Hotspur

@Frost7 @eagleeye2805 Fair enough. My bad.

@NoLongerChained @eagleeye2805 The subject of this thread is WW1, not WW2, brainlet. I know all that.

Dude with low IQ, listen carefully: If the USA don't get involved, first with your banks then with your military, Germany rightfully wins WW1 and creates an economic, scientific, cultural and social European superstate based on scientific progress, social traditional values, meritocracy and discipline, plus acts as fair partner, broker and diplomat in the rest of world. Our elites were driven primarily by honor and decorum and the notion of greater societal good, and not mercantile greed like the British in the past and the US afterwards. So please stop your narcissistic, whiny gaslighting and crying. Europe isn't one single entity and there is ZERO REASON why any German or Austrian patriot should ultimately ever be grateful to the US. For what? For destroying 1,500 years of tradition and continuity? GTFO

@SnowyEngland I respectfully suggest that, if you're not already, you might follow Sama. His 'Ruminati' posts are excellent.

Learning, all the time...

@goodfoodgal I have nothing but contempt for those who faked it. You either have principles or you don't.

I heard a crazy story about the Covid jabs yesterday. A friend of mine knows a teacher that lost his job for not getting jabbed. When he was eventually allowed back (cause, ya know, “science”) he spoke to a number of other teachers who didn’t get the jabs either but faked it to keep their jobs. The crazy part is that group of “unvaxxed” teachers were the only ones not getting sick. In fear of being found out - they pretended to be sick like everyone else so no one would get suspicious. 🤣🙄🙄

@AreOhEssEyeEe @MarkJCarney Small point of order: he isn't gaslighting, he's outright lying.

@MarkJCarney Stop gaslighting Canadians.

More women and men are signing up to serve in the Canadian Armed Forces. Last year we set out to rebuild, rearm, and reinvest in our military. We’re working fast and seeing results – including the highest number of new recruits in more than 30 years.

@Clever_Blender @Terence4610 @LichTamara @LaurieSimpson So the courts could find that the banks, like the govt, was acting illegally. (They won't, of course.)

@NoLongerChained @Terence4610 @LichTamara @LaurieSimpson It was the banks interpretation to the Emergency Economic Measures Orders during that time. laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulation…

This is, quite frankly, disgusting. Freeland colluded with bank CEO’s to unconstitutionally and unlawfully freeze Canadians bank accounts with NO order from a judge or any parliamentary oversight. She giggled like a school girl when she delivered her announcement that would leave families with no way to pay their mortgages, buy medication for their children, pay their child support, or feed their families. We have text messages from bureaucrats trying to reason with her, perhaps even (GASP!) speak with organizers, but our (s)elected civil servants don’t speak to us little folk in the genpop. She is no hero for democracy and continues to fail upwards, the Liberal way.

@TexasCowgrl1111 That's nothing. In Canada the govt plans to tax realised property gains. So the theoretical increase in the value of your house will be treated as income for tax purposes.

Hypothetically…….. I’m being taxed on money I never made. Let that sink in. If I bought my property outright for $60,000 in 2009 Now the county says it’s worth $246,000. Did I sell it? No. Did I make a profit? No. Did I get a check for $246,000? No. But my taxes jumped like I did. That’s the problem. This isn’t income. This isn’t cash. This is a number someone decided on paper — and now I’m being billed for it. If my stock portfolio doubles, I don’t pay taxes until I sell. If my income doesn’t increase, I don’t magically owe more income tax. So why does owning a home work differently? Why am I being taxed on unrealized gains? A house isn’t just an investment — it’s where people live. And this system means you can do everything right, pay off your home, and still get squeezed harder every year because of a number you never turned into money. You don’t truly own something if you can be taxed out of it. This isn’t about “services” or “inflation.” It’s about being charged for value you never received. And people are starting to notice. This needs to be on everyone’s mind✔️

@FedUpInTheMid @Saffron_Sniper1 Stalin was planning an attack on Germany. Pre-empting it was the right decision. Allowing the BEF to escape instead of using its defeat to enforce a British peace or surrender was the mistake.

@Saffron_Sniper1 Whatever you do, never attack the soviets. Get what you want, hold it and make peace.

Today is the dat when Hitler was born. If you could go back to Adolf Hitler’s time, what one piece of advice would you give him before World War II began?

@AgentShitski @Saffron_Sniper1 Agreed. Also, don't declare war on the US. Then, with Britain defeated, there would be no fighting on two fronts and the Bolsheviks would have been defeated.

