Category: Miscellaneous

Posted on

A Look At Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments

This piece will be a bit different. A case from a decade ago has helped bring a particular type of vexatious litigant to the public’s consciousness: Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (OPCA) litigants.

A bit of a disclaimer: this isn’t to suggest that everyone who employs such techniques does so for an underhanded purpose. There are true believers out there.

The case referenced is Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII). The facts themselves aren’t really as interesting as the background research that has been done in preparing this ruling. It contains a wealth of information from tactics and habits of such OPCA. litigants. While there is typically some truth in what they espouse, it’s rarely the full story.

[1] This Court has developed a new awareness and understanding of a category of vexatious litigant. As we shall see, while there is often a lack of homogeneity, and some individuals or groups have no name or special identity, they (by their own admission or by descriptions given by others) often fall into the following descriptions: Detaxers; Freemen or Freemen-on-the-Land; Sovereign Men or Sovereign Citizens; Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International (CERI); Moorish Law; and other labels – there is no closed list. In the absence of a better moniker, I have collectively labelled them as Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument litigants [“OPCA litigants”], to functionally define them collectively for what they literally are. These persons employ a collection of techniques and arguments promoted and sold by ‘gurus’ (as hereafter defined) to disrupt court operations and to attempt to frustrate the legal rights of governments, corporations, and individuals.

[2] Over a decade of reported cases have proven that the individual concepts advanced by OPCA litigants are invalid. What remains is to categorize these schemes and concepts, identify global defects to simplify future response to variations of identified and invalid OPCA themes, and develop court procedures and sanctions for persons who adopt and advance these vexatious litigation strategies.

[3] One participant in this matter, the Respondent Dennis Larry Meads, appears to be a sophisticated and educated person, but is also an OPCA litigant. One of the purposes of these Reasons is, through this litigant, to uncover, expose, collate, and publish the tactics employed by the OPCA community, as a part of a process to eradicate the growing abuse that these litigants direct towards the justice and legal system we otherwise enjoy in Alberta and across Canada. I will respond on a point-by-point basis to the broad spectrum of OPCA schemes, concepts, and arguments advanced in this action by Mr. Meads.

While one can make valid arguments that Canadian laws are grossly insufficient or inadequate, that is not entirely the point with OPCA litigants. Instead, they allege that laws don’t apply. That can be very dangerous when it comes to institutions like the Canada Revenue Agency.

Unsurprisingly, there has been a surge of people who’ve lost faith in the judicial process in the last few years. There’s good reason for that, and it’s tempting to give these arguments another look.

[71] OPCA strategies as brought before this Court have proven disruptive, inflict unnecessary expenses on other parties, and are ultimately harmful to the persons who appear in court and attempt to invoke these vexatious strategies. Because of the nonsense they argue, OPCA litigants are invariably unsuccessful and their positions dismissed, typically without written reasons. Nevertheless, their litigation abuse continues. The growing volume of this kind of vexatious litigation is a reason why these Reasons suggest a strong response to curb this misconduct.

[72] Beyond that, these are little more than scams that abuse legal processes. As this Court now recognizes that these schemes are intended for that purpose, a strict approach is appropriate when the Court responds to persons who purposefully say they stand outside the rules and law, or who intend to abuse, disrupt, and ultimately break the legal processes that govern conduct in Canada. The persons who advance these schemes, and particularly those who market and sell these concepts as commercial products, are parasites that must be stopped.

By selling commercial products, this typically refers to seminars or guidebooks on how to assert certain rights and avoid consequences. The courts view this as exploiting vulnerable people.

Starting at paragraph 99, the ruling lists other Canadian “gurus”, including:

  • David Kevin Lindsay
  • John Ruiz Dempsey
  • Robert Arthur Menard
  • Eldon Gerald Warman
  • David J. Lavigne
  • Edward Jay Robin Belanger

Such OPCA litigants are often seen as busybodies in the Courts. Many have been declared “vexatious litigants” for repeatedly initiating (and often appealing) baseless proceedings. While the techniques employed are interesting — as an observer — it’s hard to argue against the allegation that they seem designed to frustrate the function of Courts.

There’s no question that the courts in Canada are lacking in many ways. However, the techniques employed by OPCA litigants have essentially a zero percent success rate. Certainly, don’t pay them for their “services”.

