As our guest earlier this year on February 21, Ches Crosbie stressed that “the (censorship industrial complex) must be eliminated before the truth about ‘vaccine’ injuries reaches enough people and a proper reconciliation can be pursued.” He was then speaking on behalf of Canada’s National Citizens Inquiry and it is now becoming apparent that his was no mere ‘armchair’ observation.
Ches joins us again today to update us on some potentially significant developments, one concerning efforts to pursue a proper reconciliation regarding vaccine injuries and the necessity of compensation for the victims, and the other on countering the censorship complex with new voices of opposition.
“That we are subject to pandemics at all is ‘the’ greatest lie,” asserts the former leader of the official opposition in Newfoundland. While calling for the Canadian government to consider a ‘no fault’ compensation program for victims of vaccine injuries, he additionally asserts that it is more important to have criminal proceedings undertaken against those responsible for the damage. In assessing public support for such action he notes that the public’s “pendulum is swinging and it’s swinging with a lot of force.”
On the free speech front, Ches has announced that beginning on July 1, a new two hour national daily talk show hosted by Randy Taylor will begin on its mission of talking about “true things.” Introduced during a time when the Canadian and US governments have launched all-out attacks against media outlets that offer facts and truth to their audiences, it may prove to be a rather risky and adventurous undertaking.
But when it comes to talking about “true things,” we welcome the prospect of sharing the honor of being Just Right with as many voices as possible.
If you found this presentation valuable please consider supporting us:
🧡 PayPal
“One death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic.” ~ Stalin
The callousness of Stalin’s treatment of his countrymen is infamous. One might assume that such disdain for human life would be an isolated historical incident. However, enduring the events of recent years, we have witnessed a level of carnage rivaling the scale of the Soviet Union’s purges and pogroms.
The data on all-cause mortality now available reveals that there was no COVID-19 pandemic. It was, in fact, a complete fabrication. Instead of the feared “curve” or upsurge in hospital admissions overwhelming the “system,” we saw doctors and nurses gleefully performing choreographed dance routines in the empty corridors and wards of vacant hospitals.
Just as the data surrounding the COVID-19 deaths was suspect, so too are the statistics concerning just how many people died or were severely crippled and otherwise injured from the injection of an experimental mRNA into their system to create a toxic spike protein.
By the Canadian government’s own admission, these are the results of vaccine injuries (excluding Quebec which has its own reporting and compensation system):
Total adverse events: 58,712 (as of Jan 5, 2024)
Non-serious: 47,010
Serious: 11,702
Deaths: 488 (although they claim only 4 were causally related to the COVID-19 injections)
Each injury represents a tragedy. The tens of thousands injured? Well, that’s just a statistic.
With the pall of fear hanging over the heads of healthcare professional who dare to question the doctrine of their guilds these statistics should be considered to be a pale reflection of the actual carnage inflicted on us by those responsible.
In November of 2023 the National Citizens Inquiry (NCI) released its report on the overreach by governments in response to “the pandemic that never was.” It’s conclusions are damning, and its documentation and archiving of some of the stories of Canadians adversely affected by the “pandemic” are monumental.
Ches Crosbie, a Newfoundland lawyer and former Leader of that province’s official opposition (2018-2021), played a key role in administrating the NCI. His experience makes him uniquely qualified, indeed an expert, in understanding how COVID-19 and the government’s response to it injured and even killed Canadians.
In his concluding words in this discussion with Just Right Media’s Robert Vaughan, Crosbie states:
“The reality is, I’m convinced, that modern societies, our society, is not susceptible to pandemics. That’s the one lie that underlies all the other lies. That we are subject to pandemics at all is the greatest lie and anyone who advances a platform—news, advice, recommends vaccines—they need to go into the category of extreme suspicion because they’re trying to sell you something based on fear and a fear which is wholly unjustified. Watch out for the purveyors of fear. They are probably lying.”
If you found this presentation valuable please consider supporting us:
🧡 PayPal
Comments Off on 862 – SOCIALISNT—The ugly truth about socialism
May292024
Socialism is promoted by most of its supporters as a compassionate ‘redistribution’ of wealth, when in fact socialism isn’t compassionate at all. The truly remarkable thing about socialism is that it has a 100% failure rate when it comes to improving the lives of those living under socialism. Yet its popularity persists.
