You can find the last piece here. We’ll be blitzing through the rest of this piece, with me uploading the rest of this paper in multiple articles out later today. As always, below this line the indents are my additions.
Defending Canadian Values
According to the source for this section, Duty with Honour, we find the following laid out as Canadian values:
“Such values as the democratic ideal, the concept of peace, order and good government, the rule of law, and the strength to be drawn from diversity.”
As described extensively in the first section of this paper, the ‘strength’ drawn from diversity has been infighting, race-baiting, and destruction of societal and military cohesion, all at the expense of what is important; There is no need to repeat the discussion again. Diversity of thought would be different, but that is absolutely verboten in Canada and the CAF.
Rule of Law
Rule of law? The stupidest pandemic in history has removed any shred of it that was left. Medical discrimination is illegal, but we have vaccine mandates for jobs, travel, border crossings, and more. Invading a church service is criminally illegal, but cops stormed into churches during the pandemic without consequence, multiple times, because the congregation were violating gathering restrictions exercising their rights. Inter-provincial travel restrictions are unconstitutional, yet a variety of checkpoints and rules popped up over the last two years in direct violation of basic rights. As already mentioned, the law is applied differently based on the race and gender of the perpetrator, for the same crime. The prime minister himself violated ethics law in the SNC-Lavalin fiasco, but obviously he wasn’t punished because rule of law doesn’t apply; Some animals are more equal than others. Canada is a country in which rule of law is a farce of its own principle.
Peace, order, and good government
Peace, order, and good government is an interesting statement. Every boomer-tier newspaper comic since the dawn of time has complained that our government is bad, but they don’t actually understand why. It is bad because its core documentation is full of holes; Specifically, the charter of rights and freedoms is deliberately awful. This is the first paragraph:
RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS IN CANADA
“The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”
We have rights given by government, unless they want to restrict them by justifying the restrictions to themselves. This would make them more like privileges. How about section 15?
EQUALITY BEFORE AND UNDER LAW AND EQUAL PROTECTION AND BENEFIT OF LAW
“15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Affirmative action programs
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.”
Equity comes back to rear its head again: People can’t be discriminated against for immutable characteristics unless government says that they can be discriminated against for immutable characteristics. Remember our mentions of equity earlier? It’s a big problem. Below, see a definition of equality when compared to equity. This one is from George Washington University, but you will find similar definitions in a variety of places:
“Equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities. Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome.”
Here’s the TL;DR: Equality = same opportunity, equity = same outcome. I certainly hope you can see why this is a problem. Remember your parents’ half-assed explanations of communism from when you were a kid? It probably included a description of how doctors and burger flippers made the same money, despite one being vastly more skilled and responsible than the other. That is equity. Maybe this image explains it better:
This image obviously is shilling for equity, but it inadvertently explains why it is so bad. See the purple shirt guy? Whose problem is it that he can’t see the game? Not yours, and not mine. It is his problem alone. It’s unfortunate that he is too short to see without additional crates, but that is his issue to solve. The blue shirt guy, alternatively, is tall enough to see without any additional stuff to stand on, and the red shirt bloke only needs one. Good for them. In the second pane, these crates have been redistributed such that all can see. I suppose that at a ball game, it is reasonable to expect that crates were willingly given to others, but society is not a ball game, and redistribution in real life happens at metaphorical gun point. If your wealth is confiscated to support those with less, why bother working at all? If you are arbitrarily held back from promotion so that more ‘diverse’ people can get ahead for no good reason, why bother putting in the effort? Equity is the undoing of any organization larger than a few dozen people, because humans are not created equal, and forcing an equal outcome is abominable and an affront to nature. The end result is a society of purple shirt people clamouring for crates that don’t exist, because all the blue shirts either fled the country or decided to become welfare NEETs.
I think this is actually a fairly weak argument. Much stronger is simply pointing out that Globo Homo only selectively whines about equity. Where are all the think pieces raging against men not getting equal pay as fashion models? Where are all the New York Times articles whining about too many Black People in the NBA? And of course, they’ll whine about “Non-Asian Minorities” not having as high incomes as Whites, but bring up the average income of Jews and suddenly “muh equity,” arguments won’t even be entertained.
On to section 24:
ENFORCEMENT OF GUARANTEED RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
“24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.”
If your rights (privileges) were infringed, you can kindly ask a court to remedy the problem. They will ask that a government representative justify the infringement. Then, you get a remedy, or not. Either way, it will be too little too late; This allows government to shoot (your rights) first and ignore questions later. Let’s say, for example, that a government mandated experimental vaccines gene therapy to continue working for them. I know, what sort of horrible regime would do that? Anyways, at that point you could quit, become destitute, live under a bridge, and wait for the court to deem the restriction unacceptable. Or, more likely, you bend over and take the infringement in the ass, then complain on Facebook. What good is a court victory if you go broke waiting for it? I know not if other countries have the reverse, but it would be the correct way to do things; government requests an infringement, then spends their time justifying it.
