January 26, 2022
Our Side of the Story: My Autonomy is Not Negotiable, My Country Is Not An ‘Opportunity for a Reset’, and Why I’m Going to Stand With The Trucker Convoy in Ottawa
As you are probably aware, there is a massive convoy of truckers travelling across our country on route to Ottawa. As it crosses into Manitoba, the Toronto Sun reports that it has already grown to over 50,000 trucks and is already over 70 km long, with countless citizens joining in the journey. Soon it will arrive in our nation’s capital. Other convoys from Ontario, Quebec, and the Maritimes are already arriving. And countless concerned citizens, like myself, will be joining them on Parliament Hill. Together we will brave the cold (and whatever tactics Justin Trudeau tries to throw at us to silence our voices) in order to flood the streets of our capital city with a peaceful law-abiding message of freedom that will not be ignored.
I hope you will join us in Ottawa. And please share this essay with every person you know, especially those who are most afraid of the virus, so that both sides of this story will finally be heard.
This essay is an urgent appeal to all the politicians, public health officials, policemen, judges, doctors, journalists, and to every single person in Canada and all around the world who continues to support mandatory public health measures, vaccine mandates, and coercion. I would like to give you a complete picture of what is at stake, from my perspective, so you can judge my decision to stand with the trucker convoy on Parliament Hill by reading my own words and not the distorted words of our mainstream media.
For two straight years the world has only heard your side of the debate. Now it is time for you to hear ours. It is time for you to recognize what you are doing, what you are breaking, the illiberal world you are creating, acknowledge the way in which you are using the pandemic as an opportunity to rewrite the economic and legal underpinnings of our society, and address the elephant in the room: are any of your heavy-handed measures actually achieving anything other than to destroy the fabric of society?
Although this essay barely scratches the surface of all that has happened, I hope it may provide an accurate overview of the enormity of what has happened over these past two years and serve as the first step towards a long-overdue conversation.
Table of Contents:
- “Choices Have Consequences”: Scapegoating the Skeptics, the Civil Libertarians, and the Unvaccinated
- Electricity, Heating, Fertilizer, and Food: You Reap What You Sow When You Try to Reset the System Using Central Planning
- Managing the Virus: Sacrificing Essential Liberty for Temporary Safety — Was It Worth It? (a data deep dive)
- Trapped by the Consequences of their Own Choices: Covering the Tracks of a Colossal Boondoggle (another data deep dive)
“There comes a time when you do have to give up what you consider your individual right of making your own decision for the greater good of society.“—Dr. Anthony Fauci, CBC, October 22nd, 2021
For two years you have mocked us, threatened us, called us names, or simply ignored us as we have tried to engage with you in evidence-based conversation about the scientific, legal, and ethical aspects of your pandemic management strategy. You have censored our voices in the public forum, taken down our videos, put warnings on our website links, and pretended we don’t exist when we exercise our right to protest in a desperate attempt to peacefully get our voices heard.
Toronto Star Front Page, August 26th, 2021
You have violated our bodily autonomy, taken away our livelihoods, and taken away all that made life worth living. And you have humiliated millions by cornering them into a situation where they were forced to be vaccinated against their will (and yes, it is force when you have to choose between a vaccination and the ability to feed yourself and your family).
You have destroyed our finances, saddled our nations with crippling debts, and used any means available to you to threaten the careers of influential people who do not blindly parrot the ever-changing messages of the government.
You have stripped doctors of their medical licenses, ejected politicians from their political parties for speaking out in defense of citizen’s rights, and denied people access to unemployment benefits after terminating their employment for the crime of standing up for their own bodily autonomy. You have separated us from our families and friends, stoked division between us, denied us access to our normal lives, and trapped us inside our borders, unable to flee our countries.
You have downplayed our numbers, misrepresented our arguments, refused to publish our editorials, and ignored our requests for debate. You have pointed at a small number of fringe opinions to smear all of us with that one brush. You have shamed us, you have shunned us, you have talked at us as though we are a bunch of 3-year-old children, and even coached our families with formulas on how to communicate with us. You have patronized us and humiliated us and bullied us to no end. You have called us mentally deranged; you have stoked hatred against us on the front pages of newspapers, you have called us selfish, accused us of being scientifically illiterate, and lectured us about spreading misinformation.
Toronto Star article, January 15th, 2022
You set up snitch lines and encouraged citizens to police one another’s behaviours, like in some former East German Stasi state. You censored our legal speech and canceled our social media accounts because you don’t approve of having your official ever-changing public messaging challenged. You even said the quiet part out loud, brazenly admitting that the government is colluding with private social media companies to “flag” and take down videos and social media messages that the government doesn’t approve of, and even to ban accounts. Do you expect anyone to believe that cancelling Dr. Robert Malone’s Twitter account on the eve of his interview on the extremely popular Joe Rogan show was an accident?
And then you doubled down to say that there should be a coordinated effort between social media companies so that if someone is banned from one site, they should be banned from others. In essence, you treated these companies as extensions of the government apparatus, expecting them to enforce your political whims in order to circumvent the freedom of speech guarantees enshrined in our Constitutions.
You have suggested we are a threat to public health and to democracy. Australia even went as far as expelling unvaccinated tennis champion Novak Djokovic (who already had Covid and recovered), despite a court ruling confirming he had broken no laws and had met the requirements for entering Australia. Yet you expelled him anyway because of the emergency powers granted to the Immigration Minister during the crisis, which gave him the arbitrary power to expel Djokovic, which he did out of concern that Djokovic might “pose a risk to public health and order.”
One of the arguments used by the government’s lawyer in the trial was that Djokovic might become “an icon for free choice.” The judges noted the possibility that the tennis star might influence people who were unsure about whether to take the vaccine, adding that, “An iconic world tennis star may influence people of all ages, young or old, but perhaps especially the young and the impressionable, to emulate him. This is not fanciful; it does not need evidence.” What better example that the courts are being used to rubber stamp arbitrary decrees, acting as a tool to impose government will, instead of serving as the impartial defender of rights and freedoms. This is the revival of the morality police. This is not what liberal democracy looks like.
You have imposed special “taxes” based on medical status, proposed an anti-vax tax, introduced stiff fines on the unvaccinated, publicly questioned how long we should be tolerated in society, suggested we should be denied healthcare, suggested we no longer deserve to be called citizens, openly wondered what to do about us, floated the idea of locking us in our homes, and applauded children on television who said the police should be sent to arrest us.
You have told us there are no red lines you will not cross (German Chancellor on fighting the pandemic: “We will do whatever is necessary, there are no red lines.“). And you even accused us of being racists, misogynists, and extremists.
An alarming number of you support putting us in jail for refusing to let you inject us, and even support sending people to jail for questioning (!) the efficacy of the Covid vaccines on social media, television, radio, or in online or digital publications. You have sent police to provoke and harass us at peaceful protests, used police batons to beat us, used tear gas and even rubber bullets to disperse us, and even sicced police dogs on us when we have tried to use the tool of last resort in a peaceful democracy — the right to peaceful protest. You even put limits on protest attendance (do you think you can get a politician’s attention with a protest of 10 people?), which made a mockery of an essential Charter right. Some public officials have even gone as far as calling us domestic terrorists.
And yet, you continue to pretend that this is not coercion. Here is Germany’s Health Minister, Karl Lauterbach, weighing in (my translation): “I believe that doctors should vaccinate everyone, both the person who wants to be vaccinated because he is obligated to be vaccinated due to compulsory vaccination laws and the person who lets himself be vaccinated voluntarily. After all, no-one is being vaccinated against their will. Even compulsory vaccination ultimately leads to the fact that one ultimately allows oneself to be vaccinated voluntarily.” I wonder if Mr. Lauterbach would say that the Jews who were loaded into cattle wagons and were marched into gas chambers also went “voluntarily” as long as they were not physically manhandled by the policeman holding the gun. Coercion is a line that cannot be crossed. Individual autonomy is not negotiable.
I am not a horse that can be broken to your will. How long will you keep trying?
To use the words of the wild horse hunters of yesteryear, a wild horse that never stops bucking will eventually be sent to a glue factory. That is the “final solution” used to solve the problem of a horse that never submits to its bridle. What final solution will you come up with for me for rejecting your saddle and spurs? What if I never stop bucking, no matter the cost? As I’ve laid out in this essay, you are already a very long way down a very slippery slope. I am grateful that your “rule by opinion poll” is running into the obstacle of millions of decent citizens who have held on to their moral compass and their commitment to individual rights, despite your non-stop propaganda to get them to believe otherwise. But I am horrified that all the guardrails that should have prevented you from reaching this point in the first place have been swept away.
You’re the one holding the whip. And your message is loud and clear: you don’t need to talk with us because might makes right. What does that make you?
By your logic, there is nothing wrong with whipping the hind quarters of a horse into a bloody froth; the horse simply needs to “choose” to stop bucking to make the whipping stop. As you keep telling us from your one-way podium: “choices have consequences“. And here I was, little old me, thinking that kind of behaviour was considered cruel and both morally and legally unacceptable. Would you like me to start to play by those rules too?
“A bad hoss”, by Charles Russell, 1904
Is this really the world you want to live in?
Choices have consequences.
I’d like you to consider all you are sacrificing by choosing to embark on this Crusade. Precedents are being set, daily. What you have broken doesn’t simply unbreak itself when you put down your whip.
To get us to comply, you have erased the principle of individual bodily autonomy, destroyed the principle of unconditional rights and freedoms, and tossed out the principles of freedom of speech, freedom of association, and the freedom to work to feed our families. In short, you have normalized the idea that “might makes right” at every level of society.
