Mar 132024
 


Could you be a ‘political atheist’ without even knowing it?

Political atheists are those who have either completely lost their faith in what they believed to be the democratic system, or never had such faith in the first place. Unfortunately, most of these people tend to be found on the Right.

Unlike those on the Left who remain eternally and consistently politically active and therefore monopolize the electoral process, too many on the Right remain uninvolved in any meaningful political process. They may vote during elections from time to time, but even then, they end up voting for candidates of the Left – the Leftist they consider to be the ‘lesser of a given number of evils.’ Even when a true identifiable freedom candidate of the Right is on the ballot, most ‘right-wingers’ still vote Left: “He’ll never get elected.”

And then there are those who never vote or never participate in politics whatsoever. Taken together, these voters and non-voters alike can be considered to be ‘political atheists’ in that they really have no faith in the possibility that anything positive can result from politics. Given the zeitgeist of the day, this is an understandable, though false, belief.

The one reality about politics that no one can escape is the fact that even if you’re not interested in politics, politics is always interested in you. Those who regard themselves as ‘apolitical’ are in fact no less political than any political zealot. Being ‘apolitical’ is just another political ideology. Continue reading »

Mar 062024
 


Once again, Canada’s politicians are on the ‘banning hate speech’ bandwagon, this time in the guise of a piece of legislation being introduced into parliament as Bill C-63.

The proposals contained in Bill C-63 are so bizarre and outrageous that most would dismiss them outright. Like something out of a science-fiction horror fantasy, the bill allows the government to convict, fine, and imprison ‘for life’ people who have not committed any speech offense, but who may do so in the future. Seriously.

How are such people to be identified? Through a ‘complaint’ system in which the identity of the complainant is kept a secret. The complainant can be anyone. As explained by Ezra Levant, “a person may lay an information if he fears that another person will commit a speech offense in the future.” And that’s just the tip of the iceberg of Bill C-63’s unconscionable and immoral proposals.

But more frightening than the contents of the bill itself are the people who would even allow themselves to entertain such evil. Former Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault, who drafted the law, has announced that the government also has a “nuclear option” by being able to make it impossible to access any specific website in the country.

The Trudeau government’s obsession with regulating and censoring the internet suggests that he and his government greatly fear the truth. Truth is, after all, what is being eliminated from any allowable public discussion.

The real immorality of censorship is not just in the fact that it violates the fundamental right of someone to speak freely (which it does) but also because it violates the fundamental rights of those who wish to hear and listen freely. Censorship is less about the speaker than it is about the ‘spoken to’. The speaker is already in possession of the truth; the ‘spoken to’ may not be aware of the truth, and that’s how the politicians of the Left want to keep it.

Given that the Left is always unable to defend its ideology on intellectual or moral grounds, censorship is a great way to avoid that responsibility: “When persuasion fails, just use force.” Censorship is the perfect weapon of violence for those consumed with irrational hatreds that they do not wish to have exposed.

This should not be surprising because when it comes to ‘hate,’ the Left hates individualism, freedom, free speech, private property rights, justice, capitalism, and anybody or anything that is Just Right.

If you found this presentation valuable please consider supporting us:
🧡 PayPal

Feb 282024
 


In their struggle against tyranny, many dismiss ‘philosophy’ while calling for ‘practical’ solutions to a condition that is wholly the consequence of ideas – and ideology. Given that the predominant zeitgeist of today’s culture is primarily on the Left, it should not be surprising that the field of philosophy has been largely discredited and dismissed as a failed subjective approach to the problems and challenges of life. However, this is a tragic error.

Reality dictates that one cannot possibly separate the philosophical from the practical without encountering a contradiction. If the ‘theory’ does not match the ‘practice’ then the ‘theory’ is no longer valid and cannot be regarded as such. The proper response is not to dismiss all ‘theory’ out of hand, but to formulate a theory that does indeed match the practice.

