Our last installment wrapped up A. Nonymous’ extended introduction. This installment is the first where we look at true pinnacles of masculinity that will be commanding you in the military. And as always, my comments will be in the quotation blocks.

2. Faith in the Chain of Command
All around me there is treachery, cowardice, and deceit
-Saint Nicholas the Passion-Bearer, last emperor of the Russian Empire

In the introduction, I mentioned how working conditions in the CAF are generally good. There is a caveat to that, one the size of the national deficit. In fact, you can call me a liar if you want to. Do you know what a Chain of Command (CoC) is? It is a term which refers to the hierarchy of authority encompassing leaders at all levels upwards and downwards. For example, in an army battalion, the CoC might start with the Commanding Officer (CO), then company commander, then platoon commander, then section commander, if you were to go in descending order. At any point in that chain, a leader has the responsibility to interpret orders from their superior, voice concerns or ask questions, then deliver a subsequent set of orders to their subordinates and listen to their concerns. There is also an understanding that subordinate leaders report items of interest or concern to their superiors as required, so that all levels of authority have the information needed to make effective decisions. Keep this in mind as well: All militaries employ civilians (non-uniformed members) to some extent, and they are subject to different rule sets than military folks, thus adding complication to the issuing of orders and legal responsibilities.

What about orders that seem questionable? How does the CAF (or any military) deal with such a thing? In theory, it is the responsibility of every member to refuse an order if they know it to be unlawful. If Sgt Bobandy told his section to go and steal cheeseburgers from McDonalds, that would be obviously illegal and his section should tell him to frigg off, before bringing it up with the platoon leader or someone else. Alternatively, if the platoon leader had a craving for illicit American delicacies, we should expect the Sgt to tell him off and defend his section from such an order. That is one of the roles of a leader; They should be ready to put themselves in uncomfortable positions if needed, such that righteousness prevails and their subordinates are looked after. In ambiguous situations where the order isn’t immediately obvious as unlawful or unethical, things become more complicated, but a leader is still expected to make a decision that they can justify later even if it turns out to be wrong. This responsibility extends all the way to the highest office in the uniformed land, that being the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS).

Of course, such an attitude should extend to all activities, not just explicit orders, and not just orders which seem legally or ethically questionable. If X platoon is asked to clean garbage in the front yard, but Z platoon is obviously the group responsible for the garbage, would you not hope that the leader of the former at least tries to avoid the task since their troops are not the culprits? Sure, the unit CO will likely say don’t-care-didn’t-ask, but one would hope that their platoon commander puts some effort in to protecting their interests, even if it’s just an hour of picking up rubbish.

A. We need to talk about the jabs…

With this foundation laid down, we first need to talk about the elephant in the room: The coronavirus pandemic and the vaccine debacle. When the whole thing started [for the CAF] back in March of 2020, the world was on edge and nobody knew how serious it was. You likely recall dubious videos of Chinese people being welded into their apartments, mass graves, and extreme hysteria. Even here, people were wearing painting masks and drowning themselves in hand sanitizer over a then enigmatic danger. Likewise, the CAF took a serious approach to the threat, recalling people from leave overseas, providing masks, providing sanitizer, and monitoring very closely the symptoms of members. This was a reasonable initial response to the threat, since its parameters and true risk weren’t known. In fact, I commend them for actually doing something, anything, unlike the feds who couldn’t have cared less about letting foreign flights deposit the disease freely.

The bold is mine, and I can’t tell you how refreshing it is to see someone critical of our governments response to Covid-19, that isn’t some Maxime Bernier tier LOLbertarian “muh vaxx segregation,” dipshit. I’ve said what I need to say on Covid-19, and there were many times where we should have had a more “authoritarian,” government response, like shutting down the border and BLM chimpouts, building food stocks, and building quarantine centres for Canadians traveling back to Canada. Anyone who doesn’t bring this up is just a grifter.