And you have introduced a kind of neo-feudal apartheid where there are different classes of rights based not on religious beliefs (like in 16th century France), ethnicity (like in 1930s Germany), skin color (like during segregation in the United States), political affiliation (like under McCarthyism in the 1940s and 50s), or social class (like in Maoist China), but based on medical status. A kind of medical apartheid. Enforced with digital QR codes.
Tyranny always marches through the front door, welcomed by many as the solution to some alleged existential threat that supposedly can only be solved through “temporary tyranny”. As always, we are told that this time is different. It never is.
When you silence people’s voices, you take away their means of peaceful self defense. So I’m curious, now that you have dismantled all these unconditional rights and legal principles, how will you peacefully defend yourself if someone else gets hold of the whip and turns it on you? Do you think they will grant you something that you denied them?
Just because someone has put a rubber stamp on a mandate doesn’t make it a moral law. Remember the Nuremberg Trials, which were intended to drive home the point to a society that had lost its moral compass, that “just doing my job” is not a legal defense for participating in the oppression of others. There is nothing moral about enforcing, supporting, or obeying immoral laws. When you cast aside your moral compass, your choice to do so will be remembered, and will have consequences.
“Civil disobedience becomes a sacred duty when the state has become lawless or corrupt. And a citizen who barters with such a state shares in its corruption and lawlessness.” — Mahatma Gandhi
You have turned your backs on all the lessons of previous generations — lessons that were enshrined in the UN Declaration of Human Rights as unconditional universal human rights, and in the Nuremberg Code as ethical principles, like the principle of informed consent. These principles are written into the legal codes of all our countries. Violating another person’s rights is not a sliding scale. It is a criminal act. You either step across the line, or you don’t. Ignoring rights or re-interpreting the words in our legal code to suit the mood of the day does not exempt you from accountability when the hysteria subsides. Eventually, everyone has to pay the Pied Piper. Choices have consequences.
The Pied Piper of Hamelin, who took the children when the townsfolk refused to pay him for getting rid of their rats.
You have even dismantled the principle of parental guardianship in your obsessive quest to vaccinate children. Do you really want some politician or public health bureaucrat to have the power to override what you consider to be in the best interests of your child?
Precedents are being set; what can be done to your neighbor can also be done to you when the tables turn. You have even gone as far as denying custody to some parents for the sin of choosing not to take the Covid vaccine. And you have floated the idea of government imposing a blanket policy of removing children from the custody of their parents if parents refuse to get vaccinated. Do we really need to re-explain why these ethical principles were written into the bedrock of our legal codes? Are you still going to pretend that these threats aren’t coercion?
Principles are like fences; they exist for a reason. Beware of what is unleashed when you take them down.
“In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.” — G. K. Chesterton
In your conviction that vaccines are the only way out of this crisis, you even abandoned all pretense of scientific and evidence-based policymaking. When objectives collided with reality, objectives won, not unlike the way science was conducted in Stalin’s Soviet Union. For example, when a fraudulent study making false claims about hydroxychloroquine was exposed, you nevertheless resisted calls to reverse bans on trials to assess its effectiveness. You even went as far as publishing misleading studies in parallel with the child vaccination rollout to make it easier to convince parents to obey. And in a sane world, what the WHO did in this study ought to qualify as pre-meditated murder. Look into the details of how this study was designed with known lethal doses of hydroxychloroquine; this was no accident. Does the end justify the means? What exactly is the end game when some on “your side” are working to discredit treatment options that might be to your benefit? Are you sure you understand the game that is being played?
You have made a mockery of the doctor-patient relationship by turning treatment decisions into a bureaucrat-controlled protocol, which denies patients access to personalized care and prevents doctors from exercising their professional discretion. You have destroyed the integrity of our scientific and public health institutions, turned our media into a propaganda arm for the government, converted courts into a tool for legitimizing arbitrary political decrees, and turned the police into bully clubs to enforce the arbitrary whims of politicians and public health bureaucrats. Have you thought through where citizens will turn for healthcare, where they will go for their media, and what they will do to get justice if these institutions can no longer be trusted to be impartial, objective, evidence-based, principled, and dedicated to protecting individuals from those who trample on their rights?
“Trust takes years to build, seconds to break, and forever to repair.” — anonymous
We have watched you consistently gaslight us about the wave of post-vaccination heart attacks, myocarditis, neurological diseases, and autoimmune conditions, as well as about the high number of deaths among vaccinated athletes, and even about the suddenly not-so-uncommon phenomenon of childhood strokes and heart attacks. Stop normalizing things that are not normal.
We have seen public health officials ignore or explain away vaccine safety monitoring systems (i.e. VAERS in the US, the Yellow Card system in the UK, etc.), which were put in place long ago as an early warning system to flag potential safety issues (check out the current status of injuries and deaths in the USA here on OpenVaers). These warning systems are screaming at us (more on that later), yet you wave them aside as though they don’t exist. At the very least, what is going on should merit a pause on the rollout, and a thorough investigation. Instead, you vilify doctors and citizens who try to raise concerns, and censor them on social media to prevent them from communicating with others.
How can you protect citizens if the checks and balance designed for our safety are being ignored? Do you think anyone will trust any other routine childhood vaccination after the recklessness, conflicts of interest, and coercion that were shown by public health institutions during Covid? Do you understand how dangerous these other diseases are, in contrast to Covid? Do you understand what is in store for society if our public health institutions fail to earn the public’s trust, if they fail to remain absolutely transparent, avoid all conflicts of interest, stay absolutely apolitical in their decision-making, meticulously work to rule out each and every safety concern, and treat everyone with equal respect, including those who disagree with them?
Over and over again, we have caught you lying, distorting facts, and reporting data out of context in order to tell stories that are the exact opposite of the story told by the facts. And we have watched you countless times as you break the very same rules that you impose on others. We see what happens to your masks, social distancing, and elbow bumps when the photo op is over. We can see that you know as well as we do that fear is being massively overhyped. “Rules for thee, but not for me“, eh? This stopped being about a virus long ago. It has become about control.
Maskless masters and masked servants. Cocktail party at the G7, June 2020
Trudeau’s Postcards to Canada. Western Standard Online
We see you traveling to freer jurisdictions for your own vacations while agitating for even greater infringements on our freedoms within your own political jurisdictions.
And remember during the 2020 Christmas holidays, many of our lockdown-obsessed politicians flew out of the country for a little vacation in tropical paradise while leaving the rest of us confined to lockdowns and unable to unite with friends, family members, and our most vital community support systems? And remember, these politicians all safely travelled unvaxxed because the rollout had not yet begun; yet now, despite the fact that anyone who wants protection from the vaccines now has it, the unvaccinated are prisoners inside their own countries, unable to get on an airplane. And exactly whose “safety” is being protected if the vaccinated are already protected and the unvaccinated don’t want this protection? Why are the vaccinated afraid of the unvaccinated – that’s not a glowing endorsement of the vaccine!
(Source: CTV News, January 1st, 2021)
Remember when Djokovic was booted out of Australia on January 15th, 2022, for being an “icon of freedom”? Only 5 days later, on January 20th, the Daily Mail reported that Australia’s richest man was allowed to skip quarantine altogether while entering Western Australia, even though he had tested positive for coronavirus! That’s what it looks like when medical decisions are guided purely by political considerations. We are not blind to your hypocrisy — but did you know that hypocrisy leaves a very bitter and long-lasting aftertaste?
We have watched, time after time, as you systematically ignored your own official government data while crafting policies, arbitrarily changed your story a thousand times, imposed rules (like face masks) in direct opposition to clearly documented scientific evidence demonstrating their futility, and used fear and behavioral manipulation tactics to nudge us into your corral. You even used the military to unleash propaganda against your own citizens in order to achieve desired behavioral goals, violated the privacy of people’s cellphone data to track them, and rolled out policies that systematically violate the privacy of people’s medical status. I grew up believing that both the state-sponsored propaganda of the Soviet Pravda news organization and the state surveillance of the East German Stasi were to be remembered as timeless lessons for what not to do in a liberal democracy. Exactly who is terrorizing whom?
We watched you use pre-election propaganda, introduce last-minute changes to election rules that undermined transparency, and made arbitrary last minute changes to election debate criteria in order to smear, discredit, and exclude political candidates who dared speak up in defence of civil liberties. You expelled multiple politicians from political parties for speaking up in defense of our constitutional rights and freedoms, and for the sin of disagreeing with the government about how to manage the pandemic. As children who grew up in an abusive home can tell you, the deepest scars are often in the child that witnesses the beatings, not the one who receives them, because of the self-censorship they impose on themselves and the fear that follows them out of concern of falling afoul of the tyrant’s rage.
You even used the cover of the pandemic to arrest a political candidate campaigning for our civil liberties. How can you call this a democracy if you intimidate and cancel political representatives if they dare bring our concerns to the table?
I guess the problem with pretending that your central planning efforts are infallible is that you have to go to great lengths to cover up the evidence when you fall short of your claims. But it sure helps your cause when you’re subsidising the very media that should be holding your actions up to the light.
Liberal democracy cannot function without independent media. Media cannot be independent when it depends on a government check. We see the generous subsidies, bailouts, and ad campaigns that sustain our legacy media organizations, and the way you mistreat journalists who aren’t gorging themselves at your trough and dare to ask real questions.