That’s because socialism is a pyramid scheme that appears to benefit the first generation of people who adopt it – at the cost of future generations who receive no benefits but must pay all the costs. Ours is that future generation.
For example, the photo accompanying this post illustrates just one instance of how socialism looks in London Ontario in 2024. Drug addicted and homeless people clutter the streets everywhere. Scenes like this were unthinkable only a few years ago.
The Canadian Press recently reported on the results of a poll in which one third of Canadians approve of Medical Assistance In Dying (MAID) for homeless people. That so many people would approve of killing the homeless is tragic evidence of how deeply the Left’s death cult has taken root. And as we have been learning, MAID is far from being a guarantee of painless death: As observed by Kelsi Sheren in her conversation with Jordan Peterson: “MAID is a terrifying way to die.”
Similarly, socialism is a terrifying way for societies and cultures to die. As an ideological variant of the Left, the ugly truth about socialism is that it is simply another death cult. History has repeatedly demonstrated this and still, in light of this knowledge and experience, millions around the world continue to proudly call themselves socialists.
The antidote to socialism is capitalism, but most fear to acknowledge this because capitalism is Just Right.
If you found this presentation valuable please consider supporting us:
🧡 PayPal
In a speech delivered before the Institute Of Public Affairs in Australia, writer and podcaster Brendan O’Neill suggested that ‘lockdown amnesia’ is a consequence of the shame people experienced during the Covid lockdowns.
Based on his observations that many people have completely forgotten some of the most outrageous violations of individual rights and freedoms perpetrated by governments during the Covid lockdowns – including the lockdowns themselves – O’Neill contends that “the state is complicit in cultivating this culture of forgetting.”
His view is reminiscent of Ches Crosbie‘s (of Canada’s National Citizens Inquiry) call to end the “censorship industrial complex” that he identified as also being complicit in cultivating a culture of fear and ignorance. “It must be eliminated before the truth reaches enough people and a proper reconciliation can be pursued.”
The censorship industrial complex is indeed ‘complex’ and can be said to include the ‘amnesia industry’ and the intentional manipulation of memory.
But one must wonder how much of the impetus ‘to forget’ is actually driven by shame or how much is driven by the fear of being held accountable. Either way, it appears that a great reckoning is on the horizon.
As more and more of the destructive and negative consequences of everything to do with the lockdowns become impossible to ignore and avoid, attempting to erase the causal history behind all of the destruction appears to be a viable backup strategy to keep a significant part of the public in the dark.
“It is an abomination to forget what happened,” warns O’Neill, “It is essential to remember to protect ourselves from the possibility it will happen again in the future.”
Perhaps the most chilling aspect of the entire ‘culture of forgetting’ is the number of people who have forgotten what is Just Right, and in so doing, have just Left themselves to be manipulated by those who would destroy them.
If you found this presentation valuable please consider supporting us:
🧡 PayPal
Comments Off on 860 – Death traps—from euthanasia to environmentalism
May152024
Question: What does Canada’s MAID (Medical Assistance In Dying) program have in common with environmentalism? Answer: They are both prescriptions for death and depopulation.
Canada is sadly among a growing number of nations intentionally murdering their own citizens. Strong words? Hard to believe?
Says Britain’s Dr. Vernon Coleman: “This is the most evil cold blooded massacre since Genghis Kahn made genocide fashionable. Forget the self-serving myth that euthanasia is painless and dignified.”
And on the environmental front, in announcing the release of Canada’s ‘Federal Plastics Registry,’ it was described as an “important demonstration of Canada’s commitment to end pollution and build a circular economy.” Continue reading »
In their attempt to dismiss or ignore narratives and truths that conflict with the ideology of the Left, the term ‘far right’ has been used as a pejorative to silence the opposition.
‘Far right’ is an anti-concept. It is based on a fictional political spectrum that simply does not exist, either in theory or in practice. Left and Right do not exist on either end of a ‘spectrum’ but are strictly polarities representing the opposing political conditions of tyranny (on the Left) and freedom (on the Right).
