It's a pretty good farm - but don't confuse being the cow with being the farmer...
The Green Island Veritas
Some commentary and letters from outside the box about what gets reported - and what doesn't get reported - in the Canadian MSM. The Canadian MSM never prints the missives, which is understandable, of course - the last thing any con artist needs (or any gatekeeper will allow) is some educated guy telling the marks about the game. But you can read it all here - and for free. Keep your money for beer, it's liberating. In vino veritas. In veritas libertas.
Creative Commons License
The Veritas Morgue

Wha'??
About Green Island

PEI Revival Plan
(historical document)


Some Essays on the General Situation

How Democracy Works on Green Island

Canada - a managed democracy

Managed Elections In Canada

911 Thought Experiment

Get Rid of the Beancounters! - Fixing the Canadian Health Care System


contact



other 'outside the box' readings




"Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth." - Henry David Thoreau


It's every man for himself, the elephant said as he danced among the chickens.
- Tommy Douglas



In this world, we are all butterflies and we need to be mindful of what can happen when we flap our wings
- David Suzuki



What Canada looks like from outside the Walls of Indoctrination

Case study: Canada - a managed democracy


Oct 2 2006
One of the few Canadian columnists (in the MSM at any rate) who sees clearly and speaks honestly: James Travers at the Star - Zaccardelli must resign — or be fired: "...Senior bureaucrats are now reassured that this government won't demand more from them than the last. Ethics, accountability and responsibility are just wispy concepts with no real-world application... If that's good enough for Conservatives, then Conservatives aren't good enough for Canada."



October 2/06 Ottawa Sun
In the box: Night of the Living Dead - nothing serious about the column in itself, Weston is one of the better Sun columnists (somewhere around the middle of the political spectrum like most Canadians, seems to have some intelligence and use it rather than being another rabid brainless slobbering 'HATE LEFTIES (and anything that looks good for 'we the people')!!!!' neocon attack dog like so many of them), but the column just points out with some factual stuff what a farce (at best, criminal activity a lot of the time) the whole party system not only is, but has been for many, many years, since honesty and integrity got booted from Canadaland in general, at least those aspects of your society that 'govern' y'all there. Yea, this stuff was going on before the neocons took over, but it was much more circumspect, and there were a lot of people who apparently actually understood the concepts of 'public service' and integrity and the better human qualities in older days, and the corruption was sort of under the table stuff - now, as the kids say, corruption rules, and with no apologies, get over it (can you recall anyone actually apologising for the crap that went on during the so-called 'Adscam' scandal that was exposed like slime coating the whole political system during the Gomery investigation etc? Not a frigging word from ANYone of apology!!!)! - actually, as various judges have pointed out the last few years in cases I cannot be bothered to look up, Canadians who expect 'honesty' or 'truth' from politicians really ought to grow up. Canadaland. Capitalism. The modern world. Get over it. Get on the train or get left behind, loser! But some of us can't accept it that easily. So there's Green Island. It's interesting to note that all the MSM carry this story in one form or another, but there is not - a - single - WORD that maybe, just maybe, this kind of stuff indicates the entire system is in need of some serious overhauling - they can't do that, because the power of the corps and the elite to run the country sort-of surreptitiously, as they have been doing for a long time, is very much tied to this party system of government - think as you read on how easy it is to corrupt and control the relatively small number of people who control the parties - and how utterly impossible it would be to control all or most of the people in a real democracy ..... (and you can see the rest here)



Sept 30/06 Toronto Star
In the box: - it is always of interest to those observing these things from a distance how a major Canadian newspaper - one that is supposed to be representing the 'left' point of view insofar as that point of view gets represented at all in the Canadian media, can find room to carry literally dozens of stories each week of no more actual importance to the running of the world as this - Brad Pitt has another passion—architecture - and yet,

Out of the box: - - it can not carry any mention at all of something like this, a story that has a great deal of bearing on the future of Canada, that Canadians ought to be debating at length - Toward a North American Union. But then again, that is the difference between a democracy of, by and for the people, such as we enjoy on Green Island, where We the People make all important decisions, and a 'democracy' of, by and for the corporate elite, such as you have there in Canadaland, where the citizens get their instructions from their tv sets, and otherwise let the rulers get on with the important business of running the country, something the plebes are much too unintelligent to ever be allowed to participate in in any real sense. (And I say that in the most sincere way, not mocking or sarcastic or anything like that at all - if the citizens of Canadaland were intelligent enough to be participating in the running of their country, they would be doing so. That they are not (participating, that is), says about all that needs to be said, and there's not really much point in ragging on about it.)

If I ask you how many fingers I am holding up, Winston, does that question have any meaning to you at all?



Sept 30 Toronto Star
In the box: Students doing their homework — on how to cheat - and various pious comments about how to control those darn dishonest students .....

Out of the box: - - in which we note there is not a single word in the story that might indicate this problem extends far beyond the students themselves - that is to say, the students are just following the examples of what they see in their society, in which they realise that any talk of 'honesty' or 'integrity' and stuff like that is just sh** for the sheep - the 'real winners' in society, which of course they all want to be, understand that s/he with the bucks rules, and any way you get those bucks is fine, as long as you don't get caught. Capitalism in a nutshell - and which you will NEVER hear a word about in vain in the MSM.

How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?



Sept 30
An out-of-the-box 911 Thought Experiment


Sept 29 - Honorary Green Islander
We Don’t Need Them - by by Joe Carpenter: "...Time to wake up, time to grow up. We’re not children. We do not need to ask permission to live like sane, reasonable, thoughtful, compassionate human beings. We do not need to beg or bow or kneel. We do not need to look to government or to experts or to the rich and famous. Whatever we need, we can get it ourselves. Whatever we want to stop -- we can stop it ourselves. Whatever must be done, we can do it ourselves. We do not need them; we need each other. " - well said, Joe. On Green Island, we understand. In Canada, apparently not.

And Joe begins with a quote from a guy called Orwell, who surely dreamed of Green Island, as he described the dystopia he watched taking over his world, that is getting closer and closer to our own - "...But the proles, if only they could somehow become conscious of their own strength, would have no reason to conspire. They needed only to rise up and shake themselves, like a horse shaking off flies. If they chose, they could blow the party to pieces tomorrow morning. Surely, sooner or later, it must occur to them to do it? And yet . . . "

How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?



