CV #47: Media Manipulation, Free Speech And The “Pandemic” Hoax

Remember when this was only supposed to be 2 weeks? Remember when it was just about “flattening the curve”? Well, prepare to have the next 2 to 3 years of your life set on hold. That is, until the goal posts move again.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

For other articles in the coronavirus series, check here. There is an awful lot that you are not being told my the mainstream media, including the lies, lobbying, money changing hands, and one world agenda. Nothing is what it appears to be. Also, check out related topics, such as the media, and free speech.

2. Context For This Piece

The media in Canada (and elsewhere) report on this fake pandemic almost non-stop. However, there are many important topics and details that aren’t reported, or are just done so in a very superficial way. Some independent outlets do, but they are few are far between. Outlets that receive subsidies are unlikely to bite the hand that feeds them.

By mainstream, of course this refers to outlets like CBC, CTV and Global News. However, the Post Media empire (which comprises dozens of newspapers), and the Koch/Atlas “independents” are little, if any, better.

In order to understand what is really going on, we need to talk about the important things that aren’t being addressed.

3. Collusion Of Social Media Outlets

It’s not some conspiracy theory that social media outlets like Facebook, Google, Pinterest, Twitter and YouTube were colluding to limit information that contradicts the public narrative. Furthermore, they limit access to anti-vaccine information on their platforms. In fact, they are quite open about doing it. They rationalize it for the public as acts of safety and protection. UNESCO does it as well.

Don’t like being fed B.S.? Well, be quiet and tolerate it. Otherwise, they may accuse you of spreading misinformation, and access to these platforms may be removed.

4. Canadian Media Pushing Fear-Porn

BC 2,898 3,392 85% 190 3
AB 8,506 9,975 85% 176 21
SK 838 1,072 78% 16 13
MB 319 375 86% 7 1
ON 33,963 38,210 89% 2,755 35
QC ? 58,080 ? 5,662 14
NB 165 170 97% 2 0
NS 1,003 1,067 94% 63 0
NFLD 259 264 98% 3 0
PEI 34 36 94% 0 0

The above chart was a snapshot of July 23, 2020. The Province’s own data shows that the overwhelming majority of people who got sick have already recovered. So why the need to force a vaccine?

And here are the numbers the Federal Government has posted as of last night. Again, the vast majority have already recovered, yet the government and media work together to keep people in a state of panic.

5. Canadian Media Pushing Culture Shift

The Canadian media is becoming more and more overt in pushing the agenda. No longer is this purely about safety. Instead, there are intense efforts to create a culture shift, to have things like masks become viewed as normal in society. Again, this is not about safety, but about changing behaviour. Try as they will, this will never become normal.

There is an interesting parallel about making the hijab a part of society. It started with societal pressure, and eventually became law in some places. Yet it is still promoted as a “choice”.

And why do our leaders want everyone to wear masks? Because if people are willing to follow orders and do this, then they will probably line up en masse for their vaccines.

While the NPC is an overused meme (not sure the creator here), there is a valid point: if masks work, then how come EVERYONE has to wear one? Similarly, if vaccines work, how come people won’t be safe unless EVERYONE is taking one?

While opposing voices do have the right to speak out (at least for now), articles and videos like this are becoming more common. Legitimate concerns are being met with gaslighting.

6. Media Deflecting With Floyd Psy-Op

When people started asking hard questions about this coronavirus pandemic, it became necessary to shift the focus. Conveniently, there was an allegedly racially motivated murder in Minnesota (see here and here). On to the next story.

This also had the effect of making it seem like people had “moved on” from the topic of wearing masks everywhere. That was no longer a topic that needed discussion. Instead, it was all about racial injustice and systemic racism. Since that psy-op has died down, it’s back to the virus “pandemic”.

However, having everyone walking around with masks is not normal. Pretending otherwise doesn’t make it reality.

7. Vaccine Hesitancy Research Ramping Up

The media in Canada doesn’t seem interested in pointing out just how many programs there are in Canada to overcome “vaccine hesitancy”. These are not programs to MAKE vaccines safer. Instead, these programs are to CONVINCE you that they already are. One of the most prominent is the VCP, or the Vaccine Confidence Project.

8. Laws Cracking Down On Free Speech

Back in April, Dominic LeBlanc, President of the Privy Council, suggested passing laws to ban “misinformation” related to this so-called pandemic. Although it was just a proposal, the mainstream media in Canada seemed fairly unconcerned with this veiled threat to free speech. Perhaps they didn’t want to see their subsidies cut off.

9. Gates Financing Imperial College London

Oct 2010 $3,044,244 HIV Computer Modelling***
Oct 2012 $3,589,972 Malaria Computer Models***
June 2013 $1,397,325 Merger, Computer Modelling***
Nov 2013 $772,341 Polio Computer Modelling***
Nov 2013 $582,541 TB Computer Modelling***
Nov 2016 $100,000 Malaria Tracing Modelling***
Nov 2016 $5,625,310 Vaxx Computer Modelling***
Sept 2018 $505,207 HIV/Reprod Modelling***
Nov 2018 $326,707 TB Computer Modelling***

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation contributed some $16 million to Imperial College London, according to their own postings. However, that is a drop in the bucket compared to other donations they have made.

One has to ask “why” the Gates Foundation would continue to fund Neil Ferguson’s computer modelling, after his proven track record for screwing up. Keep in mind, computer models are predictions, not proof. A cynic might think that Gates uses Ferguson to specifically make doomsday predictions. Intentionally or not, however, the mainstream media doesn’t make the financial connection between the parties.

Questioning the computer modelling isn’t a wonky conspiracy — it’s necessary for a functioning society.

10. Conflicts Of Interest Not Reported

It should raise serious concerns that the Chief Public Health Officer of Canada works for the World Health Organization, though that was eventually addressed. Likewise, it’s alarming that the sitting Deputy Prime Minister and former Bank of Canada President are both Trustees for the World Economic Forum.

GAVI hired Crestview Strategy, a lobbying firm to push the vaccine agenda. One of their lobbyists was Zakery Blais, former assistant to the current Attorney General, David Lametti. And Crestview was co-founded by Rob Silver, husband of Katie Telford, Trudeau’s Chief of Staff.

As for the Gates Foundation itself,
Link to search IRS charity tax records:

Let’s clarify here: there are actually 2 separate entities. The Foundation is the group that distributes money to various organizations and institutions. The Foundation Trust, however, is concerned primarily about asset management.

EIN: 56-2618866

EIN: 91-1663695

On the topic of conflict-of-interest, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has been a very large donor to (among others):
(a) GAVI
(b) World Health Organization
(c) Center for Disease Control
(d) John Hopkins University
(e) Imperial College London
(f) United Nations
(g) ID2020
(h) Immunization 2030

How can the average person have access to free speech and adequate representation when political leaders hide behind friendly media, and only take pre-approved questions?

11. Lies Of Public Officials Not Reported

(a) There’s no science behind limiting groups to 50 people
(b) Covid tests result in almost 50% false positives
(c) Politicians not giving direct answers on contradictions
(d) Death toll is artificially being inflated
(e) Toronto Public Health lying about its numbers
(f) WHO says no evidence to support masking healthy people
(g) WHO doesn’t say keep 2 metre distance
(h) Bill Gates owns virus patents and supports depopulation

There are many more of course. However, these restrictions that Canadian politicians are imposing on the people don’t have any medical or scientific basis. What’s more: they are fully aware of this, but do it anyway. Yet the media silence is deafening.

12. Openly Globalist Agenda Not Reported

There is a much bigger picture than what is being presented to us.

  • United Nations Population Division
  • World Health Organization
  • GAVI, the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations
  • Immunization 2030
  • ID2020
  • World Economic Forum

13. Immunity Passports, Contact Tracing

Remember when it was dismissed as tin-foil hat ravings that an “immunity passport” would be coming? The World Economic Forum now openly suggests one. Likewise, contact tracing is now something publicly talked about. What was mocked previously is now considered serious policy discussion.

