First female Minister of Finance? More like Minister of Fierce!

Girl boss!

Tweet pinned, mic dropped and …. Freeland out!!

… a few weeks later …

Here are some basic facts:

1. COVID vaccine safety and efficacy is not tested by the government. The data is based solely on the vaccine producers’ own testing and given to the government’s “panel of experts” who simply review it. This is quite literally the honour system (see below) and vaccine approval in this case doesn’t mean rigorous testing.
2. The approval process for COVID vaccines has been fast-tracked, skipping various safety protocols (or maybe they exist just for the heck of it?). The “science” is not established and the government regularly updates its information as it’s uncovered.
3. COVID vaccine producer Pfizer was fined $2.9 billion for fraud, described as “blatant and continued disregard of the law … over an extended period of time”, one of numerous fines that the company has paid over the years for engaging in lies and deception. Their history of criminal recklessness in the name of profit (e.g. testing unapproved antibiotics on Nigerian children resulting in numerous deaths), goes back decades.
4. COVID vaccine producer Johnson & Johnson most recently settled a $26 billion lawsuit for downplaying risks of opioids (fraud), and helping to fuel the current North American opioid crisis. J&J has hundreds of thousands of pending litigation and has paid out billions in damages in additional lawsuits, many of them for fraud and misrepresentation.
5. COVID vaccine producer AstraZeneca settled tens of thousands of lawsuits for withholding drug safety information and misleading marketing.
6. COVID vaccine producer Moderna is known for its secrecy and lack of peer review, and for operating primarily for profit.
7. The Canadian government is supposed to require informed consent before drug and vaccine testing can take place in humans. Since, as the government affirms they were never completed, extended clinical trials of COVID vaccines are currently being performed on the mass Canadian public without any such consent.
8. Since they are relatively new, there is understandably no data on the long-term negative effects of any of the current COVID vaccines, thus making claims of “safety” dubious at best. Considering that new and unforeseen side-effects are being discovered on a regular basis it’s not unreasonable to assume that additional long-term effects will be observed. Additionally, efficacy data is subject to different interpretations, especially in the context of incomplete or incompatible data. As such, neither the safety nor efficacy of existing COVID vaccines is established, and based on current trends both parameters appear to be shifting negatively or are at least being called into question.
9. Vaccine makers have been shielded from any legal liability by the federal government over the COVID vaccines. The government has stringent filters on who is eligible for compensation and ultimately it will be taxpayers who will pay for any mistakes or malfeasance on the part of manufacturers. The government says that this is “normal”. In May of this year, despite numerous adverse vaccine reactions to COVID vaccines and 6 months after the initial announcement, the government had yet to consider any claims, stating only that they would be handled by a “third party”. That third party ended up being Ottawa-based RCGT Consulting, an accounting and tax firm.

Putting all of this together: the Canadian government, itself laying claim to a long history of ostensible “genocide” and other reprehensible behaviour, has granted legal immunity to companies that have engaged in mass fraud and deception resulting in death and injury, instead holding the public liable for any fraud or malfeasance, while trusting those same companies to provide the medical community and the public with information on safety and efficacy, information that is being shown to be increasingly “inaccurate” (to put it nicely).

Claims that this is being done for public health conflict strikingly with the government’s refusal to ban cigarettes which kill an estimated 48,000 people each year, often after long bouts in the hospital on respirators and other medical equipment, similar to COVID patients, of whom approximately 26,500 have died since the start of the pandemic a year and a half ago. The excuse of “protecting others” is shown to be a farce when compared to exposure from secondhand smoke, alone affecting roughly the same number of people as died from COVID. And the idea that big tobacco is so deeply entrenched in the system that it can’t be removed is both silly considering that the government pretty much shut down the whole economy, and yet more evidence that COVID measures have little to do with science or “protecting the public”. If rapacious big tobacco has such a hold on government, why wouldn’t big pharma with their history of greed, lies and death? As a result, why should government itself be trusted?

If it’s my choice to engage in a behaviour like smoking and expose those around me to that risk, one that results in a much higher and prolonged mortality than COVID, then the whole argument against my choice not to be vaccinated falls apart.