The bold is mine. This is such a crucial component of how the legal system fucks over the peasants. There’s lots of propaganda out there pretending that courts are completely and always slanted against us, but this is objectively false, as we’ve seen with many high profile cases like Kyle Rittenhouse, Ernst Zunel, Robertson De Chazal, or even the NJP’s Mike Enoch all winning their cases.
No, the way they fuck you in the courts is only partially by winning. The process itself is often a punishment far too burdensome to bear. Unless you can use your legal battle to launch political action, probably in conjunction with constant propaganda, a political party, and street activists, then you should be prepared to go broke over bullshit that they’ll throw out the first day in court.
If the core document that guides our government is this useless, how can the government itself be expected to be good? Outside of good government, the statement includes peace and order. Credit where credit is due, those two tenets are somewhat reasonable, all other factors being equal. Just as a point of comparison, let’s look at the first amendment from the American constitution:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Now that’s something worth respecting. Do you see the part where they are allowed free speech except when the government says they can’t? No, you don’t see it because it’s not there. I’ll translate for you: Government shall not force or prohibit religion, or hinder freedom of speech and media, or freedom of assembly, or freedom to protest against government, no ifs ands or buts. Sure, the USA is failing for a lot of the same reasons Canada is, and this and other amendments are (illegally) being trampled on, but if their principles (constitution) are sound and commendable, they have a chance of surviving in some form. Our principles were deliberately rubbish from the start, so too is the country. Maybe that’s why our public schools brainwash us into hating Americans; They’re jealous and don’t want us to notice that the game was rigged from the start.
THE DEMOCRATIC IDEAL
What is the democratic ideal? If we switch it to ideal democracy, that might be easier. How is democracy defined? The simple terms are that demo- means people, and -cracy means rule. Rule by the people, I suppose. That would imply, therefore, that the ideal democracy is one in which the desires of the people are most closely met. Not Canada, in other words.
Indeed. Not Canada, and not the US either.
In Representative Democracy, it is the dollars of international finance capital that get representation. You get nothing.
Canada uses the Westminster representative democracy system. In this system, the country is divided into regions called seats, generally based on population. Representatives from sports teams called political parties will shill for votes from the people in these ridings, by existing as a representation of that party’s platform, or values. If a representative wins their seat, they become a member of parliament (MP). The party with the most seats wins the Stanley cup election, and their leader becomes Prime Minister, or leader of the country. If they can get 170 seats or more, they can do whatever they want as king of the hill, without MPs from other parties being able to stop them, more or less. Technically the senate can stop things, but the senate itself is not elected. Issues get voted on by these MPs, 338 of them totally, which means that it’s not actually a democracy, but more of an MP-ocracy or something like that. In principle, Canadians elect their own dictators every 4 years or less, and hope that they will do what they want, lest they receive a stern email.
I hate to keep interjecting, but shitting on Rep Democracy as Fake Democracy is the fastest way to my heart. I’ve even made that exact sane “political parties as sportsball,” point myself.
Think back to the last few years, and all that has gone on. Did you personally get asked whether or not you support federal vaccine mandates? Were you individually consulted on your support for the federal budget? Did you go to a polling station to voice support for or opposition to one of the many carbon taxes now being extorted from us? The answer is no. Neither will you be asked about new censorship laws coming in shortly. Realistically, you had no say in any of this, other than your choice of what colour of the same political ideology you prefer. You can write a strongly worded letter to your MP if you really want, but they have no obligation to give a shit. More than likely you will get a prefabricated response about how your call is important to us, please wait on the line. One can hardly declare a country to be ruled by its people, when the desires of those very people can be completely ignored, without consequence, for any significant issue or law that comes to be.
If Canada is a democracy, then democracy is just an excruciatingly inefficient dictatorship, and therefore is not worth defending; At least China gets shit done. Alternatively, if Canada is not a democracy, then how can the CAF defend democracy in a country where it is absent? When we combine this with the other aspects of the CAF mission statement, it seems to fall apart in our hands.
The core problem here is that the CAF is beholden to said government. As long as Canada functions as a representative non-democracy, it will be doomed along with its military. The CAF cannot rid itself of toxic social justice, because the federal government mandates such nonsense. The federal government, in turn, mandates these things regardless of the will of its people. Inevitably, the CAF and its government will drift away from the people they are supposed to represent, thus turning people away from joining, and driving out those who already wear the uniform. Or, more likely, they will continue to import people who they do represent, and purchase their support with more of dem programz. Frankly, when combining the mission of the CAF with the embarrassing government and collapsing society it supposedly reflects, there is no point in defending it. How would a Russian or Chinese occupation be substantially different from the existing occupation by shady supranational finance commissions and an unaccountable and contemptible regime? Maybe Chinese cars and Russian liquor would actually be affordable.
We’re ending this installment here, because there can be no higher point to stop at than shitting on this entire system of fake democracy. Later today we’ll release the final part of the paper, which essentially details how Canada became a completely controlled vassal state of America.