“Canadians do need to wake up to what is happening around them. We don’t have a country, if we cannot control our borders, immigration, laws, or domestic policies.“
National Sovereignty -Canada’s No. 1 Issue?
Recent Updates Page 4
Article: “Goodbye to the Internet: Interference By Governments Is Already Here”
“The internet, which was originally conceived of as a platform for the free interchange of information and opinions, is instead inexorably becoming a managed medium that is increasingly controlled by corporate and government interests. Those interests are in no way answerable to the vast majority of the consumers who actually use the sites in a reasonable and non-threatening fashion to communicate and share different points of view. “
Arguing Against Abortion, Part 1: Preventing Undue Pain & Suffering
In the abortion debate, there is a tendency for abortion advocates to ground their morals in terms of how an unwanted pregnancy could affect the well-being of the mother; the bulk of these arguments can be boiled down to the possibility that she may not be financially or emotionally prepared for a child. When this potential child comes into the discussion, it is often in terms of how much suffering it will supposedly go through if it is born to an unprepared mother, with the assumption being that terminating the pregnancy is therefore more ‘ethical’ for both parties in the long-term — it is this second assumption that I’d like to challenge.
In this first part, I want to talk about the process of abortion in terms of the suffering that is inflicted on the fetus itself, rather than continue the critique of the very old, very tired political bandwagon of “women’s reproductive rights” and what-have-you, as this lens is one that very few are willing to look through. Though I suppose it is far easier to empathize with an already-born woman than with the so-called “clump of cells” hidden away inside of her, the fact that you need an ultrasound to see the latter should not get in the way of having at least some sympathy for the poor thing — it didn’t ask for any of this, either.
In the interest of transparency, I am personally on the pro-life side of things, though this has not always been the case. In my perfect world, there would be no abortion. That said, I understand that this is extremely unlikely to happen, thus I am more in favour of limiting the availability of abortion to under 20 weeks; the point at which we know for certain that the fetus is capable of feeling pain, with some research suggesting that they may be more sensitive to pain during this developmental stage than they are after birth. It has always been my belief (and that of most medical professionals, might I add) that inflicting pain on a living thing is only morally justified when it is necessary to preserve its life (assuming of course that it will not subsequently live the rest of its life in such a state); in terms of taking its life, therefore, it is never justified. If we are going to be ending a life prematurely, for whatever reason, it should be done in such a way that causes a minimal amount of pain and suffering, which is precisely what all present methods of abortion in the 20+ week range does not do. In this respect, it doesn’t really matter what you think of the legal status of this biological entity, as we know that it can feel pain after 20 weeks of gestation and that ought to be the only thing that matters. I don’t really care about what we call it and neither should you.
Let’s start by going over some of these methods that are used to perform such abortions — that is, the “medical procedure” wherein a live fetus is “terminated,” thus I am not referring to miscarriages nor stillbirths, both of which are uniquely characterized by the fetus already being dead. For an abortion the fetus starts out alive, which is an important distinction to make. This distinction still applies to what are termed “non-viable pregnancies,” i.e. the fetus cannot survive post-birth and/or is unlikely to be born alive, and it applies specifically because it is still alive, its chances of survival outside the womb notwithstanding. Similarly, a person on life support is still alive despite their dependency on machinery to remain so, and one will further note that we refer to brain-dead patients as such, rather than just “dead” — there is an important distinction between the two, regardless of future prospects.
So, methods: typically, for late-term abortions, the fetus will need to be “destroyed” prior to its removal; this seems to be most commonly accomplished via a fatal injection of either potassium chloride or digoxin, which is injected into either the fetus’s body or the amniotic sac surrounding it. Potassium chloride (KCI) we know from its use in lethal injections, and we know from botched lethal injections that it causes a severe, painful burning sensation in the recipient before causing cardiac arrest — this is why lethal injections use a total of three drugs for the job, the other two being administered before the KCI to first induce unconsciousness and paralysis, respectively. But, since we do not grant the same courtesy to fetuses undergoing abortion that we do for criminals undergoing execution, a fetus will only receive the KCI injection. Digoxin, meanwhile, is said to cause “considerable pain at the injection site” when administered for non-abortive purposes in both adults and children, and as such, injection “is not generally recommended unless other routes cannot be used.” [1] No matter which of the two drugs are used, fetal death is not instantaneous; in fact, the process can take several hours. Now, if KCI is injected directly into the fetus’s heart it will stop beating immediately — but, remember, not having a heart beat is not necessarily the same as being dead, and so long as the nerves and brain tissue remain intact, the odds of the fetus experiencing excruciating levels of pain during this phase of its “termination” are fairly high.