14. Rampant Lobbying Not Being Reported

The mainstream media pays zero attention to the lobbying that the pharmaceutical industry is involved with. See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Why the heavy push for a vaccine? It’s because the pharma lobby wants one, as it will be worth many billions of dollars.

15. Questionable Legislation Not Reported

The legislation mention here and here is Motion M-132, introduced by Raj Saini. Its stated goals were to finance drug research and drug manufacturing for Canada AND ABROAD. While this may have seemed harmless enough in 2017, this fake pandemic puts things in a whole different light.

Motion Text
That the Standing Committee on Health be instructed to undertake a study on ways of increasing benefits to the public resulting from federally funded health research, with the goals of lowering drugs costs and increasing access to medicines, both in Canada and globally; and that the Committee report its findings and recommendations to the House no later than one year from the time this motion is adopted.

Given that the Sherman killings happened a month after this was introduced, one might reasonably wonder if there was any connection.

16. The Vaccine Bonds Industry

Canada recently contributed to the vaccine bonds industry, giving $125 million to IFFIm, the International Finance Facility for Immunization. While this fact was mentioned by the media, they chose to go no deeper into the scheme.

The Canadian media also never asked the obvious question: why not give the money directly to GAVI, instead of letting other parties skim off the top of it?

17. Promoting Degeneracy As Coping Mechanism

While the B.C. Government restricts normal, healthy activities, it promotes all sorts of immoral and disgusting behaviour. This includes: access to abortion, pornography, masturbation, glory holes, and prostitution. It’s as if the people running the province are intentionally trying to break down any sense of decency and social cohesion.

18. Pre-Planning This Pandemic

  • Dark Winter (2001)
  • Dead Zone (2003 Movie)
  • Atlantic Storm (2005)
  • Rockefeller/Lockstep Narrative (2010)
  • Theresa Tam, Outbreak (2010)
  • Clade X (2018)
  • Event 201 (2019)

How many dress rehearsals need to be done in order to see that this current situation was planned out as well? Despite the evidence, and the ease to find it, there seems to be no interest in mainstream Canadian media. Also, who exactly is Theresa Tam anyway? There is almost no information available.

19. Citizen Journalists Are Needed Here

None of the information above was difficult to find. There were no secret codes, or access needed to get at any of it. All that was required was an internet connection, and some patience.

It’s incredibly disappointing to see that mainstream media, and even the alternative media show no interest in searching out the truth. But it’s not surprising. All that’s left is for citizen journalists to take the lead, and expose what is going on.

There is still much more to cover. However, this article is a fair representation of the research that has been published thus far.

CV #46: Dominic LeBlanc Proposes Law To Ban “Misinformation” About Virus

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

For other articles in the coronavirus series, check here. There is an awful lot that you are not being told my the mainstream media, including the lies, lobbying, money changing hands, and one world agenda. Nothing is what it appears to be. Also, check out related topics, such as the media, and free speech.

2. Recent Proposal To Require Licensing

Keep in mind, if was only back in February that the Federal Government had proposed making it mandatory for media personalities to be licensed. Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault admits that the panel proposing it was formed in 2018 by the Liberals.

So the Liberals are no stranger to attacking free speech. In fairness though, the groups pushing for media licensing may be different than those pushing to ban research into coronavirus.

3. Quotes From CBC Article

The federal government is considering introducing legislation to make it an offence to knowingly spread misinformation that could harm people, says Privy Council President Dominic LeBlanc.

LeBlanc told CBC News he is interested in British MP Damian Collins’s call for laws to punish those responsible for spreading dangerous misinformation online about the COVID-19 pandemic.

LeBlanc said he has discussed the matter already with other cabinet ministers, including Justice Minister David Lametti. If the government decides to follow through, he said, it could take a while to draft legislation.

“Legislatures and Parliaments are meeting scarcely because of the current context of the pandemic, so it’s not a quick solution, but it’s certainly something that we would be open [to] as a government,” said LeBlanc.

NDP MP Charlie Angus said he would support legislation to fight online misinformation.

Yes, this came out in April, but is worth revisiting. The Canadian Government is seriously open to the idea of cracking down on what it calls “misinformation” harmful to the public. Also disturbing is an NDP MP who is open to joining the Liberals in this. This is after calls in the UK for similar laws.

More recently, said Collins, the misinformation has shifted to conspiracy theories about what triggered the pandemic — claims that it was cooked up in a lab, for example. A conspiracy theory claiming the disease is caused by 5G wireless signals prompted attacks on wireless towers in the U.K.

The British government has set up a rapid response team to correct false information circulating online. Collins has launched a fact-checking site called Infotagion, along with Angus and Liberal MP Nate Erskine-Smith, among others.

No this is not just a Canadian problem. It’s a problem for people (globally) who want to expose and write about what is really happening.

4. LeBlanc & Microsoft President Smith

There’s been an online surge in disinformation and misinformation linked to the COVID-19 pandemic in recent weeks, along with cyber attacks on hospitals, says the head of one of the world’s tech giants.

Speaking at an event with Canadian Privy Council President Dominic LeBlanc this morning, Microsoft president Brad Smith said his company has seen a recent shift in the pattern of online attacks and efforts to spread false rumours and lies about the pandemic.

Microsoft President met with Dominic LeBlanc in May to talk about the wave of misinformation that was all over the internet. Never mind the obvious fact that Microsoft was headed by Bill gates until very recently, who is pushing the vaccine agenda.

5. Social Media Collusion Already Exists

If we are going to have a law to ban “misinformation”, why don’t we start here? Social media companies like Twitter, Google and Facebook already work to promote the vaccine agenda. They already work together to dismiss critics. Wouldn’t that be a textbook case of what should be included in this proposed ban?

6. So What Exactly Is “Misinformation”?

Is it “misinformation” to point out that Chief Public Health Officer Theresa Tam works for the World Health Organization?

Or how about that Deputy Prime Minister Chystia Freeland also is on the Board of Trustees for the World Economic Forum? And to mention Mark Carney, former head of the Bank of Canada, is as well? Is it “misinformation” to point out that the WEF was behind getting CV declared a pandemic, and now pushes the GREAT RESET?

Is it “misinformation” to point out that on August 4, Theresa Tam parroted the World Health Organization’s line about a vaccine not being a silver bullet?

Is it “misinformation” to point out the rampant lobbying by the pharmaceutical industry here, here, here, and here?

Is it “misinformation” to point out the vast research done into vaccine hesitancy? This is research into psychological manipulation to convince people that vaccines are safe. Not research into MAKING safe vaccines, but research into CONVINCING you that they already are. See here and here.

Is it “misinformation” to point out M-132 was launched PRIOR to this pandemic, to finance drugs, and drug research for the entire world?

Is it “misinformation” to point out that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is a major and regular contributor to Imperial College London, who does the CV modelling?

Is it “misinformation” to point out the vaccine bonds industry we send money to offers nothing of substance in return?

Is it “misinformation” to point out that the Provinces’ own data show the overwhelming majority of people recover on their own, with no vaccine?

Is it “misinformation” to point out that the BC Provincial Health Officer repeatedly admits there is no science behind limiting group sizes, but does it anyway?

Is it “misinformation” to point out that Ontario Associate Chief Medical Officer Of Health, Barbara Yaffe, admitted that 50% of tests give false positives?

Is it “misinformation” to point out that the World Health Organization doesn’t actually say to stay 2 metres apart?

Is it “misinformation” to point out the rampant lying and exaggerating by public officials of the virus death tolls?

Is it “misinformation” to point out that social media companies openly collude with governments in order to push the pro-vaccine agenda?

7. Still Just A Proposal (For Now)

While it seems to still just be an idea for consideration, it’s a chilling one. Such a law would effectively give the government the right to silence anyone who criticizes its agenda, REGARDLESS of how accurate or factual it may be.

