What the Canadian mainstream media sounds like from beyond the Walls of Indoctrination
On Green Island, Outside the Box
Where thinking happens...
Ongoing observations on what gets 'reported' (and what doesn't - just as important), and how, in the Canadian mainstream media, which in its real life with the makeup off at night is revealed as the propaganda arm of the perpetrators of one of the biggest and most evil scams ever run in the history of our planet.
All for free. Keep your money for beer, it's liberating. In vino veritas. In veritas libertas.
Creative Commons License
Green Island
Some Essays on the General Situation

Canada - a managed democracy

Press responsibility

How Democracy Works on Green Island

Managed Elections In Canada

The Canadian National Debt Scam

911 Thought Experiment

911 'Experts'

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

PEI Revival Plan
(historical document)


Wayback stuff

other 'outside the box' readings

Pogo - what if the 10,000 is wrong and the one guy is right and the one guy is right?

"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

Democracy is comin...

...the most destructive form of untruth is sophistry and propaganda by those whose profession it is to report the news... - Walter Lippmann
They're Building a Box - and You're In It - the necessary background
It's a pretty nice farm - but don't confuse being a cow with being a farmer
Green Island - the future is here ...

Mar 2 CBC National Radio News
In the box: - 08:00 PEI time

Out of the box: - trying to wean myself from this a bit, same old same old, nothing new, nobody seems to care, more important stuff to do - but it just gets too much some times. Three at least, maybe 4, mornings now, same dame named Laural Lynch or something like that has been 'reporting' from Russia, about the election there. Actually one shouldn't say 'reporting', there's no sense of that at all, it's just telling Canadians what SHE wants people to think is happening there - which, according to Laurel, is a farcical 'election', with Putin pulling all the strings, a completely rigged election, etc. This may be the case - I don't know, I don't care that much - but is it a CBC 'reporter's' job to be framing her 'reporting' this way? Sure as hell doesn't impress me, anyway. Where are the voices that might disagree with her interpretation of things? Not a one. And the general hypocricy is quite irritating as well - look around the CBC archives for any mention of Diebold, and you'll not find a word, although it is obvious the last two US elections have been completely rigged in favor of the Bush gang - but we're not going to talk about THAT on the CBC, nosireebobsyerfuckinuncle!! Or what about Canadian elections? We have the superficial appearance of 'democracy', with sort of fair elections (check out the Box above for more, if you're new and not aware) - but it's still a big farce, and in reality there is only one party that counts in Canada, Tom d'Aquino's CCCE, for which all top level politicians work - and that is something else you will never, never NEVER see talked about on the CBC, even though there are quite a few of us out here who uderstand this well, and write about it a lot, and it is, quite obviously, of considerable importance to the country.

Feb 27 CBC The Current (otherwise known as Anna Maria's "This is the Box!! You Better LOVE it!!' show)
In the box: - You people just stop talking about this, ok?!?!?

Out of the box: - The propaganda is getting more sophisticated from those who are determined to carry on with the Afghanistan invasion (they call 'mission'), for whatever reason. The latest message re our Afghanistan 'mission' (read invasion - called the Highest Crime by Nuremburg)is that the damned fiendishly clever Taliban are watching what happens in Canada, and see that those pansies are wavering in their determination, and might take advantage of this wavering (maybe even bombing Canada!) - so we have to stand tall and strong against this evil presence and stop this damned debating about whether or not we should be there!! We got this from Hillier a few days ago (EVERY media carried his speech), we've had it from various places since, and now we get it on Anna Maria's show, a live interview with some guy called Chris Hunter who has just published a book detailing his 'work' as an IED bomb-disposal expert, who spends his time with a fawning AM telling about his great brave work as a person heroically defusing those IEDs the damned cowardly sneaks over there use (instead of bravely dropping huge amounts of bombs from 30,000 feet on wedding parties and wherever the hell they feel like, like real warriors like those damned heroic Americans we all admire so much do), and a bit at the end (cue violins) how he is even having marital problems because of his devotion to his job. And then once we're all on his side (like I said, these guys know what they're doing with their prop), he gets into how our brave soldiers in the field see the wavering or debate we are going through these days of the 'mission' (= invasion) as non-support of their brave work bringing Democracy to poor people in another country, sending young girls to school, etc and etc, another obvious lie, as EVERYone who dares oppose this invasion says right off the top and repeatedly that they support the troops and understand that they are not responsible for the decision of the government to send them there or keep them there, and the 'debate', such as it is (with the media fully onside with the gov on this and offering nothing but boosterism for 'the mission', it's not really much of a 'debate' at all) has nothing to do with the soldiers or supporting them. But anything goes when you're doing propagandizing - lies 'r' us. Not to mention the CBC, with anything important these days.

Feb 27 CBC National Radio News
In the box: - 08:00 PEI time

Out of the box: - Michael Colton doing his wonderful impersonation of impartial CBC rerporting again - covering the US election - his clip is Clinton saying in a calm voice at the beginning of the debate that she seems to get the first question most of the time - and Colton tells us this is a 'full blown outburst'. And then goes on to tell us she is irrational and sarcastic at different times, which proves she is unstable. The only unstable thing here is how much we can believe anything Colton says, as he seems to have a pretty loose grasp of the meaning of words, and an even looser notion of his responsibility to his listeners on the CBC, who at least used to expect some sort of honest and impartial and commentary-free reporting (commentary is commentary, reporting is reporting - people on the CBC used to understand the difference. When the whole media is involved with spin, of course, nobody does). Which certainly doesn't make him the lone stranger on the CBC these days. And down and down and down we go.

Feb 25 CBC, Star, sandboxland
In the box: -

Out of the box: - CBC national news, PEI 06:00. 07:00 - David Common - the childishness makes me want to toss the radio out the window (difficult since I'm listening via internet, but still...). Apparently the French pres Sarkozy '..used a word ending in hole' !!!!! - and now it's all over the world media. I find it hard to believe this, but it happens every day. Imagine, just imagine, someone using a word that Big Mother has dictated shall not be used - obviously this is world news!!! A word!!! Is this adult behaviour (not the French pres saying asshole, but the news reporters all getting worked up about it?????} In a society of adults, they don't go around saying things like 'the f-word' (heehee) or 'the c-word'. If they want to say a word, they say it. Nobody gets upset over language like this in adultland. If it is inappropriate for some reason, such as insulting someone who probably doesn't actually deserve to be insulted, and the insult is perhaps going to cause friction or something, the person using inappropriate language might lose a little credibility, for being unable to articulate whatever he or she wanted to say any better, but to be treated like a child, where certain things can be said and others not - well, that's the sandbox, not adult society. And a reporter, or the entire world media, presuming to judge the leader of a country because he got huffy and called someone an asshole, actually gives a pretty deep message, if you are observing things from outside the box, on exactly what role the media are there to perform. Think on it. The whole language thing is important, in a symbolic sort of way - you accept the 'right' of some big mother/brother to control the language you use, and scold you like a child if they say something they do not approve of ?????? Think on that. Adult citizens don't have mothers who control their behaviour. And the corollary of that would be ???? (If someone else controls your behaviour ...... ?????)

(There are, of course, adults still out there, or people at least trying to be adults - i.e this column the same day in the Star The c-word - but it's as much notable for a bit of honesty about the repression than anything else, and we wouldn't ever want to get the impression this sort of questioning is the norm..)

On the same news, a report about parliament 'getting back to work' - and some asshole is overseeing the con caucus, and by golly, the cons are having 'you shall be good' weeks - right out of kindergarten. Seriously, I don't believe I am hearing this shit. But I do, sadly, I do believe it - every day on the radio is full of examples of a society in the latter stages of being dumbed down. And not having the faintest fucking idea of what is happening to them. And if you try to tell them they don't believe you. If we survive this era as a species, this will go down as probably THE example of how to patiently completely take control of a society through indoctrination and propaganda. They are completely confident of themselves - Huxley and Orwell are only two of many who saw it coming, and today the indoctrinated masses nod knowingly about those writers, and have no idea they are exactly what was being talked about it. It's been quite brilliant, really, as the Brits would say. People like me all over the net railing about it - and we're written off as cranks or worse.

So anyway, when they hear this on the tv (I presume) or radio or read the news - what's the message to the audience? - this is how good children behave, children! - you don't use naughty words, you behave yourself in public, you act nicely and etc - is this the job of a national radio, to be the voice of 'the teacher'?!?!

- well, in adultland, of course not. In Canada, where slowly but steadily driving the public back to the status of children doing as they're told - of course. What else would it be for, in a land where propaganda reigns and adults are really thin on the ground? - I'm not the only one noticing this sort of thing, although nobody on the mainstream media is going to talk about it, even on the odd chance any of them had enough intelligence or perspective to realise it - Heather Mallick being one of the exceptions - The most depressing book since Bambi

And just to finish off the short morning's gleaning from medialand in Canada - Anna Maria talking about a new seed bank in Finland - her 'and in the next hour' promo - as she gives the speil, she gets this tone of voice like it was a big joke - '... saving (wait for it!!) seeds!!!' - tone of voice is all - what kind of idiots save seeds??? (**haha we cool guys know that 'seeds' are just stuff farmers and other hippies and conspiracy theorists and like that care about, eh haha??**) - and yet if you have any idea about what is happening in the world today, this is a very important activity. I'll give them minimum credit, they had a couple of good guests - one talking about how Canada used to be good at this until the corps took over the gov and started supporting agribusiness, the most important thing noted on the show in terms of getting to a better understanding of the problem and why it is happening, but AM is NOT going anywhere near corporate-controlled gov on HER show, no siree (she even grills one guest a bit on why they aren't saving them darn wonderful genetically modified seeds from places like Monsanto (you know, seeds designed to be at least a bit resistant to modern Monsanto chemicals which are destroying everything else in the vicinity, or others designed to produce a crop of whatever, but with sterile seeds, so the farmers have to buy new seed every year - absolutely brilliant idea, for a fiend who wants to starve us all, anyway....). Some kudos for a couple of the interviews, but it's kind of sad to have someone as obviously of limited 'real' intelligence as AM hosting Canada's main morning CBC show. Clever and fast talking in a modern corporate and very shallow way, but of no real intelligence - you can tell by her support of corporate government, anyone with any real understanding of what is going on here understands that corporate government, or capitalism, are cancers in our society, and should be treated like we'd treat one in our own body. AM thinks they're just the best darn thing that ever happened to Canada. Guess she has to, or they'd find someone else who did to do her job.

Feb 23 Star
In the box: - Rescue plan for ailing Toronto

Out of the box: - let's sell that property to pay the debts, boys! - and look at the bloody sign - claiming this is a 'blueprint for fiscal stability and economic prosperity'!! - they can't be that stupid, so they have to be lying. And next year when the money is gone??? - well, there'll be more stuff to sell. Selling assets is about the very last resort of a normal person on their last legs financially. And they brag about it.

For some out-of-the-box ideas on this kind of thing, check out Banketeering: The Money Supply and Related Scams.

Feb 22 Star
In the box: - Clarity urged on Afghan mission - "...We are, in the eyes of the Taliban, in a window of extreme vulnerability," he told a defence conference yesterday. "And the longer we go without clarity, with the issue in doubt, the more the Taliban will target us as a perceived weak link."

