963 – Transcript

Disclaimer:

The views expressed in this program are those of the participants.

Clip (A Man Called Horse, 1970):

Yellow Hand, when you first brought me here, you said I was a horse, an animal.

And to me you were, all of you, mean, vicious, ignorant, superstitious, ugly, benighted savages.

No.

Repeat it.

No.

Repeat it.

But to me, you were no different from men all over the world. When your stomach is full, and you sleep the long night, you know you must hunt again for food. And when you fight your enemies, and their arrows pierce your skins, you bleed like all men.

But it seems to me that you only live to hunt your buffalo, to fight the Shoshone, and to have your women. I know you would say to me, what else is there?

Bob Metz: Welcome everyone, it is Wednesday, May the 6th, 2026. I’m Bob Metz, and this is Just Right, broadcasting around the world and online. Join us for an hour of discussion that’s not right wing, it’s just right.

When it comes to Canada’s so-called Indigenous Peoples, reservations are not required because they are just an Indian Act. And that play on words pretty much summarizes the argument we’ll be making throughout today’s broadcast. Today’s theme on North America’s Indians encompasses a brief history of this continent’s Indians, current events surrounding Indigenous land claims, and even censorship of those objecting to these unconscionable, offensive, and racist land acknowledgements that precede so many official events across our nation. Those are my judgments, not necessarily those of other voices you may hear throughout today’s broadcast. But today we’ll be taking a very sobering look at what appears to be resurfacing as a quote-unquote Indigenous problem, both in Canada and in the United States.

And so, if you have any preconceptions based on the barrage of outright myths about the histories and identities of these actually non-Indigenous Indigenous Peoples, be prepared to have some of those myths shattered.

Beginning right after our reminder that you can write us some feedback at justrightmedia.org. Hear us on WBCQ and on Channel 292 Shortwave. Follow and like us on your favorite podcast platform, and visit us at justrightmedia.org, where you can access all of our social media links, archive broadcasts, and the support button that makes it easy for you to support the show. Because as always, your financial support is appreciated and is what makes this show possible.

Now ask yourself a simple question. Why would anyone ever want to advocate any law or rights that do not treat all individuals equally before and under the law? I mean, that’s what we’re being told that Canada’s so-called Indigenous Peoples are insisting upon. And I say so-called, because none of the people we are referring to with that label, Indigenous, are any more Indigenous than are the rest of North America’s inhabitants, regardless of their point of origin anywhere else in the world. This is not a political statement.

It is a statement of epistemological fact, or in other words, it’s about the definition being applied very incorrectly for political purposes.

To elaborate on this, I shall quote from our own Robert Vaughan’s sub-stack article of May 3rd, entitled, appropriately enough, The Indigenous Myth. And you can always access Robert’s complete sub-stack essays from Just Right’s homepage.

And I quote, “Over the past few years, the friction between the quote-unquote Indigenous Peoples of the Americas, Canada in particular, and the rest of us has ramped up to a point not seen for quite some time.

Beyond just the ubiquitous land-right claims preceding almost any public gathering, Canadians are subjected to almost daily public apologies by officials for the alleged sins of their fathers, and a bombardment by the state broadcaster of how noble the Indigenous Peoples were before the white man came.

The list of contentious, sometimes even deadly events between the quote-unquote Indigenous and non-Indigenous in Canada is long, and much of it can be attributed to the use of the word Indigenous.

Let’s set the record straight. The people to whom we are referring are not Indigenous.

The term Indigenous, sometimes used interchangeably with native, comes from the Latin, indigena, meaning sprung from the land.

It describes a species, organism, or population that occurs naturally in a specific geographic area or ecosystem because it evolved there through local natural processes, rather than being introduced by human activity, intentionally or accidentally.

Nobody can be considered to be Indigenous to the place they currently live, not the English in Britain, not the Chinese in China, and not the quote-unquote Indigenous Peoples in North America.

Continued use of the term to describe the descendants of those who crossed the Beringia Land Bridge continues to add to the myth surrounding them, that they are somehow special and that they deserve special treatment by the descendants of those who came here by boat or plane, by virtue of them having quote-unquote sprung from the land, while we are interlopers who could never truly call this land home.

Most self-identified quote-unquote Indigenous individuals are no different from other modern Canadians or Americans. They are fully integrated into mainstream society, typically born in hospitals with access to modern medicine, speaking, reading, and writing the same languages as everyone else, often sharing the same religious faiths and subject to the same laws that govern us all. Upwards of 80% live off reserve in cities and towns, holding the same jobs and behaving in much the same way as the rest of the population. The myth of the Indigenous somehow being special is simply that, a myth,” end quote.

That’s only the opening part of Robert’s essay, but in the balance of his commentary, he proposed the terms Paleoamerid to describe the descendants of immigrants who arrived here before European contact, and Neoamerid to describe those primary ancestral lines arrived after sustained European contact.

