Example of blaming others for their own insecurities.

I recently read another article on wordpress by someone who decided to write about how people who have privelege feel oppressed when the people that they have been oppressing get equal treatment.

The article if you care to read can be found here:
When You’re Accustomed To Privilege, Equality Feels Like Oppression

The problem with ideology like this is the fact it is based on the idea that White man oppressor  Everyone else good victim.

The writer also runs under the feminist ideology.   This ideology is based on the idea that if you don’t have any self doubt or don’t think that the reason you didn’t get a job due to your skin color is a  privilege.    The writer, like most feminists believe white people, or rather white men, don’t have self doubt about getting jobs based on skin color, gender or  even sexual orientation.     Which of course is the problem, simply because we are all human beings and we all experience self doubt about things, especially when they are not going our way.

The writer makes bold statements that white people are angry at being called racist for saying racist things or having racist beliefs.     I myself have been accused of this by a few black people.   Why?  The reason I’m a so called racist by black people is purely retarded.   It’s because I don’t date black people.     That’s it.    That so far has been the only reason.   The writer of this article shows very clearly that they are racist in their thought processes.  They constantly insinuate racial issues, and stereotypes etc.

Now while I don’t deny racism does exist, I don’t see it as the problem it was back in the 50’s.     This person, like all who follow the feminist ideology of victim-hood believe they are victims somehow.  Even when they are not.

The idea that not having any doubts about a job interview is called confidence.  That isn’t a privilege.  That is actually a trait of someone who is mentally stable and balanced.   Even if you have doubt as to why you didn’t get the job, that just means you have doubt or self confidence issues.   Which is actually normal for most people.   Even I have experienced this, and I am a white guy.    White males do experience self doubt.   One job that I interviewed for a very long time ago, I didn’t get.  I was told by the HR team I was qualified, but they had given to a female.   That caused me to have self doubt, did I not get the job because of my gender?

The writer also states “I had had enough. I kept thinking “Why am I always moving out of this guy’s way?” Just about everyone else in the world seemed to agree that if two people were walking toward each other, both people would acquiesce a little…”  

I don’t know what part of the world the person is from but if two people are walking towards each other one person always moves out of the way.   Sometimes both.   Not always though.     Why he thinks that being nice and moving out of the other person’s way is a bad thing is  part of a larger issue.

I understand that being nice all the time has it’s limits and sometimes you just want to say fuck it and push your way through.  But that doesn’t mean you were privileged if someone else moves out of the way.  That just means you are a courteous person.  That is it.

Privilege boils down to this:

Privilege is something that can be given to you and can be taken away.  For example, a privilege , like your laptop you received from daddy at Christmas.   If you do something wrong daddy can take that laptop away from you as punishment.   Removing the privilege.
In other words, privilege comes from outside of yourself, is something that can be taken away by others. 

Thinking that you might have not gotten a job is not privilege in any way shape or form.  It just isn’t.   That is self confidence issues stemming from your own conscious or unconscious desires and not getting those desires fulfilled.

Moral is, if you have a doubt as to why something did not happen or why it happened, don’t go blaming others for your confidence issues.   Think to yourself what YOU could have done to have been offered the job or gotten the better shifts.   And maybe, just maybe the other person they hired or gave those shifts to were actually better than you.

After all, you can think you are better all you want, but the reality is the only person who is qualified to know is the owner or manager of the job.  They are the ones who hire you or do the scheduling and know exactly what kind of performance they need.    Not You.

Grow the fuck up people.

Advertisements

Looking at Reality … We are not our jobs.

We as a human race like to label things, especially people.   We categorize (even I do it), to the point that we now identify people as non-objects.

For example, in my profession, I go out and take photos of people, places, and things.    I call myself a photographer.   However, I do not see myself as a photographer.  That is a profession and is something I do.   Many people fall into this trap of thinking of themselves as this or that.

Judges, Doctors, Lawyers, are notorious for this.  They believe those little abbreviated letters they add to their names, and business cards is who they are.    When you ask any of these people, “Who do you think you are?”   They will almost always respond with “Well, I’m a Doctor of course”, instead of “Well I’m a human being”.    No one ever says that.   And no one thinks it anymore.    Even judges are under a delusion that they are a “court” when issuing a contempt of court order for something trivial like a defendant speaking to something that the judge doesn’t like directly.  One example I witnessed, was a defendant saying the judge was  a dickhead, and the judge stated that he was in contempt for insulting the court, when the reality was the judge was the one being offended, not the court, but due to the delusional nature of status, the judge as all judges do, believe they are a room.

The idea of status originates with social classes and those abbreviations somehow make you seem better than your fellow human beings.   It confers to many that they are smarter  than those without the letters.   That they have some secret special knowledge that only those with the same letters after their names somehow can understand.

Which is why you get people, like the pro vaccination people (The ones who need a professional in the medical field to inform them of safety of medicine), scoff at the anti-vaccination people (the ones who have actually done their homework themselves),  or the people who are against the ideology of feminism, vs the people who are feminists who blindly believe their gender studies professors at their word, because their professor has a PHD.

The idea that status confers some special intelligence is a fallacy that needs to be questioned at every point.   It doesn’t matter what class you are.  That is another label that just divides us.

People in many cases are stupid, and yes I do mean this.   They fall for these delusions much in the same way a prisonor will start to associate with their captors, even to the point of defending the captors.    This the the state of delusion that the majority is in.

They think of themselves as this, or that but never as human.   That would be bad, because it removes their status and makes them the same as everyone else in the world, the same level.

And of course those people want to be better thought of than everyone else.

The Habitat for Humanity Scam – Disguised as a charity.

