Interesting, But Not Quite There

2,455 words

Lately, my browser aggregator has been handing me some stories which seem interesting, but didn’t quite deliver. They were promising at first, but in the end let me down. What a tease! Here are a few of these almost-there efforts.

Canada’s hostile elites abandon population replacement migration – well, not quite.

First up is a story by the Associated Press, “Canada will reduce immigration targets as Trudeau acknowledges his policy failed“. Well, it’s aboot time those hosers stopped their open borders policies, eh? More seriously, I was quite encouraged by the headline – could it be that sensibility is returning to the People’s Democratic Republic of Canuckistan at long last? As near as I can tell, a wave of runaway draft dodgers in the 1960s changed the ideological climate en masse, and things were never quite the same up north since then. But could there be a glimmer of hope now?

My second thought was to wonder what prompted the new development. Did Justin Trudeau grow a brain finally? Or did he receive a Dickensian intervention from the spirit world by his ashamed ancestors? Was he reading Dante’s Inferno and realized that if he continued treachery against his people, his final destination would be the ninth circle of Hell? Or at the latest W6rld Ec6nomic F6rum shindig in Davos, was Klaus Schwab too rough with the nipple clamps? Maybe he finally got sick of giving Yuval Harari a rusty trombone? If you don’t know what that last one means, you might want to preserve your innocence.

Then my hopes for our northern neighbors were dashed when I read the article. The news wasn’t quite as promising as I thought:

Trudeau’s Liberal government was criticized for its plan to allow 500,000 new permanent residents into the country in each of the next two years. On Thursday, he said next year’s target will now be 395,000 new permanent residents and that the figure will drop to 380,000 in 2026 and 365,000 in 2027. [. . .]

Trudeau, who is facing calls from within his own party not to seek a fourth term, has endured mounting criticism over his immigration policies and the negative impact that population growth has had on housing affordability.

All told, the endpoint in 2027 of this gradual reduction will bring immigration down 27% from the present rate. Up to this point, Trudeau has spent his term in office doing his utmost to turn Canada into a colony of India and China, as well as a refuge for the world’s hard-luck cases. Therefore, this new development is hardly a bold reform, much less a reversal of course. Rather, it looks more like a way for Trudeau the Younger to placate his critics, showing them that he’s doing something about the problem he’s purposefully enabled for nearly two decades, while in fact merely making a modest cutback amounting to little more than a symbolic gesture.

Why does Canada need even 365,000 migrants annually? Most of these are Third Worlders who won’t fit in, and usually don’t want to assimilate anyway. I remember when their main ethnic tension was between Anglo-Saxons and Québécois, a matter which once came within a hair’s breadth of secession. Since then, they’ve complicated things immeasurably by bringing in masses of outsiders who don’t belong. Great job!

Note well, I’m not singling out the Canadian people here, whether Anglo-Saxon or Québécois. The same open borders policies, of course, have been under way in the USA since 1965. Democrats gleefully rub their hands together about dispossessing real Americans, and do-nothing Republicans make tough talk and never fail to break their campaign promises. Lately, the illegitimate Bidet junta pursues population replacement migration full speed ahead, eager to make us a minority in our own country as soon as possible. (Our border czar Heels-Up Harris never explained why she’s flooding America with illegals, but everyone with more brains than a head of lettuce already knows.) Basically the same thing has been going on in Australia, Britain, Ireland, and much of continental Europe. What we all have in common with the Canadian people is that we were never asked.

Standards in America’s best high school plummet, administrators deeply regret displacing white students – well, not quite.

Our next feature is from the Daily Mail, “Prestigious high school tanks in rankings after implementing DEI“. This begins:

A prestigious public high school frequently ranked America’s best has slumped in rankings after implementing a DEI-focused admissions policy. Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology fell to number 14 on the latest US News and World Report Rankings.