And then he asked, quote, what do these two terms imply? That those living in the Americas today are all descendants of immigrants. Some of our ancestors immigrated to these lands a long time ago. Some came more recently. Some walked while others took sailing vessels, steamships, or wide-body jets. But in the final analysis, those living on the land today are all children of those who actually took the risk of leaving their homeland, whether it was Siberia 15,000 years ago, or Ireland 150 years ago, end quote. And with that, we now move from definition to a bit of history, end quote.

And with that, we now move from definition to a bit of history courtesy of Matt Walsh’s April 2nd podcast entitled What Schools Don’t Teach About American Indians.

What we are about to hear on this and the return side of our upcoming bumper is but a small portion of his podcast, about which I shall offer a few of my own reactions when we return.

Clip (Matt Walsh, April 2 2026, What schools don’t teach about American Indians):

Matt Walsh: The story begins in 1830 when President Andrew Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act. The law did not authorize the U.S. government to forcibly remove Indians or march them westward against their will. Instead, the law authorized the president to negotiate legally binding treaties with the various tribes in which those tribes would be awarded compensation, a new territory west of the Mississippi, in exchange for voluntarily vacating the territory that they currently lived on.

In accordance with that law, many Indian tribes agreed to terms to relocate. The first major treaty was the Treaty of New Echota in 1835. In school, this treaty is presented as a fraudulent agreement in which a tiny number of Cherokees signed away all Cherokee lands in the southeast, allowing the U.S. government to obtain a pretext to forcibly remove the Cherokees to Oklahoma, resulting in the deaths of 4,000 Indians.

Well, every aspect of that narrative is false. The first lie is that 4,000 Indians died. That figure comes from a letter written by Dr. Eliza Butler, a member of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, who was hired by the Cherokees to embed on the relocation. He admitted later that the number, quote, was based on hearsay and guesswork. Now, the actual figure is likely 10% of what we were taught in school.

Although it’s true that the Cherokees’ chief, John Ross, opposed the treaty, it’s also true that he was extensively involved in negotiations, and though he opposed the version of the treaty that got finalized, it didn’t stop him from enriching his family from it. When the government started enforcing the treaty in 1838, they allowed Cherokee to conduct their own removal.

13 of the 16 groups that went to Oklahoma were managed by the Cherokee, not the Army, and the contract to handle removal logistics went to Chief Ross’ brother, Louis Ross. He made about $65 per person, which totaled hundreds of thousands of dollars, and was meant to make the journey more humane. The money was intended for wagons, food, medical care, provisions. It was to ensure that there wouldn’t be much of a death toll.

And that brings us to another lie, that the Indians were ripped off. Well, in fact, the U.S. federal government paid the Indians $5 million, or roughly $184 million in 2025 dollars, for 7 million acres. That is a far better price per acre than Russia received for selling Alaska to the United States in 1867, or that the French received in exchange for selling the Louisiana Purchase. The Indians received something like 70 cents an acre, while Napoleon received just 3 cents an acre, and Russia received 2 cents per acre. In the words of Andrew Jackson, quote, How many thousands of our own people would gladly embrace the opportunity of removing to the West on such conditions? If the offers made to the Indians were extended to them, they would be hailed with gratitude and joy.

So what are the odds that a central tenet of anti-American history just suddenly popped up in the 1960s, just as left-wing radicals seized control of American universities? Very high, it turns out.

Myths amplified in schools and media almost always portray American Indians as peaceful, noble victims, stewards of the land, overwhelmed by an unstoppable wave of imperial European and American forces armed with superior technology. Any violence on their part, we’re told, is merely a reaction provoked by white people. We’re told that as Americans we live on stolen land, and that the U.S. government perpetrated a literal genocide against Native nations. These narratives are not only wrong, but they’re also a form of intellectual warfare designed to dishonor our ancestors and to foster a sense of collective guilt. So we need to start with a central critical and load-bearing myth that supports all the others. The widespread belief that the Indians were peaceful. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Indians were brutal to settlers and to each other.

Since the end of World War II, American academics have pretended that pre-modern humans lived in a state of peace. Academic dishonesty was so out of hand by the 1990s that according to archaeologist Lawrence H. Kealy, the most widely used archaeological textbooks contained no mention of war before civilization. Some of the biggest names in anthropology, archaeology, and history have gone out of their way to pretend that life before civilization was actually pretty great.

The myths they made ended up appearing downstream in our mass culture. According to the book War Before Civilization by archaeologist Lawrence H. Kealy, somewhere between 90 and 95 percent of known societies in all of human history were war-like. The less civilized you were as a rule, the more violent you were. Some 96 percent of American Indian tribes engaged in warfare. In most cases, primitive warfare consisted of surprise raids on enemies’ villages or camps.

This is true for groups around the world from Eskimos and the Bering Straits to natives and New Guinea. This kind of warfare generally consisted of quietly surrounding enemy houses under the cover of night, throwing spears through the walls, lighting the structures on fire, and shooting arrows through the doorways. The killing was often indiscriminate and civilians, including women and children, frequently died. According to Kealy, the East Cree of Quebec slaughtered any Inuit Eskimo families they encountered, taking only infants as captives.

