Is Justice Kind?

Is Justice Kind?

No, Justice is not kind. Justice is not supposed to be kind. Justice is not supposed to be nice. Justice is supposed to be fair. Justice is supposed to be right and just. Should everybody have enough food to eat? Yes, they should. Would it be just to give people food for free? No, it would not.


The fact that the question states ‘for free’ implies that food has a cost. If food has a cost, then who pays for it? If food is given away for free to some people or everybody then what is going to be paid to the people that food has a cost? What is that cost? Land prices? Labor to plow, sew, water and harvest produce?


If someone owns a farm and some people are hungry should the farmer be compelled to give food or land to people that are hungry? How did the farmer get the land? Did they buy it with hard-earned cash? What are the people hungry? Are they lazy or just going through a difficult time? Are they unintelligent or discriminated against or handicapped?


Is it the governments job to be kind to citizens? If you think it is the government’s job to be kind to citizens, then who is going to pay the government, so it can be kind?

Apples are oranges

Are taxes just? If two people, the same height, strength age and gender, similar in every aspect other than the fact that they are two people. If they were to pick apples for money and accordingly if apples were picked for an 8-hour day and one, lazy, preferred to refer to his phone constantly and as a result only picked 10 bushels of apples whilst the other picked 50 bushels, should they both be paid the same amount? What if one picked 35 bushels and one pick 25 bushels, should they be paid the same?


If a person earns more than someone else, should they pay more tax? Why? Should we reward the lazy or the dumb by charging them less tax? Should we penalize the smart and eager and charge them more?

Should everyone pay the same taxes, say $5,000 per year? If everyone was to have to pay $5,000 each year as a tax would that be just? Would that be kind? Is it just to charge one person more tax than another person? Why?

Currently, governments collect tax from citizens. Some citizens pay millions of dollars a year in tax whereas other not only do not pay but are paid that tax. Is this Just? Is that kind?


Should governments be allowed to implement programs that only are available for a small sector of the population and should they be able to exclude people that pay taxes. Is this not a conflict of interest? Is this just? Is this kind?

Kind or Just

Should we be heading towards a society and culture that is kind or is just? It is my belief that we are moving from a just society to a kind society. Additionally, as so many are excluded from so much that has been implemented, I also feel that this ‘kind’ society is not even kind.

Justice is Justice

Justice stands on its own, alone and solid as a stone. When one adds an adjective to it, it becomes all but justice; mob justice, social justice.

On Genetics Versus Environmental Constructs

On Genetics Versus Environmental Constructs

In consideration of a wage gap:

As countries become more egalitarian, that is, as countries become more gender neutral, less influenced by the marketed and perceived social constructs leftist and feminists promulgate, differences between men and women grow. The scientific data on this are clear. The overwhelming majority of the data were generated by left-leaning biased individuals and you cannot blame these findings on conservative scientists. These results were a shock to all involved and were the opposite of postulated hypotheses.

You cannot look at the data and evidence and lean towards different theories that counter one another unless one of the leaning theorists is being intellectually dishonest.

Although it can be argued that there is no place on earth were the genders are fully equal, the Scandinavian countries have by far come closest at this point in time. However, again the data show that an opposite effect of which the gender equality types have predicted is occurring. This is not based on theory or derived based on any political perspective, it is based on data driven results. The findings are that as we become more gender equal, gender differences grow, they do not shrink. Thus, gender equality has a negative relationship with gender differences.

For the most part, men and women are more alike than they are different, however small differences at population levels can turn into very large differences at the extreme. For instance, men and women are broadly similar when it comes to aggression though men lean a bit more than women towards aggression. If one was to choose a man and woman randomly from a population, 6 out of 10 times the man would be more aggressive than the woman. However, if you take the 1 in 100 most aggressive people, you will find that they are all male and therefore, the overwhelming proportion of people in our prisons are male.

What this proves is that equality of outcome is not natural. This situation cannot and should not be equalized. We should not put more women in jail because the most extreme of the aggressive are men. There are more men in prisons than women but 50% of the population are women. Equality of outcome dictates that that we should put more women in jail.  If we implemented equality outcome we would be implementing an unfair system that is prejudiced, sexist, and bigoted.

If you were to look at bricklayers, 99 % of them are male. Should we apply equality of outcome to that? Over 80% of the population in universities studying the humanities and social sciences are female, again should that be equalized? If you think this is the way to equality and fairness, then we are guaranteed to fail.