Would society be better off if we were sovereign citizens and exempt from taxes and licenses? Certainly there’s a case to be made for that. However, Courts have never upheld this.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2012/2012abqb571/2012abqb571.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2012/2012abqb571/2012abqb571.pdf
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2007/2007bcca165/2007bcca165.html

Posted on

Unpopular Opinion: If You “DO” Vote, You Don’t Have The Right To Complain

It’s a widely repeated mantra among many that “If you don’t vote, you don’t have the right to complain”. The logic seems to be that citizens aren’t allowed to criticize the state of affairs unless they cast a ballot for someone. Apparently, taking a principled stance in not supporting anyone is grounds to limit the ability to comment.

However, many of these same irate voters will express frustration and disillusionment with their choices within 6 months to 3 years. That said, it won’t stop people from endorsing the same people again and again. After all, the alternative is worse, right?

While this would certainly apply to Ontario — which has an election in June — the same principles are valid at all levels of Government.

This raises the interesting question: should people who voted for a dishonest and mediocre candidate have the right to complain afterwards?

Certainly, there will be claims that the voters had no idea that so-and-so would be so deceitful. Is that true though? Would a reasonable amount of due diligence have led to the conclusion that certain people can’t be trusted? Given that we are now in the internet era, it’s easier than ever to do background checks on the people running for office.

In fairness, the average person had no idea about this “pandemic” hoax that would be launched a few years ago. Still, this is a problem that goes much further back.

Take a look through any social media site. People will say they are voting for a person, not because they like or trust them, but because the alternative is worse. A great number also struggle to give any coherent reason as to why they are doing it. Using Ford as a specific example, Twitter is filled with people pledging to vote for the man who destroyed their Province — because Horwath and Del Duca would be much worse.

As lame a “journalist” as Brian Lilley is, he unfortunately sums up the right-wing quite well in Ontario, and Canada more broadly. Mindless sheep vote en masse for someone they KNOW will continue to wreck society. Ford brought in mask mandates, vaccine passports, issued stay-at-home orders, shut down entire sectors of business, ruined school for children, etc…. and he may very well get RE-ELECTED.

In the 2021 Federal election, millions voted for the Conservative Party of Canada. This came in spite of them being subsidized by Trudeau, and running on a PRO-vaccine passport agenda.

Support isn’t limited to real parties either. One would think that a “party” that doesn’t elect its leader, have a constitution, or vote on policies would be a cause for concern. After all, it’s been 4 years. Sadly, some simply cannot be reasoned with.

Take the U.K. as another example: Boris Johnson claimed (when running to replace Theresa May) that he would slash immigration to the “tens of thousands”. However, all it takes is a quick search to know that he supported amnesty for hundreds of thousands of illegals, while acting as Mayor of London.

In reality, it’s quite easy to check out candidates who are running for office. This is especially true if they’ve had a career in politics. Very few actually do it though.

Back to the premise of the article: if someone has no interest in performing any due diligence on the people who want to run their municipalities, provinces, or country, do they have the right to complain? Moreover, when the politician they helped install breaks all promises, are the voters not complicit in helping them?

If you vote for someone — while ignoring all of the warning signs — you are an accomplice to whatever destructive policies they may enact. As such, you don’t have the right to complain.

Here’s another unpopular opinion: universal voting is a bad idea. If someone can’t be bothered to do their homework on what they’re voting for, it’s detrimental to allow them access.

Update: As mentioned below, some countries, like Australia, make voting mandatory. With that in mind, it wouldn’t be fair to treat that the same way, if force is applied. The article was designed with Canada in mind, which doesn’t have such requirements.

Posted on

What Senator Denise Batters Will Never Address…..

Senator Denise Batters of Saskatchewan is calling for a leadership review of Erin O’Toole. While this may seem fine on the surface, the details are troubling. It’s not so much what’s in the proposal, but rather, what’s omitted from it.

Batters gives a great performance in this short video. And performance is what it comes across as. She gives some decent points of why O’Toole should go, but never completely throws him under the bus. It seems pretty strange, unless all of this was being done just for show.

The Conservative Inc. media swallowed it completely.

