Charllie Kirk - One Viewpoint

 Copied from Facebook

 by Cory Nichols

  ·

The misinformation surrounding Charlie Kirk is astounding - and I’m not talking about average people sounding off on social media - I’m talking about the BS being spread by major news outlets.

While Kirk’s shooter was obviously overly steeped in internet whackadoo memelord culture - the “normies” don’t have a clue about how internet culture works at all.

Charlie Kirk wasn’t someone who was looking for honest debate. He was a political operative spreading hate and divisiveness. When you show his fans his racist, sexist or bigoted rhetoric - they defend it by saying “That’s not (racist, sexist, bigoted) - it’s true.” And that was his goal.

The whole “Prove Me Wrong” setup that made Kirk famous wasn’t really about proving anyone wrong. It was about creating content. Kirk mastered a specific type of performance that looked like debate but functioned more like a carefully orchestrated show designed to make his opponents look foolish and his positions seem unassailable.

The basic formula was simple - set up a table on a college campus, invite students to challenge conservative talking points, then use a combination of rhetorical tricks and editing magic to create viral moments. What looked like open discourse was actually a rigged game where Kirk held all the advantages.

First, there’s the obvious setup problem.

Kirk was a professional political operative who spent years honing his arguments and memorizing statistics. He knew exactly which topics would come up and had practiced responses ready.

Meanwhile, his opponents were typically 19-year-old students who wandered over between classes. It’s like watching a professional boxer fight random people at the gym - the outcome was predetermined.

Kirk used what debate experts call a corrupted version of the Socratic method. Instead of asking genuine questions to explore ideas, he’d ask leading questions designed to trap students in contradictions or force them into uncomfortable positions. He’d start with seemingly reasonable premises, then quickly pivot to more extreme conclusions, leaving his opponents scrambling to keep up.

The classic example was his approach to gender identity discussions. Kirk would begin by asking seemingly straightforward definitional questions - “What is a woman?” - then use whatever answer he received as a launching pad for increasingly aggressive follow-ups. If someone mentioned social roles, he’d demand biological definitions. If they provided biological definitions, he’d find edge cases or exceptions to exploit.

The goal wasn’t understanding or genuine dialogue - it was creating moments where students appeared confused or contradictory.

Kirk also employed rapid-fire questioning techniques that made it nearly impossible for opponents to fully develop their thoughts. He’d interrupt, reframe, and redirect before anyone could establish a coherent argument. This created the illusion that his opponents couldn’t defend their positions when really they just couldn’t get a word in edgewise.

The editing process was equally important. Kirk’s team would film hours of interactions, then cut together the moments that made him look brilliant and his opponents look unprepared. Nuanced discussions got reduced to gotcha moments. Students who made good points found those parts mysteriously absent from the final videos.

What’s particularly insidious about this approach is how it masquerades as good-faith debate while undermining the very principles that make real discourse valuable. Kirk wasn’t interested in having his mind changed or learning from others - he was performing certainty for an audience that craved validation of their existing beliefs.

The “Prove Me Wrong” framing itself was misleading. It suggested Kirk was open to being persuaded when the entire setup was designed to prevent that possibility. Real intellectual humility requires admitting uncertainty, acknowledging complexity, and engaging with the strongest versions of opposing arguments. Kirk’s format did the opposite.

This style of debate-as-performance has become incredibly popular because it feeds into our current political moment’s hunger for easy victories and clear villains. People want to see their side “destroying” the opposition with “facts and logic.” Kirk provided that satisfaction without the messy reality of actual intellectual engagement.

The broader damage extends beyond individual interactions. When debate becomes about humiliating opponents rather than exploring ideas, it corrupts the entire enterprise of democratic discourse. Students who got embarrassed in these exchanges weren’t just losing arguments - they were being taught that engaging with different viewpoints was dangerous and futile.