In the fields of ethics and politics, ‘theory’ is often equated with ‘philosophy’ or ‘ideology.’ Each of these terms is properly associated with modes of thinking that lead to certain intended outcomes or results.

So why do so many applied ‘theories’ fail to result in their intended outcomes? For a simple reason: the ‘theories’ are based on a mode of thinking philosophically referred to as the “primacy of consciousness” which stands in direct opposition to the “primacy of existence.” Continue reading »

Feb 212024
 


As victims of COVID-19 government policies, each of the witnesses who testified before Canada’s National Citizens Inquiry (NCI) shared their own unique experience and personal tragic consequences. But what they all truly witnessed in common was the official betrayal of Canadians on a scale once thought to be unimaginable.

Released on November 28, 2023, the final report of the NCI’s Inquiry into the Appropriateness and Efficacy of the COVID-19 Response in Canada permanently places on the record the Canadian government’s intentional misinformation and disinformation campaigns about the COVID-19 pandemic. What is undeniably clear is that Canadians were betrayed by all of their institutions and politicians.

As our guest Ches Crosbie notes, the “censorship industrial complex” must be eliminated before the truth reaches enough people and a proper reconciliation can be pursued. And significantly, the testimonies and information found in the final report can serve as a resource for other betrayed victims who have yet to seek some kind of justice. It is a treasure trove of information for litigation purposes.

Given that the truth is now visible to anyone who cares to look, a call for reconciliation appears to be the next step in the direction that is Just Right.

If you found this presentation valuable please consider supporting us:
🧡 PayPal

847 – Rules of the game—of definitions

 Comments Off on 847 – Rules of the game—of definitions
Feb 142024
 


A Jan 26 2024 provisional judgement finding it “plausible” that Israel is violating the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide has unleashed yet another epistemological conflict in which the two sides of the debate have been polarized over the valid definition of a concept, in this case, the word “genocide.”

Rendered by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the judgement was made in response to an application filed against Israel by South Africa. Though the definition of “genocide” used by the ICJ is far broader and, to the minds of many, invalid relative to its long accepted “dictionary” definition, this objection fails to recognize the “rules of the game” that were accepted by each of its players long before the first move was made.

“It happens. That’s politics,” explains our guest Salim Mansur in describing the apparent injustice and unequal application of the rules to differing players in the game. As America and other nations escape judgment, Israel appears to be unduly targeted for “genocidal” activities no different from those nations with “veto” power.

In light of the fact that each of the governments involved are signatories to the conditions and definitions being adjudicated, it is important to understand the rules of the definition game in which they are engaged, before attempting to apply definitions and standards proven to be Just Right for most of us not playing games.

If you found this presentation valuable please consider supporting us:
🧡 PayPal

846 – United Freedom Party of Alberta—neither united nor free

 Comments Off on 846 – United Freedom Party of Alberta—neither united nor free
Feb 072024
 


Due to the emergence of an officially registered party in Alberta called the United Freedom Party (UFP), we find ourselves forced to conduct some damage control given our own association with Ontario’s officially registered Freedom Party. The two parties have literally nothing in common.

Organizers of the UFP, Luke Denis and Chris Hampton, have described themselves as “extreme right wing Christian conservatives,” whose key agenda includes the advancement of anarchy, libertarianism and the socialistic redistribution of wealth. Citing the “fifth greater re-set event being held right now, from the libertarian sector and the yellow and black anarchist types,” they attribute the current functionality of society on “some kind of magic hootenanny.” Seriously.

Unable to offer an objective definition of political freedom, the UFP organizers suggest that freedom is “the ability to do whatever one wants, so long as it does not ‘harm’ other individuals or the environment.” Among the ‘harms’ it includes in this definition is, for example, the inability or failure of a private road contractor to meet the financial or construction obligations of its contracted agreements. They appear to be unaware that using the so-called ‘harm’ argument to justify restricting freedom was the very ground on which everything from covid injections to wearing masks to mandated lockdowns was justified.

