Visible Minority Saved Fate of Racist Whites

If it wasn't for the vocal objection of a visible minority, racist whites would still be accepted as the norm. So thank you Canada for enacting the Canadian Charter of Human Rights Act. Sadly though, the way it is written, even a Canadian municipality could use it to protect the majority from legal action by the visible minorities.

However, only the lawless trump justice by resorting to violence, regardless of the consequences such as Canadian crime bills that have the potential to turn your circle of friends on GooglePlus into "gangs".

Yet I am surprised that even the radical reactionaries among the Sikhs haven't retorted to me, when they spend so much time reacting to that radio talk show host who wasn't referring just to them a few years ago, and kept Immigration Canada at bay regarding the illegal immigrant they were rallying around.

Maybe poverty breeds anonymity. My net worth being in the red by almost a hundred C-notes helps me even more anonymous than Anonymous!

Despite the handful of East Asians in the news, I don't see Chinese reactionaries getting as much 300 second sound bytes on the news about those two murders of innocent South Asian women, and very very little from the inconspicuous Japanese - quite probably because mass media would dread the deluge of hate mail if other ethnic groups within the visible minority milieu expressed their free speech rights in a civil manner.

In my opinion, the most ridiculed of other minority groups would be the Christian rednecks amongst the NRA and possibly the reactionary Muslims, the hardliners who are this close to being criminals, but then just uttering an indirect death threat to anyone is criminal.

For a fatwa is not protected by free speech or by the right to freely practice a religious as one sees fit.

If a fatwa involves the death of the object of that fatwa, then whoever among the Muslim clerics supports it is offensive to God by putting the ideology of the holy war before God. Essentially, if a fatwa results in the death of the object of that fatwa, then it is akin to ritual sacrifice. This makes a mockery of God, because such a death is murder sanctioned by man yet excused as "the will of God".

When the will of God consists of devout men willing to kill for their God, this is proof that such men put first their ideology over their God.

For a man cannot serve two masters when it comes to religion.

While I am still at it, the above contentious logic is also reserved for well-meaning but possibly deluded, most likely misinformed and deliberately ignorant fundamentalists, e.g. abortion assassins who can't shoot straight, radical feminists who collaborate with Christian fundamentalists to close down adult stores and legislate pornography, gang members who have harmed thousands of people but have "found Jesus", and police officers going beyond the call of duty to serve and protect only to practice a form of State terrorism abusing people with "non-lethal force" weapons, sometimes with lethal results.

This is religious fascism, be it holy war, assassination of abortion doctors, the legislation of pornography, criminals who find Jesus in prison yet offered no mercy to their victims before prison, and tazer-happy cops being fronted by the company that makes such "non-lethal" weapons.

For fascism only markets violence, of which few participants are able to profit and in which few WWE veterans participate. It offers no social redeeming value and has no plan except to rob people of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Sadly though, few of my detractors are brave enough to register on Blogspot and rise above the usual web page vandalism i.e. spam posts with URLs pointing to scripts to convert unprotected computers into adbots for porn web links. Since I am not referring to the intelligentsia among my fans and critics — your intelligence will protect you from reacting emotionally to this jab at the mouth-breathing script kiddies — hopefully this will occasionally result in a comment.

Otherwise, I will retain this ridiculous delusion that I am talking to myself.

Though, as I wrote in a previous article, it's probably a side-effect of being Buddhist: I tend to pick my words carefully but end up subtly saying something important, or sometimes just inserting the main point in the bottom third of the article. That way, the reactionaries will go WTF and do what they do best — abreact — and thus fall on the swords they've made of their ego projections.

Depending the level of rhetoric and based on which response requires legal intervention, I can empower myself c/o the CCHRA.

Or not.

That all depends on who is ugly enough to turn up on my doorstep to get the dharma from me!

I also deliberately write long entries because this is a personal blog, and it's a world that I am "conquering".

After discovering how much work it is to run a web server, I am hooked on using GooglePlus and Blogspot for my benefit and yours to conquer the Internet.

Though my original plan was to one day move this content to another blog web service under my control and administration, GooglePlus fits this bill, but I don't have to move any content when I can share it with the world.

Given the totalitarian nature of the Internet, if I cannot rule the world, then I can start my own blog and write about my own!

I am Vindicated in Not Returning to Facebook

Late last year in October 2010, I stated that I felt vindicated in not returning to Facebook. This was less than 100 days after first documenting the fact that my time on Facebook was over.

With Anonymous set on destroying Facebook on November 5, I am glad for not returning to Facebook.

All the Java scripts on Facebook slow down your web browser, forcing people who can afford it to upgrade to fast yet expensive PCs.

Even I had problems using Facebook with Linux because of those scripts.

Those scripts pushed ad content and kept track of your Facebook experience.

As well, other scripts more malevolent might give you a Trojan that might kill your Internet access instead of merely pushing advertisements.

While I don't necessarily agree with what one faction of Anonymous is doing, this is one time when I am vindicated in not returning to Facebook.

A Charter of Information Rights

"...Along with citizen activism, we need legal guarantees and protections for a new set of human rights, which are essential in an IT-dominated society. Only when citizens have obtained these rights will they be able to regain control over public information resources." — D. Gutstein

The Five Information Rights

1. Right to privacy
   

   As individuals we reserve the right to privacy, to retain the right to keep private our personal information so that such rights may not be abused by the State or by corporate interests.
   
   

2. Right of access to information
   

   We reserve the right of access to information, both private (of a personal nature) and public. This being a democratic freedom, such access to public information should not be limited by protective software in such a way as to infringe on right of access to information. As for private information, this right does not include infringing on the privacy of other people but refers to the right for each individual to access his or her personal information. Furthermore, if a source of information does not specifically violate the rights of children as provided by the UN declarations, then each individual reserves the right to strike that source from the ban list, and the right to be allowed to control the editing of any such list.
   
   

3. Right of access to information services and advice
   

   We reserve the right of access to information services and advice in such a way as to not be impeded by restrictions related to business-to-end-user transactions. Private transactions between information providers and individuals should not result in any restrictions on right of access to information services and advice through filtering of information.
   
   

4. Right to benefit from intellectual and artistic works
   

   We reserve the right to benefit from intellectual and artistic works. This implies that any means of database collection services implemented by commercial interests should not restrict this right in any manner, and royalties collected by owners of such databases should be shared with original authors of intellectual and artistic works who legally own rights to those works. Furthermore an author's legal rights should always predominate over corporate legal rights. This right should void corporate copyrights over their database, and encourage negotations between authors and commercial interests for fair market value of intellectual and artistic works authored by individuals.
   
   

5. Right to communicate
   

   The right to communicate should not be infringed upon by any law, both common and criminal. This means that corporations cannot ban individuals from criticizing business practices through establishment of mailing lists and web sites used expressly for this purpose. As well, neither corporate nor public information providers may use protective software to infringe upon this right. If a source of information does not specifically violate the rights of children as provided by UN declarations, then each individual reserves the right to strike that source from the ban list, and the right to be allowed to control the editing of any such list.

---

Source: D. Gutstein, e.con: How the Internet Undermines Democracy;
Chapter 9: Reclaiming Public Information, pp. 283-290