Out of the box: - the thing is, Canadians should have been properly consulted about this in the first place, not dragged somewhere under false pretenses with no real discussion about it, and then told they have to stay because the country might look bad if they back out now. It's a kind of despicable tactic, esp on top of all the propaganda we've been getting fed the last couple of years, those of limited intelligence trying to embarass others into doing something they should not be doing through taunts of 'yellow yellow' and etc - but then, I guess they know there's no future for them with the truth, so lies and taunts are all they have left. Most adults know that isn't a very clever way to decide things.

But then who would any of us be kidding to imagine there are any adults wandering around the decision-making circles of this country?

Feb 22 CBC news midnight Winnipeg time
In the box: -

Out of the box: - the young male, evidently a graduate of the dumbed down education system (including no doubt dumbed down journalism school), cannot pronounce 'plagiarism' (says something like 'plague-ism'). TS knew. This is the way the world ends .... Such great dreams, such a sad way to die.

Feb 20 MacLeans
In the box: - It's not only about security - Gun debates aside, why are so many students deeply unhappy?

Out of the box: - just 'for the record', as it were - this story asked for comments, I figured that a central reason the students are unhappy can be determined from reading the box, and posted "..- this kind of thing happening on campuses is terrible, but it's only a symptom of a much, much deeper problem. It's all explained in They're Building a Box - and You're In It - http://www.rudemacedon.ca/dlp/box/box-intro.html.." - and the message said the comment would appear after being moderated, and then disappeared a couple of hours later. Even MacLeans doesn't want people thinking about boxes. Guess I shouldn't pretend to be all that surprised.

Feb 20 CBC National Radio News 08:00
In the box: - the lady 'business analyst' talking about oil going over $100 per barrel yesterday, and today gas prices are going up - immediate reaction at the pumps! But we're lucky y'all!! - they only went up about five cents a liter, which is a smaller percentage than the oil went up!!

Out of the box: - but - but - but - when oil prices go down, as they do now and then, they all tell us that gas prices can't go down for, oh, we can't say for sure, you knonw, but 2-3 weeks anyway, you know, we're still selling gas that was refined with old-price oil, so we can't drop the prices until the new stuff works through the system y'know dadadada ....

Geez you'd think somebody working for the CBC would know that ....

Feb 18 CBC PEI 07:45
In the box: - CBC PEI - This is a big story for PEI - they tell us, somewhat smugly, that Atlantic Loto Corp (ALC) is doing a test with teens to see who gets lottery tickets, which retailers are selling to 'minors' - like the CBC has been doing for years. Boy, are we some good. And as did the CBC, AL found teens could get lotto tickets. Boy, there's a crime worth doing a ten minute story on!! And Pat Martel gets some lady from AL on, and is just grilling her about how she feels about being so slack about enforcing this just amazingly important law, the smugness just oozing out of the radio about how real good and concerned reporters like we have at CBC PEI are doing such an important job keeping on top of this just blisteringly important story, nipping right at the heels of anyone not obeying these damned important laws. And she of course is playing the game, she and the ALC take this really seriously, you know, and will be enforcing the law in the future you bet, them damned teens can't flaunt the law like this, or the retailers. I gotta stop before I cry or barf or just defenestrate somewhere.

Out of the box: - geez I'd like to go home to adult land.

Feb 17 Star
In the box: - Why shouldn't voters discuss war?

Out of the box: - An excellent column, as always, and you remain head and shoulders above almost everyone else in the Canadian media for daring to talk like this (your colleague Harroon is about the only one near you, I think, that I can think of offhand) - but I disagree with your general premise a bit. Certainly 'we' voters should be talking about this, and debating it at length - but I think neither a national debate nor debate during an election are what is needed. A national debate is impractical from a 'we the ordinary voter' level, and an election campaign is a short period full of many things with a lot of rhetoric and little substance and far too much hurrying to arrive at a well-reasoned decision. What would be useful would be a whole series of debates, first at local levels, and then progressing to the stage of 'wannabe MP' (at this time of impending election), and then a national sort of debate with a more manageable number of participants at the national level, but those participants actually reflecting their constituents' wishes. The grassroots level discussions would take more time, and everyone would have their say, and they would be more considered, and whatever position was arrived at would be a definite majority position - and whoever then went on to the next level would be speaking for a majority of people. Star pic, soldiers in Afghanistan on road, with kids And then we would just get to a position that an actual majority of Canadians agreed with, whatever that was. And that would be 'democracy'. Which I do not see much of in today's Canada. Whatever - hang in there - I'm sure you're not that popular with the bosses, but you're speaking for a lot of us out here.

- Walkom's column was, as I said, excellent, he's one of the few Canadian writers still allowed to write in the MSM who speaks some truth - but the pic really hit me. Just imagine, just imagine, if Canada some day elected a government that really dared to stand up to the Americans, and overnight we had American troops walking down our streets as these Cdn guys are doing in Afghanistan, scaring the shit out of everyone, killing people they thought were opposing them, dropping bombs on wedding parties because they 'had good intelligence some damned terrorists might be there', filling their kissass media with stories about what damned terrorists we all were for daring to oppose their wonderful democracy, telling us all that as soon as we had the sense to elect a government they approved of, they'd leave .... you really think the Afghanis want us there, any more than they wanted the Brits or the Russians before us????

Feb 12 CBC
In the box: - Liberals walk out of confidence vote on crime bill

Led by Liberal House Leader Ralph Goodale, the caucus streamed out of the chamber as the vote was set to begin. Some Conservatives taunted the MPs as they exited, singing, "Na na na na, hey hey hey, goodbye."

Out of the box: - geezus what do you say? These people are in charge of one of the largest economies in the world - it's not that surprising that they (and their like-minded buds elsewhere) are running everything into the ground, seeing it all as nothing more than a giant scam to turn as much of the wealth of the place as they can over to those who pay them (that is not the Canaadian taxpayer - they take a lot of money from the Canadian taxpayer, in a lot of different ways (check out McKay's frequent flyer points someday), but not in the sense of employee working for us - they are most obviously NOT working for 'us'). And what do you say to the media, who sees nothing wrong with this sort of childish behaviour in the very center of 'our' government? Run, in the end, by the same gang of clowns, so they see nothing untowards here. Most of all, I guess, though - what do you say to the people who vote for these clowns (of any party, they're all the same)?

Guess we're not in much danger of overcrowding here outside the asylum.

Feb 11 CBC
In the box: - national radio news, 08:00 PEI time, Feb 11

Out of the box: - - Blatant examples of the media creating the national narrative - this is really important stuff, deep, deep indoctrination maintenance, that nobody even questions what they are doing. I hear it pretty much every news cast, but being aware of what they are doing, from outside the box, always listen with a lot of awareness and skepticism, which I fear (know, really) many or most others do not, working through their habitual box stupor. It's a very subtle, if in your face, thing. Here, for instance, we have one James Cudmore telling us about a Liberal meeting at which they are supposedly going to talk about their response to Harper's Afghanistan motion - this is all dog and pony show stuff at the most basic level, but that's not the 'story' here. What you need to think about, if you review this, is how the 'reporter' then goes on to take the Harper con-'pro' position on the story, explaining to the listeners himself why the Libs have been 'wrong' about various things in their Afghanistan statements to the press, and how they had actually been exposed to things in Afghanistan that showed that the Harper statements about things in Afghanistan were correct - all things of controversy, or disagreement. But here our reporter is very unapologetically explaining to listeners the weaknesses of the Lib position - no interviews, no pretence at saying 'others believe' or anything - just 'explaining' to the listener, as the Voice of Impartial Truth of the CBC!!, that no matter what those Libs say, this is what you should believe - the underlying assumption that everyone must have is 'hey! Would we at the CBC lie to you?!?!'

Then we have the guy from Washington, one Michael Coulton, next talking about 'over the top ravings' of Bill Clinton as a problem for Hillary's campaign. He doesn't even pretend to quote anyone, or use phrases likely 'widely thought', no no, this is just The Reporter telling you How It Is - 'Clinton raving!!' - creating the public narrative in action. When they had real journalists in Canada and real journalist schools, this type of injecting opinion into 'news' stories would get you booted from journalism school. Today, sadly, it's the norm - and I expect most of them don't even understand what they are doing. Dumbed down reporters for a dumbed down population.

And finally (it never, never, never stops on the CBC) an hour and a bit later we have our Anna Marie telling us on the Current that she can't understand where all the war protesters have gone - golly, in the 60s they were all over the media, but now you can hardly find them! You just can't quite tell if she understands how ironic her words really are, coming from where they come - in the 60s, there was a pretty honest media, and they reported on the massive war protests - now we have a corporate media, very much including the CBC amd dear old AM, which downplays the equally massive protests. There are other reasons, of course - there has been a pretty much unprecedented propaganda drive in the ensuing 40 years, and a bigtime dumbing down of the population in general, along with such things as the corporate reactionary revolution, all working together to stifle protest against the NWO - but the internet the last few years has proven a strong weapon to fight back with, and the major protests around the world against the invasion of Iraq and other things, prove that there is still a strong, and possibly growing, protest movement these days.

You'd just never know it if you had to depend on the Canadian mainstream media, very much including the CBC, for your information.

CBC 2008 - their motto as we on Green Island see clearly - 'Lies 'R' Us!!'. (even if they do allow the odd good-sounding speaker on - I must admit, to be honest, the guy that Anna Maria interviewed, the guy who is up for an Oscar for his short film about his meeting with John Lennon almost 40 years ago (I Met the Walrus), was good - not her, but him. But some small kudos to lay sadly beside the tall stack of thorns.

This is a very distressing time to be a thinking adult. We seem to be pretty thin on the ground, a small group on one side talking about the emperor's wonderful new clothes, and a big crowd of oo-ing people on the other, and every here and there one of us, thinking wtf is going on here????? You really don't know what it is, do you, Mr Jones????

Feb 10 CBC
In the box: - Development without security 'pure folly,' MacKay says in jab at Liberals

Out of the box: - wouldn't it be nice if some of these people started understanding that using military might to go in and kick the shit out of a government you do not like, just because you can, and thus throw the whole country open to a huge power struggle between a bunch of forces who are willing to kill indiscriminately pretty much anyone and are very much beyond your control, is a far greater folly? (I suppose it would be nice if the Canadian voters who ostensibly control these politicians started waking up to the folly of believing anything they ever say, but that sort of wish seems even more far-fetched).

Yes, there are a lot of governments doing bad things around the world, and it would be good to help the people forced to live under those governments - but only if we can do so without making things a lot worse, or causing billions of dollars of infrastructure damage and killing thousands or millions of people along the way before running home to our own 'safe' country to leave others to deal with the mess we created. And not to mention, some of us at least are thinking, it would be nice to clean up our own act a bit first though - if we can't even deal with a couple of hundred thousand homeless Canadians, and a native population living in third-world conditions, and almost a million children living in poverty, and serious gang warfare in all the major cities, should we even be running around the world pretending we actually know how to govern a country in a good way for its people?

Think about it.

Feb 9 Star
In the box: - - Banks battle for your bucks - Institutions are paying more on your savings, even though they'll earn less lending it out

Out of the box: - Dear Ms Trichur,
Your story says: "..All that has left banks in the position of having to pay higher interest on retail deposits even though they stand to earn less on that cash once they lend it out again..."

I am wondering if you understand that banks do not actually lend out the deposits of others? That is the mythology, of course, but it is about as true as the mythology that Santa Claus puts all those nice presents under the tree for the children each year. Adults know better, about Santa and about where the money actually comes from. Banks actually, essentially, create money out of thin air when they make loans. Since the Mulroney-Wilson days, there has not even been a nominal 'reserve' requirement that used to help limit the amount of money they created.