Neither age nor sex was any guarantee of protection from primitive raids. In one small-scale Eskimo community in northern Canada, every single male had killed someone at some point. Among prehistoric Illinois villagers, archaeological evidence suggests that the homicide rate would have been 70 times that of the U.S. in 1980.

So it turns out that bloodshed in Chicago is, in fact, an ancient phenomenon. So just how savage were the Indians? According to Kealy’s book, War Before Civilization, at 25 sites in the American Southwest, anthropologists have discovered cannibalized human remains dated from roughly the year 900 to 1300, hundreds of years before Columbus arrived.

We know they were consumed because the assemblages of disarticulated bones share a number of features, butchering cut marks, skulls broken, long bones smashed for marrow extraction, bones burned or otherwise cooked, and disposal with other kitchen refuse. One Colombian chief, quote, consumed the bodies of 100 enemies in a single day following a victory. And another chieftain, war captives, were kept in special enclosures and fattened before consumption. Many of these groups smoked or otherwise preserved human meat to be eaten later. The Enserimo tribe in Colombia used human body fat as lamp fuel in their gold mines. As recently as the 1800s, American soldiers and Texas rangers were witnesses to cannibalism. The Tancawa tribe in Texas, which allied with the U.S. Army in its mission to take on the brutal Comanche tribe, often ate their victims. One white captive named Herman Lehman, who lived with the Comanches and eventually became a Comanche warrior, wrote about his experiences in a book titled Nine Years Among Indians. The Comanche had been locked in a genocidal war with the Tancawa’s for decades, and by the time Lehman encountered them, they were, in his words, nearly exterminated. But upon finding a Tancawa outpost, Lehman wrote, We took possession of the camp and what do you suppose we found on that fire roasting? One of the legs of a Comanche, a warrior of our tribe, whipped into a furor at the site of their fellow warrior being eaten. The Comanches massacred the Tancawa.

Lehman writes, A great many of the dying enemy were gasping for water, but we heated not their pleadings. We scalp them, amputated their arms, cut off their legs, cut out their tongues, and threw their mangled bodies and limbs upon their own campfire. Put on more brushwood and piled the living, dying, and dead Tancawa’s on the fire. Some of them were able to flinch and work as a worm, and some were able to speak and plead for mercy. Piled them up, put on more wood, and danced around in great glee as we saw the grease and blood run from their bodies.

And we’re delighted to see them swell up and hear the hide pop as it would burst in the fire. It’s clear that the Indians were very violent, engaging in raids on one another, murdering women and children, burning entire villages, committing genocide, in some cases eating each other. Before Columbus had even sailed the ocean blue, Oneota Indians were chasing other Indians out of northern Illinois. Tribes like the Anasazi and the Jajucum were vacating their farms in Arizona and New Mexico because their settlements were getting destroyed.

Archeologists at Crow Creek in South Dakota discovered a mass grave with the remains of more than 500 people, including women and children. They had been, according to Kealy, slaughtered, scalped, and mutilated during an attack on the village a century and a half before Columbus’ arrival. Not only were the Indians committing atrocities against each other before Europeans arrived, but they also got less violent after the white man got there. Another pervasive myth about Native Americans combines two contradictory ideas into one. Native Americans had no concept of property rights, particularly over land, and that Europeans stole the land from them. Well, obviously these two claims cannot both be true.

If the Indians truly lacked any notion of property rights, then the land, by definition, could not have been stolen from them because theft implies the violation of rightful ownership. Yet the same narrative often asserts both points simultaneously without recognizing the logical contradiction.

This inconsistency reveals a deeper issue. The first claim is frequently used to justify displacement by portraying native land used as primitive or communal in a way that didn’t count as real ownership under European legal standards. The second claim, meanwhile, appeals to modern moral sensibilities about injustice.

Holding both ideas at once allows the narrative to shift between them depending on the argument being made while avoiding the underlying incompatibility. The way the revisionists frame this debate is like a rigged game. There’s no way to win if you accept the premise.

And so we don’t accept the premise. The Indians, like the average toddler, absolutely had a notion of property rights. They often went to war over them. In the 1830s in the Alexander Valley in Northern California, Pomo Indians stole an acorn stash from an oak grove belonging to the Wapo tribe.

And that was not a good decision. The Wapo immediately raided massacring the Pomo and burning one of their villages. The remaining Pomo then fled the area for the safety of other Pomo villages farther away from the Wapo. The Wapo eventually occupied some of the abandoned villages and just like that, a dispute over territory led to a war and the winning tribe expanded its territory.

As property rights, those kinds of disputes happened literally all the time. They were very, very violent. Surprise attacks in California, Pomo villages killed between five and 15% of the population. When the first Spanish explorers encountered the Barbareño Chumash, in California, the tribe had just had two of their villages massacred and burned, killing 10% of the tribe. According to anthropologist Lawrence Kealy, in California, where tribes depended heavily on gathering wild plant foods and on hunting or fishing, conflicts over resource poaching were very common. He continued that, quote, many California tribes often granted outsiders the right to exploit their hunting and gathering grounds when they were properly asked or awarded with gifts, yet they would fight any group that poached. The people who live in Northern California today are much more communist than the American Indians they replaced.