Kirk’s approach also contributed to the broader polarization problem by making political identity feel like a zero-sum game where any concession to the other side represented total defeat. His debates reinforced the idea that political opponents weren’t just wrong but ridiculous - a perspective that makes compromise and collaboration nearly impossible.

The most troubling aspect might be how this style of engagement spreads. Kirk inspired countless imitators who use similar tactics in their own contexts. The model of setting up situations where you can’t lose, then claiming victory when your rigged game produces the expected results, has become a template for political engagement across the spectrum.

Real debate requires vulnerability - the possibility that you might be wrong and need to change your mind. Kirk’s format eliminated that possibility by design. His certainty was performative rather than earned, and his victories were manufactured rather than genuine.

The tragedy of this approach is that college campuses actually need more genuine dialogue about difficult political questions. Students are forming their worldviews and wrestling with complex issues. They deserve engagement that helps them think more clearly, not performances designed to make them look stupid.

Kirk’s assassination represents a horrific escalation of political violence that has no place in democratic society. But it’s worth remembering that his debate tactics, while not violent, were themselves a form of intellectual violence that treated political opponents as objects to be humiliated rather than fellow citizens to be engaged.

Climate Cover Up - Book Review

Climate Cover-Up

by James Hoggan

Worth reading if you want to understand how vested interests have hijacked all discussions about 1) whether climate change exists, and  2) the human industrialized role in that change, and  3) whether there is much disagreement between scientists about the causes of climate change, and 4) whether we can/should do anything about it.

 This review is from Greystone Books:

An insider's view of how the energy industry has fuelled a bogus controversy about climate change.

This book rips the lid off the campaign to discredit scientists, confuse journalists, and deny climate change. The tactics have been slick, but PR expert James Hoggan and investigative journalist Richard Littlemore have compiled a readable, accessible guidebook through the muck. Beginning with leaked memos from the coal industry, the oil industry and the tobacco-sponsored lie-about-science industry, the authors expose the plans to "debunk" global warming; they track the execution of those plans; and they illuminate the results—confusion, inaction, and an epidemic of public mistrust.

Climate Cover-Up names names, identifying bogus experts who are actually paid lobbyists and flaks. The authors reveal the PR techniques used to misinform, to mangle the language, and to intimidate the media into maintaining a phony climate change debate. Exposing the seedy origins of that debate, this book will leave you fuming at the extent, the effect, and the ethical affront of the climate cover-up.

The REAL Menace on Our Streets?

 We've all seen them.  Riding along the streets, almost without effort.  That menace to the established order.  E-bikes.

  The online publication Electrik posted a partly tongue-in-cheek essay about the "menace of e-bikes".  

 Electric bikes are a menace. They go almost as fast as a car (if the car is parking), they’re whisper quiet (which makes them impossible to hear over the podcast playing in your headphones), and worst of all, they’re increasingly ridden by teenagers.

By now, we’ve all seen the headlines. Cities are cracking down. Lawmakers are holding emergency hearings. Parents are demanding bans. “Something must be done,” they cry at local city council meetings before driving back home in 5,000 lb SUVs.

And it’s true – some e-bike riders don’t follow the rules. Some ride too fast. Some are inexperienced. These are real problems that deserve real solutions. But if you think electric bikes are the biggest threat on our roads, just wait until you hear about the slightly more common, slightly more deadly vehicle we’ve been quietly tolerating for the last hundred years.

 They’re called cars. And unlike e-bikes, they actually kill people. A lot of people. Over 40,000 people die in car crashes in the US every year. Thousands more are permanently injured. Entire neighborhoods are carved up by high-speed traffic. Kids can’t walk to school safely. But don’t worry – someone saw a teenager run a stop sign on an e-bike, so the real crisis must be those darn batteries on two wheels.

 The REAL menaces on our streets are cars, specifically large, heavy cars, distracted drivers, speeding drivers, lack of bike lanes, lack of decent shoulders on roads and simply too much traffic - car and truck traffic.  Bikes are one solution to most of those menaces.

 

Oh Alberta - Grievances?