Donation_Scam

It’s been a awhile since i posted anything, mainly because I was busy and as real life has a habit of doing, forces you to deal with it.  While I was dealing with life, I had spoken with a neighbor who asked that I sit in with a group of neighbors on the street to hear their story.   The people involved are homeowners who received their homes via Habitat for Humanity.

I’ve always thought of Habitat for Humanity as a good charity who helps people get a home, that they otherwise wouldn’t get.  And that was as a far I as I saw it.   I never went through the process they have, and didn’t dig much into how they operate. I assumed like most that this charity was good and my thoughts never went past that.

So I went and sat with the ten families on my street who “own” Habitat Homes and listened.    They have been arguing with Habitat for about a year now.   Some of them have owned their homes for four years now, some only one or two years.    Habitat has been pressuring them to sign brand new contracts forcing them to pay $100 per month for two parking spaces.

This is a problem for them.  Now after looking and speaking with them, I found out a few things.   Habitat was supposed to supply them (according to a print out from the website), that they were to provide the following:

1. 2 Parking Spaces per unit – (home owners would own these spaces)

2. Four major appliances – Fridge, Stove, Washer, and Dryer.

3. And each home would have a warranty.

4.  All maintenance on the common areas were to be cared for by habitat for humanity.
Now, these people had been told verbally that they would be freehold home owners.   In case you don’t know what freehold means, here is a legal definition of it.

An estate in land or other real property, of uncertain duration; that is,either of inheritance or which may possibly last for the life of the tenant at the least, (as distinguished from a leasehold;) and held by a free tenure, (as distinguished from copyholdor villeinage.)

Basically what it means is it is your land and not the land of someone else.   That you own it.   Which is fine and dandy to me.  If I want to buy a house as most who do, they want to own it,  So now we come to how Habitat operates.

I spent the weekend researching how they operate and with everything I read this sounded more and more like a scam, albeit a legal one.    Here is how it works:

First and foremost the target.  The criteria of the target has to be someone who is of low income.   There are many reasons for this.  The public knowledge one, everyone understands.  These low income people would never otherwise be able to afford to buy a home.   Sounds nice doesn’t it?    But what happens if there is a problem?  Another criteria is that the potential homeowner must make a certain amount of money.   If your on social assistance they won’t help you (the people who in many cases need it the most).  And they also tend of approve newcomers to Canada.  People who fled their country of origin, who don’t understand Canadian laws, and don’t understand contracts.   And the last criteria.  They must have at least one kid.  The more kids the better.

These are the people they choose. After reading almost a hundred stories online from people who dealt with Habitat, I realized this was a common theme.    Many who caught on early enough in the process before they signed their mortgages, who asked some legitimate questions, would all of a sudden find themselves “deselected” from the program and left in the dust after spending their “sweat equity” building their future home.

Those were the lucky people.

The ones who didn’t ask questions, trusted this “christian charity” and believed everything the board members would tell them and followed their instructions step by step would then find themselves with a new home, and then the nightmare begins.

Here is some background on how they operate.

When a Habitat, chooses to a group of families, they apply for government grants.  These grants can be up to $50,000 for each unit.   So in the case on my street, there are ten units.  That equals $500,000.00.  That money is supposed to go directly into building the homes.  Instead they obtain city land at a cost due to their charity status which means they get plots from old city land like community centers or schools for a cheap price, and they build on them.  They get companies like Home Depot to donate materials to build these homes.  And next they get volunteers and the families of the home owners, and the home owners themselves to put in “sweat equity” into the home.  They must do at least 500 hours into this.   In behind the scenes the homeowners are signing mortgage agreements, not with a legitimate bank, but with, you guessed it, Habitat for Humanity.

The only money I’ve found that is actually spent towards the home is the land purchase itself.   Zero money is put into the home, not in materials or labor.   And what makes matters worse is the labor is done by unskilled labor who never built a home in their life, guided by someone who allegedly has.

I’ll let that sink in for a moment.  Do you think that these houses are going to be problem free new build homes?  The answer is a big no.   There will be mistakes made and problems will happen, which I will get into further down.

For the money side of things, there is another issue.   Habitat almost always uses the number $160,000 for the value of these new build homes.   The number starts around $145,000 or so and they tack on other numbers to get the $160,000 value.   In almost all cases I read, in every part of the world where people have written about their experiences, that number pops up like a red flag.     If you are reading this and don’t understand why, let me break this down.

Real Estate markets are different from city to city.   It is  impossible to have the same appraised value of any new build home, in so many parts of the world.  Some areas are depressed markets and some are inflated.   So the numbers shouldn’t be the same, but they are.  And that sends up big red flags and alarm bells for me.

So I asked myself how much of the money are they getting.  So I will list out the money.

1. $50.000 x 10 = $500,000.00

2. 10 mortgages for $160,000 = 1,600,000.00

Now the above amounts total over $2,100,000.00  approximately.  (Two Million, One Hundred Thousand dollars).  And because they are a charity, they get less taxed if at all for these numbers.

Now some costs are involved, so I in the case of my neighbors I would guess the land costs was under $400,000 if that.  Since it was a local non for profit community center selling to a charity.  So that leaves us with $1,700,000.00

That money goes directly into the charity coffers.   None of it goes into the properties themselves.

Are you seeing the problem yet?   Then we get into the home ownership deal.   When I did my research I found that in places that have a buyers market, they will buy up old run down homes at depressed values and fix them up and those go to the potential home owners.  That to me is okay.  Those are freeholds.

However, in areas where it’s a sellers market, meaning the property values are expensive and there are bidding wars going on, then they buy land, and not at full price but get it at a reduced cost and sometimes given to them by city governments.

Pure profit.

In real estate law, a lawyer cannot represent both parties.  This is a blatant conflict of interest.  The reason being is your lawyer is supposed to be working for you and your best interests.  And one cannot do that when they are working for both sides of the deal.    However, in Ontario, there is a loophole.  And that is if they give written disclosure to both parties and both parties sign a consent form to agree to the lawyer representing both parties and acknowledging the conflict and are okay with it.