It’s a shame they don’t just give the land back. But California tribes weren’t the only ones going back and forth about property. The plains Indians continuously waged war over horses, which was their key metric of wealth. Indians in the Pacific Northwest fought over water and fishing axes. Tribes in the Midwest fought for centuries over who got access to rice fields and hunting grounds in places like Minnesota. Different tribes had different ways of allocating land, but they all had ways of doing it. Most tribes had defined territories for hunting, fishing, gathering, or farming with boundaries recognized intra-tribally. On the Great Plains, the Lakota allocated hunting grounds to families in the Pacific Northwest. Tribes held potlatches to establish hereditary claims rooted in oral histories and legal traditions. The Pueblo at Iroquois, who actually had farms, necessarily gave family their own plots for cultivation.

How exactly are you supposed to farm if everything is communally owned? This is yet another myth that’s easily debunked.

Bob Metz: While I fully appreciate and generally do understand the point that Matt Walsh was making in saying that Indians obviously had a notion of property rights, that’s why they went to war over territory disputes, I disagree with his conclusion. That’s property rights, he asserts. No, that’s not property rights. That is sovereignty, or call it jurisdiction, but don’t call it property rights. These are different concepts entirely.

He inadvertently recognized the distinction with that last example he gave, wherein he noted that some tribes allocated lands to families for farming. How can you farm if everything is communally owned?

Well, exactly. And with that last question, it was clear that Walsh understood that the farms in question were privately owned within the jurisdiction of a given tribe. That’s about as close to anything properly called property rights that he cited.

And more importantly, he recognized that private ownership and control is essential in the accomplishment of any goal and that communal ownership is impotent in this regard again, because there’s no such thing as communal quote-unquote ownership. This isn’t just about semantics. The purpose of clarifying these definitions like jurisdiction, property, ownership, right, sovereignty, etc. is because these distinctions are crucial in the way today’s Indigenous land claims and land acknowledgments are fraudulently being framed and promoted.

All governments, as with established tribes, represent a collective. Property rights at this level do not exist. What exists is jurisdiction, which like all jurisdictions held by a collective, are maintained by the use of force against any other claimants of the given jurisdiction.

Property, as such, is not just a piece of land or an object per se, even though we might loosely use that word in describing them, but the word property denotes a relationship. The relationship between a specified individual owner and a given identified object or land that is legally and morally recognized by others. It is at this point that one may be justified in saying that such and such is my property as a matter of right, in the form of a claim which will be protected by the sovereign jurisdiction not violated by it.

For example, in Canada, much of the land within its jurisdiction is not privately owned, and we refer to such lands as crown land, which denotes the jurisdiction and governance, not ownership as such. And remember, there is no such thing as collective ownership, as we’ve demonstrated so many times with regard to the oxymoronic Marxist term public ownership or public property. Ownership is an exclusively individualistic concept and can only be exercised as such.

So consider the status of individuals living on a modern-day Indian reservation. No one who lives there can own any property on the reservation, only occupy it by permission. And this is where the rubber hits the road.

And here we introduce Tara Armstrong, who is a Canadian politician serving as a member of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia for the Electoral District of Kelowna Lake Country Coal Stream since 2024. She initially represented the Conservative Party, but later co-founded the OneBC Party before becoming an independent MLA. And in an April 23rd X post, here is what she wrote. Quote, slavery, cannibalism, and brutal warfare defined life in North America before the crown established authority over these lands. Founding Canada to afford equal rights to all people was a good thing. I reject these new treaties because I reject UNDRIP’s ethno-nationalism, end quote. And she was referring to Bill 20, the second reading of the K’ómoks Treaty Act.

And here, as if to illustrate all of the principles and distinctions we’ve cited thus far. And addressing the Legislature of B.C. on April 23rd is Tara Armstrong speaking against UNDRIP, the acronym for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People.

Tara Armstrong: It is with a deep sense of honor, duty, and gravity that I rise to express my profound concerns about the proposed K’ómoks Treaty. I urge my esteemed colleagues to vote against Bill 20, which would ratify and constitutionalize this fundamentally misguided agreement.

First, this treaty expands Indigenous claims. It does not settle them. It expressly admits to the existence and ongoing force of Aboriginal title. The document describes itself as a living agreement. Far from extinguishing Aboriginal title claims as it should, this agreement keeps the coals burning. Even worse, this treaty expands these rights and the uncertainty they create. How? Through the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. UNDRIP.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, the same UN declaration that this NDP government gave the force of law with in this province in 2019. The same law, which the Premier himself now admits, is an existential threat to British Columbia. On its very first page, the treaty affirms UNDRIP and recognizes what are described as inherent rights to land, law-making authority, and governance powers within a large geographical area of Vancouver Island.

These are the kind of powers ordinarily reserved for sovereign nations, but they are being given to a group of approximately 350 people, only 100 or so of those that live on the reserve. A group this size is more of an extended family than a local government, let alone a sovereign nation. And our government is preparing to grant them a broad array of national governance powers over a region that is roughly 7,000 square kilometres in the heart of the Comox Valley, with approximately 70,000 non-Indigenous residents. With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, granting the powers of a sovereign nation state to an extended family group is absurd.