Conservative activists and members across Canada are supporting this petition because Erin O’Toole has reversed his own positions from his leadership campaign, betrayed Conservative principles, lost seats in the election, and cannot win the next election.
.
O’Toole Betrayed Conservative Principles
.
O’Toole won the leadership race claiming to be a “true blue” Conservative, but ran an election campaign nearly indistinguishable from Trudeau’s Liberals. Conservatives and Canadians can’t afford more of the same.
.
Before and after the election, O’Toole repeatedly told Conservatives that they needed to have “the courage to change.” What he expects us to change into, he has yet to say.
.
As Leader, O’Toole has watered down and even entirely reversed policy positions without the input of party or caucus members. On the carbon tax, on firearms, on conscience rights – he has contradicted positions within the same week, the same day, and even within the same sentence!
.
The Election Was Lost
.
Winning without principles is pointless. O’Toole’s strategy and approach failed. Conservatives lost seats and votes.
.
Erin O’Toole lost this election by every measure. Our party lost half a million votes, won fewer seats, and received a lower popular vote than in 2019. We lost ethnically diverse MPs, female MPs, and MPs in the GTA, Alberta, and in Vancouver’s suburbs. In the GTA alone, O’Toole lost 80,000 votes compared to 2019. O’Toole’s inability to communicate or connect with female voters created an even wider gender gap.
.
O’Toole Can’t Win the Next Election
.
Since the election, O’Toole has not learned any lessons from this devastating loss. It’s business as usual. His strategy failed and he refuses to change it. He is surrounded by the same old team with the same old ideas. His polling numbers keep dropping. His flip-flops and weakness mean that he can never regain the trust from the Canadian people that he lost in the election. Because he refuses to learn from his mistakes, he can’t win.
.
Because Erin O’Toole turned his back on conservative principles, lost the election, and cannot win the next one, Conservatives must take action now!

All of this speech sounds lovely, but stop and think about it for a moment. What specifics does Batters actually complain about? She lists 3: (a) Carbon tax; (b) firearms; and (c) conscience rights. But are those really the most pressing issues facing the country?

And seriously? We’re going with the gender gap?

Canada has imposed medical martial law for the better part of 2 years, and Batters is completely silent on that. Moreover, the useful idiots in the comments are whining about relatively minor things instead of the collapse of freedom in this country. Some address the bigger picture, but most don’t.

Keep in mind, O’Toole ran as an anti-freedom candidate to take over the CPC. He doesn’t oppose anything Trudeau does, although he whines about the details of implementation. Whether he’s been bought, threatened, or is just a pandering twit, O’Toole is an enemy of every Canadian who values basic rights in this country.

What’s even more sickening is the double standard and hypocrisy. Canadian “Conservatives” like to virtue signal about how righteous they are in condemning human rights abuses ABROAD. That being said, they are silent on human rights abuses DOMESTICALLY. If Batters wanted a good excuse to get rid of O’Toole, this seems perfect. However, not a peep from her on that subject.

Conservatives claim to support freedom. In realty, they impose mandates for vaccine passports, masks, order businesses closed, and strip away religious liberties. This happens Federally too, although the bulk of the orders are Provincial. O’Toole, as CPC leader, had no issue with any of this. Batters appears uninterested in the fact that her party and leader have no issue with any of this.

Her Twitter account is filled with content on hockey and football, but nothing about the fake pandemic being used to erase the rights we take for granted.

Batters cites the Carbon taxes, but never states that the entire green industry is a giant wealth transfer scheme. The Paris Agreement lays that out in detail, especially in Article 9. She also mentions guns (presumably the May 2020 Order In Council), but never says the obvious: that a disarmed population is much easier to control, or eliminate.

There’s also radio silence on the FIPA with China, which involved selling Canadian sovereignty to a foreign power. Then again, the CPC still seems to support this treason.

She also never points out the elephant in the room: O’Toole worked at Heenan Blaikie right before getting into politics. This was the same law firm Trudeau Sr. and Chretien were partners at. Birds of a feather….

While at Heenan Blaikie, O’Toole also lobbied on behalf of Facebook. His support of free speech has always comes across as forced and insincere. Again, nothing from Batters.

If the CPC was actually concerned about winning elections, then perhaps Batters might want to address O’Toole’s open borders policies. Incidently, Harper and Mulroney supported the same thing. By flooding the country with left-leaning voters, it ensures that “Conservatives” will never be able to win more and more ridings. In the West, Canadians routinely vote for cons (literally) who enact policies to dilute their voting power.

Batters ignores — and it seems intentional — the real reason O’Toole lost: it’s because he supports the same tyranny and creeping Communism that the Liberals and NDP do. He doesn’t offer any real opposition to the most pressing issues facing Canadians.

Additionally, Batters won’t discuss the obvious suspicion that O’Toole threw the race on purpose. There is no way someone could be that bad, unless it was deliberate.

