pay respect to soldiers my ancestors (probably) tried to kill (German granddads don’t tell much in terms of war stories).

The more important point, though, is “wearing a militaristic emblem”, because – well, that’s what the Nazis did, and I’m pretty convinced that wearing a militaristic symbol might be far more problematic in itself than – well, criticizing illoyal immigrants for (alleged) disloyalty to their country of choice. Can one wear a poppy honoring the fallen soldiers of the Great Wars while opposing the failed idiocy in Afghanistan? Questions after questions.

But this “that’s what the Nazis did” thing is the more important point: if you criticize “othering” in any resemblance of an honest way, Don Cherry would, like Hitler, whom you compared him to immediately, have to have called for “foreigners” to wear a different symbol than what “real Canadians” wear. Hitler didn’t request Jews to wear a Swastika to show loyalty to the Deutsches Reich. He required them to wear yellow Stars of David – for easier deportation to concentration camps.

To insinuate any parallels here is not only dishonest and insulting, but despicable. Indulging in this modus operandi of not being the least bit self-critical – well, never losing a war might do that to a country, I wouldn’t know. I don’t even need to go down to the low bar of internet trolls writing “well, I hope one of those ‘welcome’ refugees rapes you” to make my point, which you’d probably, again, find too offensive to think about for even a second, so: just think about the largely successful Afghanistan endeavor. It was, and rightfully so, a veritable scandal when Germany sent soldiers to Afghanistan, even though they essentially did fuck-all, because the majority of public opinion here is: War is bad.

And your leftist (!) politicians would have a really, really hard time arguing any resemblance of reason for defending Canada’s freedom at the Hindu Kush. Ours did, for sure.

Back to topic.

Is turning Don Cherry into a martyr really the smart path to take, Canada?

That’s an interesting question you should, maybe, have asked your “thinking” side of your brain before you went into all-out hysteria – again, about something completely innocuous.

Wouldn’t it be wiser to find a teachable moment here?

Oh, it would be a very wise teaching moment. Don Cherry offered an incredible message to immigrants: Canada welcome you, as long as you accept our values – which include a weird military fetish. Compared to public stonings, that’s an incredibly tolerant message and something you won’t find in most parts of the world. It’s essentially asking for nothing. But you, Canada, decided to pander to grievance-mongers instead. I’m sure petty grievances is what made Canada great. Focus on your core values and strengths. That’s the way to go.

There are a lot of Canadians who are not appalled by what Cherry said, but appalled that he was fired for speaking his mind, which he was paid to do

Also, he was, for being the (afaik) Canadian TV personality, not even paid that much. But that’s not the important point: It’s freedom of speech. You’re really, really taking a wrong turn here, as the internationally most famous Canadian of today, Jordan Peterson, has told half the world. You’re curtaining freedom of speech for made-up “human rights” – as opposed to unalienable rights, like – freedom of thought. You’re essentially firing someone for uttering his wrongthink. You’re very, very deep in leftist, post-structuralist, neo-marxist (think Derrida, Foucault, Habermas; I just skipped Vijay’s namedropping) – inspired “reality follows thought” school of idiocy. The British are indoctrinating children in “gender equal” bullshit that they’ll hit their noses on so hard when they hit puberty, which involves making fairytales gender-neutral.

It’s really, really good to hear that “a lot” of Canadians are not “appalled” (why would they?) by what Don said. But it’s disingenuous to now insinuate that you’re making a martyr; you’re setting an example to deter people from voicing their honest opinion. Don Cherry, obviously, was for standing up for essential Canadian values (so far, freedom of speech and a weird military fetish), and keen on showing respect for the people who gave their lives doing exactly that.

Cherry also gives a startling amount of his time and money to charity without PR. He gives in stealth.

Oh – that makes Don seem like what decent people tend to consider a “good” human being, as contrasted to do-nothing virtue-signalling bigots. How did the editor miss that?

What jumped out at me when Cherry waxed historically, sometimes while tearing up, was that he cared deeply about Canada and this world.
His critics, who are now dancing on his professional grave, will shrug off that last paragraph as total garbage.

I guess that’s what his critics do with every empirically justifiable “opinion”. There’s no surprise for me in this – except that Vijay Melon is now “othering” himself from other, but not less stupid, leftists.

They will say Cherry is an anachronism who has done untold harm to Canada’s reputation.