It is legally schizophrenic to recognize broad, undefined, inherent, and thereby inalienable rights on the one hand, while purporting to define, limit, or settle Indigenous rights on the other. Which is what this treaty does. This treaty provides no certainty whatsoever.

In fact, it doesn’t even attempt to reconcile the Comox band with the historical reality of Crown sovereignty. On the contrary, it promotes under its blood and soil theory that people with Indigenous ancestry have their own inherent rights based upon what are described as inextricable links to the land. That is why the first page of this bill says that British Columbia must reconcile the past presence of Indigenous people with the assertion of Crown sovereignty, but is recognized by the trial judge in the Delgamuukw court case, British sovereignty was not merely asserted, it was undeniably established.

Sovereignty was established not through violent conquest, as in other parts of the world, but through the orderly extension and adoption of British laws, settlement, and institutions across this entire province. It is true that colonial authorities entered a few treaties from time to time to facilitate settlement, but Canadian governments at all times welcomed Indigenous individuals to become full and equal subjects at the Crown through the process of enfranchisement.

The good and honorable objective was to grant them all the rights enjoyed by all other citizens, regardless of racial ancestry. Enfranchisement offered the path out of the Indian Act, and its racial isolation from broader society.

But tragically, this treaty would prolong the regrettable forms of race-based governance that prevail under the Indian Act. It entrenches a form of indigenous racial supremacy, granting peculiar and additional rights, not belonging to other Canadian citizens.

Even so, many tribes vehemently oppose this treaty process. The uproar we see now from neighbouring groups proves the point. They say that these treaties before the House impinge on their own demands for sovereignty. We now have threats of blockades and other civil unrest as a result.

Nowhere in this treaty or the bill before the House has the government provided even an estimate of the total economic value of the cash, the land, and other wealth being transferred from British Columbians to the Comox Band Council. Nowhere. And this government, over here, they won’t say. And what does this treaty accomplish, Mr. Speaker, for the 350 individual Comox Band members? Let’s ask that question.

Treaties are supposed to replace the dysfunctional system of Indian Act reserves which require federal government micromanagement, and which do not give individual band members the right to own their own private properties. On an Indian reserve, members are treated as wards of the federal government who holds the title to the land in trust for the band.

The band council typically has a lease arrangement whereby it manages the rental properties occupied by individual members. Land cannot be held in fee simple. Private property cannot exist. But the Comox treaty does not solve this problem either. What it does is dictate that Indian reserve lands will be transformed into Comox lands. These lands are not distributed to the members directly in the form of private property.

They are given to the band council to control. This treaty just swaps one form of government-controlled housing with another form of government-controlled housing. What it does is give more rights to the Comox band government, not its members. Why do treaties give rights to band elites, Mr. Speaker, and not band members?

Because our governments and our courts have been captured by anti-Western, UNDRIP-inspired theories of inherent collective rights, including laws, law-making authority, and legal systems. There were, of course, no written laws when Europeans first arrived along the West Coast of BC. There was no writing at all, in fact. No recorded history. No way to verify which tribe had conquered another for the time when prior inhabitants struggled for control over these lands after having arrived from the Bering Land Bridge 10 to 15,000 years prior. What you had was intense competition for resources and a brutal struggle for survival.

You had tribal warfare, night raids, captives taken as slaves, children traded away, even cannibalism, Mr. Speaker. The establishment of crown sovereignty and the inclusion of Indigenous people into Canada ended this era of brutality. Finally, Mr. Speaker, Aboriginal title is not only a denial of the gracious inclusion of Indigenous peoples within the dominion of Canada as full and equal subjects of the Crown.

It is also an obscene demand, a demand by unelected bodies to be elevated above our constitution and placed beyond the reach of our democracy. It has no place in Canada or in any Western nation. Mr. Speaker, the only kind of solemn agreements that the legislators who first stood in this House would expect us to entertain and the only constitutional instruments that we should now consider are those which seek to perfect the legal union of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians. Agreements which provide Indigenous people with the same responsibilities and opportunities as all of us as fellow Canadians. That will include a full abolishment of the Indian Act and its system of racially segregated reserves, the full abolishment of Indian status and all other forms of racial distinction, the full abolishment of Aboriginal title which has wreaked havoc on British Columbia’s economy, undermined confidence in our heritage, laws and institutions, and ultimately served no other purpose than to empower chiefs and other reconciliation industry elites. We should recommit ourselves to the true pursuit of the well-being of all Native people, something that our Honourable Founders have endeavored to do since the earliest days of contact. We must urge our elected governments to pursue constitutional paths forward towards the full and final inclusion of Indigenous peoples as proud British Columbians and as equal citizens of the great dominion of Canada. Thank you.

Clip (Ben Bankas, April 26 2026):

No, it’s… We probably need a war. People are like… We need a war. I don’t know who we… Maybe we go to war with the Natives again or something.