Sept 28/06 Gov of Can
This is right off the gov web page - Canada’s New Government cuts wasteful programs, refocuses spending on priorities, achieves major debt reduction as promised - "Canada's New Government...." (a guy was actually fired in BC a couple of weeks ago for refusing to use this phrase in EVERY email or communication he had with anyone anytime, although he did get rehired after someone realised how totally idiotic they all were looking, not to mention some much unkinder things they could be called) - I can't get into this, if you do not see the utter juvenileness of this, which reflects the entire mindset of all of these people, there isn't much hope. But then again, it appears that is the case - there doesn't seem to be much hope. Dumbing down is showing through - the idiots really are in charge, and proud of it, and the average Canadian evidently doesn't much give a fuck. Remember when you write to your friends in the future to mention (with caps!!) - Canada's New Government... - in some way or other (but you'll be much less likely to receive a visit from the thought police if you have something nice to say about Canada's GREAT New Government rather than otherwise.)

How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?



Sept 28/06 - CBC Radio, Charlottetown
In the box: - they just had a long interview with some lady saying how bad it was that the province was relaxing the regulations for car seats for children. I don't want to get into that particular argument, just the somewhat larger one of 'what is the role of the public radio station in Canada'? - to promote government programs, or to provide 'neutral' news and commentary to the people it is supposed to be serving? I suppose, of course, you have to first define all of that stuff, and then decide WHO defines it (that is to say, I have little doubt that basic sorts of terms like 'family values' or 'freedom' would have considerably different definition from, oh say, a guy called Harper and a citizen of Green Island). Is it the role of the media to be promoting the inherent values of one of these groups or another, or not? It really goes to the heart of the society - are the government and media working together to try to get the people to behave in a certain way? If so, for whose benefit? And if so - how do you call that society a 'democracy'? Are you going to pretend that everyone believes that all of these 'do this to protect yourself!!!!' laws are desired by the people? I would wager that most people would say such things make sense, but they do NOT want those things as laws (why do you suppose NO political party has EVER offered support for such laws as a campaign promise? You know as well as I - any party that ever said "We will make a law to force everyone to (for instance) wear seat belts!!!" - would ensure their defeat - people do NOT like much this kind of law. So the parties get elected, and then for some odd reason decide they need to pass all of these paternalistic (or maternalistic, take your pick, I'm as much worried about 'Do as Mother Says!!!' these days as Big Brother) laws.

Anyway, the point is not that the CBC has such people on the show, they should, really, that's what public radio is for, for everyone to get a chance to air their views, if they want to do that - but the announcers should not be acting as if such people were preaching 'these are just such good and commons sense things that everyone should be doing them what is WRONG with you?!?!?!' - they should be a great deal more neutral about it all, and also offering some equal sort of time to people with opposing points of view. It is NOT the role of the media to be leading people around hand-in-hand with the gov - OUR media, the PEOPLE'S media, should be just giving us a full spectrum of news and views, and not only letting, but EXPECTING, that We the People will decide what is to be done. NOT accept being told what to do by those who know best on the CBC or anywhere else.

That is to say - whose friggin country is it, anyway?!? (On Green Island, we know the answer to that - do you there in Canadaland?????!!!!!!!?????? - think about it........)



Sept 28 Toronto Star
Ooooeeeee!!! Is that smelly mama!!!! - Memo shows Tories fear Ignatieff most - the last few days there have been a few stories about how various polls were showing that Rae was looking good as the front runner, which the Big Guys probably didn't like too much, as Rae still has those nasty old socialist ties. He's a capitalist socialist, really, pretty in the box guy, but still closer to the 'grassroots' than Ignatieff will ever be; I don't think it really makes that much difference, it's all the old shell game, but I suspect Bay St would be happier with Ignatieff. Anyway, this 'story' really smells - it's sort of like a hint to the Lib candidates this weekend, right? Do you really want to beat the Harpers? Then THEY feel most afraid of Iggy, so go for him!!!! - it's pretty classic and simple 'lead the mark where you want him to go but make him think he got there himself' stuff - but Canadians have shown a great susceptibility to that kind of thing over the years, so why shouldn't they keep doing it? Here on GI, of course, we do real democracy and not this phony party stuff, so most people aren't that interested, except in a theoretical sort of sense - how can people keep doing this, and keep thinking they are 'free'? is the question of the day - but most of G Islanders don't spend much time worrying about it, got real lives to be getting on with and stuff like that. Our sympathies, though, and if you ever want to break out, we'll be here for ya.


Sept 25/06 CBC (The Current)
In the box: U.S. Midterms: - in which we hear a very boxian discussion of the upcoming US midterm elections, between a Rep and a Dem, both very much insiders in the know, sparring heatedly but with no particular animosity, good folks with honest disagreements about the proper way to run the country, etc. Not a single word or even hint about all the controversy the last few years about fixed or stolen elections there - which it seems is almost a certainty, really, the whole system has been a bad joke since the "supreme" court appointed Bush the first time in 2000 (to a rather deafening silence from that great democratic protector the US media, not to mention the Dems themselves - who speaks for the average American? Certainly not the average politician or mainstream media.) to the stunning discrepancies between the exit polls and final results a couple of years ago.

Out of the box: - - well, just google Diebold (or for the most recent and thorough examination of the situation, Robert Kennedy's recent article in Rolling Stone). Most interesting that the CBC wants to have its readers believe there is nothing, no sir, nonono!! absolutely NOTHING!! controversial about the American electoral system that it wants its listeners thinking about - whatever happens in the US mideterms, it will be the Reps vs the Dems in a fair contest, and the outcome will certainly express the clear will of the great American people. I knows, it makes me wanna barf too just writing it. No more. But here in Green Island, we carry stories like this, so our people can see just exactly what a bunch of lying propagandists these folks really are. Good propagandists, they pay well and get good people, not shrill idiots like you see on Fox or the cheaper Canadian media outlets (some of the columnists in the Sun papers are real idiots, no doubting it) - but propagandists nonetheless. And they can get a bit shrill sometimes when they have to have someone on they don't really like to keep up appearances of being 'fair', and that person manages to get outside their desired script a bit - but that doesn't happen often.