I can assure you, with Germany ranking #7 on the (ice) hockey world ranking list, nobody would have given a fuck if he called for a genocide, except maybe your stupid southern neighbors, who are too stupid to realize that, and maybe the Russians, who don’t exactly like you, anyway. Well, the Swedes and the Finnish would probably have a heart attack, too, if you hadn’t fired him, but they’re currently too busy being raped by immigrants not respecting the state forces.

They will call him terrible names.

No, they won’t. They’ll use the very limited vocabulary they have: “*ist, Hitler, -phobe”, maybe “dinosaur” and something with “past”. The more important point is: He – which is what makes me really respect him – doesn’t give a fuck.

His critics are dead wrong. Cherry made a horrendous mistake on Saturday night. I’m not disputing that his poppy commentary was disgusting.

(1) I think Don did something terribly wrong. (2) I also think Don’s critics are dead wrong. Conclusion: (3) I don’t really think about if what I’m writing contradicts itself in a single paragraph. Also, (4), I’m a bigot.

I’m also not sure how Canada gains by burying a national treasure and, perhaps inadvertently, turning him into cause célèbre that will inspire future jackasses.

Oh, Canadians seem too busy honoring their military (or not) for having time for learning about history, which only reasonable people like Don “Grapes” Cherry do. Or Jordan Peterson. So, short history from Germany: Calling Hitler horrendous, disgusting, even putting him in jail – totally worked for the opposition parties.

No, I’m not comparing Don Cherry to Hitler. I’m, of course, comparing the people who fired him to the Nazis; that’s what the Nazis did with the Jews after they came to power – getting people out of business for their “wrong” beliefs.

I’ll do a suitable Nazi comparison: When Germans, quite late, decided to abolish aristocracy, that failed (Germans aren’t good at revolutions – or wars, for that matter) – but there was a very popular folk song: Thoughts are free. Of course, that was prohibited (not just English prohibited, German verboten, of course) – which totally didn’t help. I’ll just quote one stanza:

And if I am thrown into the darkest dungeon,
all these are futile works,
because my thoughts tear all gates
and walls apart: Thoughts are free!

Almost a hundred years after it was written, and the first dissidents were put in concentration camps, Hitler visited one of those (not death camps, yet) places. The inmates were ordered to sing a song. That’s what they performed.

Everyone mentioned didn’t live past 1945, but I don’t think it’s difficult for you to decide which position won – again.

I really wish Cherry had just apologized

Yeah, and this is where my initial quote is from: Apologizing is a weakness, said Don Cherry his dad told him. This is only a reasonable thing if his dad also told him not to say stupid things you’re not convinced of and need to write 10 pages to weasel around it, and don’t take a moral stance you’re not willing to die for.

Vijay Melon is very keen on essentially apologizing for his own stance half the article, which only shows he doesn’t even think he’s in the right himself. Now, this doesn’t make the opposite true, you can be very convinced that you need to kill random infidels to get into paradise with 72 virgins – but that doesn’t make you right; it could also be a transcription error and what awaits you in afterlife is one virgin, who’s 72 (kudos).

But in the Don Cherry affair, this is painted as “freedom of speech” vs. “values”, which, with not even looking at the values, makes “values” lose (because it doesn’t include inalienable rights – like freedom of speech. You need to kill people for that, and most of them. Communists tried that in about 70 countries so far, the most recent example being Venezuela. Works every single time).

But he never apologizes.

Oh, Adolf Eichmann wrote a 700-page-“apology” before he was hung after his trial in Jerusalem. Didn’t help him much, did it? You started the Nazi comparison, Vijay, but Don Cherry is a few million dead short of the crimes of Eichmann, isn’t he? Shall we rather compare him to the “non-violent, intellectual resistance” group White Rose who opposed totalitarianism? Just because you “wish” he apologized? The White Rose movement didn’t apologzie, either – and was guillotined for handing out leafletsafter a show trial, just as was Eichmann. See – Nazi comparisons are really, really difficult, aren’t they?

In the great game of life, Grapes [Don’s nickname] just got a lifetime suspension for high-sticking [an illegal move in hockey] our values.

Your “values”, Vijay, are nicely expressed in your final judgement: Don Cherry is a “jackass”, a “monster”, “ugly” and “screwed up, royally”. For that, he should, I guess, be guillotined.