Oh, the tricky, tricky Indigenous. It’s interesting because the Indigenous are not… They claim that they don’t feel they’re part of Canada. They claim that. I mean, I also agree.

But that’s on their mission statement. If you read about the Indigenous movement and everything that’s happening right now with the reconciliation, they do not see themselves… They see themselves as First Nations self-governed. They got their Iroquois passport. They can go to one other country. I can’t exactly go to Brussels with an Iroquois passport.

But they personally say that they’re not part of Canada. And then I’m like, so why do we have to fucking see your shitty art everywhere? Like, oh yeah, oh, just so we need more Indigenous art. Everybody loves that. Every subway station is a fucking retarded fish. A fucking 2D illustration from 3000 years. Yeah, yeah, they were great. You know what they never built a subway, though? Did you ever notice that? Is this their land, too, under here?

Bob Metz: You’re listening to Just Right, broadcasting around the world and online. And that last question by Ben Bankus could open up a whole can of worms if one were to attempt to define ownership, jurisdiction, or sovereignty in an objective way. But the very idea of anything like handing over land or property currently owned by those who have developed or created it to any other individual or group based solely on their assumed but totally irrelevant ancestry is so profoundly absurd, as Tara Armstrong put it, that it speaks to a political agenda that has nothing whatsoever to do with Indigenous anything. But let me say, I fully support and agree with every single thing we just heard Tara Armstrong present to the BC legislature. And notice how clearly she used the term sovereignty to define the polarity, crown sovereignty, versus an imaginary Indigenous sovereignty, not property rights, especially under the sovereignty of a reservation. I have campaigned on all of these very issues myself, both as a political activist working independently and with other political allies, and of course through the Freedom Party of Ontario. And I still say yes to abolishing the Indian Act, abolishing Indian reserves, abolishing Indian status, and I say yes to the inclusion of Indigenous people as equal citizens to everyone else before and under the law. And let me say that I have so very, very rarely heard such a well-presented, cohesive, comprehensive, and rightly principled speech being given in any of Canada’s parliaments or legislatures. And honestly, until this week’s broadcast, I knew very little about Tara Armstrong, so I took a quick look online to see what else might be found about her there, and lo and behold, I found the following headline taken from the March 10 edition of Kelowna News. Quote, Kelowna MLA refuses to apologize or resign for attempt to eliminate human rights code.

I’m not going to apologize, she says. And the first sentence reads, Tara Armstrong is brushing aside a demand to resign her seat in the legislature following her introduction of a bill that would have repealed the Provincial Human Rights Code. So let me add yet another yes to supporting her efforts to do that. And even here, this is something I called for with regard to the Ontario Human Rights Code, particularly after having become the first person in Ontario to defeat the Ontario Human Rights Commission against its false accusation of racism being levied against a London Ontario landlord. So let me say without any doubt or reservation, pun intended, that these so-called human rights codes are utterly racist to the core, both in theory and in practice. Shame on each and every legislature who is not doing what Tara Armstrong is doing.

But of course, they’re all racist themselves, as is evidenced by their own reactions to Armstrong’s comments. Check out this headline from the Canadian press of just this past May 1st. BC’s legislature looks into changes as MLA avoids censure after using Nazi slogan.

Can you believe it? Quote, politicians in BC’s legislature say they’re looking into whether they can close a loophole that has allowed a member to avoid a censure motion after she used the slogan associated with Nazi Germany. Independent MLA Tara Armstrong last month used the term blood and soil in her attack on a First Nations treaty, a phrase frequently used by German fascists before and during the Second World War. Government House Leader Mike Farnworth says he’s working with the official opposition in BC Greens to deal with Armstrong’s abhorrent comments made inside and outside the legislature.

End quote. Just consider how actually abhorrent House Leader Mike Farnworth, the BC Greens and others in BC’s legislature actually are themselves and how they just admitted it. If it is abhorrent to say that BC’s bill 20 promotes UNDRIP’s blood and soil theory ancestry, as Tara Armstrong very accurately and objectively expressed it, then what is it about that statement that’s so abhorrent?

I’ll tell you what’s abhorrent. It’s the concept itself, a blood and soil theory ancestry. To attempt to associate that exclusively with Nazi Germany is a failed attempt at distracting us from seeing that the BC legislature itself is supporting the blood and soil ancestry BS, because they are. Me thinks they doth protest far too much. Meanwhile, there are others who are being prevented from rightly and justly protesting against all of these so-called indigenous land acknowledgments which unabashedly are explicitly founded on the idea of blood and soil theory ancestry. For heaven’s sakes, how obvious is it?

Check out this item from the February 1st report by the New Westminster Times, whose host, Amy Hamm, gives us an overview on both this and the return side of our upcoming bumper.

Clip (New Westminster Times, February 1 2026, Amy Hamm, Lisa Bildy, Lara Yates):

Amy Hamm: Hi, I’m Amy Hamm with the New Westminster Times. This week I sat down and had a chat with Lisa Bildy. She is both a lawyer and the executive director of the Free Speech Union of Canada. She recently started representing a BC mother named Lara Yates. The case is about land acknowledgments which, as we know, are extremely contentious in British Columbia right now, especially in the fallout of the Kowachin Ruling, which is thrown private property rights into question throughout the entire province. According to the Free Speech Union’s website, Lara Yates on December 4th, 2025, during an evening drama class presentation, voiced her opposition to the opening land acknowledgment ritual by calling out, quote, save us your race, baiting, and similar comments. She remained seated and quiet for the rest of this presentation.