@Saffron_Sniper1 Don't let the British escape Dunkirk. Encircle them and force capitulation. Take Britain so it can't be used as an aircraft carrier.

@Clever_Blender @Terence4610 @LichTamara @LaurieSimpson Under that rationale I assume that freezing bank accounts can be interpreted as an 'economic order'; although I doubt that it fits the original meaning of the phrase.

@NoLongerChained @Terence4610 @LichTamara @LaurieSimpson Banks were complying with a government order that was legally in force at the time. The Emergency Act explicitly empowered the government to issue economic orders to banks, which gave banks immunity from civil proceedings. The banks were acting legally, the gov was not.

@Terence4610 @Clever_Blender @LichTamara @LaurieSimpson The law enforcement and judiciary systems are corrupt and the enforcement of law and justice is politicised and therefore discretionary.

@Clever_Blender @NoLongerChained @LichTamara @LaurieSimpson How can they if this is deemed illegal then the banks can do nothing about law suits?

@SatireSquadHQ Two observations: 1) Polls are bullshit, designed to reinforce the govt narrative du jour. 2) Anybody who believes Trump is to blame for Canada's economy is an idiot.

OTTAWA — A new poll has found that 89% of Canadians believe Donald Trump is to blame for Canada’s struggling economy, citing everything from rising grocery prices to housing costs and general financial anxiety. How, exactly, Trump is responsible remains unclear. “It’s complicated,” one respondent said. “But every time something feels off, he seems like a safe bet.” The survey found strong consensus across demographics, with many Canadians expressing confidence in their conclusion despite being unable to point to a direct connection. “I don’t follow all the details,” another participant admitted. “But it just feels related.” Meanwhile, when asked about their own biggest financial concerns, respondents pointed to inflation, taxes, housing affordability, and stagnant wages—issues largely tied to domestic policy. Analysts say the results reflect a growing tendency to assign complex problems to simple, external causes. “It’s easier,” one observer noted. “You don’t have to rethink anything—you just have to agree on who to blame.” Because when the economy gets harder to explain, the explanation doesn’t get more accurate— It just gets louder.

The Jewish CDC official says that the ‘Solution’ to Vax hesitancy is to get rid of all of the White people. When they tell you, believe them!

In 1902, the town of Windsor had 26 bakers, 22 butchers, 14 dairymen, 10 fishmongers, 27 greengrocers, and 33 grocers on a single high street. A total of 132 food shops. Most of them owner-operated. Most of them selling produce, meat, fish, and dairy that had been grown, raised, caught, or milked within fifteen miles of the shop door. In 1950, independent grocers still sold 54% of all food in Britain. Alfred Roberts, father of Margaret Thatcher, ran one of them in Grantham. Resale Price Maintenance, the legal arrangement that had protected small shops from being undercut by large ones, was abolished in 1964. By 1969, there were 3,400 supermarkets in Britain. By 1990, the butcher, the baker, the greengrocer, and the fishmonger had been shut down on roughly every high street in the country. Windsor in 2006 had one butcher, zero dairymen, zero fishmongers, and a Waitrose. The food did not become unavailable. The food became centralised. The butcher who hung beef for 28 days was replaced by a plastic tray in refrigerated aisle 7, containing beef vacuum-packed on the day of slaughter and driven 400 miles to the distribution centre. The fishmonger who told you what had come in on the morning boat was replaced by a frozen fillet from a factory in Vietnam reassembling fish caught by a Chinese trawler off the coast of Namibia. The baker who made bread with three ingredients was replaced by a "bake-off" counter where frozen dough is warmed at 6am to smell vaguely like a bakery. The food is cheaper now. The food is also worse. We are being told the first fact as though it cancels out the second.

@Clever_Blender @Terence4610 @LichTamara @LaurieSimpson True. Name the population of a western nation that, ultimately and in spite of protests, doesn't.

@Terence4610 @LichTamara @LaurieSimpson Canadians are so nice, they just comply 'yes sir' with everything the government asks.

@Phanoulaurent @ChenuFlorent You clearly didn't read the Pfizer and Moderna clinical trials. Both showed an ARR of around 1%. I think you will probably agree that that proves that they couldn't have 'worked'. Unless their purpose was something else entirely......

