I realize that Canadian media is politically correct and hides the important facts from the people. To them, it's more important to displace the traditional Canadian citizenry with new "diverse" people, because diversity is always very, very good. You might have to suffer regularly scheduled terror attacks at the hands of Muzzies, but that's a small price to pay for diversity of course.

I read an article along the line of what you wrote just the other day.

https://www.amren.com/commentary/20...

<Besides his well-documented financial mismanagement, more and more Canadians look forward to replacing him because of the social “achievements” about which he so often boasts. Justin Trudeau has outpaced other world leaders when it comes to being a shameless champion of multiculturalism. But it is only in this field that he has excelled.

Mr. Trudeau’s multiculturalist agenda is to make Canada the “first postnational state.” He claims that “there is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada.” The first step he took toward eliminating Canadian identity was to increase immigration. For a country of only 36 million, the demographic impact will be immense. It is estimated that French Canadians under age 35 will become a minority in their own province by 2035, and a similar fate no doubt awaits Anglo-Canadians. Mr. Trudeau’s government has welcomed tens of thousands of refugees, despite the public-safety risks they may pose.>

And right on cue the security risks came to life.

It was important for Trudeau to distinguish himself from Trump.

<Illegal immigrants have also been pouring into Canada thanks to Mr. Trudeau. On January 28, 2017, in an apparent PR move to distinguish himself from Trump’s so-called “Muslim ban,” Mr. Trudeau tweeted, “To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength>

There you go. Diversity.

The first time they watched it, they told AH that he had to edit the scene - they wouldn't permit it to be released as is.

Do you know how Alfred Hitchcock got the <Psycho> shower scene past the censors?

He said OK. He didn't argue. He left, came back some time later, and showed the <exact same scene>, unchanged from before.

The MPRB approved it.

Why? Their minds had tricked them the first time, into see something much more explicit than what was actually shown.

That's what your posts about <ss> have done to the libs. Their shocked lib brains have imagined stuff that isn't there.

That's why when we ask for the evidence that you "attacked", well, they can't find it.

Their weak minds invented it.

It's good to be an experimental physicist.

Here's where Occam's Razor can work:

<thegoodanarchist:

That's what your posts about <ss> have done to the libs. Their shocked lib brains have imagined stuff that isn't there.

That's why when we ask for the evidence that you "attacked", well, they can't find it.

Their weak minds invented it.>

...or they could just be liars.

That's why when we ask for the evidence that you "attacked", well, they can't find it.>

I've turned up the heat on them over the last few days and they can't take it. Then as you say they start to see ghosts wherever they look. Also realize that these people do not have trained minds and make fallacious thinking a core part of their reasoning process. Hence the attack on me personally (you assaulted <SS>!) is an attempt to invalidate my message by invalidating me - a genetic fallacy.

The liberal platform:

They've got you on the banned list! >

You noticed it was "us versus them", I'm sure.

Also, I'm sure you've noticed, the tactics are always the same for the worst offenders.

Curry favor with <ss> and anyone else with potential influence.

"White knight" it up to a degree of obsequiousness that becomes disgusting to see from any adult male.

"Ignore" anyone who disagrees with them, yet continue to write posts directed to those people or about those people in all all the well-used forums (KC, member support, Daniel's page, etc.).

It's the same playbook for all the players.

Kibitzer's Café (kibitz #236403)

<ChessHigherCat: <wtpy: Chcat, My issue with banning people is not specific, and is my global response to censorship. >

I don't think banning is the only solution. A nice thick lead pipe crashing down on a rotten, empty cranium seems like a perfectly reasonable alternative.>

An actual chess question.

Do you know anything about how
Frank James Marshall supported himself?

Seems like he was a "professional" chess player?

The liberal platform:>

Proper definition:

Sodomy for a vote
Abortion for a vote
Divorce for a vote
Anti-Christian for a vote
Anti-God for a vote
Anti-White for a vote
Anti-Man for a vote
Anti-American for a vote
Gun Cucks for a vote
Pro-Feminism for a vote
Wife wears the pants for a vote
Pro-Sluts and Whores for a vote
Trump Derangement Syndrome for a vote
Cuck to Muzzies for a vote
Normalizing Pedophilia for a vote
Pro Open Borders for a vote
Anti-Israel for a vote
Pro Palestinian for a vote
Trying to Erase White History for a vote
Enforces Political Correctness for a vote
Calls good evil and evil good for a vote
Pro effeminate men for a vote
Pro transvestite for a vote
Puts men in skirts in the ladies room for a vote

Did his wife pay the bills?>

<Puts men in skirts in the ladies room for a vote>

I bet that is the first time in human history that sentence has been typed out.

<The Good Anteater>

If that was on the market, would you buy it?>

Splurge on the algebraic.>

So true.>

I cant prove it, but always felt it was
an anti-American, globalist thing, to get rid of descriptive.