Category Archives: People
John Carpay on the formation of the surveillance state in Canada
There are a few surprises in this interview with John Carpay last week, one of which is that Alberta is worse than Ontario in some pretty significant ways.
Secondly he gives a web address where you can download various reports the JCCF has done on the spate of bills the Trudeau/Carney state has passed, some of which was without debate, which move rights up from the individual to the collective as the state determines it. In other words, from the people to the state.
Also this is the first time I have heard anyone from the JCCF refer to Islam and Islamic practices being exemplars of special treatment by the state. That alone is worth the price of admission.
A little comparison shopping: Food prices on average for Canada Vs. the USA, or, food in free Vs Communist countries
National average price for a whole chicken in the USA:
Whole bird: $6.00 to $9.00 USD or CDN $10.43
Loblaws advertised price today:
Screenshot
T bone steaks-
US Average price:
Per Pound: $12-18 average
Premium/Organic: $18-25+
Grocery Store Range: $10-22 per pound depending on grade and region
In Canadian that would be around CDN $20.85 per lbs.
At Loblaws, which is maybe the biggest Canadian grocery chain and a reasonable metric for average food price:
Screenshot
That is CDN $25.00 per LBS
National average price in US for potatoes:
Per Pound: $0.75 – $1.25 average
Russet Potatoes: $0.60 – $1.00/lb
Red/Yukon Gold: $1.00 – $1.50/lb
Organic: $1.50 – $2.50/lb
So around say, CDN $1.40 or so.
Loblaws:
Screenshot
I am doing this post because I ran into a business man who has a well known large company that moved it and his other interests from Canada to the USA. In a casual conversation with him, he said that food in the most expensive Nevada grocery store was in fact cheaper than it is in Food basics, one of Canada allegedly least expensive food outlets.
I would say he is right.
The US has 10X the population of Canada. The reason for this imbalance is almost certainly government and the regulations and road blocks it gives farmers, largely in the form of Lines of Action such as “Carbon Tax” which makes farming nearly altogether impossible for Canadian farmers.
We have Mark Carney, the current leader of the state himself saying many years before he was in the position he is in now, explaining that Canadians will eat less meat and life will be harder. By design. Not because of some disaster, or at least not a natural one.
It might also be because Canada has decided to bring in MILLIONS of people who all eat, and few of them appear to do any useful work. Fewer likely farm.
In the 1960s and 1970s, Canada was the lucky recipient of hundreds or thousands of Dutch Farmers who wanted to farm knew how to farm and were willing to bust their humps at menial labour to save money to buy a farm and then work it.
I know some personally. Now we are literally plowing over the best farmland in Canada and some of the best anywhere to build beehives for illegal migrants.
This makes higher food prices an additional hidden tax for the government plan to deracinate legacy Canada.
I asked Hermes, a local AI Agent what its thoughts on this article are. Here is its answer:
This creates an interesting dynamic where the people most affected by Canada’s food pricing policies are those least able to leave, while those with means can simply move to areas with more affordable groceries. It’s essentially a form of economic stratification – those who can afford to vote with their feet do so, while those who can’t are left dealing with the consequences.
This also means the “brain drain” effect might be more pronounced among the wealthy and professional classes, potentially reducing the tax base that could fund solutions to these very problems.
Of course what it doesn’t know, is the problems is the intention of leftist governments.
Trump speech July 16 2026 on Chinese election interference: MUST WATCH
Marco Rubio nails it in under 40 seconds
The above is a brief excerpt from this speech below. Perhaps we will find more gems and context to post later
Stephen Coughlin’s 2015 Red Pill Brief and newly published 2024 report: October 7: Black Revolution
RAIR Foundation has republished the entire Stephen Coughlin Red Pill Brief from 2015 in Vienna. For those who have not seen it, or have not seen it for some time, we recommend it highly.
Each segment is presented with a synopsis so you can easily find the segment you want should you wish to revisit it or send it to a colleague.
