Stop Trudeau’s Bill C-11 Censorship Law

As 2022 draws to a close I see Canada’s Independent and Social Media along with the Conservative Party of Canada all abuzz over PM Justin Trudeau’s latest effort on the part of his globalist handlers to deliver a final blow to the New World Order’s inescapable Nemesis – the INTERNET.

Ads on Facebook by the Conservative Party of Canada, like the one below, are calling on Canadians to sign their petition and help them stop the Liberal’s blatant attempt to curb the tongues of the general public when they’re online before the final judgement call occurs and “the People” learn who is really behind all the madness the world’s been subjected to since the advent of the Great Scamdemic of 2020.

When I clicked on their petition ad to sign it a window opened stated the following:

STOP ONLINE CENSORSHIP

“We the undersigned call on the Liberal government to stop their C-11 censorship law that will curtail the freedom of expression Canadians enjoy online.

Whereas the Liberal Bill C-11 threatens to end the freedoms of Canadians on the internet in an open marketplace with a free exchange of ideas.

Whereas under this archaic system of censorship, government gatekeepers will now have the power to control which videos, posts and other content Canadians can see online.

Whereas Conservative Senators are keeping up the pressure in the Senate to abandon this ill-conceived censorship of freedom of expression online.

And whereas Conservatives will continue to fight back to defend the freedom of expression of Canadians, without which no other Charter rights are possible.

Therefore be it resolved that we call on this Liberal government to roll back their online censorship law C-11, and ensure Canadians’ right to freedom of expression online is protected.”

Of course for old radical’s such as myself who’ve been in the freedom of speech front line trenches for decades (and still am!) there’s a bit of irony (and possibly even hypocrisy) attached to the Conservative Party’s current love affair today with the concept of “freedom of expression”.

I can readily recall that it was under the dictatorship of the late Conservative PM Stephen Harper that the freedom of expression loving folks in Canada were already living in and suffering under a tyrannical, Orwellian dystopia thanks to former PM Pierre Trudeau and the Liberal’s draconian Sec. 13 “hate crime” legislation which they had surreptitiously slipped in under the wire immediately following 911 when the House was adjourning for the Christmas break.

Below is an image of many of the former victims of Canada’s undemocratic Censorship Laws.

While Sec.13 was obviously not the creation of the Conservative Party, PM Harper’s government had been going along with it up until the point where they finally realized that it was in fact a double-edged sword; one that could be used to silence not only critics of the left but also critics of the right. This occurred when a couple of media personalities of the day (who I’m not able to identify due to legal restrictions) had complaints laid against them by those who they were running down in the controlled media.

As a result of the conundrum the Conservatives found themselves in they were able to eventually repeal this specious piece of Orwellian legislation with the help of some Conservative Senators back in 2012.

Their fundamental error though at the time of repealing Sec.13 from the Canadian Human Rights Act was to fail to go one step further and repeal the more sinister and dangerous freedom-destroying legislation contained in the Canadian Criminal Code under Sections 318-320; ones which the Liberal government continues to embellish with further restrictions and undoubtedly plan to use against Canadian citizens in the times ahead.

It’s my hope that this time around the Conservative Party of Canada, should they gain a majority in the next federal election, will resolve this issue of freedom of expression once and for all and return to the common sense approach that existed in the former Canadian Bill of Rights which Conservative PM John Diefenbaker bequeathed to Canada on July 1, 1960. His words, spoken 62 years ago, still strike the hearts of all freedom loving Canadians today:

“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and for all mankind.”

History of Censorship in Canada

For those too young to remember and those still asleep at the wheel a decade ago it’s incumbent upon me to clarify the who, what and where of this former Censorship legislation known as Sec.13 and Sec. 318-320 of the CCC as well as the history of censorship in Canada from its nascent beginnings.

It’s my position, based upon over 20 years of research and 15 years of ongoing litigation, that Canada’s judicial system was infiltrated and co-opted by globalist interests operating in Canada since as early as 1919. Of course such an assertion will automatically be met with a loud hue and cry of “preposterous! outrageous!” followed immediately by much hand-wringing and declamations of “hatred” and “racism” and further punctuated, dramatized and broadcast across the nation via the Controlled Mainstream Media. So be it. It doesn’t detract one iota from the facts.

All that’s required in order to verify this war against our rights and freedoms, including our most basic right of speaking out and expressing our views on issues vital to our national well being, is to delve into any and all of the legal cases over the past 55 years associated with the issue of freedom of expression and one will see immediately that in practically every instance the globalist elites lining up and vying for intervenor status. And furthermore, concomitant with their zealousness to intervene is usually the underlying fact that it was themselves who were instrumental in bringing forth the charges. And if that isn’t the norm then they’re undoubtedly there to make sure that the complainant (usually an agent in one form or another) gets the maximum support of their power and influence in the courts and the media.

One might legitimately say that these deceptive measures to control freedom of speech actually began before the commencement of WW2. After Hitler and the National Socialist Party came to power in 1933 the world’s globalists in Canada were already growing fearful that Canadians might begin to believe what Chancellor Hitler was saying about the International banking cartel and their control of Germany’s own beleaguered nation and so, as a result of their growing paranoia, the provincial government of Manitoba, (of all places) passed a statute to combat what was apparently perceived to be a “rise in the dissemination of Nazi propaganda”, the premise of which (The Libel Act, R.S.M. 1913, c. 113, s. 13A (added S.M. 1934, c. 23, s. 1) was later to become The Defamation Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. D20, s. 19(1) and was in all likelihood the first volley launched against freedom of expression in Canada.

Up until 1970 Section 181 of the Criminal Code which reads, “Every one who wilfully publishes a statement, tale or news that he knows is false and that causes or is likely to cause injury or mischief to a public interest is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.” was the only provision in the Code even remotely connected to the offence of group defamation but it didn’t, at the time, specifically make mention of “hate propaganda”.

When WW2 ended the work of the globalists began in earnest. Their first step in the direction of censorship was the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 with its references to “hate propaganda”. By 1953 we find that the globalists in Canada were already diligently pursuing efforts toward this same end with their attempt to insert anti-hate propaganda provisions into the Canadian Criminal Code which was being revised in that same year.