Later that night, the drama teacher identified, to students backstage, the parent who was responsible for this disruption. Lara’s daughter, was bullied and mocked by her peers, resulting in her distress, of course. The principal responded by calling in a counselor to assess the situation. The incident was ultimately reported to the Ministry of Child and Family Development. The ministry then interviewed Lara’s children. Ultimately, they closed the case because they found nothing of concern.

The next day, Lara received a letter from the principal of the high school, banning her from attending her child’s school until at least January 31st. Due to concerns about the bullying and the staff behavior towards her daughter, Lara decided to keep both of her minor children away from the school. She contacted the Free Speech Union, of which she was already a member.

Lisa Bildy: But you can see that the schools are starting to get a little bit more aggressive about policing the opinions of parents outside of, even outside of the school system. In Lara’s case, it was an after-school event, but if they hear something that they don’t like, they want to be able to curtail it if they can, or punish it in this instance. And in our position, they have no authority whatsoever to punish parents for their political views.

Amy Hamm: That’s interesting, and the New Westminster Times has covered this. The New Westminster School District in the last year has released this new sort of sweeping policy, and it describes everyone. It sounds really nice. They describe them as members of the learning community. But in effect, that means that their policy applies not only to students but to parents, and the policy can sort of police social media. So it’s the same thing where they’re attempting to control the speech of parents on social media, which it’s pretty wild, the way that they’re trying to exert control over the lives of families and parents.

Lisa Bildy: So we’re seeing this broader trend towards schools. Look, they’re facing the heat, because I think maybe they don’t appreciate that they have become politicized, because sometimes fish don’t see the water they swim in. But for a lot of Canadians, we see schools becoming increasingly politicized. And as a result, parents are getting frustrated. They don’t want their kids to necessarily go to school where they have to go because, you know, there’s a law saying you have to educate your children. And the options beyond public school are limited. So parents are getting quite rightly frustrated in many cases, and the schools are doubling down essentially and saying, well, not only are we going to continue with our politicization of schools, but we’re going to step in and scold you or try to ban you or whatever if you express displeasure to it.

Amy Hamm: That’s wild. And I know in Breone’s case, they even sort of threatened to get the police involved if she showed up on school grounds, which is just insane.

Lisa Bildy: One of the ways that a parent was affected was he, he said something on, on Twitter, I think or X about this, this stabbing situation Southport, and ended up getting the police come to his, his residence and I think he actually was charged and then that was was dropped. But, but he was so while he was successful with the help of the Free Speech Union there on his criminal charge, then all of a sudden he gets, he’s a coach for his, his kids sports team, and somebody complained to the safeguarding board and he lost his right to coach his child’s sporting team. But, but that’s the kind of thing like, you know, he’s got views, we’ve heard about them because they were in the criminal courts, but even though he was exonerated there or at least the charges were dropped, they still look for ways to try and punish him for having views that that somebody feels are not appropriate.

Now, again, if you were saying something that was in keeping with their own political views chances are there would be no consequence. We see that time and again that there’s a double standard. But if you say something that they would find goes against their ideological perspective, then, then you may for doing that face similar kind of thing to what Lara is going through.

And obviously, you know, it’s hard to have to deal with legal issues and you don’t want to have to be banned from your children’s school and you don’t want to have to fight it. But sometimes speaking up is really the only option that’s left and the charter does protect our ability to have our own opinions, our own thoughts, our own and express things as, you know, as we see fit.

Schools don’t have the right to police or punish parental views. They don’t have the right to punish parents. The only thing that they can do is if it’s appropriate and we say it wasn’t here, but if it’s appropriate, they can issue like a trespass order or a ban from from the school, but there has to be, it has to be a safety issue.

And so parents, I just need to be be a little bit careful not to try and engage that any more than necessary. And sometimes it is necessary just to speak up because there’s no other avenue. But I don’t think you should be quiet about it. I think it’s fair to complain that your children’s schools are being politicized and take it to your political representative as well. Your MLA and BC or whatever province it’s provincial jurisdiction. So complain. Make your voice heard.

Amy Hamm: So speaking of that, Lara, you know, there was this mention that you’ve tried to engage with the school before this incident happened and talk to them about other political issues, including land acknowledgments. So it didn’t really go anywhere. Do you want to sort of tell us about how that looked?

Lara Yates: Well, it’s just a lot of emails and phone conversations and just conversations that I’ve had with teachers and principals over 10, 12 years now. The land acknowledgments have been more for the last four or five years.

It’s usually phone conversations and it always just comes down to, no, this is the way we do things. They always say it’s about their diversity program and exclusivity. And I see no diversity at the school except maybe in superficial ways like skin color or orientations or whatever. But no one’s allowed to have their own opinion.