On a personal note: could this site be shut down under the guise of “promoting misinformation”? Could all of this work cease to exist?

July: BBC Reports WHO Mask Reversal Politically Motivated

The BBC covered Atlantic Storm in 2005. Did no one connect the dots between that fake pandemic, and this one in 2020?

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

For more on the coronavirus hoax, take a dive into the rest of the series. Information that you will never hear about from the mainstream media.

2. BBC Video Publicly Released

CLICK HERE, for the original video. Also see a backup copy of the video mirrored onto Bitchute.

3. WHO Says In June No Real Evidence

(Download the pdf at the bottom)
WHO-2019-nCov-IPC_Masks-2020.4-eng (1)

(from page 4)

There are currently no studies that have evaluated the effectiveness and potential adverse effects of universal or targeted continuous mask use by health workers in preventing transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Despite the lack of evidence the great majority of the WHO COVID-19 IPC GDG members supports the practice of health workers and caregivers in clinical areas (irrespective of whether there are COVID-19 or other patients in the clinical areas) in geographic settings where there is known or suspected community transmission of COVID-19, to continuously wear a medical mask throughout their shift, apart from when eating and drinking or changing the mask after caring for a patient requiring droplet/contact precautions for other reasons (e.g., influenza), to avoid any possibility of cross-transmission

So there are no actual studies to test or research the effectiveness of masks in health care settings. However, it’s common practice to expect them to be worn.

(from page 6)

Available evidence
Studies of influenza, influenza-like illness, and human coronaviruses (not including COVID-19) provide evidence that the use of a medical mask can prevent the spread of infectious droplets from a symptomatic infected person (source control) to someone else and potential contamination of the environment by these droplets.(54, 55) There is limited evidence that wearing a medical mask by healthy individuals in households, in particular those who share a house with a sick person, or among attendees of mass gatherings may be beneficial as a measure preventing transmission.(41, 56-61) A recent meta-analysis of these observational studies, with the intrinsic biases of observational data, showed that either disposable surgical masks or reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks were associated with protection of healthy individuals within households and among contacts of cases.(42)

This could be considered to be indirect evidence for the use of masks (medical or other) by healthy individuals in the wider community; however, these studies suggest that such individuals would need to be in close proximity to an infected person in a household or at a mass gathering where physical distancing cannot be achieved, to become infected with the virus.

Results from cluster randomized controlled trials on the use of masks among young adults living in university residences in the United States of America indicate that face masks may reduce the rate of influenza-like illness, but showed no impact on risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza.(62, 63) At present, there is no direct evidence (from studies on COVID19 and in healthy people in the community) on the effectiveness of universal masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19

The World Health Organization admits there is no direct evidence that widespread masking of healthy people actually prevents any sort of sickness. They speak on in terms of “indirect evidence” or being “possible”.

(from page 6)

2) Advice to decision makers on the use of masks for the
general public
Many countries have recommended the use of fabric masks/face coverings for the general public. At the present time, the widespread use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not yet supported by high quality or direct scientific evidence and there are potential benefits and harms to consider (see below).

However, taking into account the available studies evaluating pre- and asymptomatic transmission, a growing compendium of observational evidence on the use of masks by the general public in several countries, individual values and preferences, as well as the difficulty of physical distancing in many contexts, WHO has updated its guidance to advise that to prevent COVID-19 transmission effectively in areas of community transmission, governments should encourage the general public to wear masks in specific situations and settings as part of a comprehensive approach to suppress SARS-CoV-2 transmission (Table 2).

So no direct scientific evidence to support masking healthy people, but governments should encourage it anyway. Rather than focusing exclusively on science, it takes “values and preferences” into account. Perhaps this is why BCPHO Bonnie Henry says “there’s no science behind it”. It gets even better.

(from end of page 8/early 9)

A non-medical mask is neither a medical device nor personal protective equipment. However, a non-medical mask standard has been developed by the French Standardization Association (AFNOR Group) to define minimum performance in terms of filtration (minimum 70% solid particle filtration or droplet filtration) and breathability (maximum pressure difference of 0.6 mbar/cm2 or maximum Advice on the use of masks in the context of COVID-19: Interim guidance inhalation resistance of 2.4 mbar and maximum exhalation resistance of 3 mbar).

The lower filtration and breathability standardized requirements, and overall expected performance, indicate that the use of non-medical masks, made of woven fabrics such as cloth, and/or non-woven fabrics, should only be considered for source control (used by infected persons) in community settings and not for prevention. They can be used ad-hoc for specific activities (e.g., while on public transport when physical distancing cannot be maintained), and their use should always be accompanied by frequent hand hygiene and physical distancing.

So a non-medical mask isn’t actually considered PPE. But it’s nice to know that 70% is the new standard for being an acceptable filter. And despite them not being beneficial to healthy people, the World Health Organization recommends them anyway.

(from page 10)

WHO is collaborating with research and development partners and the scientific community engaged in textile
engineering and fabric design to facilitate a better understanding of the effectiveness and efficiency of nonmedical masks. WHO urges countries that have issued recommendations on the use of both medical and non-medical masks by healthy people in community settings to conduct research on this important topic. Such research needs to look at whether SARS-CoV-2 particles can be expelled through non-medical masks of poor quality worn by a person with symptoms of COVID-19 while that person is coughing, sneezing or speaking. Research is also needed on nonmedical mask use by children and other medically
challenging persons
and settings as mentioned above.

World Health Organization recommends the use of masks, but admits that research needs to be done, and there’s no hard evidence that they work on healthy people.

4. WHO Says In April No Real Evidence

In April 2020, the World Health Organization said there was no evidence to support putting masks on healthy people. In June, they reiterated that there was no evidence, but recommended them anyway. However, that “no evidence” portion gets lost in public discussions.

Wake up people. It’s all been a lie.

5. Gates Foundation Major BBC Donor

Link to search IRS charity tax records:

EIN: 56-2618866

EIN: 91-1663695

Big Tech Collusion With Big Pharma, And Against Free Speech (CV #40)

1. Free Speech Under Constant Threat

For more on free speech and the problems we face, check out this series. The right to speak one’s mind and be open are essential in any functioning society. However, there are hurdles and attacks all the time. Also, take a dive down the coronavirus and media rabbit holes. See what else there is.

2. Twitter Admits Shadow-Banning

In it’s July 30 pinned tweet, Twitter claims to be protecting the idea of an open internet. While the first item (preventing a few people from domination) makes sense, the second item is disturbing. It mentions focusing on “how the content is amplified and discovered”, implying that opinions the hosts don’t like will be supressed.

3. Twitter/UNESCO Collude On Media Literacy

Social media conglomerates are often looked upon with suspicion when it comes to the management of their platforms and collaboration for social development. Media and information literacy is a potent way to help people to critically navigate these information superhighways while enabling them to understand that they have the autonomy to choose what they do online or not.

In a unique partnership with UNESCO, Twitter is launching its updated Teaching and Learning with Twitter Guide during the Global MIL Week celebrations from 24-31 October 2019. The Twitter Learning Guide now has media and information literacy as its focus.

The Twitter Learning Guide benefitted from the direct rewriting and content provided by UNESCO through yearlong consultations. The vision and making of a partnership with Twitter were initiated a year ago when Twitter joined UNESCO on the promotion of Global Media and Information Literacy Week 2018.

This bold move demonstrates Twitter’s open commitment to enhancing the critical capacities of its users to make informed and wise choices about how they use the social media platform and engage with information that they encounter therein.

In October 2019, UNESCO and Twitter announced that they were partnering up for what they call “media and information literacy”.

While a campaign for media literacy sounds great on the surface, the devil is in the details. For example, UNESCO recently published “articles” telling people to only trust official sources for information on the coronavirus “pandemic”.

No one wants to see journalists harmed for doing their job. However, discrediting people for going against the official narratives is weasely and dishonest. See the previous article.

