Mar 182024
 


From the 19th-century Pale of Settlement, to the writings of Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern Zionism, to the ongoing conflict in the Gaza Strip, Professor Salim Mansur and Robert Vaughan delve into the significance of Zionism’s history and the establishment of Israel in comprehending contemporary events in the Middle East.

► Salim’s Substack salimmansur.substack.com
► Robert’s Substack robertvaughan.substack.com

Your financial support is always appreciated and is what makes our programming possible.
E-Transfer your donation to feedback@justrightmedia.org
Or via PayPal

Mar 132024
 


Could you be a ‘political atheist’ without even knowing it?

Political atheists are those who have either completely lost their faith in what they believed to be the democratic system, or never had such faith in the first place. Unfortunately, most of these people tend to be found on the Right.

Unlike those on the Left who remain eternally and consistently politically active and therefore monopolize the electoral process, too many on the Right remain uninvolved in any meaningful political process. They may vote during elections from time to time, but even then, they end up voting for candidates of the Left – the Leftist they consider to be the ‘lesser of a given number of evils.’ Even when a true identifiable freedom candidate of the Right is on the ballot, most ‘right-wingers’ still vote Left: “He’ll never get elected.”

And then there are those who never vote or never participate in politics whatsoever. Taken together, these voters and non-voters alike can be considered to be ‘political atheists’ in that they really have no faith in the possibility that anything positive can result from politics. Given the zeitgeist of the day, this is an understandable, though false, belief.

The one reality about politics that no one can escape is the fact that even if you’re not interested in politics, politics is always interested in you. Those who regard themselves as ‘apolitical’ are in fact no less political than any political zealot. Being ‘apolitical’ is just another political ideology. Continue reading »

Mar 062024
 


Once again, Canada’s politicians are on the ‘banning hate speech’ bandwagon, this time in the guise of a piece of legislation being introduced into parliament as Bill C-63.

The proposals contained in Bill C-63 are so bizarre and outrageous that most would dismiss them outright. Like something out of a science-fiction horror fantasy, the bill allows the government to convict, fine, and imprison ‘for life’ people who have not committed any speech offense, but who may do so in the future. Seriously.

How are such people to be identified? Through a ‘complaint’ system in which the identity of the complainant is kept a secret. The complainant can be anyone. As explained by Ezra Levant, “a person may lay an information if he fears that another person will commit a speech offense in the future.” And that’s just the tip of the iceberg of Bill C-63’s unconscionable and immoral proposals.

But more frightening than the contents of the bill itself are the people who would even allow themselves to entertain such evil. Former Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault, who drafted the law, has announced that the government also has a “nuclear option” by being able to make it impossible to access any specific website in the country.

The Trudeau government’s obsession with regulating and censoring the internet suggests that he and his government greatly fear the truth. Truth is, after all, what is being eliminated from any allowable public discussion.

The real immorality of censorship is not just in the fact that it violates the fundamental right of someone to speak freely (which it does) but also because it violates the fundamental rights of those who wish to hear and listen freely. Censorship is less about the speaker than it is about the ‘spoken to’. The speaker is already in possession of the truth; the ‘spoken to’ may not be aware of the truth, and that’s how the politicians of the Left want to keep it.

Given that the Left is always unable to defend its ideology on intellectual or moral grounds, censorship is a great way to avoid that responsibility: “When persuasion fails, just use force.” Censorship is the perfect weapon of violence for those consumed with irrational hatreds that they do not wish to have exposed.

This should not be surprising because when it comes to ‘hate,’ the Left hates individualism, freedom, free speech, private property rights, justice, capitalism, and anybody or anything that is Just Right.

If you found this presentation valuable please consider supporting us:
🧡 PayPal

Feb 282024
 


In their struggle against tyranny, many dismiss ‘philosophy’ while calling for ‘practical’ solutions to a condition that is wholly the consequence of ideas – and ideology. Given that the predominant zeitgeist of today’s culture is primarily on the Left, it should not be surprising that the field of philosophy has been largely discredited and dismissed as a failed subjective approach to the problems and challenges of life. However, this is a tragic error.

Reality dictates that one cannot possibly separate the philosophical from the practical without encountering a contradiction. If the ‘theory’ does not match the ‘practice’ then the ‘theory’ is no longer valid and cannot be regarded as such. The proper response is not to dismiss all ‘theory’ out of hand, but to formulate a theory that does indeed match the practice.