This makes me need to apologize, Vinjay Menon, including you being too unworthy to really remember your not-even-fruity name. and comparing you to Nazis, too. I accused you of the crime of pretending to be able to judge people by ascribing bad words to them – and compared you to the Nazis, for that reason. You, though, need five emotion-laden words to ascribe any pretend-blame to Don Cherry for voicing his opinion.

Nazi “judge” Roland Freisler famously needed only two to sentence a person committing the same crime – righteously criticizing systemic grievances – to death: calling him what’s best translated as “sleazy scallywag”. Comparing you to Nazis is unfair to Nazis.

What’s happening this week will only create new Don Cherrys.

And we really, really all hope there will be enough decent people willing to die for his ideals. 

In defense of reason

In defence of climate change ‘hypocrisy’

Oh, this is gonna be long.  And very, very stupid.

For Duncan Kenyon, the implicit criticism frequently comes in the form of a question.

Despite years spent developing sustainable energy projects, the Alberta regional director of the Pembina Institute still gets asked how he heats his home or if he drove to a meeting.

It’s the go-to criticism incessantly spat at environmentalists: if you produce even a modicum of greenhouse gases, you can’t say anything about climate change.

Actually, you can. I can say plenty of things about climate change. I heat my home with oil, I drive to meetings with a 240hp, 3-litre-engine car, and I feel perfectly fine talking about climate change.

“It makes me feel shitty, and I do everything I can,” says Kenyon.

That’s the burn of being branded an environmental hypocrite.

Oh – I see, we’re talkiing about people telling us to stop using fossil fuels while using fossil fuels themselves. That’s… well, why did we put “hypocrite” in quotation marks? That’s essentially the definition of hypocrisy, if you preach to the people to drink water while drinking wine. I’m very happy you feel bad about that, Duncan. You’re a horrible person, you should feel bad.

And then there’s the scorched-earth fire environmentalist Greta Thunberg’s recent visit to Alberta drew. The 16-year-old Swedish activist attracted both a crowd of thousands to the provincial legislature in October to join her weekly climate strike, and an explosion of scornful taunts of duplicity and pretence.

Are we using bad-sounding words to frame the criticism as invalid? Are we?

Despite using an electric-powered Tesla vehicle to travel around Alberta, Thunberg was called out for using petroleum byproducts. And critics branded the young demonstrators, who joined her climate strike in Edmonton, hypocrites on Twitter, chastising them for using buses to get to the event.

Oh, that’s, of course, not a valid criticism. I’m sure those Teslas grow on trees somewhere. Right next to the busses.

Even Alberta Premier Jason Kenney, opening a $200-million pipeline delivering gas to two of Alberta’s largest power plants on the same day protestors took to the streets of the oil-rich province’s capital, couldn’t resist taunting the demonstrators, wondering how they “charged their iPhones.”

Mr. Kenney seems to be a reasonable person. So, how do the activists charge their phones?

“When they power up the speakers at the Legislature today,” added Kenney outside Pioneer Pipeline, 70 kilometres west of Edmonton, “the power … came from power generated at power plants like this.”

Ah. i see. Now: this is how you make an argument. You state something, then you give evidence why anyone should assume your statement to be true. Remember this; it’s gonna be important quite immediately:

But is this really hypocrisy? Philosophers doubt it, calling the criticism a non sequitur that shuts down a crucial debate about climate change.

Eh – it’s great that “philosophers” “doubt” somenthing, but it would be really, really important to know why they doubt that. Because just because they do – well, they might also be idiots. Also, this sentence is a great example for a real non sequitur: Making one unsubstantiated claim, followed by another unsubstantiated claim, and then pretending you have somehow made an argument.

Besides, what’s wrong with being a hypocrite?

It makes you feel shitty. Says you, author of this fringe piece of idiocy.

It may, indeed, be hypocritical to protest oil extraction while also using fossil fuels to power up speakers at a climate change demonstration — but maybe that’s the point.

The… what? This isn’t even a logical fallacy. That’s just lunatic rambling.

In the art of argument, a non sequitur doesn’t logically flow from the statement that came before it. It’s a bad argument.

Thank you. Now, after we now know you know that, why are you doing it?

The hypocrisy criticism thrown at climate activists is also an ad hominem or personal attack because it’s directed at the environmentalist (the person) and not their argument about reducing greenhouse gases.