4. Big Tech Supports ChristChurch Call

In summer 2017, Facebook, YouTube, Microsoft and Twitter came together to form the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT).

The objective of the GIFCT has always been to substantially disrupt terrorists’ ability to promote terrorism, disseminate violent extremist propaganda, and exploit or glorify real-world acts of violence on our services. We do this by joining forces with counterterrorism experts in government, civil society and the wider industry around the world. Our work centers around three, interrelated strategies:

Interesting. Microsoft was (until recently), headed by Bill Gates, who now spends his time trying to vaccinate the planet. Microsoft, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter are all apparently on board with censoring information they deem harmful.

One has to wonder if this cooperation extends to Gates’ vaccination agenda. Would social media outlets do what they can in order to ensure it succeeds? As it turns out, yes they will.

5. Big Tech Supports Replacement Agenda

Washington: More than a dozen top American technology companies, including Google, Facebook and Microsoft, on Monday joined a lawsuit filed by the Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology against the Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) latest rule that bars international students from staying in the United States unless they attend at least one in-person course.

Seeking a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction, these companies, along with the US Chamber of Commerce and other IT advocacy groups, asserted that the July 6 ICE directive will disrupt their recruiting plans, making it impossible to bring on board international students that businesses, including amici, had planned to hire, and disturb the recruiting process on which the firms have relied on to identify and train their future employees.

For all the talk about not interfering in elections, big tech seems to have no issue with suing the Government in order to keep the cheap labour flowing. Then again, it was always about importing people who will work for less.

Of course, with record high unemployment, continuing to bring people in makes no sense to society. But it was never about that.

6. Twitter Openly Censors CV Information

In serving the public conversation, our goal is to make it easy to find credible information on Twitter and to limit the spread of potentially harmful and misleading content. Starting today, we’re introducing new labels and warning messages that will provide additional context and information on some Tweets containing disputed or misleading information related to COVID-19.

In March, we broadened our policy guidance to address content that goes directly against guidance on COVID-19 from authoritative sources of global and local public health information. Moving forward, we may use these labels and warning messages to provide additional explanations or clarifications in situations where the risks of harm associated with a Tweet are less severe but where people may still be confused or misled by the content. This will make it easier to find facts and make informed decisions about what people see on Twitter.

While false or misleading content can take many different forms, we will take action based on three broad categories:
(a) Misleading information — statements or assertions that have been confirmed to be false or misleading by subject-matter experts, such as public health authorities.
(b) Disputed claims — statements or assertions in which the accuracy, truthfulness, or credibility of the claim is contested or unknown.
(c) Unverified claims — information (which could be true or false) that is unconfirmed at the time it is shared.

Information that public health authorities or subject matter experts deem to be misleading will be grounds for terminating your account. But what happens to those wanting to fact-check or disprove misleading information from experts or authorities? Guess you’re guilty of wrong-think.

Of course, other media outlets should not get a free pass. Twitter, Facebook and YouTube are notorious for deleting accounts which post information that runs counter to the narrative.

7. AMA Wants Crackdown On Misinformation

The American Medical Association is urging the country’s largest internet technology firms to clamp down on misinformation about vaccines in light of the ongoing series of measles outbreaks.

The nation’s most influential physician organization on Wednesday sent a letter to the CEOs of Amazon, Facebook, Google, Pinterest, Twitter and YouTube expressing concern that their respective internet media channels are spreading false information about the safety and efficacy of vaccines, and as a result have been driving parents to not immunize their children.

In a similar fashion, last month Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif) sent a letter to chief executives at Facebook and Google requesting they address false claims about vaccines made on their platforms.

In March 2019, the AMA, the American Medical Association, urged social media platforms to crack down on what it calls “misinformation” about vaccines and their safety.

Several companies have taken steps to reduce vaccine misinformation in response to the criticism. On March 7, Facebook announced it would block advertisements that included false claims about vaccines and no longer show or recommend content that contained misinformation on its platform or on Instagram. In February, Pinterest announced it had blocked all vaccine-related searches on its platform in an effort to stop the spread of misinformation on anti-vaccination posts. Also, in the same month Google announced it had begun removing ads from videos that promote anti-vaccination content on YouTube.

It seems like these social media companies were already on board with the AMA’s request. They saw no issue with removing information that contradicted the narrative, though the methods differed somewhat.

8. Big Tech Helps Push Vaxx In Ireland

Social media companies have to decide “which side they are on” in the vaccine debate and should consider closing accounts and web pages that spread false information, Minister for Health Simon Harris has said.

Mr. Harris said he had invited Twitter, Facebook, Google and other companies to a “summit” to explain what they can do to support public health and clamp down on misinformation.

“These platforms can be a powerful tool for good, or they can be a vehicle for falsehoods and lies, and they need to decide what side they want to be on,” he said on Tuesday at the announcement of a vaccine alliance aiming to boost the uptake of childhood vaccines and reduce parental hesitancy about them.

Mr Harris said social media companies have to decide if they want their platforms to “be on the side of public health, or to be exploited for lies and disinformation”. He also challenged fellow TDs not to allow themselves to be “used” by asking “irresponsible” parliamentary questions about vaccines.

The Minister said the need for accurate, evidence-based information outweighed the need for “false balance” in the debate about vaccines and that efforts needed to be redoubled in order to save lives.

The Irish Minister of Health, in September 2019, invited big tech companies to Ireland to figure out ways to get people vaccinated in higher numbers. There is no pretense of having an open debate. Instead, the objective is quite clearly to push this agenda.

9. Big Tech Censors CV-19 Information

The rapid spread of the coronavirus in China and around the world has sent Facebook, Google and Twitter scrambling to prevent a different sort of malady — a surge of half-truths and outright falsehoods about the deadly outbreak.

The three Silicon Valley tech giants long have struggled to curtail dangerous health disinformation, including posts, photos and videos that seek to scare people away from much-needed vaccines. But the companies face their great test in the wake of a potential pandemic, now that the coronavirus has infected 4,400 people in China, killing at least 100, while sickening another five in the United States.

Already, Facebook and its peers have tried to battle back pervasive conspiracy theories, including a hoax that wrongly claims U.S. government officials secretly created or obtained a patent for the illness. Some of the misinformation has circulated through private Facebook groups — channels that are hard for researchers to monitor in real-time — that came into existence after news first broke about the coronavirus.

Even in January 2020, Facebook, Google and Twitter had been put to work trying to snuff out so-called “misinformation”. Plainly put, this is information that contradicts official narratives, regardless of how truthful or well researched.

Now, as seen in the tweets earlier in the article, outlets like Twitter are quite open about their agenda. This is not a free speech platform.

10. Big Tech Moves To Censor In EU

A representative for the EU told The Verge the program would be launched “without delays” and that detailed timings would soon be made public. The EU has told tech companies it would rather the data was comprehensive than rushed, and it’s likely the format will be similar to reports produced to tackle misinformation about the 2019 EU elections.

Spokespersons for Google, Facebook, and Twitter, told The Verge they supported the EU’s efforts and had already stepped up plans to combat misinformation about the pandemic on their platforms. Facebook and Google said they were committed to producing new monthly reports, while Twitter said it was still considering how to present this information, but that it would be adding regular updates to its coronavirus misinformation blog.

Similarly to the United States, Google, Twitter, Facebook, and others are being used to manipulate Europeans into believing that vaccines are completely safe. The article is from last month, June 2020. This is despite a litany of legitimate questions about what is in them, and what the side effects are.

11. Tech Censorship Is Done Openly

This isn’t some mystery, or crazy conspiracy theory. Companies like Google, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter are being asked — and agreeing — to alter the media to create a more pro-vaxx environment. They are complicit in ensuring that difficult questions aren’t being asked and answered. There is no benefit to this, whether is be from a free-speech perspective, or from a health and safety perspective.

