Canada's Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) has emerged as a highly energetic and articulate defender of the rights of the eight to ten million Canadians who have been labelled by Prime Minister Trudeau, with Hitlerian rhetoric, as “misogynist, anti-science, racist, extremists.”
Why?
Because they have declined to accept injection with an experimental vaccine — a vaccine known to have caused heart damage or death to tens of thousands in North America alone — to reduce, not the risk of infection, but the risk of possibly severe illness from a virus that, in it's currently circulating form, causes symptoms generally difficult to distinguish from those of the common cold.
While I would be happy to expand on the work of the JCCF, the organization does an excellent job of explaining itself, and why you should consider supporting them.
Related:
John Carpay: The Charter has not stopped Canada’s slide toward tyranny
"Because they have declined to accept injection with an experimental vaccine — a vaccine known to have caused heart damage or death to tens of thousands in North America alone — to reduce, not the risk of infection, but the risk of possibly severe illness from a virus that, in it's currently circulating form, causes symptoms generally difficult to distinguish from those of the common cold."
ReplyDeletePLUS
"The weekly Covid Surveillance Reports compiled by the UK Health Security Agency have shown consistently over many months that overall, and except in the youngest age classes, the vaccinated have a Covid-19 case rate several times that of the unvaccinated.
[...]
...Delta infection resulted in similarly high SARS-CoV-2 viral loads in vaccinated and unvaccinated people. High viral loads suggest an increased risk of transmission and raised concern that, unlike with other variants, vaccinated people infected with Delta can transmit the virus. ...
Which is to say, vaccinated persons can pass Covid-19 just as readily as the unvaccinated."
These latter surprising consequences of vaccination would in any sensible society knock out the final remaining plausible justifications for Covid19 vaccination in general-- let alone mandatory vaccination.
"These latter surprising consequences of vaccination would in any sensible society knock out the final remaining plausible justifications for Covid19 vaccination"
DeleteAbsolutely.
But the Western nations are not sensible as the advertising industry long ago proved. Say "Coca-Cola Revives and Sustains" or "Look for the Golden Arches! " often enough and soon you are headed for a nationwide problem with obesity and diabetes.
Say that the unvaccinated are making vaccinated people sick often enough and soon folks will be comfortable about jailing the unvaccinated.
Trudeau loves this, since he's always wanted to be a dictator.
Unfortunately for Canada, Trudeau, if not ousted, will prove to be no God-like father of the nation but a dopey Mussolini-like figure who will ruin the country, which he has already subjected to a World-War-level debt accumulation on the pretext of a cold-like viral infection.
It is almost impossible to underestimate how much is on the line here. If the government receives the power to mandate medical injections, it will have a power, in this day and age, exceeding all previous tyrants and dictators.
DeleteWe have quite the assortment of "treatments" for this and that, in the form of pills, potions, and injections. Look at the array of prescription psycho-pharmaceuticals available now.
The science behind them is sketchy because we do not have very good understanding of the brain and its physiology. (Or, if we do, maybe the uncertainty in this area is due to our unwillingness to discover there is more to the brain than its anatomy and physiology.) Nevertheless, we pop things into the population as if it doesn't matter we don't know what we are doing. You could even make a case this situation was a prelude to what we've been in since 2020.
There was a condition, supposedly, called ADHD. Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder. Mainly it was boys suffering from it. There was, all along, healthy skepticism this was a disorder and not just boys being boys. (An innocent enough state of being.) Nevertheless, ADHD had a kind of official status vis a vis the medical community. Boy comes in, not doing well in school: ADHD. Our good friends the medical doctors made that diagnosis-- that significant diagnosis-- on the basis of almost no clinical observation.
Now imagine the future. There's an adult who dissents and won't cooperate. Aha! The adult is suffering from AIDRMAS. Adult Intelligence Deficit Racist Misogynist Anti-Science disorder. They aren't exactly criminal, no. They are sick! For their good and ours, we must mandate they be treated with XOXCCBMN, a cocktail of substances manufactured by the four or five biggest pharmaceutical corporations. (Keeping them happy, and in the loop.) Those with AIDRMAS treated with XOXCCBMN don't dissent any more, proving this is truly a remedy. (Can this be falsified, though?) They don't dissent-- they don't do anything. They are pretty much numb.
At least XOXCCBMN works (it silences people who question Justin Trudeau's BS and outright lies). That's more than you can say of most psych. medicine as Robert Whitaker makes clear in his review of former director of the US National Institute for Mental Health, Thomas Insel's book Healing, From Mental Illness to Mental Health.. .
DeleteThis is another area where nothing makes sense, really, and that's because there's a political agenda beneath the "science".
DeleteThis is yet another thing I've considered writing a book about. Did you know back in the 1950s the US federal government considered operating enormous psychiatric gulags here in Alaska? They even appropriated lands for these gulags.
It didn't come about, and this presented the state of Alaska with a windfall opportunity.
https://alaskamentalhealthtrust.org/
"The Trust Land Office is contracted exclusively by the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority to manage its approximately one million acres of land and other non-cash assets to generate revenue to better serve our beneficiaries."
The approximately one million acres of land and other non-cash assets are the legacy of the project to establish gulags.
I haven't been able to interest anyone about the history behind this, probably because it seems so kooky and everyone just thinks I'm a kook. When asked how it is these lands and non-cash assets came to be under the control of Alaska and then specifically to be dedicated to mental health funding, no answer. There's no real curiosity, either.