But by the end of the summer that year, it became clear that the masks didn’t do anything, at least not against viruses. It also became fairly clear that the virus itself was of negligible danger to anyone who wasn’t already in danger for other reasons, like the elderly and morbidly obese, neither of which are [supposed to be] descriptors for CAF members. More importantly, it became completely clear that regimes around the world, including ours, were milking the crisis for as much consolidation of power as possible. But there was the potential to lessen the (negligible) risk, or so we thought: experimental medical products misleadingly called vaccines were on the way to save us! Here is an excerpt from a January 2020 Defence Team Message on the subject:

“As your Surgeon General, I have some good news to share with you after what has been an unprecedented year (2020) with the COVID-19 global pandemic having a profound impact on every Canadian.

I want to assure you that there is light at the end of the tunnel. As we welcome the New Year, we are also taking the first steps in the launch of the COVID-19 Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) vaccine rollout for members of the CAF. Immunization of CAF members will begin in this month and will adhere to a CAF Vaccine Prioritization Framework which I will explain below.”

Sounds good to me, as long as it remains optional. Indeed, lower in the message, the optional nature of this program was stated explicitly:

“Like other vaccines provided to CAF members, the COVID-19 vaccine will not be mandatory; this remains a voluntary option for all. Whether or not a vaccine will be made a requirement for an operation or a position is a decision to be made by operational commanders, in consultation with their medical advisors. However, CAF members may require proof of a COVID-19 vaccination in order to operate in certain high-risk environments or with vulnerable populations. The intent remains to protect ourselves, and protect others to maintain operational effectiveness as we serve Canada and Canadians at home and abroad.”

The above paragraph is in line with other CAF vaccines. Since approximately the dawn of time, it has been expected that CAF members take certain vaccines in order to deploy to particular zones, given the risk of disease in those areas. That isn’t an entirely unreasonable policy, I’d say. This email, however, aged like a military vehicle in a road salt province.

This picture is from the original text, and not added by me. – DailyRake

As per the CDS Directive from Autumn of 2021, CAF members must partake in the medical experiments corresponding to the virus. What about CAF members who don’t want to, either due to religious reasons or personal opposition to the medical product? The Queen’s Regulations and Orders (QR&Os, one of many documents governing the CAF) Volume II, Chapter 103 states the following:

“126. Every person who, on receiving an order to submit to inoculation, re-inoculation, vaccination, revaccination, other immunization procedures, immunity tests, blood examination or treatment against any infectious disease, willfully and without reasonable excuse disobeys that order is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to imprisonment for less than two years or to less punishment.”

The “without reasonable excuse” is their ticket out of this, or so we would hope. Religion is a fundamental excuse for such things, at least it was until recently. A variety of religions prohibit vaccines for different reasons, or accommodate the prohibition of certain vaccines based on balance of sin and benefit, given the nature of creating such medical products. What about members who don’t want it because of non-religious reasons? Given that the virus itself is of negligible harm, the ‘vaccines’ could not possibly provide anything other than negligible benefit. The risks of these products, of course, are still not completely known, though they now appear to be both slightly harmful and of negative effectiveness against the virus. Is that not a reasonable excuse to say no?

Sergeant Kipling and the anthrax vaccine

This isn’t the first time that such an order has been given. In the 1990s, USA-provided anthrax vaccines were ordered for select CAF members corresponding to their involvement in operations in the middle east. As you may or may not know, those vaccines were also experimental and are now widely reputed for causing harm to many who took them, including chronic and debilitating illness. [Then] Sergeant Kipling was one CAF member who refused the vaccine, and was brought to trial over it. In fact, Mr Kipling had taken the same vaccine previously in the early 1990s for a different operation, but reconsidered his stance after learning of its dangers:

“Mr. Kipling has said that he was injected with the anthrax vaccine when he served in the Persian Gulf war in 1990, but that subsequent reading he had done on the subject lead him to fear its effects on his health.”