Men work longer hours, more dangerous jobs, more likely to work outside, more likely to move, more likely to work in jobs in STEM which are scalable and accordingly men make more money for those reasons. This is all hidden under the premise that the reason why men and women make different amounts of money is because of their gender which is a very simplistic, intellectually dishonest analysis.  Trying to address this is all but impossible when feminists and leftist purport that they are interested in freedom of choice and equality of opportunity, which is fine except you will not end up with equality of outcome which they foolishly demand.

Equality of outcome is a flawed concept borne of environmental causation opposed to genetics because if it is genetics that is responsible for differences between male and females and gender diversification in general, then changing the environment via equality of outcome will not work. If genetics are at all responsible in any percentage no matter how small, then equality of outcome is not a solution and should be avoided. You cannot legislate genetics. That is, you cannot make a law to change eye color. However, you can legislate how many women are MPs. You can legislate how many women are CEOs. You can legislate how much money women earn.

If differences are underpinned in genetics instead of 100% environmental, then the leftist’s solutions are obsolete, and principles of the left are obsolete.  Solutions dictated on equality of outcome then become discriminatory, sexist and bigoted. If you allow men and women to make their own choices regarding work, you do not get equality of outcome. You get what you see now in the workforce.


The lack of understanding of this fundamental premise between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome is what has been pushing our society into a gynocentric society for 50 years. The lack of understanding this fundamental premise between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome is what is driving the MGTOW community and lifestyle of millions of men today.

The failure of the left and feminists to accept genetics instead of sexism and bigotry, as the cause of their despair and resentment is reason for all men to become MGTOW for the time being. However, it will become apparent at some point in the future that it is time for them to go.


Is Marilyn Gladu an Oxygen Thief?

Is Marilyn Gladu an Oxygen Thief?

Canada is legalizing marijuana, and this is a great thing for humanity, Canada and the citizens of Canada. No longer will the government be able to strong-arm its citizens at the end of a gun to do what they want you to do because of no other reason than it is illegal, somehow. Why would anybody in their right mind put someone else in jail for wanting to smoke pot? Pot smokers are chill. Put people in jail for wanting to drink as drinkers are messed up. No, don’t do that because that is the same as putting them in jail because they smoke weed, except for the fact that alcohol is poison, makes you violent and not be able to control yourself, makes you black out, destroys your vital organs and is highly addictive and is directly responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths yearly.

Canada and other countries where marijuana is illegal uses tax dollars to police marijuana to the tune of billions of dollars per year. People caught violating these ridiculous laws are put in jail costing the taxpayer and have the rest of their lives ruined. They usually lose their jobs and any possessions that there were still paying on. Additionally, they are torn from their family and children, again with force by the might of the state. Why? Because they broke a law that should not be a law that upon research finds one wondering how it even became a law. It is a law that was legislated in a manner similar in a way as if I was the PM and did not like blue M&Ms and decided to outlaw them. Anyone caught with, eating, distributing or manufacturing blue M&Ms from this day forward will be subject and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

The fact that marijuana is illegal gives the state access to violate not only citizens that violate these lame laws but puts innocents at risk as well. The price of marijuana is artificially distorted which is the primary reason a criminal element is attracted to it in the first place. Everything thing about this is bad for Canada and citizens. This type of legislation is dumb. Anybody who defends it is somebody you should be extremely afraid of. These people are psychopaths, can justify anything and are willing to kill you to maintain some form of legitimate façade to their irrelevant lives. These types of people are not intelligent, and their arguments are not grounded in any form of fact, reason or accountability. It is easy for anyone who takes the 5 minutes to think about it that the fact that marijuana is illegal is the problem. Please let me state that again and let it sink in and understand it. The fact that marijuana is illegal is the problem with marijuana. It creates a plethora of problems which cascade through society.

We need politicians who are not bought and paid for by political parties or any business or industry. We need politicians who are intelligent and use their intelligence to conduct themselves while fulfilling their duties.  Because of the fubar governments have created around the marijuana issue, crime and the black market that did not exist before legislation was created by government is rampant. Government is responsible for the entire mess. There is no doubt that, when considering past decisions, that in legalizing marijuana the last thing to be considered is going to be the citizen. Sure, they will say that they are concerned about this and that, but it will be lies because that is what the government knows how to do and does best, lie.  They will tax and regulate this industry to death and to the point that it is still advantageous and profitable to sell in a black market, police budgets will actually swell in an attempt to ‘fix’ the problem which should not exist and people’s lives will continue to be ruined by the government, oh I mean by them because they are bad people and taxes will increase, government will become bigger and whose fault is it, yours. You allow this. Don’t mutter expletives under your breath at me, you vote morons into office and then you say, they are the morons. No, you voted morons into office. Morons are morons and they act moronic and they make bad mistakes. You made a mistake. Own it and fix it.