If this takes you by surprise, you might check out a website called COMER, or a book I wrote recently that talks about this and much else - They're Building a Box - and You're In It - . It's not some crazy conspiracy theory, it's just fact - fact that stories such as this help hide from the people you are supposed to be 'serving', but that they really should know (I'm afraid most Canadians appear to have little to no knowledge of things like this - very much to their and our detriment). It is also a fact which is at the root of ALL of the financial troubles in our country and the world today - how about some real journalism and dot-connecting?

from On Green Island, where we watch things like this with amusement and despair -

Feb 9 CTV
In the box: - - Global economy still faces risks, G-7 says

Out of the box: - - sent in a short comment - "The root of this and every other financial problem in the world today is that banks create 95% of our money supply - and charge interest for doing so. Think about that, deeply and fully, and try to understand where that 'interest' is actually coming from - and when you grok that, you have opened the door that you need to open to understand many things. For a full understanding of the box you are in, try They're Building a Box - and You're In It. Let the revolution begin!" (or words to that effect)

Checked back a few minutes later - and got a 'Comments for this story are closed' message. Certainly comments for stories close, but normally they are open for more than a few hours, and take more than 17 comments - and it was open when I sent mine. You will forgive me for wondering if the above message is something they don't want people reading. It's a message you will not see anywhere at all in the Canadian mainstream media, at any rate. And for good reason - this is not a 'fringe' story that naturally gets rejected, quite the contrary - the whole money supply thing is the biggest scam ever played on people, and those running it are the same people running our country and world - and media. And I think there really would be a national uprising if people ever understood just how badly they had been, and continue being, scammed - and in a country like the US it might be feasible to call out the national guard and darthvader cops and the rest and deal with the uprising successfully, it might not be so easy in Canada.

There'd be a lot of people in the middle levels of banks and government who could probably truthfully say 'Holy cow! I had no idea at all that this stuff was going on!!' - but at the upper levels, no way. See Carney and Flaherty in this picture - you do not get to these positions of power without understanding what is happening, and being prepared to keep the scam going. Every single person in the G7 meeting understands the system, and the scam. It is impossible to believe otherwise. Likewise the reporters covering the story - most probably have no more idea of the scam than the average citizen - but at the top levels, they must know.

And off to jail with the lot of them, is my advice, as a first step to getting the country back.

Feb 5 CBC
In the box: - - $2B needed to counter Afghan opium cultivation: World Bank report

Just sit back for a second, and try to formulate a clear answer to this question - "Exactly what is the big war on opium all about?" - it's an addictive substance, highly so apparently, can't say I've ever tried it, that induces (so they say) a state of euphoria in people who use it.

Ok - thing is, why is that such a heinous thing that the use of opium has become highly stigmatized, and our governments go to amazing lengths to try to stop people from using it? Does that make any real sense at all, when you just stop and sit down and think about it?

Doesn't to me.

Out of the box: - Out of the box, here, things look a bit differently. Let's just think, for a second - what would happen if opium was legalized - controlled, regulated, whatever, but legalized. Addicts could get it through normal channels, like alcohol or tobacco addicts (or valium addicts for that matter) get theirs. If the addict becomes problematic, in the sense of posing a danger to others, as they occasionally do, we look after them (on Green Island we do a considerably better job of looking after unwell people than you do in Canada, including addicts, but that's another story).

And what else happens with legalised opium? Big stuff.

We knock the feet right out from both organised and a lot of petty crime. Imagine organised crime with no drug money. Just imagine. Must be about their worst nightmare. And a lot of other people's nightmares too - it is no secret at all that at least the American CIA is heavily involved with drugs and drug running and drug money - just google around a bit. No shit, you would really cut organised crime at least in half, just by legalising opium and marijuana. Which leads to the question of why they don't do it, and that leads to some places most people probably don't want to go. So back in the box they go.

In bigger cities like Toronto or Vancouver or Calgary, there is a lot of petty crime carried out by poor, desperate people looking for their next fix - and a lot of prostitution by young women looking for the same fix - and a lot of other crime by the pimps 'looking after' such women. And increasingly the last few years a lot of bullets flying around and innocent people killed by young gangs trying to become dominant in this illegal drugs (and other stuff) business, which, to many of them, is a lot better future than anything else they see. But!! - Legalise the stuff - you take a big chunk out of such petty crime rates, and also remove the incentive for a lot, if not most, of the gang warfare.

But (say the doubters) - The addicted people will cost money to be looked after? Uhh-huhh - but a lot less money than the cops and courts and jails and social disruption and bullets flying around randomly currently cost, I'd bet a big chunk of money. How'd you like addict-free (mostly) streets to walk around at night, fewer gangs shooting up each other, fewer prostitute addicts on the seedier corners? At a cheaper cost than we pay now, for illegal opium losers/users addicted to illegal drugs and prostitutes and petty crime everywhere to support illegal habits?

Me, I bet a lot of people would like that, and regard the price as cheap too. But for soooommmmmeeee reason - our cops and politicians prefer all that money going to organised crime, and those petty criminals and prostitutes all over the streets, than the obvious and sane solution. Like I said, ya gotta wonder why. You don't suppose that some of that drug money is finding its way into certain pockets who are kind of arranging to make sure the drug money keeps flowing, do ya? Is that really too cynical? Certainly in the box it is, where everyone is expected to believe all our politicians and cops would just never, never NEVER do something so terrible (all available evidence and common sense to the contrary - the box is not a rational place...). Outside the box - well, as the great man said, follow the money and you get to interesting places.

And what about in Afghanistan, which this story talks about? If there was legal international opium trade, these farmers would suddenly find themselves owning prosperous farms!! - and the warlords who deal in ILLEGAL opium would suddenly find themselves out of business - boy, wouldn't that just be a terrible thing!! (well, maybe not actually 'suddenly', but it would happen quickly enough, as legal channels don't normally interact with illegal channels - illegal channels are all about huge profits or there's no point in them, and with the profits becoming open and legitimate, there'd just be no place for these illegals - like the organised suppliers for illegal drugs in Toronto or wherever. No market, no customers, no business. No shootemups to control a nonexistant trade. Safer streets. Lots of money freed up for more useful stuff.) And of course with Afghani warlords suddenly defunded, and thus having no overwhelming reason to be competing with guns and killing people for a market that does not exist anymore, things suddenly get more peaceful there, and there's less work for our soldiers to be doing - maybe they could actually start building schools for the farmers' kids rather than destroying valuable commercial crops!! Imagine!! Geezus I better stop I think I'm becoming hallucinatory.

What's with the politicians that they refuse to consider this? The excuses about 'increased crime' etc are obvious nonsense, when examined rationally - it's the illegality that encourages all the crime, not the other way around. There is no doubt a certain segment of society that considers opiate use as just 'a sin', and thus is their rationalisation for making it illegal etc - but do we need to encourage all that crime just because some people find the idea of others getting 'high' distasteful or 'sinful'? Do you think that idea would garner majority support in a democratic vote? I kind of doubt it, myself.

Odd that we NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER see this stuff talked about rationally in the media. Sorry, I guess I shouldn't exaggerate - I suppose about once a year somebody will be allowed on some obscure part of the news suggesting something like this (only to be rebutted at much greater length, and by friendly interviewers, by Chiefs of Police and Stockwell Day types, and then the whole thing once again confined to the "We are NOT talking about this stuff!!!!' file, along with things like Where DOES the Money that these idiots are playing with COME from???, and no matter how much the media loves the Official Conspiracy Theory of 911, there are a LOT more unanswered questions than there is 'truth' floating around out there about it all, and other stuff like that. Pretty important stuff, really, in terms of 'we the people' running 'our' country. You learn to watch for that, actually, the media are by and large much more interested in Britney's underwear or lack thereof than things like where the money comes from, or why the country is so very NOT democratic. But then, the old master himself said it right out in public, although apparently not that many actually understood (too much tv does that to you) - you dance with the one that brung you. And for the people high up in the media, it wasn't 'we the people' that brung em. It was ..... (g'wan, figure it out yerself...).

And so it looks on this morning On Green Island. Truthful here, somewhat less so there. And so it will stay, as long as you let it.

Feb 4
In the box: - -

Out of the box: - A forward on an email list about some guy using 10th grade physics calculations to pretend he could prove that the falling of the WTC buildings on 911 was well in line with the laws of science. This sort of thing annoys me, so I have a go at disabusing him. (you should read it, unless you already understand that the OCT (Official Conspiracy Theory) of the US gov etc is basically a bunch of BS - even if you already know that, there are a couple of new perspectives in this piece - I haven't done anything on 911 for awhile, flogging dead horses is not exciting, and as always when you come back to something, there are new ideas - what living and growing are all about.)

In the box: - - Out of the box: - a story appeared on the BBC about Human Rights Watch accusing the US and other countries of hypocricy concerning their attitude towards 'democracy' in other countries - it seemed to me that the accusers were doing pretty much the same as the accused here, which bothers me for various reasons, so I thought I'd tell them about it -

Dear HRW, toronto@hrw.org hrwuk@hrw.org
Re West 'embraces sham democracies':

Normally you at HRW do quite useful work, but this is somewhat the opposite - you yourselves are actually doing what you accuse others of - '...HRW said established democracies such as the US and members of the European Union were increasingly tolerating autocrats 'claiming the mantle of democracy'..' -

- but it is my opinion (and I am not alone by a long shot) that over the last 30 or so years, this is pretty much what western 'democracies' such as the US, GB, Australia and Canada have become - plutocracies (ruled by behind-the-scenes autocrats) 'claiming the mantle of democracy'.... (and you can see the rest here)

Feb 2 Star
In the box: - - Canada's new money man

Out of the box: - showed you the outgoing face of evil a day or two ago - here is the one you will be hearing about for the next few years - his main job is to facilitate the transfer of the wealth Canadians produce to the Canadian elite, whilst keeping you all thinking he is working for you, with the Canadian media by and large telling you what an absolutely wonderful job he is doing, how lucky you are to have this paragon of virtue looking after you. He will function as the chief facilitator of The Money Supply Scam, and maintain and shuffle the old and perhaps devise new various official layers of BS designed to keep you from getting anywhere NEAR the truth of that scam, or anything else about how the economy really works - that's stuff that would really blow the socks off the security of a few people, as they were hauled off to jail for a very long time if this stuff ever got out from behind closed doors. Aided and abetted by many, of course. But the buck has to stop somewhere. Now you know.

Feb 1 Toronto 'Don't you dare disobey me children!!!' 'CBC'
In the box: - - Liberal MP lauded by white supremacists

Out of the box: - you should never, I guess, think someone has reached the bottom, it couldn't get worse - they always find ways to prove you wrong. This is much more than just spin, it's Big Mother letting you know that if you dare disobey her, she's coming after you big time. You have to wonder why these people are so determined to enforce their 'right' to control what people say (or do not say, of course) - and once you ask the question, you only go to really bad places. Politicians (or more correctly those higher up who control the politicians) want the right to protect themselves - to censor things which might expose them. To pretend they are concerned about other people's feelings being hurt - well. If you can actually think that without sort of smirking, you better get that tv off real fast. There's too much mush in your brain.