Do you still expect anyone to believe in the integrity of elections if their candidate loses after you have undermined election transparency and objective reporting in the media? Are you so committed to keeping the “wrong” people out of power that you are willing to turn a blind eye to the authoritarian regime that is being created by the “right” people? Perhaps you fear the “wrong” people, since you have already erased the checks and balances that would otherwise prevent the “wrong” people from riding roughshod over others. Liberal democracy isn’t about putting the “right” people in power, it is about creating a system of checks and balances so that you don’t have to live in fear, no matter who gets elected.
The fence that restrains a good leader is the same fence that restrains a bad one, and it’s often just a matter of perspective whether a leader is truly good or bad as long as those essential limits remain in place. Perhaps it is time for you to have a closer look at what the “right” people are doing in the absence of limits. Do you understand what happens next if there is even a hint of doubt, justified or not, in the integrity of an election?
The needs of citizens don’t just go away when their voices are silenced, and their rights are ignored. This game you are playing is not called liberal democracy. It’s called “might makes right.”
Anyone who believes it’s okay to limit the constitutionally guaranteed liberties of their fellow citizens in order to feel “safe” is in essence saying they have a right to control other human beings. No matter how much lipstick you put on that pig, it’s still a pig. You are creating a world of masters and serfs.
How long do you think you can play this game before someone you don’t agree with also decides to play by your shiny new rules? Have you thought through what it would look like if both sides decide there are no more red lines? How long until an angry public decides anyone is better than the divisive Hell you have to offer?
Strongmen rarely seize power. Most of the time they are swept into power by a public desperate to be rescued from a broken system. Julius Caesar, first dictator of Rome, was welcomed with open arms by a public utterly disillusioned with the corrupt self-serving thugs in control of their republic. Choices have consequences. Once the game of “might makes right” becomes normalized, there will always be someone more ruthless and more cunning who is willing to play that game.
You silenced your critics, hid behind “credentials”, and terrorized us with doomsday “models” that were nothing more than back-of-the-napkin assumptions, which you legitimized by running them through a black box algorithm to make some scary graphs and then peddled as “science” using the illusion created by your lab coat. Your catastrophic “modelling” predictions have been completely divorced from reality, and yet you won’t stop using the same tactics, over and over again. And when some countries, like Sweden, and US states like South Dakota, followed the WHO’s 2019 pandemic guidelines instead of following you on this hare-brained experiment, you vilified them to no end and made wild predictions about a wave of dying that would be unleashed in those jurisdictions. But when those predictions also failed to come true, demonstrating for all to see that lockdowns, mandatory masks, and vaccine-coercion impose a world of hurt on society without having any measurable benefit over freedom of choice, you simply ignored their examples, doubled down, and moved on to your next hysterical prediction.
Your central planning adventure has been one long endless string of failures. Yet, with every failure, you simply spin the public messaging in some kind of rear-guard attempt to save face and maintain the momentum to achieve your agenda. So I ask you, who is it that is “undermining trust in our public institutions“? Right on schedule, the government has a proposal to fix the erosion of public trust too — they want to give the police the power to fine citizens or place them under house arrest for what they say online, stating that, “There is no such thing as free speech in Canada, only freedom of expression.” Let that sink in.
And police have even asked citizens to report anyone who expresses “anti-government, anti-law enforcement” opinions and praised federal proposals to censor legal web content. Does that sound like the behaviour of a confident, just, and transparent government? Should I be worried, since I stand in defense of liberal democracy and against the authoritarian police state that is emerging?
In short, the top brass of our public institutions have demonstrated that they are not capable of respecting the limits of liberal democracy, nor fulfilling their responsibilities to their fellow citizens. They are public servants, not our masters, but they have forgotten this important distinction as they neutralized all the tools that were designed to give citizens a peaceful means to defend their rights and get their voices heard. The sole source of legitimacy that the government can lay claim to now stems from the fact that they hold all the cards. Might makes right. Tyranny. Shouldn’t we undo this, and restore the pillars of liberal democracy, before this spins any further out of control, before there are consequences that cannot be undone? Before you risk ending up on the losing side of this zero-sum game you are creating?
Choices have consequences.
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” — George Santayana
Is this the world you want to leave to your children? A world without checks and balances, a world where rights are conditional, a world where “might makes right”, and a world where opinion polls can strip individuals of their freedoms, “for your safety”?
What is emerging as a consequence of your choices is a kind of authoritarian corporate-government partnership that is accountable only to itself, and uses its corporate partners to systematically circumvent constitutional limits (such as encouraging companies to impose vaccine mandates on their employees and customers, and encouraging companies to limit freedom of speech on their platforms in order to suppress the voices of critics in the public forum). Predictably, the love-affair cuts both ways; the corporate side of the partnership is using government as a tool to squeeze rivals out of existence and raid taxpayer coffers on an unprecedented scale.
Throughout the pandemic, this corporate-government partnership has picked winners and losers by dividing the world into a two-tiered system of rights. It’s a partnership that inevitably always benefits large corporations, who have profited handsomely, while systematically destroying small and medium-sized businesses who don’t have the same cozy political connections and can’t keep pace with the ever-changing regulatory obstacles being put in their path. Government policies during Covid have facilitated the greatest wealth transfer from the poor to the rich in human history. Despite the economic devastation caused by lockdowns, the stock market has doubled in value in under 2 years. For the beneficiaries of this system, it is a veritable bonanza. For everyone else, it is the path of indentured servitude, with no voice to defend themselves, no freedom to manage all the risks and priorities in their lives, and no chance to lift themselves up by their own bootstraps.
What future is there for small businesses now that you have demonstrated that, without the benefit of political connections to carve out exemptions to arbitrary laws, the corporate State could declare the next crisis and shutter their small businesses again, at anytime, leaving them trapped with loans, contracts, and financial obligations that they are unable to pay, and denying them the ability to innovate their way out of the hole? This is precisely the opposite of how a free market works, in which everyone has an equal opportunity to compete, where laws apply equally to everyone (without exception), where innovation rather than arbitrary regulatory obstacles determine the fate of individuals, and where government acts as the defender of individual rights, not as a central planner that creates winners and losers by stacking the system in favor of those who match the central planners’ ideological goals.
We have seen this kind of planned capitalism before, in which a marriage between State and Corporate power is used to pursue social agendas. It was called economic fascism, or “corporatism”, and was pioneered by Mussolini in Italy in the 1920s. It was a Big Idea that generated great enthusiasm all around the world, including from none other than Winston Churchill who, as late as 1940, still described Mussolini as a “great man“. US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt went as far as calling Mussolini “admirable” and said he was “deeply impressed by what he has accomplished.”
The whole world was swept up in admiration for Mussolini’s Big Idea of merging corporate and government interests into a socialist force that could change the world. Italy, Germany, Japan, Austria, Brazil, China, Croatia, Spain, Portugal, and Greece, among others, all instituted fascist economies. In Hitler’s version, party members were placed onto the management boards of all businesses to ensure that each company’s “partnership with the government” matched the government’s vision for society. Recognize the idea? It is not unlike the way China requires private firms to have a certain number of CCP-registered employees to ensure that companies reflect the Party’s vision for society. And it’s not unlike the “stakeholder capitalism” idea envisioned by the World Economic Forum today, in which corporations become vehicles for engineering top-down social changes in a kind of cozy government-corporate partnership, and where people who are not owners of the company are included on the boards in order to steer the company towards “community-oriented goals”. No matter how it is dressed up, it’s still just putting lipstick on an old pig.
As always, “Big Ideas” that depend on a collective buy-in from the community are, by definition, threatened by anyone whose opinions, ideas, objective evidence, personal needs, or individual choices break the cohesiveness of the group. And so, inconvenient facts must be suppressed, inconvenient opinions must be silenced, inconvenient individuals must be cancelled, and individual choices must be ruthlessly replaced with loyalty to the group in order to achieve the utopia waiting on the horizon. Truth is the first casualty of central planning. Intolerance isn’t a bug in centrally planned societies, it is a feature.
The intolerance we see everywhere today under the guise of compelling others to “do the right thing” is not just restricted to whipping those who are critical of lockdowns and vaccine mandates into compliance. Society has become similarily militant in other areas of life, such as in its social justice initiatives (like the diversity, inclusivity, and equity mandates being imposed on businesses and institutions) and its climate and environmental initiatives (i.e. ESG investing rules, which stands for environmental, social, and governmental scores — an idea that came from a United Nations Environment Programme Initiative). The future, if we allow this top-down intolerance to continue, is one giant central planning adventure, imposed on us through the government’s corporate and institutional partners, and designed to empower those who allow themselves to be controlled while squashing those who don’t fit the mold. Loyalty to the system and the willingness to mold oneself to the government’s 5-year plan for society become essential to survival. Those who are “hesitant” get locked out of the system until they fall in line. Carrot and stick.
The great paradox of trying to use top-down central planning to engineer a “better future” is that it always requires controlling people and taking away their freedom of choice. The idea of being able to control unruly neighbors and get them to fall in line with the “vision” is so intoxicating that people initially don’t see how much of themselves they must surrender into servitude, despite the fact that everyone knows that people tend to migrate from controlling states towards places of greater individual freedom (have you seen the number of people fleeing California for Texas lately?), and despite the fact that the greatest bottom-up prosperity in history is always created in places and during times when people are free to pursue their own interests.
In time the true colors of corporate-government partnerships always show through — corruption, nepotism, intimidation, hypocrisy, abuse of power, and rampant criminal acts by those in power. As hubris collides with reality, central planning quickly disintegrates into a rear-guard action to cover its failures, devolves into a never-ending series of disasters, corruption, and civil rights violations, and all too often ends in crisis.