@ChenuFlorent Qu’est-ce qui vous a fait changer d’avis ?🤔 le fait que l’ARN est eu un prix Nobel ? Le fait que le vaccin fonctionnait ? Ou serait-ce la puissance des réseaux qui vous ont fait croire que des non-scientifiques avaient plus de pouvoir que des scientifiques ? L’ignorance sûrement

Jusqu'à 2020, j'étais plutôt pro-vax parce que j'avais confiance en la science. En 2021, je suis devenu un anti-vax confirmé après avoir compris que la science mentait pour faire en sorte que je m'injecte un produit nocif. Depuis, après m'être intéressé à tous les sujets auxquels j'accordais jusque là une confiance aveugle, j'ai réalisé que je vivais dans un monde de mensonges dans lequel des gens mal intentionnés nous dirigent et suis devenu un complotiste averti qui ne délègue plus sa confiance. C'est dur, mais salutaire…

@WiretapMediaCa Based upon the way in which 'democracy' functions in actuality, the award is entirely appropriate.

Chrystia Freeland just won the “Hero of Democracy” award for illegally invoking the Emergencies Act, freezing the bank accounts of peaceful protesters, and having their heads smashed into the pavement during the Freedom Convoy. Oh… and let’s not forget the time she tried to funnel billions to a company that didn’t even exist.

@Frost7 @eagleeye2805 Chain Weitzman to Churchill on jews getting the US into WWII: "We've done it once [WWI] and we can do it again." Churchill wanted the US in the war but so did Roosevelt. So he manipulated Japan into a situation where they had to attack to survive. Do some research.

@eagleeye2805 FWIW the US shouldn’t have even entered that war. Britain hoodwinked us into it. Mass media has successfully erased that, but that was one of the primary reasons behind the US public not wanting to join WW2. We got tricked into the last one by foreign maneuvering.

@JeffKnolls @Martyupnorth Very many 'suddenly and unexpectedly' are. Getting any mRNA jab is playing Russian roulette. One day the chamber will have a bullet in it.

@Martyupnorth Huh, aren't we supposed to be dead? x.com/smalls2672/sta…

Now do COVID you: 1 - You invented an asymptomatic disease. 2 - you convinced people without symptoms to get tested 3 - you used an ineffective test to scare people into believing they were sick 4 - you made them quarantine 5 - you banned doctors from actually trying medication in off-label ways 6 - you promoted an untested, unproven, experimental gene therapy 7 - you administered a drug without obtaining proper consent from your patients 8 - you supressed the data when it showed that the vaccines were harfull You are the perfect example of why Canadians don't trust their doctors anymore. Fuck right off.

@KalmiaLatifolia @HannibalLiquor @SamaHoole You, sir, are confirming the quality of your Rockefeller medical conditioning and the arrogance it brings. You know the narrative-based minutiae of a great deal and the actuality of very little. Your indoctrination is complete. I pity you. Have a nice day.

@NoLongerChained @HannibalLiquor @SamaHoole So you're confirming for everyone that you still can't muster a substantive response? That's pretty futile. It seems you lack the common sense when to STFU.🤷

For approximately 10,000 years of dairy consumption, all milk was raw. Raw milk contains enzymes, including lactase, which helps digest the milk sugar that many people are supposedly intolerant to. It contains immunoglobulins that support immune function. It contains beneficial bacteria that populate the gut. It contains proteins in their native, undenatured form, more easily digested and less likely to trigger immune reactions than the denatured proteins in pasteurised milk. Pasteurisation was introduced in the late 1800s to solve a specific problem. Urban dairies were filthy. Cows were kept in basements. Milk was adulterated with chalk and formaldehyde. Tuberculosis was transmitted through contaminated milk. Children were dying. The solution was to heat the milk. The solution worked. The children stopped dying. This was a genuine public health achievement. The solution was then applied to all milk, everywhere. Clean farm milk from a healthy herd on pasture, tested regularly and produced under modern hygiene standards, is now subject to the same requirement as the filthy urban milk of 1880. In most jurisdictions, raw milk is illegal or heavily restricted. In England, it can be sold from farms but not shops. In Scotland, it is banned entirely. Raw chicken can make you ill. So can raw eggs. So can salad. So can sushi. The risk is managed, in every other food category, by hygiene standards and testing. The risk in raw milk is managed by prohibition. The food that sustained every dairy culture in human history for 10,000 years is treated by the regulatory framework as more dangerous than raw fish eaten in a restaurant. The regulation was designed in 1880. The farm has moved on. The regulation has not.

@ihtesham2005 The example of charitable donation presupposes two things: 1) The money will go to the cause in question and not be diverted elsewhere. 2) the administration is efficient. Neither of these can be relied upon. So I don't give retailers a tax break by donating at the checkout.