What do we get here? More drama from actors playing a part. Batters’ job seems to be to pretend that there is a segment of her party that wants real change — all while avoiding more urgent topics. The role of this party is to gatekeep, and prevent real alternatives from gaining ground.

To all the people cheering about this petition, give your heads a shake. This is an act, and you’re buying it, hook, line and sinker.

(1) https://twitter.com/denisebatters
(2) https://twitter.com/denisebatters/status/1460292661387087876
(3) https://www.membersvote.ca/
(4) https://openparliament.ca/debates/2014/9/22/erin-otoole-1/
(5) https://canucklaw.ca/canada-persecuting-religious-groups-locally-while-virtue-signaling-internationally/
(6) https://canucklaw.ca/ccs-2-the-paris-accord-a-giant-wealth-transfer-scheme/
(7) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch?V_SEARCH.command=navigate&time=1638101106094

Posted on

The Final Boss: Realizing That You Are The Best Source Of Information And Scrutiny

“We shouldn’t ask who are the people we should be listening to. Instead, we should be wondering how to verify or refute the things we see and hear.”

Anyone who has ever played video games knows that Bowser is the final boss in the world of Super Mario. This article will get into a more abstract type of boss.

A question that comes up surprisingly often on this site is who should readers be following. That’s understandable, given the vast amount and range of information that’s available. Most people don’t want to have to sift through mountains of rubbish to find gold.

That being said, the correct answer is this: people shouldn’t be relying on or following anyone. Those serious about seeing the world as it really is should be scrutinizing everything they encounter. Real truthers should be doing background checks on what information they come across.

Perhaps all of this is idealistic. However, the point of media shouldn’t be indoctrinating or telling people what to think. It should be empowering, and encourage readers, viewers and listeners to seek more. Does this involve work? Yes, but the alternative is never truly being awake.

Several pieces have been posted here to help the more curious types get started with their own research. They will be included at the bottom.

Additionally, there can be valid reasons someone may hold back on some details. It doesn’t have to be nefarious. They may not be sure of certain points. It may be a controversial topic, where doxing, harassment, and deplatforming are real concerns. Being right doesn’t matter much when livelihood is threatened. Yes, there are many gatekeepers, but that isn’t everyone.

This take may be controversial, but here it goes. Reputation and name recognition have little to no correlation to how accurate and in depth a piece may be. Simply knowing who authored it means nothing if the content is misleading. Moreover, reporting that is truthful (but intentionally superficial) is also unhelpful, since the full truth isn’t told.

The best sources of reporting will include all material used. Evidence that supports the publication will be either embedded into articles or video, or the resources will be instantly available. Anyone making serious claims should be eager to demonstrate their validity. Anyone can throw around allegations. It’s far, far more helpful to see what their basis is.

Things get a bit complicated when a piece of media makes important statements about a company, organization or person, but no source material is provided. The question becomes: do we accept this as a fact, or do a little digging to see how truthful and accurate the content is?

It also should be obvious that not all material is equal is value. While well cited articles, videos and podcasts are helpful, nothing beats primary sources. Are friends talking about an important Supreme Court ruling? Ask to see the text of the decision. Concerned about a new bill being introduced? Search the actual legislation, instead of relying on someone’s opinion. Heard horror stories concerning some new treaty? Go read it. Seeing rumours about what happened at a public event? See what footage is available from someone there.

We are in an age where almost anything can be accessed by an online search. Nonsense statements and assertions can be debunked in seconds. Too few take full advantage of this.

If the light goes on for even one person, then this is worth it.

For a wider perspective, here are a few videos that explain it well:

(1) Rocking Mr. E has a channel called Rocking Philosophy. He released a video in May 2018 on globalist approved opposition, and 3 rules to spot it. There are valid questions to ask when certain voices are promoted, even when they offer little in groundbreaking content. One doesn’t have to agree with his politics to see him poking holes in establishment narratives. It’s a video that’s well worth watching.

(2) Actual Justice Warrior has an interesting take from October 2019. He addressed claims that the mainstream media is dying. He further points out that it’s a bad business model to be celebrating their demise, even if it were true. Real journalism can be quite expensive to engage in. By contrast, commentary channels are a dime a dozen, but still are completely dependent on others doing the underlying work. Investigative journalism — which involves long hours digging through records — can be relatively cheap, but is extremely time consuming.