That’s not an argument, either. This simply implies that there is any kind of argument about reducing greenhouse gases. I’m all for reducing greenhouse gases, like chlorofluorocarbons, when they can be replaced with something better. But Greta and her flock of idiots are talking about carbon oxides, which – well, I wouldn’t bet my life on claiming they even are greenhouse gases. Also, what’s the alternative? A Tesla is far, far worse in CO2 emissions than most conventional cars, even when running on wind or solar power – which it probably won’t.  You’re preaching water to the masses while sipping wine. That’s hypocritical. That does make you a bad person, the “ad hominem” is justified. Also, I’m still missing any argument we even could discuss. There, again, needs to be an argument to start with.

“The point of making that argument,” says Mount Royal University philosopher Sinc MacRae, “is to label somebody a hypocrite and somehow denigrate them.”

Now – see, it wasn’t exactly difficult for me to argue that these people are hypocrites. I did argue that. Challenge my argument if you find a flaw somewhere. It’s not a label, it’s an empirically sound argument. If you just think hypocrites are descpicable: Don’t be one.

MacRae points to the anti-apartheid leader Nelson Mandela.

Mandela, stresses MacRae, was highly critical of politicians — but he became a politician, himself, serving as South Africa’s first black head of state.

Was Mandela a hypocrite?

That depends if he was highly critical of himself, wouldn’t it? But we won’t learn that.

Sure, but becoming a politician allowed Mandela to dismantle the legacy of apartheid. Many credit the former African National Congress head’s skilled leadership with preventing a civil war and fostering reconciliation in post-apartheid South Africa.

Oh, purpose hallows means. Great. Now, that kind of reasoning usually ends in death camps. But, again: This was not an argument, it was a non sequitur. Again. We didn’t finish discussing if Nelson Mandela was a hypocrite. We, actually, not even started. And now, there comes a civil war. Wow. We’re not shy on big words, are we?

“In order to justify the charge of hypocrisy … you have to show a connection between what [the so-called hypocrite says] or what they do,” says MacRae, “and it being a bad thing.”

No. I don’t have to show it’s a bad thing. The accusation of being a hypocrite always includes the hypocrite saying it’s a bad thing. I don’t have to prove my opponent’s claims. That’s his problem. I’m probably fine if he just shuts up.

Branding climate activists hypocrites for wanting to decrease fossil fuel consumption while at the same time burning them is, therefore, a logical fallacy.

See… a logical fallacy is, for example, thinking just because you make a claim, that this claim is true.

Abolitionists who opposed slavery in the United States, for instance, wore clothes that were spun from the cotton harvested by slaves.

Who gives a fuck? They wanted to abolish slavery, not clothing. I’d call a nudist wearing something a hypocrite.

“But that did not make them hypocrites,” Harvard historian Naomi Oreskes told The Nation in 2015.

That’s great. We now have a Harvard-educated whatever stating obvious facts. I’m sure that carries a lot more weight than, well, them being facts.

“It just meant that they were also part of the slave economy, and they knew it. That is why they acted to change the system, not just their clothes.”

Oh, we’re getting into Marxist territory. Change the system – sure, we don’t know how, but we’re sure there’s gonna be paradise later on. Or a death camp. More likely a death camp.

The hypocrite argument also falls apart because it ignores big structural factors.

See… it doesn’t fall apart because you claim that. Again: You would have to argue that point.

Sure, some people do live off the grid, or walk and ride their bikes everywhere. But, for most of us, it’s nearly impossible to escape using greenhouse gases.

That’s not true. go to the nearest forest and freeze to death. Be my guest, there’s still gonna be 7 billion people on the planet after that. Nobody will really care.

Fossil fuels don’t just heat our homes and fuel our vehicles, they are also the foundation of almost everything from electronics to painkillers.

Again: Forest. Freeze. Death.

“Our whole society is structured around fossil fuels,” says Duncan Kenyon of the Pembina Institute.

Great, Duncan. I completely concur. That’s one of the reasons we don’t live in forests where we freeze to death, like millions and billions of people did in the centuries and millenia before we explored those fossil fuels. In my opinion, that’s a good thing. If you think otherwise: go to a forest and freeze to death. I have 0 problems with that if that’s what you want; you’re a free human being with his own will.

It’s, therefore, nonsensical to suggest that having a carbon footprint means you can’t legitimately raise concerns about climate change and its potentially dire ramifications.