Here on GI, we just carry it all, and let our citizens sort it out - it's their Island, it's their job to decide who is reliable and who is not - our job at the Veritas is just to make sure they get it all, not decide what they should have. I guess the Canadian MSM and the Green Island Veritas are similar, in a way, we are both free, and both responsible, actually - it's just that the Canadian MSM are responsible to their corporate masters above all, and we are responsible to the people of Green Island. (Chomsky has some thoughts on how and/or why it is that the media can be such propagandists at some times, and yet at others seem to be truthful, which is one of the more serious questions those who deny the propaganda role of the media try to use to keep people believing - he says, in a quote copied from here:

... Sam Bowles and Herb Gintis, two economists, in their work on the American educational system some years back... pointed out that the educational system is divided into fragments. The part that's directed toward working people and the general population is indeed designed to impose obedience. But the education for elites can't quite do that. It has to allow creativity and independence. Otherwise they won't be able to do their job of making money. You find the same thing in the press. That's why I read the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times and Business Week. They just have to tell the truth. That's a contradiction in the mainstream press, too. Take, say, the New York Times or the Washington Post. They have dual functions and they're contradictory. One function is to subdue the great beast. But another function is to let their audience, which is an elite audience, gain a tolerably realistic picture of what's going on in the world. Otherwise, they won't be able to satisfy their own needs. That's a contradiction that runs right through the educational system as well. It's totally independent of another factor, namely just professional integrity, which a lot of people have: honesty, no matter what the external constraints are. That leads to various complexities. If you really look at the details of how the newspapers work, you find these contradictions and problems playing themselves out in complicated ways....


Noam knows. And that reasoning surely applies to the major Canadian media such as the CBC, the Star, the Globe, Macleans, etc - the Canadian elite media. And others.)



Sept 21 06 (Happy Autumn!)
Letter to Lib Leadership candidate Martha Hall Findley: A bit more substance, please ....

HI Martha, info@marthahallfindlay.ca

- greetings from Thailand, where I came as a CUSO volunteer in 1994 and find myself still here - not with CUSO, but teaching English at the medical faculty of a university in the south here. I really don't like Canadian winters, at least the PEI version of them, and also have poor job prospects in Canada given my disinclination to be a corporate wage-slave, compared to here which is quite comfortable really. But I have been watching and writing about and even occassionally active in Canadian politics for over 20 years (my last job actually before coming here was spending a year working with Mel Hurtig's National Party and then running as a candidate in the 93 election in PEI, not that I have any political ambitions but we promised to run candidates in every riding and we were short, so I did it. A learning experience in many ways. But I know you must be very busy, so I won't get into any of my history, just a brief note that I have some creds for my comments.) I write because I heard
your interview on the Current yesterday morning (Thursday Sept 21) and was quite impressed. We desperately need some of the things you were talking about in Canada, primarily a lot more bottom-up input into what gets done by the Canadian government, rather than top down, as we seem to increasingly have had, esp since Mulroney and the neocons took over the country. This did not improve much under the Libs of Chretien and Martin, unfortunately - they talked a better show as their part of the 'good gov-bad gov' game we've been playing since the Mulroney era, but the realities didn't change much, got worse actually as Martin bragged about taking social spending back to levels not seen since the early 1950s. Tweedledee-Tweedledum government, for all practical purposes, a big shell game show for Canadian voters, many of whom are starting to understand this, and who are also increasingly understanding that the trust they once had in their government has been used and badly abused and is, to a large extent, now lost. A trust which you talk about restoring, which is a good idea.

Unlike Charlie Brown, however, my trust, once broken, is not easily regained (and I suspect, given voter turnout in Canada and many polls, a lot of Canadians feel as I do). There are some things I wonder about in the aftermath of your interview, and after a look around your website. I know I am but one voice in the wilderness, but I also know I am not alone in the wilderness of Canadian politics, and you just might attract a lot of attention from a potentially large constituency if you could give some satisfactory answers to the following questions: (and you can see the rest here)



Sept 19/06
Veritas recommends: - things you would never find in the Canadian MSM, who prefer, as do all gatekeepers, to direct their readers to certain places, or away from others, but on Green Island we offer to our fellow citizens as wide a range of views as we can, for everyone to peruse and discuss and put into their knowledge banks, to consider when making decisions about what to do, because we want to make the best possible decisions for all of us, and that means the more we all know the better (somewhat contrary to the Canadian MSM, of course, who actually want to guide the average Canadian citizens in certain ways that benefit the Canadian Elite at the expense of the average citizens, and thus knowledge of many things would make that difficult to do):

Who's dumbing down the CBC? - who indeed? (the report I just heard from the UN about the Iranian president's speech was pure bias-masquerading-as-'journalism', very shameful stuff for the CBC, full of loaded words and lies - the reporter said the pres's talk was full of 'vile suggestions' or something like that, and at one point he (the reporter) said 'although he didn't once again suggest Israel be wiped off the face of the earth' - but the Iranian pres never did say that! - it was a rather intentional mis-translation. But the CBC doesn't care much about truth anymore, or 'fair and unbiased' reporting. I listen to a couple of the shows quite often, and the female announcers make no secret about which people they like (easy questions, calm tone of voice, etc) and those they don't (real chippy and challenging, tone of voice mocking and aggressive, etc) - this is NOT how the greats of the past behaved - fair interviews for all was the order. It's called professional - they aren't anymore, they're a cut above Fox or somebody as they still get the odd interviewee on from a perspective they aren't pushing (more propaganda and amateurishness), but they're sinking fast, in the wrong direction.