Even so, it’s not that I’m necessarily against vaccines but it seems quite obvious that putting trust in such a system and what it’s peddling is delusional bordering on dangerously insane. That vaccines are now increasingly being mandated and forced onto people worldwide puts a whole new and very sinister spin on things.

I recall some people mentioning that it was paranoid to suggest that the COVID excuse was going to be extended indefinitely (variants!) and used as an excuse by the state to impose overt, totalitarian, tyrannical control over the population. To be honest, it seemed a bit alarmist to me too, although there were some warning signs. Well, things have progressed.

So you want the good news or the bad news first?

The good news is that there is no longer any doubt about this, it’s 100% in effect right now. The bad news is that people are too busy packing patios and parks after a year and a half of mental house arrest (all that’s missing is the tracking anklet), and although some local news – which fail to explain how exactly governments have been “handed” all these powers – is predictably pointing fingers abroad to demonstrate growing state authoritarianism, no one here really seems to give a shit. As long as you can have a beer outdoors once in a while, I guess, it’s no longer a terrifying dystopian nightmare of absolute government control and tyranny.

And of course, Canadian mainstream media is simply the propaganda arm of the state (note how all the big networks report exactly the same stories, often verbatim, in order to push a “progressive” narrative while completely ignoring others), so they won’t be doing anything but pushing ever more tyranny.

Without barely a whimper, the “Declaration of Emergency” (O.Reg 264/21) for the province of Ontario was revoked in early June. Cool … no more emergency! Now all that’s left is the bold and progressive “Reopening Ontario” Act — nearly a year old, so obviously not part of a long-term scheme at all. Obviously.

Oh, wait, what’s that right at the top of the Act?

2 (1) The orders made under section 7.0.2 or 7.1 of the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act that have not been revoked as of the day this subsection comes into force are continued as valid and effective orders under this Act and cease to be orders under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act.

Reopening Ontario (A Flexible Response to COVID-19) Act, 2020, S.O. 2020, c. 17

In case you missed that, it means that although it’s no longer an emergency, Doug Ford keeps his “emergency” (i.e. literally dictatorial), powers at least until the end of the the year. Of course, that might “need” to be extended longer (“Flexible”), but just until Ontario is “rebuilt”.

But hey, don’t worry about it. It’s not like Doug is using some sort of martial law to force-close businesses while lining his buddies’ pockets like a banana republic generalisimo, or thinking of imposing curfews like some East German Stasi schmuck, or arbitrarily fucking around with elections like some crazed autocrat, or waving entire sections of the law aside with his hand like some common dictator. Obviously not.

Unfortunately, this is just the tip of a very large and very ugly iceberg of what appears to be a, so far successful, attempt at an authoritarian one-world government. I’m not the only one to point out this trend but what seems to regularly get missed in the analysis is both that it’s happening right here at home and the level of international coordination, not to mention kow-towing deference, that’s being shown to global health “authorities” who simultaneously bemoan the devastation of COVID while encouraging people from all over the world to come together in maskless groups of heavy-breathers in order to “inspire” (just don’t do what they’re doing!), without even a hint of a suggestion of irony or that it’s actually the people who are supposed to be in charge in our so-called “democracy”. I’ve pointed out how Canada is in no way a democracy and never has been, representative or otherwise, neither by definition nor by deed, but now the state has dispensed with the need to crassly lie to people about it.

To paraphrase Ford: it’s open dictatorship, folks!

I was initially planning to write one huge post to cover the very overt, very public scam being perpetrated on the population of the world in the name of health and safety but it would go on for days so the next few posts I’m going to be covering this very obvious takeover by this woke new form of tyrannical totalitarianism. I’ll point out the glaring gap in science, evidence, and increasingly simple common sense that we’re all being forced to swallow in the name of “keeping everyone safe”.