This takes me into the other part on how Habitat Operates.   These low income families are unable to afford real estate lawyers of their own or find the idea daunting.  So Habitat steps in and graciously offers their lawyer to handle the paper work.  And why not?  These are trust worthy Christians aren’t they?  Working gods good deeds.   So you can trust them.

And so what happens in because the lawyer from Habitat is being paid from Habitat, the lawyer will allegedly do this “pro bono” for the low income family’s but because his time is valuable, will usher the folks into a room one by one to sign the documents, giving them less than five minutes to sign and not answer any questions or make sure they have a chance to read what they are signing.

None of these families I’ve read about nor spoken with felt that or had a lawyer work on their behalf.   When they had questions after they signed they would call this lawyer who they believed to be legit and working for them, and would ask for follow up questions on the contract or complain about disrepair would be met with the phone slamming down and a return phone call from a board member from the local Habitat Chapter, making a threat to evict them.

How can you evict someone who owns their home you ask?   Oh this is fiendish.   They own the mortgage, and they registered a condo corporation to manage the common elements of the land.  They built the homes on the land and so the homes are owned by the homeowners, (on the inside) and the outside is all owned by habitat.

In the contracts Habitat is supposed to be responsible to repair and maintain the properties,  That means, snow removal, grass trimming, maintaining the roofs of the homes etc.    There are even stipulations in these contracts that they cannot build additions etc without express permission from the condo board.

So now you have an idea on how they operate and understand a tiny bit of what happens.   If you are confused I will summerize.

1.  They get a profit of almost two million dollars plus from these homes.

2.  They don’t honor the warranties.

3. They are the land owner, bank, and condo corporation all in one.

4. They false advertise.

5. They use intimidation tactics when you try to complain.

6. They use fraudulent methods to trick desperate low income families to sign contracts.
I have you ask you, does this sound like a good christian charity?   One that you would trust?   I don’t, and I urge you not to trust them.   Save your money, hire your own lawyer, if you are trying to get your own habitat home.  Otherwise you will get fleeced.

GoFundMe Pages – Digital Begging, because it’s easier than work.

I’m going to start off by saying, not all the campaigns on gofundme are bad.  In fact, many are worthwhile causes from individuals who really do need help for legitimate purposes.   However, more and more there are just plain greedy people running campaigns for things they should be saving on their own.

Look at this list:

http://www.gofundme.com/Weddings-Honeymoons?page=3

The first thing that pops into my head is why doesn’t any “NEED” a wedding.  It’s not life threatening.  It’s not something that you are required to do.  So I delved deeper to find out why people are posting these campaigns and some had truly good reasons, but then I saw one where they wanted others to pay for the costs of their photographer.  Or another where they wanted others to pay for the reception.  And my favorites of them all, they want others to pay for their honeymoons.

Hey I can understand you want that special day and need cash to pay for it.  I really do.   But this is something you have to save your money for and create a budget that is within your means.  Or have your family help out, you know, the traditional way.

Why should the world pay for your wedding?   Why is it so important that you need funding from the general public?  Your not that special princess.

I saw another one for a couple who wanted a down payment on their first home.   Are you kidding me?   GET A JOB!  I yelled at the screen.  Save your money and be responsible.   What has this world come to?

Then the one that positively infuriated me to the point I had to close the window out of fear of throwing my keyboard at my monitor was this one:

Meet Stacy, a student who is deep in debt, who admits that she can’t pay her bills and has creditors calling day and night, and wants to start her career off right.   How does she want to do that?   By begging on GoFundMe for funds to purchase a $2500 camera!

http://www.gofundme.com/nl9jt8

That one got me the most angry.  Why?  I’m a photographer myself.   I work hard, pay my bills, have a mortgage and run my business.    Bills comes first, then comes everything else.    I save for what I want.   Like cameras, trips, lenses, etc.    And here is this girl who is begging for money to buy a new camera.    What’s worse though, is that people are giving her the money.   Oh yes.   She is almost to her goal and I have a bad feeling she will get it.    The tragedy is not only she feels entitled enough to beg for money online but that people are actually giving her the money.

If your a student you go into university or college with student loans.  That means you have debt, that means you have to pay that debt back.    That means GET A FUCKING JOB and pay your bills FIRST.    Just because your going to university for a career that you want, doesn’t mean you will get a big pay cheque at the end and your debt magically goes away.   MOST students know this and get jobs and pay their loans as they go.  Heck, some students get two jobs.   It’s called responsibility and being responsible.   Begging like this girl is doing is the height of greed.  And it’s downright wrong that they’re being rewarded for it and worse, that people are stupid enough to give money to them.

Now like I stated at the beginning, there are legitmate needs for this.  Medical expenses that are not covered by insurance, raising funds for an invention, medical bills for a beloved pet that goes beyond your means.   I’m not saying there isn’t, but when they are being done for weddings, trips or those pricey merchandise items you want, then that crosses that line.    And the people who donate to them have no right at all to put down people on welfare or any social programs that help people who are in real need.

Reality Shows – What they really are and why they are so popular.

RealityShow

Have you ever watched a reality show and became a fan of it?   Or watched shows like Honey Boo Boo, Mike Holmes, Duck Dynasty?

Do you think they are about real life?    Think again.

Reality shows are anything but, reality.   They are designed to sell us something, or encourage behaviors from us or both.  Many of these shows get filmed a year or more before being aired.  They just don’t record a show, then air it that same week.  It has to go through pre production, production, post production.  Has to be approved by many, people and groups before even hitting the airways.

This is something that many of us know and understand as being part of that industry.  What many do not realize is that they target certain social groups with these shows and as well certain mentalities and sadly, IQ levels.