Dear Mr Martin -
I just want to say a hearty 'congrats' on having the courage to introduce this bill. (I am not a frothing 'white supremacist' either, quite the reverse actually, a strong believer in 'democracy' (which seems to be in pretty short supply these days in Canada, but that's another matter - although I gather from the reaction to your bill you're experiencing some of this yourself right now) - there's lots of us 'normal people' out here who are pretty unhappy with this completely unjustified and very orwellian censorship the PCers (that's politically correct, actually, not the other PC) are trying to foist on everybody, in their completely unrealistic 'vision' of a stepford wives 'isn't it a nice day aren't we all happy children lala!!' society.)
Hang in there!

Dear CBC,
This is absolutely disgusting spin on a very legitimate story, showing clearly your 'Big Mother trumps Democracy' philosophy - I don't know how many 'white supremacissts' there are in Canada - I suspect not that many, but there are a hell of a lot more of us out here who are not such creatures, but simply value freedom of speech - and that is not defined as 'freedom to say whatever the Canadian speech-thought police let you say without dragging you in front of some nazi-like court to try to shame you in public and cost you huge amounts of money defending yourself'. Consider the irony, if your thought police let such thoughts into your head - you are supporting what amounts to nazi-like tactics to attempt to silence people you accuse of nazi-like behaviour!!

We well know your support of 'freedom of speech' of course from your refusal to print letters such as this you do not agree with - fortunately we have the internet now, and that is why the Canadian media is losing so many readers - we LIKE freedom of speech as WE define it, not the Canadian 'freedom of speech' police.

Feb 1 - Canadian 'justice'??
In the box: - - It's never their fault - and Breast-kisser gets 2 months in prison.

Out of the box: - it's no wonder so many people have a very dim view of the 'justice' system in Canada - a guy terrorizes for a couple of hours and beats the crap out of a woman and gets a slap on the wrist and sent out to sin again, and another guy in an impulse of harmless passion quickly kisses a bit of showing skin on a woman's breast and gets tossed in jail for two months. Not to mention the cops I mentioned yesterday, with mounds of evidence against them but in ten years the 'system' cannot manage to even get them to trial and tosses the case. It's a big and very bad joke. In Green Island, we'd be looking quickly and carefully behind the headlines here - who is responsible for these idiotic things, they are going to be fixed and fast? What is wrong with a 'judge' that a known, violent repeat offender is sent back to the streets, like sending a rabid dog out in the neighborhood? What is wrong with the lady in Newfoundland that she thinks her life is ruined because somebody touched her? (This is utterly pathetic, but kind of typical of a lot of today's insecure people who have no idea how to behave as an adult - "..The 20-year-old woman, in a victim-impact statement read in court last week, said the incident has turned her into a fearful person who is unable to sleep or concentrate. "I'm struggling to retain some kind of normalcy in my life." - one wonders what she'd be feeling if anything actually bad happened to her. Any Newfy woman of my mother's generation (or most of mine, for that matter, and a lot of them now, there or anywhere) would have given the guy a smack in the face with her purse or hand (or I know a few who would have gone with the knee in the nuts) and after the adrenalin rush passed everyone would have had a good laugh (and half the time they'd go for a drink and wind up in bed or even married) - the box world is a crazy one.) What kind of society would encourage this kind of pathetic weakness and timidity in its citizens? (Think about that one - and then connect a few dots - there's enough asides in this 'short' bit already) - I've already closed out about 95% of my potential readers because I can't do soundbites, and the tv-trained attention span can't do anything else...)

What is wrong with the cops in Newfoundland that they charged the guy in the first place, and the court that they didn't lecture the cops about what they ought to be doing, but actually tossed the guy in jail? It may well have been related to the fact the guy was Iranian, and the judge was thinking 'by golly we'll show this damned terrorist!!' - I don't know- but obviously both of these judges - and many, many others - need some lessons in judging. It's a crazy, crazy world - people are not well-grounded, which is why this crazy stuff happens. People are not well-grounded because they are lied to so much by their government and media, so they don't really know what is going on. (and here's another one that just showed up - Ahenakew to be retried for promoting hatred - again!!! - even though he was acquitted by a couple of higher courts (in what kind of fit of justice we'll never know, but it happened)- but now some rogue crown prosecutor is going to be allowed to carry out some kind of personal vendetta, in the name of 'Canada'. Sad day. Or Another sad day, I should say, I suppose.

At the bottom, of course, the problem is simple - almost everyone at the higher levels of the justice system (and many of its victims) understands that the whole thing is a farce. The box dogma is that this is a 'justice' system for 'we the people', but from outside the box it is easy enough to see that that is obviously complete nonsense. Something that appears like 'justice' may occasionally happen, as lower level people go through the civics books motions, the indoctrinated game, but that's kind of inevitable and you shouldn't be fooled by it. The fact is that the primary function of the 'justice' system is to act as the last buffer between 'we the people' and 'they who run the place'. The people are very well indoctrinated with the idea that we have a great and wonderful and impartial 'justice' system, the media reinforce the idea endlessly - and then when somebody high enough is found to be doing something pretty bad, they can wiggle around and get out of it, and after they go through the 'system', everyone can declare that 'the courts have spoken' - and no more will be said about it. People who have been screwed around by the system and come to understand what is really happening are easily marginalised by a complicit press and indoctrinated public. (the Conrad Black case is not really something to point at to prove the system 'works' and nobody is immune - Black was simply on the losing side of a power struggle among a couple of elite gangs, and paid the price for losing - but the wolves will never expose the system even the odd time they get caught up in it - they're always hoping for a comeback, and not as a sheep. And then of course a case like his can be used to tell people that 'the system' works, even though the US system is even far more corrupt and a tool of the elite than the Canadian system (remember its 'supreme' court choosing the last 'president'?)).

- I would offer as one small piece of evidence - if you were On Green Island, and part of a true 'court of the peers', all members of a community or society meeting together and deciding whether to charge or try the above people, as we would do (as described in the last entry The Montague Student Trial) - do you think the outcomes would have been the same? Do you think the guy who beat the woman would be back on the street if YOU were sitting in that court room as part of a 'jury of the whole'? Do you think the happy-go-lucky guy who in a fit of fun and impulse harmlessly kissed a woman's breast would be in jail? Do you think a gang of cops, at least some of whom were undoubtedly corrupt, would be walking free after ten years with no trial? A guy facing huge legal bills for daring to speak his mind, whether you agree with him or not?

Not on MY Green Island. Not in a just 'justice' system, designed to ensure the safety of both we the people as a whole, and also the rights of every individual, truly tried by their peers rather than a system run of, by and for the true masters of society, and thus showing regular bizarre and completely unjust behaviour such as in these cases above (and countless others) because the people involved knew they were participating in a farce, and held the marks in scorn and couldn't be bothered (or just weren't smart enough) to put on a good show. That sort of thing is obviously getting worse with the Cdn cops, as people who make good enforcers, which is what the cops are more and more becoming, darthvaderites for the NWO, are not inclined to any sort of politeness or consideration towards the sheep they are charged with herding.

And that's some truth today from On Green Island, where we do things much differently. Like everything else, Justice on Green Island is a truth, not a farce or a game to keep the marks in line or a cash cow for those charged with administrating it.

Feb 1 Star
In the box: - - Police corruption case dies

Out of the box: - remember the lady talking about the guy who 'didn't seem to understand the way the (legal) system works..' or whatever a couple days ago? Well, here you got a bunch of guys who understand it real well (cops, judges, lawyers). You could hardly ask for a better example of a dysfunctional 'justice' system when a serious corruption case drags on ten years and then gets tossed from court - obviously a runin between some starry eyed person or two (there aren't that many around, I don't think, not at any higher levels) who expect(ed) 'justice' to happen, and some others who are well-versed in using the system to ensure 'justice' never happens - and as usual the eventual winner between the highup criminal(s) and the ordinary person looking for justice is never in doubt. Now, On Green Island, this would never happen - we'd have an open meeting between the accusers and the accused, everyone would tell their stories, if there were areas of serious disagreement the scopalomine would come out, and all would get a chance to tell their stories again. It would rarely, of course, come to that, as when you KNOW you cannot hide behind lawyers and laws which are in place precisely to allow this sort of hiding, but WILL tell the truth, and completely - well, first of all, crimes are much reduced when you know you're not getting away with them, nohow noway, and also all of this manipulation of the system, at huge expense both in money and time and people's confidence in it - all simply stops. Here's an example of how such a trial might happen On Green Island - The Montague Student Trial. And it might be a dream now - but every good thing we have ever made as a species was once just a dream of someone. (don't go all cynical on me - I'm talking about the good stuff like writing and books and fire and cigarettes and beer and Grey's Anatomy and stuff like that)

There's no way such a thing is going to happen today, of course, in 'democratic' Canada, as the system is pretty much based on lies, and if 'truth' became a factor in Canadian life, we'd have to build at least one very large new prison to hold all the politicians and lawyers and judges and business men and various other high-ups who have been lying and stealing from us for - well, forever, really. (Here'd be one of the first to go on trial - David Dodge Canada's top banker - just look at that face. He KNOWS that the Canadian money supply is a big scam designed to steal and steal and steal from Canadians, and a central part of his job is to keep that knowledge from getting anywhere NEAR the perception of most Canadians by spreading endless layers of bullshit and bafflegab over the hard cold - and very criminal - reality. He has a lot of help, of course - but still. Look on that face, Ozymandias, and tremble. This is not the face of god. Well, wait, if we understand that 'god' does not automatically carry the assumption of good rather than evil - well. Many things are possible, it's a big universe. Maybe even the idea of people starting to understand the biggest scam in the history of the world, of which they have been the marks. Well, ya gotta grow up sometime..... there is, in fact, no Santa Claus, Virginia - but there are very real bogeymen walking around out there, all the very worst of them wearing expensive suits and being praised as great people in the mainstream media.

Jam 31 Star vs Pilger
In the box: - - `Toronto 18' suspect has good point- this is what a good Canadian journalist does, watches things from inside the box, talks about stuff that is pretty important, and does it well. But is this enough....????? I would suggest not.

Out of the box: - The 'good war' is a bad war - something you will never see inside the Canadian box, as the people running the country are desperately trying to get Canadians onside with their little America-suckingup mission in Afghanistan. Why aren't people like Pilger and the Afghani lady getting interviewed on the CBC, along with Manley last week telling everyone why we are doing such wonderful things in Afghanistan and really need to 'stay the course', except with a better plan, more weapons and guns and troops, etc? If the Canadian people are ultimately responsible for what 'their' military gets up to, why isn't the Canadian media doing a better job of telling them what's going on, of encouraging a full debate?

Because that's not what the Cdn media is all about. The odd intelligent and still honest columnist like Walkom aside, the overall editorial spin of the Canadian media is entirely pushing the neocon, globalist agenda - and right now, for whatever reasons, that involves ensuring an American-friendly government in Afghanistan - and Canada's there to help the real masters in Washington.

In Green Island, we talk about this stuff, and the people themselves decide what WE are going to do. Not, unfortunately, in Canada, where the media and gov tell the people what is happening, and the people have no other choice beyond watching the tv to find out what's happening. Or, that is to say, what the media choose to tell them about what is happening.

Baaaaaahhhhhhhh. You might as well be at the mall like most people are, for all the useful stuff you're going to get on the Canadian media.

Jan 31 CNEWS
In the box: - - Canada would be first nation to abandon Afghanistan

Out of the box: - you don't get much more obvious spin than this, stuff for their rightwing readers to lap up, stuff to push the many gullibles. Others might have used different headlines - "Canada on verge of becoming first country to have democratic debate of Afghanistan invasion!!", perhaps, or "Canadians tell their government that illegal wars will no longer be tolerated". And the one I'm waiting for - "All Canadian MPs to be tried for war crimes for undemocratically taking their country into an illegal invasion - Canadian media next for aiding and abetting".