‘Far right’ implies that there are other types or ‘degrees’ of Right. However, the values represented by the political polarities of Left and Right do not exist in ‘degree’ but only in ‘kind’. There is no ‘middle of the road’ and any compromise between Left and Right can only benefit the Left, as the Right (the good) has nothing to gain from the Left (the evil) in such a compromise. This has been the political trend for many decades.
In the information war, as in any war, it’s “Define or ‘be’ defined.” Unfortunately, those on the Right (meaning those in favor of freedom and capitalism) have come to lack both the vocabulary and proper definitions to articulate their values, and this was not by accident or omission. The Left has been hard at work destroying the very concepts necessary to articulate these values. Continue reading »
Conservatism is being promoted as a Christian political philosophy that should be applied to the governing of a country. That, at least, was the expressed opinion of David Haskell (Wilfred Laurier University) during his recent debate with Bruce Pardy (Queen’s Law).
Sponsored by Augustine College and First Freedoms Foundation, the 2024 Rand Debate (named after Canadian Supreme Court Justice Ivan Rand), was based on the following resolution: “Be it resolved that, as Wokeism destroys the West, the first responsibility of government is to foster a virtuous society, rather than protect individual liberty.”
In addition to the resolution itself being based on a contradiction (pitting “virtue” against “liberty” when in fact they are inseparable), the debate serves as an ideal exhibit of what we have been referring to as the “political dyslexia” persistently surrounding political debates and discussions.
Most disturbing is the Christian ‘virtue signaling’ now literally being advocated as a political response to the politics of WOKE virtue signaling.
David Haskell argues that through the power of the state, “conservatism as guided by the Judeo-Christian tradition is going to make choices you don’t agree with, especially if you’re not a religious believer.” Bruce Pardy, in response, notes that “this is why so many progressives think that conservatives are dangerous.”
Given Haskell’s subjective definitions of words like ‘liberal’, ‘virtue’, ‘equality’, ‘utilitarian’, and many others including ‘conservatism’ itself, Haskell and Pardy could never have arrived at anything resembling agreement. This creates a deep and unnecessary divide between those fighting for ‘liberty’ and those fighting for ‘conservatism’ in their mutual war against ‘Wokeism.’
Until more people who regard themselves as ‘conservatives’ begin to use definitions that are Just Right, their proposed solutions for defeating the WOKE ideology, let alone for achieving freedom, will always be just wrong and ineffective.
If you found this presentation valuable please consider supporting us:
🧡 PayPal
Comments Off on 857 – Political dyslexia—causes and cures
Apr242024
The disdain and revulsion that many people have developed for politics is understandable. But a growing danger emanating from this attitude is the inability to conceive of any political solutions to our freedom dilemma, and to withdraw from the political process entirely.
This is particularly tragic for those on the political Right – the polarity of individualism, freedom, and capitalism – because most people who believe in these values have demonstrated little interest in politics. And to the extent that they do participate in the political process, they more often than not continue to support and vote for parties and candidates opposed to their values.
Most voters are so confused about politics that they still cannot tell Left from Right, a condition perhaps best described as political dyslexia.
In fact, the prevailing myth is that there is no difference between Left and Right, based on the mistaken assumption that political parties like Canada’s Conservative Party and America’s Republican Party are on the ‘Right’ when they are actually as Leftist as their liberal and democratic counterparts.
Consider the political awakening of Rosanne Barr who, in a recent discussion with Russell Brand, described her 2012 candidacy for president as leader of the Green Party as “socialist.” Remarkably, she associated “freedom of speech, civil rights, self improvement through education, and individual rights” with socialism and the Left. Continue reading »
Comments Off on 856 – ATHEISNT—Fallacies And Realities About Atheists
Apr172024
Atheist Richard Dawkins recently sparked a controversy that challenges fundamental assumptions about both atheism and faith-based belief. Referring to himself as a “cultural Christian” he has been criticized by both atheists and religious believers alike.
Unfortunately, too many self-described atheists are being unfairly criticized and maligned by those who, on the one side, equate atheism with an absence of morality, while on the other equate the sharing of some religious beliefs with unprincipled atheism.