It held the top spot for years, but dipped to third place in 2023 and saw its ranking freefall in 2024, prompting the principal Dr. Ann Bonitatibus to stand down earlier this month. Worried parents have said that the alarming drop is the result of an ‘equity’-focused admissions policy, which prioritizes equality of outcome rather than opportunity. The policy aims to increase the number of black and Latino children at the school by axing standard tests in favor of a review process. Critics have said it has lowered academic standards and led to a reduction in Asian-American students.

It features a couple of mothers of Indian heritage criticizing the “diversity” policy. (Interestingly, one of them looks a bit like our own Savitri Devi.) However, the article doesn’t mention whites anywhere. Well, why not? Asian students aren’t the only ones impacted, of course. Social leveling schemes like this likewise result in whites being displaced by less-qualified blacks and Hispanics. Granted, the Daily Mail quite often leaves it to the readers to piece things together, but this omission was a little much.

It also doesn’t mention the elephant in the room. That is to say, a diversity quota to raise the number of “disadvantaged” minorities who couldn’t legitimately qualify will lower the student body’s overall academic performance. The school’s loss in rankings was an entirely predictable consequence of the administration’s “equity” initiative, at least for those with eyes to see. In liberal fairyland, there are no racial differences in intelligence, IQ only measures how well one can do on an IQ test, yada yada yada. However, the real world doesn’t work that way. Artificial interventions won’t change this, and neither will wishful thinking. One can have quality, or equality, but not both. Choose wisely.

Based pro-Muslim columnist solves uniparty dilemma – well, not quite.

Next up, from Al Jazeera we have “No, US voters, you don’t need to choose between Harris and Trump” by Andrew Mitrovica. All told, despite a few sour notes here and there, a lot of his articles are on the right track. He argues forcefully against Israel’s brutal devastation in Gaza. He doesn’t care much for that clown Justin Trudeau. Neither does he like our Commander-In-Cheat, the literally retarded Resident Bidet. On another note, he also doesn’t appreciate Orange Man, though for reasons other than our side’s “glass half empty” take. Early on in his latest feature:

The myth that girds these “choices” is that American voters have a choice at all; that the two dominant political parties are, save the glib edges, ideological adversaries when, on, say, urgent matters of war and peace, they remain steadfast soulmates to the core.

The billionaire oligarchs who run the whole decrepit show in America know that “democracy” is a sweet illusion meant to convince the gullible that party 1 is different from party 1a.

Hey, this guy gets it! Like I’ve said before, voters have the momentous choice between vanilla and French vanilla, mainstream politics is as fake as professional wrestling, and the same “donor class” greases palms in both halves of the uniparty. Moreover:

Remember, there is no “daylight” on this cowardly, abominable score between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris.

Both have played willing and enthusiastic handmaidens to their indicted darling in the Middle East, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Both have backed every sickening measure of the state-engineered atrocities that have killed more than 43,000 (and counting) mostly Palestinian children and women – the carpet bombing, the deliberate starvation, the denial of medical care, the spread of disease, the forced marches, and on and on and on.

Although it’s argued passionately, the answer is a bit underwhelming. If I’m reading this correctly, he suggests sitting out the election. The problem is that if you decide not to choose, you still have made a decision.

Granted, it’s a difficult conundrum when one finds both sides to be unpalatable. For example, should one back the Evil Party to teach the Stupid Party a lesson about being do-nothings who take their base for granted? Alternatively, should we hold our noses and back the Stupid Party because the Evil Party will be considerably worse? My take is that if both candidates seem like irredeemable turkeys, a protest vote for the most palatable non-Republicrat candidate is better than sitting out the election. None of them are going to win, of course, but a show of support would be helpful at least, better than just sitting out the election. For example, the Libertarians are a bit silly sometimes, but might show some promise.

Massive data breach prompts volcanic outrage by civil libertarians and quick reforms by legislators – well, not quite.

Did you know that in September, the personal data of 106 million Americans was found on a file that any Tom, Dick, or Harry with a high-speed connection could download? Cute, isn’t it? If you’re American, then perhaps one of the dossiers in this data hoard was yours! At the time, there was tepid coverage about it in the MSM. Roughly half the stories are from technology and security sites, such as the Malwarebytes feature “100 million+ US citizens have records leaked by background check service.” It begins:

A background check [firm] left a huge database unprotected online containing 2.2TB of people’s data, according to research by Cybernews.