Well, it WILL happen - On Green Island. Wait for the book.

Jan 30 CBC
In the box: - -

Out of the box: - A few days ago I wrote a short comment to the CBC ombudsman (noted here earlier), CCed to CBC-PEI, in which I said that their stated policy of 'fairness' seemed to be a bit 'well, not really....', offering some examples (about how they certainly seem to promote capitalism-globalisation-'business' over the interests of 'we the people') from the CBC PEI morning show I listen to most days. Well, surprise surprise, a couple of days later I got a letter from the CBC Station Chief (heh heh (that's a spy joke, not living inside the box, and not finding tv sitcoms amusing, nor bathroom (giggle giggle) 'humor', I have a different sort of sense of humor than most people)) disagreeing with me, and offering any number of examples of how the show featured many 'real' islanders, and thus was not biased in the way I accused them of at all. And I wrote him a response indicating why I thought he had missed my point. (all the pieces of the correspondence are carefully gathered here, in the interests of fairness).

The thing is, this guy seems like a decent enough person,and probably is, as most Islanders are, and I expect he was telling the 'truth' as he saw it, and he probably sincerely thinks he is really doing a great job for Islanders with the CBC - and up to a point he is probably right, the CBC does a lot of good stuff, always has. But only for inside the box stuff - and the last few years, the outside-the-box stuff (described in The Corporate Reactionary Revolution) has become a very important part of the reality we live in that people really need to understand if they want to stop the very downward drift of our society. Kind of like a cancer in your body - before the cancer you're fine, once it strikes, all else being equal, you don't know about it, but it's slowly killing you, and ignorance is not a good place to be. But our modern media have been taken over by that cancer, and one of their main jobs is to stop people from figuring out what they are doing, how they are slowly stealing our life from us and killing us.

I think many of the people at the lower levels of the CBC are just like this guy, perfect box examples of people who have been raised in the box, and have never had any reason to think outside the box, and now act as perfect box gatekeepers and propagandists because they truly believe that the box things are real and good. They are not doing capitalist propaganda, in their minds, they are simply reporting on the economy, which is being run by people in our government and elsewhere doing the best job they can do. They have lots of reasons not to question what they are doing - they have reasonably good jobs, as jobs go, so don't have that first reason to complain or question things, to them the society really is not too bad; and I am sure that a lot of them understand as well that part of doing their job is understanding what things can be talked about, and what can't - there are ways the higher-ups have of making this clear, and who wants to jeopardize a good job? When there are Islanders going to food banks, more each year, the notion that this is the completely inevitable result of the neocon 'economics' that the country has been practicing the last 30 years would not even occur to most of them, because that is not the box dogma, and they believe the box dogma - it is simply the ups and downs of the economy, an increasingly competetive world, and it may be a bit rough for some people, but by golly the people running our country are doing the best they can do, and so are we in the media, yessiree!! And the morning show announcers apparently believe the same stuff. Nice people, do anything for you - but solidly in the box and no interest in even considering questioning the box. (I think Karen gets a little stressed out sometimes, but I think she also knows that she's unlikely to get a job this good anywhere else on PEI, and certainly isn't going to be meeting her mortgage payments if she starts bucking the system and going places they don't want her going...)

Exactly what the box people are supposed to be thinking. Letters like mine questioning things are just cranks, he probably truly believes - or at the very best badly misguided or people who just don't understand what is happening, people with unrealistic socialistic dreams living in some utopian fantasyland or something. Which is pretty much what those running the box want people to believe, about people like me. So far, they're winning.

And on and on. I note it's been almost a week, though, and he hasn't responded to my second letter. Nor will anyone from the 'higher' programs on the CBC talk to me, or anyone from the mainstream media - it is very obvious that the arguments I make are true, and thus there is no point in talking to me - you cannot examine the actual evidence honestly and come to any other conclusion - the CBC, along with all of the Canadian mainstream media, are engaged in a massive propaganda drive to hide what is really happening from the Canadian people. They still report quite honestly, and sometimes even well, from inside the box, on inside the box matters, about which everyone used to be primarily concerned with, and still need to know about - but about anything that would get people looking at the cancer that is taking over our body politic, and doing as cancers do and slowly, inevitably destroying it - well, that will not be talked about. (Well, actually the guy who did Spin Doctors last year responded to my letter, in much the same way this PEI guy did - he sounded somewhat hurt that I questioned his integrity - I expect he was/is well inside the box too, and really believes he is/was doing a great job, whilst playing the innocent role of gatekeeper-propagandist. The higher-ups don't believe that, there is no way they could run the place without knowing what they are doing - although I suspect the goal of the box organisers is to get as many people into the highest places possible as they can, to create something of a perpetual motion machine, with the serfs truly maintaining their own box.)

Such is the view from Green Island, outside the box, rather than PEI, inside the box.

Jan 27
In the box: - -

Out of the box: - it's a tad 'interesting' or something that right around the same time the Canadian gov was seeing how pathetically it could grovel and apologise to the American government for daring to print some truth about an unpleasant reality - Torture watchlist 'wrongly' names Canadian allies: Bernier - this book was being published - Torture and Democracy - and not a single Canadian media outlet thought it worth mentioning. We all know the US was lying, and the Canadian government's apology was asslicking of the very most pathetic kind, but if the Canadian media wants to have something forgotten about ASAP, this is the path - minimal mention in the first place, and then never again. There are many such stories - just think of the documentation of the 500+ lies of Bush et al during the runup to the Iraq invasion - we are NOT EVER going to see that in the Canadian MSM nosirfuckingee!! But if they want people getting riled about something (usually something very non-important, as a distraction when important things are going on they do NOT want talked about), they can go on about it at length - remember the massive whinging from the rightwingers a few weeks ago when they caught a CBC reporter apparently suggesting some questions to a guy on a parliamentary committee? Whooee, the world's about to end!! - but the Canadian government apologising to the US gov because the US gov tortures and the Can gov accidentally let a manual get published that said so in print - well, let's just forget all that heh heh.

There is no good future when lies are allowed to bury truth, and governments are willing to lie openly to suck up to the US, and the media will not question such pathetic actions, or demand the truth. When the media themselves are a central part of propagating lies - well, we may be a 'democracy' in name, but it's like the lights are on and nobody's home, or whatever. You come knocking at the door of 'Canadian democracy', all that's going to answer is some kind of zombie.

I'd say RIP, but there's no way. At some point in the future, hopefully not too far away, our children or their children are going to be in the face of anyone left alive from this time, and say things like "What in the FUCK were you thinking?!?!?!?!" - you know, like a lot of Germans were asking a lot of their recent relatives once the shock wore off after about 1946.

And you, who are going back to your television and trying not to deal with any of this stuff - what are you going to tell them, do you suppose?

Jan 26 C'NEWS'
In the box: - - FBI says Saddam underestimated U.S.

Out of the box: - blatant rewriting of history, once again - we know the American gov lies about pretty much everything, but it's really sad and more than sad to see the Canadian government and media becoming as completely untrustworthy. (remember Bernier a few days ago lying about US gov torture? Since Mulroney and his lies about everything it's been all downhill, not a really shining moment to look back at, and say 'Look! Our government and media did something good!' - not a single thing.)

This piece of fiction is, again, completely Orwellian, in ignoring what really happened and getting "What we WANT you to believe happened!' into print - I guess so nobody in the box gets confused about anything they might read on the internet (we know which version box people are going to be strongly inclined to believe, don't we? That's part of getting out of the box, though, and getting free, is learning about these lies.)

"...Saddam Hussein allowed the world to believe he had weapons of mass destruction.." - !!!!!!!!! - it's quite amazing that a Canadian paper would print such a blatant lie - they must be pretty sure of the passivity of their readers. Saddam and Iraq said over and over and over and OVER again they had no WMD - it was the US who refused to believe them - you do! they do! you do! they do! - over and over and over!!! - but I guess this is a perfect 'blame the victim' scenario - 'she really wanted to be raped, you know - she may have said no with her mouth, but her eyes and body language were all telling me 'go for it dude' yea yea yea - and also, you know, a friend of mine told me in secret that she really loved me and wanted me and if I just took her she'd love me forever!' - would you believe that little fable from the animal in the dock? The US attempt to say 'Saddam made us do it yea yea!' carries about the same weight - and at least as much despicability for the scum who lie like this to try to make themselves look less evil.

More than an interesting comment about the Cdn media that they're happy to feature more lies about the US actions, but not a word about a report that details the huge scope of those lies as the US and GB lied far and wide to justify what they planned to do - Study: Bushies Lied 935 Times to Sell Iraq Invasion. What we really don't understand here on Green Island is why so many people in Canada seem to believe the lies, and turn away from the truth? Doesn't anyone remember history, when Hitler was doing very comparable things in terms of creating a situation based on lies which he was going to turn into a huge conflagration - and the German people passively followed along. And now the people in Canada and other western countries appear to be passively following the new neocon lies as they create a completely fictional 'terrorist' world in a runup to - what??? I don't know for sure - all we can be sure of is that it is not going to be pretty for anyone, and it could be stopped now, at least whatever contribution Canada is making to it, by simply rejecting these lies, and demanding some truth from our sort-of elected leaders and the media that spreads their lies and refuses to go anywhere near the truth about certain things. The Germans had much better excuses than Canadians today - we have the internet, the truth is readily available to anyone who has the courage to face it.

Sadly, apparently not that many do. And as happened to the Germans, we shall have the future that we allow.

Jan 25 CBC
In the box: - - The Current - "..Paul Robert Lepage has been charged with the kidnapping and sexual assault of an 11-year-old girl. He's chosen to represent himself at the trial. The right of an accused to defend him or herself is a part of our justice system, but it can create big problems at trial. We'll hear how this case is unfolding and wade into the debate about whether there should be limits on self-representation..."

Out of the box: - A good example of the media (led by the CBC) creating the modern narrative. They do this in two ways - by the way they present/spin a story of course, and also by the way they present themselves - as 'teacher-father/mother' figures, who understand the way the world works from their superior places of wisdom and teach the children/citizens the things they need to know, the way that is correct for them to think about things in 'their' society. This latter role is never, never, never, NEVER talked about of course - as all of the major box walls are never talked about. It is permissable to occasionally criticize a 'journalist' who does something obviously stupid, or makes a factual error of some sort, or a bit of inter-'journalist' sniping - but their underlying integrity, as the underlying 'integrity' of the system, is never to be questioned in any way (beyond of course the odd 'bad apple' - whose outing simply reinforces the general 'integrity' of everyone else). (They frequently tell us all just how full of 'integrity' they all are, as in the last thing I talked about here and in various of the letters (a couple of ladies at the Star, English and Toughill, do this a few times a year, telling the peasants how damned lucky they are to have such a great free media - sort of like a mentally unbalanced person telling others how healthy they are, really!!), but they are pretty careful about not letting any commentary or questions that indicate somewhat the opposite POV get anywhere near their outlets whatever they may be. Altogether an emperor's new clothes sort of thing - as long as the aristocracy are of one voice in telling the peasants about anything they can sort of keep the peasants at bay - but one or two dissenting voices, standing tall somewhere and shouting out loud and confirming what the peasants see for themselves, and the whole thing could fall apart very easily - and stopping this from happening is, of course, one of the central jobs of the modern Canadian media - note what I said about capitalism and their outright refusal to entertain any ideas that it just maybe isn't quite perfect be seen or heard anywhere they control the last time as a prime example).