A philosophy professor in 1972 published a paper that, if you actually read it and accept the argument, proves that you and everyone you know is doing something evil every single day. His name is Peter Singer, and the paper is called Famine, Affluence, and Morality. It has been sitting in philosophy syllabi for over fifty years, and the strangest thing about it is not how radical the conclusion is. The strangest thing is that nobody has been able to find what is wrong with the argument. Here is the argument, and here is why it might change how you think about the next cup of coffee you buy. Singer starts with a distinction that sounds academic until you feel its full weight. There are two categories of morally good actions. The first is the obligatory. These are things you must do. You must not murder. You must not steal. If you see a child falling and you can catch them with almost no effort, you must catch them. Failing to do any of these things makes you a bad person. The second category is the supererogatory. These are things that are good to do but not required. Bringing coffee and pastries to an early meeting when no one asked you to. Rounding up your grocery bill to donate a dollar to charity at checkout. Nice things. Generous things. But if you do not do them, no one condemns you. Almost everyone in modern society places giving to famine relief in the second category. It is nice to donate. It is extra. It is charitable. If you do not do it, you are not a bad person. Singer says this is exactly wrong, and here is the thought experiment he uses to prove it. Imagine you are walking past a shallow pond and you see a small child drowning in it. You can easily wade in and pull the child out. The only cost is that your clothes will get muddy. You will be late to wherever you were going. Your shoes will be ruined. Nobody reading this thinks you are permitted to keep walking. If you kept walking and later said at a meeting that you let a child drown because you did not want to get your pants wet, everyone would consider you a monster. Not a flawed person. A monster. Singer says if you accept that intuition, you have already accepted the principle that drives his entire argument. If it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we must morally do it. Now add the facts. Hunger, disease, preventable death. These are very bad things. Donating money to efficient relief organizations like Oxfam actually prevents these things. The luxuries we spend money on, a new car when the old one works, a new jacket when the old one is fine, a cappuccino on the way to work, are not of comparable moral importance to a child's life. The conclusion follows automatically. You must give that money away. Not should. Must. Every time you buy something you do not need, you are walking past the drowning child. Singer anticipates the two objections that will occur to you, and he dismantles both. The first is distance. The child in the pond is right in front of you. The child dying of famine is ten thousand miles away. Singer says proximity used to matter because distance used to prevent you from knowing and from helping. It does not anymore. You know about the suffering. Efficient organizations can convert your money into saved lives on the other side of the planet within days. The moral mathematics does not change because the child is farther away. The second is numbers. In the pond, you are the only person who can save the child. In the case of famine, millions of other people could also donate and do not. Singer says look at the pond again. If you saw the child drowning and noticed a dozen other people standing around watching, would their presence release you from your obligation? If you walked into the meeting and explained that the child drowned but other people were there too, would anyone accept that as an excuse? The answer is obvious. What matters is whether the child is saved. If other people are failing to act, that does not dilute your obligation. It concentrates it. This is where the paper becomes uncomfortable. Because if the argument works, and Singer thinks it does, then the implication is not that you should donate a little more. The implication is that you should give away everything you spend on luxuries, up to the point where giving more would cause you suffering roughly comparable to the suffering you are preventing. He calls this the strong version of the principle, and he thinks it is the correct one. Nobody lives like this. Singer himself comes closer than almost anyone, donating a significant portion of his income, but even he admits he does not reach the level his own argument demands. The common response to the paper is that it is too demanding. Singer's reply is blunt. The fact that you do not like a conclusion is not an argument against it. Morality might simply be much more demanding than we have been raised to believe, and our comfort with the current standard is a feature of the society we were trained inside, not evidence that the standard is correct. The uncomfortable thing about this paper is not that it is extreme. The uncomfortable thing is that every time you try to find the flaw in the argument, you find yourself rejecting a premise that, in any other context, you would accept without hesitation. You believe the child in the pond must be saved. You believe distance does not matter morally. You believe other people's failures do not excuse your own. You believe a cup of coffee is not worth a human life. And yet when these beliefs are lined up next to each other, they produce a conclusion that almost nobody is willing to live by. Singer has been making this argument for more than fifty years. Philosophers have written entire careers trying to find the crack in it. The cleverest responses exist, and they are worth reading. But sitting with the paper on its own terms, before anyone has told you how to dismiss it, is something closer to an experience than a reading. The hardest question the paper leaves you with is not whether Singer is right. The hardest question is why, if you suspect he might be, you are going to close this post and keep living exactly the way you were before.