He was charged, but the trial process eventually ruled in his favour:

“Canada’s top military judge has stayed a charge of insubordination against a former air force sergeant who refused a dose of anthrax vaccine, ruling that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects Canada’s soldiers from being forced to take unsafe drugs. … When Sergeant Mike Kipling’s superiors ordered him to take the vaccine without his informed consent they infringed upon the serviceman’s right to life, liberty and security of person as enshrined in the Charter, the judge ruled.”

What similarities can we draw between this and what is happening now?

-an experimental vaccine was ordered for CAF members

-the medical product was used under emergency authorization

-informed consent was not given to those members (I’ll come back to this)

-there were known risks with the medical product

-member(s) who leveraged section 126 of the QR&Os were crucified by their CoC

History certainly does repeat itself. Why should a member have any faith in a CoC which blatantly violated precedents that were set against that very same CoC previously? To be clear, the personnel have changed since the Windows 98 era, but the same CoC still exists, and is expected to remember important decisions and precedents like this one. And yet, despite this, the current CoC has explicitly ignored a case which bears nearly complete similarity of principle to this virus clown show. Force medical experiments on me Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me [the CAF members] I guess. Remember the unlawful orders discussion above? If the CoC in the CAF actually cared about its principles, precedents, and ethical guidelines, none of the current ridiculousness would have ever happened; Anyone under the order-writer would have referred to Mr Kipling’s case and said no. Instead, we have a cascade of authority levels bending the knee and threatening their subordinates to do the same, lest someone declare that the emperor has no clothes.

What about the civilian members which were briefly mentioned above? As you can probably guess, civilian CAF employees are not subject to the same rules of employment as CAF members, for hopefully obvious reasons. A plainclothes CAF employee who makes spreadsheets for a living can’t be ordered to go shoot Taliban, that would be most heinous! Subsequently, civilians are governed by federal and provincial employment law, including the principle of constructive dismissal. Let’s just use this explanation from an Alberta law firm which explains it quite well, though you can read more in the official federal documentation on the subject if you want:

“In terms of employment law, constructive dismissal is basically a fancy way of saying that your employer made such drastic changes to your role, terms of employment, or work environment that you were forced to leave your position. If you did not agree to these changes, you may have the grounds to make a claim.”

What do you notice here? How does it bear similarity to what has gone on in the world of civilian employees of the federal government, including the CAF? It bears similarity in a complete and unequivocable way to the federal employee vaccine mandate which was ordered in October 2021. Here is a screenshot from that document:

Aside from the questionability surrounding the demand for private medical information, the change in terms of employment (mandating jabs) and the consequences for failing to adhere (leave without pay and coronavirus struggle sessions) are textbook definitions of constructive dismissal. Any military (or civilian) CAF member who actually enforced this nonsense 1) should be utterly ashamed of themselves 2) violated federal and provincial law by definition, and 3) enforced unethical orders, even aside from their explicit unlawfulness. Sure, this policy doesn’t directly apply to CAF members in the capacity as an employee subject to it, but what faith should a CAF member have in their CoC if it were to have enforced this mandate? I’ll help you with that answer: They should be utterly disgusted and seriously question their place within such an organization, regardless of their personal views on the jabs. Many CAF members I have spoken to in the process of writing this piece share precisely this view, though they haven’t spoken out publicly for (justified) fear of retribution. More concerningly, many CAF members don’t share this view, and they are precisely the sort who would have been found enthusiastically operating the gulags in another place and time.

Informed consent

I mentioned a principle called informed consent above, which I would like to explain and discuss. After the last world war, trials were held in Nuremberg for war crimes perpetrated by the Germans which happened during the conflict.

Did they though?

It was “proven at Nuremberg,” that jews were forced to climb tall trees before sexy Aryan Lumberjacks would come out and cut the trees down so all the jews would fall to their deaths in a totally efficient and super real extermination method that filthy mainstream historian lampshadocaust fact-checkers now all claim never happened. Alt-Hype did a great video on this about a year ago.