To drive home the point: this censorship and manipulation isn’t some secret plan. It’s all out in the open.

CV #27: UNESCO’s Campaign To Counter “Mis-Information”

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

So far there are 27 pieces on the coronavirus planned-emic, (it started at #0). Much of it focuses on the lobbying and corruption that is at the heart of it. Once you follow the money, it becomes quite clear how and why this happening. Very tedious, but it is a wealth of information, very little of it shared by official sources.

2. Media Bias, Lies, Omissions And Corruption

Lies and distortion by the media are nothing new. In order to convince people to undertake extreme measures, it’s often necessary to get them believing the absurd. Here is the series so far on media corruption on the website, a few of them directly related to the CV planned-emic. More examples are surely on the way.

3. Remember: Only Trust The Experts

Anthony Fauci later claimed he only recommended against masks in order to prevent a buying spree which would have left no masks available for health care workers. Motives aside, he blatantly lied to the public. In the third video, he appears to take the mask off as soon as the cameras are off. But remember, trust the experts and official sources.

4. UNESCO Guidelines On Fake News

For the original source of these audio clips, check the page on the UNESCO website. It is creepy the level to which they tell others to ignore contradictory viewpoints.

(1) Only official sources and trusted media outlets are to be listened to. Assume that if it conflicts with the settled narrative, it’s fake news.

(2) Teach your child that if a piece of information on CV is not from an official source, it should not be listed, let alone shared with anyone.

(3) If an “expert” is not from an approved or official agency, chances are they are a disinformation agent whose goal is deceive and mislead the public.

(4) CV information can be created and released in such a way as to be emotionally manipulative. Remember, the only ones allowed to manipulate are official sources. Don’t trust any others

(5) Disinformation is a serious problem. Therefore, the only sources of information that can be trusted are official, public ones. All others are to be viewed with suspicion.

(6) Quality journalism is important, but the only journalists who can be trusted are those reporting the official narrative on CV.

(7) Remember: UNESCO tells you to not like or share any information you see on social media if you don’t know where it cam from. First, you should check with the World Health Organization. If the information conflicts, feel free to post WHO talking points on the other media.

(8) Access to public information is essential. Just remember, the only sources we can trust are official ones. Freedom of the media is our strength.

(9) Apparently this planned-emic is a great opportunity to squash racism and come together as one human race. Unity through diversity apparently.

Remember folks: the only sources of information you can trust are official media outlets, certain organizations, and government officials. Everything else to be met with skepticism, if not rejected out of hand.

It’s interesting that UNESCO doesn’t encourage people to think critically, or try to spot conflicting or illogical claims. UNESCO doesn’t ask people to apply any logic or reasoning and get to the truth themselves. Instead, it is drilled in that only official sources are to be trusted.

5. Book: Journalism, Fake News, Disinformation


Then there are the many ways that journalism can respond directly to disinformation and misinformation. These include resisting manipulation, through to investigating and direct exposing disinformation campaigns. But these have to be accompanied by major efforts to improve journalism in general (see below).

The “major efforts” which Cherilyn Ireton and Julie Posetti list below are chilling. They are absolutely an attack on independent journalism, and against people who don’t tow the line. It’s interesting to note that the authors are not merely acknowledging that this happens. They openly call for it.

Societal responses to ‘information disorder’ and challenges thrown up by social media platforms are varied and take place on multiple levels. Solutions are evolving – some rapidly. Many originate in the U .S., where the social media companies and Google are headquartered. Some evolving tech-related initiatives to address misinformation include:
(a) A commitment to engineering out of search results and news feeds what the company (not without controversy) deems to be fraudulent news
(b) Starving disinformation providers of click-driven advertising revenue
(c) Providing tech-driven solutions for verifying digital content and images
(d) Funding of supportive journalism initiatives that are at the intersection of journalism, technology and academic research
(e) The development and use of technical standards, or trust signals, to help consumers (and algorithms) identify news emanating from credible providers.

This is from page 37 of the book. Techniques to combat what they refer to as “misinformation”. It looks an awful lot like Objective 17(c) of the UN Global Migration Compact.

1. Satire and Parody
Including satire in a typology about disinformation and misinformation, is perhaps surprising. Satire and parody could be considered as a form of art. However, in a world where people increasingly receive information via their social feeds, there has been confusion when it is not understood a site is satirical. An example is from The Khabaristan Times, a satirical column and site that were part of the news site Pakistan Today. 60 In January 2017, the site was blocked in Pakistan and therefore stopped publishing.

From page 46, apparently satire qualifies as misinformation since people can’t always tell when people are being satirical.

In some instances, journalists have been targeted in acts of ‘astroturfing’ and ‘trolling’ – deliberate attempts to “mislead, misinform, befuddle, or endanger journalists” with the sharing of information designed to distract and misdirect them, or their potential sources. Alternatively, journalists might be targeted to trick them into sharing inaccurate information which feeds a false interpretation of the facts or, when it is revealed as fake, diminishes the credibility of the journalist (and the news organisation with which they are affiliated). In other cases, they face digital threats designed to expose their sources, breach their privacy to expose them to risk, or access their unpublished data.
There is also the phenomenon of governments mobilising ‘digital hate squads’ to chill critical commentary and quash freedom of expression.

Cherilyn Ireton and Julie Posetti, on page 109, talk about journalists being targeted for harassment, or having unwarranted attacks on their work. They hypocrisy is obvious, as they promote having viewpoints they deem “misinformation” to be hidden from searches, or have authors bankrupted via ad revenue loss. Furthermore, they suggest bankrolling or subsidizing their competitors, or “trustworthy” media.

6. Parallel Of Coronavirus & Climate Change

(17:50) the speaker talks of how the science is always moving. Yet critics are dismissed when they question official narratives.
(20:00) How to get children to spread the right news.
(30:30) scrolling internet to determine truth is impractical.
(47:00) parallel between CV and global warming.

Of course there are other topics discussed in that video, but those were a few worth focusing on.

7. UNESCO’s Twitter Feed

UNESCO reminds us to be careful about lies and misinformation, and to only trust official sources for information on the CV pandemic. Don’t share info that contradicts the ever changing narrative.
UNESCO held a webinar on June 22nd, to talk about human rights abuses that had gone on as a result of the CV-19 “pandemic”. This is morbidly amusing, as UNESCO repeatedly recommends that people only listen to and trust official channels and sources. Guess who were the people calling for restrictions of human rights?
UNESCO seems to be 100% on board with the George Floyd psy-op. Remember, to only listen to official sources, and avoid sharing misinformation. No mention of course why people flock to the West if it’s such a racist hellhole.

8. UNESCO Supports Digital Cooperation

Here is a call by UNESCO to support so-called “Digital Cooperation”. What is it, and why is it so bad? UN Digital Cooperation is a program that is already underway, to attempt global internet regulation. It’s a horrible idea, since it would eventually lead to global control of internet activity. Ideas and views that are deemed “inappropriate” for whatever reason could be shut down.

See this piece for a previous review on the topic of digital cooperation. It’s worth noting that the shooting in New Zealand in 2019 has been an excuse to try to bring in a “digital charter“. However, the principle of global internet control long precedes that shooting.

Notice that all attempts to shut down free speech and a free media are done under some guise of “public safety” or of “preventing emotional harm”. Very rarely, of ever, is it admitted that the goal is to eliminate free speech.

From a debate in a 2019 Burnaby South by-election, then Liberal Candidate Richard Lee openly suggested that the United Nations should have a department to regulate the internet. Perhaps he was unaware that this was already in the works.

The scale, spread and speed of change brought about by digital technology is unprecedented, and the current means and levels of international cooperation are unequal to the challenge. Digital technologies make a significant contribution to the realisation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and cut uniquely across international boundaries, policy silos and professional domains. Cooperation across domains and across borders is therefore critical to realising the full social and economic potential of digital technologies, mitigating the risks they pose, and curtailing any unintended consequences.