Fast Forward to today, Stephen has published a brief he has from July 2024 concerning the October 7th attack against Israel and how it is part of a joint strategy between islam and the Left to create chaos across the West. While the document was written a couple of years ago, it was not published until today.
Robert Spencer dismantles Tucker Carlson and his guest, JD Hall’s ludicrous analysis of Islamic history and attacks on Israel
We were fans of Tucker’s during the communist revolution of 2020. He was the only big microphone to give a platform to counter-narrative voices such as Dr. Peter McCullough, Alex Berenson and many others who stood against the Western-World-Wide totalitarian mandates for experimental gene therapy shots. So maybe it’s a little extra painful to see him turn to the dark side since he went indie.
He has had a lot of guests that promote antisemitism in any number of ways. One was some guy who claimed that Churchill was the baddie and Hitler was just misunderstood. Can’t remember who it was, but even he said in a subsequent interview that Tucker’s introduction of him exaggerated his credentials. Another was a Jewish comedian who did a brilliantly funny routine dismantling Judaism as a belief system. But Tucker had him on as a guest for a very different reason. Having a Jewish comedian to rip on Judaism is essentially like Hamas using those fuzzy tire headed pseudo-Jews demand the end of Israel as a nation state.
In June Carlson had another ‘historian’ on who claimed the Ottoman Empire, the Islamic Caliphate treated Christians better than contemporary Israel does now.
It was so transparently an attack on Jews and Israel that hopefully it undermined its own authority. But then some people still watch CBC so it’s amazing how many digestive enzymes people can contain for the excrement of male cattle.
The article at RAIR can be seen here.
The segment of the JD Hall interview is below:
Robert Spencer’s actual history of the location and period is below:
Ignoring the subject matter altogether, this post also contains an excellent example of the contrast between a claim and an argument. JD Hall makes claims with no substantiating argument. If you fact check it you will find out how accurate it is on your own. Robert on the other hand substantiates his claims with evidence. he makes each one an actual argument explaining context and Islamic law as well as historical proofs.
Please share with anyone you feel would benefit from this.
Diana West talk from Nov. 2022 on Reconsidering Research of Bukovsky & Romerstein, or, how did we get here?
2015: OSCE meeting where the future was foretold – Truth becomes hate speech
Please take your time and watch this one with focus. This is not a very long video. But like a lot of the old material we repost here from time to time, it has layers of extra meaning and value in hindsight.
First, the blunt question is asked by Henrik Clausen: “Can truth ever constitute hate speech?”
There is a lot of analysis in here by Stephen Coughlin. The whole video is only 19 minutes. But it is a major foreshadowing of the state of freedom of speech in the West today, and identifies some of the actors who crushed it, not the least of which appears to be certain Russian agencies.
Elon Musk has made available the entire movie of Citizen Vigilante
Two posts about the state of liberty in Canada and how the state uses antisemitism laws to manufacture antisemitism
One line of the article is here:
-
“accuses a group of carrying out secret conspiracies to gain global control or that they are plotting to destroy western civilization”
But it’s a fact. The Muslim Brotherhood is indeed doing exactly that. The Project, and the Memorandum both explicitly state what the plan is for religious Muslims to do as it is specified within Islam’s own canon. My guess based on how things have been in Canada for the last 20 years or so, is people who make factual and verifiable claims about certain groups will face persecution, while people who launch massive conspiracies about Jews, which takes place in every mosque every day, will not. Why can we say this? Because it has already been tested when Muslims have broken existing and far more rational ‘hate crimes laws’ if such a thing is possible.
In any case, anyone who thinks this is great and antisemitism will be illegal and finally Jew will be protected from hate yada yada wuzza wuzza, lemme tells ya, that ain’t how it’s gonna go.