This time the object of their attention is the Canadian 'justice system'- something that would most assuredly NOT stand much close scrutiny. Sorry, should clarify I guess - honest scrutiny, of course. Which is what we are NOT getting here.

Remember first that this guy is an 'accused' - and according to every tenet of 'we the people' justice is supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty - which these radio people were quite obviously not doing beyond the shallowest lip service - the underlying assuption was very clearly that he is guilty, but of course he can have his trial first (within limits, which is what the show is about) and then we'll figure out the punishment of this psycho .....

They constantly repeat that it is this guy's 'right' to defend himself, but then (in service to their central objective here, I must assume) always add immediately (from the seat of their great wisdom) that they don't understand why he would want to, since the system is so complicated he really needs a 'real' lawyer who 'understands' the system, and of course all the lawyers are just bursting with integrity and a desire to uphold the greatest principles of justice with no consideration of money at all so it's simply not understandable why any rational person wouldn't want one; they imply he is kind of stupid for doing this, although they have to admit, albeit of course very patronizingly, he 'seems quite bright' - you know, as a teacher will comment on a student - 'quite bright, really!', since the teacher is qualified to pass such a judgement... (In reality, of course, for anyone doing anything in opposition to the system, it is only the fool who would accept a lawyer to represent him, unless you're rich enough and smart enough to know what you're doing, and get a lawyer who is honest about the system and you both know the game..)

Current host Maureen Taylor - "the accused doesn't seem to have a grasp of the law and the issues, etc..." - but (the begged question, as it were...) - how would SHE be such an expert on the law etc that she could say this with such authority?!?!? (Oh how silly of me, radio announcers know everything...). Her 'correspondent' seems to be the same, assuming he knows anything that needs knowing about 'the law' as soon as he is assigned to cover this case - certainly the criminal haha sorry accused, who has been working on his case for months or years, certainly couldn't possibly know as much as the intrepid just-out-of 'journalism' school reporter who just got sent to the courtroom about things legal, because - well, because - well, I guess you'll have to ask the reporter that, I can't think of any logical reason. Aside from what I've noted before about the utter arrogance of these people shaping the Canadian narrative for their viewers and listeners. No wonder they won't talk to me - they couldn't possibly deal with a thinking person who knew more than they did, which by and large isn't that high of a bar.

They talk about the judge and crown prosecutor bending over backwards to give this guy a fair trial - considering all the proven stories out there of crown prosecutors conspiring with cops to railroad people, even innocent ones, and lying cops and judges consorting with prostitutes and driving drunk and other even worse things, this seems a bit fairytaleish (but very in the boxish of course, this is the mythology of our perfect system) - from my personal experience, this is certainly not the case in PEI, and I suspect in the great majority of other cases NOT given this kind of publicity - in a case I haven't gotten around to writing down yet, I once managed to get to the 'supreme' court of PEI in an appeal, and in my opening comment I begged the indulgence of the court because I was not a lawyer and said I hoped they would consider this, and they just interrupted me and told me that 'you've gotten yourself this far, now get on with it' - I was being a major pain in the ass to them all, and nobody was happy with it - I have a long list of blatant infringements of justice perpetrated by the legal system of PEI, but I was way out of line - citizens are NOT supposed to impose themselves on the 'justice' system, just wander around like passive sheep being herded by the various 'officers of the court', which includes, of course, any lawyer you might hire. And every time I encountered the 'justice' system of PEI, with perhaps one exception when I caught them off guard the first time and they hadn't yet identified me as a non-sheep, it was the judge siding with the crown attorney to decide how to deal with me in some way that could be called quasi-legal. I'll get to that book soon, I hope.

One might note finally before getting off for the requisite few hours of sleep that in this program, not once did we hear from anybody talking from the perspective of the guy defending himself, or about why such people decide to do such a thing, to dare to stand up and try to use the law in their defence - or about the many INjustices of the 'justice' system in Canada - it is a central Box parameter-myth that it's a great and fair justice system - which is basically crap. Again for obvious enough reasons, I suspect - anyone smart enough to take on the Cdn justice system wouldn't have much trouble talking circles around these arrogant announcers, and that is not something that is going to be allowed on Cdn radio.

So in the end we have what we have - the CBC doing it's primary job in neocon-capitalist Canada - keeping people in the box, spreading lies and propaganda about what people are supposed to believe. And as in any war - the first casualty is truth. Still hanging around in spirit, I suppose, but not getting close to the CBC these days.

And that's what the CBC looked like from Green Island this morning. or this evening depending on where you're at.

Grok and be free grasshopper.

Jan 25 CBC
In the box: - - Editor's blog

Out of the box: - this is quite pathetic even for the CBC. The short comment I submitted, which was indicated as 'received and may appear' or words to that effect, which is a few posts under this, does NOT appear. They have quite a few saying what a wonderful and fair operation the CBC is and how proud all Canadians should be of it, and a bunch more saying what a gang of lefty biased people they all are and ought to be de-financed, the usual rightwing crap - but not a single one commenting as I did that they are actually biased in favor of right-wing programs, offering the example of capitalism as an example. So the CBC edits in favor of obvious untruths, and refuses to print the truth, even in its comment section (that the CBC is not biased is obviously not true, that it is a 'lefty' propaganda organisation is equally obviously untrue, that it is indeed biased towards the right wing is equally obviously and demonstrably true).

One has to wonder at this - obviously I myself am no great threat - but why are they so afraid of the truth, of allowing anyone to say anything bad about capitalism? The only answer that makes sense is that they (their masters, really) have been doing polls etc, and are finding that there is a lot of belief in Canadians, and not that far below the surface, that capitalism is indeed bad and getting quite out of control here, and there is a revolution just sort of waiting to happen, and if any kind of groundswell about this gets going it is going to be very hard to put down or out - thus the first strategy is, of course, to do their best to see that no such groundswell develops. You can see this in the 'mainstream lefty media' as well, places like Rabble or Straightgoods or Tyee or the rather laughingly named 'Progressive Economics Forum' (which the 'real' mainstream media actually mention sometimes, indicating something suspicious - can you trust someone your enemy recommends? Bad idea in serious times, as various people from Julius Ceasar on down have learned...) - next to nothing on the evils of capitalism, or the imaginary money supply which is the basis of the capitalist power/scam - gatekeeping for the masters, a 'safe' place for those having unhappy thoughts about their country to be directed and their ideas contained and controlled as much as possible. (Europeans are less controlled - first, they have stronger democracies and thus social programs there that shame what we have in capitalist Canada, so the citizens are more content overall, although also under attack as are we all; there is also the strong incentive for vigilance resulting from a much stronger memory of what happens when fascistic forces are allowed too much power, a memory we in Canada do not share in the same gut-level awareness - Canadians have become very lazy and apathetic about their 'democracy', and thus it is (obviously) proving a much easier job to scam and lie them out of it. But they are also fairly strong and with a pretty determined mindset about right and wrong under that apathy, and a sleeping bear the capitalists undoubtedly do not want to rouse - as too much honest talk about what is really happening here might start to do.

Good news and bad - as befits changing times. No doubt the Chinese have a saying for it.

In the box: - - CBC transfers reporter who fed questions to MP - actually,nothing about this story, but this quote caught my eye - "...The letter cited CBC policy: "Credibility is dependent not only on qualities such as accuracy and fairness in reporting and presentation, but also upon avoidance by both the organization and its journalists of associations or contacts which could reasonably give rise to perceptions of partiality... Any situation which could cause reasonable apprehension that a journalist or the organization is biased or under the influence of any pressure group, whether ideological, political, financial, social or cultural, must be avoided..."

Out of the box: - Dear CBC - given the above quote, I am wondering if you would care to comment on the fact that on the CBC PEI radio morning show, I get to hear "Business Digest" several times a week, and Michael Hlinka pontificating on how wonderful Capitalism is a couple of times a week, and other pro-capitalist things on the news regularly (for instance, compare the number of stories you do on press releases from the Conference Board of Canada against those from the Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives) - yet never, never, never do I hear anything described as a 'voice from the working person' or 'labour' or anything like that on any regular, featured basis (and precious little at anytime) - do you suppose, given this, and considering that there are far more average working people in PEI than there are capitalists or businesspeople, that it might be reasonable for someone like me to perceive a perception of partiality on the part of the CBC towards 'business' and Capitalism, which would fall under at least three and depending on how you define things all five of the categories you list, and a kind of bias against the ordinary working person? (Your failure to respond to this will be sufficient answer for my readers at On Green Island - it's no secret, but we need to do these letters as part of the research). Thanks etc - from On Green Island in spirit, and the dream that once was Canada in heart ....

Jan 22 CBC
In the box: - - TSX plummets 605 points - "...The 605-point drop - 4.75 per cent of the market - trimmed more than $90 billion in value from the TSX..." - or Average Joes face mutual, pension pain - "...Ordinary folks are feeling a lot poorer today..."

Out of the box: - Doesn't it strike anyone as odd (except me of course) that a gang of antsy gamblers can just disappear 90 billion dollars from the Cdn economy overnight? That the economic wellbeing of 30 million hard-working Canadians rests on the 'confidence' of these speculators? (In case anyone missed that, the 'con' in the con games of fame comes from the same word - if the marks don't trust the 'confidence' man, the 'con' cannot work - and as I will try to open the door to understanding here, letting our economy be controlled by these people is perhaps the biggest con game of all time.)

All those RRSPs that have just lost half their value because of these crazy speculators panicing - do all those retired people who have just had their retirement plans they have worked for all of their lives trashed deserve this?!?

I ask again (and again and again!) - is this a sane way to run a national economy?!?!?

And the only answer is, of course, no - it is absolutely insane. Which is probably why you won't see the mainstream media getting anywhere near that question, because if the way we run our economy is insane, then we really should be trying to find something better - and then the people might start asking why our leading financial people can't seem to find something better, and if they can't, why can't (or won't, really) they, and maybe we need to find some people who can - and it doesn't take much travelling along this path until the confidence in the confidence men is shot - and then where will we be? And where will our economy be?

- notice all the interviews on the CBC about this, and stories in the papers - and not a single one questioning the 'wisdom' of letting our economy be placed in the hands of these crazy gamblers? Not a ONE!!! - they have all kinds of people talking about what to do, and offering advice - but not a single one ever questioning the system itself - this is an absolute box wall that will not only not be questioned, the idea that it might be changed will not even be entered into the discussion.

The whole thing starts from the way we create money, and circulate it, in our 'modern' economies (it's about as modern as witch doctors, really, as you would see if you opened some doors and turned on some lights - but these doors are very carefully guarded by the various assistants and acolytes of the Big Boss Witch Doctors (AKA Leading Financial Analysts, Investors, Finance Ministers, Chief Economists, Business Columnists, As-- oh sorry getting carried away, and etc).

You see, what makes the whole thing go round in 'our' economy (it's really 'ours' in the same way we might say 'our' favorite hockey team - there are people who control it, but it ain't 'us') is -

- imaginary money.

And being imaginary, you can imagine more or less of it pretty quickly - it's not the same as having hard cash, which you can get more of or lose some of, but it's quite a bit harder to do.