Their deceptive labours eventually bore fruit in 1965 when they were finally able to convince Canada’s federal Justice Minister Guy Favreau to appoint a special (interest?) committee to look into the purported “problems” connected with the dissemination of “hate propaganda” in Canada.

Surprisingly (not) what became known as “The Special Committee on Hate Propaganda in Canada” was fully furnished with a gaggle of legal beagles that included one notable lawyer who would become instrumental in aiding the globalists in their relentless quest for censorship laws.

This was none other than Professor Pierre E. Trudeau, Associate Professor of Law, University of Montreal, soon to become Canada’s Prime Minister.

The committee studied the alleged “problem” from January 29th to November 10th, 1965 and their conclusions called for new legislation that ultimately affected the Post Office Act, the Customs Act, and most critically in today’s context, what is now Section 319 of the Criminal Code.

Only now that the true history of the last eighty years is finally coming to light, thanks to the free and open Internet, are we allowed to search for and see the original, unadulterated script that was so cleverly designed by the NWO forces of the day and it turns out to be a program of diabolic, treacherous, political pragmatism designed to destroy democratic institutions and replace them with an atheistic, elitist, macabre vision of a New World Order where they, and only they, would hold all the power and control over the world’s people along with all the resources of the planet.

It was back in the mid-1970s when the globalists began lobbying Ontario’s then Deputy Attorney General, F.W. Callaghan and putting pressure on him to silence one of their critics, a rather vociferous fellow by the name John Ross Taylor who had come up with the novel idea of leaving telephone messages on the phone lines of those who he was critical of. The recipients of Ross’s unwelcome expressions were demanding of the Federal Department of Justice the inclusion of speech-restricting legislation that removed the need for “willfulness” or fair comment based on public interest. In that way they could circumvent having to pay their own legal costs which would, under the new law, be off loaded on to the unsuspecting Canadian taxpayer instead.

According to the history of Section 13 by Marc Lemire, an advocate and fighter for freedom of speech during PM Harper’s reign, he states, “In 1976, the Federal Government was looking at a larger Act for employment issues and the provision of federally regulated services. This Act eventually would end up with the innocuous sounding name: the Canadian Human Rights Act. Although no other section of the Canadian Human Rights Act covered speech, it was not a problem for the Federal government to capitulate and slip in an extra section to satisfy Ontario’s Attorney General’s lust to silence John Ross Taylor and his home-based answering machine.”

“In 1977 Bill C-25 or the “Canadian Human Rights Act” was passed by the House of Commons on July 14th. Contained within it under the sub-title of “Hate messages” was Section 13 which read:

13(1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

As Lemire goes on to state:

“Only a few years after the law was enacted, Mr. Callaghan finally got his wish and John Ross Taylor became its first victim, with the Canadian Human Rights Commission itself and several globalists as the complainants.

“Since the law was first enacted, two major changes were made to Section 13.  These changes fundamentally shifted the original intent of the legislation, and turned Section 13 into an instrument to financially and morally punish those with politically incorrect views.

“The first change to the legislation occurred on May 15, 1998, when Royal Accent was given to Bill S-5 (1998), which added a new penalty provision to the Canadian Human Rights Act. Bill S-5 added Section 54 to the Canadian Human Rights Act, and allows the Human Rights Tribunal to impose a financial penalty of up to $10,000.  On top of the fines, Section 54 also gave the fanatical Tribunal the ability to impose penalties of up to $20,000 as so-called ‘special compensation’.

“According to the background section of Bill S-5, these penalties were added ‘as a response to the rising incidence of hate crimes around the world. The government believes that stronger measures are needed to deter individuals and organizations from establishing hate lines. It hopes to accomplish this by allowing victims of such lines to apply for compensation and subjecting offenders to financial penalty.’

“The second change occurred in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001.  Sadly, this legislation equated non-violent politically incorrect words – which are covered by Section 13 – with terrorism and concerns of national security. Under the guise of Bill C-36 – Canada’s Anti-Terrorism Act, Section 13 was expanded to cover “a group of interconnected or related computers, including the Internet.”

This change, gave the power to the Canadian Human Rights Commission to censor the internet and harass Canadians with views that the Rights Fanatics disagree with.

Closer to Home

Of itself censorship is nothing new having been around since Cicero’s day. It didn’t become established to any degree until after the middle of the 15th Century when Johannes Gutenberg invented the movable-type printing press and set off the Gutenberg revolution. Once the technical means were in place allowing mass communication to occur the inevitable pursuit of controlling the narrative also appeared and by the turn of the 20th Century the globalists of the day had already firmly established their worldwide news networks. They’re still with us today and the times we now live in are, in many ways, but a reflection of the effects that the controlled media has produced upon the planet over the past 125 years.

Having arrived on this 3rd rock from the sun in 1947 I was in a sense a Johnny-come-lately in terms of understanding how the mass media was structured even though by the time I left high school in 1965 Marshall McLuhan’s Gutenberg Galaxy had already been on the market for three years. My time spent at Simon Fraser University from its opening in the fall of ’65 until I left with my Teaching Certificate in hand was the precursor to what would eventually turn out to be a rather radical life spent within McLuhan’s famed galaxy.

I didn’t encountered the malevolent effects of censorship until I reached my 50th year. It was only then I finally realized that if a Canadian citizen wishes to express themselves in a free and open manner that the heavy hand of Big Brother can and will appear to silence you. My reaction at the time to having my letters to the editor of the local community newspaper the Quesnel–Cariboo Observer censored by my then employer School District #28 set me on a new path that would eventually lead up to the present moment and the issue now at hand.

Those who know me and my previous published works since I began publishing my own newspaper The Radical back in June of 1998 will understand perfectly well what I’m talking about when I state that ever since I first encountered head on the diabolic, Big Brother, Communist threat to individual freedom of expression back in 2007 the issue of CENSORSHIP has over shadowed my life’s work.

The legal consequences alone, after spending over a decade in and out of the Provincial and Supreme Court systems, have left an indelible mark on my ability to speak TRUTH to the power brokers who, since the onset of their transparently overt 2020 Covid attack upon humanity, have now turned the socio-political world into a farcical free-for-all with no holds barred.