One dictionary we consulted incorrectly defines ‘atheism’ as “the belief that there is no god.” The problem with this definition is that atheism is not a ‘belief’ system at all. Nor is atheism a philosophy or code of morality. It is merely the non-acceptance or a rejection of the concept of a literal supernatural ‘deity’ – nothing else. Atheism does not require ‘belief’ as its base of justification. Atheism is primarily a response to theism, which does rely on ‘faith’ and ‘belief.’
The fact that many atheists abide by a moral code that mirrors that associated with Christianity is less about atheists borrowing from Christian values than it is about Christians and atheists alike borrowing values from other shared philosophical sources. This includes many writers and philosophers throughout history setting out the principles of Western culture over time – from the early Greeks through the Age of Enlightenment and to the present day.
Those who blame atheism as being the source of our current tyrannical zeitgeist – or who blame the Soviet Union’s past tyrannical history on its ‘officially atheist status’ are arguing a contradiction. One cannot judge any individual or national actions on what is ‘not’ believed and practiced but on what ‘is’ believed and practiced. In both cases, the cause of the tyranny was (and is) the ideology of collectivism.
Today’s WOKE ideology is merely the latest label given to yesterday’s Marxist ideology – and religious affiliation or lack thereof has little to do with the support of such ideologies. The same principle holds true for freedom.
Whether atheist or religious, if one accepts and respects the principles of individualism, individual rights and freedom, then it is possible for people of every belief and non-belief to share the ideals and blessings of a society that’s Just Right, with the understanding that freedom of religion also includes the right to be free from religion.
If you found this presentation valuable please consider supporting us:
🧡 PayPal
Comments Off on 855 – Do you mind?—thinking about thinking
Apr102024
There has recently been a growing concern and much discussion about why so many people are still not awake, but just remain WOKE in the face of a pending civilizational collapse. “The WOKE mind virus is the greatest existential threat faced by humanity,” concludes Gad Saad, and Elon Musk apparently shares his alarm.
Among other causes cited for this sad state of affairs are the inability to have an inner monologue, the effect of the Covid spike protein, fear mongering, bacteria, chronic infection, the fake news media, intelligence guided by irrational bias, and of course the WOKE ideology, to name but a few.
Missing from most of the discussions is the ‘means’ by which people actually think: through the use of concepts and language. Because the human mind is essentially ‘programmable,’ and because words and concepts are the ‘software’ on which each mind functions, humans in the exercise of free will have the capacity and choice to think and behave either rationally or irrationally.
An irrational concept is one that does not conform to reality or reason. And significantly, irrational concepts can be held by highly intelligent people. How is this possible? Continue reading »
Comments Off on 854 – No peace in the foreseeable future | Jacob Peretz
Apr032024
“There will be no peace in Israel’s foreseeable future” predicts our guest Jacob Peretz.
His pessimism is based not only on current events or on the history of the region, but also on personal experience. His regret over saving the life of a wounded Egyptian soldier during the Yom Kippur war speaks to a growing sense of hopelessness regarding any prospects of peace or brotherhood between Jews and those who relentlessly disparage and attack them.
In speculating beyond the “foreseeable” future, Jacob notes that there are forty-eight Arab states in the United Nations, states that do not have any interest in pursuing peace with Israel. In making this observation, he has also identified the fundamental evil nature of the United Nations, which was described by Ayn Rand many decades ago (and not in reference to Israel):
“There is no margin of error about a monstrosity that was created for the alleged purpose of preventing wars by uniting the world against any aggressor, but proceeded to unite it against any victim of aggression.
“Who but a concrete-bound epistemological savage could have expected any other results from such an ‘experiment in collaboration’? What would you expect from a crime fighting committee whose board of directors included the leading gangsters of the community?”
What we need is not a “United Nations,” but an international organization of “United Democratic Nations,” suggests Jacob, and until such a body emerges, any organization with members opposed to freedom and democracy can only be a threat to peace, not a vehicle for peace.
Meanwhile, as the global debate continues to rage, Israel’s military efforts continue to escalate – demonstrating that predictions of “no peace in the foreseeable future” are proving to be Just Right, as tragic as that reality may be.