This is not the only way to go about things, of course. As it turns out, the “induction of fetal demise” is not a universal prerequisite for its removal in the second trimester. One could also go about it by the infamous dilation and evacuation (D&E) procedure, which involves the insertion of a suction tube into the uterus, through the amniotic sac and pressed up against the fetus’s chest and abdomen. Once turned on, the fetus will perish as a predictable result of having its internal organs vacuumed out of its body. The chance that this disembowelment occurs quickly enough that the fetus does not experience any pain is quite low, as its tiny organs are still too big to fit down the tube all at once, regardless of the amount of suction being applied. I’m not going to post them here, but if the reader is so inclined they may do a Google image search for autopsy photos of fetuses at 20 weeks; in doing so, they may note that the stomach, for example, is about the size of an adult, male thumb from the tip to the first knuckle. The tubes used for this procedure vary in size from between 6 to 16 mm in diameter — even at 16 mm, this is still smaller than my own adult, female thumb. Now factor in that we are not just removing the stomach in this matter but as well the heart, lungs, intestines; in essence, every organ but the brain, which of course is the part responsible for processing pain. With that in mind, I remain very unconvinced that this would be a “quick and painless” death for the fetus in question.
The last method available is what’s called a partial-birth or intact dilation and extraction (D&X) abortion, which does not call for the fetus to be terminated in utero. As far as I can tell, this procedure is used in cases where the fetus may have been “wanted” but has been found to be non-viable, and the parents wish to keep the fetus’s body relatively intact for viewing and burial purposes. While this may potentially be the least painful of all the methods discussed here, it is my view that it also carries the highest degree of cognitive dissonance in terms of what we determine to be a baby or infant (and thus “worthy” of protection) vs. what we determine to be “merely” a fetus (and thus potentially subject to disposal) — but I’ll get to that in a minute. The procedure is, in essence, as follows: after the cervix has been sufficiently dilated the fetus is partially extracted from the mother’s body, just enough for the abortionist to puncture the base of the skull, insert a suction tube into the brain and remove its contents, after which the body is extracted completely.
Now, this would probably provide for a quicker death in comparison to a D&E procedure, but how much quicker and, subsequently, how much less painful we do not know for certain; I am not at all sure whether it is objectively more or less painful to have a tube thrust into one’s skull than it is to have one’s chest and abdominal cavity sucked out through a similar tube. In any case, we ought to consider the standard that we have set not only for doctor-assisted suicides but for our pets, as well: in neither case would we consider it acceptable for a family member on their deathbed, be they human or otherwise, to be euthanized via puncturing a hole in their skull and vacuuming out their brain. At the very least, hypothetically speaking, there would certainly be a reasonable demand made to have the subject rendered unconscious beforehand. Again, this standard is applied in a variety of real-life circumstances ranging between having a dog put to sleep to the execution of criminals, the latter of whom have (more often than not) committed extraordinarily horrific crimes in order to earn such a punishment — but we do not apply this standard to a fetus. The arbitrary line-drawing of how much of its body has passed through the birth canal as the determining factor between ‘fetus’ and ‘infant,’ too, is suspect: essentially, if the subject has its head out enough then it has been “properly” born and is therefore entitled to care and protection as a legally-recognized “person,” but if every other body part but the head has completely exited the same passage, it remains completely legal to kill it. (This is somewhat of a separate discussion entirely, but it’s certainly something to think about.)
In sum, the first argument is as follows: after the 20th week of gestation, wherein the nervous system has developed enough to have the capacity of experiencing pain, abortion of any form should not be performed, regardless of the viability or non-viability of the fetus in question, on the basis that the current methods at our disposal cause what I have argued to be an inhumane amount of pain to be inflicted on a living creature in the process of ending its life. Irrespective of whether or not we consider the fetus to be a “person,” the current precedent and standard of care set for the “destruction” of non-humans indicates that, at the very least, the fetus should be sedated prior to termination; this standard is not presently met by any of the methods discussed above.
