by Reid Fitzsimons

Susquehanna County is a rural part of Northeast Pennsylvania that voted about 70% for Trump in the 2020 election: not the land of "embracing diversity" and all the other meaningless racist and progressive drivel associated with the Democrat party. So several months ago, when suspicion emerged that the local library system was going to change its book lending policy to allow minors to borrow items without their parent's knowledge, there was discontent. This took the form of mass attendance at library board meetings and associated defensiveness from the library establishment, lots of charges and counter-charges, and Letters to the Editor of the local paper, several submitted by me. Below is a recent one I composed, which hopefully is self-explanatory. In this case I went a step further and actually contacted the library director, wanting to separate the facts from emotion, which proved interesting.

To the Editor:

I would like to offer some analysis on the letter from Bernard Remakus that appeared in the Nov. 1^st issue of the Transcript and concerned the controversy over library policy; he made several arguments in favor of the establishment powers, so to speak, all varying from ill-considered to specious. Perhaps the most obvious of the latter is the statement, “For parents who want to know everything their children are reading, the board has allowed them to do so by having their children register with the library on the same library cards their parents use.” The disingenuousness of this false anodyne places it in the realm of absurd: would the board somehow forcibly prohibit linking parent’s cards with their kid’s (* see below)?

Dr. Remakus offers us a placating and saccharine line, “Society is, and has always been, built on the family….” followed by lecturing parents that they, “Also have the responsibility to engender trust and respect in their children, and engage in constructive and educational dialogue with their children about what is appropriate to read and what may become more appropriate to read at some later time,” then insultingly concludes, “For parents who implicitly trust their children or, for any other reason, don't feel the need to supervise their reading preferences, the board has allowed their children to access books with a library card of their own.”

by Reid Fitzsimons

The article posted the other day discussed in some detail the financial trickery and misdirection associated with the recurrent fund-raising drives of Wikipedia, and how Wikipedia is not true to its oft-stated claim that it is "Not For Sale," and that "it doesn't belong to the highest bidder, the advertisers, or corporations." They have a number of pitches suggesting to the masses it's a grassroots effort and relies primarily, if not exclusively, on a multitude of small time donors: the common man, so to speak. This is all complete fabrication, and I thought perhaps I could give them a hand by rewriting their fundraising narrative to reflect the truth. So here is what they would say if they were concerned about things like honesty and integrity:

Wikipedia is not for sale! because it has already been bought. We never mention the fact that we receive millions upon millions of dollars from elite and massively wealthy globalist corporations such as Google, Amazon, and Facebook, because that might dissuade chumps like you from making your small donations. Nor do we mention that we've received millions of dollars from perhaps the wealthiest, most powerful, and pernicious left wing/anti-American/white superiority activist in the world today, George Soros. We like to project the image that we are pretty much a shoe-string operation for the "little guy," and certainly don't advertise the fact that we have something like $250,000,000 in assets in addition to our $100,000,000 "endowment." Are you able to give us just $3? Because if only 170,000 people do this we can cover the annual compensation of our COO without touching our $350,000,000?

Did I (Jimmy Wales) mention we launder our money through the Tides Foundation, an extreme leftist organization that caters to enormously wealthy people and institutions? What about the fact that our operating expenses are a mere fraction of our assets and income, but we want to keep getting richer and richer by suckering people like you into making small donations? Kind of like a corrupt televangelist who gets rich by conning lots of average people to make small donations, thinking they are buying salvation while they are really helping buy a private jet. Please help us maintain this wonderful money-making scheme we've developed that uses volunteers to do the bulk of our work while we pay numerous staff members salaries in the $250,000 to $400,000 range, all under the guise of being a "non-profit." Sure, we're not perfect in terms of always achieving objectivity, but can you really expect unbiased information considering the politics of the elite and privileged we've hopped into bed with?

So please, ignore our deceit and misdirection, and just pretend we are a wonderful "non-profit" that only wants to control- I mean share- the knowledge of the world. And remember, every dollar you give keeps getting me invited to the exclusive World Economic Forum gala meeting in Davos, Switzerland. Sweet!

by Reid Fitzsimons

There is an annoying type of person who mocks and ridicules people who hunt but are more than happy to consume animal flesh. The most elite among them might wax on about how their meat is from free range, grass fed animals, as if they weren’t even slaughtered at all. It allows them to feel good about themselves and better than others. They are, of course, complete hypocrites.

A similar mindset is found in people who support “gender affirming care” for children. They don’t have to do a lot of thinking, just repeat slogans and mantras that justify their opinions and demean and even hate those who don’t agree with them. If they actually did stop to consider what they are espousing, they would also have to support the following scenarios:

*A child obtaining tattoos and body piercings.

*A child drinking alcohol and smoking tobacco and weed.

*A child having consensual sex, regardless of the age of their sex partner(s), and the latter cannot be sanctioned.

*A child not only can view pornography but be a willing participant in it.

*A child can become a prostitute, at least where prostitution is legal.

*An 11-year-old girl, for example, must be required to accept without complaint sharing a public bathroom with a person who has a penis and testicles while this person urinates, defecates, or disrobes. Similarly the girl must be willing to perform excretory functions and be naked in the presence of a stranger with male genitalia.