 

Copied from Facebook on May 28th, 2025

eoropntdsS3l  ·  

Let’s drop the phoney Alberta versus Canada nonsense. The province has met the enemy — and it is them

 

by Jim Stanford - Toronto Star

 

Because the Liberal party won the most seats in a national election (the fourth time in a row), but most Alberta ridings went Conservative (for the umpteenth time in a row), Canada is now said to be facing a national unity crisis.

Premier Danielle Smith facilitates separatism (while claiming she doesn’t support it).

Alberta business leaders play the national unity card in demanding fast approval of more pipelines: unless the oil industry (assumed to proxy Alberta’s general interests) gets what it wants, national unity is in jeopardy.

Federal Conservatives, while disavowing explicit separatism, reinforce the claim Alberta has been mistreated by the country. Interim leader Andrew Scheer, on X, complains Ottawa has “attacked Canada’s oil and gas industry for 10 years.”

An aspiring Alberta MP-in-waiting, Pierre Poilievre, echoes that view. While saying he personally opposes separation, Poilievre complains “Albertans have a lot of legitimate grievances,” the result he says of a decade of attacks on oil. This rhetoric will excite the voters of Battle River-Crowfoot. Whether it helps Mr. Poilievre contest a future federal election, however, is a different question.

Many Albertans are indeed frustrated and angry — and with reason.

There is no province where real incomes and living standards have deteriorated more in the past decade than Alberta. According to StatsCan, Alberta has experienced the second-biggest increase in incidence of low income of any province since 2015.

Workers have endured a 10 per cent decline in real wages(adjusted for inflation) over the last decade, worse than any other province. Minimum wages haven’t budged in seven years.

Despite falling real wages, living costs remain among the highest in Canada, and Alberta suffered the highest inflation of any province last year. Electricity prices, auto insurance, and tuition fees — all governed by provincial rules — have soared faster than anywhere else in Canada.

But can any of these problems be blamed on the rest of Canada, or the federal government? In particular, does Alberta’s hardship stem from suppression of Alberta’s oil industry, as Mr. Poilievre claims?

This is an obvious attempt at diversion that Albertans should dismiss.

During this decade of relentless federal “attacks,” Alberta’s oil production grew by 52 per cent. Production records are being broken again in 2025, tracking more than 4.4 million barrels a day so far. The expanded TMX pipeline — bought and completed at federal expense — has boosted both output and prices, modestly reducing the long-standing discount on Canadian oil sales in the U.S Midwest.

Oil industry profits have also never been higher, thanks to record volumes, cost-cutting, and the 2022 oil price spike.

Petroleum producers and refiners pocketed after-tax profit of $192 billion over the last four years alone — four times more than in the entire 2010s. Corporate profits gobble up a huge slice of Alberta’s GDP: about 40 per cent of total output over the last five years, twice as much as the rest of Canada.

In short, there’s never been more oil wealth generated in Alberta, despite (or perhaps because of) the Liberals holed up in Ottawa.

Yet average Albertans aren’t getting their share of it.

The boom in oil production and profits certainly isn’t translating into jobs.

Oil extraction and service firms shed more than 30,000 jobs in the province over the last ten years, even as production boomed.

In 2014 the industry hired 128 workers for every million barrels of oil produced. Last year, thanks to self-driving trucks, automated facilities, and downsizing, that number halved to just 61.

So it’s no surprise residents of my home province are cranky.

Their economy produces more GDP per worker than any other. The economic pie they bake is bigger than ever. But the average Albertan’s standard of living is lower than a decade ago.

It wasn’t Ottawa that laid them off, cut their pay, froze the minimum wage, drove up electricity and insurance costs, and put their health care at risk. It was the enemy within.

Alberta’s oligarchs aren’t speaking for the province, they are speaking for themselves.

And the sooner the rest of the population can get past the phoney Alberta versus Canada narrative, the sooner they’ll start toward a genuine solution to their woes: namely, winning a fairer share of the abundant wealth they already produce.