For example, the people who love Mike Holmes shows,Deck Wars, Kitchen Cousins, basically shows about home repair, improvement or fixing up bad renovations,  are targeted by these shows.    In them they find somebody who has a dramatic story of woe, that will get your emotions going and then you watch.   While watching the thirty minute renovation, you learn about tools, or about spray foam insulation or even new technologies like the tankless water heater which gives water on demand.   Or they give you decor ideas with creating a focal point of a fake fireplace with a new large flat screen tv mounted above it.

They are selling you things.   That’s right.  It’s a huge thirty minute to one hour commercial.  And it has another effect.  Of making you go out, getting a home renovation loan and to spend that money on these products in a renovation so you can have that new and shiny home you want, but can’t afford.    When these shows were at their height, the interest rates at the banks were at their lowest and it spurred people to do renovations on their homes, buying these products.   That allowed the banks to profit on unnecessary renovations.

That also spurred another industry, which was and still encouraged by shows like “Property Virgins”, or shows that featured the home designer vs the Realtor.   Numerous shows like this sprung up and became a hit.   All these shows are selling us something or to push us into a specific behavior.   Fixing up, redecorating, renovating and selling and buying homes.  And again, in order to do these things, you need money, and for that you go to the banks.

Then you get shows that people fall into believing these are real everyday people who couldn’t be a lie.   Guess again.  Duck Dynasty.  That’s a show to sell you duck hunting gear.  I’m not talking about the merchandise in Walmart, I’m talking about real hunting gear.   The family in the show portrays themselves as hicks.  Guess again.  They are white-collar yuppies from California, who built a duck hunting merchandise empire.   They created the show to sell their merchandise.  Every word spoken on that show is a lie, written by writers and scripted and polished for you.  To convince you that it’s all real and couldn’t possibly be to sell you anything.   This way you run out and buy their gear.

If you want more evidence of this just look at the credits for these shows.  Look at the sponsor logos and the list of writers.

All the reality shows are there for one reason.  To manipulate you.

What is Truth? – Something to Ponder

questionmark

A question nobody really asks?   I’m not talking about what the truth of something.  I mean, the word truth.   What does it mean?

The dictionary defines it with many different definitions.    I believe this to be wrong.   Truth cannot have different meanings.  It simply can’t and be truth.  I think real truth, the truth that can’t be disputed falls under the fourth definition:

a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like.

This is pretty straight forward and means the truth, is truth by fact, or ideal.

I’ve had meaningful conversations with people who actually believe the truth is whatever the majority believes.   In their minds, if the majority says Blue is really bacon, then it becomes bacon, even though it’s really blue.

The media influences the masses in so many ways that, many will take the word of of the talking heads as truth.   They can’t comprehend the misuse of words, you know, a change of a word here or there, and it changes how we perceive the “Truth”.  Then take into account the truth is altered more by unchecked sources.

This is why I have become jaded on the media.   The truth is not really the truth from the media.  It is a stream of stories that never have any facts checked, never check the credibility of sources, or check to see if witness statements are really true.

In today’s world, we see more fake news than real news.   Many false flags, in the hopes of causing fear and terror in the masses by governments that run with an agenda that is neither moral, nor for the good of the people.

We have censorship of the truth to the point where a simple video by a witness is no longer shown by the media unless is goes along with the government’s agenda.

This is why many people have turned to the internet for the truth.   We all have phones and cameras.  Daily hundreds if not thousands of videos or images are uploaded, that show the real truth.

Here are some truths ignored and lied about in the mainstream media.

Sandy Hook was a Hoax.  No one Died.

Boston Bombing was a False Flag.  No One Died.  The injured were confirmed crisis actors.

Aurora Colorado Movie Theater shooting was a False Flag.  There was someone outside the theater who passed the gunman the weapon via the emergency exit.

And really, the most famous but not the first, 9/11.  False Flag.   How can you believe it wasn’t with so much evidence showing it is?   From the news reporter who reported the second tower collapsing 20 minutes before it actually did, to the explosions which over 2000 demolition experts from around the world have said over and over, that it was a controlled demolition.  After all, 2 towers come straight down? And the third just blows up from the gases in the sewer?  Plus the pages upon pages more evidence to show it was an inside job.

Cassidy Stay Hoax.   Little girl magically survives a point blank shot from her aunt’s ex boyfriend, which she magically deflects with her finger?  Is that even plausible?   Gun experts say no.    Yet the masses believed it.   They didn’t even question the fact that they had T-shirts and bracelets already set up to sell the day after the tragic event.   Things that take time to design and implement.  Even a GoFundMe page was set up.   Then the whole stage speech, with the Dumbledore reference, with the older gentleman behind her coaching her on her speech.   Two days after she witnessed her entire family dying, she is telling the press that “they are in a better place”.

Hogwash.   No word since the big media frenzy, but you can’t find any presence of her online, or any of her relatives either.

All of these instances are lies brought forth that serve an agenda, not only in the united states but in Canada.   Everyone knows that what happens in the united states happens here in terms of the laws passed.

In light of these events in the USA, we had similar events happen in Quebec Moncton and Ottawa.
Mainly we had three shooters.   Three alleged radical terrorists. And three pushes for laws removing our freedoms.

Don’t believe something to be true just because someone told you it is.  Find out for yourself.   The truth is often, ugly and dirty and not many like it, but honest people will respect it, and move forward with it.    Those who don’t are doomed to repeat history and hurt themselves and others.

The myth of “rape culture”

For the past couple of years, I have been hearing more and more the words “rape culture”.   I didn’t understand what it meant and to this day, I am not understanding the meaning.   Why?  The meaning is very generalized.  Here is an example, one of many I might add, that no one, and I mean no one has the same definitions.