This is just cheap dialectics, the layman’s terms would be “strawman”. Nobody said you can’t.

Protestors demonstrating cuts to the health-care system wouldn’t likely forgo lifesaving treatment at a hospital if they needed it.

For having explained what a non sequitur is, this article is filled to the brim with them. Also, this statement makes zero sense. I’d take the argument if the people were protesting for cuts to the health-care system. But nobody protests for that. They’d be bigots and rightfully ignored, for exactly that reason.

Similarly, you can be a capitalist and critique the free-market system.

No, you can’t. If you are a capitalist, you have to critizise there is no existing free-market system anywhere on planet earth.

You can work in the oil and gas industry and recycle.

I don’t see the conflict here. Does anyone? Please?

In fact, people who work in the energy industry have done a lot to cut greenhouse gasemissions.

Good. That makes them, in my view, a lot better people than environmental activists, who have done fuck-all except wasting air.

Climate change activists don’t deny they use fossil fuels. They just want to stop or limit their use of them.

Nobody, again, is stopping you from going to the forest and freeze to death. Nobody. Honestly. You are human beings with agency; if you want to stop or limit your use of fossil fuels, please do that. I do respect your agency. Please respect mine; I do not want to freeze to death in a forest.

Plus, individual action won’t be enough to address climate change.

I concur. Though, being German, I can tell you that genocide isn’t too popular. and science isn’t exactly settled if even that would help, there’s quite a chance that the climate just changes because it always has.

Despite its flawed logic, the hypocrite criticism gets repeated over and over again. It’s become the go-to line for ending discussion about climate change.

It’s not flawed logic because you claim it is. Again: You haven’t argued that.

And it’s so fucking easy. Why should I come up with a “better” reply when you don’t even have anything to say?

Asking environmentalists how they charge their iPhone or if they drove to a protest is really aimed at shutting down debate.

No, actually: asking a question is usually intended to start a debate. You’d need to answer the question, of course, for it to be a debate. Like my question “why don’t you go into a forest and die?”. I can guess the answer (you don’t want to, I assume), but then tell me how I do not freeze to death, either, please.

Calling someone a hypocrite usually ends a conversation fast. And there’s power in that.

Having a convincing argument also usually ends a conversation fast. You, very obviosly, have none.

These personal attacks lower the quality of our political and economic discourse, says MacRae.

Really? So, having a 16 year old girl tell us we should all panic wasn’t rock bottom already? Really? How’s that “discourse”? Where’s the argument? What am I supposed to reply to that? Where’s the content? It’s great to be able to “argue” that critics of Holy Greta can’t even refute her arguments. The logical problem here is: There aren’t any.

“It leaves only two choices,” he adds. “Either you’re perfect … or you’re evil and you’re a complete, complete failure.”

Didn’t the last strawman burn nicely enough? Did we really have to make a second, identical one?

And if you’re a failure, you’re deemed a phony whose concerns about climate change aren’t valid.

Your “concerns” might or might not be valid, but for a political discourse, you’d have to argue them.  As in my valid concerns of freezing to death. What, exactly, makes your concerns more valid than mine? Why are my life-threatening concerns of no importance to you? Also, how do you charge your phone? That’s quite a simple question.

Kenyon says politicians such as Jason Kenney are really using the hypocrite critique to discredit climate change activists and shut them up. It’s much easier, after all, to not talk about complex issues than to tackle them.

That’s so great that Kenyon says that. Why should I give a fuck about what Kenyon says? Some bum at the train station also says plenty of things. That doesn’t make them true. Or an argument, for that sake.

Also, “how do you charge your phone” is not a complex issue. You are the ones not talking about that. Not freezing to death, is, historically, an enormously complex issue of really, really vital importance. but you aren’t talking about that, either.

It’s a powerful trick politicians use to discount environmentalists because they are “talking out of both sides of their mouth,” says Kenyon.

I’m pretty sure Kenyon is an idiot. Said: me. Decide whom to believe, we’re both just saying things.

Some environmentalists, however, wear the scarlet letter of hypocrite like a badge of honour.

Like minority groups who have reclaimed derogatory terms used to vilify them, some environmentalists embrace the label of hypocrisy.

Oh, like the feminists who write “slut” on their naked tits and flash that in city centers? How did that work out? Is there a single person on this planet who doesn’t think you are a slut? Are you happier now?