Front Page News for November 23, 2012


Concluding Remarks

“Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them,
I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and
beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

And everyone that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not,
Shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and
Beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.”
~ Jesus Christ, St. Matthew Ch. 7, vs 24 -27

The premise of my argument that Canada’s Legacy media or MSM is, and always has been, an integral part of the NWO’s overall plan to formulate and establish Orwellian laws inimical to the rights and freedoms of the Canadian people stands undefeated to this day for the simple reason that the globalists will never debate the issue in an open public forum as they’re fully aware it’s much easier to just use the power of their press to vilify and smear anyone who exhibits the testicular audacity to openly challenge their verifiable culpability in every criminal deception they’ve been involved in over the past century and longer. Frankly stated it’s the modus operandi of these globalists to react precisely in this fashion for that is how they mendaciously twist and stifle debate on any issue of national importance to Canadians, be it our Charter rights or our fundamental right (and responsibility as patriotic protectors of our country) to question the direction of the nation’s domestic and foreign policies.

It’s also my ardent contention that the Censorship template for Canada’s anti-free speech legislation, falsely labelled “Hate Propaganda” was, from the start, designed in such a way as to function as a legal shield which the globalists could then use to defend themselves against any allegations aimed at exposing their covert actions, all of which were designed to benefit their inordinate influence over Canadian politics.

Back during the period of my legal battles with the Canadian Human Rights Commission then Conservative PM Stephen Harper was the globalist’s Trojan Horse de jure and front man in this deliberate, ongoing, slow motion coup to capture the nation’s political and legal systems. His only saving grace was to have not stood in the way of repealed the Sec. 13 law before his tenure ended.

When we go back in history and retrace the steps these Machiavellian interlopers have taken since the end of World War 2 it’s clearly evident what they’ve been up to, especially in light of the now increasing displeasure that more and more Canadians are exhibiting toward the actions of the current Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau when it comes to his relentless, mean-spirited attacks upon our truckers, our clergy and our nurses and doctors.

Those despicable actions, exacerbated to the nth degree by his psychotic obsession with wanting to jab every living soul in the country, from pregnant mothers and new born babies to the aged, with the World Health Organization and Fauci’s poisons that are now decimating the world’s populations everywhere make it abundantly evident that our nation is under serious attack by these foreign globalist insiders who are manipulating the Prime Minister of the country to commit treasonous acts designed to obliterate the people’s fundamental rights and freedoms.

These examples coupled with his outright phony posturing and endless display of abject obeisance to the wishes of international globalist organizations like the World Economic Forum of which he’s a charter member and one of the more fanatical and embarrassing examples of what a true Statesman ought not to be all point to the unequivocal conclusion that the nation has been betrayed by the Liberal Party of Canada and it MUST BE REPLACED in the most expedient manner as possible.

A final reminder for readers is Sec. 2b of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which clearly delineates our fundamental right to freedom of expression:

Sec.2b(2): Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.

As fate would have it my own legal case was destined to be the test case for the globalists working in Canada. Should they win and find me guilty under Sec. 319(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada then that precedent would undoubtedly unleash a flood of subsequent attacks upon the rest of the bloggers and publishers and writers and artists living in Canada who might also see an imminent threat to their freedom of expression encapsulated in this draconian, Orwellian legislation designed with malicious forethought to censor truth and stymie any and all attempts to achieve and maintain justice and freedom of speech in Canada.

Just as the great parable of Jesus Christ shown above regarding the foolish man who built his house upon the sand has come down through history so too has the foolish attempt by those who labour for the Satanic forces to build a globalist house of invisible governance upon the sands of deception, usury and an insatiable lust for power and control over their fellow mortals.

Now that the rains of the peoples’ outrageous indignation and the floods of perceived injustice and repression of personal freedoms and the winds of Truth and Freedom are beginning to beat with greater and greater intensity upon the once mighty and powerful House of the New World Order (thanks to the miracle of the Internet), the underpinnings of this deceptive, age-old hoax are giving way and, if the people continue to unite and persevere in their staunch resistance to and abolition of all the censorious “Hate Propaganda” laws now being used against them, then soon and with great relief and thankfulness, will come the inevitable fall of this House of Horrors followed by a new beginning for those who want only peace and love and justice and brotherhood to reign supreme.

~Ω~

Freedom’s funeral: Darkness descends over dazed Canadians

Freedom’s funeral:

Darkness descends over dazed Canadians

By John Kaminski

In the end, there were no heroes, only desperate despots flexing their mindless muscle over betrayed and bewildered people unable to comprehend the horror they witnessed unleashed upon them.

The awesome quest for freedom in Canada was crushed by the brutal pomposity of a government gone mad with a power that had decreed its own senseless mandates took precedence over the noble goals of freedom and justice by which their nation had been established.

Children were snatched from their parents, dogs were impounded and threatened with death, and families who had nobly crusaded for freedom from tyrannical and toxic restrictions were torn asunder in the freezing cold of a foul February night.

Worst of all a crippled old woman only demonstrating for righteousness and honesty was trampled to death beneath the hooves of police horses parading forth the perverted power of a gruesome government cruelly displaying the brutal bitterness of insane tyrants who could no longer be trusted by anyone.

Canada has descended into a hell from which it will likely never emerge, and worse than that, foreshadowed a madness spreading across the entire planet of governments deliberately killing their own people to conceal the financial crimes it has committed against them.

The world watched in horror as the mental illness of unchecked authority destroyed the hope of patriotic conviction with arbitrary and casual abuse of men, women and children who had thought they were free, and learned to their despair that they were not.

The Toronto Sun reported “Police horses trample demonstrators at Freedom Convoy protest in Ottawa” (By Joe Warmington)

Turns out the lasting image of the Freedom Convoy protest at Parliament Hill will not be bouncy castles but that of a woman with a walker being trampled by a police horse.

The violence the Prime Minister has expressed concern about during the three-week protest in Ottawa didn’t unfold until Justin Trudeau’s Emergencies Act police army was sent in to disperse the crowd.

The three major incidents Friday, under a form of martial law, were grotesque. Video of Toronto Police Mounted Unit officers charging into the crowd and at least one horse trampling multiple people — including an elderly woman with a walker — was disturbing.

But that was not the only troubling incident. Another saw a protester behind a police line repeatedly being smashed with an officer’s rifle.

And convoy organizer Benjamin Dichter also told the Toronto Sun “one of drivers had his truck windows smashed by Ottawa Police (with) guns drawn and (he was) dragged out of his vehicle by force.”