Hmmmn...Are these apathetic people on Prozac?
Thanks for the links. I have an enduring interest in psychiatry and all things pertaining to the brain. (And mind.)
Have you seen Robert Whitaker's review of Thomas Insel's book "Healing, from Mental Illness to Mental Health"?
DeleteWhitaker argues that Insel, who was Director of the US National Institute for Mental Health, fails to acknowledge that the antidepressants and antipsychotics that make up the pharmacopeia of the mental healthcare business, are dangerous addictive drugs that ameliorate symptoms while increasing underlying disease severity, and greatly reducing the rate of eventual recovery.
If Whitaker's assessment is correct, it means that in the present age of chemopsychotherapeutics (to coin a term) the mentally ill are treated worse than in the days of the loonie bin, where the mentally ill were housed and cared for with a greater or lesser degree of kindness until such time as they might recover their mental equilibrium spontaneously.
If that is the case, the question is what kind of home should be provided for the mentally ill. That is, if you think the mentally ill should be cared for at all, which is another important issue here in Canada as Justin Trudeau's Fascist New World Order Government is in the process of legalizing euthanasia for the mentally ill (euthanasia already accounts for 2.5% of deaths in Canada, which must put us right up there with Hitler's Reich).
The idea of shipping America's mentally ill to Alaska certainly implies an inhumane approach. The mentally ill should be housed close to home, family, old friends etc. But the idea of accommodating the mentally ill in a rural setting seems sound. Certainly, if I go bonkers, I'd like to be held in a facility with a garden, at least, and preferably acres of woods to explore.
read Whitaker's article, with great interest. I agree entirely with Whitaker. (It's good for a chuckle to see Insel's physical-- and functional-- resemblance to Anthony Fauci. Good for a chuckle-- and then for an upchuck.)
DeleteI've been down with anti-psychiatry for a long, long time.
It seems significant to remember R.D. Laing questioning whether psychiatry was organized on a medical or on a legal model. You're not diagnosed with a medical condition of mental illness-- you're charged with a mental crime. You're not provided medical treatment, you're given a sentence--- a punishment of some sort. You don't end up with a medical record which might be useful for follow-up or further treatment, you end up with a criminal record which will follow you-- haunt you-- as you pursue employment and career advancement, same as a criminal record.
Once again we're seeing the practices of the USSR or China, which it was automatic to assume we'd abhor (or scorn as silly) cropping up in our liberal societies as perfectly rational and justified. Soviet dissidents were treated as insane, as mentally ill. They disagreed with official Soviet policy because they were nutty. Their reasoning didn't need to be examined-- the psychiatrists knew with scientific certainty it was all irrational.
"In May 1984, Sakharov's wife, Yelena Bonner, was detained, and Sakharov began a hunger strike, demanding permission for his wife to travel to the United States for heart surgery. He was forcibly hospitalized and force-fed. He was held in isolation for four months."
One example.
Another,
"The totalitarian government in Soviet Russia invented a mental illness to lock up resisters. ‘Sluggish schizophrenia’ was a dangerous diagnosis.
"You had to be crazy to oppose Communism in Russia. Or if you weren’t, the Soviet state medical system made sure you were at least classified that way.
"In 1963, Russian poet Joseph Brodsky was seized and sent to a mental institution. At his trial the following year, authorities charged the 24-year-old with “social parasitism” and called him a “pseudo-poet in velveteen trousers.” He had failed to “fulfill his constitutional duty to work honestly for the good of the motherland.”
https://timeline.com/sluggish-schizophrenia-russia-1e12cec4f6e9
"The idea of shipping America's mentally ill to Alaska certainly implies an inhumane approach. The mentally ill should be housed close to home, family, old friends etc. But the idea of accommodating the mentally ill in a rural setting seems sound. Certainly, if I go bonkers, I'd like to be held in a facility with a garden, at least, and preferably acres of woods to explore."
DeleteThe horror of these gulags was they were to be used to imprison American dissenters, to break and ruin them. Under the guise of treating them for mental health disorders. They wouldn't have received any treatment at all.
Alaska would be used as an American Siberia. It would have been pretty much the same. Or-- exactly the same.
Back in the fifties, Alaska was a poverty-stricken, sparsely populated place. (It wasn't even a state. It was a territory of the USA.)Fewer than 100,000 people in a place twice the size of Texas. A bit of fishing, some mining, some logging-- but not much. Seward's Folly. If you got sent up here to some prison camp, it really was out in the middle of nowhere. You wouldn't be influencing anyone. There'd be the possibility you would be buried alive and forgotten entirely.
There is such a thing as mental illness, but there is also such a thing as calling insane anything which steps outside orthodoxy-- and crushing it.
" there is also such a thing as calling insane anything which steps outside orthodoxy" ...
DeleteTo the social climbers and egomaniacal control freaks like Justin Trudeau who reach the top of the ladder, the idea of opposing authority obviously seems insane. They, the climbers, who cow-towed, sucked-up, and did whatever dirty work the elite required of them, in order to themselves achieve power, naturally see social critics, reformers, humanitarians as simply nuts.
And if you judge sanity by social or biological success, then one must acknowledge that the scum that has risen to the top have a point. Problem for the elite, though is that revolutions happen. Then what was orthodox will be denounced by the new elite as bullshit based on lies and delusions.
Which raises the question: who is insane now?