Marilyn Gladu is one of these morons you voted into office in Sarnia-Lambton, Ontario. I hope you are all ‘Gladu’ did it. In a display of her superior intellect and a display of pure genius, this oxygen thief polluted the ear drums of the Canadian Parliament with her vitriol stating that Mexican criminals will invade Canada if we legalize marijuana.  She is almost correct. Mexican criminals will invade Canada if you legalize marijuana and then take advantage of Canadians by keeping the price of marijuana inflated so the Canadian government can suck huge amounts of taxes from Canadians. This is the same as swapping marijuana drug dealing from street gangs to the Government gangs. The only difference is that Government gangs are more dangerous. The have bigger weapons, more thugs and imprison people and they do it without a conscious or competition. I do not think the purpose of legalizing marijuana was for the government to become drug dealers. I thought it was because the whole idea is dumb and has no logical or academic purpose and a large sector of Canadians enjoy marijuana and that this entire thing was about doing the right thing.

What this Marilyn Gladu is tacitly inferring is that anyone that smokes or uses marijuana products are criminals. What Marilyn Gladu means to say is that she thinks that 50% of Canadians, at least, are low-life criminals because they smoke marijuana. That if marijuana is legalized more low-life people will come to Canada, namely of the marijuana-smoking criminal Mexican persuasion.

We voted this oxygen thief into office. Who is the moron here? How dumb does one need to be to think that if one can go to the local corner store, 7/11, gas station or Green Gables and buy (if the government doesn’t mess the price up so you can afford them, which they will mess up) a packet of your favorite brand of spliffs or edible marijuana products, that some criminal element is going to either import (through the US mind you), grow illegally at great risk and no profit, marijuana to compete with the government?

Gentlemen, this is exactly why we need MGTOW. MGTOW see things through rose-colored filters. We need MGTOW in office. Going your own way is one thing but these oxygen thieves are going to invade your own way whenever, where ever and however they can and the use of any form of intellect is not a requirement. We can hide and go our own way for only so long until they don’t have anyone else to come after and infect.


Tit for Ta-riff

Tit for Ta-riff

Canadians have started to boycott U.S. goods. Nobody said the Canadians were smart, now did they? What’s the guff on this issue anyhow? Do Canadians put a tariff on US Dairy? Well if they do then it is Canadians who are paying that extra 270% and they should be pissed also!

Oh, but the Canadian dairy workers, the poor uncompetitive Canadian dairy workers.

Tariff, Schmariff

Tariffs do not matter, deficits do. Currently it appears that the US has an $18 billion trade deficit with Canada. Why would it matter what tariff any country puts on any product from any country if there were no deficit among those countries? It wouldn’t. So why does this matter to Trump that a 270% tariff is on dairy products? It doesn’t. He is upset over the deficit. He does not want a deficit with any country. Which country wants a deficit with another country?  There are no countries that want a deficit with another country.

Lefties like Kind and Nice — Screw Facts

Why does Canada think it is OK that the US has a deficit with Canada? Because Canada has a victim mentality and is for the most part leftist and thinks in lines of kindness instead of rightness. What is right and fair is that there is no deficit. Why is there a deficit? Because Canada does not have a huge economy and the US does and Canada thinks that the US can afford to have our trade agreements a little lopsided. After all, shouldn’t your neighbor be nice and kind?

Nice and kind is a state one degree beyond what is right. For instance, what is right is no deficit, what is kind is allowing a deficit to help Canada a bit. However, let’s take a closer look at the situation.


The US has suggested it might put tariffs on steel and aluminum products from Canada. Canada has issued that it will retaliate dollar for dollar. This is fair, right? Well if it is, then I like these types of deals. The US has the largest economy on earth. Canada’s economy is 17th and the American Economy is approximately 10 times larger than Canada’s. The American population is approximately 10 times larger than Canada’s as well. If PM Trudeau wanted to ‘retaliate’ then why would he not make it 10 dollars per 1 dollar. After all, one dollar in the American economy is the equivalent to 10 in the Canadian economy. For every 1 Canadian dollar there are 10 American dollars and if you wanted the impact upon both nations to be equal it would need to be 10 times that of which strife is imposed upon Canada to affect the US in a similar fashion.

Rose-Colored Glasses

Realistically, if you look at the trade deal now from this perspective, even if there was neither a surplus nor a deficit, Canada, with its 1/10 the size of economy and its 1/10 the size of population is receiving the better end of the deal and is benefiting to a higher degree. It might sound somewhat condescending, but Canada should be grateful to be able to even participate in this kind of deal, having one of the best, largest and most active shoppers next door. This gratefulness does not even take into consideration the security Canada receives having the US next door. This gratefulness does not even consider the military budgets Canada does not have to implement as they enjoy special protection status via proximity.