After all, recognizing the inescapable nature of fossil fuels is kind of the point.

Essentially, that would be my point against idiotic climate activism. Plus, it’s not inescapable. Most of France doesn’t freeze to death because of nuclar power, for example.

“No one can live a non-hypocritical lifestyle in a meaningful way,” says Adam Kingsmith, a self-proclaimed hypocrite, who highlights his hypocrisy in order to spark change.

“a self-proclaimed hypocrite”. That’s… great, I don’t listen to hypocrites. It would be stupid to do so. But I do wonder why you “self-proclaim” that. You could as well declare yourself to be an idiot – not that that’s not obvious, anyway.

Kingsmith says he’s forced to consume fossil fuels. It’s unavoidable.

This is still not true. Forest. Freeze. Death.

The doctoral student with York University’s political science department remembers being called a hypocrite while at an environmental protest in Vancouver. Of course he is, he concedes.

Also, York university seems to accept idiots as PhD candidates.

Instead of a bad thing, Kingsmith argues that hypocrisy actually highlights how central fossil fuels are to our lives.

See… when fossil fuels are central to our lives, maybe, just maybe it’s a bad idea to give up on them? I know why those eco-terrorists just terrorize and never argue. I essentially just won without even saying a word, that’s how wrong they are.

“We have to be hypocrites to exist,” he says.

No, you don’t have to be a hypocrite to exist. You could as well exist without being a hypocrite. Plus, there’s no reason for you to exist.

“Hypocrisy is based on the kind of idea that there’s … a choice to not be hypocritical,” he adds.

That sounds like a very reasonable idea. I can even argue why that might be true: I exist, and I’m not a hypocrite. See? Arguing can be so easy.

“And I think that sort of choice doesn’t really exist. And I think if we had more frank conversation around the fact that … to be hypocritical or not hypocritical is really a non-choice.”

To be frank: You’re wrong. I’ve made that argument already. You’re just repeating your idiocy. Repeating idiocy without making an argument is useless.

Instead of hypocrisy being a criticism, it should be an important launching pad for conversations about addressing climate change and our reliance on fossil fuels, argues Kingsmith.

No, he doesn’t “argue” that. He claims that. When I say “we should burn feminists on the stake, they are witches”, thats’s much closer to an argument than what Mr. PhD candidate utters, but that doesn’t mean we should burn witches feminists (of course we should).

And a big part of that conversation could play out in the news media.

Deceit, duplicity, deception. Hypocrisy is a hallmark of stories in the news.

Actually, that’s not news. News involve facts. Facts, of course, are closely connected with hypocrisy, as facts can unmask asshole preachers.

But should the news media highlight the carbon footprint hypocrisy of environmentalists?

Will the carbon footprint of environmentalist change if media reports it or not? No?

Sean Holman, a professor of journalism at Mount Royal University, thinks journalists need to be careful when shining a light on hypocrisy in this way.

Those universities seem really keen on making idiots go there.

Holman, who recently wrote an open call to Canadian journalists to start reporting on climate change as an emergency, calls the hypocrisy criticism directed at environmentalists who use buses to get to protests, for example, a “specious argument.”

A “specious” argument. This – well, looks a lot like a specious argument, if there would, again, be an argument. Are we backing this claim up in any way, Professor?

“The perfect,” he stresses, “should not be the enemy of the good.”

No, of course we are not. Please, if that’s your professor: Skip the lecture and talk to a bum at the train station. You’ll learn far more from him. For example, how to not freeze to death without fossil fuels (maybe; plenty of bums freeze to death every winter).

“Pillorying people who can’t be perfect because the world doesn’t allow them to be perfect is not the approach [the news media] should be taking.”

Oh, the evil, evil world, oppressing the good people who just want to go to forests and freeze to death, keeping them from doing so. That’s like “patriarchy” in feminist ramblings. Also, this is Marxist, again. Yes, Marx was mostly correct in identifying the problems of society. His “solution” was just worse. You eco-terrorists; I’m not even sure if you’re correct with the problem identification part. And you don’t have any solution.

Holman says it’s fair game for the news media to call out environmentalists who take private jets or yachts to get to climate summits.

But it’s another thing to echo and amplify the hypocrisy criticism when politicians such as Jason Kenney use it to question the validity of climate change protesters because they dare to charge their mobile phones.