If you found this presentation valuable please consider supporting us:
🧡 PayPal
Comments Off on 853 – Israel reconsidered—in the light of history
Mar272024
In his March 4 essay entitled Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus* – The Chronicle of Zionist lies and their implosion foreseen, Salim Mansur concludes that the Balfour Declaration which created the state of Israel has no legal standing.
Given Israel’s current military actions in Palestine and the recent International Court of Justice‘s (ICJ) provisional judgement finding it “plausible” that Israel is violating the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, events suggest that Israel’s “false history” is rapidly catching up with its present.
That history includes the publication of Theodor Herzl‘s book, ‘The Jewish State’ with its “plan” for Zionism, how the Balfour Declaration was implemented, the suppression of the King-Crane Commission report, the Alfred Dreyfus case and the controversial opinions of figures like Edwin Montagu.
When Salim suggests that “a settlement will come within the context of a false history,” he is not solely referring to any possible ‘court’ settlements regarding the state of Israel, but to the inevitable continuum of history. Although various historical narratives are often shown to be false, actual historical events themselves nevertheless unfold on the reality of the past, not on the political fictions. “It’s karma.”
Even when not recognized as such, the reality of truth exerts its own deterministic force against intentions and efforts to hide truths that, given enough time, eventually surface. Since the study of history is a discipline dealing with related events through passages of time, an accurate history becomes an indispensable necessity in establishing any understanding of the present.
Global pressures and public opinion against Israel continue to build, and now even include Donald Trump‘s cautionary warning to wrap up its mission in Palestine. Whether or not Israel maintains (or perhaps improves) its status and international respect as a state is unpredictable. But a “settlement will come” and it will be interesting to see if that settlement proves to be one that is Just Right – irrespective of any false histories.
* Latin “False in one, false in all.”
If you found this presentation valuable please consider supporting us:
🧡 PayPal
Comments Off on 852 – Primacy—consciousness or existence?
Mar202024
“In politics, perception is reality, the truth doesn’t matter.”
Given the broad acceptance of this view of politics, it should not be surprising that so many good people see politics as an evil. They thus avoid getting involved in a process that affects everyone’s life whether they are interested in politics or not.
But this viewpoint is itself a form of political propaganda because in reality the truth does indeed matter in politics, so much so that political interests which are not aligned with truth go to such great lengths to hide and/or misrepresent the truth. Those political views are broadly identified as coming from the Left, which represents many variants of collectivism.
For those on the Right (which represents individualism, freedom, and capitalism), the current state of politics has become so irrational and beyond understanding that it is almost impossible to accept that the tyranny we are experiencing is real. “Everything is upside down or totally backwards,” has become a familiar refrain expressing this frustration and disbelief.
To understand the madness of the political Left, it is necessary to know how those on the Left think. One of the most difficult concepts to grasp is that those on the Left are strictly ideological, not philosophical. Ideology originates strictly in the mind, unconcerned with the facts of reality. A working philosophy on the other hand, is disciplined by the facts of reality.
In philosophy, these two opposing ways of thinking are contrasted as the ‘primacy of consciousness’ (in which reality is not perceived by consciousness but is created by consciousness) and the ‘primacy of existence’ (in which reality exists irrespective of anyone’s consciousness).
In politics, it is the Left that relies on ideology, while the Right relies on philosophical principles.
Consequently, this conflict between Left and Right manifests itself in a battle of definitions and concepts, ranging from the definition of freedom to the definition of democracy. While those on the Left are obsessed with “defending democracy,” many on the Right insist that freedom is the primary value to be defended.
While freedom is indeed the primary value, the surprising truth is that freedom and democracy go hand-in-hand.
Unfortunately, even when the truth is told, most people cannot recognize it or distinguish it from all of the false perceptions about politics. To be understood in a light that is Just Right, truth must be discerned; it requires a process of thought and discipline that too few understand: philosophy.
If you found this presentation valuable please consider supporting us:
🧡 PayPal
From the 19th-century Pale of Settlement, to the writings of Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern Zionism, to the ongoing conflict in the Gaza Strip, Professor Salim Mansur and Robert Vaughan delve into the significance of Zionism’s history and the establishment of Israel in comprehending contemporary events in the Middle East.