And yet, you forge on towards your “stakeholder economy”, as you try to put a new polish on a very old game. You have openly admitted to using the pandemic as an opportunity to alter the economic and legal foundations of our nations, in what Prime Minister Trudeau has described as an “opportunity for a reset“.
You have repeatedly denied that the pandemic is being hijacked to usher in the World Economic Forum’s dystopian vision of the future, which infamously predicted that by 2030 “You will own nothing. And you will be happy.” (while leaving the question unanswered as to who will own everything (presumably the government, corporate shareholders, and elites)). And yet, despite the denials, Professor Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum, states openly on the WEF’s website that “The pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world.” Build Back Better.
Please do not misunderstand me — I do not think Klaus Schwab is some kind of grand wizard or James Bond villain at the heart of a global conspiracy that has all these people dancing like puppets on a string. On the contrary, like other central planning manias of the past, this has all the appearances of emerging as a consequence of enthusiastic groupthink, like being part of a committee, only bigger, with lots of praise from the media if you make an effort to fit in. Likeminded individuals infecting one another with their grandiose plans for the future, inspiring one another like attendees at a motivational conference, and quivering with passion for their Big Idea. The sky is the limit once pesky little inconveniences like individual rights and institutional checks and balances are circumvented by the corporate-government alliance, “for the greater good”, of course. And all the jesters, skeptics, and doubters have been uninvited so they can’t sour the good cheer.
In the 1920s and 1930s, Mussolini’s Big Idea of economic fascism inspired copycat fascist movements (or the adoption of elements of fascism) in many countries around the world; I’ve already mentioned the glowing praise heaped on Mussolini by the likes of Winston Churchill and President Roosevelt. Wikipedia provides an eye-opening overview of how infectious the enthusiasm for economic fascism was. On May 7, 1933, New York Times reporter Anne O’Hare McCormick wrote that the atmosphere in Washington was “strangely reminiscent of Rome in the first weeks after the march of the Blackshirts, of Moscow at the beginning of the Five‐Year Plan.… America today literally asks for orders.” The Roosevelt administration, she added, “envisages a federation of industry, labor and government after the fashion of the corporative State as it exists in Italy.” History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes.
Put a bunch of charismatic leaders and influencers together in a room, throw in a grandiose idea or two, and presto, groupthink and hubris take over. Build Back Better. Roosevelt’s New Deal was heavily inspired by Mussolini’s fascism, as was Hitler’s version of it. But unlike other countries that dipped their toes into the fascist swamp, America’s Constitution placed such strict limits on what Roosevelt could do that it prevented America from following these other countries into a one-party state, prevented the introduction of secret police, and preserved the institutions of liberal democracy from being swept away even if the Constitution was sufficiently perverted to justify Japanese-American internment camps during the War. The wisdom of the US Founding Fathers to make rights inalienable (unconditional) paid off, demonstrating that for rights to act as self-correcting checks and balances on government overreach, they must be unconditional, no matter how much of an obstacle they present to the mood of the day.
The Nuremberg Trials in the aftermath of WWII were not only about justice; they were intended as a harsh lesson to the world that no matter the grand idea and no matter how great the crisis, human rights must be unconditional and must never under any condition be subordinated to what leaders or mobs think is “the greater good.” Your rights end where mine begin, and vice versa, period. There is no such thing as putting your neighbor’s rights on hold for a little while. The moment you forget that you turn fellow citizens into serfs.
Take a moment to watch this brief clip put out by the World Economic Forum in 2016 to understand the grandiose vision of the emerging corporate-government State, enabled through their many “stakeholder” partnerships with organizations, world leaders, businesses, media organizations, cultural organizations, and religious institutions around the world. The naive ones probably believe in their vision. The cunning ones recognize the golden opportunities of riding this wave. This isn’t a bottom-up vision where innovators create products and citizens freely adopt what they find useful to improve their own lives; this is top-down central planning all the way, with lots of “nudge” to convince you that their vision is “the right thing to do”, or else!
To understand how far-reaching this vision has become, let me introduce you to a tiny sampling of the influential names around the world that have ties to the World Economic Forum. It doesn’t mean they agree on everything or are acting in unison – quite the contrary – but they certainly aren’t pushing back against this gradual adoption of corporate-government collaboration as a means to enact social changes at both a national and international level. They are united by a Big Idea, not by a coordinated plan. For example, the WEF’s current board of trustees is packed with highly visible and highly influential people, such as:
- Al Gore – former US Vice President and climate change activist
- Chrystia Freeland – Deputy Prime Minister of Canada and Canadian Finance Minister
- Mark Carney – former Governor of the Bank of Canada, former Governor of the Bank of England, UN Climate envoy, and informal advisor to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau
- Christine Legarde – President of the European Central Bank
- Jacinda Ardern – Prime Minister of New Zealand
- Emmanuel Macron – President of France
- Mark Zuckerberg – chairman, CEO, and controlling shareholder of Facebook/Meta
- Michelle Rempel Garner – Canadian Conservative MP
- Anderson Cooper – CNN news anchor
- Larry Page – founder of Google
According to Klaus Schwab, speaking in 2017, even Angela Merkel, Vladmir Putin, Justin Trudeau, and half or more of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s cabinet are WEF Young Global Leaders. “What we are very proud of now is that the young generation, like Prime Minister Trudeau, President of Argentina, and so on… So, if we penetrate the cabinets, so yesterday I was at a reception for Prime Minister Trudeau and I know that half of this cabinet, or even more than half of that cabinet are for our… are actually Young Global Leaders of the World Economic Forum. … It’s true in Argentina, it’s true in France now.”:
On the WEF’s website you will find a list of all the organizations, businesses, and government institutions that have partnered with the WEF. There are close to a thousand on the list – have a look! The influence of their collective Big Idea is growing. Talking to people to influence their view of the world is perfectly okay. But using the might of governments and corporations to ram policies down our throats, silence critics, circumvent civil liberties, and prevent people from opting out of their vision is not okay.
Transcript: “Schwab: ‘If I look at our stakeholders, we have business, of course, as a very important audience we have politics, we have continuous partnerships with many governments around the world, then of course we have NGOs, we have trade unions, we have all those different parts. Media, of course, and very important, experts and scientists and academia, because if you are looking at the future, I think we should look at new solutions, and the new solutions will be very much driven by technological developments.’ Interviewer: ‘You even have religious leaders, right?’ Schwab: ‘Religious leaders, we have social entrepreneurs, very important social entrepreneurs…'”
And here is a link to a discussion in the Dutch parliament, in which an MP asks Prime Minister Mark Rutte about his endorsement of Klaus Schwab’s vision for humanity:
The 50th annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in June 2020, convened by Prince Charles, attended by influential leaders from around the globe, and attended by nearly 3,000 participants from 117 countries, was called The Great Reset, presumably in honor of Klaus Schwab’s book by the same name. The 2022 meeting, held in January of 2022, included presentations by Dr. Fauci and Xi Jingping.
In some ways, the WEF is merely the host of super-spreader events, not of viruses, but of grand ideas that boil out of an echo chamber. It is a bit like the United Nations, where Big Shots get together to impress one another with lofty speeches, except it isn’t restricted to world leaders and you don’t get invited unless you’re already positively inclined to the overarching objectives. I’m not expecting an invitation. But it’s also the opposite of what the founding vision of the United Nations was meant to be (before it grew into the meddlesome behemoth it has become today), which was intended to serve as a platform to force conversations between people who don’t have a shared vision of the world. It was meant to facilitate talking as an antidote to war.
Did you grant emergency powers to our governments during the pandemic so they could use those powers as an “opportunity for a reset”? Does this look like “government by the people, for the people”? Or does this look like an unaccountable top-down technocracy planning your future happiness for you?
The way the Big Idea works is that all these influential organizations with their lofty objectives coordinate with companies and governments to get them to sign on to various “initiatives” designed to reshape the world. This ideological tinkering has been going on for a long time, but the pandemic has kicked it into hyperdrive, particularly in Canada where Trudeau used the pandemic as an “opportunity for a reset”.
Corporations become very compliant when the government is holding both carrot and stick: huge subsidies and bailouts for those who share the vision, government-instigated lockdowns and financial collapse for those who don’t.
News Headlines during Covid:
- How Biden and Congress can use COVID-related corporate stimulus to boost climate resilience, Brookings Institute, February 9th, 2021
- If We’re Bailing Out Corporations, They Should Bail Out the Planet, The New Yorker, March 20th, 2020
- Canada ties coronavirus help to climate goals, France 24, May 11th, 2020
In Canada, financial assistance to companies during the pandemic was tied to climate change goals. Assistance required alignment with the government’s vision of the greater good for society. It’s clearly a breach of ethics, if not laws, to tie assistance to financial aid during a crisis to ideological goals unrelated to the crisis — in essence, in order for the oil and gas industry to access assistance, it had to demonstrate how it would phase out oil and gas. Be Green, or don’t get seen.
In 8 months, Canada spent more than $240 billion in payments and transfers to individuals, businesses, and organizations. Air Canada alone received $4.7 billion dollars in assistance. But the oil and gas industry in Alberta was left high and dry even as crude oil prices briefly plunged below $0/barrel. Trudeau finally relented by cynically making $1.7 billion dollars available, but only to clean up abandoned oil wells, not to bail out economically devastated companies. And the government has now committed to phasing out all public financing to the fossil fuel sector. And yet many of those same oil and gas companies are strong-arming employees into vaccine mandates. We’re living in a country where almost everyone is participating in the oppression of their fellow citizens to avoid being oppressed.