In the fields of ethics and politics, ‘theory’ is often equated with ‘philosophy’ or ‘ideology.’ Each of these terms is properly associated with modes of thinking that lead to certain intended outcomes or results.

So why do so many applied ‘theories’ fail to result in their intended outcomes? For a simple reason: the ‘theories’ are based on a mode of thinking philosophically referred to as the “primacy of consciousness” which stands in direct opposition to the “primacy of existence.” Continue reading »

Feb 212024
 


As victims of COVID-19 government policies, each of the witnesses who testified before Canada’s National Citizens Inquiry (NCI) shared their own unique experience and personal tragic consequences. But what they all truly witnessed in common was the official betrayal of Canadians on a scale once thought to be unimaginable.

Released on November 28, 2023, the final report of the NCI’s Inquiry into the Appropriateness and Efficacy of the COVID-19 Response in Canada permanently places on the record the Canadian government’s intentional misinformation and disinformation campaigns about the COVID-19 pandemic. What is undeniably clear is that Canadians were betrayed by all of their institutions and politicians.

As our guest Ches Crosbie notes, the “censorship industrial complex” must be eliminated before the truth reaches enough people and a proper reconciliation can be pursued. And significantly, the testimonies and information found in the final report can serve as a resource for other betrayed victims who have yet to seek some kind of justice. It is a treasure trove of information for litigation purposes.

Given that the truth is now visible to anyone who cares to look, a call for reconciliation appears to be the next step in the direction that is Just Right.

If you found this presentation valuable please consider supporting us:
🧡 PayPal

Feb 192024
 


The COVID-19 pandemic plunged Canada into a culture of fear and panic, marked by egregious violations of individual rights not seen since times of war. One might assume that the federal and provincial governments would have faced opposition to their unjustified and tyrannical measures aimed at curbing the spread of what amounted to nothing more than a severe flu. However, they did not. Instead, all of “officialdom” supported the measures taken, and anyone who questioned those measures were tormented, canceled, and vilified. Some were even beaten, arrested, and imprisoned.

In turbulent times Canadians normally turn to the mainstream media to pose challenging questions regarding the actions of government, pursue a balanced approach to the available “expert” information, and at the very least document the experiences of Canadians. Not this time. The mainstream media, receiving funding by the federal government since 2019, completely failed Canadians. No probing questions were asked, no alternative opinions were offered, and the negative effects of government actions were ignored. Some legacy media outlets even stooped to inciting hatred and encouraging Canadians to turn on those who did not share the official narrative.

With the lack of responsibility and probity on the part of Canadian officials, institutions, and media, it fell to the People themselves to document the effects of the government’s overreach and offer solutions.

The National Citizens Inquiry (NCI) marked a first for Canada. Citizen-led and funded it traversed the county gathering the heartbreaking stories of 305 victims, the testimony of 94 experts in law and medicine, and over 76,000 signatures on a petition of support.

Ches Crosbie, a Canadian Lawyer and spokesman for the NCI, joins Robert Vaughan to discuss some of the recommendations of the NCI’s final report: Inquiry into the Appropriateness and Efficacy of the COVID-19 Response in Canada, released November 28, 2023, and the disregard of the report by those who would benefit most from its findings.

If you found this presentation valuable please consider donating:
🧡 PayPal

847 – Rules of the game—of definitions

 Comments Off on 847 – Rules of the game—of definitions
Feb 142024
 


A Jan 26 2024 provisional judgement finding it “plausible” that Israel is violating the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide has unleashed yet another epistemological conflict in which the two sides of the debate have been polarized over the valid definition of a concept, in this case, the word “genocide.”

Rendered by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the judgement was made in response to an application filed against Israel by South Africa. Though the definition of “genocide” used by the ICJ is far broader and, to the minds of many, invalid relative to its long accepted “dictionary” definition, this objection fails to recognize the “rules of the game” that were accepted by each of its players long before the first move was made.

“It happens. That’s politics,” explains our guest Salim Mansur in describing the apparent injustice and unequal application of the rules to differing players in the game. As America and other nations escape judgment, Israel appears to be unduly targeted for “genocidal” activities no different from those nations with “veto” power.

In light of the fact that each of the governments involved are signatories to the conditions and definitions being adjudicated, it is important to understand the rules of the definition game in which they are engaged, before attempting to apply definitions and standards proven to be Just Right for most of us not playing games.

If you found this presentation valuable please consider supporting us:
🧡 PayPal