Ulterior Motives

 

This popped up on my anti-social media feed today.  Worth a read.

 

I know a little something that so many do not appreciate about Donald, but that those of us who worked with him in the financial services game have known for many decades—LONG before he ever made a run at politics. 

 

His stated motives rarely reveal his true agenda. His showmanship and charisma bedazzles the uninformed, which is exactly how he likes it.

 

He never signed a contract or met an agreement he wouldn’t violate or wriggle out of if it suited his hidden agenda. He never met an investor whose purse he didn’t consider his own in some strategic way. And he never met a human being he wouldn’t screw in order to advance or satisfy himself. 

 

If you want to understand his beef with Panama, don’t look at the canal to which he now points. Look at Trump enterprises and their fraught financial and criminal relationship with Panama, and look to the Russian oligarchs who bought condos in his Panama Tower.

If you want to understand his fixation with Gaza, don’t look at the Palestinian or Israeli people; look at the real estate value he now perceives that Gaza holds, and he’d like to unlock. 

 

If you want to understand his insane, obsessive beef with energy renewable windmills, don’t look at the wind energy aspect; look at his beef with Scotland over his golf course and the nearby windmills that damaged his idea of its aesthetics. 

 

If you want to understand his irrational hatred of Obama, don’t look at the policies of the Obama administration; look to the annual press corp dinner where Obama poked fun at him and bruised his ego. If you want to understand his demonization of Democrats, look not to Democratic social policy, but to the fact they didn’t want him to run under color of their party. 

 

If you want to understand his hatred of “immigrants” don’t look to the actual contributions and challenges related to immigration, but to his own germophobia and personal disgust for all things “dirty and brown.” 

 

What he does SO masterfully, as many sociopaths do, is figure out how to align, however temporarily, his own personal agenda with the drives of those he can then USE to help him execute it. And the GOP fell right in line with that abusive strategy. 

 

The GOP now looks much like a battered wife who would LOVE to quit Trump, but who also knows their financial security, personal comfort, and social status would collapse if they ran away. And they fear they won’t get much sympathy or support from the people who tried to warn them not to marry the dude—a serial, liar, cheater, thief, sadist, and a generally Bad Person. 

 

Many of the GOP politicians today are busily masking their own abuse from the general public; at some point, however, as they watch their power continue to erode, their reputations get smashed, and themselves get blamed for the extensive abuse they now suffer, something’s gonna give. 

 

I don’t know what it is, but every bone in my body FEELS an energetic convergence heading toward a massive, MASSIVE explosion—coming soon.

 

Author ~ Eilene Workman

Oh Saskatchewan

 

Has SK's Premier Scott Moe attached himself to Alberta's talk of separation?

Is Saskatchewan a "have not" province?

 This article has some definite opinions: (This is the FB link - text is copied below, just in case....)

  by James Lee

Saskatchewan Isn’t a “Have-Not” Province—It’s a Mismanaged One (And Separation Would Be a Disaster)

 

Saskatchewan should be a powerhouse. It has some of the richest resource reserves in the country:

 

45% of the world’s potash

 

Third-largest oil-producing province in Canada

World-class uranium deposits

 

Top-tier farmland

 

Massive wind & solar potential

 

And yet?

 

2nd-lowest GDP growth in Canada in 2023 (1.1%)

 

Youth out-migration, weak private investment, brain drain

 

Innovation and tech development far behind Alberta and BC

(Source: Statistics Canada, Global News)

 

This is not Ottawa’s fault. It’s the result of poor leadership in Regina.

 

Premier Scott Moe and the Sask Party have:

 

Undermined confidence with the hollow “Saskatchewan First Act”

 

Rejected climate transition funding that could’ve created new industries

 

Delayed essential childcare agreements

 

Failed to invest in diversification while other provinces race ahead

 

> “We’re sitting on goldmines and acting broke.” — Don Atchison, former Saskatoon mayor, 2022 (Global News)

 

Why blame Ottawa? Because accountability is politically expensive.