From Wiki:  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_culture)

Rape culture is a theoretical concept (a qualitative theory) in which rape is pervasive and normalized due to societal attitudes about gender and sexuality.

Behaviors commonly associated with rape culture include victim blaming, sexual objectification, trivializing rape, denial of widespread rape, or refusing to acknowledge the harm of some forms of sexual violence. The notion of rape culture has been used to describe and explain behavior within social groups, including prison rape, and in conflict areas where war rape is used as psychological warfare. Entire societies have been alleged to be rape cultures.

I checked many other groups and websites for their definitions, and they all had very broad descriptions of the meaning or some actually citing mundane activities as being part of this myth.

Some of these activities include, but are not limited to:

Asking a woman on a date.

Offering to buy a woman a drink.

Complimenting or commenting on their clothes, hair, looks.

On my social media profile friends list, I had a model on it, who’s specialty was nude modelling.   She proudly displayed each and every image that was taken of her on the social media site.  As a professional photographer, I saw the images for their artistic beauty and didn’t think about them.   This past couple of weeks, a guy on her friend’s list, had made a comment that was inappropriate and rude.   He was basically telling her (in a douche way) that he thought she was hot and wouldn’t mind hooking up with her.

She turned him down, in a very spectacular fashion, and then blocked him.    This I felt should have been the end of it.   Instead, she went on a rant, and drew many people in.  All agreeing with her and talking about rape culture and some like myself didn’t see it that way and said so, and in response they attacked those people and accused them of being part of the problem etc, etc etc.

At one point I had to make a comment, that was both a message to the model and as well to the people commenting.    I stated that while I didn’t feel the guy’s comment was appropriate, I didn’t think her 2 week rant was either.    This prompted attacks from others to me.   Yet when I asked straight forwards questions using logic and critical thinking, I would not get a response but attacks and name calling.

This is what I basically said:

To (Model Name), while I appreciate your work for it’s artistic value, I do find these kinds of rants to be counter-productive and a tad unprofessional.   Here is why, in this world you get many types of people, and some not all, are going to misstep in life.  They will say the wrong thing, do the wrong thing etc.   In this guy’s case, he was arrogant and said something that you weren’t open to.    You stated that just because your a nude model, doesn’t mean you want to sleep with every male out there, and I agree with you on that.   However, you didn’t just block him and ended it.  You went on a week long rant, and drew more and more people into this so horrible victimization of you.   There was no victimization, there was a guy who was a douche, who said something inappropriate.  Now the problem I am having and finding unprofessional is the fact you are omitting your part in this.   You chose to be a nude model.   That was your choice.  You chose to post those images on a social media site publicly.  That was also your choice.    Now while I understand that is not an invitation, there are some people out in the world who have no sense of decorum or decency.  This is not me saying I approve, this is just me stating a fact.   These people exist.  And when you post anything, they will come out and say something, that someone will find inappropriate.   When it comes to social media you can do several things, you can ignore it, delete it, or block the person.   You did this.  You blocked him.

You are not a victim.  You blocked him.

There was no rape.  He didn’t rape you.

There was no sexual assault.   He didn’t touch you.

(I didn’t say it in those words but that is what I was driving at).     Some got it.  One guy in particular attacked me in private messaging for a few days over this, and every-time time I asked him how my actions rape culture, all he could say was that I was blaming the victim.

“What victim?”, I asked.

“Your an idiot”, he said.

“How was she a victim?”, I asked.

“You just don’t understand the nuances.”. he said.

“I’m trying but you wont’ answer my questions so I can learn.” I said.

“You aren’t asking question, you are blaming her.”, he said again.

“I never blamed her, I agreed with her original actions to tell him off and block him.  You still haven’t answered my question.  Who is the victim?  She wasn’t raped, she wasn’t sexually assaulted. So who was victimized?”.

“I’m done, good-bye.”  He said.    This point he blocked me.

Even the people on this “rape culture” bandwagon can’t answer direct questions or even agree on what the myth is.   It’s grown in so many ways to the point of maniacal hysteria.

Let’s look at the Cosby situation.   

Here is a guy who over the years has developed a reputation of being the clean cut father figure.   However, we know he was an actor and a comedian.

Now, a woman who wrote a book over 20 years ago, comes forward to push her book by using a small part of the book were she insinuates that she was sexual assaulted by Cosby but has no actual proof.    She never reported it to police, instead she sued Cosby and it was settled out of court for some long forgotten sum of money.    Everyone seems to not look at that.   Now that he rehashed all this, her book sales are going through the roof.

Now bring in the other women.   All state this happened twenty some odd years ago.  None, and I mean none, can remember details and some even admit to being drunk or assume they were drugged. (Again, no proof).  You have all these women claiming sexual assault but none can provide accurate details or offer evidence that they ever met him in person.

In this media frenzy, we see groups gathering to protest his shows, trying to turn others against him.   The rich and famous of course are putting their two cents in.  Everyone is ignoring a few things.

A victim has two responsibilities.  (Ah yes I know, according to feminists, I am promoting rape culture with this statement, it doesn’t make it untrue though),

Those responsibilities are simple.   The first is the victim has to report the crime.  After all, how is the police supposed to investigate and charge someone with sexual assault or rape if they are not told about it?

The second responsibility is to seek help, to learn how to cope and move forward in their lives.   Support groups, mental health etc.

None, and I mean, none of these women ever did any of the first responsibility.  As for the second, no one is talking about it.

According to the feminists that are on the Myth bandwagon, we should accept a woman’s word as law when it comes to rape and sexual assault.  If they say a guy sexually assaulted them, then they did.    No evidence, no investigation needed.

That’s were I have a problem.    Many women already claim sexual assault and rape when none has occurred.  They do this to get revenge on someone.  Usually an ex-boyfriend or some guy they think has spurned them.   This has happened to a couple of friends in my past who got a knock on the door from police, and later was found innocent or the charges got dropped for lack of evidence or the evidence didn’t match the statements of the women etc.