In the second part, I will be arguing against the utility of distinguishing between viable and non-viable pregnancies. When I’ve finished writing it, I will link to it here.
Article: At Trudeau’s behest, Gould instructed Google News to limit Canadian access to foreign press
“Gould placed a call to a senior government relations executive at Google, during which she complained about ‘hate speech’ and ‘toxic rhetoric’, referring multiple times to specific criticisms of the Trudeau government that she found objectionable. She then threatened sweeping regulations that would require unprecedented disclosures of advertising sponsors.”
All Canadians need to see this. Our democracy is dying in real-time.
At Trudeau’s behest, Gould instructed Google News to limit Canadian access to foreign press
I Wish This Was a Conspiracy Theory
An audio version of this post is available here.
Being rebuked for speaking out against globalism, particularly with regards to the United Nations’ role in all this, annoys me for two main reasons. The first is that I am sincerely not making any of this up; unlike flat-Earthers or the “Queen Lizard” David Icke types, I (and others) are in possession of genuine, concrete evidence to support our claims, all of which is easy enough to find online anyway — you don’t have to take my word for it. The second main reason is that I actually don’t want any of this to be happening: in fact, I really, really wish that it wasn’t. I sincerely wish that all of it was just some kooky conspiracy theory — but it’s not.
The thing is, I used to be one of the naysayers. When I first found out about the UN et al., in the context of Agenda 21, I immediately blew it off as garbage practically the minute I laid eyes on the phrase “population control.” I, like most other people, had been practically trained to do so: “population control,” just like “world government” or, more recently, the very name of George Soros, is one of those “trigger phrases” meant to supposedly tell you all that you need to know about the person using them — that they’re completely nuts. You see these crazy, conspiratorial types espousing similar ideas in movies, TV and other mediums quite often (think Woody Harrison in 2012) and gradually come to associate the mere entertainment of those topics with people that are probably insane and, therefore, wrong. In reality, of course, the character of the messenger ought to have no bearing on the content of the message itself, but that’s obviously not what happens; these people are usually shut-out from public discourse simply for having had the gall to utter any of them. For many years, that is precisely what I did: having grown up with a “conspiracy theorist” mother, the metric I used was that anything that looked like something my mom might say was to be immediately dismissed as probable horseshit. But like many other things in life, my mom ended up being far more often correct in her theories and claims than I did: globalism, like wanting children, ended up being one of those.
Thus, I am a far more recent addition to the anti-globalist movement than many of the other people involved, some of whom have been speaking out against the UN since the late 1980s, around the time of the Rio Conference, the establishment of the World Trade Organization and the subsequent release of Agenda 21. All of these events occurred before I was even alive, and so I grew up absolutely soaked through-and-through with progressive ideology and globalist sympathies. Joe Hazelton mentioned in one video his disgust at realizing that the same organization that had kids wearing its brand around their necks at Halloween — the UNICEF donation boxes that some may be familiar with — was involved in covering up horrific cases of child sexual abuse in third-world peacekeeping missions, as well as actually hiring a number of pedophiles to work with children in said missions. I have to say, I now share his disgust with both UNICEF and the UN at large. But, once upon a time, I thought that the UN was a largely benevolent, if somewhat useless entity; I thought that any talk of a “new world order” was overblown paranoia — I would have never thought that the UN themselves invented the very phrase.
What is happening in the world at present is not “fun” for any of us in the slightest. I get no more pleasure from “believing” in the incoming globalist-takeover than I do from “believing” that cancer kills people: in both cases, we are not talking about theory, but fact, and I wish that neither of them were true. To really drive the point across, I spent most of my early twenties battling a severe anxiety disorder, one manifestation of which was a persistent, terrifying conviction that I was on a rapid descent into a permanent state of insanity. A few years later, I am telling you with every ounce of sincerity in my heart, that now I actually wish I was insane. I wish that my anxiety had been right about that one, that I have simply been reading far too much into all this and that none of it is a real threat. But even if I am delusional, how is it that thousands of people across the world are having the same delusion that I am? In the early days, I was almost upset to see others confirm the same theories and suspicions that I had formed independently, because that means that I’m not nuts. I don’t know how to be any more clear about it: I wish that this wasn’t happening. This is one of the rare times in my life where I don’t enjoy being right.