(1) https://www.youtube.com/c/RockingMrE-RockingPhilosophy
(2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q08p5kDVn98
(3) https://www.youtube.com/c/ActualJusticeWarrior/videos
(4) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6GQadCvo58
(5) https://canucklaw.ca/how-to-do-your-own-research-investigative-journalism/
(6) https://canucklaw.ca/getting-started-with-your-own-freedom-of-information-access-to-information-requests/
(7) https://canucklaw.ca/getting-started-with-canlii-other-court-records-searches/
(8) https://canucklaw.ca/getting-started-with-searching-government-lobbying-registries/
(9) https://canucklaw.ca/getting-started-with-researching-registered-canadian-charities/

Posted on

Maxime Bernier Encourages His Own Father To Get Vaxxed, “Party” Is A Honeypot


https://www.facebook.com/MarkFriesenPPC/videos/484489856099591/
(Around the 30 minute mark)

Is this the “true opposition” party that some people love to talk about? Bernier claims he opposes lockdowns but still supports vaccinating people with God knows what. He even recommends it for his own father. He still (publicly) buys into the narrative, but only objects to the loss of civil rights.

Bernier will also never address the bigger picture. Even if one rejects the depopulation agenda, this “pandemic” is undeniably well planned and coordinated, with much of it being laid out in advance. He won’t get into any of the collusion, the groups making money, the banks, or the lobbying and corruption within domestic politics. Criticism is deliberately done at a superficial level.

This is how a honeypot works. Get someone who appears to be saying the right things — but who won’t tell the complete truth — and pour energy and money into it. Draw out and identify actual patriots, and ensure they will never have any kind of power. Sadly, Canadians are pumping money into them, without asking any hard questions. There’s at least a few of them going around.

People’s Party of Canada
Formed September 2018
-Led by ex-Harper crony
-No leadership race
-No policy votes
-No constitution
-No governing documents
-No national council
-Platform recycled from 2017 “LibCon” race
-EDAs being shut down for not filing financials

Maverick Party (formerly WExit)
Formed after 2019 election
-Led by ex-Harper crony
-No leadership race
-No policy votes
-No constitution
-No governing documents
-Platform in the works (though very recently there was nothing)

When WExit was renamed Maverick, there was a shifting of the goalposts. Instead of outright demanding Western independence, the goal became promoting Western interests within Canada. Perhaps “WExit” was just a temporary name in order to draw donations.

Interestingly, Maverick makes it clear they have no interest in getting involved in Provinces shutting down civil rights, even though the ability to do this was based on the FEDERAL declaration of there being an emergency. Much like the CPC, they mainly criticize the implementation of Trudeau’s tyranny.
Maverick Covid Statement

It’s also worth pointing out that both Hill and Bernier voted to screw over the West on equalization back when Harper was in Office. Jason Kenney did as well.

New Blue Ontario
Formed October 2020
-No leadership race
-No policy votes
-No constitution
-No governing documents
-No platform
-No Provincial Council or some equivalent

Go to their website. It’s completely empty of meaningful content.

The Republican Party of Canada also comes across as a fake party. There is a website, with a few broad strokes of what policies would be nice, but no structure or governance.

There are other ways to control the opposition. Consider the Q-Anon “Trust The Plan” movement, designed to convince Americans that there was an operation to remove the Deep State. It’s kind of like the 1920’s “Operation Trust” to keep the Bolsheviks in power in the Soviet Union.

If chosen correctly, the right kind of person can wreck a movement by driving away normies. An obvious one is Chris (Sky) Saccoccia. While he says a lot of truthful things, the way he goes about them seems calculated to make skeptics look deranged and paranoid. Of course, the “alternative” media elevates and signal boosts him endlessly.

Additionally, those dead-end lawsuits in Toronto can be viewed the same way: an attempt to convince Canadians that something was already under way, and drastic action is not required.

Protests have been largely infiltrated by grifters like Hugs Over Masks, who use it as a business opportunity. Also, marching for an hour and then going back to lockdown doesn’t accomplish anything. Makes them an easy target for the police though.

Notable grifters include the Conservative Party of Canada, and the CCFR, Canadian Coalition for Firearms Rights. Nothing says freedom quite like starting your own line of muzzles. The CCFR is particularly repulsive, claiming to want freedom for gun owners, while profiting off of (forced) mask mandates.

The CPC also has a pharma lobbyist at the head of their National Council. Much like Maverick and PPC, they object mainly to how Trudeau handles things, not the overall agenda.

Is this jaded? Maybe, but we have to face reality.