 

Premier Moe—and Danielle Smith in Alberta—are locked in a cycle of populist blame-shifting. Rather than admit provincial mismanagement, they turn Ottawa into a scapegoat to distract voters from crumbling infrastructure, rising costs, and lost opportunity. It’s easier to stir up regional resentment than to offer a real economic plan. Both Moe and Smith use nationalism, fear, and federal confrontation to deflect from stagnant growth, failed healthcare investments, and resistance to innovation. Conservative mismanagement wrapped in patriotism is still mismanagement.

 

Worst of all? The talk of Western separation is dangerous fantasy.

 

Let’s be blunt: Saskatchewan would be completely exposed.

 

No military. No border protection. No international trade agreements. No currency of its own.

Vulnerable to foreign interference, economic bullying, and U.S. exploitation.

 

America already dominates prairie oil and agriculture markets. They would extract your resources at a discount and leave you with environmental risk, no leverage, and no recourse.

Look at how the U.S. treats its own “have-not” states. Look at what they did to Mexico under NAFTA. Look at how they’ve handled migrant labor, pipeline control, and energy disputes.

Do you think they’d treat an isolated Saskatchewan better?

 

Where does this short-sightedness come from?

 

It’s easier to blame “Ottawa” than to ask why provincial leaders keep choosing ideology over innovation. Easier to talk tough about sovereignty than do the hard work of building one.

There’s no independence without infrastructure. No prosperity without planning. No freedom without strategy.

 

This isn’t about pride. It’s about refusing to grow up as a province.

 

Saskatchewan has the resources of a “have” province—but it won’t act like one.

 

Instead of building a future, too many are clinging to a myth that Canada is the problem.

 

Canada isn't holding you back. It’s holding you up.

---

Sources:

Statistics Canada, GDP by province, 2023

Global News, “Saskatchewan’s Innovation Gap,” 2022

CBC News, “Sask. delays childcare deal,” 2021

Natural Resources Canada, Potash & Uranium Reports

Canada West Foundation, Trade Dependencies Report, 2022

---

#Saskatchewan #CDNPoli #ScottMoe #DanielleSmith #WexitMyth #PrairieReality #PotashPower #UraniumCapital #WastedPotential #ActLikeAHave #CanadianUnity #InvestInTheWest #SaskFirstNeedsVision #StopTheStuntPolitics #WesternPrideMeansBuildingNotBlaming

 

Oh Alberta...Separation?

 

The following is reproduced from a social media post.  Note the original author, Robin Kers.

© Robin Kers. This is original content. Please do not repost without attribution.

1. “Listening to Albertans”—But Which Ones?

Premier Smith said Albertans feel ignored by Ottawa and deserve to be heard. Fair enough. But Alberta is home to a wide range of voices—urban and rural, Indigenous and settler, conservative and progressive, young and old. Not all share the Premier’s vision.

Oddly, the same government asking Ottawa to respect Alberta voices has often sidelined those it doesn’t agree with—from environmental advocates to school boards and Indigenous leaders.

Mini-reflection: You can’t demand recognition from the outside while denying it inside. Listening should be for all Albertans—not just the ones who already agree.

2. Turning Disagreement Into “Attacks”

Smith accused the federal government of attacking Alberta’s way of life, especially through climate policies like carbon pricing and net-zero energy mandates.

Let’s be clear: these policies are national. They apply to all provinces. And the Supreme Court has upheld Ottawa’s right to implement them. Alberta has options for tailoring its response but hasn’t always taken them.

Mini-reflection: Calling something an “attack” doesn’t make it so. It’s a strong word meant to rally people, but it doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.

3. The Four Demands—and Four Problems

Smith outlined a set of demands for Ottawa:

1. Guaranteed coastal access for Alberta’s exports

2. Cancellation of federal clean energy mandates

3. Veto power over federal tariffs

4. Elimination of equalization payments to more populous provinces

Each of these is thorny.