Why? If we do CO2 calculations, I’m pretty sure someone like Al Gore taking one trip in a private jet has a way better greenhouse gas emissions balance than 100.000 people changing their phones?!

Also, who’s challenging the “validity” of climate change protesters? I’m, for my part, challenging their sanity.

“It’s being used as a weapon to attack those people who are taking action on the most important issue of our time,” says Holman.

Mr. Holman doesn’t seem to think that “not freezing to death in a forest” is an important issue, if not the most important issue.

“And that does not seem to be a particularly honourable political tactic nor does it seem to be a particularly honest political tactic.”

Mentioning that fossil fuels do quite some good is “not honorable” and “not honest” and “a political tactic”? Are we stacking up a little high here, just to make up for total lack of arguments?

And such criticism can poison the water, polarizing the debate about climate change.

There is no debate about climate change. It’s also unnecessary; climate is changing, was always changing and, quite certainly, will keep changing.

No doubt, many of the people criticizing environmentalists feel threatened.

i don’t exactly feel “threatened”. i just don’t want to freeze to death in winter. if you think that’s asking too much – go freeze to death in winter, or I’ll call you a hypocrite and paint you as an idiot.

A convoy of counter-protesters made its way from Red Deer to the legislature at the same time as Thunberg, stressing they are “tired of celebrities coming into our province and trying to tell us how to run our oil and gas sector.”

There was a celebrity at Greta Thunberg’s idiotic protest? That’s news. Why haven’t I heard that?

And climate change activists feel the planet is in danger.

That’s great for them. Why, again, just for sake of a possible argument, should I give a fuck about how some activists “feel”? Again: Freezing to death, honestly, seems to be a more relevant problem.

Kenyon, with the Pembina Institute, argues the new way for Alberta is a low-carbon future. He says the province needs to do much more to prepare for an economy with much less fossil fuel at its centre.

That’s actually sound economic reasoning; those fossil fuels won’t last forever. At the current rate, the 174 billion barrels they have will only last another 150 years. Why doesn’t anyone ever think about the childrens’ childrens’ childrens’ childrens’ children?

The hypocrite criticism, warns Kenyon, could also erode the goodwill of the many Canadians who currently consume Alberta’s oil and gas but want to reduce their use. He predicts those people would switch to renewable alternatives now if they could.

Mr. Kenyon is now provably an idiot; this assumption of his is contradicted by reality: The “many Canadians” either can’t switch, or they don’t want to, but there’s nothing keeping them from doing so; which makes this statement wishful thinking at best.

The more you criticize people, cautions Kenyon, the happier they’ll be to switch to renewable energy.

Add this to the “idiot” arguments list. Have you ever heard of resilience? Propaganda works only to a degree; but personally criticising (sane) people for ideological reasons will, quite inevitably, just result in them opposing you, even just for opposition’s sake, be very, very convinced about that and will, in the end, win. You can see that in SUV sales in Germany, which are booming; not despite, but due to the fact daily media preaching how bad SUVs are, or in any North Korean Gulag, where the inmates are told they are worthless pieces of shit every morning  – that just makes them wanna live more than ever before. This, also, is why dictators usually get murdered. Psychologists call that “human nature”. The opposing position would be “Marxist Lunacy”.

Valued lies

The vast nation of Canada is trying to keep up with Germany in luncatic leftist policies. Notably, the national-socialist  province of Quebec follows the great example of Germany’s established politicians to suppress the rise of fringe right-wing parties (now taking 23,4% of the vote) by establishing a “democratic and Quebec values” test. But hey – Canada will be the 14th country to introduce “plain (read: ugly) packaging” for cigarettes, which has, so far, failed in 13 countries to have any “positive” effect, so why not copy another policy which has done fuck-all (that’s not entirely true, plain packaging raises the share of illegally imported cigarettes – even on an island like Australia)?

Well, of course, that test was criticized as being racist by the Association of Muslims for Laicity (Even by German standards, Canadians have an overwhelming capacity for Doublethink), but also noting that people can lie. Of course, the laizist Muslims of that drywet asscociation don’t know their Quran well enough to know that that’s a holy duty, lying to infidels, but who cares if it’s a government who comes up with test questions? They’ve provided a sample of five. Let’s take a look:

1. In Quebec, women and men have the same rights and this is inscribed in law.

That’s a yes/no question. I suppose the “politically” correct answer is yes, while the factually correct answer is: no. It’s not legal for men to have abortions. It’s legal for women only. I’m sure there’s more, but that is sufficienct ot prove my point without becoming an expert in the laws of a province I couldn’t put on a map (the part of Canada you’re likely pointing at are either the Northwest Territories or Nunavut. You can’t even get the Northwest Territories right; that’s Yukon).