To live in a free country means that you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, by way of facts backed by evidence.  (At least in a criminal court).   And as such, under those rules, Cosby is in fact innocent.   There was never any charges laid, nor any investigation launched.    And the time to press charges is long past their statute of limitation.  Even if there was no limitation, the women can’t even recall details or offer evidence as proof.   Yet we have people who jump on these bandwagons, supporting these accusations simply because the people citing them, simply because the persons making these claims have a vagina.

The Distinction:

Rape is the act of unwanted penetration

Sexual assault is an unwanted sexual touch.

According to the Myth of Rape culture the following is the support and promotion of it.

Asking a woman out on a date.

Asking a women if she wants to have sex.

Whistling at a women who you are attracted to.

Complimenting a woman in any way.

Talking about a woman, about her appearance,  attitudes, fashion choices, etc.
Let’s remove social media out of the picture.  Let’s put in the old fashioned method of meeting people.  The bar.

You walk up to a pretty woman in a bar, introduce yourself, compliment her smile, hair etc.  Things are going well and you get up and dance.  As your confidence builds you put your hand on her butt.   She grimaces for a second when you don’t aren’t looking at her but then smiles at you, and you bump and grind on the dance floor.   After a couple of hours and a few drinks later, you go back to her place or yours.  Have sex and the next day one of you does the walk of shame.

According to the myth rape culture occurred.   Can you spot it?   It was when she grimaced at the touch.  According to the myth, you just sexually assaulted her.   She has zero responsibility according to the myth to tell you she didn’t want her butt touched.

Another scenario in a bar:

You see a beautiful woman at the bar, you walk up and introduce yourself, you have a conversation, for about two hours and she then admits she isn’t interested in you.   You get upset, and tell her off and walk away.

According to the myth this is rape culture.   Men are not allowed to have feelings when being rejected by women.  According to the myth, a man just has to accept it and move on. No feelings required.

As men, we know, that anytime a woman says No.  It means no.   If a man gets upset and states it, then we are apparently promoting this myth.

This is why I call it a myth.  It is used for almost anything that a women disagrees with when it comes to social interactions with men, and there are no hints or even clear rules.  If a woman says no, then you can then be accused of this rape culture myth.   If the woman says yes, then everything is fine.

Contracts, Traffic Tickets, The Traffic Court Cases and you.

I love this topic.  I have heated arguments with lawyers, professors, and many others who believe that a drivers licence is something magical that bestows abilities and powers that one would not normally have in life.

They refuse to believe, what it really is.  It is a contract.  That’s it.  It makes so much sense when you understand the government is nothing but a corporation.  A corporation or a government cannot force you to do something against your will.  It needs your agreement in order to perpetuate the myth you are free.   They don’t like not being in control so they have made up the myth that we must have permits, licences and such to do things we could do without that little plastic card.   They use their legalese to achieve this.  To get us to sign documents.  Let me break down some words so you understand.

When you apply for something you are in law, begging permission to do something to which you would normally not be allowed to do.

The roads are public roads. In law, a public road is defined as a public way to which everyone has the RIGHT to use.

So let me take the drivers licence again.   You apply for the licence.  You are asking permission to drive on the roads which by definition, you have every right to use.

Technically in law you wouldn’t have to get a licence.  So they trick you into believing it.  Now, what they are doing is getting you to sign an agreement with them.  A contract.    There are a few things that make a contract legal.

1.  Two or more parties on the contract

2.  Negotiation, Full disclosure.

3.  A benefit to both parties

4. Agreement of the parties.

This is what any licence is .   It’s a contract.  The terms and conditions are listed out in the act associated with the licence.  In the case of the drivers licence it would be the highway traffic act.    The benefit to you is that they don’t arrest you.  The benefit for them is they make billions of the public.

Now when you break one of the terms of the contract, you get issued a fine, or a ticket.  It’s a document which is basically the same as a bill you would get in a restaurant.  It has the name of the company, the violation, the cost and the signature of the person who issued it.

You go to court and you can either pay it or fight it.   Most people just pay it.  98% of cases are won in favor of the crown attorney.  The reason is that they keep the fine low enough that most people just couldn’t be bothered to fight it and just pay it.  So as such they bring in billions every year in traffic violations alone.

In the court if you decide to fight it, then the odds are not ever in your favor.   Again, the crown attorney and the judge are paid from the same pot.  Second, if you have a drivers licence then you agreed to the rules and the licence is the proof of contract (even though they won’t tell you that).   It’s also a civil matter.  Not a criminal one.  This should be proof enough to most that it is a contract.  A contract is civil and the terms can be violated.  A crime involves usually another person and some harm is usually involved.  A contract violation isn’t a crime, but a breach of a term.

So with that understanding, that’s why they call it a violation, and not a crime.  I’ve seen some judges try to justify it when put into a corner by lying and saying it’s a Quasi crime.

It’s simply a violation of a contract.    Now the sticky part on lower court judges is when the people who don’t fall for the propaganda don’t get a licence and get stopped.  Then the court is in a bind.  They will do everything to try to get the defendant to admit he broke some law.  In they don’t, they use a little known court room rule.

The court room rule book has a rule to which the judge can make a judgement without any law, precedent, and go based solely on his personal opinion.   In other words, he can throw out the rules, ignore law, supreme court cases and just make a ruling based on how much he likes you or doesn’t.

Go look up the courtroom procedure rules for your local courthouse.   It’s in there. That one rule allows a judge to ignore law.  How fair and just is that?