What Canada’s government did was to use the pandemic as a tool to destroy legal businesses by withholding financial aid from a sector of society that does not fit with Trudeau’s vision for society, while extending financial aid to other sectors that do fit his vision. And do not forget, the oil and gas sector’s woes were not created by the virus; they were created by the government’s response to the virus and by long-term policy decisions that were rolled out even before Covid began. They have been quite open, for a long time, about their desire to “phase out” the oil and gas industry in Canada. This is a government willing to ride roughshod over individual citizens in order to pursue an objective. If they can do it to someone else, they can do it to you as objectives evolve. No-one is safe. You have no rights anymore in Canada, only the privilege to earn a living as long as you dance to the bidding of Ottawa’s central planners. This is what serfdom looks like in the modern era.
The global effort to implement this Big Idea has been happening for a long time. For example, the UN-convened Net-Zero Banking Alliance brings together banks worldwide representing over 40% of global banking assets, which are committed to aligning their lending and investment portfolios with net-zero emissions. Slowly, they are redirecting investment to match their vision of the world, while starving “unaligned” projects and businesses out of existence by denying them access to funds. Government is spared from having to pass unpopular legislation. The Constitution is circumvented. Free market forces are distorted to match objectives. Individual companies are no longer able to decide how best to invest in their own futures without also having to take account of the bank’s vision for “the greater good of society.” Stakeholder capitalism is merely another way of saying that you no longer fully control your business because some “visionary” from outside of your company has a say in what you can and cannot do.
Here’s an example of what that looks like in practice: solar farms, wind turbines, and lithium mines get funding, while the coal, gas, and nuclear power plants that are essential for maintaining both baseload and peak power during cloudy and cold weather get neglected. Until one day, reality bites back.
The 2021 Texas power crisis (video), also known as the Great Texas Freeze, resulted in widespread power outages when a massive cold front swept through Texas. The power grid was unable to ramp up to meet soaring heating requirements because too many coal and gas powered generating stations (which are able to rapidly ramp up their output during a demand surge) had been phased out in order to replace them with wind and solar (which cannot ramp up to match extreme changes in demand). This problem was compounded by the fact that snow and cloud cover dramatically reduced the power generating capacity of the solar panels and caused massive ice build-up on the wind turbines.
In other words, thanks to initiatives like the Net-Zero Banking Alliance and to government subsidies, investment into the power generating capacity in Texas had been massively distorted to meet ideological objectives rather than realities. Unsurprisingly, as the storm rolled in and the mercury plunged, power generation collapsed even as demand soared. Texas froze. You reap what you sow.
That’s an example of the Big Idea, in action. The storm resulted in food and water shortages, over $195 billion in damage to infrastructure (i.e. burst water lines), significant pollution, hospitals that were shut off from water and electricity, and the deaths of between 246 to 702 people, many from hypothermia. An entirely preventable nightmare brought to you by stakeholder capitalism, which tried to ignore realities in order to pursue popular objectives.
And only a few months later, Texas again faced rolling blackouts, this time in mid summer during a heat wave because, again, a system built with lots of solar and wind generation cannot ramp up sufficiently to meet peak demand when extreme weather causes demand to surge. Once again, the power grid was thrown into crisis precisely when they needed it most.
Are you sure you want Covid to be turned into an opportunity for an economic reset?
This Brave New World of stakeholder capitalism – economic fascism with a new name – is rejecting the self-correcting forces of the free market in favor of pursuing top-down central planning initiatives focused on “objectives” and starving those with common sense out of the market. As always, central planners then escape responsibility for the catastrophies that they caused by blaming the consequences of their decisions on some scapegoat; and then they reward their own incompetence by dipping even further into taxpayer pockets to build more solar panels and more wind turbines, or, during Covid, to get more funding for more vaccines, more hospital administrators, and more wage subsidies to solve the crisis they they are prolonging.
It’s not just these corporate-government collaborations that are starving investment into projects connected to the oil & gas industry. Governments during Covid have also ramped up regulatory changes to re-engineer the architecture for their reimaged world. The energy system is in the midst of a regulatory overhaul, even as they’re keeping us glued to the news to watch out-of-context Covid case counts and keep up with the ever-changing Covid rules. The USA has turned from a net exporter back into a net importer by putting restrictions on drilling and by arbitrarily shutting down pipelines. Germany is even shutting down it’s remaining nuclear power plants in order to get to a greener shade of Green.
To understand just how wishful their thinking has become, consider that in January of 2021, the government awarded over $800,000 of your tax dollars to build a solar panel project in Inuvik, in Canada’s Arctic. Someone got a very nice slice of your taxpayer dollars. Do you think any sane individual, relying only on his own money and not on your taxpayer subsidies, would build a solar power project in Canada’s Arctic at 68.36 degrees latitude, 2 degrees ABOVE the Arctic circle? From December 8th until January 3rd, the sun doesn’t even poke its head over the horizon in Inuvik, even for a second. And even after that, daylight is short and feeble for months. Candles for everyone then? Or a diesel generator in the shed?
Article title: Solar projects in Inuvik awarded $800k. CBC News, January 23rd, 2021
The tinkering with the energy system during the pandemic is already beginning to have an effect, and not in a good way. Choices have consequences. The following chart shows what has happened to electricity prices in Germany while the government had you distracted with the lockdowns, face masks, and variants. A centrally planned energy system leads to soaring heating bills and leave you shivering next to your cold radiator.
Wholesale monthly electricity prices in Germany. Source: Statista
And the surging food prices that are being blamed on the pandemic? While you’re being distracted by the government’s scapegoating of unvaccinated truckers, there’s a much bigger crisis brewing in the background. The price of fertilizer. The stuff that makes food.
Natural gas is the feedstock for making nitrogen fertilizer. And natural gas is often a by-product of drilling for oil. Turn off the pipelines and reduce drilling in the oil patch, and once-abundant gas becomes scarce. And then this begins to happen to fertilizer prices — a fourfold increase in fertilizer prices, and it’s still going up as we speak:
Four-fold increase in fertilizer prices in Europe in 1 year. Source: Bloomberg
Be careful about taking down a fence if you don’t understand what it is for. We are now facing a global fertilizer crisis. It’s not just high prices. It’s shortages. Farmers are struggling to secure the fertilizer they need, or are losing their businesses because they cannot make a profit as their input costs soar. The Wall Street Journal just did a feature about the countless small farms in Africa that are failing because of soaring input costs — the International Fertilizer Development Center estimates around 30 million metric tons less food will be produced in Africa this year as a consequence of these soaring input costs, equivalent to the food needs of 100 million people.“
And don’t think it’s just something happening far far away. It’s happening everywhere. I personally know a dairy farmer who is currently selling his dairy cows because his cows are not profitable when input costs are this high. Here in Canada. The big farms will get priority on ordering inputs, the small farms fold. By consequence, the dairy quota from the small farms will be purchased by the larger producers, accelerating the transition to even larger dairy mega-barns. Is that the Green ecologically friendly vision you thought you were buying into when the government said it could turn the economy green and use the pandemic as an “opportunity for a reset”?
Did you really think that a top-down Green movement would empower local food production? They’re not creating a world of farmer’s markets, they are creating a world of mega-corporations that are good at spouting green slogans, neutralizing their competition through lobbying, and pulling the wool over your eyes. I don’t have a problem with big companies, I have a problem with the deck being stacked in their favor through their cozy relationship with central planners; I have a problem with a system where companies get preferential market access in exchange for their willingness to help political leaders impose their Big Idea on society. This is not the key to a happier and fairer world.
And the same people who keep using every weather event to scare you silly also clearly don’t understand how plants work. Starve a plant for nitrogen and you also increase its vulnerability to drought. What the government is doing by “re-engineer the energy system” is that it is creating an even more fragile food production system. And if there’s a crisis, they will blame “climate change” and double down on their mistakes. Just like with their pandemic management efforts. It’s never their fault. It’s always yours.
If we don’t remove these leaders from power, and very soon, this won’t be fixable anymore just by allowing the unvaccinated to go back to work. Fertilizer shortages and energy supply systems take years to fix. You can’t simply turn gas wells back on if you haven’t been drilling to replace exhausted wells. But don’t worry, the government will send you a cheque, hot off the printing press that is now fueling accelerating inflation in our country.
The Big Idea is also causing them to fiddle with the financial system, and not just because the central banks are working on rolling out digital currencies (Financial post article). Inflation, they keep telling us, is just temporary. The lying media is even pretending that inflation can actually be good for you – a propaganda blitz that beggars belief in the scale of its stupidity. How much more blatant can it get that the media is no longer serving as an independent check on our democratic institutions but is instead behaving as a mouthpiece to legitimize government propaganda.
No. These price increases are baked in for good. You’ve all seen wages go up. No-one will undo their wage hike after the pandemic. And resolving the energy shortages and fertilizer shortages requires first reversing ideologically motivated government policies, and then the drilling needs to restart. This is long term.
And, most important of all, you can’t flood the world with Trillions of dollars without triggering inflation. A flood of newly minted dollars hot off the printing press, which are chasing a shrinking number of products, leads to much much higher prices. Economics 101.
Here’s what the Bank of Canada did to Canada’s finances during Covid. And this madness has been repeated in country after country around the world. This is the most reckless financial strategy you can possibly imagine; a catastrophy in the making. Look at the scale of spending during Covid compared to the response during the 2008 Financial Crisis! This was not caused by the virus; it was caused by the government.
