Daily Archives: December 30, 2017

THE TRUE COST: How the UK outsources death to Dignitas…


Date: December 30, 2017

01) THE TRUE COST: How the UK outsources death to Dignitas

“In the UK it is currently illegal to assist someone to die.

As a result, many people travel to Switzerland to arrange an assisted death.

One British person travels to Dignitas to die every 8 days.

Using the voices of those most affected, we uncover the real stories behind the statistics.

Warning: some people may find the following content upsetting”

Very good resource.


Heather Mac Donald: How Much More Delusional Can University Students Get?…

Date: December 30, 2017

01) Heather Mac Donald: How Much More Delusional Can University Students Get?

“Heather Lynn Mac Donald (born 1956) is an American political commentator, essayist, attorney and journalist. She is described as a secular conservative. She has advocated positions on numerous subjects including victimization, philanthropy, immigration reform and crime prevention. She is a Thomas W. Smith Fellow of the Manhattan Institute.

In this clip, she talks about delusional university students who see a threat in anything even though they are the most privileged people. Until this victimhood complex stops, there can be no win for free speech. Full clip, quoted under fair use: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2-JOINlddM

Deconstruction: The Lindsay Shepherd Affair…

Date: December 30, 2017

01) Deconstruction: The Lindsay Shepherd Affair

Notice of Raw Links:

“In November 2017, Wilfred Laurier University teaching assistant Lindsay Shepherd was called to a disciplinary meeting by two professors (Nathan Rambukkana and Herbert Pimlott) and one administrator (Adria Joel) to discuss her screening of a video clip from TVO’s The Agenda with Steve Paikin during a class she was conducting. Shepherd taped the proceedings (http://bit.ly/2mMPvok) and released them, causing a national and international firestorm of outrage over the manner in which she was treated.

The video clip featured me discussing the provisions of Canada’s compelled speech law, Bill C16, with Professor Nicholas Matte of the Mark S Bonham Centre for Sexual Diversity Studies at the University of Toronto.

During the proceedings, Shepherd was accused of breaking the law, both federal (Bill C16) and provincial, violating Wilfred Laurier’s standards of conduct, and of being actively transphobic. Rambukkana compared me directly to Hitler (and Milo Yiannopoulos, to be fair), failing to recognize that what I predicted would happen in the aftermath of Bill C16 (see http://bit.ly/2AZqj4B) was exactly what was undertaken by the tripartite disciplinary panel he headed.

Twenty of Rambukkana’s colleagues signed a letter of support for his actions (http://bit.ly/2DiedjN), despite the almost universal condemnation. In addition, great efforts were made by the neo-Marxist/postmodernist/critical theory ideologues to cast Shepherd as the perpetrator, as noted in Quillette (http://bit.ly/2l3Np0h), and the Wilfred Laurier Faculty Association president wrote this missive (http://bit.ly/2C9Ulm1) decrying “the violent speech and actions that have, unfortunately, become a daily occurrence on our campuses” despite there being no evidence whatsoever for such violence.

On December 18, Dr. Deborah MacLatchy, President and Vice-Chancellor of Wilfrid Laurier University, released a statement on the independent fact-finder’s report on the Lindsay Shepherd affair, exonerating her completely, stating that the disciplinary meeting should have never occurred and indicating even that the claim of student complaint was essentially fabricated (although Dr. MacLatchy has released a statement of clarification about that: http://bit.ly/2C8xWWp).

Dr. David Haskell, Associate Professor, Digital Media and Journalism / Religion and Culture and Dr. William McNally, Associate Professor of Finance at the School of Business and Economics (both of Wilfred Laurier) joined me for this discussion (December 19), where we “deconstructed” Dr. MacLatchy’s response. They are not alone at WLU, by the way, in their opposition to the ideological zealotry that has possessed their campus, and most others. Hopefully, in 2018, more professors will come to their senses and join them.

Why should you care? Because this is, in truth, the state of the modern university — and what happens there will happen everywhere five years later.”

This is Post 3000!…

Date: December 30, 2017

It was seeming really bleak, even just a day ago…any hope that I might reach post number 3000, before the end of 2017.

…But, here we are!

A rather hapless chap recently said…he’s never seen anything like me…

…And he is correct…

You visit Our Love Frontier…you learn what it means to encounter a force of nature, baby…


I’d like to thank everyone who has stuck with me, all these years.

Here is to the next one thousand posts!

Let’s get back to kicking ignorance’s ass!

Child porn law goes nuts: 14-year-old girl charged for nude selfie…


Date: December 30, 2017

01) Child porn law goes nuts: 14-year-old girl charged for nude selfie

“The ACLU of Minnesota calls the charges absurd and unconstitutional.

A 14-year-old girl is facing charges in Minnesota juvenile courts that could lead to her being placed on a sex offender registry—all for taking a nude selfie and sending it to a boy at her school…

The ACLU says the First Amendment protects teen sexting

In a 2002 case, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protected the creation of virtual child pornography—in which no actual children were used in the creation of works that appeared to involve sex with children. The court held that laws against child pornography were justified because protecting children against exploitation was a compelling state interest. But that argument doesn’t apply to a ban on virtual child pornography.

The ACLU argued that a similar point applies here. It doesn’t make sense to say that a 14-year-old girl is coercing herself into creating child pornography. Hence, in the ACLU’s view, the state lacks a compelling interest to limit the expressive rights of 14-year-olds to create nude selfies and voluntarily share them with peers.

When a teenager sends a nude selfie to a peer “in an attempt to indicate romantic or sexual interest, the same compelling risk of physical and psychological injury does not exist,” the ACLU argues in its brief. “Thus, the statute infringes upon constitutionally-protected speech.”

No harm done, hence, an absence of self interest on the part of the state?…

Of course…logically, this is accurate…

…But there are so many people, who break down and weep violently, over the knowledge [or rumor] that anyone else saw a fourteen year old flash “their goodies”…

…I’m certain the laws must take into consideration, the mental and emotional stability of these mental wrecks…

…All those people having to carry the psychological burden, of knowing about [or suspecting] such things…Oh, the humanity!…

…Indeed…It’s probably the primary “real trauma”, most of these laws honestly exist to combat.


Tech companies respond to repeal of net neutrality!…

Date: December 29, 2017

01) Tech companies respond to repeal of net neutrality!

“Jayce talks about how tech companies have responded to the recent FCC ruling on net neutrality.


Google and Facebook are troubled by the net neutrality repeal, and pledging to maintain net neutrality in practice?…

…Oh, the irony…

These companies are not standing on any moral high ground…They’re some of the worst abusers of neutrality, presently on the internet.