It will massively increase hatred of Jews who will be seen, and partially correctly, as being the architects of destroying freedom of speech. They will suddenly appear to be that exact thing which people have accused Jews of being forever. A tiny group that controls everything. And there will only be enforcement against whatever target suits the real interests of the state. Chances are extremely high that groups like the dialectically named, “Canadian Anti-Hate Network” will fund a few Nazis like Second Sons or Diagalon, and the state will pick off a few of them to make examples of them. We can say that with high confidence because their parent organization the SPLC was funding every hate group they could find.
But no charges against any mosques that actually demand genocide of the Jews at pretty much every prayer session and twice on Fridays.
This is one example out of hundreds available on MEMRI.Org, RAIR Foundation, Gates of Vienna and here for that matter. This one is from Toronto.
And below is a story about one brave Montrealer who tried to bring one of the most virulent imams to the Human Rights Commission.
But wait! There’s More!
Full text:
Ezra Levant: Thanks to floor crossers, Carney can now ram through his spy bill
Using his newly acquired majority, Carney’s government has moved to dramatically curtail debate on Bill C-22, the so-called lawful access bill.
The answer? It is a direct assault on parliamentary democracy and your freedoms.
Last year, Mark Carney won the election with just 43 percent of the vote. That delivered him 169 seats out of 343 in the House of Commons, three short of the 172 needed for a majority. Canadians deliberately gave him a minority government. Sometimes voters do that on purpose, wanting to keep a politician on a shorter leash and force him to work with Parliament rather than dominate it.
But Carney was not content with the verdict of the electorate. While the political establishment spent years warning that Donald Trump might refuse to accept election results, Carney set about changing his own. By persuading a string of opposition MPs to cross the floor, he secured the majority Canadians had declined to give him at the ballot box.
The obvious question is why? Justin Trudeau governed for nearly a decade without a formal majority, relying on NDP support to pass budgets and survive confidence votes. There was little reason to believe Carney could not have done the same.
Ezra’s answer is that Carney wanted something more than legislative support. He wanted the ability to shut down parliamentary scrutiny itself.
That is now on full display.
Using his newly acquired majority, Carney’s government has moved to dramatically curtail debate on Bill C-22, the so-called lawful access bill. The legislation would compel technology companies to retain user data for up to a year and make that information available to government authorities. Civil liberties advocates have raised serious concerns about privacy, government overreach and the expansion of state surveillance powers.
The concerns are hardly theoretical. Canadians have already witnessed a government willing to freeze bank accounts and invoke extraordinary powers during the trucker protests. Mark Carney himself, while living in Europe at the time, wrote in The Globe and Mail that Ottawa should take a harder line against convoy participants and their supporters. It is therefore not surprising that critics view Bill C-22 as part of a broader push toward greater state control.
What makes the situation particularly troubling is not only the substance of the legislation but the manner in which it is being advanced.
The government has introduced a motion declaring that, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-22 will be pushed through Parliament on an accelerated timetable. In plain English, the normal rules are being set aside.
Committee members will have just 30 minutes to complete clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. Any remaining amendments will be deemed moved and voted upon without further debate. The legislation will then move rapidly through report stage and third reading with strictly limited speaking time for opposition parties and virtually no opportunity for extended scrutiny.
For a bill that constitutes one of the most significant expansions of government surveillance powers in Canadian history, Parliament is being afforded remarkably little time to examine the details.
Professor Michael Geist, one of Canada’s leading experts on technology law and digital policy, has publicly criticized the government’s approach. Geist argues that hearings are being cut short, amendments are being rushed through without proper discussion, and the public is being denied the transparency normally expected during the legislative process. His warning is not about partisan politics but about the erosion of parliamentary accountability.
This is why Carney needed those extra seats.
The issue is not merely that opposition MPs crossed the floor. It is what those additional seats are now being used to accomplish. This is a double violation of democratic principles: first, altering the balance of Parliament after voters had already spoken; and second, using that altered balance to restrict Parliament’s ability to debate, amend and scrutinize legislation.
