When the International Court of Justice (ICJ) announced that it found it “plausible” that Israel is violating the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, many immediately drew parallels to the Holocaust, suggesting that Israel’s actions were akin to the treatment of Jews under Nazi Germany.
However, this interpretation is not accurate. The common understanding of “genocide” as the “systematic extermination” of a group of people does not align with the definition in the UN’s Convention, nor is it the definition under scrutiny by the ICJ.
In UN law, “genocide” encompasses a broad range of actions, including killing any number of people in a defined group, even a single person, or causing serious mental harm to a member of the group. This expansive definition implies that nations involved in any conflict, anywhere, at any time could potentially face allegations of “genocide.”
Professor Salim Mansur from Western University joins us to explore the implications of the ICJ’s provisional decision and its potential impact on the very existence of the state of Israel.
If you found this presentation valuable please consider making a donation:
🧡 PayPal
Comments Off on 846 – United Freedom Party of Alberta—neither united nor free
Feb072024
Due to the emergence of an officially registered party in Alberta called the United Freedom Party (UFP), we find ourselves forced to conduct some damage control given our own association with Ontario’s officially registered Freedom Party. The two parties have literally nothing in common.
Organizers of the UFP, Luke Denis and Chris Hampton, have described themselves as “extreme right wing Christian conservatives,” whose key agenda includes the advancement of anarchy, libertarianism and the socialistic redistribution of wealth. Citing the “fifth greater re-set event being held right now, from the libertarian sector and the yellow and black anarchist types,” they attribute the current functionality of society on “some kind of magic hootenanny.” Seriously.
Unable to offer an objective definition of political freedom, the UFP organizers suggest that freedom is “the ability to do whatever one wants, so long as it does not ‘harm’ other individuals or the environment.” Among the ‘harms’ it includes in this definition is, for example, the inability or failure of a private road contractor to meet the financial or construction obligations of its contracted agreements. They appear to be unaware that using the so-called ‘harm’ argument to justify restricting freedom was the very ground on which everything from covid injections to wearing masks to mandated lockdowns was justified.
For the most part, the UFP’s perspective on politics and the economy is incoherent, contradictory, and so bizarrely oblivious to any kind of consistency or civilized standard that it is difficult to comprehend what kind of people would support such madness. The principle of justice, due process, or consent is nowhere to be found in their rhetoric. “We don’t need their bloody permission” they say of their fellow Albertans.
At one point it was suggested that Bill Gates should have been “murdered and ripped apart on stage.” They see people like Tucker Carlson and Douglas Murray as mostly “controlled opposition.”
Among the UFP’s bizarrely contradictory and anti-freedom proposals are the following:
The UFP would institute an across-the-board 3% resource tax and provide all Albertans with cheques drawn upon that account “because these are natural resources that we should share.”
In a pure Joe Biden open border policy, the party would “flood the province of Alberta with millions of people from outside the province (doubling Alberta’s population) who would theoretically support and vote for “unity” and “solidarity” though no means of vetting such people was deemed necessary. At the same time the party would expel all current Albertans who disagree with the party’s policies: “Get the ‘f’ out.”
On the democratic front, there is simply no way to reconcile or make sense of the party’s utterly contradictory and illogical proposals. On the one hand they would “remove the power of politicians” to legislate, and would “end the voting process after the UFP is voted into power.” On the other hand, they would encourage people to “vote more furiously in all the time honored ways of voting.” The UFP would also be in favor of “forming a new country” in the province of Alberta and within other jurisdictions around the world.
While they pay lip service to “private education” they claim the right to “educate the sheep” and “if you don’t like it get the ‘f’ out.”
And all this is just the tip of the iceberg of the UFP’s irrationality.
Claiming that ‘unity’ and ‘solidarity’ are their central concerns, one must question the motives of a party that would register in a province where there are already a myriad of conservative splinter groups with those same objectives, including Artur Pawlowski’s political party which had already successfully registered candidates in all of Alberta’s ridings.
Given the utter irrationality and contradictory statements made by the UFP, it’s beginning to look like the only way to define Alberta’s UFP in a way that’s Just Right is as some kind of psyop designed to disrupt and destroy any opposition to the existing regime.