Your financial support is always appreciated and is what makes our programming possible.
E-Transfer your donation to feedback@justrightmedia.org
Or via PayPal
Comments Off on 851 – Political atheism—the loss of faith in democracy
Mar132024
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 »
Comments Off on 850 – The spoken to—Censorship’s true target
Mar062024
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
Comments Off on 849 – Applied philosophy—the practicality of freedom
Feb282024
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 »
Comments Off on 848 – Witness to betrayal—the National Citizens Inquiry | Ches Crosbie
Feb212024
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
The COVID-19 pandemic plunged Canada into a culture of fear and panic, marked by egregious violations of individual rights not seen since times of war. One might assume that the federal and provincial governments would have faced opposition to their unjustified and tyrannical measures aimed at curbing the spread of what amounted to nothing more than a severe flu. However, they did not. Instead, all of “officialdom” supported the measures taken, and anyone who questioned those measures were tormented, canceled, and vilified. Some were even beaten, arrested, and imprisoned.
In turbulent times Canadians normally turn to the mainstream media to pose challenging questions regarding the actions of government, pursue a balanced approach to the available “expert” information, and at the very least document the experiences of Canadians. Not this time. The mainstream media, receiving funding by the federal government since 2019, completely failed Canadians. No probing questions were asked, no alternative opinions were offered, and the negative effects of government actions were ignored. Some legacy media outlets even stooped to inciting hatred and encouraging Canadians to turn on those who did not share the official narrative.
With the lack of responsibility and probity on the part of Canadian officials, institutions, and media, it fell to the People themselves to document the effects of the government’s overreach and offer solutions.
The National Citizens Inquiry (NCI) marked a first for Canada. Citizen-led and funded it traversed the county gathering the heartbreaking stories of 305 victims, the testimony of 94 experts in law and medicine, and over 76,000 signatures on a petition of support.
Ches Crosbie, a Canadian Lawyer and spokesman for the NCI, joins Robert Vaughan to discuss some of the recommendations of the NCI’s final report: Inquiry into the Appropriateness and Efficacy of the COVID-19 Response in Canada, released November 28, 2023, and the disregard of the report by those who would benefit most from its findings.
If you found this presentation valuable please consider donating:
🧡 PayPal
Comments Off on 847 – Rules of the game—of definitions
Feb142024
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
Tucker Carlson’s interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin did not reveal groundbreaking insights into the leader or his policies to those of us who have been closely monitoring events in that region. However, it did bring to light previously overlooked facts to hundreds of millions, courtesy of a journalist committed to honesty, in stark contrast to the West’s dismissive yellow press.
In this insightful discussion, Professor Emeritus, Salim Mansur and Robert Vaughan delve into the interview’s implications, exploring its impact on a global audience that is typically shielded from the truth but now finds itself unexpectedly confronted with reality, thanks to a journalist who values integrity.
If you found this presentation valuable please consider making a donation:
🧡 PayPal
When the International Court of Justice (ICJ) announced that it found it “plausible” that Israel is violating the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, many immediately drew parallels to the Holocaust, suggesting that Israel’s actions were akin to the treatment of Jews under Nazi Germany.
However, this interpretation is not accurate. The common understanding of “genocide” as the “systematic extermination” of a group of people does not align with the definition in the UN’s Convention, nor is it the definition under scrutiny by the ICJ.
In UN law, “genocide” encompasses a broad range of actions, including killing any number of people in a defined group, even a single person, or causing serious mental harm to a member of the group. This expansive definition implies that nations involved in any conflict, anywhere, at any time could potentially face allegations of “genocide.”
Professor Salim Mansur from Western University joins us to explore the implications of the ICJ’s provisional decision and its potential impact on the very existence of the state of Israel.
If you found this presentation valuable please consider making a donation:
🧡 PayPal
Comments Off on 846 – United Freedom Party of Alberta—neither united nor free
Feb072024
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
Comments Off on 845 – Politics is simple—it’s just not easy
Feb012024
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
Comments Off on 844 – The empire strikes out | Salim Mansur
Jan242024
“A republic, if you can keep it.” Benjamin Franklin’s famous response (Sept 1787) to Elizabeth Willing Powel’s question: “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” was as much a warning as it was a description of an ideal America as a state in which the sovereignty resides in the people and the legislative and administrative powers are lodged in officers elected by them.