The implications extend beyond a single bill. Across Canada, the United Kingdom, France and Australia, governments are increasingly embracing online surveillance measures, age-verification requirements and expanded regulatory control over digital spaces. These initiatives are almost always presented as necessary protections for children or public safety, yet they also require citizens to surrender more privacy and give governments more information about their online activities.
It is a stark contrast to the vision of technological progress championed by figures such as Elon Musk, who promote innovation, space exploration, artificial intelligence and the expansion of human potential. One approach sees technology as a tool of freedom and advancement. The other increasingly treats it as something to be monitored, regulated and controlled.
This is what an unchecked majority can look like under Mark Carney: Parliament reduced to a rubber stamp, debate curtailed, privacy placed at risk and major legislation rushed through with minimal scrutiny.
Canadians deserve better.
The democratic process only matters if it is respected when it becomes inconvenient. If Parliament is no longer permitted to properly examine legislation, question witnesses or challenge the government of the day, then the institution itself is diminished. That should concern every Canadian regardless of political affiliation.
The right of exit from Canada is being removed one step at a time: First step, massive financial pain
During Covid, we did at least one, if not multiple posts on what we viewed as at minimum, a trial run of communism in a number of aspects.
The last right in any free society, is the right to leave. To say you don’t like it whenever you are, and bug out for greener pastures. That after all, is what millions upon millions of religious muslims did to their Muslim countries in order to come to the West and make them Muslim countries after all.
During Covid, Canada implemented a program where you could not leave the country, or even travel within it without the right papers. Only, to get those papers, you had to take two of a potentially lethal and often very damaging experimental mRNA injection or often more when the first boosters came out, in order to be able to board any kind of transportation beyond a private car.
As I recall, there were actual provincial roadblocks between Ontario and Quebec and other Canadian provinces to check for these papers, if you were allowed to cross at all.
Ottawa Hull Bridge, February 2022
Hwy 417 Ottawa Sept. 2021
Naturally the state under Trudeau used the opportunity to print millions upon millions of dollars to ‘develop an app’ that would track people’s movements and allegedly streamline the process of the state allowing people to leave, again, the most fundamental right in a free society, or make it easy for them to prevent or allow nationals to return. Another fundamental right by the way, is the right of citizens to enter their own country.
Gad Saad’s post is very disturbing. But in typical dialectical fashion, the state has created an excuse to justify it. Kind of like when a public school teacher convinces your child to get spayed or neutered and face a short life full of loneliness and medical issues because it’s “trans-affirming care”.
Here is what Grok says about the nature of the exit tax:
What Canada’s “Departure Tax” (or Exit Tax) Actually Is
This isn’t a flat fee for leaving — it’s the deemed disposition rule under Canadian tax law (in place for decades). When you cease to be a Canadian tax resident:The CRA treats most of your assets as if you sold them at fair market value on the day before you leave.
You pay capital gains tax on the unrealized gains (only 50% of the gain is taxable, but at your marginal rate — which in Quebec for high earners can be around 50%+ combined federal/provincial).
This applies to things like:Non-registered investment accounts (stocks, ETFs, mutual funds)
Cryptocurrency
Private company shares
Collectibles, art, jewelry, etc.Exemptions (important ones):Principal residence (your home)
RRSPs, RRIFs, TFSAs (tax-sheltered accounts)
Pensions and certain other registered plansYou must file Form T1161 if your assets exceed $25,000 FMV, and the tax is due with your final Canadian tax return.
canada.ca
Many countries (US, Australia, Germany, France, etc.) have similar rules to prevent people from walking away from taxes on gains that accrued while they lived there and benefited from the system.Why It’s “Large” for SaadGad Saad has had a long, successful career as a professor, author, and public figure. If he has substantial non-registered investments, appreciated stocks, or other assets with big unrealized gains, the bill can easily hit hundreds of thousands (or more). He hasn’t publicly stated the exact number, but his reaction and the “10+ years to recover” comment suggest it’s a very painful hit — especially on top of Quebec’s already high taxes.