The other thing to keep in mind is that a judge is not held accountable for his/her rulings.   At least as far as if, they rule and their ruling turns out to be incorrect or seems to be biased, they can’t be sued, or arrested.  Even if they send someone to jail for life and it is found out 20 years after that the person was innocent and the judge was biased.  He is still a free man and the person lost 20 years of their life due to that improper judgement.  How fair is that?

Lower court judges will ignore supreme court rulings.  They will ignore case law.  If they don’t like you then your toast.  Doesn’t matter if you have court cases a mile high to back your case.  They can and will ignore that.  They will tell you things like “that is your interpretation” and because it is not theirs, they will ignore it.  They will say things like your not a member of the bar, so your not qualified to interpret law.  Yet, apparently, ignorance of the law is not an excuse either.

So in the lower court you are damned if you do and damned if you don’t.  My best advice to people is try to stay out of that court if your not prepared to fight, spend some time in jail or pay money.

The lower courts are also defacto courts.  Lawyers and judges hate that word, and claim they are not defacto.   Here is what it means.

What is DE FACTO?

In fact, in deed, actually. This phrase is used to characterize an officer, a government, a past action, or a state of affairs which exists actually and must be accepted for all practical purposes, but which is illegal or illegitimate. In this sense it is the contrary of de jure, which means rightful. legitimate, just, or constitutional. Thus, an officer, king, or government de facto is one who is in actual possession of the office orsupreme power, but by usurpation, or v.-ifiirespect to lawful title; while an officer, king, or governor de jure is one who has just claim and rightful title to the office or power, but who has never had plenary possession of the same, or is not now in actual possession. 4 Bl. Comm. 77, 78. So a wife de facto is one whose marriage is voidable by decree, as distinguished from a wife de jure, or lawful wife. 4 Kent, Comm. 30. But the term is also frequently used independently of any distinction from de jure; thus a blockade de facto is a blockade which is actually maintained, as distinguished from a mere paper blockade. As to de facto “Corporation,” “Court,” “Domicile,” “Government,” and “Officer,” see those titles. In old English law. De facto means respecting or concerning the principal act of a murder, which was technically denominated factum. See Fleta, lib. 1, c. 27,

Law Dictionary: What is DE FACTO? definition of DE FACTO (Black’s Law Dictionary)

Defacto means they are not there by any constitutional means  but is corporate in nature. A company. And the law society is a registered company.   So it is defacto, because it’s members are all part of that society and because that society is a registered corporation it is illegitimate.

However, unless the masses wise up and start ignoring them, then they will continue to operate as if they are Dejure.

Now, when dealing with the police.   This is tricky.  Police are not trained to interpret law, and are backed by the Crown attorney and the judge.   A cop is supposed to be peacekeeper first and enforcer 2nd.  Unfortunately they are not trained in peacekeeping as much as they are enforcement.

If you take a traffic ticket to court and fight it, then the ONLY evidence a crown attorney has, is the cops word.  (Traffic cameras excluded).   His testimony is deemed as truth and has more force than your arguments, cases etc in the judges eyes.  This is why so many wrongs happen in court.  There are effective ways to get a judge to throw out the cops testimony and leave the crown attorney with nothing but his opinion.  You have a slight chance of winning then, but it’s doubtful, and you would still have to appeal but the appeal with have more force without a cops testimony.    Also, keep in mind the crown attorney doesn’t even look at the case until that day, sometimes not until the case is even called.  So if you do your work and try to get copies of the “evidence ” before, keeping records and copies of any correspondence with dates and times, and even tracking information. Then your chances increase a tad, because you have tried to get what is called “discovery”.  A crown attorney has to give you discovery before your court date, but you have to demand it.  And if they don’t provide it, a judge can and will throw a case out.  Or in some cases will berate the crown and give them more time to give you discovery.  Discover is a nice thing that has force in law.   If they have no evidence then they will revoke their claim and the case is dismissed.  Sometimes you get idiot crown attorneys who will refuse to believe a civilian can beat them in court and will take it to the hilt.  That’s fine. If you do your homework, learn how to defend yourself effectively in a courtroom setting then you won’t be the one to look bad.

This is not legal advice.  Just personal knowledge based on research and discussions from documentation, videos, audio and more.   There are others out there who can effectively help you with traffic or tax cases in court if you need it.  Marc Stevens is one. I highly recommend you contact him.  Doesn’t matter where in the world you are. He can provide solid advice based on personal experience in court rooms.  And no he is not a lawyer but a radio host.

Canada is not a true democracy.

Canada is not a true democracy.  A true democracy includes those who don’t vote.   One of the fundamental cornerstones or truths in democracy is:

Consent of the governed.

We give our consent to be governed by participating in voting and voting for the person we wish to govern on our behalf.

This is a fundamental truth that the government of Canada will even agree on.  (I called and asked them).

Now here is the simple way to prove we are not a democracy.  The people who do not vote in Canada do not count.  If you speak with elections Canada and ask them what happens when the majority of the population don’t vote, they will tell you that it doesn’t matter, that even if only a thousand people voted then whoever got the most votes wins.

If we are truly giving our consent to be governed, we are removing that consent by not voting.   It doesn’t matter the reason either.   Once we remove that consent that should be it.  The government should dissolve and a new system should take it’s place.   However, according to the government, that isn’t the case.   The government goes one, without the consent.   Therefor, it is not a democracy.  It is a tyranny.  When a small group of people get to decide for the rest and use force to push their rules on them, then that is a tyranny.

In the city were I live, we had our local elections this year.   Only 35% of the population voted.  That means 65% removed their consent.   If this was a democracy, our city government would have disbanded and a new one should have replaced it. Instead we have the people that a small group decided on.    That is tyranny.   You can claim it isn’t all you want but when the majority say no by removing their consent and the government continues then that isn’t a true democracy.

Canada – What it really is.

