Why the Trudeau Liberals and the O'Toole Tories Are Doomed

 Two weeks ago, news came out that a new covid variant originating in South Africa, Omicron, was spreading around the world.

So far, there is no indication it causes more severe disease, the opposite seems to be the case.

Establishment politicians and the media nonetheless jumped on this story to once again fearmonger and extend authoritarian covid measures.

I’m not worried about this new variant!

I’m a lot more concerned about other diseases like cancer or mental issues.

I’m more concerned about vaccine passport and the loss of our freedoms.

I’m more concerned about censorship and the lack of rational scientific debates in our society.

I’m more concerned that the mainstream media have become the propaganda arm of the government.

I’m more concerned about the acceptance of discrimination and segregation in our society.

I’m more concerned that the government of New Brunswick is allowing grocery stores to ban the unvaccinated.

I’m more concerned that people are losing their jobs because of their personal medical choice.

I’m more concerned about governments deficits and inflation.

The LibConNDP coalition unanimously supports covid tyranny.

Nobody else in Ottawa is raising these concerning issues.

Max Bernier

People's Party of Canada

Related:

Did Britain's 'first Omicron death' die FROM the Covid variant or WITH it? They could have been hit by a bus

28X increase in stillbirths in multiple parts of Canada… The bravest politician in Ontario…

Brilliant response to Ontario MPP's question from the Ontario Minister of Health — Complete bullshit assurance, entirely fact free

Another Study Finds That Natural Immunity Protects Better Against Infection Than the Pfizer Vaccine

Why Would Anyone Who Values Free Speech Use Twitter or Facebook?

No thoughtful user of Twitter or FaceBook can be unaware that political speech on those platforms is censored. Moreover, only the dullest or most inexperienced person can be unaware that Twitter and Facebook censor speech to insure conformity with the narrative of the corporate media. But for the benefit of any who may be unaware of that fact, consider this:

True, when Twitter says "This tweet is misleading" that is, technically, not censorship. 

Rather it is indoctrination, designed not merely to keep you ignorant, but to prompt you to assimilate the official line, namely, that "health officials recommend a vaccine for most people", meaning children, and even babies, presumably.

And  that claim is true. Dr. Fauci, the world's best known Covid-related "health official" apparently wants kids and babies vaccinated. 

The problem with that is that Covid vaccines -- which have not undergone long-term testing for possible harmful effects -- are of no demonstrated or reasonably expected value to children. 

Children infected by Covid19, are usually asymptomatic. Death from Covid among under twenties is extremely rare, and much less frequent than death from the seasonal flu. 

As for Martin Kulldorff, author of the tweet found "misleading" by Twitter? 

Just a Harvard Medical School professor with 20 years experience of vaccine research, which fact prompted Zero Hedge to comment:

Because, of course, a 22 year-old graduate in Whiteness Studies sitting in Twitter’s HQ in Silicon Valley knows much more about infectious diseases than a Harvard professor of medicine.

But if you don't care about your mind being shaped and twisted for profit by Silicon Valley and in the service of the Money Power, carry on Twittering.

POSTSCRIPT:

This just in:

Twitter temporarily suspended Georgia GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s account on Sunday after she tweeted an Easter message.

What was this damnable Easter tweet:

“He is Risen – Death could not hold him. Rejoice in the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

How soon before the US follows the path of the defunct Soviet Union by making the expression or religious faith illegal. 

Related: 

Facebook ‘Fact-Checks’ Woman’s Post on Vaccine’s Adverse Reaction One Week Before It Killed Her

Supreme Court Justice Thomas Suggests Facebook, Twitter Could Be Regulated Like Utilities

Why Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon are More Dangerous than China

And Other Lying Bastards

"It Was Intentionally False": 60 Minutes Slammed For Fabricating "Pay-For-Play" Narrative Against Gov. DeSantis

The Hunter Biden Show: Why Biden's Most "Beautiful Thing" May Be Media Collusion

Headline of the Week, No. 79

eBay Halts Sales Of "Offensive" Dr Seuss Books, Allows Mein Kampf

Related:

Gates of Vienna: The cancelling of Dr. Seuss

Ben Carson Punches Back at the Book Burners With a Poem, 'I Do Not Like to Cancel Books'