@GadSaad
He’s moving to the University of Mississippi (US) primarily due to safety concerns (antisemitism and threats in Montreal) and high taxes, but this exit bill adds serious financial friction.Is It Fair? The DebateCritics (including Saad and many leaving Canada) call it punitive, a barrier to mobility, and a driver of brain drain at a time when Canada is losing skilled people.
Defenders say it’s reasonable: you benefited from Canadian infrastructure, education, healthcare, etc., while building that wealth — so pay tax on the gains before taking it elsewhere. Similar systems exist abroad.
Practical note: There are ways to defer the tax (by posting security with the CRA) in some cases, and good tax planning before leaving can reduce the sting.Bottom line: It’s completely legitimate under long-standing Canadian rules — not a new “punishment” aimed at Saad. But for successful people with significant unrealized gains, it can feel like a brutal final tax grab when they’re already choosing to leave for other reasons.
So this—-> This isn’t a flat fee for leaving — it’s the deemed disposition rule under Canadian tax law (in place for decades). When you cease to be a Canadian tax resident:The CRA treats most of your assets as if you sold them at fair market value on the day before you leave.
Actually is a wonderfully self contradictory statement. In other words, yes. it is an exit tax.
More from Grok after explaining teleological analysis:
What the rule actually does in outcome
It imposes a large, immediate liquidity hit (often hundreds of thousands to millions) on people with substantial unrealized gains when they decide to leave. You pay tax on paper profits without receiving cash from a real sale.
This creates a strong financial deterrent to emigration, especially for successful, mobile, high-net-worth or high-earning individuals (professors, entrepreneurs, professionals) who have built wealth in Canada.
It functions as a final tax trap — you’ve already paid high lifetime taxes (Quebec’s combined marginal rates >50%, plus consumption/property/carbon taxes), and now one more big extraction as you walk out the door.Real-world results (not theory):Canada is seeing record net emigration, particularly among university-educated and high-earning people. Departures are up sharply (e.g., Q3 2025 was 34% higher than pre-pandemic levels). Skilled emigrants skew young, educated, and in high-demand fields.
Brain drain data shows top earners (top 1% and next 9%) leaving for the US at notable rates, contributing significantly to Canada’s productivity and GDP-per-capita gaps.
The rule doesn’t stop everyone, but it raises the cost of leaving and keeps some people staying longer than they want — paying ongoing high taxes instead.
This aligns with your point: the telos (end goal/effect) is retaining taxable bodies and capital in the system. Governments rarely admit “we want to make it painful to leave,” but the structure achieves that. Similar mechanisms exist in other high-tax jurisdictions for the same practical reason.
Covid, as we said at the time, was a trial run for communism.
The greater tragedy is the number of Canadians who will not see it even as it is being constructed around them. Even get hostile if you try and politely explain the facts to them as they are right in front of their faces. Which was also the case during Covid.
Fauci Funded Wuhan Lab Research That Sparked COVID – Tulsi Gabbard
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard is releasing never-before-seen communications and documents exposing how Fauci worked with politicized career leadership in the Intelligence Community (IC) to suppress the truth about his actions, the virus’ lab-leak origins, and his role in directing U.S. funding for this dangerous research that caused immeasurable harm and countless lost lives. These documents expose Fauci’s direct role in influencing and manipulating IC assessments on COVID-19, and how Fauci lied to Congress in 2024, when under oath he denied knowledge of or participation in discussions with intelligence officials about viral research.
The materials released today are a result of DNI Gabbard’s yearlong declassification review in support of President Trump’s maximum transparency mandate.
Thank you Gates of Vienna for making me aware of this.