To the haters of skepticism and critical inquiry there is nothing that exceeds the God-like wisdom and superiority of our benign, loving government and their throngs of “experts”. I’m sure I’ll be called an anti-vaxxer for having the audacity to even think about questioning the COVID vaccines now increasingly being forced onto people around the world using what in any other circumstances would be considered vile state-sponsored hate speech (can violence be far behind?). I’m sure I’ll be labelled a conspiracy theorist for pointing directly to government websites, proud pronouncements by public officials, and undisputed widespread events as evidence to back my claims. I’m sure I’ll be described as crazy for suggesting that we can see what’s happening around us every day instead of being told what reality is by the state.

Deniers of reality will continue to watch people like Trudeau elbow bump instead of shaking hands because, obviously, preventing an air-borne virus is done most effectively not by keeping as far away from others as possible (e.g. shaking hands if absolutely necessary), but by getting up nice and close. Probably this is the same reason why unmasked, unvaccinated children were encouraged to go back to school to mingle — it’s risky for masked adults to get closer than two meters but having often asymptomatic kids within a few feet of those same adults makes perfect sense. Logic! Science!

But hey, don’t worry; it’s for your own good.

The Toronto Star’s editorial board has broached a horrific new viewpoint: that entrenched, tyrannical, absolute, unaccountable state power is the answer to Donald Trump’s “runaway train” presidency. It’s a great solution, they say, and it’ll do wonders for Canada!

Being the norm for modern mass media, this is not called totalitarianism, state tyranny, fascism, communism, etc. but instead euphemistically named the “deep state”. This is merely a renaming of a frightening and ghoulish ideology in order to make it more palatable.

Consider what something like fascism actually entails:

• … dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and commerce

There are variations surrounding this definition but this is a good midpoint for comparison.

Of course, this could easily describe communism and socialism too and that is perhaps one of the fundamental reasons why Germany’s flavour of “right-wing” ideology was called National Socialism.

All of these collectivist ideals, from communism/socialism to fascism to monarchism to so-called “moderate” examples like democracies, are all fundamentally the same: absolute, total, unquestionable government control of everything.

Some forms of government are more overt about these aspirations than others but they are, and must necessarily be, all undeniably alike.

After all, if a government doesn’t wield coercive (i.e. violent/threatening) control over it’s citizens, how can it rule … by leading through example? Through the presentation of popular voluntary ideas? Don’t be silly! people must be forced into abiding by the will of the omniscient bureaucrats and demiurgic politicians. That’s why the world’s problems are almost all solved!

Of course, the past is littered with examples of how wonderful this type of thinking is.

The Star is essentially trying to warm people to the institution of yet another round of mass horror, destruction, and suffering and they believe that you’re daft enough not to notice any parallels between what they’re pushing and what history has demonstrated time and again.

Since they won’t do so, let us compare.

Fascism’s “dictatorial power”, or rule by one entrenched person or entity (especially un-elected), is described lovingly by The Star as:

…elements of Washington’s established power class…Career officials…the bureaucracies that carry on the day-to-day business of governing, operating with long-established norms of behaviour…

These groups are described in heroic terms as the “non-partisan civil service, whose mission is to serve whichever government is in office”, but are then praised for not supporting whoever’s in power in order to maintain “well-established ways of doing things.”

In other words, the virtue of un-elected and entrenched interests is that they serve whoever’s in power while refusing to serve whoever’s in power when “well-established ways of doing things” are threatened.

To put it more briefly, they serve whoever’s in power unless it goes against what they do.

Makes perfect sense! Much logic! Wow!

The “forcible suppression of opposition” part of a fascist/communist/socialist/democratic system is touched on peripherally in the above paragraph, though The Star never explicitly states this. They do repeatedly mention the FBI though which, as everyone knows, does their job through gentle persuasion and kind words in order to protect the establishment.

No…wait…they use guns, violence and threats.

My mistake!

So, yeah, “forcible suppression of opposition” to the established order that The Star droolingly idolizes.

Regarding “control of industry and commerce”, that pretty much describes government to a “T”. Between the Federal Reserve’s fiddling with interest rates, to the numerous licensing and legislative hoops that any business owner must jump through, to taxation and government fees, to the numerous ways that governments grant monopolies — it’s actually much easier and shorter to ask how government doesn’t control industry and commerce.