Speaking of - it's a bit rich to hear all the journalists the last day or two, including the CBC, teeing off on the cops and spies after the Arar report, considering that all of the booga booga they have been doing the last 5 years probably contributed considerably to the attitude of the cops/spies etc that they were doing the right thing by lying to 'protect' the country from the monsters attacking it - after all, better that a few innocents are inconvenienced than a lot of innocents suffer, or something, seems to be the general mindset of all involved. The media, all of them, have been anything but 'fair and balanced' the last few years - so why would they expect the cops to act any different? It was always a failing of the O'Connor inquiry that the role of the media in helping to establish the general climate in the country in which this occurred was never examined - a failing, but not a surprise - as we sort of laugh cynically when we hear about the cops investigating themselves (they ALWAYS find that whatever happened they acted just wonderfully, and the perp shot himself or whatever), we shouldn't be that surprised when about the last thing you might expect of the Canadian MSM is an honest evaluation of their weaknesses and faults (which are not inconsiderable, although you'd never know it from listening to them). Some day. Some day, they will be called to explain a few things as well - and they are not going to look a hell of a lot better than the RCMP and CSIS etc do in the Arar report.

IAEA exposes US committee’s lies on Iran’s nuclear programs - World Socialist Web Site - always good articles on what is really happening in the world. We always know what the Bush and Harper people are lying heh heh sorry saying about the nefarious plans of the New Hitler - but maybe there are some other things we ought to be reading as well.

Ludicrous Diversions - a film about the London subway bombings last year - there's no way to tell what really happened here, or why, without a full investigation (which we are unlikely to ever get) - but for the same reasons the whole 911 conspiracy theory falls apart when looked at even a bit closely, so does the official version (conspiracy theory) of this. We are not going to be safe around here until we get rid of the liars and criminals who are running our countries, and the very first step in doing this is to start digging for truth. These folks may or may not be 100% correct about what they say - but they sure have a lot of questions that really need to be answered. And they're not the only ones. Speaking of films, for instance, you ought to check out 911 Mysteries - 1 Demolitions - a new entry into the 911 searching for truth movement (Loose Change and In Plane Sight are the other two main ones, although there's quite a few others around, check both Google Vid and YouTube for starters), and very well done, kind of makes it hard to believe in the official conspiracy theories. There's 3 half hour segments, you can dig up the other two at the same place. Some time in the future people are going to look back at this time maybe like we look back at the way Germans followed Hitler after the Reichstag fire, or maybe the way the people a few hundred years ago simply killed people who dared say the earth might be round, shaking their heads in wonder, at how so many people could look at those buildings falling down, so obviously some kind of controlled demolition to anyone with a functioning brain and any sort of knowledge of how the world works, and wonder where and how the mass delusion took over that their destruction was caused by a plane crash and small fire. Related to 'dumbing down', I suppose, where I started, that has been going on for some time. Watch tv, believe what you are told, don't think for yourself that's what 'experts' are for.

But that's all changing - here on Green Island, anyway, where we insist people think for themselves. No lemmings allowed, no mass indoctrination machines like tv, no 'lies 'r' us' governments or media, no dumbing down, no lots of stuff the masters in Canada insist on - just freedom. it's kinda like sex, scary at first, but then you wonder why you didn't start sooner.

And one more, a very good writer from England, William Bowles, who publishes at INI (Investigating New Imperialism) - not the catchiest title, but his writing is very good, and he's a real truth lover. He'd like Green Island.



September 17 2006

Dishonest 'debunking' of 911 conspiracy questioners

Dear Ms Johnstone,
I write concerning your article in the Sept 15/06 edition of Counterpunch, 9/11: In Theory and in Fact, In Defense of Conspiracy

You have seemed to be a person of some credibility over the years - I first recall noticing your writing following the Yugoslavia bombing, when you were one of the few who dared speak out against those undertaking this attack, and their false justifications for it. You don't seem like an intellectually dishonest person, yet this Counterpunch article very much meets that description, unless you have been seriously misinformed about the whole 911 truth movement (which is not actually a 'conspiracy theory', as no actual theories are put forward by most people, simply some fairly serious questions about how the official conspiracy theory does not make much sense in a lot of places, indeed there are a lot of things that seem like lies, and many others that seem highly implausible at best, with some somewhat more plausible explanations offered in return).

So I wonder if you are not simply somewhat misinformed about the 911 truth seekers and their actual questions, perhaps through an over-reliance on the mainstream media for your information on this topic - your piece certainly reflects a lack of knowledge of many of the things we believe indicate that the official conspiracy theory is highly unlikely. It may well be, of course, you are simply, for whatever reason, joining the 'debunkers' in an effort to silence those who question the official conspiracy theory, in which case the actual things that we believe represent the strongest indications that 911 was indeed an inside job will be of little interest, and you will relegate this email to the wastebasket anytime now. So not knowing where you stand, please forgive the brevity of the following, and the lack of detailed references - I would be happy to provide such if you wished, or you could check out any of the major 911 truth sites for such things, but I do not wish to spend a lot of time on something that may be speaking to ears that have no interest in hearing what I say. (and you can see the rest here)



Sept 16/06 Globe and Mail (and most others)
Pope's comments draws ire of Islam - you just can't say enough about religious people, well-meaning and even good though many of the followers are. Here we have the head of the whole Catholic church, probably the most powerful religious figure on earth, offering a fairly serious insult to people he KNOWS react very badly to such things, and then trying to say he didn't mean to insult them (wasn't there some commandment about lying? Long crumpled into dust, I guess, in this modern world). The awesome hypocrisy leaps right out at one as well - the leader of the Catholic religion daring to accuse anyone else of trying to enforce their religion through violence! - does the man recall a guy called Torquemada, and some of the worst torture in history (in a world where a lot of serious torture has occured in its history)? Does he recall the murder of millions of native Americans by the Spaniards and others in the name of spreading their religion, the murders and other terrible atrocities spread all through Africa and Asia by 'Christian' missionaries? A certain Bush telling the world not so long ago that his 'god', the same one this Pope guy pretends to believe in, told him to go and slay various heathens? The infamous Salem witch hunts by Bush's very ancestors? Does he remember the slogon on the belt buckle of the Nazi soldiers, confirmed by all the German priests and ministers? The Catholic church in particular, and so-called Christian churches in general, have been responsible for more death and violence and misery and torture in the world than anyone else ever, probably everyone else combined. And he has the outright brazenness to act as if none of that ever happened.