The database was left passwordless and easily accessible to anyone on the internet by background check firm MC2 Data. MC2 Data gathers publicly available data to provide decision makers with information whether someone can rent a house, work at their firm, or be granted a loan.

The data is usually gathered from online sources like criminal records, employment history, family data, and contact details.

Just like the huge National Public Data breach, this is another example of companies that most of us have never heard having extensive databases with an enormous amount of personal data. In this case, the researchers found 106,316,633 records containing private information about US citizens.

The article ends in a long list of the personal data involved in the leak, some cybersecurity tips, and a plug for their own product. So, that’s pretty much it. Given the circumstances, I think perhaps just a smidge of indignation would’ve been in order. Since it’s lacking, I’ll supply the tirade.

This is hardly the first time something like this has happened. For one instance, there was the Equifax data breach, ongoing from May through July of 2017. Among other things, the data up for grabs included the almighty Soviet Security Number, better termed as the Privacy Penetrator Number. For anyone wishing to commit identity theft (not that I particularly recommend it), this is the key to the kingdom. It’s one of those wonderful legacies of Franklin D. Roosevelt, along with dragging America into a war that wasn’t our business, the atomic bomb, and saving the Soviet Union so that they could overrun Eastern Europe with a horde of savages and later menace us throughout the Cold War. May he rest in perdition.

If you have a credit card, car note, or mortgage, Equifax has a file on you whether you like it or not, as well as two competing credit reporting agencies. There’s probably fine print in the loan agreements where you consent to this, which you might even realize if you’re patient enough and sufficiently fluent in legalese to decipher the dense text.

Equifax also maintains an employment database that likewise had a security vulnerability in 2017. Anyone who had your date of birth and Privacy Penetrator Number could’ve pulled up your salary history without your permission or any legitimate need to know. For the life of me, I don’t remember anything on my employment contract giving permission to send my data to some third party reporting company.

Yet again, thanks to dodgy security, over a hundred million kimonos were yanked wide open, exposing personal data to anyone who knew where to find it online. How many copies were made, and who has them? Nobody knows. Following the 2017 Equifax debacle, there was some grumbling, though not much came of it. As for this time – where is the outrage? Where are the demands for reform? I hear only crickets.

Our unconstitutional domestic spying program is bad enough. Even if you’ve never committed a crime and no court ever approved a search warrant on you as required by the Fourth Amendment, the government knows a lot more about you than the Stasi knew about East German citizens. It’s also a big problem that private businesses have too much information on you. It’s bad enough even in concept, but made worse because of the possibility that the data can be acquired by criminals, or just hackers with too much time on their hands.

Cybersecurity infrastructure is important, of course, but a chain is only as good as its weakest link. All it takes is a careless mistake, and the damage is done, which may be with little to no accountability. Another risk is employees who willfully misuse customer data. Then there are incompetent ones, hardly uncommon when all too many call center agents and even IT personnel are from Bangalore, talk like squirrels (as if they have acorns stuffed in their cheeks), and might well have been schlepping a rickshaw a couple months ago. Really, we have no idea how many people have access to our data or who they are.

This needs to be fixed. Technical solutions aren’t enough. The redesign should begin by challenging the concept that companies should have so much potentially damaging customer information in the first place, including the use of the Privacy Penetrator Number as a universal keyfield.

This problem has been in development for ages. It should’ve been challenged long ago. I do so, even if on a small scale. Whenever some munchkin asks me for my Soviet Security Number, it feels like I’ve been offered a digital rectal exam without being kissed first, much less inviting me to dinner and a movie. I might ask what making a credit card payment (or whatever) has to do with my government retirement account. Another favorite response is, “I’ll tell you mine if you tell me yours. I promise I’ll only put it in a file on my computer and never do anything bad with it.” An interesting discussion often follows.