The Associated Press reported police arrested scores of demonstrators and towed away vehicles Friday in Canada’s besieged capital, and a stream of trucks started leaving under the pressure, raising authorities’ hopes for an end to the three-week protest against the country’s COVID-19 restrictions.

By evening, at least 100 people had been arrested, mostly on mischief charges, and nearly two dozen vehicles had been towed, including all of those blocking one of the city’s major streets, authorities said. One officer had a minor injury, but no protesters were hurt, interim Ottawa Police Chief Steve Bell said.

Those arrested included four protest leaders. One received bail while the others remained jailed.

The crackdown on the self-styled Freedom Convoy began in the morning, when hundreds of police, some in riot gear and some carrying automatic weapons, descended into the protest zone and began leading demonstrators away in handcuffs through the snowy streets as holdout truckers blared their horns.

Tow truck operators — wearing neon-green ski masks, with their companies’ decals taped over on their trucks to conceal their identities — arrived under police escort and started removing the hundreds of big rigs, campers and other vehicles parked shoulder-to-shoulder near Parliament. Police smashed through the door of at least one RV camper before hauling it away.

Many protesters stood their ground in the face of one of the biggest police enforcement actions in Canada’s history, with officers drawn from around the country.

The biggest border blockade, at the Ambassador Bridge between Windsor, Ontario, and Detroit, disrupted the flow of auto parts between the two countries and forced the industry to curtail production. Authorities lifted the siege last weekend after arresting dozens of protesters.

The final border blockade, in Manitoba, across from North Dakota, ended peacefully on Wednesday.


The regrettable events in Canada seemed disturbingly in sync with other events around the world which included:

• Ukraine forces bombed cities in its breakaway provinces of Donetsk and Lugansk illustrating the embarrassing lies told by the United States that Russia was about to invade this area when in fact the U.S.-backed Ukrainian forces had already invaded the same area.

• A situation similar to Canada’s entered its ninth day in New Zealand as protesters ignored government orders to move their vehicles away from the capital and brought in armored vehicles amid threats to seize vehicles belonging to those protesting that nation’s strict vaccine mandates.

The accelerating events of government repression seemed to authenticate widespread worries that freedom was disappearing everywhere in a tidal wave of corporate tyranny rapidly erasing individual rights that had previously been well established and taken for granted.

~Ω~

John Kaminski is a writer who lives on the Gulf Coast of Florida, constantly trying to figure out why we are destroying ourselves, and pinpointing a corrupt belief system as the engine of our demise. Solely dependent on contributions from readers, please support his work by mail: 6871 Willow Creek Circle #103, North Port FL 34287 USA.

The New Kulaks

The New Kulaks

by

Gerry T. Neal

(Expurgated for Legal Reasons by the Editor) 

The “experts” that our governments and the media have been insisting that we blindly trust for almost two years are now telling us that due to the Delta and other variants herd immunity to the bat flu is either unattainable or requires a much higher percentage of the population to have been immunized than was the case with the original strain of the virus. They are also telling us that the fourth wave of the bat flu, the one we are said to be experiencing at the present, is driven by the Delta variant and that those who, for one reason or another, have exercised their right to reject the vaccine either in full or in part – for those who have had one shot but opted out of a second, or in some jurisdictions have had two but have opted out of a third, for whatever the reason, including having had a bad reaction to the first shot or two, are categorized under the broad “unvaccinated” umbrella by those who think that it is our ethical duty to take as many shots as the government’s health mandarins say we should take – are responsible for this wave, which they have dubbed a “pandemic of the unvaccinated”.

This, however, is a case of the guilty pointing the finger at the innocent.

Think about what they are now claiming. If herd immunity was attainable with the original virus if 70-80% of the population were immunized but with the Greek letter variants it requires 90% or higher if it is attainable at all, then the blame for the current situation, however dire it actually is – and it is probably not even remotely close to being as dire as is being claimed because the media, the medical establishment, and the governments have grossly exaggerated the threat of this disease from the moment the World Health Organization declared a pandemic – belongs entirely to those who insisted upon the “flatten the curve” strategy. Flattening the curve, which required massive government overreach and the dangerous suspension of everyone’s most basic human, civil, and constitutional rights and freedoms, prolonged the life of the original virus, giving it the opportunity to produce these new, reportedly more contagious, mutations. It was the public health orders themselves – not people resisting the orders and standing up for their and others’ rights and freedoms – that gave us the variants. It would have been far better to have taken measures to protect only the portion of the population that was most at risk, while letting the virus freely circulate through the rest of the population to whom it posed minimal risk, so that herd immunity could have been achieved the natural way and at the lower threshold while it was still available. Natural immunity, as even the “experts” now acknowledge, is superior to what the vaccines offer if this can be called immunity at all seeing as it conspicuously lacks the prophylactic aspect that traditionally defined the immunity granted by vaccines for other diseases. When you took the smallpox or the polio vaccine, you did so in order that you would not get smallpox or polio.  When you take the bat flu vaccine, purportedly, it reduces the severity of the bat flu so that you are far less likely to be hospitalized or to die from it.   When we consider that for those outside of the most-at-risk categories, the likelihood of being hospitalized due to the bat flu is already quite low and the likelihood of dying from it is lower yet, being a fraction of a percentage point, the so-called “immunity” the vaccines impart is not very impressive, making the heavy-handed insistence that everyone must take the jab all the more irrational.

For all the hype about the supposed “novelty” of the bat flu virus, it is now quite apparent that its waves come and go in a very familiar pattern.  The first wave, which started in China late in 2019, hit the rest of the world early in 2020 during the winter of 2019-2020 and ebbed as we went into spring.  With the onset of fall in 2020 the second wave began and the third wave took place in the winter of 2020-2021.  It once again waned as we entered spring of 2021, and the current fourth wave is taking place as summer of 2021 moves into fall of 2021.  Each wave of the bat flu, in other words, has occurred in the times of the year when the common cold and the seasonal flu ordinarily circulate, just as the lulls correspond with those of the cold and flu, the big one being in the summer.  How many more waves do we have to have in which this pattern repeats itself before we acknowledge that this is the nature of the bat flu, that it comes and goes in the same way and the same times as the cold and flu, compared to which it may very well be worse in the sense that the symptoms, if you get hit by a hard case of it, are much nastier, but to which it is far closer than to Ebola, the Black Death, or the apocalyptic superflu from Stephen King’s The Stand?