I don't have a lot of sympathy for the Muslim crazies screaming and shouting again about somebody 'insulting' them either. That's just so clever - you accuse our religion of violence, so we're gonna perform some violence - to what? I am missing something here. Perform violence to prove you were lying when you accused us of violence?

Why do the crazies always seem to dominate everything> Why don't the moderates everywhere of any religion calm them down, or tell them to stop using 'their' god for ends they do not approve of? I don't care if you want to believe in a god of love and peace, we can get along ok, what you believe is what you believe - but when fanatics from any of the religions start parading around the world killing 'heathens' who do not believe in their particular god, we ALL have a big problem.



September 16 2006

Freedom causes terrorism?!? I don't think so ...

Editor, MacLean's (letters@macleans.ca, jandrewpotter@rogers)

Re the latest Potter column, If security fails, there is always a scapegoat: freedom, Sept 12/06 :

Although Mr Potter comes to a good conclusion -

"...When it comes to improving security, it is not always necessary to sacrifice some of our freedom. And if in trying to trade freedom for security we end up repudiating our fundamental liberal values, then perhaps we shouldn't try to do it all..." -

- I must disagree rather strongly with one of his earlier statements. He says as part of his intro that ".... Faced with a new terrorist plot, successful or not, we instinctively blame it on a surfeit of freedom. Were the terrorists radicalized at a mosque in northeast London? There must be too much freedom of religion. Did they try to smuggle a bomb onto a plane by hiding it in a water bottle? Too much freedom of carry-on luggage..."

The cause of what is labelled as 'terrorism' is NOT 'too much freedom', and I don't know of too many people who actually think that. The Bush-Harper gang, for instance, have stated repeatedly that 'terrorism' is simply a 'blind ideology of hatred' (check Harper's 911 speech), and a 'hatred of western values and freedoms and democracy', etc. - utter nonsense, of course, but quite obviously NOT referring to 'these terrorists actions are caused by too much freedom in our countries' (although their response is, of course, to start hacking away at our 'freedoms' such as they are, which may have been what Mr Potter meant to say). (and you can see the rest here)



Sept 16/06
In the box: A city mourns - lots of words and grief and analysis about the violent death of a young woman - which was tragic to be sure.

Out of the box:
- Darfur toll 'at least 200,000': - but in the Canadian media I've looked over today, hardly a word about this. Two hundred thousand people, suffering horrible deaths from violence. The only current story in the Canadian media is Clooney, Wiesel warn UN of genocide in Darfur - a very neutral, non-emotional coverage. MmmHmm - ok, done our duty, now let's get on to something important. I don't seem to recall the Taliban killing 200,000 people, no talk of this sort of thing at all, really, just huffypuffy about treating women bad and things (that's not a good thing to do, but let's keep it in perspective, folks, yes?) yet we're by god doing our humanitarian duty there, invading and bombing and killing kids on motorcylces to bring them damned savages Democracy and make them people FREE PRAISE THE LORD YEAAAAAA (and not to forget our Brave Soldiers STAND WHEN YOU SAY THAT CIVILIAN!!)!!. Then there was a whole lot of OHMYGOD stories about the 'genocide' in Yugoslavia-Kosovo a few years back, inciting everyone to get on board the bombing of that country to get rid of a guy called Milosevic - and then it turned out there was no 'genocide' at all, just a few thousand deaths of mostly combatants on either side of a civil type war (no, it wasn't a wonderful thing, the point is the lies to get Canadians to support bombing the place) - but in Darfur, in the Sudan, a couple of hundred thou confirmed dead, reminiscent of a place called Rwanda where our reaction was much the same as that situation developed, and a high probability of more to come - why aren't the media screaming about this, and demanding intervention? Why the silence? I'm just trying to find the 'ratio' here, to use a legal term - that is to say, consistency requires that one responds the same way to any stimulus, not sometimes jumping up in a panic and sometimes barely opening the eyes with a 'yea, ok, what do you want ME to do about it?' look - doesn't it? If one brutal death is horrible (and it is) - then why aren't we all completely outraged beyond words at 200,000? How can we sit back and pay no attention? If we have pages of newspaper space devoted to honoring 3,000 dead in New York, why almost nothing about hundreds of thousands of others equally brutally murdered, in various places around the globe over the last few years? Why not some excited discussion about mobilizing everything we have to prevent the imminent killing of another hundred thousand?

loooooooooooooooooooong 'pregnant' as they say pause.

naaaaaahhhhhh. say - did ya hear the latest baseball scores?



Sept 15/06 CBC
In the Box where Stupidity reigns: Harry Potter an airport security threat



Sept 15
Honorary GIslander - 9/11, Propaganda, and You



Sept 14, Toronto Star
It's embarrassing to be a Canadian some days: Sean Penn leaves authorities fuming - and in the end, the vision is, a little world of perfect automatons, dancing around to the orders of a little girl's fantasy sandbox world, do what mommy tells you or mommy will get angry! .... man, these people must have sphincters you couldn't open with a bomb .... YOU VILL DO VHAT YOU ARE TOLD!!!!!!!

(UPDATE: The Star again, couple days later, BUTT OUT SEAN PENN!! - we got trouble right here in River City folks - "... The 44-year-old so-called Hollywood bad boy puffed on cigarettes at two separate news conferences this week at the Sutton Place Hotel in open defiance of Ontario law. ..." - and "Shame on you, Sean Penn..." - the country's leading newspaper, upset to the point of pouting on the editorial page about a man smoking. I hope to f*** I wake up in a sane world some day. But the way things are goin (as John said) they're gonna crucify anyone who dares to think for themselves first. Sanity is not winning the day on our planet. The idiots are running everything. Ohoh - catch ya later - somebody's beatin on my door, gotta flush my butts down the toilet and spray the Pine scented stuff.... - do you people really LIKE living in a country like that?!?!?!?!?)



Sept 13/06
2006 911 Ceremonies: A Major Test of the Efficacy of Deep Indoctrination (DI) and Full Spectrum Propaganda (FSP)

Sept 11 2006 (and some days before and after), the media consumers of Canada are presented with many things, but with a common theme:

* Fighting terrorism requires sacrifice: Harper
* Our shared bond with US stands
* Canadian general who led NORAD on 9-11 praises its performance, considering
* We must 'sacrifice' to stop terrorists, PM says

- and etc and etc and etc. All the lies of the last five years, terrorists here, terrorists there, poor innocent civilians in danger, government needs to protect us, etc etc etc, trotted out again.