The topic of overt government control of the economy is quite extensive. Here in Canada it’s estimated that the government has direct control over roughly 60% of the economy and there are many indirect ways that are not immediately obvious. This isn’t a major departure from classical fascist economic models or those of communists/socialists, as I’ve maintained since the beginning.

The Star paints the opposition to Trump as a dichotomy between “left” and “right” political viewpoints but these are ultimately nothing more than minuscule iterations within a myopic, totalitarian, government-above-all mindset. The opposite of absolute state authority isn’t more absolute state authority, and giving it a different name doesn’t make it so. The solution to the problems of government isn’t more government.

Only the dangerously blind, naive, or stupid would propose that the powers of un-elected officials (not that elected ones are necessarily better), or unchecked authority of Übermensch bureaucrats are the way to establish freedom, justice, and a modicum of equality. It requires an abject refusal to examine the reality of history to make the claim that this time, totalitarian government will definitely work!

This is the ominous age that humanity has once again entered, one in which national publications like the Toronto Star openly espouse the wisdom and benevolence of the state, a violent, bureaucratic, coercive, unaccountable entity which has almost without exception always lead to some of the most horrific chapters in human history.

If it all amounts to a “deep state,” then we won’t apologize for that.

P.S. There are some points in this post that may seem contentious, such as the lumping together of fascism, communism/socialism, and democratic government. To the casual observer who has spent up to 12 of their most formative years in government indoctrination (public schools), this may seem like nonsense, but upon closer examination it becomes exceedingly clear that various forms of governments are, by far and large, mostly the same thing. That some happen to result in more mass abuses of human rights than others is partially luck and partially illusion, an inability to see what is clearly and starkly in front of one’s face every day. These are, however, topics for another day.

P.P.S. The Star Editorial Board must not even read their own editorials!

The chickens are back and they’re ready to roost.

With the US election having run its course and everyone losing their shit about Trump’s victory I thought it might be good to remind anyone thinking of disparaging our “democratic” system that this is what it’s all about!

You really shouldn’t be complaining since you went out of your way to agree to be ruled for another four years. While I stubbornly reject the vote you chose to acquiesce because it’s “the best system we have”, so why all the fussin’? Do as you tell others to do: just accept it and get over it.

Not to mention that with November 11^th just around the corner, wouldn’t it be incredibly disrespectful of you to disparage the freedoms that all those soldiers ostensibly gave their lives for? That goes doubly for any shameful attempts at shutting down anti-military protests and other displays of freedom that you are solemnly thanking the dead for — you wouldn’t dare dishonour their memory like that, would you?

While we’re on the topic of recollection, don’t you remember demanding that “our” government is the best solution to pretty much every problem, despite the “wrinkles” and “hiccups”? Feel free to sing hosanna at being given the privilege to choose from the lesser of two evils every four years. After all, isn’t it idiotic to suggest that maybe you shouldn’t be choosing evil in the first place? I mean, what’s the alternative to centralized control — warlords? Obviously death by the millions and untold suffering brought on by the state and its endless lust for violence is far better.

Besides, who would build the roads?

Anyway, let me remind you of the phrase that you so gleefully deliver when you tire of explaining why the state is God and why we should all blindly obey, a piece of advice that you so handily dole out to dismiss the stupidity and pointlessness of critical thought, your superior response to the suggestion that maybe government & friends isn’t the best way forward:

You did your duty, now go out there and proudly wave your flag!

And don’t forget to pay your taxes.

Canada to pay out $4.3-billion to farmers in wake of TPP deal

…

Ottawa said Monday it will spend $4.3-billion* over 15 years to compensate dairy, chicken and egg farmers, who are ceding what Canadian officials called “limited access” to their now highly protected markets under the TPP deal and the earlier free trade deal with Europe. The subsidies will “keep producers whole,” according to a government press release.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tpp-trade-deal-reached/article26648472/

* – Money that will be extorted from Canadians under implicit threats of violence (a.k.a. taxes)

• 4.1 Aboriginal law
• 4.2 Administrative law
• 4.3 Human rights in Canada
• 4.4 Contract law
• 4.5 Constitutional law
• 4.6 Copyright law
• 4.7 Criminal law
• 4.8 Evidence law
• 4.9 Family law
• 4.10 Immigration and refugee law
• 4.11 Inheritance law
• 4.12 Insolvency law of Canada
• 4.13 Labour and employment law
  …

“…there are too many Statutes to even begin to count.”