I’ve gone through these channels, but no one listens. I mean, I would never interrupt a school event. I interrupted the land acknowledgement before the school event. And, you know, I don’t think teachers have any right to be lecturing parents about politics. I just, yeah, I just, I don’t appreciate it from them. I’m not looking for their opinions that I’m there to see my kid in the play. And that’s it. And I should be allowed to see my kid in the play, even if I don’t support the NDP.

The school should be welcoming to everyone. And all kids deserve an education, even if their parents have different political opinions than what every single solitary staff member at the school has.

Lisa Bildy: The order that’s been made against Lara is not as against her children. Her children are still allowed to go to school. But also this was the same situation with Briny Dixon’s case. She kept her son home too because who wants to send your kid to a place where you can’t go. You’re not allowed to go.

Amy Hamm: And, you know, you’re so right about not sending your kids. It would be like if your child was invited to a birthday party and the parents who invited your child over to their home said, your kids welcome to come into my house, but I don’t like you and I don’t like what you think in your political beliefs. So you can’t step foot on my property or just send your kid in here. Nobody in their right mind is going to send their kid into that environment.

I found it so shocking that they involved the Ministry of Child and Family Development, which we know is such an extremely overburdened resource dealing with horrible abuses, abuses in the foster care system, and the fact that they would use that resource to visit your family. It’s just so shocking and it seems like such intimidation and abuse in that it was just designed to humiliate you. And I don’t know how you would feel any other way about it.

Lara Yates: Well, I mean, I feel angry as well. Social workers tend to be pretty smart and most of them, I think, are pretty good at their job. And they can recognize when they’re being used as a tool of harassment against, you know, people in the community. They know when that’s what’s going on and our file was closed near instantly.

Would we like to expect better from our schools? I mean, yeah, I do expect better from our schools, but these are the schools we have.

Amy Hamm: I really thank you for taking up this fight. Almost all of the parents I know in BC are very concerned about the state of our public school system and the indoctrination of our children. And this is sort of one of the more extreme examples of that. So thank you, Lara, and thank you so much, Lisa, and for the free speech union of Canada.

Bob Metz: That entire controversy, of course, was more about the issue of free speech than about the Indigenous land claims per se. But consider the greater context with respect to the indigenous issue. To call out the land acknowledgments by labeling them as race-baiting is to label them for exactly what they are. And that is also why so many in the establishment are doing everything they can to silence those who speak out about such obvious truths. I mean, for what possible purpose are we constantly and repeatedly being fed this blatant lie, which is a question worth asking even if the lie were true?

And Lara Yates is not the only person to have trespass laws used against her for addressing the whole Native Indian con game going on. As reported by media, Bezorgan on April 25th, quote, The University of Lethbridge of Alberta, Canada has trespassed Dr. Frances Whiddowson, who has been questioning the validity of claims that mass graves of indigenous students were found in Camelouf, BC. She was arrested by Lethbridge police this afternoon after she came to the university cafeteria to discuss the topic with a student, end quote.

And I find it absolutely abhorrent to borrow a phrase that tax-funded educational institutions should be permitted to trespass anyone on the grounds of their expressed opinions, especially when those opinions reflect a truth. The abhorrent actions of officials doing things like reporting Lara Yates to BC’s Ministry of Child and Family Development echoes similar attempts by the mainstream media to associate Tara Armstrong with Nazis, which itself is a word that they would censor if someone on the right labeled them Nazi fascist.

So what the hell are all these people so afraid of? I’ll tell you, I’ve been on the front lines of many a political campaign or action over the past half century or so, and one thing that has proven itself to be a universal, unchanging truth is that all official censorship is aimed at censoring the truth. There are zero exceptions. Lies need no censoring. They can always be refuted. Inconvenient truths, on the other hand, always need censoring because they cannot be refuted. The people calling for measures to silence those with whom they disagree are always in the wrong. It is they who are the savages currently de-civilizing western culture and societies, and they’re trying to drag the rest of us down to their primitive, tribalist way of thinking.

Shame on them all. So we have only just begun to scratch the surface of this appalling fake indigenous Indian uprising, both here in Canada and in the United States, and it appears that this is an issue that’s not going away anytime soon. Remember, it’s all just an Indian act. And just as there are no reservations required for Native peoples anywhere to be included with, and among the rest of us as free individuals, there are also no reservations required for you to join us again next week when we will continue our journey in the right direction, and until then, be right, stay right, do right, act right, think right, and be right back here. We’ll see you then.

Clip (Ben Bankas, April 26 2026):

No, but look, you know, I got in trouble for making a joke about indigenous, and then, you know, my PR person was like, maybe we should talk to an indigenous person, you know, to like kind of learn, you know, educate myself, and that kind of f*ing bullsh. And so I talked to an indigenous person for an hour, and now I actually hate them.

Before, I was joking around. Then I listened to them, the guys were like, “we don’t feel like we’re part of Canada, and that joke is actually hate speech under the charter.” I was like, under which charter? Canada? I thought you weren’t fing Canadian, mother fing. I can say whatever the f*** I want.