- and ALL of the 911 stuff we saw on Monday etc is full scale booga booga, FSP, DI, and the rest, with two purposes - reinforcement for those who believe in the box, and a warning and strong push to get those people who are having bad ideas back into the box, with some feelings of intimidation from the fierce show of solidarity and belief in the leaders and 'official story of everything' shown by the mass of the indoctrinated population; many people have questions about a lot of the things that have happened and are happening, but few, in the absence of validation from their trusted media, are ready to stand alone with their questions and receive a beating or worse from a mob of patriots (or LCD fanatics) for daring to speak them in public on such days when public fervor for the central emotional rallying fever of the box is high, or otherwise risk the scorn of their 'peers' and ostracization from the social group.

Of course, that truth is never spoken by anyone, as so many truths aren't in Canada and the modern world - we are all supposed to believe that we are actually paying solemn tribute and honor to innocent people who died tragically at the hands of evil people, and to others who now defend us all from the same evil people, and reaffirming at the same time, very publically, our loyalty to and solidarity with the great free country we live in, its great democratic form of government, and our great leaders. At such times, of course, we simply MUST stand together en masse - absolutely NOBODY could call themselves a True Canadian and not believe in these wonderful things, and stand shoulder to shoulder with our fellow citizens in solidarity against the evil doers in the world.


Which is pretty hard to argue with.

And it is mostly lies.

And it is indeed tragic, as we build and maintain a false society on a sandy foundation of lies that will weaken and crumble as the tide comes in, when we could change things just a bit and be building on a solid bedrock of truth.


Most of the box people are good people. That is true. It is human nature to be good, to get along with one's fellow creatures, to want to fit in to the social group, to want to help the group, to want to do one's share of whatever work is necessary for the group's survival and to build a strong and prosperous and free community and society.

The people who control the box are not good people, but they pretend to be good people to fool the good people in the box who would not knowingly allow themselves, in their 'democratic' society, to be led by villians, and through lies and deceptions and violence and control of the central means of communication, the media, have come to impose their untruthful vision of the world on the collective mind, the collective worldview, of the box people.

That is not good. The people who have taken over the box do not have good motives, do not have good wishes for the people they control. The people who control the box see the box people as nothing more than slaves to be used to create wealth the leaders control, as second class human beings whose lives mean little or nothing.


On days of national celebration or ceremonies such as the 911 tribute, the people who run the box run up all the flags and lies, and incite the box people into a nationalistic fever in support of their society, and the people who run it - a sustaining fervor that adds very significantly to the tendency of such people who, when the truth comes knocking, firmly turn their backs and declare they will NOT listen to such things about their country and leaders - and, of course, by implication, about themselves, supporting those leaders and their country.

It is very much like the resistance of a child with its hands over its ears, eyes shut tight, refusing to acknowledge some unpleasantness in its world.

Unfortunately for all the good people (but quite fortunately for the bad ones), denial does not make a problem go away.

The truth is that the current United States government is attempting to assert its dominance over the entire world (this is not fantasy, they say so themselves in the PNAC documents), but using the flag of a 'war on terrorism' to justify their military excursions, as they understand they would face massive resistance from the people of the less-militaristic western countries in the world (and many of their own citizens) were they to be honest about what they are doing. And the Canadian government is following along, as a minor military force helping their US ally. And it is even more important to keep this truth from circulating among Canadians, thus the constant reinforcement we see about 'fighting the war on terror' - which is again mostly lies. There is no 'ideology of hatred' as Harper says in his speech - the major goal of the Muslim people in the mideast is simply to get the occupying forces, mostly American, but British and Israeli are involved, and some others following the American warcry (in almost every case governments acting against the wishes of their people, such as in Canada), out of their countries. Period. No Muslim country, not all of them put together!, has military forces even remotely capable of threatening western countries, and they have shown absolutely no desire to do so - insofar as they have carried out the acts of 'terrorism' that they have been accused of (remember, none of these accusations have ever been proven, and there are many questions about who actually was behind them - there is a long history in western governments of false flag operations carried out to enable some government program the citizens did not wish) - insofar as some Muslims may have been involved in such things, it has been ONLY with the goal of getting that message across to western populations - a goal which is not being realised because of the complicity of the mainstream media with the warmongers and would-be hegemons who are controlling our countries from behind the scenes.

911 was not an act of war, it was a crime. A huge and monstrous crime, but a crime nonetheless. One of the major crimes of our history, no doubt (and you might say in some ways an act of war by a small cabal of power-crazy men against the people of America and even the world). But not a reason to be invading other countries in other parts of the world. Unless, of course - someone wants to undertake these kinds of invasions, but knows the people of their countries will under no circumstances allow it unless there is some event that can be used as an excuse (like Tonkin or Pearl Harbour) - some great tragic event - like the very visible destruction of the WTC with considerable loss of life that can be used as a rallying cry to gather a shocked and frightened people together behind those who would wage war, who first must wage fear upon their own people.

And if that is the case, as it very much seems to be, if Canadian soldiers are invading other countries under the US flag (NATO = US for all practical purposes), engaged in wars of aggession and occupation and regime change all justified through terrible lies - then where is the honor to be found? Where is the honor in following criminals and traitors, who should be tried and executed for monstrous crimes, around the world in wars of aggression, causing huge death and destruction in the name of lies?

All good intentions of many of the soldiers to the contrary - democracy does not flow from the end of a gun, death and dictatorships and violence and repression flow from guns and bullets and bombs. There may be some truth to the old saying that when you have a hammer, all problems start to look like nails, or when you have a strong military and other people do not, then all problems start to look like military ones - but it is a stupid idea in reality, an idea however very much promoted by those who stand to gain from the use of military force.