“Presumed knowledge of the law is the principle in jurisprudence that one is bound by a law even if one does not know of it. It has also been defined as the “prohibition of ignorance of the law”.”
…

This principle is also stated into law:

• Canada: Criminal Code (RSC 1985, c. C-46), section 19″

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Canada

https://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080814144358AAJUeLM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat

Slavery: involuntary subjection to another or others. Slavery emphasizes the idea of complete ownership and control by a master…

“The federal government and the provincial and territorial governments all have laws that provide rights and freedoms: laws against discrimination in employment and accommodation, consumer protection laws, environmental laws and, in the area of criminal law, laws that give rights to witnesses, victims and persons accused of crimes, to name only a few.

…

Section 1 of the Charter says that governments may limit Charter rights so long as those limits are ones that a free and democratic society would accept as reasonable*. It is also possible for governments to pass laws that take away some rights under the Charter. Under section 33 of the Charter (sometimes called the “notwithstanding clause”), Parliament or a legislature can make a particular law exempt from certain sections of the Charter – the fundamental freedoms (in section 2), the legal rights (in sections 7 to 14) and the equality rights (in section 15).”

http://www.pch.gc.ca/eng/1355760105725/1355760725223

* – Do you remember the “democratic” vote that took place for this? And exactly how “free” are Canadians when they need to be “granted” rights and freedoms, need to ask government for permission to marry someone, may not ingest anything that government doesn’t allow, do anything to their bodies that’s not government approved, are indebted to the government for their entire lives (and beyond) based on some non-existent “social contract” that they implicitly agreed to the moment that they popped out of the womb, and so on?

“I find this provision almost Orwellian,” said Fred Vallance-Jones, an associate professor at the University of King’s College in Halifax and an expert in access to information law.

“It seeks to rewrite history, to say that lawful access to records that existed before didn’t actually exist after all, and that if you exercised your quasi-constitutional right of access to those records, well too bad, you’re out of luck.”

The government is setting a precedent to move retroactively on any record it doesn’t want exposed, Vallance-Jones said.

“That to me is the deeper concern.”

Michel Drapeau, a lawyer, former military colonel and access-to-information author, noted there has never been a charge laid under the Access to Information Act, let alone a conviction.

He said the rationale of moving retroactively to prevent a possible prosecution is “a dangerous and unwelcome precedent” that should be as unwelcome to the RCMP and the administration of justice as to freedom-of-information wonks.

“The optics of it are not good: ‘Oh, so that’s the way it works now?’ If you do something against the law in the RCMP, you’ve got your friends in high places, they change the law,” said Drapeau.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/budget-bill-c-59-rewrites-access-law-to-protect-rcmp-on-gun-registry-cp-1.3072548

What’s to be done?

I truly believe that if change must be made, it must be extra-systemic. While I like to believe that the system is not irredeemable, much like the other “isms” that bowed to Capitalism, I’m sure that with this entire system as well as the underlying misnomer of democracy, neither of which are either the US (a Constitutional Republic), or Canada (a Constitutional Monarchy), we are finally seeing the flaws in its utopian vision. Just like the other isms, our system is susceptible to infiltration by corruption, and I truly believe we have reached the saturation point.

Again, not sure if Wikipedia is the best source for this but if one looks at the various analyses of the Fall of Rome, we find some startling parallels:

• Loss of civic virtue  — A contentious idea but one that with a lot of modern weight.
• Decline of military might due to influx of mercenaries — A concept that’s not so outrageous.
• Rome was declining from day one — Those watching can probably point to a similar pattern both yesterday and today (with similar results).
• Unsound economic policies — That seems to be self-evident.
• Depletion of local resources — Also another self-evident point.
• Endless wars — Getting there.
• Disease — There are stark correlations between poverty and increasing disease. And there’s plenty of poverty. I’m sure you can do the math.
• Environmental degradation — Many people are convinced that we’re well into this one.
• Lead poisoning — There’s some debate about how much lead pipes contributed to the problem, but few people since the ancient Romans believed that ingesting lead was a good idea.
• Barbarian invasions — We have seen some incursions that would fall into this category. In a similar way, the modern-day “Barbarians” are being made synonymous with evil (I’m pretty sure the Barbarians didn’t see themselves that way).