Seriously - most people don't know this, but only about 5% of the money in a 'modern' western 'democracy' (sorry about all those 's all the time, but that's what we have to do when we use a word that has a meaning we don't really agree with - and I know that you think you live in a democracy, but I don't, it's just another con game really - if you finish this little article about imaginary money and find it gives you something real to think about, then I'll show you where to go for another article on imaginary democracy).

Anyway, as I was saying, only about 5% of the money in your country is hard cash, bank notes or coins that you can hold in your hand, that 'your' government is more or less responsible for. All the rest of it is created by banks - 'our' government has given them this exclusive power (did they ever ask you about that? I don't recall them asking me... but that's a tangent for a longer article). And since they don't print notes or coins, that sort of thing being illegal still for anyone except the government, all of their money is imaginary. They approve a 'loan', then type some numbers in a computer and voila!! - money in your account. Small amounts for you, bigger amounts for your government (oh, yea, 'your' government borrows from them the same way - except 'your' government works with a lot more zeroes)

Imaginary money, because there are no coins or bills created for this money, nor have they checked around their vault and found someone else's hard-cash deposit they think they can safely lend you - no no, they have just created that money out of thin air, and said you can go and spend it on anything you like.

The kicker, of course, is that if they create a thousand bucks for you, you have to give them back more than they loaned you - and YOU cannot go around creating imaginary money, or 'your' government will put you in jail. And they don't want imaginary money anyway for that interest payment - they want REAL money (this is the con of the con - they give you trinkets, you give them real stuff in the end to pay for the trinkets). And if you can't give them real money - well, you signed a contract to get that imaginary money to play with that says if you can't find some real money to give them back, they can come for your real car, or your real house, or anything else real you have. Trinkets in, your house out. Haha sucker.

And the big cons playing with all that imaginary money just keeping bidding up the value of real stuff they want to buy with the imaginary money (the big players can do what they call 'leverage' and other little tricks they won't allow the marks to do) until one day they look around and see they've gotten so far from reality they've lost their way, and it all starts to crumble around them (the Witch Doctors call this the 'Business Cycle' for the marks - the marks might not want to play, or might catch on, if they called it something more real, like the Sting, maybe, or the Payoff or something....)

- and then there is a race to see who can catch the most real stuff as the imaginary money evaporates around them all - this is where your small 'investors' get wiped out in big numbers, because they are not connected to the banks which are in the front of the line for catching real stuff. Some of the wannabe-big-players get caught in this too, but that's the predator end of things, and they know the game they play, and that it's a bit like musical chairs for them, and some will fall and some will go on to even bigger and better scams...)

There are 3 groups of people here - the small group at the top running the scam (or at least knowing what is happening), a large group of marks who think they are cleverly making money, and another large group who have nothing to do with the scam directly, but because the scam is so powerful are still affected by it. One small group of winners, one very large group of marks. As with all scams.

All I have time for today - it's a much deeper story, but my day job is calling. I just showed you where the doors are. Start with the Box at the top of the page, which also has a chapter on Imaginary Democracy.

Go placidly amidst the noise and the haste .... (and if you don't know where that comes from, find out - it will help)

Jan 22 Guardian
In the box: - - Pre-emptive nuclear strike a key option, Nato told

Out of the box: - You would never have true democracies going to war. You only have war between powerful individuals who want more power for themselves, and use 'their' people to try to get that power. Powerful individuals running a country is not something you call a democracy. Except, of course, when you get your news from the modern corporate media, to whom, well, 'lies 'r' us' is about the most appropriate slogan.

Just imagine you, and the people you know, and the people you sort of know in your dealings at work and buying things at shops and in your daily life, all sitting down at a big meeting - do you think you would EVER sit down and say - 'hey, let's start a war with someone and kill millions of their people and millions of ours will probably die as they defend themselves.. because - " - well, there my fantasy stops, I cannot think of anything to put there. We want to steal their stuff (whatever's left after we finish bombing them back to the stone age)? We want to make them all convert to our religion? We hate their freedom? They're going to attack us and do bad things to us if we don't start the war first? I don't know, I cannot think of a single thing that I would stand up in front of a group of my neighbors and say about starting a war that would not get me laughed out of the place, or have a lot of angry people in my face telling me I was f**ing crazy and if I felt like that I could get out of town on the first train, or something. That's certainly what I'd be telling anyone else who got up at the meeting and started talking like that. (Ok, I know there are a few hotblood-smallbrains out there in pretty much any town who'd be happy to go killing anytime anywhere, but do you think there'd be any sort of even close to majority, in an open, honest meeting (and note those adjectives, I don't mean a 'meeting' with a gang of heavies wandering around staring threateningly at people who say things they don't like, or CSIS wandering around with little cameras taking pics of people daring to speak for peace or against capitalism like they do, and etc)).

No way. Never. And I am 99% certain that a great majority of Canadian citizens would be the same. If our 'leaders' had any democratic cells in their brains at all, and decided to be honest and have an election on this and the Cons, shall we say, run on the platform that "We want NATO to implement this pre-emptive policy and maybe nuke somebody sometime', and the Libs said 'No way!' (I know that's not going to happen, but this whole thing is obviously speculation) - Canadians would vote overwhelmingly for the Libs, because they would NOT want Canada involved anytime in any first strike nuclear war. Never no way. (Yea, I know, Dion would immediately do a Chretien and say "Oh, I change my mind, first strike is ok ya know, watcha gonna do, I know, elect me again 3 year haha Cdn democracy so great haha!!' - but that's all another story). You think that's wrong? You think your family and neighbors and community would do different?

And Muslims are the same, as far as I can see - you don't have townhall meetings of muslims planning wars, you have leaders planning wars, and commanding their followers to go and kill in the name of their god and their country - just like the leaders do here. And in both cases you have massive propaganda from a completely subservient media to support whatever the leaders want to do, to shut up the dissenters and create a bandwagon effect, demonizing the enemy of the day, etc and etc.

(Note the serious difference between actually 'defensive' war and 'aggressive' war - when somebody actually attacks you, you do what you have to, and include me somewhere near the front - but what they're talking about here is something entirely different - first strike nukes.)

And also the whole idea is very, very dishonest in its presentation, starting in the middle of the story - they talk as if the world is becoming a more dangerous place and we have to deal with it and defend ourselves - to some extent true, but why is the world a more dangerous place? They want you to think that them damned crazy muslims are making it dangerous because they 'hate our freedoms' or something - an outright lie. The world is more dangerous because the western powers - and that includes Canada - have been oppressing 3rd world countries for decades, and the 3rd world countries are starting to fight back. You want to deal with the danger - start with the people who are the original aggressors.

All capitalist propaganda aside, most Muslims (yes, I've met quite a few, and know of many others) are decent people who just want a peaceful decent life for they and their families and communities - just like most Canadians and Europeans (I'm not getting near America, there's a lot of decent people there, but it's a culture that thrives on and encourages at least as many crazies as whatever muslim jihadists are running around out there - but in America they have a lot more and a lot more serious weapons).

(I wonder if we're going to see this in the Canadian media or not? Doesn't seem to be there today.... but as I've noted, the European media, while far from perfect, certainly seems to do less gatekeeping than the Cdn media...)

Jan 22 CBC
In the box: - PEI CBC - National news 07:00 - ..Anthony Germaine - In Asia - "...from Seoul to Sydney - the continent is in the midst of a massive selloff ..."

Out of the box: - people on the CBC National news shouldn't EVER have brain farts like this - remember, anything that gets on the radio goes through several stages and 'producers', so apparently everyone in the CBC sees no problem with telling its listeners Sydney is in Asia. Check a map sometime. The thing is, with this kind of stuff coming out of the mouth of 'our correspondent' in Asia or wherever - how much of what he says can you believe? Is his whole education as weak as his grasp of geography? The dumbed down generation, remember, is now making its way into places like the national Canadian media. Well, you know how much of anything on the CBC you should believe anyway, I guess - but this kind of thing is still pretty pathetic.

Jan 21 CNEWS
In the box: - - Afghan war in beginning stages: Report

Out of the box: - this is 'history' in the box - in the very Orwellian sense of just writing things the way you want them to be, and after a few years everyone will believe it. The old adage that 'the winners write the history books' is a very important truth to be grokked fully if you want to understand what is happening in our box.

Here, for example, the writer says, and may well actually believe, that "...U.S.-led and Afghan forces ousted the Taliban from power in late 2001 after the conservative Islamist movement refused to hand over al-Qaida leaders behind the Sept. 11 attacks..."

But as many remember that situation unfolding, the Taliban did not 'refuse' to hand over bin Laden, they simply said that they would follow international law, and as soon as the US ponied up a bit of proof that bin Laden had committed the crimes he was accused of, they'd make arrangements to hand him over. The US did its usual trick ("We're not providing nothing! Do as we tell you or here come the bombs - that's OUR negotiating point!!!"), the Taliban held firm (sort of like you'd expect Gregory Peck to do in a movie when the bully came stomping and threatening to beat the crap out of everyone if they all didn't do what he wanted them to) - and the Americans did what they do best, bomb the fuck out of some country unable to defend itself with a modern military. Such heroes they all are. When We the People eventually take over OUR country and start writing some true history books (We the People being good guys overall, you can expect that our history books will be pretty truthful, it's just the way we are - it's the bad guys who need to lie about stuff, and it's usually been the bad guys winning the big wars, one way or another, and yes that includes WWII, but the story is too long to get into here - not that Hitler was good, but a fight between two bad guys means there is no 'good guy' winner no matter who wins) - anyway, where I was - when We the People eventually write some true history (we are going to win, the good guys always do in the end), Canada isn't going to be looking very good the last few years either.

Speaking of rewriting history - this is a bit much even for our noble leaders - EVERYbody in the f**ing world knows about Abu Ghraib, and Guantanamo, and rendition - that the US tortures is fact, not more not less - yet here we have a high member of the Canadian government apolgising for speaking the truth, and assuring the torturer that the offending words shall be spoken no more - Torture watchlist 'wrongly' names Canadian allies: Bernier.

And it never stops - the CBC and most everyone is at least making passing reference to MLK day, one of the great freedom fighters - but to them it's all about his fight for freedom and equal treatment for black people, which was certainly an important part of what he was doing. But King also realised very well the the racial prejudice was part of a much bigger problem, the entire US culture of capitalism and war, for which divide and conquer the people is one central strategy - King spent much of his life fighting things like the Vietnam war and capitalistic excesses - but today you'd never know that from the CBC people telling you THEIR version of history - no more, no less. Hi all you folks in front of your tv, and this is how it is today. All you need to know you will hear from us. You will not think outside the box, you will not even know there is a box to think outside of. If anybody mentions a box, you have been well trained in the old three-monkeys trick, and to instantly scream 'CONSPIRACY THEORIST HAHA!!' - and get thee to the mall as quickly as possible where there are many safe things to stop you from thinking unpleasant thoughts.

Old George saw it coming, he did he did he did. And almost everyone has heard of 1984, and almost nobody has a clue what it is all about, and how we are living more or less in the middle of it. The details may be slightly different, but the underlying reality is here. The people writing history also run the schools, and part of their 'education' tells you that 1984 is about some damned communists, right? Like, socialists, you know - only socialists do mind control like that, you know? Terrorists probably too - We're, like, a democracy, y'know? yea .....


You and me Winston. And they already know about you and the rats.

How many fingers, Winston?

CBC Jan 20
In the box: - 8 AM Atlantic time, CBC radio news, special reports on the Cuban and US elections. The Cuban elections are a sham, and the US elections just so exciting.