I decided to start off my second blog, with information about the government of Canada.  In my searching I found some very eye opening information.   I, like many people, used to think that the government was some mass organization that is for the benefit of the people.  As the propaganda states, it is there for the protection of the people and it’s lands.  This is a half truth.

In order to understand what the government is, you have to go back before it was even created.  Back in the time when the first explorers came to the lands and interacted with the natives.    They created that famous first trading post in Hudson’s bay to exchange furs and such.

We all know the story and it’s very serene, sounds nice and is taught to everyone.   Have you ever wondered who financed that expedition?  Where the money came from?   Everyone assumes it’s the monarchy.   The English monarch definitely did approve of the expedition but she didn’t negotiate any deals herself.  She sent her envoys, who in return got sole rights to the management of the lands in the treaties.  This is what they don’t teach you in School.

They used to teach us that the Hudson’s bay company formed from that trading post and after more treaties were signed for the management of the land and approval of the people to colonize, that the government arose from the Hudson’s bay company.  Hudson’s bay dealt with trade between the natives and England and the government managed the lands and resources on behalf of the people and conducted trade with other countries.   After speaking with some teens and checking some current history books they don’t teach this anymore.  Apparently history changed.

So continuing on, the people who negotiated the treaties and created the government, worked for the banking family of the day in England, who happened to own the Crown Corporation of England and the City of London which is a small patch of land in the center of the larger city of England. A hidden inner city so to speak.   In this city because of it’s strange history, none of the reigning monarchs in England can set foot on that land without permission from the mayor.  It’s been that way for hundreds of years, and to this day the queen must ask permission to enter the inner city.

When I found out this information I did some research on the bankers themselves.  Back then there was about 9 banking families, all fighting for dominance.    The Rothchilds were the predominant and still are to this day.   They sent their people to negotiate the treaties with the natives and that included the rights to manage the lands, and it’s people.  So after the ink was dry on that treaty they created the government.  Which was and still is to this day owned by the Crown Corporation of London.   In Canada, our government is called the Crown Corporation of Canada.   We have the Bank of Canada, and they have the Bank of England.   (Do you see resemblances?).

Many people in Canada, believe and are taught without any kind of proof but a history book that the lands are held in trust by the Queen on behalf of the natives.   This is again a half truth.  The queen in this case is a figure head.  She approved the deal because the people she hired created the treaties.  In return for her support and her family, they get a continuous stream of wealth.   The real creators of the government is the bankers.   The Crown Corporation of Canada is listed as a corporation SOLE.  This can be verified by doing a simple credit report search on them, you can do it from TransUnion, Equafax, or Dun and Bradstreet.

For those that don’t know, a corporation sole is a company that is owned by a single individual or company.    In the Crown Corporation’s case, it is owned by the Crown Corporation of London.

Many people have gotten angry when I pointed this out. That the government is in reality a corporation.  That simple statement has caused people to go into a frenzy of trying to disprove me with regurgitation of the history books (which don’t tell us everything), down to name calling in an attempt to discredit me.   Please if you don’t believe what I said just go do some research and dig into this.  It took me about six months of digging to find out a fraction of this information.

The other thing that makes people believe the government was created by the queen was the name.  The Crown Corporation of Canada.  The government pushes this perception easily because let’s face it, when we think of the word “Crown” we think the queen.  So the government has created this image that the queen owns the Crown Corporation.  She doesn’t.   The name was chosen precisely to fool the people into thinking this.  Same reason the FED in the united states was called what it was.   The Bank of Canada, the same. It is a privately owned company.  All owned by the same people.

The title of the business fools the reader into believing that there is something noble and good about the government.  After all the crown created it so it must be good.   This isn’t the case.   The system was created a very long time ago to fool people they had freedom. And to instill the belief that the government was working on it’s behalf for the greater good.

The Crown Corporation is a corporation.  Owned by bankers and run by idiots.   I would estimate that maybe, three maybe four people in the entire high branches of the government are even aware who their real bosses are.   It is definitely not the people.

If you don’t believe this, then ask a judge this.  Do you work for the “Crown, her Majesty in Right of Canada” or do you work for the “Crown Corporation of Canada”.   A judge will NEVER answer this.  They cannot because the answer would bring out the lie.   In the thousands of hours of videos of court cases, and in all the times that question has been asked, the judge has always, always had a response that makes you blink.   In one video I watched a judge flee the room, in another, he flew into a fit of rage, in another he dismissed a case without going through the case.

There is a major difference between the Crown Corporation and the Crown.  One represents the Queen and one Represents the Bankers.

The other perception put forth by the Government is that your vote counts.  That it means something.  And that the leader you vote in is the one running the country.  This is an outright lie.

If you go look at the governor general’s act of Canada on line 2 it specifies the Governor General is the CEO of the crown corporation.   Not the PM.   The prime minister is then just a figurehead or rather, a sales person.   He is there to sell the people the perception that he’s in charge.   He makes the appearances, talks to other heads of state and manages the members of parliament.   He is the front-man.  Now I’m not saying he doesn’t have any authority, he has to if the act is to be authentic.  If he didn’t then, people would have figured this out a very long time ago.  No, he has the authority in Parliament and with his cabinet.    I would put him as the CEO’s top sales person.  Or assistant.   The people elect him.  The Governor General does not get elected by the people.  That is just one reason why your vote doesn’t count.

Now at this time I have been unable to find alternate information on the governor general, specifically if the queen really appoints him/her to the position or if it is the head office (crown corp of London.) .   This bothers me.  There is no historical information on this. I have doubts that the queen appoints the person but if it is true then it can mean that they run things on behalf of the queen in partnership with the bankers.  Sort of a partner in the business.   This makes sense to me, because it’s the royal family’s name at stake and if more people found out in the general public, there would be a lynching.  At least that is a personal belief and at this time I cannot find any evidence to prove otherwise either.