• Coastal access can’t be imposed on BC by Ottawa—there are legal, environmental, and Indigenous hurdles.

• The clean energy mandate isn’t just federal—it’s tied to Canada’s climate commitments, and provinces have room to negotiate implementation.

• Tariffs fall under federal trade authority. Giving Alberta a veto rewrites Canadian federalism.

• Equalization isn’t a cheque Alberta writes—it’s a redistribution formula embedded in the Constitution. Ending it would require major reform and likely broad provincial agreement.

Mini-reflection: These aren’t simple asks. They’d require major constitutional shifts, legal battles, or policy reversals with national consequences.

4. The Referendum Gambit

Smith said she won’t stand in the way of a referendum on Alberta’s future if enough citizens sign a petition. That’s a calculated message—meant to sound democratic, but with serious implications.

According to the Supreme Court’s 1998 ruling on Quebec, a referendum—even a clear majority—does not give a province the legal right to leave Canada. It would only compel negotiations involving all provinces and the federal government.

Current polling doesn’t show anywhere near majority support for separation in Alberta. And most business leaders, Indigenous groups, and moderate voters aren’t on board with going down that road.

Mini-reflection: Referendum talk can stir emotions, but it doesn’t create an exit ramp. It’s more political pressure than legal plan.

5. “Let Alberta Be Heard”—Already Is

Smith argued that Alberta is being ignored by Ottawa. But the province has significant representation in Parliament. It’s also been front and centre in national debates for years—especially on energy, climate, and federal spending.

The issue isn’t whether Alberta is being heard. It’s that it doesn’t always get its way. That’s how federalism works.

Mini-reflection: Not agreeing with someone isn’t the same as ignoring them. Disagreement is part of democracy.

Final Thought:

Premier Smith’s speech was strong in tone and clear in intent. But underneath the emotion are demands that are legally murky, politically risky, and often based on half-truths.

The question isn’t whether Alberta matters. It absolutely does. The real question is whether escalation and threats are the best way to make progress in a country built on compromise.

Author’s Note

In anticipation of the usual accusations of bias, misinformation, or betrayal of Western values and concurrent vitriol, let me clarify the following:

This article was not written to cheer for Ottawa or to dismiss legitimate Albertan concerns. It was written because facts matter—and because responsible leadership requires more than slogans and threats.

If you think this is “federalist propaganda,” I invite you to do your own damn research. Read the Constitution. Read the Supreme Court ruling on Quebec. Read the Clean Electricity Regulations. Most of all, read the room: bluster isn’t a plan, and sabre-rattling doesn’t build pipelines or pay bills.

Constructive dialogue demands honesty, not theatre.

Sources Consulted and Cited

1. Alberta Government Newsroom

Official transcripts and policy statements from Premier Smith’s May 5, 2025, address and related legislative actions.

Source: Government of Alberta, alberta.ca/news

2. Global News

Coverage and analysis of Premier Smith’s announcement and public response to the proposed Alberta Accord and separation referendum.

Journalist: Phil Heidenreich, Global News, May 5, 2025

3. Supreme Court of Canada Reference re Secession of Quebec (1998)

Landmark ruling establishing the constitutional framework for any province seeking to secede from Canada.

Citation: [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217

4. Canada Constitution Act, 1982

Relevant sections on federal trade powers (s.91(2)), environmental authority, equalization (s.36(2)), and intergovernmental relations.

5. Bill 54 (Alberta, 2025)

Alberta’s amendment to its Referendum Act reducing the signature threshold and extending the petition period for citizen-initiated referenda.

6. Federal Clean Electricity Regulations (2023 Draft)

Environment and Climate Change Canada’s proposed regulatory pathway for a net-zero electricity grid by 2035.

7. Polling Data (Various)

Public opinion trends on Alberta separation and federal-provincial relations. Notably: Angus Reid Institute, Abacus Data, and Léger (2023–2025).