The politicians, the public health mandarins and their army of “experts”, and the mass media fear pornographers do not want us to acknowledge this because the moment we do the twin lies they have been bombarding us with will lose all their hold upon us and become completely and totally unbelievable.   The first of these lies is when they take credit for the natural waning of each wave of the virus by attributing it to their harsh, unjust, and unconstitutional public health orders involving the suspension of all of our most basic freedoms and rights.    The second of these lies is when they blame the onset of the next wave of the virus at the time of year colds and flus always spread on the actions of the public or some segment of the public.

It is the second of these lies with which we are concerned here.

Last fall, as the second wave was beginning, our governments blamed the wave on those who were disobeying public health orders by getting together socially with people from outside their households, not wearing masks, and/or especially exercising their constitutional right to protest against government actions that negatively impact them, in this case, obviously, the public health measures.   There was an alternative form of finger-pointing on the part of some progressives in the media, who put the blame on the governments themselves for “re-opening too early”. This form of “dissent” was tolerated respectfully by the governments, a marked contrast with how they responded to those who protested that they could not possibly have re-opened too early because they should never have locked down to begin with since lockdowns are an unacceptable way of dealing with a pandemic being incredibly destructive and inherently tyrannical. Although there was much more truth to what the latter dissenters were saying it was these, rather than the former group, that the governments demonized and blamed for the rising numbers of infections.  The governments and other lockdown supporters attempted to justify this finger-pointing by saying that the lockdown protestors, whom they insisted upon calling “anti-mask protestors” so as to make their grievances seem petty by focusing on what was widely considered to be the least burdensome of the pandemic measures, were endangering the public by gathering to protest outdoors.  That their arguments were worthless is demonstrated by how they had made no such objections to the much larger racist hate rallies held by anti-white hate groups masquerading under banal euphemisms earlier in the year and, indeed, openly encouraged and supported these even though they had a tendency to degenerate into lawless, anarchical, rioting and looting that was absent from the genuinely peaceful protests of the lockdown opponents.

With the deployment of the rapidly developed vaccines that are still a couple of years away from the completion of their clinical trials under emergency authorization government public health policy has shifted towards getting as many people vaccinated as possible, with a goal of universal vaccination. At the same time, the finger-pointing has shifted towards the unvaccinated or, to be more precise, those who have not received however many shots the public health experts in their jurisdiction deem to be necessary at any given moment. This blaming of the unvaccinated is both a deflection from the grossly unethical means being taken to coerce people to surrender their freedom of choice and right to informed consent with regards to receiving these vaccines and is itself part of those means.

Perhaps “shifted” is not the best word to describe this change in the finger-pointing.   While the less-than-fully-vaccinated are being blamed as a whole for the Delta wave the blaming is particularly acrimonious for those who both have not been sufficiently vaccinated to satisfy the government and who have been protesting the public health abuses of our constitutional rights and freedoms the latest of which is the establishment of a system of segregation based upon vaccine choice in which society and the economy are fully or almost fully re-opened to those who comply with the order to “show your papers” while everyone else is put back in lockdown.  The CBC and the privately owned media, both progressive and mainstream “conservative” have gone out of their way to vilify such people, as have the provincial premiers and their public health mandarins whose vaccine passport system is obviously punitive in nature. The biggest vilifier of all has been the Prime Minister. In his campaign leading up to the recent Dominion election he was unable to speak about the “anti-vaxxers” – a term, which until quite recently, indeed, until the very eve of this pandemic, designated supporters of holistic medicine who object to all vaccination on principle and who were usually to be found among the kind of tree-hugging, hippy-dippy, types who support the Green Party, NDP, or the Prime Minister’s own party – without sounding like he was speaking about the [Censored. Ed.] to an audience at Nuremberg in the late 1930s.

What we are seeing here is not a new phenomenon. When the ancient Greek city-states were faced with a crisis beyond human ability to control – such as a plague – they would choose someone, generally of the lowest possible social standing such as a criminal, slave or a cripple, and, after ritually elevating him to the highest social standing, would either execute him, if he was a criminal, or beat him and drive him out of their society, in either case as a symbolic sacrifice to avert disaster and save the community. This person was called the φαρμακός, a word that also meant “sorcerer”, “poisoner” or “magician”, although there is no obvious connection between this meaning and the usage we have been discussing and lexicographers often treat them as being homonyms.  In some city-states this came to be practices as a ritual on a set day every year whether there was a looming disaster or not.   In Athens, for example, the two ugliest men in the city were chosen for this treatment on the first day of Thargelia, the annual festival of Apollo and Artemis.   Parallels to this can be found in almost every ancient culture as can the related practice of offering animal sacrifices.   Indeed, the practice is generally called scapegoating, from the word used in the English Bible to refer to the literal goat over which the High Priest would confess the sins of the people on the Day of Atonement each year, symbolically transferring the guilt to the goat, which would then be taken out into the wilderness and sent to Azazel, a word of disputed meaning generally taken to refer either to a place in the desert, an evil spirit who dwelled there, or both.   

Anthropologists have, of course, long discussed the origins and significance of this phenomenon. While going into this at great length is far beyond the scope of this essay, a well-known summation of the discussion can be found in Violence and the Sacred (1977) by French-American scholar René Girard as can the author’s own theory on the subject. Later in his Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World (1987), Girard, a practicing Roman Catholic, returned to his theory and discussed how it related to Christian theology and to contemporary expressions of violence. He put forward an interpretation of the Atonement that could in one aspect be understood as the opposite of the traditional orthodox interpretation. While there have been numerous competing theories as to how the Atonement works, in traditional Christian orthodoxy the relationship between the Atonement and the Old Testament sacrificial system was understood to be this:  the former was the final Sacrifice to end all sacrifices, and the latter were God ordained types of Christ’s final Sacrifice. By contrast, Girard argued that sacrifices were not something instituted by God but arose out of man’s violent nature. When division arose in primitive communities, peace was restored through the scapegoat mechanism, whereby both sides joined in placing the blame on a designated victim who was then executed or banished, and built their renewed unity upon the myth of the victim’s guilt and punishment. The sacrificial system was the ritual institutionalization of this practice. As societies became more civilized the institution was made more humane by substituting animals for people. The Atonement, Girard, argued, was not the ultimate sacrifice but rather a sort of anti-sacrifice. It was not designed, he said, to satisfy the demands of God Who has no need for sacrificial victims, but to save mankind from his own violent nature as manifested in the scapegoat mechanism and sacrificial system.  In the Atonement God provided bloodthirsty man with One Final Victim. That Victim offered to His immediate persecutors and by extension all of sinful mankind forgiveness and peace based not upon a myth about His guilt but upon the acknowledgement of the truth of His Innocence and the confession of man’s own guilt.