Shooting One’s Foot

Canada has only one bordering country. Trade with any other country is going to add a substantial transportation cost onto is products’ price tags. America has the world knocking at its door wanting to do business with the biggest, best, most active shopper with the deepest pockets in the world. It does not really need Canada. With that said, Canada offers great value and products to the US, including extremely important products which the US requires. Indeed, trade between the two countries is symbiotic with both countries benefiting. Canada should hold its head high as it competes with and for the best market in the world. So why all the cry-baby limp-wrist antics of PM Trudeau? One of the exceptionally strong aspects of this relationship between the US and Canada is that both countries genuinely like and enjoy each other. President Trump, although you wouldn’t know it from lame stream media, is not a bully and I am sure that if PM Trudeau was to enter serious, honest talks with the President, that Canada would end up once again with the better end of the deal. That yes, the US would be kind to Canada and give it a bit more and hope and help it get on its feet stronger for a better and brighter future.

Oops There Goes Another one

So now, if Canada does not piss off the US too much more, they might still be able to hope for a fair deal. Unfortunately, PM Trudeau is a feminist PM in a feminist country that leans lopsidedly to the left. Canada only knows the PC culture of nice and kind and does not understand fair and right. Feminists are not fair or right. It is no wonder that Canada has consistently trended as the number 1 region on earth for MGTOW for years now ( PM Trudeau’s antics are what he needs to do to appease the feminist, leftist, simps, knights and jina’s. however, I think he is inadvertently red-pilling folks by the thousands but the truth and facts particularly regarding trade is something that seems to only be seen through rose-colored glasses.


Should Canada Care about Climate Change?

Should Canada Care about Climate Change?

There always seems to be controversy about climate change. Climate change is a dumb term. The climate changes, always. It is a natural thing. However, global warming was also a dumb term. The Globe warms and cools in phases again, naturally and in phases.

Carbon Foot Print

We hear about a carbon foot print. The carbon footprint is a measurement of greenhouse gases emissions per capita (person) in tons per year. For instance, the top five countries who have the highest carbon foot prints are Qatar (39.7), Kuwait (24.4), United Arab Emirates (21.8), Australia (18.6) and Turkmenistan (17.5).

Total Emissions Per Country

However, as the measurement is per capita (per person) we need to look at countries based on total emission to obtain a more truthful statistic. The top countries that emit the most Co2 in kt are China (10,641,789) United States (5,172,336), India (2,254,968), Russia (1,760,895) and Japan (1,252,890).

Carbon Sink

There is a third metric that needs to be considered as well and this is the concept of a carbon sink. A carbon sink is a forest, ocean or other natural environment viewed in terms of its ability to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. A desert area with no water, forests or vegetation in general would have a much lower absorption value as a carbon sink than a country rich in old-growth forests, ancient forests, soil and bodies of water. Additional considerations are the development level or degree of a nation and the population per square kilometer.

The concept of a carbon sink has not been operationalized yet, that is it has not been assigned a quantifiable value, as far as the author of this article is currently aware. One can be assured that a complex formula has been devised however, because of the dynamic nature of carbon footprints and sources of carbon sinks there are no overall values that have been assigned on a country basis.

For instance, when looking at the top 5 countries that produce the most greenhouse gases, 4 of them contain substantially large land masses and one could be forgiven if they assumed that Russia was a greater carbon sink than Japan. If true, this means that some of Russia’s carbon emissions could be considered nullified compared with Japan.

Benefit cost ratios are less favorable. Given higher costs concerns over competitiveness matter. E.g. European carbon tax made conditional in 1992 on US and Japan adopting the same. They didn’t. US concerns over developing country competition.

The Truth

Today, with all the leftist propaganda and social justice warriors’ issues it appears that society is heading for a collapse or at least a substantial shift regarding ideologies. In a sentence society can be described as there is a substantial percentage (50%) of the societal population that just wants to be left alone and the other half of the population will not leave them alone. That sounds somewhat simplistic and there is no argument that some of those that just wan to be left alone are negligent regarding the posterity of the globe. Additionally, there should be no argument that there are those who constantly dictate to others what they should do who take things too far with no evidence in a bid to make others bend to their will in a classic power trip scenario.