If you found this presentation valuable please consider supporting us:
🧡 PayPal
Comments Off on 845 – Politics is simple—it’s just not easy
Feb012024
The spectacle of thousands of political protesters gathering to “fight tyranny” without having a clue as to how this might be done can only lead to continued tyranny ahead. Though accomplished and expert in their own fields of discipline – whether medicine, law, education, journalism, etc. – most of the leading voices in the “freedom movement” are clueless when it comes to the politics of freedom.
It’s one thing to be able to identify the political condition (tyranny) you’re running ‘from,’ it is quite another to identify the political condition (freedom) you must move ‘towards.’ Calls for ‘unity’ or ‘solidarity’ or for ‘political separation,’ or for ‘creating a republic’ or for ‘changing the electoral system’ are not calls for establishing a free society. They are desperate aimless propositions that amount to a clear admission that the protesters really don’t know what must be done.
This is completely understandable. Most people pay no attention to politics until it is too late. Fortunately, one group that has discovered the fundamental principles necessary to the advancement of individual freedom is the Freedom Party of Ontario, established on January 1, 1984.
A brief review of the party’s myriad of successes in changing and affecting the laws of Ontario makes two things clear: (1) that winning individual battles against the deep state and the political parties of the day is doable, if one employs the proper principles and tactics, and (2) that Canada’s tyranny today is no different than it has been for the past half century and longer. In every respect, municipal, federal and provincial governments in Canada were as abusive of their power and authority in the 1980s as they are today.
Protesting against tyranny and oppression certainly has some limited value. But preventing the next wave of tyranny and oppression demands a political discipline currently not seen in the political arena – one ‘for’ freedom, not merely ‘against’ the latest manifestations of state injustice.
The war for freedom can only be won by those who understand and act on the singular set of freedom based principles that are Just Right.
If you found this presentation valuable please consider supporting us:
🧡 PayPal
Comments Off on 844 – The empire strikes out | Salim Mansur
Jan242024
“A republic, if you can keep it.” Benjamin Franklin’s famous response (Sept 1787) to Elizabeth Willing Powel’s question: “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” was as much a warning as it was a description of an ideal America as a state in which the sovereignty resides in the people and the legislative and administrative powers are lodged in officers elected by them.
It is now 2024 and the republic to which he referred no longer exists. Were he alive today Franklin might be tempted to respond with “An empire – if you can defeat it” as the means of both defining the nation and of recovering its republican status.
Our guest Salim Mansur argues that America’s descent from a free republic to a coercive empire was accelerated and completed during the period between the election of Woodrow Wilson in 1912 and the installation of Joe Biden in 2020. “We are now in a post-constitutional America,” he says.
America’s republican status was dismantled thanks to the imposition of the federal income tax, the 17th amendment which “democratized” the election of senators, the establishment of the federal reserve (1913) and other legislation making “America now the world’s biggest threat to individual rights.”
As an empire, America suffers from the “disease of the empire” which Salim describes as a nullification of freedom at home and the coercion of people abroad. Ultimately all empires are little more than military rule.
Despite all of this corruption and power, the good news is that the vast majority of “we the people” has begun to see America and its global empire for what it has become. With world-wide protests and demonstrations against their own politicians, to say nothing of the unprecedented popularity of Donald Trump, the rulers of the empire are beginning to be uncomfortably aware that their empire may soon be struck out.
For that reason, we are in “uncharted waters” when it comes to predicting what the empire’s elites may do to strike back in their state of desperation. It looks like 2024 will be the decisive year in which Americans will choose between living in an empire or in a constitutional republic. So far it looks like they’ll choose to do what is Just Right by striking out an empire and choosing to keep a republic as their home’s base.
If you found this presentation valuable please consider supporting us:
🧡 PayPal
Upon leaving the Constitutional Convention of 1787 Benjamin Franklin was asked about the kind of government created by him and the other delegates. His response was, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
If Franklin were alive today he would say that the American People had failed. What initially started out as a bold experiment in liberty has transformed into an empire engaged in a “Forever War,” led by the very type of elites the War of Independence was waged to overthrow.
Our guest, Professor Salim Mansur, has described the United States of 2024 as a “rogue state” and the most dangerous enemy of freedom based on individual rights.