Cancelled: The Nazzim of Bazzim riding a Spazzim

How Useless Is Google Search? This Useless

 A while ago, I published a blog post here on Google's blogger relating to the demographic consequences of Covid19. A Google search for Canspeccy +demographic yielded this result (well it did. Which is to say it yielded a bunch of useless and irrelevant rubbish). However, during the 24 hours  after I created the present post, Google's response changed to a link to Canspeccy but nothing about demographics. However, checking some weeks later (December 31, 2020), I see that Google provides a Page 1 link to the post that you are reading now, but not to the one I was looking for which was entitled: COVID-19, an Agent of Demographic Change: How the New Corona Virus Will Change the World. This further change might suggest that Google doesn't like the suggestion that it is running an information racket, although it still won't point to what someone searching Canspeccy blogposts might actually want. 

Is that useless, or what? 

Meantime, a DuckDuckGo search for Canspeccy +demographic yields this result, which includes a link to this blog post, plus the blogpost, noted above, that I was looking for. Originally the link to the post I wanted appeared on the second page of a long list of Canspeccy blogposts concerned with demographics. 

So is Google search total crap, or are we censored? 

Presumably the latter, well both actually, which would explain why our daily hit rate has fallen from peak numbers of over ten thousand to not much more than 100 a day now. 

Do we care? 

No we don't care that almost no one reads our stuff, inasmuch as even if ten thousand a day read it, it would not change the world in any noticeable way.

Yes, we do care that we are ruled by arrogant, corrupt, billionaire techie sons-of-bitches intent on imposing a techie-ruled tyranny upon the world. 

As for why we write despite being firmly muzzled? We do it to know our own mind.

Related: 

Big Tech’s Censorship Is Electronic Book Burning In Real Time

The 2 Necessary Approaches for Ending Big Tech Dominance

FaceBook/Twitter Dirty Tricks Control Your Access to Information

 No matter how much you dislike Trump, only a fool can fail to see the implications for public access to information of the massive suppression on the internet of the Hunter Biden leaks.

This blog has been suffering a ratcheting of social media suppression for years, which reached its apogee in my coverage of the Julian Assange trial. As I reported on 24 September:

Even my blog has never been so systematically subject to shadowbanning from Twitter and Facebook as now. Normally about 50% of my blog readers arrive from Twitter and 40% from Facebook. During the trial it has been 3% from Twitter and 9% from Facebook. That is a fall from 90% to 12%. In the February hearings Facebook and Twitter were between them sending me over 200,000 readers a day. Now they are between them sending me 3,000 readers a day. To be plain that is very much less than my normal daily traffic from them just in ordinary times. It is the insidious nature of this censorship that is especially sinister – people believe they have successfully shared my articles on Twitter and Facebook, while those corporations hide from them that in fact it went into nobody’s timeline. My own family have not been getting their notifications of my posts on either platform.

It was not just me: everyone reporting the Assange trial on social media suffered the same effect. Wikileaks, which has 5.6 million Twitter followers, were obtaining about the same number of Twitter “impressions” of their tweets (ie number who saw them) as I was. I spoke with several of the major US independent news sites and they all reported the same.

Read More

Related:

Tucker Carlson: Why Google Should Be Smashed Into a Thousand Pieces and Scattered to the Winds

The Amazing Stupidity of Social Media Censorship

Olga Shirnina, a photo colorist, had her Facebook account suspended for three days — for posting a colorized version of Evgenei Khaldei’s iconic photo of Soviet soldiers raising their flag above the Reichstag in Berlin in 1945.

As Station Gossip reports, "her appeal against the decision was rejected and she was able to use her account with more than 20,000 followers only after waiting three days, then sending a scan of her driver’s license, which Facebook requested to confirm her identity."

But the good news is that none of of the social media companies have yet seen fit to ban this picture of the worst of the Soviet Commie Killers: Josef Stalin, Mikhail Kalinin (wearing glasses), Kliment Voroshilov and Lazar Kaganovich (left to right) responsible for, among other atrocities of the 1940 execution of 22,000 Polish military officers, policemen, and academics (the Katyn massacre).