The High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation was convened by the UN Secretary-General to provide recommendations on how the international community could work together to optimise the use of digital technologies and mitigate the risks. In June 2019, the Panel published their report “The Age of Digital Interdependence” and with it a series of recommendations to improve digital cooperation.

Sounds pretty Orwellian, doesn’t it? Instead of nations determining their own internet policies, there will soon be a “global consensus” on how the internet should be used, and for what purposes. UNESCO presumably supports this all.

9. UNESCO Supports Mass Vaccinations

The world can only contain the virus and its impacts if every person has access to accurate, reliable information. That’s down to all of us. Verified is a United Nations initiative to encourage us all to check the advice we share. Sign up to receive content you can trust: life-saving information, fact-based advice, and stories from the best of humanity. Look out for the double tick.

Apparently this site is an agent of disinformation, considering all of the effort done to expose the lobbying and corruption behind the vaccine agenda. Remember folks, only trust verified sources of information, and assume all others are lying to you.

10. China Falsified Reporting

China had supposedly brought this to the attention of the World Health Organization in late 2019. However, that was revealed to be a lie. Still, according to UNESCO, we should only trust official sources.

11. UNESCO Is Propaganda Outlet

UNESCO promotes various Un agendas, which is not surprising given that it is part of the UN. In various outlets, the group reiterates that only official and verified sources can be trusted, and that others are to be viewed with skepticism.

The reality is the UNESCO, and the UN as a whole, are not interested in truth or research that contradicts their narratives. Better to smear contradictory sources as “misinformation” than to answer the hard questions they pose.

IMM #2(G): A Response To True North’s Call For Population Replacement

According to Candice Malcolm, diversity is necessary for a country to be successful. As long as there is some unifying element(s), it doesn’t matter how much you alter the makeup. (See archive)

1. Mass LEGAL Immigration In Canada

Despite what many think, LEGAL immigration into Canada is actually a much larger threat than illegal aliens, given the true scale of the replacement that is happening. What was founded as a European (British) colony is becoming unrecognizable due to forced demographic changes. There are also social, economic, environmental and voting changes to consider. See this Canadian series, and the UN programs for more detail. Politicians, the media, and so-called “experts” have no interest in coming clean on this.

CLICK HERE, for UN Genocide Prevention/Punishment Convention.
CLICK HERE, for Barcelona Declaration & Kalergi Plan.
CLICK HERE, for UN Kalergi Plan (population replacement).
CLICK HERE, for UN replacement efforts since 1974.
CLICK HERE, for tracing steps of UN replacement agenda.

Note: If there are errors in calculating the totals, please speak up. Information is of no use to the public if it isn’t accurate.

2. Annual Immigration Reports To Parliament

3. Context For This Article

Yes, this has been out for a few years, and should have been addressed then. However, the lies and misrepresentations are still as relevant today as they were then.

It is truly bizarre that Malcolm accurately identifies many of the problems of immigration and multiculturalism, but still insists that Canada needs to go ahead with it. Her essay reads like a parody of a nationalist: identifying all the problems, but still providing the wrong solution.

True, Malcolm is extremely pointed and critical of Trudeau. However, she is silent on the Conservative Party (and her ex-boss, Jason Kenney), doing exactly the same thing. All that differed was rhetoric. Once this double standard is shown, any semblance of objectivity disappears.

4. Conservative Inc. Influenced By Koch/Atlas

  • Alberta Institute
  • Canadian Constitution Foundation
  • Canadian Taxpayers Federation
  • Canadians For Democracy And Transparency
  • Fraser Institute
  • Frontier Center For Public Policy
  • Institute For Liberal Studies
  • Justice Center For Constitutional Freedoms
  • MacDonald-Laurier Institute For Public Policy
  • Manning Center
  • Montreal Economic Institute
  • World Taxpayers Federation
Side note: Candice Malcolm is also part of Civitas.

5. Rebuke To True North Piece

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is known for his pithy one-liners and perfect soundbite platitudes. In the face of an illegal border crisis, a bizarre policy to “de-radicalize” and “re-integrate” ISIS terrorists, and growing skepticism over increasing immigration while neglecting Canada’s once-strong integration policies, Trudeau responds with the same simplistic response.

Canada’s once strong immigration policies? This would be a good time to point out that Malcolm worked for Jason Kenney while he was Immigration Minister. So did her husband. Yet it isn’t disclosed anywhere on True North’s website. Nor are their ties to various Koch/Atlas groups mentioned. Nejatian is a director at True North, yet you would have to contact Corporations Canada or Canada Revenue to find that out.

As a press secretary for Kenney, Malcolm’s role would effectively be to act as Kenney’s mouthpiece. This means toeing the line on the (then) record levels of people the Harper Government brought into Canada.

All of these factors would certainly factor into the tone and agenda that True North offers its readers. Yet Malcolm discloses none of it.

“Diversity is our strength.”
What exactly does he mean by “diversity”? What about less desirable types of diversity, such as diversity of core values? Or diverse moral codes, where some Canadians do not value women’s rights or the rights of the LGBT community? What about those who believe group rights ought to supercede the individual rights and freedoms guaranteed through the charter?
Diversity of core values, beliefs and culture can easily create societal fractures, and put our coveted peace and stability at risk.

Malcolm actually gets it partly right, but misses the bigger picture.

For an awful lot of people, values are derived at least in part from religious beliefs. Topics like equality of women and gay rights do vary considerably by faiths. Yet Malcolm claims that Canadians aren’t defined by religious identity.

She also claims that a diversity of culture creates social fractures, but seems to think there is no connection between race/ethnicity and culture. Culture must be an entirely sociological construct, without any biological basis at all.

Is Canada simply a United Nations of different people with different values and different moral codes? How are we, then, to deal with the corruption that plagues the UN itself, including vile anti-Semitism, a failed consensus on what constitutes basic human rights, and a lack of an agreed upon authority to enforce laws and norms?
Canada’s defacto policy of ever more immigration and ever more diversity was the subject of a now-controversial Twitter essay by Conservative Member of Parliament Maxime Bernier.

If you make it a point to continuously import large numbers of people from all over the world, then yes, it becomes a “United Nations” of different people.

Bernier’s tweeting did make national news. However, he acted as if diversity was something to be celebrated, and that only abstract ideas were what unified us.

Bernier argues that an endless drive for diversity, with no emphasis on what it means to be Canadian, will push us towards division and balkanization. He asks, “if anything and everything is Canadian, does being Canadian mean something?” And he goes on to raise a concern I’ve raised many times — what will happen to a tolerant and liberal society if it welcomes, en masse, individuals with illiberal and intolerant beliefs, practices and traditions?
Despite the predictable pearl-clutching from the Liberal media, and the one-sided rush to condemn Bernier for wrongthink, the Beauce MP raises an important, dare I say obvious, criticism of Trudeau’s open-border mantra and obsession with diversity for diversity’s sake.

While Trudeau’s open love for diversity and globalism is revolting, mainstream conservatives in Canada support much the same thing. They are just more subtle about it. Candice Malcolm and her Conservative Inc. allies support white genocide and population replacement, just as long it is done in an orderly fashion.

If you replace the founding stock of the nation, the nation dies. It doesn’t matter if you celebrate it as diversity or not.

Pluralistic nation-states have long existed, Canada being a prime example. And the basic notions that tie our society together are based not on our differences, which are many, but on the commonalities that unite us.

From an abstract perspective this is fine, but the devil is in the details. Malcolm doesn’t really think that there should be meaningful commonalities to unite us.

Remember: conservatives and civic nationalists don’t believe that ethnicity should be a factor in the makeup of a country. They don’t care that there is no blood bond between people. Cities are divided up that way — and all done voluntarily — but race is a social construct.

Beyond that, they don’t even support cultural homogeneity. Conservatives as a whole support multiculturalism, which instantly leads to parallel societies.