Carney tips his hand to show his communist revolutionary leanings
Although Carney himself answers questions in this interview in typical Emperor’s New Clothes fashion, in other words, incomprehensibly but in a way that makes you feel that you are the stupid one if you don’t pretend to understand admire its wisdom, the initial question and the nature of the person who asks the question makes it all very clear. Why did Carney agree to be interviewed by Irish Communist, Alex White SC. A former Labour Party politician.
Fist, for those that don’t know who Antonio Gramsci is, look at this very brief summary in Key Wiki:
Antonio Gramsci (January 22, 1891 – April 27, 1937) was an Italian political theorist and founding member and onetime leader of the Communist Party of Italy. Gramsci’s theories have quietly been incorporated into American culture for at least 50 years. Gramsci believed that the way to incorporate Marxism in capitalist societies was best achieved from the bottom up by stealthily changing the beliefs of the culture itself, called “cultural hegemony.” Cultural hegemony involves softening, or radicalizing, the culture’s beliefs about various social issues such as homosexuality, marriage, education, women’s issues, religion, divorce, pornography, media, abortion and established political parties. The idea is to move everything to the left so that eventually new norms are rooted into society – a Gramsci form of the Overton Window if you will…[1]
Gramsci Symposium
The College of Arts and Letters at Michigan State University hosted “Gramsci Now: Cultural and Political Theory,” an international symposium to mark the 70th anniversary of the death of Antonio Gramsci, November 9-11, 2007 in East Lansing, Michigan, USA.
Presenters were: Stanley Aronowitz, Joseph Buttigieg, Kate Crehan, Roberto Dainotto, Michael Denning, Benedetto Fontana, Stephen Gill, Marcia Landy, Guido Liguori, Frank Rosengarten, David Ruccio, Epifanio San Juan[2].
References
-
Communist Antonio Gramsci Resides In The White House NewsReal Blog, Nov. 24, 2010
-
http://www.internationalgramscisociety.org/communications/news.html
As an interesting aside, Pete Buttigieg, who was US secretary of Transportation under Biden (Obama’s 3rd term) was the son of Joseph Biden, who was the founding president of the International Gramsci Society, and spent much of his academic career translating and editing the definitive English edition of Gramsci’s prison diaries. He was a Marxist prof. of literature at Notre Dame.
So for Carney to be discussing accomplishing Gramsci’s vision with an Irish communist, well as the expression goes, “There are none so blind as those who will not see.” -John Heywood, 1546.
I haven’t made it all the way through this yet. But here is the entire video from which that except was taken in case anyone wants to know if there is a contextual conflict between my claims and the entire speech.
Alice Weidel of the AfD excoriates the German government with all the facts
Also check the article at RAIR please. Some of the missing pieces can be found there. Yes, Alice did an amazing job. But more needed to be said. Like how the German government actually funded ANTIFA that effectively acted as Brown-shirts to attack and hospitalize AfD (counter-revolutionary) members, and burned down their cars and properties.
Even so, this is a riveting several minutes. And unlike the useless occasional truthful speech at the European Union Parliament which is always just steam kettle whistle, this might actually lead to a shift in a positive direction.
The expression, “Steam kettle whistle” is, as far as we know, a proprietary one. We made it up I think. So maybe it needs explanation.
We believe that a lot of politicians express some components of the truth of what people are seeing with their own eyes in apparent opposition to state narratives, in order to release some of the pressure building in the general public of the West as they see their rights disappear, along with their safety, wealth and even identity. Now and again a rousing speech by an impotent MEP might just let them think that someone is actually doing something at the political level and there is no need to take any kind of actually effective action. Much like a whistling kettle will let out a shrill blast when the water reaches a certain temperature to make sure the kettle doesn’t explode.
As an aside, when Weidel mentions Nuremberg, she is referring to this story about how (Most likely Muslim,) migrants are addicting young girls to drugs then forcing them into prostitution. If this is common knowledge in the UK, and now becoming known in Germany, where else is this happening? And what governments are hushing it up?