The American Revolution is not an example of 'democracy' following guns and bullets (and that is leaving aside any discussion of just how much of a 'democracy' America actually is - whatever it is, they did do it themselves) - there is a vast, vast difference between a people deciding they want independence and banding together to drive an occupying force from a country, and a country deciding unilaterally that they will invade another country and impose a form of government such as 'democracy' on the people of that country whether they like it or not. That has a great deal more to do with fulfilling the wishes and needs of the invaders than the wishes or needs of the invaded, no matter how many lies the invaders tell to justify their killing and bombing.

And like it or not, Canadian soldiers are engaged in the latter, and there is no hope, and no honor in this. All of Harper's and the rest excuses and lies aside.

To bring honor to the people who died on 911, and the hundreds of thousands who have died and will die in their name, what we must do is bring the true criminals to justice. And those criminals are not to be found in the sands of foreign countries, but in the lavish office towers of our own.

Here is a short poem that rings a lot more true than the pious lies we heard last Monday - A Moment of Silence Before I Start This Poem.

One must consider one of the great inspirational rallyers of all time: All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it… (Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf. Trans. James Murphy. Fredonia Books, 2003, pg. 134)



Sept 11/06 Toronto Star
In the box: Layton sets sights on the Tories - lest anyone get the idea I was defending Layton et al in the last story, it is not so, it is not so. In my world, the enemy of my enemy is not my friend, or something like that. Not that I regard either the CAJ or NDP as my enemy, particularly, they are mostly, I think, very well meaning people, as most people in the box are, really - but I would not really regard either as my friend, either. That's what it's like outside the Box - it can be a cold and lonely place, separated from most others of your species by barriers much stronger than steel or concrete or anything that can be breached one way or another, but barriers of ideas and indoctrination that, if set in place early enough, are nigh on impregnable - so then inside the box can be a cold and lonely place too for those of us who do not accept the box-indoctrination unquestioningly, in the midst of a great herd of largely nice but deluded people who think in their own innocent way that I am deluded, with not many people to just sit down and relax with and talk to over a beer or two.

- and then - Out of the box: - Anyways, that's not what the Star story is about, they'd never do anything that might get people actually thinking, any more than any of the others would. The thing about this whole NDP convention is, and all the resolutions they passed, there is not a WORD in Layton's 'Five Priorities' about PR (that'd be Proportional Representation to any neophytes - google around to Fair Vote Canada for some more info if you need it), although a few short months ago (well, maybe a year or so) he was proclaiming loudly that it was a necessary prerequisite for supporting the Lib minority gov, he thought it was all so important then. Certainly the situation has changed, with a Con minority gov right now, but that should make the necessity of this electoral change even more urgent for these people, not less. Imagine, with PR, the NDP would have almost twice the number of seats they have in the Parliament - now you'd think that sort of thing would be a pretty strong incentive to be pushing for a fair voting system in this country, as they would benefit more than anyone - and other groups who are supposed to be progressive and would likely be onside with the NDP in many important things would benefit too, such as the Greens. And you just gotta figure that a whole lot of the people who do not bother voting in Canada anymore are not doing so because of the gross inequities of a system that sees majority governments elected with a minority of the vote, and strutting around yapping about big mandates and doing things most people don't want, and things like that (sure they're also undoubtedly turned off by other things as well, such as the general sleaze of the entire party system which needs to be replaced - but PR would help a lot, as a transition sort of stage).

So why aren't the NDP leading the way here? Huh???? The more seats you have in parliament, the more influence you have - and assuming even similar vote patterns, they could as I said almost double their seat number just by getting the system changed to a PR system, without even increasing their share of the vote.

Something fishy going on. It can't be just political stupidity. Can it?

Or maybe - well, ya gotta wonder, if we had PR, and, let us say for example, 60% of the seats went to parties which said they did not want 'free trade', then it might be a bit difficult to justify turning around the next day and signing a free trade deal - BUT butbutbutbut - if you have a system where you can split that 60% among a couple of parties, and then let the party with 40% win a plurality of seats due to that split vote, giving them a 'majority' government and the freedom to do as they wish re 'free trade' or anything else .... hmmmm, if you were running the system, and could manipulate it like that, why would you want to mess with it? No good reason comes to mind, jack, especially if the citizenry do not seem to be bothered by the complete unfairness of it all - indeed, the people seem to think they live in a great democracy. What kind of idiot would mess with a sweet scam like that? geez, as they say.

And why do the people think they live in a great democracy, or any of the other nonsense they believe? Well .... maybe the media has something to do with it - I often read that "Ahh, g'wan, nobody knows about PR, nobody cares, so nobody is doing anything about it!" - which is, to some extent, true, apparently. But then - what DO people know about, in a country where they are dependent on the media for information? Well, basically, they know about what the media want them to know about - as the following sidetrack will illustrate, or try to:

Here we have Harper harping on Senate reform once again (Harper warns senators he'll get his way,) which no doubt the media will start focusing on over the next few weeks as the various players take their positions, ignoring the much more important basic changes required to the overall electoral system as we draw closer and closer to an election - NOT a good time to get the people thinking about Harper winning a 'majority' government with 20% of the people of Canada supporting him through this completely unfair and undemocratic electoral system, no no no, not a good time at all to get people thinking stuff like that (not to mention Harper and the reporters once again accepting a 'democracy' where the 'leader' says IIIII am going to do something, with no reference at all to 'the will of the people' or any 'democratic' nonsense like that - does nobody out there care about this stuff but me?!?!?!). Who cares about the Senate anyway, really? The Senate in theory is not that bad of an idea in the overall parliamentary system (who can argue with, at least, the idea of 'sober second thought' one step removed from on-the-ground partisan politics?) - but this ongoing attacking it is still mostly, IMO, all misdirection, which the gov and media are both very adept at. The Senate has very little actual power, and has actually come up with a lot of good reports over the years (without exception ignored by the gov of the day, to be sure - which indicates much more of a problem with our 'representative' lower level of government than the Senate) - sure there are a lot of people getting patronage appointments there, which doesn't have much to recommend it (but there's a whole lot of other patronage appointments going on as well - go after them all if you're serious about this - and if you're serious about 'the waste of money' - get onto something real like the trillion dollar theft of the National Debt Scam) - but how much damage is it actually doing? Very little, at least in my estimation - but the FPTP electoral system is doing huge amounts of damage, for instance every time we are forced to accept legislation or 'treaties' that most Canadians do not want, such as the FTA or NAFTA, which were both opposed by a pretty solid majority of Canadians, but the country entered into because the completely unfair electoral system allowed them to happen (ok ok, the FTA happened this way directly, the NAFTA somewhat more indirectly we got because Chretien et al simply lied about what they would do - which is another problem that needs to be looked at, but which would have been also a lot more difficult for him to do with some PR candidates in the parliament somewhat more beholden to the people who elected them via PR than to the Party system....)