Bank of Canada, assets and liabilities. Source: Bank of Canada
Debts in both the private and public sphere have exploded as a result of lockdowns, vaccine mandates, and opportunistic government spending. This is what happens when there are no checks and balances. Choices have consequences. You ignored our warnings and chose to take down fences that never should have been touched. These are multi-generational levels of debt. Now we either face soaring inflation, soaring interest rates, or both. Buckle up.
Canada’s public and private debt now stands at a combined total of $9 Trillion, in a country with a GDP of only around $2 Trillion. That’s 371% of GDP! There is no tax hike big enough to dig us out of this mess, and even if there was, it would trigger pitchforks in the streets. There is one and only one way out of this financial mess. Planned inflation.
“Inflation is a way to take people’s wealth from them without having to openly raise taxes. Inflation is the most universal tax of all.” — Thomas Sowell
Deliberately leaving interest rates at extremely low levels while expanding the Bank of Canada’s balance sheet to never before seen levels will intentionally trigger inflation; is the go-to solution thoroughout history for countries who have blown a hole into their finances. Pump vast amounts of printed money into the system to inflate the price of everything, thereby increasing tax revenues, while blaming “greedy” businesses for the price hike. Tax revenues surge even as buying power drops, the hard assets of the rich (like land) will keep up with inflation, while the savings and spending power of the poor are decimated. Hitler did it. Mussolini did it. Franco did it. Central planners always spend more than they planned for and more than taxpayers will bear in order to achieve their grand objectives. Inflation is the tax that doesn’t require taxpayer approval – taxpayers won’t even recognize where it is coming from, and will be too busy fighting each other as the government gives them scapegoats to blame. The price increases have already begun, soaring to 30-year highs.
“The first panacea for a mismanaged nation is inflation of the currency; the second is war. Both bring a temporary prosperity; both bring a permanent ruin. But both are the refuge of political and economic opportunists.” — Ernest Hemingway
The world they are trying to impose through their top-down central planning turns off the robust bottom-up system we have now and replaces it with a very fragile energy grid, high food prices, food shortages, fragile supply chains, soaring inflation, and cold houses. Build Back Better.
And yet, after all this, they had the gall to blame the unvaccinated for the economic destruction caused by lockdown policies and vaccine mandates. And now Trudeau is using unvaccinated truck drivers to stoke division and hate. The virus didn’t do any of this. The unvaccinated didn’t do any of this. The government did this. Distract, deflect, scapegoat. The mark of tyranny.
Managing the Virus: Sacrificing Essential Liberty for Temporary Safety — Was It Worth It? (a data deep dive)
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” — Benjamin Franklin
And what kind of return have you gotten from your investment into authoritarianism? Did it at least buy you a little temporary safety from this virus?
Have Florida, Texas, and South Dakota fared worse than other states since opening everything up (or in the case of South Dakota, never imposing any mandates)? Ranked in terms of deaths per million (Worldometers, January 20th, 2022), all three come in at the middle of the pack among America’s 50 states, with Florida at number 18, South Dakota at number 20, and Texas at number 28.
In accordance with the 2019 WHO pandemic planning guidelines, Sweden never imposed any mandatory measures (for which Sweden was roundly vilified by the media and by other public health officials around the world). By contrast, almost all other countries abandoned their guidelines, yet when you look at year-over-year all-cause mortality data, if you didn’t know about Covid, you might suspect Sweden had a bad flu year in 2020 (2020 had a mildly elevated all-cause mortality rate, on par with 2012). And 2021 looks set to have the second lowest death rate in Swedish history. The only thing lockdowns and other civil liberty violations bought you was misery; it didn’t do anything to change the trajectory of the virus.
And here’s what the vaccines got you:
The following chart shows Covid cases in Portugal, one of the most vaccinated countries in the world with a vaccination rate of over 94%. This is not supposed to happen if a vaccine works:
Covid cases in Portugal, despite its 94% vaccination rate. (World in Data)
Remember what Dr. Fauci said at the start of the vaccination program about how the vaccines would prevent you from getting infected? Does the label match the contents of the tin?
The next chart shows cases per 100,000 in Quebec for both unvaccinated (red) and fully vaccinated (yellow). The vaccine does not reduce spread. Not only are infections happening among the vaccinated, but it’s clear by now that they are happening at the same rate as among the unvaccinated. Zero prevention of infection.
Covid cases by vaccine status in the province of Quebec. (VaccinTrackerQC)
And as you can see from the next chart taken from a study measuring viral loads among vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, there isn’t even any significant difference between them. In other words, a vaccinated and an unvaccinated person who catch the virus are both equally likely to spread the disease to others.
Figure 18: There is no significant difference in viral load between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals (Acharya et al)
So, vaccination is, at best, merely a tool that you can use to protect yourself from severe outcomes, right? I wish it were that simple. Unfortunately, things really start to unravel once we dip below the headlines to see what is actually going on with hospitalizations and deaths, which is what I will show you next.
For months the internet has been awash with theories about why authorities are so obsessed with vaccinating everyone. It’s a nonsensical goal. It has reached the point where, for the first time in history, the ineffectiveness of a medical treatment is being blamed on those who haven’t taken it.
The trouble with Trojan Horses is that they are not all built intentionally. The road to Hell is often paved with good intentions. Some Trojan Horses build themselves as technologies are repurposed to achieve evolving goals, particularly when the checks and balances that would prevent their misuse have been removed by emergency powers. By accident or by design, vaccine passports are the perfect Trojan Horse to usher in a Chinese-style social credit score system that allows the government to turn on and turn off access to your life based on your compliance with whatever they think serves the greater good of society. Does that sound far-fetched?
Here is an excerpt from Hendrik Wüst, Minister President of the state of Nordrhein Westfalen (equivalent to a state governor or provincial premier), explaining on a talk show that: “The purpose of mandates is so we can signal to those who have done everything right in the last two years—who have gotten vaccinated, who have been cautious, who have had themselves tested, who wear masks—that now it’s down to those others who have thus far refused, so that we can all get a bit more normality back—step by step, and certainly no return to lockdown next winter.” Regardless of original intentions and considering that the vaccine cannot prevent infection or spread, it is clear that vaccine passports are now purely being used as a tool to control and punish people who don’t see the world as the leaders do. They are being repurposed as a means to whip people into submission. Do you think it will stop here, considering all the other “existential crises” that humanity allegedly faces? Whether they do it with vaccine passports, digital currencies, or some adoption of the social credit score apps that China and Venezuela already use, the pandemic has normalized the idea that the government can turn off access to your life if it disapproves of your choices (and even your opinions), even if what you are doing is perfectly legal and guaranteed by our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
But there is another component to this vaccination mania, which comes back to the question of whether the vaccines are effective at preventing severe illness and death. As we track the gradual failure of these vaccines, it has become clear that our health officials, politicians, and vaccine makers are now fighting a desperate rear-guard action to try to escape the wrath of the crowd and the weight of the law because they screwed up.
I’d like you to take a moment to listen to a 2-minute excerpt from an interview between Mark Zuckerberg and Dr. Fauci on March 19th, 2020. The excerpt below is taken from the original interview posted on Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook page:
As I will show you below, what Dr. Fauci described as a possibility in March of 2020 appears to be coming true. This is the consequence of rushing vaccines to market and pushing them on everyone (instead of offering them voluntarily and only to the most vulnerable). It is not unusual for vaccine side effects to take a long time to show up — the narcolepsy cases triggered by the failed Pandemrix vaccine took a year to show up. That’s why vaccines require many years of safety testing before they are rolled out to everyone; you cannot condense that into a few short months.
The temporary protection offered by the vaccines is just that, temporary. The chart below from a study published in the Lancet shows that protection against severe outcomes (i.e. hospitalizations and deaths) begins to fade after about 3 months. Hence, an endless stream of boosters.
Covid vaccine effectiveness to prevent severe infections (source: The Lancet preprint – you have to download the full-length pdf linked at the bottom of the abstract and scroll to the bottom to find the graphs.)
But here’s the problem. Once protection fades, it isn’t just fading to zero. It is becoming increasingly clear, from official public health data all around the world, that what began as protection is gradually turning into vulnerability, just as Dr. Fauci explained in his cautionary message on March 19th, 2020.
The following chart is data from Table 14 of Public Health Scotland’s January 19th, 2022 Covid-19 & Winter Statistical Report, which shows infection rates per 100,000, week by week from late December to early January among unvaccinated (blue), 1-dose (orange), two-dose (grey), and boosted people (yellow) – I have graphed the data for ease of viewing.
Cases by vaccine status, Public Health Scotland
What is clear from the infection rates shown in the chart is that, over all four weeks, the unvaccinated (blue) are less vulnerable to infection than all the vaccinated categories (orange, grey, and yellow). Those who have had two doses appear to be the most susceptible, but even those who have been boosted (yellow) are more susceptible to infection than their unvaccinated peers (blue). In other words, vaccination is now making people more vulnerable to catching an infection than remaining unvaccinated.
Now let’s look at hospital admissions from Table 15 of the same Scottish report, which I have again charted for you for viewing convenience. We can see how, as the weeks progress from late December into early January, the protective effect of the vaccines is wearing off. By early January, those who have had two-doses are more vulnerable to hospitalization than the unvaccinated. Since boosters were only rolled out recently, the boosted (orange) still have some measure of protection compared to everyone else. But in a few months that protection will also fade, first to zero, and then to the point where they become more vulnerable than the unvaccinated, just like the two-dose people.