2. Choose one or more drawings that indicate who is allowed to marry in Quebec.

The document describes illustrations of:

Two men
Two women and one man
Two women
A man and a woman
Two men and one woman

That’s a weirdly unspecific question, and as the illustrations contain neither children nor animals and Canada is a civilized country, so: all of the given choices are accurate. Actually, there’s quite a redundancy here, there should be two men and two women. Any of those are, I guess, fine to marry at any time; just (probably) not all at once. But this important restriction isn’t given. Plus: Are we sure the people in the illustrations are of legal age? That’s a very, very tricky question.

3. What is the official language of Quebec?

French and English

I’m sure that’s a primitive trick question; this test is English, that would be too obvious. I’ll take French- which is correct, as it turns out. I’m quite sure that violates some national laws or the constitution, but hey, who’d expect goverments to play by the rules they make?

Since March 29, 2019, by virtue of the law respecting the laicity of the state, all new police officers may not wear religious symbols.

Hmm… thinking about the idiocy of that law, which isn’t exactly enforcable – think about a Christian cross necklace under the uniform shirt or the obligatory anal plug when you pray to the spaghetti monster or whatever Muslims or Sikh people wear… Yeah, I’m sure this levels in idiocy with this test, so I guess that’s a yes. Now – this test is far too easy; you don’t even have to lie.

Identify which situations involve discrimination. A job is refused:

To a woman who is pregnant
To a person lacking the required diploma
To a person because of their ethnic background

Ups, I was judging too early. This is really hard. Now, if I were to find out where Quebec is and emigrate there, I’d want to open a business; Canada is essentially like America, land of unlimited opportunities, just with more space and less morons. So… let’s assume I open a business, we’ll call it Shitlord’s Brainwashed Black Bimbos Brothel. I’m not a politician, I can only lie that much and expect to be profitable, so: pregnant women are out, that’s not exactly “bimbo”. Needs to have at least a B.A. degree in Gender Studies, otherwise can’t prove the “brainwashed”, and I don’t want to be sued for fraud (plus, what else do you do for a living with a degree in Gender Studies?). Ah, and no white girls, either –  I guess that doesn’t require an explanation. No… I don’t think any of that should be “discrimination”; I couldn’t run my business, otherwise.

Thinking about that, this test might be a lot more useful if it included questions like “is prostitution legal in Quebec?”.

Inquiry into that Genocide

I have reported on that horrible genocide targeting indiginous women, girls, LMNOP people and cute kittens in Canada a few weeks ago.

As a good world citizen – and especially as a German, knowing that the world is supposed to recover on German soil the German way, I have sent an inquiry to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague. It’s been 4 weeks, and I have also contacted the parties of Mr. Trudeau, responsible perpertrator of said genocide, and the opposition conservative party of Canada, responsible for that genocide 1984-1993 and 2006-2015, for their opinions on why nobody is thinking of the children and doing something. None of them has replied.

Dear readers: It is your duty as a citizen appreciating the rule of law to make sure such crimes do not go unpunished. The ICJ can’t simply duck it’s responsibilities, something has to be done. And together we are stronger, we are the many. So, I ask you: Please start your own inquiries into why the Dutch Elite™ is letting that go.

The ICJ can be reached at

My letter is shown below, feel free to use that in part or in full. Also consider to ask your representative Member of Parliament for support!

Subject: Prosecution of Genocide in Canada

Dear Sir or Madam,

It has recently come to my attention that there is an ongoing genocide perpetrated against groups of indigenous people in the nation of Canada (see, for example,
The current leader of said country, a Mr Justin Trudeau, has, in my layman’s understanding, confessed to that horrendous crime against humanity (see, for example,
I would like to know if the ICJ is already underway in building a case against Mr Trudeau and other perpetrators; or, if not, why not?
In case the ICJ needs someone to file charges to bringing these genocidal criminals to justice, I would like to file those charges hereby.
Thank you very much for your time and work,
with kind regards,
Dr. Shitlord