What is most relevant to this discussion, however, is not how Girard’s understanding of the Atonement contrasts with the more traditional orthodox view, but where both agree – that it brought an end to the efficacy of all other scapegoats and sacrifices.  This does not mean that the practice ceased but that it no longer works. One implication of this pertains to the choice that the Gospel offers mankind. If man rejects the peace and forgiveness based upon the truth of the Innocent Victim offered in the Gospel, “there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins” [Censored. Ed.], and so his violence, which the scapegoat mechanism/sacrificial system can no longer satisfy, increases.  This means that in a post-Christian society the sacrificial and scapegoating aspect of human violence would reassert itself with a vengeance.  

Interestingly, Girard interpreted the New Testament Apocalyptic passages, both those of the actual book of Revelation and those found in the words of Jesus in the Gospels, that speak of disasters, calamities and destruction to fall upon mankind in the Last Days, as describing precisely this, the self-inflicted wounds of a mankind that has turned its back on the peace of the Gospel rather than the wrath of God (see the extended discussion of this in the second chapter entitled “A Non-Sacrificial Reading of the Gospel Text” of Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World).   Certainly the twentieth century, in which the transformation of Christendom into secular, post-Christian, “Western Civilization” that was the main project of the liberalism of the Modern Age came to its completion, saw a particularly ugly resurgence of scapegoating on the part of secular, totalitarian regimes.

I alluded earlier to one such example.  Another example can be found in the early history of the Soviet Union and this is for many reasons a closer analogy to what we are seeing today.    When the Bolsheviks, a terrorist organization of mostly non-(ethnic)-Russians who hated the Russian Orthodox Church, the Russian Tsar, and the Russian people, most likely in that order, exploited the vacuum created earlier in 1917 when republicans forced the abdication of Russia’s legitimate monarch in order to seize power for themselves and form the totalitarian terror state known as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, they created their own scapegoat. 

Kulak, which is the Russian word for “fist”, was a derogatory term applied with the sense of “tight-fisted”, i.e., miserly, grasping, and mean to peasant farmers who had become slightly better off than other members of their own class, owning more than eight acres of land and being able to hire other peasants as workers.   Clearly this was a loosely defined, largely artificial, category, enabling the Bolsheviks to hurl it as a term of abuse against pretty much any peasant they wanted. The scapegoating of the kulaks began early in the Bolshevik Revolution when the Bolsheviks sought to unify the other peasants in support of their regime by demonizing and vilifying those of whom they were already envious and confiscating their land.    After Stalin became the Soviet dictator in 1924 he devised a series of five-year plans aimed at the rapid industrialization and centralization of what had up to then been a largely feudal-agrarian economy.   In the first of these, from 1928 to 1932, Stalin announced his intention to liquidate the kulaks and while this worded in such a way as to suggest that it was their identity as a class rather than the actual people who made up the class that was to be eliminated, that class identity, as we have seen, was already largely a fiction imposed upon them by the Bolsheviks and the actions taken by Stalin – the completion of the confiscation of kulak property, the outright murder of many of them and the placing of the rest in labour camps either in their own home districts or in desolate places like Siberia, clearly targeted the kulaks as people rather than as a class.    The history of Stalin’s liquidation of the kulaks as well as that of the Holodomor, the man-made famine he engineered against the Ukrainians, is well told and documented by Robert Conquest in his The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror Famine (1986).

“Anti-vaxxer”, like “kulak” is mostly a derogatory term used to demonize people.   The term itself ought to be less arbitrary than kulak.    Assigning someone to a class of greedy, parasitical, oppressors simply because he is fortunate enough to own a few more acres of land than his neighbour is quite arbitrary and obviously unjust.   Identifying someone as being opposed to vaccines on the basis of his own stated opposition to such is not arbitrary at all, although dehumanizing someone on this basis is just as unjust.   In practice, however, the “anti-vaxxer” label is used just as arbitrarily.   Look at all who have been turned into third-class citizens, denied access to all public spaces and businesses except those arbitrarily deemed “essential” by the public health officials, and whose livelihoods have been placed in jeopardy by the new vaccine mandates and passports.    While those who have not taken the bat flu shots because they reject all vaccines on principle are obviously included so are those who have had every vaccine from the mumps to smallpox to hepatitis that their physician recommended but have balked at taking these new vaccines, the first of their kind, before the clinical trials are completed.   So are people who took the first shot, had a very bad reaction to it, and decided that the risk of an even worse reaction to the second shot was too great in their instance.   So are people who came down with the disease, whose bodies’ natural immune system fought it off, who thereby gained an immunity that recent studies as well as common sense tell us is superior to that imparted by a vaccine that artificially produces a protein that is distinctive to the virus, and who for that reason decided that they didn’t need the vaccine.   There are countless legitimate reasons why people might not want to receive these inoculations and it is morally wrong – indeed, evil, would be a better word than wrong here – to bully such people into surrendering their bodily autonomy and their right to informed consent and to punish them for making what, however much people caught in the grip of the public health panic may wish to deny it, is a valid choice.    It is even more evil to demonize, vilify, and scapegoat them for standing up for their rights.   Ironically, those currently being demonized as “anti-vaxxers” by the Prime Minister and the provincial premiers include all who have been protesting against the vaccine passports and mandates, a number which presumably includes many who have had both of their shots and therefore are not even “unvaccinated” much less “anti-vaxxers” in any meaningful sense of the word, but who take a principled moral stand against governments mistreating people the way they have with these lockdowns, mask mandates, and now vaccine passports and mandates.