Hospitalization by vaccine status, Public Health Scotland
And finally, we get to deaths in Scotland by vaccine status (Table 16 of the same report). The low numbers mean that this data is very unreliable, so only a few deaths more or less than usual can completely throw off the charts (as you can see by the sharp spike in the week of 25-31 Dec. Nevertheless, the unvaccinated are clearly NOT the ones facing the most risk. The two-dose people consistently face the greatest risk.
Deaths by vaccine status, Public Health Scotland
For ease of viewing, let me summarize everything in three simple charts, in which I have combined all four weeks into a single group, by vaccination status. This is the opposite of what should be happening if the vaccines offered protection. The data clearly shows that protection is temporary, then wears off, and finally leaves you more vulnerable than if you had remained unvaccinated. I see no other way to interpret this data:
Cases per 100K by vaccine status, aggregate weekly data from Dec. 18th to January 14th. Adapted from: Public Health Scotland
Hospitalizations per 100K by vaccine status, aggregate weekly data from Dec. 18th to January 14th. Adapted from: Public Health Scotland
Deaths per 100K by vaccine status, aggregate weekly data from Dec. 18th to January 14th. Adapted from: Public Health Scotland
But even this data doesn’t capture the full boondoggle. As you know, it takes a few days for your body to form antibodies after you are vaccinated, which is why you are only considered vaccinated 14 days after your immunization. Any infection caught within that 14-day period is therefore counted as an unvaccinated case, including if that infection leads to hospitalization or death. It also means that, if you are boosted, you are counted in the 2-dose category until enough time passes for your body to mount an antibody response.
That seems sensible, unless vaccination causes a temporary heightened risk of infection, hospitalization, or death during that initial 14-day period.
The following chart was published by Alberta Statistics on January 7th, 2022, which shows breakthrough cases based on the number of days between receiving the 1st dose until getting a Covid diagnosis (credit to fellow data deep diver Joel Smalley for spotting this and for his fantastic analysis, which you can read here). At first glance, it appears to show that immunization causes infections to decrease rapidly after infection:
Number of days between first dose immunization date and COVID-19 diagnosis date. Source: Alberta Statistics
But it’s a deeply misleading graph. For one thing, very few people remain in the 1-dose category for very long. After a month or two, they got their second dose. So only the first 30 to 60 days of this graph matters. By including data beyond that initial time period, it causes the chart to get so squeezed that you can’t see what is happening during those initial 14 days post vaccination. For the next chart, I have scraped the page source data directly from Alberta’s graph (line 5,139 of the page source data) to show you only what is happening during that initial period between the first and second dose:
Number of days between first dose immunization date and COVID-19 diagnosis date. First 14 days shown in blue. Adapted from: Alberta Statistics
This is the exact same graph as the previous one (same data scraped from the page source code). However, by removing the extra days and switching to a line graph, we can see exactly what happens during those crucial first 14 days. Infections go UP before they go down. That shouldn’t happen. There is only one possible explanation – the vaccines have some kind of temporary negative effect on the immune system that leads to a temporary increased risk of infection before protection begins to kick in.
When I do the same thing for rest of the charts released by Alberta Statistics, we can see that this temporary post-vaccination surge happens with cases, hospitalizations, and deaths after the 1st immunization. Cases, hospitalizations, and deaths should only go down, not up, after vaccination. The vaccines temporarily make things worse before they get better.
Number of days between first dose immunization date and COVID-19 diagnosis date – infections, hospitalizations, and deaths. First 14 days shown in blue. Adapted from: Alberta Statistics
Furthermore, remember that any infection (and the hospitalizations and deaths resulting from it) will be counted as unvaccinated if infection happens during those first 14 days, so any kind of post-vaccination surge be counted unfairly as “unvaccinated”. This makes the unvaccinated appear to get infected, hospitalized, and die more than they actually do, while disguising the negative impact of vaccines during those crucial 14 days. A responsible public health authority would show those 14-day post vax rates as a separate category in order to monitor for problems caused by vaccination.
The impact of this mistake is huge. Remember, the vaccinated are getting infected at similar or higher rates than the unvaccinated. But 41% of all infections, 48% of hospitalizations, and 55% of deaths after the 1st dose happened as a result of infections caught within those first 14 days. This means that the unvaccinated numbers are being grossly over-inflated by the post-vax bump.
Cumulative infections, hospitalizations, and deaths after the first dose. First 14 days shown in blue. Adapted from: Alberta Statistics
The data after the 2nd shot shows an entirely different story. Let’s start with another chart from Alberta Statistics from January 7th, 2022:
Number of days between second dose immunization date and COVID-19 diagnosis date. Source: Alberta Statistics
Again, it is a messy chart that disguises the full story. The time interval between receiving the 2nd dose and receiving the 3rd is between five and six months. And many people aren’t even eligible for their 3rd dose yet because not enough time has passed. So, the appearance of infections declining in the second half of the graph is a statistical illusion. The only useful data is the first half of the graph, out to about 180 days. I have scraped the page source data of Alberta’s graph (line 5,139 of the page source data) to show you only what is happening during that 180-day period, and displayed it as a simple line graph to make it easier to understand:
Number of days between second dose immunization date and COVID-19 diagnosis date. 180-day post vaccination period only because that is approximately the time interval between the 2nd and 3rd dose. Adapted from: Alberta Statistics
A small post-vaccination bump is clearly visible, but it is much smaller than after the 1st dose, which makes sense since the 2nd dose was given only 21 to 28 days after the 1st while people still had protection from the 1st shot. However, protection fades quickly, confirming what I showed you from the Lancet study earlier. The first two months offer the most protection. By 3 months it has already faded considerably, and by 6 months the number of cases is in the same range as at the peak of the 14-day surge after the 1st dose (800/day vs 1000/day). And we see the same pattern with hospitalizations and deaths. The vaccines have failed. Protection is short lasting and then turns into a vulnerability.
Number of days between second dose immunization date and COVID-19 diagnosis date – infections, hospitalizations, and deaths. The red lines are a 7-day moving average to smooth out the graph. Adapted from: Alberta Statistics
That’s why the recommendations for the dosing interval is getting shorter and shorter: first it was a two-dose vaccine to prevent infection, then it required a booster after a year, which was quickly revised down to 8 months, then shortened to 6, then 5, now 4 months. And there is no long-term data out there on how often you can keep boosting people without causing serious long-term damage to their immune systems. This has become a rear-guard action to save face on the part of public health officials, while turning into a veritable financial bonanza for the pharmaceutical companies.
Imagine a product that works so poorly that government has to force you to keep buying updates to fix what didn’t work the last time! Despite all the boosters with the original vaccine, BioNTech’s CEO (Pfizer’s partner) has already announced that they will have an Omicron-specific vaccine ready in March, which should be a three-dose vaccine. So, now you’ll be up to 6 doses.
Meanwhile, a study published on medRxiv has shown that natural immunity is at least 7 times more durable than immunity after vaccination. As the chart below demonstrates, the risk of infection after vaccination (grey) is 7 times higher than the risk of re-infection after catching Covid (red). Djokovic was kicked out of Australia even though he had natural immunity from his bout with Covid, which provided him with 7x longer-lasting protection than what the vaccines could have given him.
And then there’s that pesky little problem of vaccine injuries that the media and public health officials have tried so hard to explain away. Here are all the vaccine injuries by year for all vaccines from 1990 through 2021, reported on VAERS. I wonder what new vaccine was rolled out in 2021 to produce that unusual spike? Care to take a guess? If that isn’t the warning system flashing at us to signal that it’s time to take a closer look at safety, what is?
Vaccine-linked deaths, by year, for all vaccines in the United States, as reported by VAERS. Source: OpenVAERS
And here are the Covid vaccine-linked deaths by days to onset. The overwhelming majority of the deaths on VAERS happen in the first few days after vaccination and then trail off.
Vaccine-linked deaths by days to onset, in the United States, as reported by VAERS. Source: OpenVAERS
Since we don’t have long-term multi-year studies on the vaccines that were done before rollout, we don’t know what the long-term consequences will be. The difficulty with trying to gauge the safety of a vaccine over the long term is that the more time goes by, the harder it gets to be able to link the cause of death to the vaccine. The only reliable way to test this is via the initial vaccine trials, by monitoring all-cause mortality data between the vaccinated group and the control group over several years (not just Covid deaths, but any death). If the vaccinated start dying at a higher rate than the unvaccinated for some other reason, for example because of heart attacks or strokes, then that’s an indication that the vaccine may have caused some otherwise unrecognized problem.
The problem is that Pfizer unblinded their study patients and vaccinated the control group only a few short months into the trial, thus preventing us from being able to track long-term all-cause mortality comparisons between the two groups. They eliminated the evidence by vaccinating the control group. And, also rather suspiciously, they chose to do so right around the time when the protective effect of the vaccines starts to wear off, thus disguising the fade that happens.
As a result of Pfizer’s decision to vaccinate the control group, in order to look for long-term side effects we have to monitor all-cause mortality in the general population and look for increases compared to previous years. Alarmingly, there are more and more signs that there are long-term negative consequences to the health and immune systems of those who rolled up their sleeves.