I understand why there are those who, even when presented with all of the evidence, facts, and figures, still choose to ignore the truth. Ignorance is bliss, and there’s little-to-nothing about the globalist project that is pleasant to think of as being possible. I don’t like to think about trying to raise my children in a world where they could be taken from my care, were it to come out that Mommy and Daddy don’t believe in the things that they say on TV or in schools. I’ll probably have to teach them to become two different people — to be unassuming and compliant when in public, but free to agree or disagree at home. When I was younger, my mother would always follow her use of a swear word with, “Don’t repeat that at school!” If I’m not able to homeschool my own kids, I can imagine that I’ll be borrowing that phrase quite a bit.
I don’t like to think about a world where every single minute detail of my life is recorded and tracked — the data collected is always trumpeted as “anonymized,” but what good is that when there are multiple different forms of data being collected by multiple networks worldwide, all of whom are being encouraged to openly and freely “coordinate” (share) their information among themselves? How easy would it be to cross-reference the different data sets and figure out who I am? Even without the security risk, it’s just plain creepy — I have seen one report from the UN Global Pulse about how data collected about a user’s computer-mouse movements (via a chip within the mouse) could be used to infer whether or not that person has a motor disability, which could then be used to customize the ads that they see. To their credit, the authors of that report were very against such a thing — but if you’re going to ask me to trust that corporations and advertisers would never abuse their access to such data, then I have a bridge to sell you.
I don’t like to think about a world where both terrorism and the spread of infectious, perhaps deadly disease are set to increase alongside the never-ending acceleration of mass migration from developing countries. A world where my children and myself are less likely to find meaningful employment when we can’t check off enough “diversity” boxes on the application. I am sincerely worried about trying to raise a son in that world, a world where he is constantly berated and shamed for his mere existence and treated as a second-class citizen in a country his own ancestors built from the ground-up.
These are only a few of the things that I don’t like to think about; the full list is seemingly endless. I don’t want any of that to be happening, I don’t want it to ever come to fruition. But if I don’t want it to happen, I must first acknowledge that it is happening — and that I must do everything in my power to stop it from going further. Like a cancerous growth, a strong intervention is needed: ignoring the lump will not make it go away, no matter how much you wish that it wasn’t there.
Article: “Unpopular Speech in a Cold Climate”
“[A] world in which lawyers are afraid to defend people against a certain kind of accusation is a world in which those accusations can never really be tested or verified, where guilty verdicts bear the whiff of a sham.”
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/unpopular-speech-in-a-cold-climate
What I am doing, and why
An audio version of this post can be found here.
Irish statesman and the ‘founder’ of modern conservatism, Edmund Burke, once wrote in a letter: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” This has since become a relatively well-known quote, even if not everyone knows that Burke was the one to write it. The reason why it is well-known is because it is true, and painfully so: it is an obvious truth that was true before it was written, it was true while it was written, it is still true some two-hundred years after the fact and it will remain true some two-hundred years in the future. It is obviously, undoubtedly true that, if evil is in a position to triumph and no one, let alone good men, does anything about it, evil will then triumph. Everyone knows this.
Everyone knows that this statement is true, and yet, many people are almost keen to forget about it. Meanwhile, stating that “water is wet” is also obviously true, and no one is walking around in the rain without a jacket or umbrella while expecting to remain dry. We are perfectly capable of remembering without really thinking about it that water is wet, that fire is hot, and many, many other obviously-true things; but time and time again, evil finds itself in a position to triumph, and good men do nothing.
People who don’t do anything have often put that free time to use by coming up with all sorts of justifications as to why they weren’t doing something. The most common of these is that they “don’t know” what to do or how to do it. This particular excuse is symptomatic of the modern age, for it is surely the case that whomever invented the first wheel was not provided with an instruction manual beforehand — but they did it anyway. It’s unlikely that they did so on their first attempt but it was done on some attempt, and if they had not attempted to do it then it would not have been done at all. Multiple wheels were invented by multiple different cultures at different times throughout human history, none of whom knew how to do it until they did, yet there are people today who will tell you that they can’t do anything to stop evil because they “don’t know how.” This is a problem. A bigger problem may be that there are a lot of people who think this way, which is part of the reason why evil keeps triumphing when good men do nothing.