It is now 2024 and the republic to which he referred no longer exists. Were he alive today Franklin might be tempted to respond with “An empire – if you can defeat it” as the means of both defining the nation and of recovering its republican status.
Our guest Salim Mansur argues that America’s descent from a free republic to a coercive empire was accelerated and completed during the period between the election of Woodrow Wilson in 1912 and the installation of Joe Biden in 2020. “We are now in a post-constitutional America,” he says.
America’s republican status was dismantled thanks to the imposition of the federal income tax, the 17th amendment which “democratized” the election of senators, the establishment of the federal reserve (1913) and other legislation making “America now the world’s biggest threat to individual rights.”
As an empire, America suffers from the “disease of the empire” which Salim describes as a nullification of freedom at home and the coercion of people abroad. Ultimately all empires are little more than military rule.
Despite all of this corruption and power, the good news is that the vast majority of “we the people” has begun to see America and its global empire for what it has become. With world-wide protests and demonstrations against their own politicians, to say nothing of the unprecedented popularity of Donald Trump, the rulers of the empire are beginning to be uncomfortably aware that their empire may soon be struck out.
For that reason, we are in “uncharted waters” when it comes to predicting what the empire’s elites may do to strike back in their state of desperation. It looks like 2024 will be the decisive year in which Americans will choose between living in an empire or in a constitutional republic. So far it looks like they’ll choose to do what is Just Right by striking out an empire and choosing to keep a republic as their home’s base.
If you found this presentation valuable please consider supporting us:
🧡 PayPal
Upon leaving the Constitutional Convention of 1787 Benjamin Franklin was asked about the kind of government created by him and the other delegates. His response was, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
If Franklin were alive today he would say that the American People had failed. What initially started out as a bold experiment in liberty has transformed into an empire engaged in a “Forever War,” led by the very type of elites the War of Independence was waged to overthrow.
Our guest, Professor Salim Mansur, has described the United States of 2024 as a “rogue state” and the most dangerous enemy of freedom based on individual rights.
Salim puts the start of the Republic’s fall in 1912 with the election of Democrat Woodrow Wilson. It was under Wilson that the 17th Amendment to the Constitution had US Senators elected by the People rather than by the legislatures of the states they were supposed to represent, altering a key aspect of the Republican nature of the country. This change made the Senators no different than the elected members of the House of Representatives.
Adding to Wilson’s ignominious administrative term was the signing of the Federal Reserve Act and the 16th Amendment, which allowed for a federal income tax. No longer did the federal government require the financial backing and consent of the States to wage war. Upon his reelection in 1916 and with these new tools at his disposal, Wilson quickly entered into the Great War already waging in Europe.
If one were to bracket the fall of the Republic at one end with Wilson’s Administration, on this end of history the other bracket would be the installation of the Usurper Joe Biden, installed into the position of President during a ceremony attended not by the American People, but by a select group of elites in a Capital surrounded by razor wire and 25,000 armed guardsmen.
There could be no greater nor obvious symbolism than that spectacle to demonstrate that Franklin’s Republic has fallen and that a New World Order headed by an American Empire has begun.
The video is also available on the following platforms:
Comments Off on 843 – The missionary position—on sex, politics, and religion
Jan182024
“We’re far more divided than we thought – between people who see freedom as God defines it and those who see freedom as they define it.” So declared one Christian spokesman regarding the current “freedom alliance” on the Right.
Surprisingly, his concern was primarily based on differing sexual attitudes and lifestyles: “God created marriage for one man and one woman, for life, and any sex outside of that is a sin and against nature.”
While this choice of lifestyle is perfectly legitimate for those who choose to adopt it, turning it in to a point of division between those who differ is tragically self-defeating. It is as if to argue that no political alliance is possible unless everyone in that alliance uses the missionary position. This is a complete non sequitur in the greater war on tyranny, where the only consensus required for alliance is the acceptance of individual freedom.