For the most part, the UFP’s perspective on politics and the economy is incoherent, contradictory, and so bizarrely oblivious to any kind of consistency or civilized standard that it is difficult to comprehend what kind of people would support such madness. The principle of justice, due process, or consent is nowhere to be found in their rhetoric. “We don’t need their bloody permission” they say of their fellow Albertans.

At one point it was suggested that Bill Gates should have been “murdered and ripped apart on stage.” They see people like Tucker Carlson and Douglas Murray as mostly “controlled opposition.”

Among the UFP’s bizarrely contradictory and anti-freedom proposals are the following:

The UFP would institute an across-the-board 3% resource tax and provide all Albertans with cheques drawn upon that account “because these are natural resources that we should share.”

In a pure Joe Biden open border policy, the party would “flood the province of Alberta with millions of people from outside the province (doubling Alberta’s population) who would theoretically support and vote for “unity” and “solidarity” though no means of vetting such people was deemed necessary. At the same time the party would expel all current Albertans who disagree with the party’s policies: “Get the ‘f’ out.”

On the democratic front, there is simply no way to reconcile or make sense of the party’s utterly contradictory and illogical proposals. On the one hand they would “remove the power of politicians” to legislate, and would “end the voting process after the UFP is voted into power.” On the other hand, they would encourage people to “vote more furiously in all the time honored ways of voting.” The UFP would also be in favor of “forming a new country” in the province of Alberta and within other jurisdictions around the world.

While they pay lip service to “private education” they claim the right to “educate the sheep” and “if you don’t like it get the ‘f’ out.”

And all this is just the tip of the iceberg of the UFP’s irrationality.

Claiming that ‘unity’ and ‘solidarity’ are their central concerns, one must question the motives of a party that would register in a province where there are already a myriad of conservative splinter groups with those same objectives, including Artur Pawlowski’s political party which had already successfully registered candidates in all of Alberta’s ridings.

Given the utter irrationality and contradictory statements made by the UFP, it’s beginning to look like the only way to define Alberta’s UFP in a way that’s Just Right is as some kind of psyop designed to disrupt and destroy any opposition to the existing regime.

If you found this presentation valuable please consider supporting us:
🧡 PayPal

845 – Politics is simple—it’s just not easy

 Comments Off on 845 – Politics is simple—it’s just not easy
Feb 012024
 


The spectacle of thousands of political protesters gathering to “fight tyranny” without having a clue as to how this might be done can only lead to continued tyranny ahead. Though accomplished and expert in their own fields of discipline – whether medicine, law, education, journalism, etc. – most of the leading voices in the “freedom movement” are clueless when it comes to the politics of freedom.

It’s one thing to be able to identify the political condition (tyranny) you’re running ‘from,’ it is quite another to identify the political condition (freedom) you must move ‘towards.’ Calls for ‘unity’ or ‘solidarity’ or for ‘political separation,’ or for ‘creating a republic’ or for ‘changing the electoral system’ are not calls for establishing a free society. They are desperate aimless propositions that amount to a clear admission that the protesters really don’t know what must be done.

This is completely understandable. Most people pay no attention to politics until it is too late. Fortunately, one group that has discovered the fundamental principles necessary to the advancement of individual freedom is the Freedom Party of Ontario, established on January 1, 1984.

A brief review of the party’s myriad of successes in changing and affecting the laws of Ontario makes two things clear: (1) that winning individual battles against the deep state and the political parties of the day is doable, if one employs the proper principles and tactics, and (2) that Canada’s tyranny today is no different than it has been for the past half century and longer. In every respect, municipal, federal and provincial governments in Canada were as abusive of their power and authority in the 1980s as they are today.

Protesting against tyranny and oppression certainly has some limited value. But preventing the next wave of tyranny and oppression demands a political discipline currently not seen in the political arena – one ‘for’ freedom, not merely ‘against’ the latest manifestations of state injustice.

The war for freedom can only be won by those who understand and act on the singular set of freedom based principles that are Just Right.

If you found this presentation valuable please consider supporting us:
🧡 PayPal