Another obvious truth is that if you want to do something, you have to at least try to do it. If no one had tried to invent the wheel, then no one would have done so; we would have neither wheels nor any of the benefits that wheels bring. We don’t know if the first wheel-makers had any idea of what the end-result would look like — maybe they drew diagrams in the dirt with sticks — but once they managed do it, they then knew for certain not only what a wheel ought to look like, but as well how it could be replicated. Once a thing has been done for the first time it becomes infinitely easier to do it a second, third, and fourth time, on and on until you have all the wheels you need. The hard part has already been done; all that is required from then on are the necessary materials and the willpower to do it. All of this being true is particularly frustrating in light of people not doing anything, because stopping evil from triumphing has been done before — we are not inventing the wheel, here. Thus, the issue is not that those people don’t know how to stop evil; rather, the issue is that they don’t particularly want to stop evil: if they really wanted to do it, they would have tried to do so at least once, and they’d still be trying now. Very few people who have claimed to actively want to stop evil have actually done anything to do so, and even fewer still have kept at the task despite their failures. If you’re not actively trying to stop evil, then you are not doing anything about it — you are doing nothing. And if you keep it up, then evil will surely triumph.
*
What I am personally trying to do is something. I am trying to raise awareness, have discussions, and make connections, all at the same time: just one of these things occurring is an infinitely better result than what would have resulted from my not doing anything — from doing nothing. I do not know if I will be successful, but if I do not at least try, my subsequent lack of success will be written in stone.
If you have ever seen a nature documentary, then you will know that prey animals, on spotting a nearby predator, tend to do something about the situation. If a gazelle is made aware of the presence of a nearby lion, it’s a safe bet that it will decide to run away — if it does nothing, the lion will eat it. Of course, there is always the chance that the gazelle runs away, yet is still ultimately eaten due to some unfortunate circumstance — maybe there is another lion laying in wait for an ambush — but it remains the case that if the gazelle does not do anything at all, then it is going to be eaten by at least one lion. The gazelle does not waste any time trying to perfect its escape plan, nor does it decide that it “doesn’t know what to do” — it just does it, because that’s better than doing nothing.
Now, gazelles being eaten by lions is not a moral issue: there is no “good animal” nor “evil animal” in this scenario, there is simply one animal that eats other animals and one of said animals. Perhaps from the gazelle’s perspective, the lion is evil for wanting to eat it; perhaps from the lion’s perspective, the gazelle is evil for wanting to let it starve. None of this matters in the grand scheme of things because, objectively speaking, the battle is not one between good and evil. Humans like to think that we’re a little more complicated than this, but we really aren’t: what people on one side of the planet think is “good” might be thought of as “evil” by those living on the other side. This is not to say that there is no such thing as good nor evil, only that there are differences in interpretation. But just as it is not productive for a gazelle to try and explain its perspective to an approaching lion, it is not productive to try and “talk it over” with people who are doing evil things: as far as they’re concerned, you might be the evil one.
This dynamic is precisely what I have seen play out over the last few years: it is abundantly clear that there is a lion in our midst, yet we gazelles seem to be frozen in place, greatly preferring to complain about its presence rather than actually do something about it. This is such a profoundly idiotic approach that if we were able to explain our perspective to actual gazelles, they’d be laughing at us. No one wants to be bothered with the issue of the lion, in fact, some would even argue that we deserve to be eaten by the lion. I would have to agree, but for a different reason: if we do nothing about it, then we deserve the consequences that follow.
If we fail to stop evil because we haven’t even tried, then we deserve the consequences of its triumph. If that should happen, I want to at least be able to explain to my children that I did try; that I am trying; that I never will stop trying.
That is what I am doing, and why. Anyone who wants to help is welcome to join me.
Lord Byron, “Don Juan” (1818–24)
But now being lifted into high society,
And having pick’d up several odds and ends
Of free thoughts in his travels for variety,
He deem’d, being in a lone isle, among friends,
That without any danger of a riot, he
Might for long lying make himself amends;
And singing as he sung in his warm youth,
Agree to a short armistice with truth.
Uppity Peasants 