Posted on

Strategic Cuckery: Why “Conservatives” Will Always Capitulate (My Take)

Note: this is going to be much more opinion based than what is normally presented. That being said, let’s dive into it.

Ever wonder why “conservative” politicians always cave in whenever things get difficult? Think it’s strange that they will never stand behind anything controversial?

Federally, Erin O’Toole comes across as a clown and an unserious person. His predecessor, Andrew Scheer, presents as spineless and standing for nothing. Before that, Stephen Harper had a professional presentation, but was a full blown liberal globalist. He was just better at concealing it. Now, what is the common thread?

The goal is not to stand up for important issues, but to “appear” to stand up for them. However, they will predictably back down at the slightest push back. True, conservatives will often say a lot of the right things in opposition. However, they will always have excuses to do nothing while in power. This includes:

  • People entering the country illegally en masse
  • Amnesty for illegals
  • Open borders immigration policies
  • Multiculturalism agenda replacing traditional societies
  • Allowing private interests to enslave Canada with debt
  • Endless treaties which erode sovereignty
  • Trade policies which outsource local industries
  • Playing along with the climate change scam
  • Weak defense of free speech rights
  • Weak defense of property rights
  • Actively promoting globohomo agenda
  • Celebrating infanticide as “empowerment”

Those are just a few of the issues in Canada that don’t receive anywhere near enough attention in the media. It’s funny though, that these are only problems when Liberals are in power.

And it’s not just Canadian “conservatives” who pull this stunt. It happens elsewhere as well.

How strange it is that Donald Trump, even when Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress, couldn’t get anything done. Odd that the Commander-in-Chief couldn’t send the military to protect the U.S. border. Perplexing that he never used his executive power (for example) to ban birthright tourism, or make e-verify the law nationwide.

This happens in the U.K. as well. Despite being in power for a decade, “Conservatives” can’t seem to fix the boatloads of illegals entering regularly from France. They are unable to deport them as well. Why can’t Home Secretary Priti Patel ever seem to get it done? And Brexit didn’t really need to take 4 years, unless attrition was the real goal.

There is, of course, a simple explanation for all of this: so-called conservatives across the West are simply putting on an act in order to placate the population. By pretending to fight for the interests for their constituents, it pacifies genuine resistance that would grow.

This is made worse by “conservative” media that does little more than prop of the left v.s. right narrative. Too many outlets are just extensions of political parties.

  • The Postmedia empire has many papers which mostly parrot back conservative talking points. This covers pretty much anything with “Sun” in the name.
  • Candice Malcolm (True North) worked as a staffer for Jason Kenney when he was a Cabinet Minister.
  • Jeff Ballingall (Post Millennial) worked on the campaigns of both Erin O’Toole and Doug Ford.
  • Spencer Fernando (National Citizens Coalition) works for Harper’s old organization.
  • Rebel Media — to their credit — does a lot of good reporting. However, their open political advocacy eliminates any claim to being neutral.

Even when there is criticism on the right, it tends to be fairly tepid. This is done to present to maintain the optics of monitoring all sides.

The proliferation of fake political parties doesn’t help the public. It does, however, channel money and energy into movements that are destined to go nowhere.

  • People’s Party of Canada (Bernier)
  • Republican Party of Canada (Carbone)
  • Maverick Party (Hill)
  • New Blue Ontario (Karahalios)

Why are these parties fake? Because it doesn’t look like there is any real effort being made to advance their stated goals. None of them have constitutions or other governing documents, so there is no structure. Nonetheless, all are willing to take your donations.

To summarize: mainstream conservatives do little more than present the illusion of fighting for their constituents. They are aided by friendly media who deflect real questions and criticism. And several “alternative” parties seem to be little more than money pits.

This is not genuine weakness, but strategic cucking.

Q-Anon, was designed to placate millions of decent Americans by convincing them that some secret group was fighting behind the scenes to remove the deep state. While some good research was done, Q-Anon was mainly a psy-op.

In the 1920s, there was “Operation Trust”. The goal of that was to prop up the Lenin Government by spreading rumours that a plot was already underway to remove him from power. Of course, this didn’t exist. But it was successful.

There are parallels with what’s happening now. Politicians and media working together to present the illusion of real opposition. Now, this could all be inane ramblings, or it could accurately describe the world we live in.

If this viewpoint offends people, oh well.

For an interesting critique, check out this video. All of this grandstanding is just putting on a show to distract the peons.

*Disclaimers, Ethics* Proudly powered by WordPress