Regarding ‘climate change’, are we destroying our planet? There is no doubt that humans affect the environment of the planet. Are we destroying it? The evidence is just not in. Yes, we are affecting it in a detrimental way, however to what extent is the planet resilient and self-healing? Unfortunately, the faction that constantly dictates to others state they know the answer. Their steadfast confident attitudes do nothing but motivate those that are more evidence-based with their decision-making process to dismiss their claims. Is there a god? Do we know if there is a god or not empirically? No, and anyone who refutes this claim with their platitudes of intelligent design arguments and ‘evidence is all around you’ statements do not understand debate, epistemology and rely on too heavily on faith.

Another unanswerable question is, is there life after death? Anyone who claims to know this answer can safely be ignored. No, they do not know. Whether they answer yes or no, they should be and will be ignored by a more logical, reasonable and accountable mindset.

Canada’s Impact on Climate Change

Canada’s carbon footprint is substantial coming in 9th at 15.5 tons of greenhouse gases per person per year. Coincidently, Canada is also the 9th largest producer of greenhouse gases producing 555, 401 kt annually. However, to not excuse Canada, the top 5 producers produce 21x, 11x,7x, 5x, over 3x and 3x as much greenhouse gases as Canada per annum.

Only one country in these top five are larger than Canada and could compare with Canada regarding being a carbon sink and that is Russia. Russia also has over 10x the population as Canada. It can be safely assumed that the fifth largest producer of greenhouse gases does not compare at all with Canada regarding its ability of being a carbon sink and that is Japan.

Canada’s GDP per capita is $48,100 and is one of the most sparsely populated countries on the planet. 90% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the American border in the southern region of Canada. Canada’s northern half of landmass is so cold that it remains permanently frozen all year round locked up in permafrost.

Canada has more fresh water than any other country with up to 3 million lakes and has 20% of the world’s fresh water. Canada has 9% of the worlds forests and can fill Cambodia, Cameroon, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Nicaragua, South Korea, Sweden, Uruguay and the United Kingdom with its forests. Canada has adopted practices protecting soil’s role as a natural carbon sink since before 1991.

How does Climate Change and Climate Change Policies Affect Canada?

Canada has the 3rd largest oil reserves in the world only surpassed by Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. Canada is 9th in the world in recoverable shale oil. Canada is 5th in Shale gas. Canada is the 5th largest exporter of oil in the world exporting 1.576 million of barrels a day. Any policies that affect either the price of oil or the daily usage of oil negatively affects Canada’s economy.

Canada’s Greenhouse gas emissions policies recently implemented by PM Trudeau are currently reducing the Alberta oil sands production and negatively affecting Canada’s economy.


Realistically, any form of minor global warming benefits Canada. Between 1906 and 1982, the area of ice shelves fell 90 % as arctic winter temperatures fell approximately 1C every decade for the past 6 decades. As a result, the Northern Sea Route and the Northwest Passage could soon be open to commercial sea traffic and this will directly compete with the Panama Canal as early as 2050. Some may consider this shallow and environmentally problematic, however in considering modern and prehistory climate models, this phenomenon is natural and indeed if it can be prevented the side effects caused could be substantially more problematic inducing a chain reaction of catastrophic events.

Additionally, the impact on agriculture of climate change has a positive affect on agriculture production and farmable land size and land use initiatives for Canada.

It should be noted that overall, Canada is a carbon sink and not a carbon source globally. That means Canada’s carbon footprint does not affect the globe in any manner at all other than reducing the amount of carbon it nullifies that is produced by other leading countries of greenhouse effects.

The implementation of climate change policy creates great hardship on the tax payer and citizen of Canada. Climate change policy drains the public bank, disrupts private industries and greatly harms Canada’s economy. If there are any developed countries that can safely ignore the entire climate change conversation, it is Canada as long as Canada commits to a frugal mindset regarding producing greenhouse gases and pollution.

Some will argue that Canada needs to set a good example for the world. No, it does not. No one cares except odd pompous virtue-signaling politicians at formal political dinner parties. Then, why should others reduce their emissions? because their emissions are affecting the world.

Still others say that allocating funds on greenhouse policy, even if not necessary, help stimulate the economy both financially and technically. I suggest those individuals read the Parable of the Broken Window by the great French economist Frederick Basitiat who eloquently dismisses fiscal waste and destruction for what it is, bad for the economy.

In conclusion, it must be stated that although Canada is large in stature and mass, that Canada is comparable if not smaller population-wise than some of the world’s largest cities. Yes, the second largest country in mass in the world has only 35 million citizens. Canada should not participate in notions or implement policy regarding climate change. At the very most, Canada should not be a trail blazer and be an outlier only to implement policy when prepared and with the least economic effects on the Canadian citizen and economy.