"Winning Narrative" vs "Extremism" and the Right to Dissent
Key considerations for journalists, politicians and the public alike
Editor’s Note: Each letter I start recently
to provincial and federal politicians
to media
to contacts I have in various citizen organizations
gets bogged down in WAY TOO MANY DETAILS as there is so much going on these days that isn’t being captured in a single place to which I can then refer others. So this post is intended then as a location for the “background” to letters I plan on writing.
Following a tip from an author of a health book, I then ran my “background” information through the free version of www.perplexity.ai asking it to create an executive summary. This was the result:
The text discusses the critical intersection of free speech, media censorship, and corporate influence in shaping public discourse, particularly in the context of the United Nations' upcoming Declaration on Future Generations. It emphasizes that while free speech is vital, it must coexist with the respect for diverse opinions, which is increasingly under threat from mainstream media and political narratives.Key points include:
Free Speech vs. Censorship: The author argues that the UN's initiative to "eliminate intolerance" could lead to increased censorship and the stifling of dissenting voices, labeling them as "extremist." This echoes historical colonial tactics where elites dictate societal norms without public input.
Media's Role: There is a growing concern that journalists are avoiding a diversity of opinions, reframing the ethical obligation to present multiple viewpoints as "bothsidesism" or "false balance." This trend is seen as detrimental to healthy public discourse and a pathway to totalitarianism.
Corporate Interests: The text highlights how corporate agendas may influence public policy, particularly through UN directives and partnerships with organizations like the World Economic Forum. This raises questions about the motivations behind policies that appear to prioritize corporate profits over public welfare.
Call to Action: The author urges readers to engage with alternative media sources, such as Canadian Shareable News, which aims to present underreported viewpoints and facts. There is a strong appeal for citizens to resist narratives that dismiss critical perspectives as extremist.
Overall, the text serves as a warning against the dangers of a homogenized media landscape and the potential consequences of prioritizing corporate and political narratives over genuine public discourse.
NOT BAD. PRETTY GOOD ACTUALLY!
This summary gives readers a taste of my ideas, albeit without referencing the various fascinating sources I drew from. Below I have a sample shorter introductory letter followed by my lengthy deep-dive into the issues summarized above including the United Nation’s intention to “eliminate intolerance”; Rudyard Kipling’s poem "White Man's Burden"; the World Economic Forum’s “Toolkits” for government regulators; a former British spy’s analysis on the new divide in our culture; the worry among journalists about presenting a “false balance” aka “bothsideism”; various current events related to Palestine, Ukraine, climate change, vaccine mandates and other seemingly disparate topics!! I also repeatedly reference Canadian Shareable News, not as shameless self-promotion, but because the topics I am concerned about are simply not conveniently pulled together in other publications. As always, I encourage readers to pull out from here any bits and pieces they chose, in order to share their concerns with others, including politicians and journalists.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hello ….. {writing to both the governing and the opposition parties at the provincial level in response to a survey question about the importance of free speech and an email request to help shape future party directions}
As a citizen trying to remain informed about issues being presented on BOTH side of the political divide in this province, I receive emails from all of the leading parties. The subtext of the emails is: "Support US. Only we can save you from THEM and their EXTREMIST views."
I know that in politics, making the other side look bad and your side look good is part of the game. But that should only be done with the presentation of good and better policies backed by persuasive and verifiable facts, not with a "winning narrative" designed to pigeonhole others as the newest boogymen: as “extremists".
What should NOT be part of the political game is working with only half the deck. When you rely ONLY on mainstream corporate funded media to give you a full picture of any issue, you are missing out on half the information. Please contact the expert analysts on any topic covered in Canadian Shareable News - reach out to those cited in the past 23 issues, interview them on your podcasts or refer to them by name when you are interviewed, call them as witnesses to your committees, seek their input into your policy making etc, and realize that any attempt to paint them as "other", "fringe", "extremist", "intolerant" etc. harms all of society. To divide society into "us normal concerned people" vs. "those extremists" for anyone whose opinions differ from ours, benefits only those who already sit on insane amounts of investment income (such as the CEO of Amazon featured here -- in 2021, not withstanding further gains from COVID policy and from the US military’s use of Amazon Cloud Servers these last 2 years) https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/.)
Freedom of speech not only needs to be protected. It needs to be respected. And we need to be open to learning from those whose opinions differ from ours.
AND we need to be wary of any censorship placed upon us by those with special interests, particularly with those who intend to roll out global governance over us all under the guise of "helping to build our futures" while enriching themselves.
Say NO to neo-colonialism and corporate totalitarianism. Say No to the UN and anyone else seeking to silence freedom of expression while re-casting a valuable diversity of opinion and information as something to combat.
Thank you
(NAME)
For the past 4 1/2 years, I have sought ways to inform both NDP and UCP politicians of information that has been censored out of mainstream media. I have also now tried to get my own feedback on the lofty sounding "Declaration on Future Generations" to members of Canada's delegation to the UN but am getting no return phone calls from federal Minister's offices on how to do that. While I realize that this is not your jurisdiction, I also realize that the direction in which the UN wishes to take speech and thought via its inclusion of "eliminating intolerance" as an actionable item has massive implications for any communication both of your parties plan for the future, not to mention for the people in this or any other province.
The ability of individuals in Canada to speak freely as individuals is crucial of course. But it is only ONE part of the problem as we move towards a world in which the United Nations is seeking to "eliminate intolerance" via its "Declaration on Future Generations" which, by the way recently underwent a "Three Day Silence procedure". This meant that absent any feedback from [UNKNOWN BODIES OR INDIVIDUALS] the Declaration was supposed to be considered adopted within three days. The post went up on August 13 and was to be considered accepted on August 16 https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/sotf-letter-dfg-co-facilitators-rev3-silence-procedure.pdf / https://www.un.org/en/summit-of-the-future/declaration-on-future-generations. The Declaration is to be added to the Pact for the Future (which is also currently under Silence Procedure) and a third document in less than three week's time at the UN's Summit for the Future. This is all planned in order to shape future policy by people we have not elected but who deem themselves accountable for planning global governance moving forward. In their words: In September, world leaders will convene at the United Nations to adopt the Pact for the Future, which will include a Global Digital Compact and a Declaration on Future Generations as annexes.
The idea that some few need to take upon themselves the duty of planning future conditions for the continuation of daily life of uninformed masses reminds me of the colonialist thinking behind the Rudyard Kipling poem "White Man's Burden". This staple of our provincial high school Social Studies curriculum highlights the exceptionalist view of the then global elite (movers and shakers of the British Empire) which we continue to see today among those who consider themselves called to take on the "burden" of shaping life for all - with the hidden layer of financial benefits for themselves.
What is chilling is that not one of these three documents is referenced in the search engine of "Canada's trusted news leader" the Canadian Press news wire service. This is the major source of many of the news stories published by the mainstream (government and corporate backed) media in Canada. So it is likely that the majority of you are unaware that these documents exist, what they entail and what the implications of their presumed acceptance can be for world citizens and the government ministries you are focussing on. It is no secret that many of the policies being implemented across the country at the federal, municipal and provincial levels stem from UN directives as spin offs from the wide ranging Agenda 2030 which too, was once deemed adopted by people we did not elect without feedback from the citizens of the world who are directly affected. How many policies are derived across our country as a result of "Toolkits" or "Handbooks" published by the UN's partner since 2019, the world's largest corporate lobby group the World Economic Form, is less well known (https://www.weforum.org/search/?query=Toolkit leads to over 2,300 items). And how many of the items listed in these toolkits are copied straight over into Canadian policies? How many of them were intended to bolster the bottom line of the WEF's member corporations? (A case in point is the "Agile Regulation" Toolkit intended to streamline drug approval processes to remove the inconvenient extra costs to pharmaceutical companies involved in true safety testing. https://www.weforum.org/about/agile-regulation-for-the-fourth-industrial-revolution-a-toolkit-for-regulators/. This is a topic that was under discussion 15 months ago at the National Citizens Inquiry which, also, was NOT covered on mainstream media despite being an ongoing nation wide event for 27 days. See https://nationalcitizensinquiry.ca/witness/shawn-buckley/#1689907599686-b8452d36-bb092636-5e52.)
As well, it is chilling is that the US based Associated Press, which claims to be a major news source for over half the world's population, also makes ZERO references to the three documents which are set to be "adopted" between September 20 and 23. (https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/sotf-un_summit_of_the_future_faq.pdf / https://www.un.org/en/summit-of-the-future/action-days)
Like in the McCarthy era of the late 40s and 50s, when there was a full scale "repression and persecution of individuals and a campaign spreading fear of communist and Soviet influence on American institutions" (in the words of Wikipedia), today we see evidence of the same tactics of repression and persecution... in which we only need to replace the word 'communist' with 'extremist'. By that logic, of course our mainstream media cannot address any of the testimonies that point at harms of the COVID-19 injections - that would be "extremist". Of course most of the UCP and all of the NDP MLAs needed to signal their opposition to "extremism" by staying away from the one public event in over four years that gave audiences a chance to hear irritating realities and piles of facts-on-the-ground re: mRNA injections. Of course, any criticism of UN policies being applied in Canada like the one on "Migration Replacement" (2000) needs to be labelled as "extremist". Of course the media cannot inform anyone about the lowball estimate of global casualties arising from the COVID-19 mRNA injections (17 million dead) because to critique the narrative that the media itself promulgated incessantly, that would give a platform to those "extremist anti-vaxxers". And so on, and so forth.
Leaders lead by their actions. Our PM Justin Trudeau showed the way, as a cheerleader that anyone pointing at inconvenient facts-on-the-ground is to be verbally flogged as "fringe" "extremist" etc., etc.. This from a "leader" who was also seen bragging about the 600 million dollars his government has given corporate and government backed media alike. https://rumble.com/vttfhd-mainstream-media-is-bought-by-justin-trudeau...-in-his-own-words.....html.
Image Source: https://www.blogtalkradio.com/blackfreethinkers/2013/06/02/us-vs-them-mentality
Writing recently about the Democratic National Convention, the NATO invasion of Russia at Kursk and other current events, former British Diploma and MI 6 spy Alastair Crooke made the connection for me. He talked about a need in Western culture for a "winning narrative". Somehow, our secular culture desires being "on the right side of history", having this global mission of redemption, an "us vs. them" thinking. Crooke writes:
Just as the hegemonic West arose out of the Cold War era shaped and invigorated through dialectic opposition to communism (in the western mythology), so we see today, a (claimed) totalising ‘extremism’ (whether of MAGA mode; or of the external variety: Iran, Russia, etc.) – posed in Chicago in a similar Hegelian dialectic opposition to the former capitalism versus communism; but in today’s case, it is “extremism” in conflict with “Our Democracy”. ... ‘Extremism’ effectively plainly is being set up as the successor to the former Cold War antithesis – communism... ‘Winning narratives’ essentially assert – in secular format – the inevitability of the western eschatological Mission for global redemption and convergence. In this new narrative context, facts-on-the-ground become mere irritants, and not realities that must be taken into account. See page 1 here:
Over the past 23 weeks at Canadian Shareable News - a weekly publication posted on the non-censoring Substack platform has been pointing to inconvenient "facts on the ground" that somehow have been left OUT of mainstream media (i.e. Canadian Press, Associated Press and by extension CBC, CTV, Global News) or that have been presented in a one-sided manner only.
And by "somehow" I mean exactly what Crooke referred to... the desire to show only the "winning narrative" and to paint those who provide irritating realities or simply opposing viewpoints as "extremist" "intolerant" or otherwise not worthy of consideration. When our political parties, and other governmental as well as educational institutions place everything in terms of "winning narratives" vs. "extremist", leaving no room for the to and fro of healthy debate on ideas, we end up with a totalitarian state of affairs, whether at the level of a school board or town council meeting, a provincial, territorial or federal legislative assembly or even a forum working out details of global governance. And when those shaping the narratives are powered by unseen corporate interests, we enter the dismal reality of corporate totalitarianism. Another example of the unseen corporate interests having influence over public policy is the 217 "non-state actors" who had free access to those who prepared the new international Pandemic Treaty prior to the World Health Assembly earlier this year - also NOT reported on in the mainstream media. See https://www.canadaexitwho.org/learn/breaking-barriers. The same kind of access appears to be planned via an "ad hoc" status for private sector entities prior to the September UN gathering. Likewise, earlier this summer at CANSEC in Ottawa, there appears to be NO record of conversations held between uncounted MPs and the representatives of many of the world's major weapons manufacturers. (Search CANSEC here" https://canadianshareablenews.substack.com/p/21-weeks-of-war-and-peace-news-not).
We have seen an alarming reconfiguration of what has long been expected of journalists (to provide a diversity of viewpoints on key issues) into a BAD THING. Suddenly, allowing multiple perspectives on issues is unpopular with journalists who now negatively reframe that ethical requirement as "bothsideism" or "false balance." As is written in July 2022 in a post meant for foreign press correspondents: The good news is, the majority of journalists are against the use of bothsidesism in the current political and social climate. The bad news is, the public is not. 55 percent of journalists say that there is no need to consistently report on “both” sides of every single issue, but only 22 percent of the public agrees. A staggering 76 percent of the public said the media had a duty to report on both sides of every issue, regardless of the validity of the “side.” https://foreignpress.org/journalism-resources/bothsidesism-what-is-it-and-what-does-it-mean Apparently journalists are conflicted when they personally can't find as much validity on one side of an argument as on another. Therefore they prefer not to give an opposing viewpoint any airtime at all. Instead, journalists are to be the window to the world, letting readers see the diversity in opinion on a matter, not to censor out information they find less valid. Given this statement on the so-called "false balance fallacy "Media would then present two opposing viewpoints on an issue as equally credible, or present a major issue on one side of a debate as having the same weight as a minor one on the other" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance) journalists appear to have more fear of giving opposing viewpoints equal weight than of pointing to the evidence cited by "both sides" of an issue including a side for which they themselves have yet to find credibility. In other words, they prefer to refer to people whose analysis of current events contrasts with the majority view as "extremist". The majority of today's journalists feel justified in omitting (or denigrating) opposing views instead of giving their adherents an opportunity to provide the evidence which leads them to counter the majority view. Even the author of the post for foreign correspondents, absent any investigation into the documented scientific benefits for early antiviral treatment for COVID-19, felt justified to refer to those as "pseudoscience" despite a great deal of evidence to the contrary already available to those who would take their ethical requirement to provide a diversity of opinion seriously.
Continuing on that path, healthy debate has been pushed out under the guise of NOT supporting potential "extremism". People who point at the existence of another side of each debate are painted as "intolerant" holding the kinds of views that the UN is seeking to "eliminate". This would be something that could only be done under 24/7 tech surveillance and via massive incarceration facilities, which is sounding eerily like what is described in the Online Harms Bill C-63 and like the government actions reported on from Britain in the non-mainstream media these days. Most recently, we have seen state action against Pavel Durov in France, preceded by actions against C.J.Hopkins in Germany not to mention the many cases in which journalists who asked the inconvenient questions were fired from their jobs like Anita Krishna in BC and Marianne Klowak in Manitoba. (See them alongside of the dozens of other names on this list of expert witnesses to the National Citizens Inquries held from March to May last year and again earlier this year. https://nationalcitizensinquiry.ca/expert-witnesses/)
As representatives of the public interest, you should all have the courage to stand in the divide BETWEEN what is being recast as the good guys and the bad guys (the so-called extremists). Please understand that we are being played by those set to benefit from our rejection of views that challenge corporate interests.
- Climate change/Net Zero/forest fires/droughts/global warming/etc. By painting those who point outside of the CO2 theory as "extremist" and by ignoring their evidence, we/you are being powered by the firms who stand to gain from the switch over to non-carbon based energy (which are THE SAME INVESTMENT FIRMS that provide us with carbon energy - they are simply diversifying their portfolios at great cost to us and no proven benefits). I highly recommend listening to this interview with former senior CBC investigative journalist Trish Wood and Julius Ruechel the author of Autopsy of a Pandemic and Plunderers of the Earth: the Erosion of Civilization
- Supporting Ukraine/fighting Russia/fighting terrorism/etc. By painting those who call for peace as "agents of Putin", by fomenting increased hostilities by NOT informing Canadians of facts on the ground, we are supporting the resurgence of the weapons industry and causing needless loss of life. BY NOT INCLUDING ANY NEWS of the largest weapons trade fair held in Ottawa this year (with a purported 70+ MPs in attendance) and by NOT highlighting the one sided nature of presentations to the committee of MPs dealing with military matters, our mainstream media is definitely taking sides. For a rundown of War and Peace news being left OUT of mainstream media for over half a year, please see: https://canadianshareablenews.substack.com/p/21-weeks-of-war-and-peace-news-not Please note again that any news about the International Peace Coalition or most other citizen groups working for peaceful solutions are NOT covered in mainstream media. Is it suddenly "extremist" to profile the efforts of ordinary citizens who are trying to put an end to the latest profit stream of Big Military?
- Perpetuating the "safe and effective vaccine narrative" when data abounds everywhere of the fallacy of both those claims. This includes attempts to inform provincial government reps about the dismal state of affairs in care homes due to a continuation of "COVID protocols" even today. See https://x.com/dksdata/status/1828812686345310550 We all know how corporate profits grew from COVID-19 related products, along with those who benefited from climate change related policies, tech surveillance, military industrial complex expenditures, etc.
- It is coverage around the aggression in GAZA and the WEST BANK that is FINALLY letting people see that there ARE at least 2 sides of the debate, but we are all finding it rare that a single news outlet gives equal time to both viewpoints.
Ideally every Canadian would be presented with reasoned arguments and supporting data for more than one side of every issue up for debate. Ideally, there would be no accusations of "mis/dis/mal information being presented by opponents. As Alberta lawyer Leighton Grey recently wrote:
The word "disinformation" is worse than useless because there is a vagueness and ambiguity about it that fosters confusion rather than clarity. ... Information that is false or inaccurate without being a lie can simply be called false or inaccurate information. There is no need to talk of disinformation. (https://leightonbugreykc.substack.com/p/disinformation-and-delusions)
Ideally, everyone would understand that the only antidote for bad information is better information. As we observe corporate backed "philanthropic foundations" tackle the "problem of misinformation" and call for corporate tech-driven censorship virtually in lockstep, the dream of a free and balanced mainstream media seems more and more distant. In the meantime, Canadian Shareable News remains a quick option, pointing readers at professional analysts on a range of topics presented OUTSIDE of the mainstream corporate media bubble. It is my hope that each of the ministers/shadow ministers and their staff skim over headlines in the past 23 issues, or search for terms specific to their portfolios. You are invited to become alerted to the MANY times that our mainstream media is NOT abiding by the media ethics guides and regulations they pay lip service to - the MANY times they run with a single narrative, leaving out the key concerns of those on the "other" side of any one issue. (For a primer as to what our media is funded to do, yet clearly is rarely doing, see: https://canadianshareablenews.substack.com/p/are-our-canadian-media-living-up)
We certainly need to uphold freedoms of speech. We need to avoid the consequences that come with the painting of those who hold views that differ from ours as "extremist".
We need to speak out against the repression of concerned Canadians. (One of the running themes in the Canadian Shareable News publication - highlights ordinary concerned citizens who have already experienced reprisal for their attempts at breaking the chains of censorship in this country.) And we need to ensure that we do not unwittingly fall into becoming tools of those who simply see us as "useful idiots" who implement policies that further drive society into an "us" versus "them" duality whenever that puts more $$ into their pockets.
PS
Please familiarize yourself with the content of the three UN documents listed above, starting here: Pact for the Future, which will include a Global Digital Compact and a Declaration on Future Generations as annexes.
Reach out to Canada's Delegation to the upcoming UN summit to share your comments or suggestions for these documents. (brae@international.gc.ca and cc your MP)
For a peek at the kind of feedback I have been trying to share, see the attached PDF. One slide is shown here (OBVIOUSLY given that the Silence Procedure was in use, not of this feedback will be considered officially. But seeing it might make some people notice the importance of the planned gathering in under 3 weeks.)
And PLEASE have someone from each of your offices sign up to receive invitations for Zoom meetings of the International Peace Coalition (IPC) every Friday. https://schillerinstitute.nationbuilder.com/ipc_meeting_20240830
and….
Given that Alberta and Manitoba jointly are home to more Ukrainians anywhere in the world outside Ukraine, leadership needs to come from us.
We cannot let unethical silencing of the perspective of Ukrainian citizens of Russian descent who had ASKED for Russia's help in fighting gruesome attacks from the post 2014 US backed Ukrainian regimes continue allowing young men and women to be slaughtered at the rate reported on in Issue 23 of Canadian Shareable News.
The more people who seek invites to these weekly meetings, the more people understand how the silence of the corporate and government backed media on the back story of the "unprovoked invasion of Ukraine by Russia" has led to Canadian lawmakers making decisions that have the potential to risk Canadian lives as well. By NOT informing the public of the huge size and power differential between Russia and Ukraine, and of the power and sheer magnitude of Russia's weapons stocks back when there was even a nearly signed peace deal, the more those Canadian men and women deployed to help train Ukrainian soldiers (many of whom I suspect hail from Alberta) are at risk. And the more Alberta, Canada, NATO countries cheer on the march to battle with totally uninformed pieces like this one Kursk offensive is a morale boost https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/reaction-inside-ukraine-kursk-offensive-1.7301150, the closer we are pushing Russia and NATO countries into a nuclear war that has the very real potential to freeze all life on the planet to death. In this letter to journalists, I point to the work on nuclear detonation by Dr. Steven Starr, a frequent presenter at the IPC meetings, information that MUST be heard by all lawmakers and journalists.
Let's ensure that ALL ALBERTA media are aware of what their silence on both sides of the Ukraine/Russia hostilities is leading to. Awareness is our only key to ramping things back down again.
https://nuclearfamine.org/about-steven-starr/
Divisive rhetoric and information omission got us here. Let us roll those back the efforts of those who divide us. Let us ensure freedom of speech for all and Say NO to censorship in all its forms.
Thank you,
[NAME]