Different attitudes on sexuality are unnecessarily divisive when brought into any political sphere or arena. By sexuality in this context we mean disagreements over consentual lifestyle choices, not on the tyranny of gender politics.
Thanks to gender identity politics, sexuality has become yet another area of disagreement and division. But gender politics is not about sex or about sexuality. It is about creating division and conflict in the political arena.
It’s unfortunate that some in the religious community are using their own personal sexual beliefs to create further division. Complete unanimity between differing religious groups, faiths and those who profess no specific religious views is not a necessity in the broader war against the current tyranny.
The current “freedom alliance” need not be threatened from within. All it takes to keep it intact is a consensus of freedom that is Just Right for everyone.
If you found this presentation valuable please consider supporting us:
🧡 PayPal
“When you’re dead, you don’t know you’re dead. The pain is felt by others. The same thing happens when you’re stupid.” And to explicitly conclude the thought of that popular meme: “When you’re stupid and you don’t know it, the pain is felt by others.”
The truth of that statement strikes at the heart of what was experienced in Nazi Germany, thanks to the seemingly willing support that so many German people gave to Hitler. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German Lutheran pastor theologian and anti-Nazi dissident, believed that this was a not a consequence of malice, but of widespread stupidity.
While in a German prison during the Hitler years, he formulated a theory arguing that we must seek to understand the nature of stupidity as stupidity is not an intellectual defect, but a moral one. Stupidity, therefore, is a much more dangerous enemy than malice because one can expose malice and argue against it and even use force to stop it, but this is not possible when dealing with stupidity.
One has but to look at all of the utterly stupid ideas and causes (and quite demonstrably so) being supported in today’s zeitgeist. From Covid to climate change, these stupid fictions continue to be believed by a significant number of people who, as a result, become a danger not only to others but to themselves as well. But having chosen to be stupid, they are oblivious to this reality.
Moreover, this phenomenon of stupidity, observed Bonhoeffer, is most predominant among people living in groups and collectives, and very rare in independent individuals or those who generally live alone. This suggests a strong psychological force at play, and goes a long way towards explaining why the collectivist Left (communism/socialism/fascism) promotes so many genuinely stupid and immoral ideas, policies and ideologies.
Upon a review of the evidence, it would appear that Bonhoeffer’s theory that stupidity is a moral defect turns out to be Just Right.
If you found this presentation valuable please consider supporting us:
🧡 PayPal
Sometimes our philosophical assumptions and beliefs can be challenged by the most unexpected and seemingly trivial events. To illustrate this, we offer a remarkable true story about a lowly housefly named ‘Myfly’ and what it tells us about human nature.
The story has encouraged us to re-examine some long accepted philosophical principles, like the one that postulates that truth is that which reflects and corresponds to reality. But is that really ‘true’? Might it be possible for something to be true, but not necessarily real? Is there a distinction between the ‘real’ and ‘reality’? These are but a few of the questions considered in our first presentation of 2024,and we hope and trust that everyone had a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
Given all of the dire predictions and expectations for this new year, being able to distinguish between narratives that are true or false becomes all the more urgent and necessary. The science devoted to the discovery of the proper methods of acquiring and validating knowledge is known as epistemology.
In both politics and war the first rule is to define or be defined and in so doing, control the narrative. Through the application of valid epistemological principles. false narratives can easily be identified and discredited without having to resort to censorship and other means of speech restrictions.
If it is true that the narrative is all, then clearly those on the Right must endeavour to spread those narratives known to be Just Right.
If you found this presentation valuable please consider donating:
🧡 PayPal
The Oct 7th, 2023 atrocities committed on Israeli civilians by Gaza’s Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) prompted widespread expression of sympathy towards the people of Israel. However, as Israel responded to this act of terrorism to bring Hamas and its supporters to justice, the narrative quickly shifted to a surge of anti-Semitism.
In a candid conversation, Jewish-Canadian businessman Irving Weisdorf and Robert Vaughan delve into the origins of anti-Semitism, the historical context leading to the establishment of the state of Israel, and the complex dynamics of the insatiable animosity held by many Arab Palestinians towards their Jewish neighbours.
Your donations are greatly appreciated and are what makes our programming possible:
🧡 PayPal