What about a common heritage or traditions? Conservatives don’t even support that. They seem to care little when parks or streets or monuments to foreign bodies get erected in Canada. There is no concern that foreign histories and heritage begin to replace our own.

A common religion? Well Christianity is under attack, while all others are allowed to grow. And considering the connection between faith and values (a link Malcolm denies), good luck getting people to agree on much of anything.

The point is, that when pressed for specifics, conservatives and civic nationalists will eventually admit that they don’t want any concrete bonds between people. Perhaps free markets, the economy, and the constitution are all that we need.

It is our common features — languages, history, traditions, laws, shared culture and values — that form the basis of a pluralistic nation-state. This is the “core identity” of our nationhood. In addition to this basic consensus, individuals and communities are free to engage in their own religion and traditions — all the things that make Canada a wonderful, interesting and unique place to live.

This might be an okay take on “pluralistic nation-state” if it had any semblance of reality. However, multicultural societies don’t share any of these things — except possibly the laws.

In order to preserve things like language, history, traditions, shared culture and religion, some degree of balkanization is required. After all, these things to do exist within a few people, but a society as a whole.

One only needs to look at the Greater Toronto Area (or any “diverse” city), to see it carved up and balkanized along ethnic, cultural and linguistic lines. Saying we have “shared values” sounds great, but people would rather live with people who share a common identity.

This is what conservatives and civic nationalists claim they don’t understand. We can talk all day about values, but it is a common identity that bonds a group.

As for the argument against identity politics, let’s dispel something: a society requires both men and women to function. Period. Promoting globohomo the way it is serves to fracture society. Beyond those 2 examples though, identity is what bonds a group.

In pluralistic societies like Canada, we do not derive our identity from our racial, religious or ethnic origin — unlike most countries in the world. We derive our identity from shared values. And yet, increasingly in Canada, we are forbidden from articulating or discussing what these values may entail.

We used to. The 1971 Canadian Census listed the country as 96% European. Christianity, and its many offshoots were the basis for much of the law and culture here. Canada was effectively, a white, Christian ethnostate. It is only in the last 50 years that “forced multiculturalism” has been brought to the West.

Malcolm pretends this is not the case, and claims that it is abstract values that bond and unite us, a philosophy known as “civic nationalism”. She also conflates identity and values, which are 2 completely different things.

INDENTITY is what the people have in common, which includes things like race, ethnicity, culture, language, religion, customs, traditions and heritage. These are what bind the people, and arguably race is the strongest unifier there is.

VALUES are a set of abstract ideas which hold society together in a civic sense. They include things like free speech, tolerance, or various laws and codes.

Obviously, values are much more fluid than identity, and can change quickly. The result is that society can break down when these values diverge. By contrast, having a common ethnicity, religion, culture, language, etc… society still holds together, even as values and standards change.

But in Trudeau’s diverse, post-national utopia, would there be a shared identity? Would our laws be commonly agreed upon and equally enforced? Without a commitment to nationhood, how would governments command legitimacy, and would our communities live in peace?

This is a good paragraph on its own. And a lot of valid points. One wouldn’t think that Malcolm worked for Jason Kenney (and by extension the Conservative Party of Canada), when Stephen Harper imported the 3rd World in record numbers.

Malcolm seems to have no problems with importing a replacement population when her Conservative bosses are the ones doing it. However, it’s totally wrong when the Liberals do the exact same thing.

As for the scale of this: replacing the old stock has been done by successive administrations. Both are just as guilty in facilitating it.

Pluralism, not just diversity, is our strength, and yet, Trudeau’s vision of a post-national state differs from our current position as a pluralistic nation-state. Remove the nation — the unifying factor — and what are you left with? What is the common cause?
This lack of identity or commitment to shared values is particularly troubling given the Liberal push for immigration on an even larger scale.

Yet, silence when Conservatives do the same thing.

She goes on and on about pluralism being a strength, but never explains how. It’s also never explained how large numbers of people with nothing in common can expect to come without drastically changing the nation.

Worse, it’s become hip among the intellectual avant-garde to argue for open borders and drastic measures to boost Canada’s population, with even some (misguided) conservative intellectuals arguing that Canada ought to intentionally boost its population to 100 million by the end of the century.

The 100 million is probably a reference to Century Initiative, an NGO that does want to boost Canada’s population. Yet Malcolm’s handlers in the CPC have been pushing for near-open borders immigration policies?

If Canada were to open its doors to, say, about a million people per year, for the next 80 years, would Canada continue to be a Western liberal democracy? Would English and French be broadly spoken? Would there even be official languages?

Malcolm seems to be unaware, (or perhaps pretends to be unaware), at just how many people are entering the country annually. 3 Notable programs are: (a) student visas; (b) temporary foreign workers; and (c) those in the International Mobility Program. While these are billed as “temporary” options, there are many options to stay. Since Canada doesn’t even have a proper entry/exit system, who knows how many of those people are still in the country?

Year Stu TFWP IMP Total
2003 61,293 82,151 143,444

2004 56,536 90,668 147,204

2005 57,476 99,146 156,622

2006 61,703 112,658 174,361

2007 64,636 165,198 229,834

2008 79,509 192,519 272,028

2009 85,140 178,478 263,618

2010 96,157 182,276 278,433

2011 98,383 190,842 289,225

2012 104,810 213,573 318,383

2013 111,865 221,310 333,175

2014 127,698 95,086 197,924 420,078

2015 219,143 73,016 175,967 468,126

2016 265,111 78,402 207,829 551,342

2017 317,328 78,788 224,033 620,149

2018 356,876 84,229 255,034 696,139

For some context: Canada went from admitting 60,000 student visas in 2003 to almost 360,000 in 2018. That is nearly 6 times as large over a 15 year span. Additionally, we went from about 80,000 temporary work visas in 2003 to over 320,000 (TFWP and IMP combined) in 2018.

What kind of values would these hypothetical Canadians posses, and what kind of political leaders would they elect? Would our laws continue to be equally applied, or would there be special caveats and exemptions for cultural and religious communities?

Malcolm raises a great argument in favour of a moratorium on immigration. Changing the demographics leads to irreversible voting shifts, typically to more left-leaning politicians. Except, instead of that, she uses it to claim that a better job has to be done about it.

Could we continue to afford universal social services, including healthcare, education and social welfare? What language would these services be provided in?

Again valid points, and would be great to use to advocate for massive cuts to immigration. But Malcolm doesn’t do that.

Would Canada continue to be a safe, friendly and welcoming society? Would our liberal tolerance be extended to those who are illiberal or intolerant? Would newcomers bring their ancient tribal feuds and hatred with them? Would practices like FGM and forced marriage be permitted? Would we import the foreign wars of the world — Israelis against Palestinians, Shi’ites against Sunnis, Russians against Ukrainians, and so on — into our own backyard?

More great arguments to support the position of slashing immigration. However, Malcolm believes (or claims to believe), that a certain level of diversity is needed to keep a nation healthy.

Would newcomers to Canada be selected based on education and training — Canada’s longstanding practice of skills-based immigration? Or would we simply allow any newcomer who arrives at our doorstep and wants to live in Canada?

About this “skills-based” immigration that Malcolm talks about, why not get into the costs of it? Plenty of college and university graduates can’t find work in their fields because successive governments — both Liberal and Conservative — have flooded market with foreign workers. This is done in a deliberate effort to drive down wages.

This is not restricted to high skilled workers either. The Temporary Foreign Worker Program, for example, was specifically used for entry level work because it allowed employers to ultimately pay less to import foreigners than to hire Canadians.

Malcolm was working for Jason Kenney when the TFW scandal hit in 2013.

Would there be a united Canadian identity? Or would our society splinter into identity groups with the pernicious concept of the “hyphenated-Canadians” — with some other identity coming before being Canadian?

Look at the next section. HUGE numbers of Chinese, Indian, Philippino, Iranian, Pakistani and other migrants are being brought into Canada on a yearly basis. This is white genocide. Malcolm complains now, but had no issue with the practice when working for the Ministry of Immigration.