The Bolshevik scapegoating of the kulaks, and the as-we-speak scapegoating of the “anti-vaxxers” by all involved in the new world-wide medical-pharmaceutical tyranny, all demonstrate the truth of the implication discussed above of the Atonement’s abolition of the efficacy of sacrifices and the scapegoat mechanism, whether this is understood in the traditional orthodox way, as this writer is inclined to understand it, or in accordance with Girard’s interpretation. If people reject the peace and forgiveness offered in the Gospel and can no longer find it in the old sacrificial/scapegoat system the violence multiplies. In the ancient pre-Christian practices, the victims were singular or few in number (there were only two victims, for example, in the annual Thargelia in Athens). These modern examples of the scapegoating phenomenon involve huge numbers of victims.  The sought objective – societal peace and unity – is still the same as in ancient times, but it is unattainable by this method since scapegoating millions of people at a time can only produce division and not peace and unity.

The peace, forgiveness, and unity offered in the Gospel is still available, of course, although the enactors of the new medical tyranny seem determined to keep as many people as possible from hearing that offer. They have universally declared the churches where the Gospel is preached in Word and Sacrament to be “non-essential” ordering them to close at the first sniffle of the bat flu and leaving them closed longer after everything else re-opened, although the number of churches that willingly went along with this and even took to enthusiastically enforcing the medical tyranny themselves raises the question of whether anyone would have heard the Gospel in them had they remained open.  Which brings us back to what was briefly observed earlier about Girard’s interpretation of Apocalyptic passages as depicting the devastating destruction of human violence which the scapegoat mechanism can no longer contain when man has rejected the Gospel.   Perhaps it ought not to surprise us that throughout this public health panic the medical tyrants have behaved as if the Book of Revelation’s depiction of the beast who demands that all the world worship him rather than God and requires that they show their allegiance to him by taking his mark on their right hand or forehead and prevents them from buying and selling without such a display of allegiance had been written as a script for them to act out at this time. 

~Ω~

Canada orders 293 million Covid vaccine doses – nearly eight shots per person over 3 years

Never mind the myocarditis and unrecorded adverse events, or the waning protection, third doses are coming … and fourth and fifth and sixth …

Mon Aug 23, 2021

(LifeSiteNews) – Not eight months after Covid-19 vaccines made their debut, hailed as a “miracle of science” and the “end of the pandemic,” it now looks like there will no end to the vaccines.  

Remember when it was so important for people to get their second dose? Well now, just months later, it’s a third dose. Soon it will be so important for people to roll up their sleeve for their booster shot – for the sake of everyone’s health, of course. But no one really believes it ends with a single booster, do they? 

Vaccine-maker Moderna sure doesn’t; it announced this week that it has inked a contract with the government of Canada to supply 20 million doses of its experimental mRNA shot (with an extra 15 million doses thrown in if required) for each of 2022, 2023 and 2024. Not a bad deal for your first product ever to market — and a drug that’s still in clinical trials to boot.  

Especially since Moderna has some problems with the safety of its novel platform mRNA vaccine. Former New York Times writer Alex Berenson reported recently that over just three months after the launch of its novel Covid vaccine, Moderna received 300,000 reports of vaccination side effects, according to an internal report from a company that helps Moderna manage the reports. This is much higher than the numbers reported on the official government vaccine adverse event reporting system that Moderna is required by law to report side effects to. 

This week, it was reported that U.S. health officials are reviewing reports that Moderna’s vaccine may be linked to a higher risk of myocarditis – an inflammatory heart condition — in younger adults than previously thought. 

Heart inflammation was detected in one data set at a rate of 12.6 per million in 12-to 39-year-olds who got Moderna shots. That’s 12 times higher than the “one in a million” people are told to expect for vaccine adverse events – and it’s just one unexpected life-threatening side effects that has emerged in recent months.  

Never mind. There’s 105 million doses of Moderna vaccine coming for an entire population of 37 million men, women, and children, including babies. Roll up your sleeves, Canada! 

But that’s just the start. Remember way back four weeks ago when the mainstream media echo chamber was asking (as if they didn’t know the answer), if we would need an extra vaccine dose? That’s when the FDA pushed Pfizer back on its booster like a coquettish teenager and said its third dose wasn’t necessary — just yet anyway. Then it rushed headlong into the affair just weeks later. Just weeks after that, the FDA had an Emergency Use Authorization contract in hand and Pfizer had the go-ahead to start doling out its boosters in the United States in September. 

Everyone knew the FDA’s pushback was a false show of refusal, didn’t they? Someone in the government of Canada sure did. Way back in April, even before Anthony Fauci began warming Americans up to the idea of booster shots, long before the whole Pfizer-FDA tango, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced at a press conference that his government had secured 35 million Pfizer booster shots for 2022 and another 33 million doses for 2023.  

The deal had options to add 30 million doses in both ‘22 and ‘23, and an option for 60 million doses in ‘24, he told reporters.  

That’s 188 million Pfizer shots. Added to Moderna’s supply that’s 293 million vaccine doses — enough injections to shoot every Canadian nearly eight times over in just three years. Do you think they might have a few booster shots a year in mind? Or are the extras for Canadian cats, perhaps? 

In late July, Theresa Tam, the chief public health officer was flirting with the idea like the FDA, telling Canadians that there was “not enough data to suggest that in Canada we would go into boosting as of yet.” Two weeks later, however, shots are going into arms of “vulnerable” people in Ontario where one minister told the CBC he thinks “booster shots are going to be an important part of continuing to protect our long-term care residents. I’ve spoken to our chief medical officer about that a number of times.” 

Most of Canada’s vaccine program has progressed without data though. When Canada delayed its second dose of vaccine months beyond the manufacturers’ directions, even the country’s chief scientific adviser, Mona Nemer, confessed to the CBC it was a “population level experiment.” 

Then, after public health agencies worldwide suspended AstraZeneca’s vaccine when they learned it carries a risk of fatal blood clots and some people who’d already had a first dose of it didn’t want a second, Tam announced they could mix and match different kinds of vaccines like cocktails. A shot of AstraZeneca, followed by a dose of Moderna or Pfizer. This is the new freedom of choice.  

Canadians soon learned that Canada’s public health progressivism was frowned upon by other countries, like the United Kingdom and cruise lines who wouldn’t accept their cocktails or let them cross their borders as if vaccinated. The World Health Organization warned that there is “limited data on the immunogenicity or efficacy of a ‘mix and match’ regimen.” 