For example, we are seeing unusually high death rates in young people, which are not related to Covid, such as among 15-19 year old males, as reported by the Office of National Statistics in the UK. And a life insurance company from Indiana (One America), said that the death rates among working-aged people aged 18 to 64 are up a stunning 40% above pre-pandemic levels, and most of those claims are not classified as COVID-19 deaths. Wouldn’t you like to know whether you have inadvertently increased your long-term risk to autoimmune diseases, heart issues, etc, as a result of taking a vaccine that only provided short-term protection to Covid, and then left you more vulnerable to Covid once the temporary protection wears off? Is this what you signed up for? Do you still feel like you gave your informed consent, without this data being disclosed? Do you wish now that you had waited until long-term multi-year safety trials had been completed?
Could there be a link between the vaccines and the sudden surge in deaths among professional athletes? Reuters says No. Journalist Yaffa Shir-Raz’s efforts to dig into this would seem to suggest otherwise.
And that’s not the only issue where there are concerns with the integrity of the safety trials that were done to test the safety of the vaccines. I encourage you to read this extensive report into the issues surrounding Pfizer’s vaccine trials put out by the Canadian Covid Care Alliance. And then dig into the data yourself to verify if those concerns are well founded.
When a product isn’t as effective as claimed, and if its failure will have massive consequences to the reputations and careers of those who pushed these products, with criminal consequences as a result of the coercion and as a result of ignoring informed consent, the best way to hide the evidence is to eliminate the control group. If they can get us all vaccinated, they can claim that no matter how bad things get, it would have been a lot worse if we weren’t vaccinated. But as long as there is a control group to show that the vaccinations aren’t the miracle they promised, we can hold them accountable. We are the evidence. I wonder how well they are sleeping at night. Choices have consequences.
And finally, remember when “two weeks to flatten the curve” was about giving hospitals the chance to prepare for the arrival of the virus – it was never meant to prevent infection, only as a temporary measure to spread out infections to prevent our already overwhelmed and poorly managed healthcare system from collapsing. Yet despite two years of “flattening”, hospital beds are now lower than they were at the start of the pandemic in some jurisdictions.
Authorities keep imposing fresh lockdowns (based on black box models) as they tell us we must prevent hospitals from exceeding 100% capacity, even though hospitals in the pre-Covid era routinely operated far above 100% capacity. During the 2017/2018 winter flu season, some hospitals in Quebec reached as high as 245% capacity. Ontario used to have about 1000 patients being treated in hallways every single day prior to Covid. There hasn’t been a single patient treated in a hallway in Ontario during Covid. Hospitals have not come anywhere close to these numbers during Covid.
Instead, public health officials have triggering a healthcare staffing shortage by firing unvaccinated staff. They then chose to plug those staff shortages by allowing vaccinated staff to come to work even if they are Covid positive AND have symptoms, thus carrying the Covid virus into an environment where there are lots of very vulnerable people. As I reported in my first big investigative report (The Lies Exposed by the Numbers), approximately 75% of all deaths in Canada can be traced to Covid infections caught in long-term care homes and hospitals, because that’s where all the vulnerable people are. Allowing symptomatic workers into these settings (while keeping healthy unvaccinated people out) is gross negligence.
As to hospitalization numbers, Ontario finally admitted that up to 50% of Covid hospitalizations were incidental – they were hospitalized and treated for other things unrelated to Covid but merely had a positive PCR test. Many jurisdictions are starting to have to admit this. Like hospitalizations, Covid deaths have also been massively exaggerated because public health officials have refused to distinguish between hospitalizations and deaths caused by Covid versus those who were hospitalized or died for other reasons but had a positive PCR test (with Covid).
1. Do you want to live in a world where healthcare decisions are made by a distant central planning committee instead of the doctor attending your bedside?
2. Where in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms does it say that overwhelmed hospitals or mismanaged health care systems allow our government to take away our bodily autonomy and personal liberty?
3. Do you want to live in a society where courts put their thumbs on the scales of justice to serve an agenda or to shield politicians and institutions from accountability?
4. Do you want to be a policeman in a community where not just the criminals, but also the good citizens hate and fear you? You can participate in the oppression of your community, or you can stand with your community against its oppressors. But you can’t do both. Choices have consequences.
5. Do you want to be a doctor or a scientist if the government can censor your objective analysis of reality if it conflicts with their agenda?
6. Do you want to live in a world where your children are taught that, if they fear something, it is okay to control others and deny others the ability to live their lives? In a free society, every citizen has a right to gauge for themselves how to navigate their personal risks and priorities, but no-one has the right to control others and to deny them access to their life.
7. Do you want to live in a world where opinion polls determine your rights?
8. Who decides what is truth if some are given the power to silence others?
9. Who owns your body and your mind, the government or you?
10. Is my subjugation worth burning society to the ground and grinding your moral compass to dust?
11. Are you willing to give the government the authority to prevent you from living your life and being with the ones you love?
I reject the tribal, divisive, hateful world you are creating, where individuals are consistently steamrolled for the “greater good of society”. Perhaps now you understand why I have taken a stand in defense of individual choice. Perhaps now you see that I am “doing my part” by providing much needed checks and balances, and by making very hard and very unpopular choices in order to prevent our liberal democracy from drowning in a swamp of tyranny.
Throughout it all, despite everything you have done and everything you have broken, there is one thing you have categorically refused to do. Talk with us.
Since when did conversation become so dangerous? If the government is right, wouldn’t their data hold up during an evidence-based debate? If the government is wrong, wouldn’t you like to know? No-one wins for long in a “might makes right” society. Eventually you too will have to endure the world you are helping to create: a cruel, sterile, centrally planned tyranny controlled by bureaucrats who can turn off access to your life with a QR code.
My body and my mind do not belong to you. I am not yours to subjugate. And so, we can continue this dance through the depths of Hell, with you refusing to talk with me, with me resisting every step you take to try to bend me to your will, while you gradually turn yourself into a monster. As your children and grandchildren bear witness to what you have become. And as the crowd slowly continues to wake up to what was done to us all.
And so, my reply to Dr. Fauci, to Klaus Schwab, to Justin Trudeau, and to all those who share their authoritarian vision of the world and are working so hard to control us for the “greater good of society”, I say to them: My individual autonomy is not negotiable. No matter the cost. In a free and open society, individual freedom is the only greater good.
By trying to engineer outcomes, you will always trample some people in order to try to maximize the benefits to others. It is a form of tyranny of the majority. The only solution is to maximize every citizen’s individual freedom so they can make their own choices about how to maximize their personal well-being in accordance with how they want to balance all the risks and priorities in their life. History has shown time and again that when society follows the path of individual freedom, miraculously, without anyone imposing anything from above, the bottom-up sum of individuals taking care of themselves also automatically maximizes the well-being of the greatest number of people.
Our leaders have trapped themselves by their own heavy hand. By refusing to stand down, everyone in the community is now forced to take a stand on one side of this issue or the other, and is confronted with the morality (or immorality) of where they choose to stand. There is no virtue in tyranny. The consequences of their choice to embrace tyranny will only get worse for them, and for us all, the longer they resist reality and hang on to failed objectives.
Police use dogs to quell civil unrest in Birmingham, Ala., on May 3, 1963. Birmingham’s police commissioner “Bull” Connor also allowed fire hoses to be turned on young civil rights demonstrators. These measures set off a backlash of sentiment that rejuvenated the flagging civil rights movement. Source: The Seattle Times
The solution is simple. We need to talk, as far greater men with far more bitter grievances have chosen to do in the past. Let their example show the way out of this standoff.
Nelson Mandela and Frederik de Klerk in Oslo after being awarded the Nobel Peace Prizes, 1993. Bloomberg.
Even the most bitter wars in history only end when both sides are so exhausted and broken that they finally agree to talk. Conversation is the messy self-correcting peaceful process that allows truth to boil to the surface, dissolve bitter emotions, and rebuild communities that have been torn apart. Conversation is the bridge that paves the way towards reconciliation. It’s time to talk.
Freedom is only ever one generation away from being extinguished. Our responsibility to each new generation is to make the hard choices that keep the candle of liberty lit so we can pass on a world to them that is freer than the one we inherited. This is our watch.
What was done was done to all of us. To each and every one of us. We are on the same side. We were never on opposite sides, no matter how much they have tried to make it appear that way.
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably… The first time any man’s freedom is trodden upon, we are all damaged.” ~ Captain Jean-Luc Picard, Star Trek the Next Generation, The Drumhead.
It is time for us to join together to reject this assault on our individual autonomy and this top-down effort to control our lives. It is time for politicians to stand down, for police to refuse to enforce oppression and to take a stand alongside us in defense of our civil liberties, for judges to restore the principles of liberal democracy, for health officials to restore the doctor-patient relationship, for two-sided good-faith debate to re-enter the public forum, for all citizens to link arms in defense of a free and open society, and for us all to immediately restore the checks and balances at the core of our liberal democracy to prevent this from ever happening again.
It’s time to take back our lives. It is time to show them that we will never let them divide us again.
I hope you can make the journey to our capital to help us send a message to our leaders that our individual autonomy is not negotiable and that we reject a world without checks and balances.
Please share this letter with every single citizen, no matter where they have stood on all that has happened before today, along with my heartfelt invitation to every last one of them to join us. This democracy belongs to all of us. This is our Canada, a nation built on freedom, open arms, and smiles.
I hope to see you all in Ottawa!
If you would like to support my independent writing, please consider leaving a little something in my Tip Jar.
Julius Ruechel’s Tip Jar
And I invite you to subscribe to my free email notifications to receive my latest articles in your inbox. I write about many things, but always with the goal of answering questions essential to science and democracy, and always in the hope of teasing a broader perspective from the mind-numbing noise.