Did I miss anything? Probably, but this seems sufficient to make my point. And this oft-heard refrain is not uncommon, so it’s not as if I’m alone in this, but the usual adjunct is “yeah, but what can we do?”

Well, for starters, let’s cross violence off the list right away. In fact, let’s also take out extortion, intimidation, threats, abduction, imprisonment, corporal punishment, fraud, destruction, theft, covert manipulation, deception, fear, and hypocrisy. These are the tools of government & friends, and the only logical conclusion must be to reject them wholly (especially with that hypocrisy bit).

Violence used in self-defense is probably the only time I would relent, and then only when applied in quid pro quo fashion. This is not in any way illegal under any current laws, though all levels of the regime have adopted the stance that if it’s defense against them, that’s a crime. And so, defending yourself against open aggression by the state is a de facto crime (they certainly aren’t going to be held responsible!)

Not sure if slapping my tormentors upside the head would qualify under these categories, but at least it’s safe to say that it probably wouldn’t change anything. In fact, maybe that’s how they got that way in the first place. It’d feel good though…

Voting is a bad joke and, in fact, some people argue that participating in it is itself a sort of crime. The argument: by choosing the winning candidate, you are forcing others who did not vote in the same way to support your socio-economic-political views via the unchecked extortion of the state. By voting for a non-winner, you are implicitly condoning this extortion (though this is never explicitly true). And even winning candidates often embark on courses of action that are not part of their stated agenda, thereby directly violating their contract with their supporters.

And how are elections kept “fair”? Oh yeah, the government maintains an exclusive monopoly in dictating the results to you (the same government openly committing fraud to maintain their power). If elections are merely the switching up of one figurehead for another, which appears to be the very case (frauds come from one supposed side as easily as the other, etc.), then it’s reasonable to conclude that sticking your little piece of paper into a flimsy and easily tampered-with cardboard box is a waste of time (even if just to mark the ballot in protest).

Further, this idea can be extended to representative voting systems where leaders like Harper and Obama are, in fact, voted in by a vast minority of voters, if at all. Instead, candidates are party-elected leaders, and these leaders are then the titular heads of government. How many people actually, directly voted for Harper and Obama? Were they even actually on the ballot somewhere? (I think they have their own ridings so probably yes, but still…)

So voted in by a majority they were not. Not in any real sense. Rob Ford’s “majority” was 47% of voters (25% of Toronto). Harper achieved a complete, unchallengeable “majority” of 40%. Obama won by a very slim 51%, but was actually chosen by the Electoral College and not directly by voters, similar to Harper. Really, only Rob was actually directly voted in, but reliably by only 25% of Toronto’s citizens.

And much like Rob Ford, the obvious crimes perpetrated by the excluded class go unpunished because of the systemic collusion I keep pointing out. So politics is also not really a solution — it’s a big part of the problem. As are the courts, cops, and many of the people mindlessly (or otherwise) pushing oppression on the masses. Not all, of course, but it seems that these days there are far too many.

So I have to conclude that working within the system is a losing proposition. Not that I want to dissuade anyone from trying to implement positive systemic changes, I just don’t see much chance for success.

Even under optimistic conditions, the system will barely satisfy the needs of any single group as it seeks to balance conflicting interests. Those interests needn’t be in conflict if they were relegated to individual communities, so it’s accurate to say that government is the source of conflict and inequality. And that’s if you don’t ascribe any nefarious aspects to it.

So what is to be done?