How long would Canada continue to exist as a political entity? Perhaps Quebec would seek to separate. Or perhaps it would be aggrieved minorities, stateless ethnic groups or religious fanatics who would seek to carve out their own ethno-state.

Yes, all valid points. And Malcolm worked for Jason Kenney and the CPC while they were pushing immigration policies and programs to promote exactly this.

And that’s just the start. It would only be a matter of time before other groups — disgruntled Indigenous tribes, libertarian Albertans, Marxist communes, and any number of religious cults or zealous identity groups — would seek their own self-determination and self-governance.

Yet conservatives support the sort of immigration policies that encourage this. They claim that it won’t change the culture as long as there is “economic benefit”.

What would be the tipping point? 50 million? Or 150 million?

150 million by 2100 is about where we are headed now.

In the past, immigration policies were heavily restrictive, cost prohibitive and were coupled with a strong civil society promoting universal norms and values, conformity, and integration (frankly, assimilation).
The world is freer and more democratic today, thankfully, but that also makes integration all the more challenging.

Why is this change a good thing? Does Malcolm prefer easy immigration over social cohesion, integration and stability?

Trudeau has turned his back on integration, while steadily increasing the amount of immigration and without much concern for selecting those who will be successful in Canada. A casual observer of Europe’s failed immigration experiment can see that this is a toxic combination, and Trudeau’s schemes should be met with criticism and resistance from Canadians of all backgrounds.

Europe’s failed immigration experiment? Perhaps Malcolm has never heard of the KALERGI PLAN, a century old scheme to erase the peoples of Europe and replace them with a single group. Of course there has never been any sort of democratic vote, but all major parties are controlled.

Malcolm pretends that it is ONLY Trudeau who has been jacking up immigration in Canada. She deliberately omits that Brian Mulroney raised immigration rates in the 1980s to the highest they had ever been. Also, omits that Stephen Harper raised immigration to the highest rates ever (at that point)

She also omits being a staffer for Jason Kenney and pushing the mass migration narrative.

Diversity is important. There’s no doubt about that.
We need to challenge one another with new ideas, innovative thinking and differing perspectives in order to grow and thrive, as well as to solve the problems of our day. Societies that are too conformist or homogeneous are not only boring and banal places to live, they’re also destined to fail.

Societies that are homogenous are much more socially cohesive. Maybe Malcolm gets a kick out of driving across town to a “foreign country”, but most people don’t want that. They want societies which are high trust, and safe to live in. Multicultural countries do not offer this.

How is diversity important? Other than homogenous societies being boring? Wanting to change a nation’s makeup because you find it boring is pretty sociopathic.

Look at North Korea — the most homogeneous country in the world; closed to immigration and most trade — where everyone is equal in their misery and nothing meaningful has changed in decades.

Malcolm makes a disingenuous conclusion. North Koreans are miserable because they are closed to mass migration and globalized trade? Yeah, sure. I don’t suppose being a Communist dictatorship would have anything to do with that misery.

Or Japan, which allows little diversity in ethnic makeup or societal norms, and, in turn, the population is aging, the economy is stagnant, and debt is ever-growing. In other words, the society is dying.

Recently, Charlie Kirk of Turning Point USA, promoted the idea that Japan should import a replacement population in order to keep the GDP from falling. Vincent James covers it very well. Malcolm speaks in much the same tone. Instead of preserving the demographics, heritage, culture, and language, both of them think of Japan only in terms of money.

If Japan really needed more people (and it’s already pretty crowded), then perhaps a Hungarian style program of getting couples to have more children would be a better idea.

Spoiler: there is much more to a country than its GDP.

Diversity is necessary. But diversity, in and of itself, is not necessarily a feature. The most diverse empires and countries in the world have fractured, imploded or dissolved, be it the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire or the former Yugoslavia. Diversity alone wasn’t the problem, but diversity without a common commitment, in other words, without unity, led to collapse.

This is incoherent. Malcolm correctly identifies that the most multicultural/multiethnic societies that have collapsed, and cites 3 of them. Diversity was not the problem, she claims, but just done incorrectly. Apparently history will be different if only these vastly different groups had some common bond to unite them.

Multicultural states have only ever been able to hold together when it is done by force. And even then, it is not a permanent solution.

Alongside diversity, it’s unity that makes Canada a successful country and a great place to live. And we need to constantly work and strive for this unity, in the face of large-scale immigration, changing demographics and a societal obsession with cultural relativism, identity politics and anti-Western distortion.

Serious question: if it’s unity that makes Canada successful, and a great place to live, why do we need diversity as all?

We need shared laws, shared values, shared traditions, and a shared identity to thrive and succeed. We need pluralism and nationhood.

We need pluralism and nationhood? How exactly does this work? How does importing millions of people who will balkanize Canada lead to a single nationhood?

It’s unity that makes us love our country and fosters patriotism. It’s unity — imbedded within diversity — that is our true strength.

Forget having a blood connection. Forget common culture, language, traditions, etc…. unity is just some abstract sense of being Canadian.

6. Recent Population Replacement In Canada

(Page 18 of the 2004 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 24 of the 2005 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 18, 19 of the 2006 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 19, 20 of the 2007 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 21, 22 of the 2008 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 16 of the 2009 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 14 of the 2010 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 18 of the 2011 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 15 of the 2012 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 19 of the 2013 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 16 of the 2014 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 16 of the 2015 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 10 of the 2016 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 14 of the 2017 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 28 of the 2018 Annual Report to Parliament)

(Page 36 of the 2019 Annual Report to Parliament)

Note: this is nowhere near the number of people entering Canada every year. Remember to add in hundreds of thousand of students and temporary workers, and various pilot programs.

Even if this were everyone, how exactly is a country supposed to be unified when large numbers of people from very different cultures are imported year after year? How are abstract ideas and values supposed to overcome such fundamental differences?

If Canada were a nation where race, ethnicity and religion didn’t matter, (as Malcolm claims), then it seem very strange that balkanization takes place along racial, ethnic, religious, cultural and linguistic lines. But that’s probably a racist thing to “notice”.

I realize that her prior political ties can make this a tricky subject to navigate. However, True North would be taken much more seriously if they were honest about how destructive multiculturalism really is.

7. Forced Diversity Is Genocide

Article I
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article III
The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.

Article IV
Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.

Article V
The Contracting Parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their respective Constitutions, the necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the present Convention, and, in particular, to provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III.

Article VI
Persons charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed, or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction.

Article VII
Genocide and the other acts enumerated in article III shall not be considered as political crimes for the purpose of extradition.
The Contracting Parties pledge themselves in such cases to grant extradition in accordance with their laws and treaties in force.

Serious question: how are forced diversity, multiculturalism and pluralism, not forms of genocide? After all, they are calculated to bring about the destruction of a group, specifically, Europeans.

8. Malcolm Just Another Barbara Spectre

When rereading this essay from Malcolm, my mind instantly went to Barbara Lerner Spectre. She became infamous for saying that Europe had to adopt multiculturalism in order to survive.

How is Malcolm calling for pluralism any different than this? How is forcibly remaking the host culture — without a democratic mandate — not a form of genocide? Importing hundreds of thousands of people (now totally a million annually in recent years), completely remakes the demographics, culture, and traditions of the society. Yet Malcolm argues this is necessary, but gives the flimsiest of reasons.

It’s interesting how “conservatives” are so willing to jump on people like Trudeau for his immigration policies, but remain silent when their own people do much the same thing.

Of course there is an awful lot that True North Canada does not disclose to its readers. Rather than give real insight and research into immigration in Canada, it serves to post anti-Trudeau talking points.

Malcolm calls for essentially the same policies that will lead to the demise of Canada. But like other conservatives, she supports a more “patriotic” version of the same thing.

%d bloggers like this: