Liberty's Lips or Tyranny's Tongue

Seeing that our moderate Liberal government is making moves to license speech and confiscate guns, maybe its time Canadians ask themselves if the news they rely on comes from Liberty's lips or Tyranny's tongue.  It is said History repeats itself. I believe it and suspect that has something to do with the timeless back and forth battle between Good and Evil, now fought in the political arena between the competing ideologies of Liberty and Tyranny.  Both titanic forces live by the motto, "Never Say Die", and a major battle is brewing as they come head to head.

Tyranny feeds on freedoms but it can't grab them all in one fell swoop with a massive military strike because Liberty provides society with the means and ability to produce bigger and better weapons. Plus, a lot more of them.  So, Tyranny requires stealth. It must hide its true aims behind a caring smile while it builds strength through a slow and measured consumption of freedoms and it must do it while convincing the populace it isn't doing what it is doing. All freedoms rest on the free flow of information, which is why Freedom of Speech is the basis of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. However, information also provides Tyranny with its most powerful weapon, perceptions. Perceptions give information its power because those perceptions, accurate or delusional, lead to beliefs that drive decisions, and therefore, votes. Perceptions are critical to Tyranny's goal of hiding its true nature long enough that it becomes so powerful, Liberty one day wakes to a world where many of its freedoms have already been consumed. Perceptions, and the beliefs that follow, are not dependent on intelligence. Rather, they are dependent upon trust. If you trust information whose dots should not be logically connected, you will connect them regardless, because you are intelligent. Weaponized information is key to Tyranny's ruse, and its rise. Yes, smart people can be made to believe stupid things, and demand you do too.

The Free Flow of Information: Liberty's Lips

Let's say there are just two competing political parties. In a world where the free flow of information is unhindered, both are free to sell their policy proposals, and people are free to challenge their assertions. In the end, people can accurately judge the merits of both party's programs and come to an informed decision before casting their ballot.

---

Upon winning an election, the winner's vetted policies are turned into law. Once those laws take effect, they begin to generate consequences. As the next election approaches, both parties are still free to sell their new policy proposals, the governing party is free to sell the positive consequences of their policy, and the opposing party is free to point out the negative consequences of policy failures. In this system, both positive and negative consequences are added to the consideration of new and updated policy proposals and, in theory at least, people will make a solid, informed decision. This cycle continues forever, and it shuts Tyranny out completely because an informed electorate, at least one that values freedom, will never vote for totalitarian policy. 

A Forced Flow of Information: Tyranny's Tongue

Now, what happens to that cycle when there isn't a free flow of information? One where Tyranny can slyly exert its influence. And what would that influence look like? Tyranny would need to protect any freedom-eating policy proposals from scrutiny, meaning it would need to find a way to silence opponent's messages in that regard.  Let's say they are successful in that effort and emerge victorious.  They implement their policies, and those policies lead to negative consequences for a free people, as totalitarian policies must. Going into the next election cycle, they must not only protect their new freedom-eating proposals from further scrutiny, they must sever the connection between the negative consequences they delivered and the totalitarian ideology that birthed them. 

---

Support Canada Free Press

---

At some point, the negative consequences become so severe that electors will choose to elect new leadership. The new government implements policies that end many of the negative consequences and produce some new positive ones. Moving towards the next election, Tyranny must not only protect their new policy proposals from scrutiny, they must sever the connection between the positive consequences their opponents have produced and the ideology (Liberty) that produced them. Plus, they must continue to prevent their prior negative consequences from being linked to their totalitarian ideology. Each iteration of this cycle requires greater control of perceptions, which means that to be successful, Tyranny needs an information system that is dominated by a homogenous message. It needs the media and education system to speak with one shared voice. 

The Intellectual Climate Crisis

When the bones of the media's and academia's arguments have no meat on them, they'll move beyond meat to synthesize a distraction. Danger arises when the distraction can be turned a crisis and the crisis into a panic, because panic is a powerful motivator that requires an immediate solution. Greta isn't the face of the Climate Change Crisis because of her vast experience, deep understanding, and extensive knowledge of Climate Science. If Canada held a series of serious scientific debates so Canadians could gain a better understanding of an extremely complex subject, Greta wouldn't be chosen to present the scientific case, would she? Of course not. Greta's critical role in selling a "Climate Emergency" is three-fold, and all are necessary for the political cure to be implemented and continued. First, she is used as a shield behind which the consensus science is protected from significant scrutiny, challenge, and accountability. Second, her existential fears are injected into non-stop media coverage that panics the populace into demanding immediate action. Politicians then ride to the rescue. Thirdly, Greta's final purpose is to sever the connection between the snake-oil solutions and the disastrous consequences that follow. In Canada, this has worked wonderfully. The Liberals implemented a plan that taxes the oil-and-gas industry to pay for the transition to a new, supposedly sustainable, industry. In effect, Canada is trading an affordable, reliable, and efficient energy grid for an expensive, unreliable, and inefficient energy grid. It is like swapping diesel trains for wagon trains and the immediate and devastating consequences were felt most strongly in Alberta's economic environment. Wait, you say! An overwhelming consensus of scientists agree the science is settled and action must be taken now! Really? Who convinced you that science is advanced through consensus and "Climate Deniers" with PHDs have less to contribute than Greta? Canada is facing a crisis all right, but it is our intellectual climate that is in peril, and that is mainly due to the information we consume.

---

Censorship and Trusted News

The governing Liberal party recently floated the illiberal idea of licensing "trusted news sources". I assume the motivation is to protect weak minded Canadians from unworthy and dangerous information of the sort that leads to incorrect votes. The licensing scheme, however, seems a lot like communist style censorship. The media push back was immediate and severe enough to have the Government set the issue aside. For now. Just as disturbing was the thuggish interrogation by Elections Canada of The Rebel's Ezra Levant over his book "The Libranos", apparently over concerns that the book broke Canada's election laws. The media's powerful response to this affront to free speech was, well, Ezra's still waiting for it. There were several books published in the run up to the election, but only Ezra's caught the attention of Elections Canada. The others, written by authors with many connections to the mainstream media and academic community, were obviously judged worthy of Canadian minds. Regarding the Liberal's "trusted news" licensing scheme, who is it that would be at risk of losing their right to share their message, The Rebel or everyone not The Rebel? There is little doubt the mainstream media would maintain their right to practice speech. However, its fair to say The Rebel might lose theirs. The Liberal's speech licensing scheme wouldn't change the media's message one iota. They would still speak with the same voice; they just couldn't do it while claiming to be independent and objective.  Realistically, the Liberal's licensing plan is about power. The power to choose what is trusted news, and that power currently rests where? With the media! CBC, CTV, Global and the Stars, and Gazettes, and Heralds, and Journals and their like-minded friends currently wield the enormous power to determine what news you should trust. Totalitarian governments aren't the only censors to fear because a media that speaks with a single voice will also censor, but that act will be driven by the fundamental beliefs they all share. This is how an ideological agenda gets baked into the news cycles that drives our culture and country. Tell me which censorship system is viler? The first, where people know the tyrannical government is in complete control, or the second, where free people are deceived into thinking Liberty is speaking to them? Either way, totalitarian policy is the result but in the second case, it is welcomed with open arms.

---

---

Tyranny's Tongue Lash

A sure sign that the media is pushing a deceitful, totalitarian agenda is when they attribute the vilest of characteristics and motivations to those who oppose their shared message. It's a necessary ploy because their facts and positions are too intellectually weak to play and in the arena of ideas, and they need believers to vote their agenda into law. The standard tactic can be described as "Silence! I ruin you!"  Those who incorrectly broach topics will be encouraged to stop spreading the offending message. Those who don't comply will be assaulted with emotional bully words: racist, misogynist, xenophobe, Islamophobe, bigot, climate denier or whatever hate card that is most useful in the moment. And when that doesn't work, they will attempt to have you pushed out of your job or school. Even your family isn't off limits from the revolting ostracization efforts. If those efforts fail, then don't be surprised to be met with violent mob resistance, triggered by "news", of course. It's in these moments the media's true nature is exposed, and it isn't a good look.

Trust at Freedom's Peril

Liberty's freedoms depend on a free flow of information, good and bad. A totalitarian media will choke and censor information to promote one dominant message in one single voice. And they will be vicious about it. When it comes to your trusted media sources, and the news they choose to shape your views, it's time to ask yourself a difficult question. Does their message sing through Liberty's lips, or roll off the tips of Tyranny's tongue?