I think the answer can be summed up in one word: individualism

Now let’s be very clear about this because there have been many infamous cases of “individualists”  or “sovereign citizens” in the news — widely discussed and regurgitated to remind you of what happens when individuals take matters into their own hands. And I admit, some bad stuff can happen. But compared to the rare lone gunman (one out of how many tens or hundreds of millions?), the government is far more destructive and murderous, so individualism wins by sheer virtue of the numbers.

Simply put, I don’t buy the government-created line of thinking that has us all turning into murderous, criminal brutes the moment that government stops intervening. I just don’t see it. In fact, I see the state as being the primary instigator of violence in most cases (no wonder that we have no domestic police murder statistics).

Whatever individuals decide on, however, is ultimately their choice. I can even understand the feeling that violence may be the only choice. But just because a bunch of be-suited liars decree that it’s now okay to kill and torture in order to support their corrupt junta doesn’t make it any less murder and torture, whether your name is Stephen Harper, Barack Obama, or Elliot Rogers.

Note that individualism doesn’t mean no government, it means voluntary government. It doesn’t mean no police, it means a direct voluntary contract between an individual and the police. Anarchy, despite the incessant attempts to pollute its original meaning, doesn’t mean chaos, it means individual choice, freedom, and responsibility. Community and individualism need not be mutually exclusive.

Individualism begins right where you are now — with you. It begins with a solemn oath to yourself that you will no longer willingly support the corrupt, murderous regime of the state. Doing so with a clear conscience requires an extended oath rejecting violence, extortion, intimidation, etc. In my view, any action taken on such a basis, with due consideration for the rights of your fellow man, is justified and right. The corrupt courts, bleating politicians, and thuggish police can stuff their disgusting laws and declarations back to the last days of Rome where they below — I know I’m not hurting anyone or doing anything wrong!

Individualism requires you to be brave in the face of the machine. It requires you to know that you are not a criminal, no matter what the system’s laws demand. It requires you to know that you don’t willingly harm or defraud your fellow man because you respect their sovereignty in the same way that you expect yours to be (but are also subject to repercussions when that sovereignty is violated). It requires you to know, above all else, that the corrupt state does not grant you these freedoms — you are born with them and anyone who tries to take them away from you without your consent are criminals. By extension, the fact that the Canadian government ensnared without consent the population of Canada (Did you ever consent to be taxed? Were you assigned your SIN before your age of majority? etc.), absolutely makes them criminals — one and all. Those involved in the periphery are accessories, just as with any standard crime. If that doesn’t sit well, there’s also the War Crimes angle, the massive defrauding angle, etc.

I know for a fact that TCL, and perhaps other outlets, are being monitored. Most likely by government organizations working together with private “reputation management” firms.

That’s okay — it’s a public blog! So why is it so wrong for the government to scour these pages when, really, anyone can openly do so? Because:

1. I know they’re not doing it for good or beneficial reasons (i.e. the only possible purpose to collect this is to use it against me or someone else).
2. They’re using my (and your) tax money to do so, and they’re doing it without our consent.

That’s why government surveillance of public sites is equally as despicable — we all know full well they are not doing it to benefit us (and are lying to us about it). Plus, there’s all the illegal stuff they’re doing for our “benefit” too.

I’m particularly conscious of the technological aspects of this because I’m a longtime developer, now software architect (a title I recently acquired), something that I like to believe stems from reasonable competence and experience (20-ish years, give or take). I also run a meager Google Plus group tracking the implications of technology as progressing or regressing individual freedoms. I don’t comment much, just post links and let the context tell the story — and that story is usually bleak and dark. All that stuff I rant about, like the fact that we’re heading for an Orwellian nightmare, that’s based on years of deeper-than-average research in a field in which I specialize. If my qualifications don’t match up to your liking, there are plenty of voices out there in an ever growing chorus saying the same things; you don’t need to believe just me.

But I do hope that you believe me because in among the darkness of systemic oppression I can see slivers of blinding light. The walls are showing cracks, the armour exhibits chinks, and through these cavities I can see a way through. I’m sure that it’s not the only way (getting bogged down by a dogged ideology is not productive), but there is something  — some things, actually — that can be done.

If you’re religiously inclined, this is probably the part where God steps in. If you’re all scientific-like, ditto.

Shall I explain?