Related:
ZH: Silicon Valley Has Effectively Banned The Freedom Of Speech. It's Time We Take It Back

Jewish Media Domination and Censorship

While taking a break from contemplating the intelligence of crows, or some such important matter, I came across a piece by former UK Ambassador, His Erstwhile Excellency, Craig Murray, entitled: The New McCarthyism – The “Anti-Semitism” Hysteria Gripping the UK. In response to a post with which I was in general agreement, I made some short comment. This, however, was very soon deleted, although not before another person had commented on my comment, thereby confirming that I had indeed made, not imagined, my comment.

Such acts of censorship, especially by an avowed liberal such as Craig Murray, irritate me. If my facts or arguments are incorrect, I'd like to know why, rather seeing them arrogantly wiped from the page of the next five minutes of Internet history, probably by some politically correct ignoramus running Murray's blog. Thus I reiterated my comment with some explanation, which in anticipation of its deletion (which occurred within minutes), I reproduce here.

I Thought I'd made a comment here, but no sign of it. But wait, yes, there's Giyane's iynane reply, so I must really have made a comment. Wonder what Craig Murray or his PC filter found objectionable? Let's see, I quoted Craig's claim that:

anti-Semitism is the most emotionally charged of all political accusations. As it should be.

I disputed his conclusion "that it should be," arguing that anti-Semitism is held to be the most awful racism because that is what the mainly Jewish-controlled US media and entertainments industry and the Con/Lib/Lab/BNP Friends of Israel say it is. What's the problem with that?

What I should have added is that the mainly Jewish-controlled US media and entertainments industry are always ready to tell you that criticism of any Jewish person (Bernie Madoff, is one example) or thing (like white phosphorus in Gaza) is anti-Semititic, as is any suggestion that Jews have undue control of the American media, entertainments industry, banks, etc.

Several years ago there was a wonderful debate on the CBC, Canada's national radio channel, chaired by a Jewish person, Anna Maria Tremonte, in which three people participated, two of them Israelis, the third a Toronto Jew. The topic was whether criticism of Israel was anti-Semitic, which, they agreed, it is. Surely, no one would invent such an absurdity, since no one would believe it, yet the reality was presented in all seriousness as informative comment. Well I suppose it was informative, but not of what the participants in the discussion were discussing.

But to revert to CM's act of censorship, was my comment objectionable because I said that Jews control most of the US media and entertainments industry, including the pornography industry? But that is well known and documented by Jews.

For example, as Joel Stein wrote in the LA Times:

I have never been so upset by a poll in my life. Only 22% of Americans now believe "the movie and television industries are pretty much run by Jews," down from nearly 50% in 1964. The Anti-Defamation League, which released the poll results last month, sees in these numbers a victory against stereotyping. Actually, it just shows how dumb America has gotten. Jews totally run Hollywood.

Or as Aberdeen University Professor Nathan Abrams wrote in the Jewish Quarterly:

A story little told is that of Jews in Hollywood’s seedier cousin, the adult film industry. Perhaps we’d prefer to pretend that the ‘triple-exthnics’ didn’t exist, but there’s no getting away from the fact that secular Jews have played (and still continue to play) a disproportionate role throughout the adult film industry in America.

The role of Jews in the US news media is less obvious, for one needs to identify not only the handful of corporate owners of the MSM, but also the directors of these various controlling conglomerates and banks. (There are, it is true, long lists on the Web of Jews in the US media, although I will not embarrass you by linking to anything so "anti-Semitic.").

What is clear, though, is that the US news media (and Canadian), are for the most part extremely cautious in criticizing things Jewish, while often crassly applying the anti-Semite label to anyone critical of Jews, or Jewish institutions, or Israel, such labels being applied even to Americans and Canadians as a whole. Amazingly, such criticism of Israel as does appear in the US news media has been blamed by one prominent Jew on the preponderance of anti-Semitic Jews in the media!

The same fear of eliciting the anti-Semitism charge is true of the British news media. Thus, Chris Elliott, the Guardian's readers' editor, for exam wrote on 6 November 2011:

"Guardian reporters, writers and editors must be more vigilant about the language they use when writing about Jews or Israel," citing recent cases where The Guardian received complaints regarding language chosen to describe Jews or Israel.

Does the media express the same extreme caution, and sensitivity about language used when writing about other groups? Apparently not.