“We don’t really know the exact impacts of adding another dose to the existing schedule,” Tam admitted at a news conference.  She also suggested it could be some time before the mixed shots dilemma gets resolved for the Canadians who took her advice. 

“It is going to be a bit confusing and complicated in the next months ahead.” 

That remark suggests it hasn’t been confusing and complicated – not to mention illogical and hypocritical – for months getting to this place. 

No one seems to be asking why the miracle vaccine needs a booster dose or why, since every vaccination bar ever presented and then raised again — has been passed in Canada – and 99% of long-term care residents are vaccinated, why are heavily vaccinated Canadians – and Brits and others –locked down in a “4th wave” of COVID cases? Why is the wonder vaccine failing? 

“There has been a marked decline in vaccine immunity,” one doctor wrote this week in the British Medical Journal. Pfizer claimed its vaccine was 95% effective against infection after initial clinical trials, for example, but the Mayo Clinic found that figure had dropped to 42% by July. Of course, “95% and 42% effective” refer only to the “relative vaccine effectiveness in populations,” retired pediatrician Allan S. Cunningham of Cooperstown, New York explained. The real benefit to individuals is only a tiny fraction of 1% for the prevention of serious illness caused by Covid-19.  

You may want to read that again just to ensure you have understood the enormous discrepancy between what is claimed and what is real. 

He also noted that the big benefits of natural and durable immunity that the United States was on the cusp of grasping was abruptly “interrupted by massive vaccine rollouts and replaced by the limited immunity from vaccines.” 

“This fact is reinforced by the discovery that some of the first U.S. patients to recover from Covid-19 infections have potent antibodies against a diverse range of variants, including the Delta variant.”  

He also pointed to the terrifying prospect of the immune system phenomenon called antibody-dependent enhancement of infection (ADE) from vaccines that has been seen before with dengue and respiratory syncytial virus.  It occurs when vaccine antibodies actually facilitate attachment of wild viruses to cells, thereby producing more severe illness in vaccinated individuals than in unvaccinated individuals and it’s a documented risk for Covid-19 vaccines.  

It’s not too late to “step back from a relentless policy of universal vaccination in the U.S. and the UK and concentrate on individuals at truly high risk,” wrote Cunningham. “This would allow the large majority of young and healthy individuals to safely acquire broad and lasting immunity from natural infections, without the risks of adverse vaccine effects, known and unknown.” 

Somehow it seems that, like every reasonable and scientifically supported suggestion from thousands of doctors, scientists and other professionals such as Cunningham, this advice won’t make it to Trudeau and Tam’s booster agenda.  

The pandemic will continue so long as they and the pharmaceutical giants want it to continue. Canadians and many others around the globe, including children, will be subjected to scares of variant after scary variant, long after Delta is history. When the letters of the Greek alphabet have run out, we’re told, they will start naming the new variants of Covid after the constellations of stars – Aries and Orion and Gemini Covids are to come. And experimental booster shots for each one of them. 

~Ω~

Trudeau’s Internet Censorship Another Step Toward Communism In Canada

“Granting a government agency authority over legal user generated content — doesn’t just infringe on free expression, it constitutes a full-blown assault upon, through it, the foundations of democracy.” 

~ Brad Salzberg

So stated Peter Menzies, former commissioner of the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission. As Prime Minister Justin Trudeau so boldly articulated, “people tend to see things from different perspectives.”

Here is the perspective of Cultural Action Party: Bill C-10 exists for the purpose of controlling what Canadians read and publish on the internet. If it passes, which it will, internet publishing will fall under the Canadian Broadcasting Act. At the base level, the result is a transfer of control of internet content to our ruling Liberal government.

Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault is positioning the move as an act of altruism. “This is for the benefit of Canadians–citizens want this,” and other such platitudes. Make no mistake– the benefit resides squarely in the hands of the few.

Meaning the Liberal Party of Canada, and their omnipresent quest to rule our nation in perpetuity. Leaders of our nation’s most powerful “multicultural” lobbies are also at the driving wheel.

As with all aspects of our nation’s transition away from a free and democratic society, internet censorship comes down to an issue of control. As in, control the media, and you control what citizens speak, write- and potentially believe.

You know the situation is serious when mainstream media pipe in:

“Unfortunately, the democratic world can no longer look down on dictatorships like China, because our governments are increasingly taking pages from the authoritarian playbook.”

Parliament  has now voted to expand the bill to apply to user-generated content, potentially subjecting YouTube videos, Facebook posts and tweets of Canadians to government regulation. Such is the incremental nature of the loss of Canadian values at the hands of the Trudeau government.

Speaking of control, what would Canadians call the ramifications of the Covid pandemic, if not control of society? “Walk here, don’t walk there, wear a mask in public.”  Become, if you like, zombie-type citizens who exist for two purposes– to follow government orders, and to pay taxes.

Such is the reality of life in Canada in the year 2021. Amazing how five years of the second coming of a Trudeau-family prime minister has served up what can best be described as a pseudo-communist Canada.

Let us take a look at some of the fundamentals of the Pierre Trudeau-created Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the impact of the pandemic upon them:

— the right to live and seek employment anywhere in CanadaCancelled.

— freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication. Pending cancellation.

— freedom of peaceful assembly. Illegal.

— every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, and leave Canada. Suspended.

Shall we continue? Let’s not– because dollars-to-Tim Horton’s donuts readers are getting the picture–a picture which not a single media outlet has presented to the public. To be certain, they never will.

READ MORE: Do Lockdowns Exist To Prevent Public Protest As Canada Moves Toward Communism?

Nor will the truth of Justin Trudeau’s emulation of China’s censorship policies be properly articulated by media. Based on the information contained herein, anyone should be able to understand why this is the case.

Government and media working in collusion. The people of our nation censored from an expression of ideas government decree inappropriate.

Getting the picture, fellow patriots? If any readers are having difficulty, we offer a hint: think of the favourite form of governance of Pierre and Justin Trudeau–and go from there.

Communism has come to Canada. The wise will expect more and more of the same until the final Great Reset goal is accomplished. As CAP stated from day one of the Trudeau regime, the days of democracy in our nation are surely numbered.

— Brad Salzberg, Cap Founder (Est. 2016)

SOURCE