Out of the box: - you couldn't ask for a much better example of box 'news'. In reality, of course, it's the US elections that are in every way a sham, and the Cuban elections that are pretty much real. Cuban elections are carried out in multi-stage progressions, 100% from the grassroots up. The US presidential election is technically open to anyone - but the admission fee is the ability to raise a minimum of $100 million dollars, or therabouts, and if you are not a corporate puppet you won't get any media coverage and will have no chance whatsoever of getting elected dogcatcher. And that the Canadian media pretends otherwise is, once again, proof positive of what they're really all about - gatekeeping to keep people in the box. It's about as debatable as god or santa claus.

Jan 19 The Telegraph (UK)
In the box: - - When governments print money, buy gold

Out of the box: - not clear thinking - I try to put a better path in front of them - the capitalists have got EVERYone fooled with their lies (yeayea, but there's a cartoon on the side from a very wise little guy, 'Yea but what if the 10,000 is wrong ....'?)

The notion of basing an economy on gold is a fool's notion of the first order - great for those who have a lot of the stuff now, but kind of signing a voluntary servitude card for everyone else, the great majority of people. Fiat money is the only sane way to organise money in a society - the problem with it now is who controls it, and the issuance of it - and that is NOT 'we the people', but private capitalist banks whose ONLY concern is finding new ways to manipulate it to max THEIR takings from OUR work and wealth production. Fiat currency, controlled in a truly democratic and responsible fashion by We the People, whose primary purpose is facilitating the market exchanges of We the People rather than as chips for a few in the global money casino, would eliminate most of the financial problems we see in the world today. It would not eliminate the predatory capitalists who will always try to control 'we the people' for their own wealth enhancement, but that is another problem. It's explained in somewhat more detail at They're Building a Box - and You're In

(Interesting how you can NOT get any comments like this in the 'lefty' Canadian press - they will NOT publish anything even daring to mention capitalism in a negative context - or anything challenging the 'damned lefty Canadian media!!!' mythology. That is maybe an encouraging thing, when you think of it - they must feel that their hold on the Canadian public is not all that strong, and will crumple like a house of cards if they allow any public challenges to their blatantly nonsensical dogma get loose - it's certainly obvious to me that they will not allow any kind of debate on these subjects, as they won't even respond to letters I send them, let alone publish them. Yet I get things like this in the Brit mainstream press, such as the Guardian Comment is Free discussion, or this Independent comments section, regularly.)

Jan 18 the 'Star'
In the box: - - The sex tourism dilemma: Most onlookers do nothing

Out of the box: - this sort of stuff I find quite irritating, for some reason. I guess it's the thought of a gang of sexually repressed middle aged Canadian women who hate sex and by god are going to see that everyone else in THEIR country doesn't get any pleasure from it either!!!! I suppose that inside they don't really hate sex, but they have been so repressed in their upbringings that they have no idea how to deal with it naturally, and they live in a religious-dominated culture that uses sexual repression as a means of control of its 'flock', and it's easier just to jump on the neurotic bandwagon than to deal with things honestly. Especially when you and everyone else in your society has been raised this way.

Sex is good. Sex is natural. That many people are repressed and fucked up about it, does not make it bad,it only indicates that we live in a fucked up society. That older men have sex with younger women (or often vice versa) is not un-natural, or perverse or anything else. Look at all the cute honeys in capitalist land looking for older, rich hubbies. If you don't like it - turn the tv to another station for gods sake. Or get out your god card and explain why everyone should live by your personal 'moral' standards.

Sexual exploitation of children is a very bad thing, an extremely bad thing - but much less common than this piece of crap 'article' makes it out to be. And insofar as it is a problem, first, you ought to clean up the many, many priests etc in your own back yard before running off around the world complaining about other places(such people are very high on the sin list, forcing sexual repression on their flocks while engaging in truly perverse acts themselves - truly it would be a useful crusade to weed em all out and get rid of em all), and second, if you are really interested in stopping the sexual exploitation of children in third world countries, then you need to stop fucking up the males in your own society with all that sexual repression as children so they are so insecure as adults all they can manage to handle their sex drives is exploitation of children, at home in Canada or abroad, and secondly and by far most importanly you need to look to the root of the problem, which is very simply poverty - as long as you have all of these desperately poor third world people, who have been made poor and are kept poor by the policies of the World Bank et al of which Canada is an integral player, then you are going to have ignorant peasants desperate for money selling their children to whoever without knowing or caring what for. Deal with poverty, the root of this problem, and you deal with 90% of child sex exploitation. Easier to piss on a rather sad and fucked up, slightly overweight middle aged guy looking for a bit of happiness that he'll never find from the cold bitches back home than tackle the Great Satan of Capitalism, I suppose, though.

'Sex tourism' is illegal?!?!?! That's quite a statement - show me the law, in any country, that defines 'sex tourism' and makes it illegal?????? If an adult male from any country wishes to come to a country like Thailand, and avail himself of the services of a willing adult prostitute in Thailand - what law is being broken? What is the Canadian gov supposed to do about it? I understand that the middle aged sexually repressed and not very attractive domineering Canadian woman wants to keep her male subservient and joyless in his poor life - but let's just tell her to GFY. I guess we could put a box on visa applications in the future - you know 'Purpose of visit - sex tourism, child sexploitation' - I suppose that would catch quite a lot of pervs.

Well, it's late and that kind of story gets me going and I better leave it for now. Total mind control these PCers want - WE DON'T ENJOY SEX AND BY GOD YOU WON'T EITHER - AND WE'LL TAKE OUR REPRESSION ALL AROUND THE WORLD TOO - NOBODY SHOULD ENJOY SEX BY GOD!!! - well fuck ya esmerelda. haha good luck.

Me, I got a beer in hand and a honey by my side - and much happiness that you are not in my life at all.

And I know that is not a very Buddhist attitude, and really I feel kind of sorry for you. But what you need to do, is get a life for yourself, take your clothes off in the presence of a person of the other sex with the lights on sometime and see what happens - rather than trying to wreck other people's lives for having things you dream of. Quit being so controlling. Read Desiderata sometime.

And do NOT accuse me of promoting sexual exploitation of children. I regard that as one of the most horrendous crimes of all. But people like you, who try to destroy the enjoyment of two adult human beings because of your own sexual repression - well, that's not a long ways behind.

(And yea I know too there are a lot of nice Canadian women out there, don't get me all wrong - but it's the bitches and not the nice ones who are running the PC movement and getting everyone to raise sexually fucked up kids... and that's only the most evident problem)

Jan 18 CBC
In the box: - - Must we hate America? Jan 18 2007

Out of the box: - (another comment you won't get a chance to read on the CBC 'discussion' page, very much a gatekeeper of things the 'good citizen' should not be thinking about - )

A fine example of 'in the box' 'journalism', and the dumbing down of Candian media. You're certainly welcome to your opinions, but it's kind of sad to see a writer on the CBC so simple minded that he feels he must accuse everyone who disagrees with him of 'hating America' (poutpout).

The writer at one point complains of "..Today, the headlines in my local newspapers scream: "Culture of fear plagues Toronto schools." (Headline writers dare not ruin their handiwork by inserting qualifiers such as "some.") - and yet in his own title proclaims "Must we hate America?" - apparently not able to see he doing the exact same thing, as they say, but apparently unable to conceive of some middle ground in opinions of America, you either 'love' it as the writer does or 'hate' it as he accuses most of us who dare express some sort of criticism must do. But what about strongly disliking the current American government (and those of the last few decades, admittedly) - but whilst still admiring many things the people of America have done over the years, and many still do? Is that love or hate? This kind of simplistic thinking is for stupid people - people who would never have gotten space on the CBC not all that long ago. I think most polls, at least those that I am aware of, indicate that Canadians don't feel any 'hate' for America, but nonetheless do not approve of many of the policies of the rightwing American governments that have ruled that country since Nixon (yes, I know Clinton was a 'democrat', but there is no other country outside of the USA itself that would call Clinton's policies 'left' wing - Carter, well, maybe a bit, but not much).

The writer is again apparently obliviously contradictory (a trait of extremists, really, who have no understading of or use for, apparently, consistency - do as I say, dammit, not as I do!!!) when he says "..That great America hater, Noam Chomsky once admitted to me in an interview that America was an incredibly open society. .." - but Chomsky has always praised America for its freedoms, which is not exactly 'hatred', whilst expressing great unhappiness with the governments that have been running the place - but again, this kind of refined distinction is apparently beyond your writer, who appears to be of the Bushian dogma - 'You're either fer us or agin us' - and if you dare express any criticism of the golden city on the hill (that rains down death from the skies on everyone else) you're agin it.

Sad to see the CBC fall to such depths. I could go on at length, but there's little point, as long experience tells me you people at the CBC have no interest in discussion of POVs you don't approve of - fortunately we have the internet now, and at least a small record is being kept of your refusals to be honest with us all, and etc and etc and etc and etc.

Jan 18 CBC
In the box: - - Market slide continues; TSX down 900 points in 3 days

Out of the box: - Not to mention Canadian economy to shine this year, Conference Board says and Negative numbers have economists talking slowdown - these people really have no idea what is happening or what they're doing - they have the mentality of a child or somewhat unintelligent adult, living totally in 'the now' - stock goes up it's a wonderful world!! Next day stock goes down The Sky is Falling!!! - it's the old build a house on sand or stone fable - you cannot have stablity in anything if you're bouncing around all over the place at the merest rumor - and yet these people DO run our economy.

The question is, is this a sane way to run an economy? Have the lives and jobs of Canadians changed in the last three days? Has yours? Can you do without your job starting next month if these people crash the economy, as there appears to be every chance they are going to soon? If you keep your job does your salary go up when prices go up because of their gambling? Do your daily activities and needs change overnight? Of course not - the lives of average people do change, of course, but only slowly for the most part - and that is how the economy should operate as well. Slow change is stable change.

But the capitalist economy exists primarily as a casino for speculators - and of course gamblers win or lose big in the turn of a card or shake of the dice - there is no such thing anymore as 'long term investment' - these are not patient people. And they care not in the least how many lives they destroy in the playing of their little games.

We might remember that the stock market used to be simply and only a place to raise cash for new ventures, which was a reasonable idea - but no longer does it serve that function in any real sense - the IPOs are nothing more than rampant speculation, for instance, or the CIBC a couple of days ago looking for some ludicrous amount to cover some of its bad recent speculations in the mortgage 'market' had nothing to do with establishing new and useful businesses, but simply high stakes money manipulation.

And isn't it a bit insane to place the lives of millions of ordinary people at the mercy of these gamblers?

Actually, I suppose the answer to that question is no - it isn't a bit insane, it's totally insane.

In the capitalist mindset, the only purpose of you and the rest of the little people is to provide the wealth they play with - you are, to them, nothing more than a cow on the farm, one among millions, and if you do without food some days, get put out to pasture early, or he decides to 'put you down' when you've stopped being productive enough for him, there's no problem in their 'minds' with that at all.

And until you start to understand that, along with a lot of other people, and do the old classic stand up and shout 'WE'RE NOT TAKING THIS SHIT ANYMORE!!!!!' - well, why would you expect the people milking the golden goose to stop milking?

Of course there are other, and better, ways of running an economy than turning it into a big casino for a handful of speculators and gamblers. Why don't you figure one out, and then go and talk with your friends about it? (If you really need some help with ideas, start with the book at the top of this page about The Box)

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