Salim puts the start of the Republic’s fall in 1912 with the election of Democrat Woodrow Wilson. It was under Wilson that the 17th Amendment to the Constitution had US Senators elected by the People rather than by the legislatures of the states they were supposed to represent, altering a key aspect of the Republican nature of the country. This change made the Senators no different than the elected members of the House of Representatives.
Adding to Wilson’s ignominious administrative term was the signing of the Federal Reserve Act and the 16th Amendment, which allowed for a federal income tax. No longer did the federal government require the financial backing and consent of the States to wage war. Upon his reelection in 1916 and with these new tools at his disposal, Wilson quickly entered into the Great War already waging in Europe.
If one were to bracket the fall of the Republic at one end with Wilson’s Administration, on this end of history the other bracket would be the installation of the Usurper Joe Biden, installed into the position of President during a ceremony attended not by the American People, but by a select group of elites in a Capital surrounded by razor wire and 25,000 armed guardsmen.
There could be no greater nor obvious symbolism than that spectacle to demonstrate that Franklin’s Republic has fallen and that a New World Order headed by an American Empire has begun.
The video is also available on the following platforms:
Comments Off on 843 – The missionary position—on sex, politics, and religion
Jan182024
“We’re far more divided than we thought – between people who see freedom as God defines it and those who see freedom as they define it.” So declared one Christian spokesman regarding the current “freedom alliance” on the Right.
Surprisingly, his concern was primarily based on differing sexual attitudes and lifestyles: “God created marriage for one man and one woman, for life, and any sex outside of that is a sin and against nature.”
While this choice of lifestyle is perfectly legitimate for those who choose to adopt it, turning it in to a point of division between those who differ is tragically self-defeating. It is as if to argue that no political alliance is possible unless everyone in that alliance uses the missionary position. This is a complete non sequitur in the greater war on tyranny, where the only consensus required for alliance is the acceptance of individual freedom.
Different attitudes on sexuality are unnecessarily divisive when brought into any political sphere or arena. By sexuality in this context we mean disagreements over consentual lifestyle choices, not on the tyranny of gender politics.
Thanks to gender identity politics, sexuality has become yet another area of disagreement and division. But gender politics is not about sex or about sexuality. It is about creating division and conflict in the political arena.
It’s unfortunate that some in the religious community are using their own personal sexual beliefs to create further division. Complete unanimity between differing religious groups, faiths and those who profess no specific religious views is not a necessity in the broader war against the current tyranny.
The current “freedom alliance” need not be threatened from within. All it takes to keep it intact is a consensus of freedom that is Just Right for everyone.
If you found this presentation valuable please consider supporting us:
🧡 PayPal
“When you’re dead, you don’t know you’re dead. The pain is felt by others. The same thing happens when you’re stupid.” And to explicitly conclude the thought of that popular meme: “When you’re stupid and you don’t know it, the pain is felt by others.”
The truth of that statement strikes at the heart of what was experienced in Nazi Germany, thanks to the seemingly willing support that so many German people gave to Hitler. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German Lutheran pastor theologian and anti-Nazi dissident, believed that this was a not a consequence of malice, but of widespread stupidity.
While in a German prison during the Hitler years, he formulated a theory arguing that we must seek to understand the nature of stupidity as stupidity is not an intellectual defect, but a moral one. Stupidity, therefore, is a much more dangerous enemy than malice because one can expose malice and argue against it and even use force to stop it, but this is not possible when dealing with stupidity.
One has but to look at all of the utterly stupid ideas and causes (and quite demonstrably so) being supported in today’s zeitgeist. From Covid to climate change, these stupid fictions continue to be believed by a significant number of people who, as a result, become a danger not only to others but to themselves as well. But having chosen to be stupid, they are oblivious to this reality.
Moreover, this phenomenon of stupidity, observed Bonhoeffer, is most predominant among people living in groups and collectives, and very rare in independent individuals or those who generally live alone. This suggests a strong psychological force at play, and goes a long way towards explaining why the collectivist Left (communism/socialism/fascism) promotes so many genuinely stupid and immoral ideas, policies and ideologies.
Upon a review of the evidence, it would appear that Bonhoeffer’s theory that stupidity is a moral defect turns out to be Just Right.
If you found this presentation valuable please consider supporting us:
🧡 PayPal