Let’s not get too carried away with the Nuremberg Trials and what they supposedly “proved,” but I’ll allow it since I agree with the point he’s making.

While some aspects of the trials are considered questionable (allegations of torture, refusal to also try the allies, and Ex Post Facto law for example) it is widely lauded as the first establishment of international criminal law against individuals. One of the trial subjects was accusations against the Germans of medical experimentation under coercion or other unacceptable circumstances, and arising from this was a document called the Nuremberg Code. The first paragraph of the code defined informed consent:

“The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.

This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.

The bold, in this case, is actually from the original paper written by A. Nonymous, and not added by me. 

Does threat of unemployment sound like anything written above? Does it perhaps resemble force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior forms of constraint or coercion? Yes, of course it does! Threatening unemployment for refusing to take an experimental medical product meets that definition explicitly, and the coronavirus ‘vaccines’ are indeed experimental until complete approval is gained after complete trials, therefore implicating this code. Was anyone in Canada, let alone the CAF, informed about the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment? Of course not, they were simply told that it’s safe and effective, neither of which appear to be true. Nobody was even informed explicitly that they were partaking in something which is, by definition, a medical experiment. The products weren’t even considered vaccines until the definition for a vaccine was conveniently changed such that they would be included.

We have therefore established that the CAF, and the regime it serves, have explicitly violated this code, and knew or ought reasonably to have known as such. The whole point of the Nuremberg Code, itself a consequence of our own involvement in the European conflict, was to ensure that such vile things never happened again, under any circumstance. If the principles we fought for are so casually tossed aside by the very organization that fought for them, what was the point? Why did we even bother fighting the Germans at all, when we now embrace their sins? Why should any self-aware CAF member have even a shred of respect for the organization when it openly discards its history and sacrifices? I don’t have an answer, and apparently the thousands of CAF members now leaving its ranks due to this ridiculous experiment don’t either, let alone the civilians who have left their posts as federal employees.

As if to add insult to injury, the federal government recently rescinded the federal employee mandate, without so much as a hint of repentance or an apology:

“As of May 30, 2022, 2,108 federal employees, or less than 2%, were on administrative leave without pay, as a result of declining to disclose their vaccination status or because they were unwilling to be vaccinated with two doses. These employees can now resume regular work duties with pay.”

After having a knife in their back since October 2021, they can now resume regular duties? What about the last 9 months of unpaid shunning? What about compensation for any financial losses they incurred as a consequence? How utterly and unfathomably insulting. I certainly hope that these employees sue the feds for every single penny they possibly can. While those responsible ultimately deserve to be shot, at least an extortionate transfer of funds would be a symbolic, if pyrrhic, victory.

I would like to add that I think it should be incontroversial that the squeezing out of Covid-19 vaccine refusers was done intentionally. They can use people who don’t want to get Pfizer’s most profitable product of all time as a decent proxy for People Who Might Get Uppity And Cause Problems on more serious issues, like anti-Whiteism and Pervertism. I’ve also heard from a buddy who was in the military that there is even more shocking incompetence in the CAF, and many relatively apolitical people refused to get the vaccine as an excuse to legally leave the military.

A. Nonymous does hit on this when he says that “regimes around the World were milking this crisis for the consolidation of power,” but it bears repeating. Just like how the media hates Trump voters, not because Orange Faggot is an actual threat, but because these are a good proxy group for Uppity White/Goy People, the media hates “anti-vaxxers” for the same reason. It’s not necessarily anything to do with Covid-19, or vaccines, like QAnon “muh vaxxx genocide” conspiracytards would have you believe. 

We’re more than halfway through A. Nonymous’ paper. Next up is a deep dive into the sexual harassment claims in the Canadian Military. It’s a small section, but I felt it deserved its own piece.

You may also like

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More in Anti-White