So - do you suppose 'the people' would care a bit more about PR if they got news stories from the media several times a week, from people the media were presenting as important, about how the current electoral system was denying Canadians their vote, and presenting them with laws and treaties etc most Canadians did not want, and was very, very UN-representative, etc and etc? Well, one can only speculate, but I think that if the media wanted the electoral system changed, the same way, for instance, they wanted 'free trade' a few years ago, or the way they want everyone to believe these days we are all in great danger from 'terrorists', etc and etc - well, they'd make sure the people were hearing about how we needed PR too, day after day after day. But as it stands, well, the media is controlled by the same people who control the government from Bay St, and about the last thing they want is the power they currently have to do as they please reduced in any way by allowing any small advanced of 'democracy' in the Canadian electoral system as PR would help bring about.

So we'll have these other smoke and mirrors shows, and people will argue about senate reform once again, to no useful end whatsoever, whilst ignoring much more important things.

(There is one party in Canada who has PR near the top of the electoral platform - the CAP - and when was the last time you read about them in the MSM? Ever? I don't think so.



September 11 2006, Canadian Association of Journalists, (re CNEWS/ Ottawa 'Sun')

Fair and unbiased, eh?

Dear Canadian Association of Journalists,
Re: (Layton: Canada will punish PM over Afganistan, By ALEXANDER PANETTA, Sept 11, 2006

Dear CAJ -
I write to point out a story from a Canadian paper that you might want to have a word with them about, insofar as the writer seems to have some significant breachings of your Code of Standards, as given in the Canadian Association of Journalists Statement of Principles, on your webpage.

(This is quite a noble document, actually, in theory - all I can say is that I wish I could see a bit more of it reflected in the current Canadian media, which seems to be more involved with gatekeeping and spin and concealment of various things and outright indoctrination-cum-propaganda than any actual neutral 'reporting' of things ....)

Your SofP says, for instance (I presume the 'we' refers to both individual reporters and the larger media outlets they write for, insofar as either are members of your organisation):

"...We will not allow our own biases to influence fair and accurate reporting..." and then "...We will clearly identify news and opinion so that readers, viewers and listeners know which is which..."

- and then I have the story, referred to in the opening, from the Ottawa Sun, via CNEWS, which begins: "...NDP Leader Jack Layton urged his troops to prepare Sunday for an election campaign he seems determined to fight against U.S. President George W. Bush. .."

(let us just overlook the spelling error, even in a headline, as this sort of thing, deplorable though it is, is becoming common in all levels of Canadian journalism, as all media owners pare staff to the bone in the name maxing the ROI of their owners - which also, actually, no doubt has a lot to do with the amateurish level of writing we see so often anymore, and the continual insertion of commentary into what should be news stories through the choice of words, presentation of 'facts', etc)

- now, this whole article is NOT identified as 'commentary or opinion', but rather is presented as a 'news' story, in the section where 'news' stories are usually found, and not in the section where opinion pieces are found, but that bit about "..determined to fight against Bush" sure sounds like commentary-opinion to me. That is to say, the writer is not quoting anybody here, most especially Layton whom he is maligning, but is quite obviously interjecting his own somewhat disdainful opinion into the lead sentence of a story about the activities of the NDP convention - perfectly fine in a commentary piece of some sort identified as such, very much less so in a 'news' story, as it gets in the way of 'fair and accurate reporting', when the 'reporter' tells the readers right up front what, in his opinion, they ought to think of the following story, rather than just report some facts and let them make up their own minds what to think of it all. If I might interject an opinion of my own, I strongly suspect that were you to poll NDP delegates, for instance, you would find most of them 'determined' to fight the next election against Harper, with probably a few who felt they were fighting the Libs, and maybe even a few who thought they had to fight the Greens or perhaps Bloc in Quebec - but I strongly suspect NONE would say "Oh, yes, obviously the election must be fought against G Bush, obviously, of course hmphh hmphh!" - I certainly haven't seem anyone commenting along these lines, anyway, in the various mainstream and alternative media I peruse each day, and certainly not Layton, 'determined' though he is, according to your reporter, to follow this path. Heck, if Harper (not to mention a lot of other people) is extremely lucky or something, G Bush might not even be around by the next election. (and you can see the rest here)




Sept 8/06 - CBC
In the box: - Mao remembered - "... Young Chinese performers sing propaganda songs at a Cultural Revolution and Mao-themed restaurant in Beijing on Friday. Despite failed policies that left millions dead and brought the country near to collapse, Mao is widely revered for his founding of China's communist regime..."

- Out of the box: - - and then we wonder if this isn't some part of Full Spectrum Propaganda - that is to say, when the Americans sing The Star Spangled Banner (or America the Beautiful, whatever) on days that are important to them - is that "singing a propaganda song"??? (what about 'The Green Beret'?) - or what about a sentence like this - "...Americans honor George Washington yearly, even though he was instrumental in establishing the most violent and militaristic government the world has ever known, engaging in aggressive wars throughout the world even before its official founding (i.e. the genocidal attacks on the original inhabitants of the area now known as the USA), through the century of the abomination known as 'slavery', which many Americans still think was and is an acceptable way to treat 'inferior species', and until today, when the Bush regime conducts 'preemptive warfare' against countries that represent no threat to it, for purely empirical purposes, and has murdered millions of people in other countries, most of which they dismiss as unimportant 'collateral damage' " - cool, huh???? Think we'll ever see that the next time we see a pic of gang of American citizens on July 4 singing and saluting the flag, or schoolkids taking the Pledge of Allegiance, etc etc?



What came before - The Veritas Morgue



Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License.