Bright Morning

Hello and welcome to the thirtieth (!) issue of the Bright Morning newsletter. This week, our stories are about the phenomenon on social media whereby minority perspectives are presented as mainstream wisdom. This is something that we touched upon last week when the idea of “canceling” Canada Day was presented as common sense. As we will see here, this phenomenon extends across all subjects. Whether it is COVID or political revolutions, social media companies bait viewers with a trending topic and then switch the narrative to present the opposite of truth.

| COVID-19

Vaccine passports and fascism: two interlocked, minority perspectives

Readers of this newsletter will know how much we oppose the concept of vaccine passports. The idea that an individual should be coerced into displaying his or her medical information in order to access a service is nothing short of authoritarian fascism. It demands compliance and the subjugation of the individual. 

As well, the logical end point of vaccine passports is segregation. This is because there will always be a substantial minority of individuals who choose to refuse medical intervention - whether it is for personal, medical, or religious reasons - and if these individuals are barred from participating in basic quality of life activities (such as going to a restaurant, gym, or cinema), it sets the foundation for a two-tiered society. Since we live in what is supposed to be a liberal democracy, this is wrong. End of story.

There are a whole host of other issues with vaccine passports, (many of which we described back in April) but for now, we will just state that vaccine passports are no longer just a slow creep towards totalitarianism - they are an avalanche. This is because the corporate and legacy media outlets have been working overtime to suggest that we would all be “safer” if our lives were reduced to a series of checkpoints in which we submit our private medical information to nameless, faceless bureaucrats whom we do not know or trust. 

Take, for example, the manufactured controversy surrounding GoodLife Fitness in Canada. This past week, the fitness chain announced on Twitter that it is “not planning to require associates or members to be vaccinated to enter our locations. For privacy reasons, GoodLife will not disclose information regarding any individual associate’s vaccination status.” This was a good move from GoodLife - one that respects human rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Unfortunately, a very loud minority of activists disagreed with this stance and stated that they would be cancelling their memberships. Let’s be real here - these people probably didn't even have gym memberships. They saw an opportunity to display faux-virtue online and jumped on it. Nevertheless, CBC called the responses an “uproar.” But was it? We know that Twitter skews towards outrage. The platform is designed to spotlight the most deranged perspectives and present them as if they are mainstream. This is why the concept of “canceling” Canada Day was presented as normal, even though it was nothing more than the amplified barks of a few disillusioned journalists. So, is there any reason to believe it would be different here? 

Furthermore, why put GoodLife in the spotlight? CBC is acting as if GoodLife is the only business not requiring proof of vaccination to enter its facilities, but its policies are the same as 99.99% of businesses in Ontario. To date, there are only six businesses in Ontario that require proof of vaccination, and since Premier Ford announced that he will not be mandating vaccine passports, we do not expect this number to meaningfully increase. Thus, vaccine passports, like support for fascism itself, is an extreme minority perspective. It is just the latest issue to gain some traction on social media and mislead people into believing it is an acceptable idea. 

It isn’t.

| CULTURE

Revolting against communism? Not on Twitter’s watch

Last week, a massive protest in Cuba took place against the country’s communist dictatorship that has been in place for over 60 years. Like all communist societies, Cuba is a poor nation that frequently experiences shortages in food, basic medical necessities, and electricity. So, after having enough of these substandard living conditions, Cubans took to the streets and began demanding their freedom. Protesters could be seen waving American flags (a symbol of the desire for freedom) and chanting “Libertad.” 

Again, if someone relied on the Twitter trending page and White House Press Secretary meetings for his information, he would be misled into believing that Cubans were protesting against COVID. One of the most outrageous tweets from the State Department said that “peaceful protests are growing in #Cuba as the Cuban people exercise their right to peaceful assembly to express concern about rising COVID cases/deaths & medicine shortages.” No mention of the efforts against communism, nor the demand for liberty. The “trending” page on Twitter also echoed this lie, but it was not long until the true nature of the protests were revealed to the rest of the world. 

At this point, some of the most unpleasant activist groups took it upon themselves to attempt to mislead the public. The most notable example was the Black Lives Matter organization who, instead of admitting that the protests were against communism, lied and stated that the US was “undermining Cubans’ right to choose their own government.” What BLM forgot to mention was that the real reason Cubans’ cannot choose their own government is because there has not been an election since 1962. In case it was not obvious before that BLM is nothing more than a front for communism, then it certainly is now. This is an organization who claims to be against injustice, but voices their support for murderous dictators and police states. Apparently, black lives do not matter to Black Lives Matter. 

If readers want to listen to what black Cubans actually think about communism and the state of their nation, instead of listening to what wealthy race hucksters and charlatans want them to think, then we recommend this article from Jorge Felipe-Gonzalez. We do not agree with everything written in it, but it paints a far more nuanced picture than BLM could ever hope to achieve.

Although Twitter attempted to present the perspectives of far-left ideologues as mainstream, the truth behind the protests at least broke out. In a televised address, Joe Biden called Cuba a “failed state” and condemned communism as an unsustainable ideology. This was against the wishes of the more radical base of the Democratic Party - such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who uttered the same falsehoods as BLM - but it was a move in the right direction. It is encouraging to see that truth can still prevail, even against the most aggressive attempts to suppress it. 

Like vaccine passports, the portrayal of the Cuban protests on social media demonstrates that there is a concerted effort from social media companies to alter the truth. This is why online discourse is so deranging and dementing. By presenting the most fringe perspectives as mainstream, reasonable people are being gaslit to believe that they are of a radical minority. This sort of bait and switch is not good because it prevents real conversations from taking place at a time when they are needed most. But so long as Twitter remains the primary platform for public conversation, we are going to continue seeing this distortion of reality. As Douglas Murray recently wrote, “on [Twitter] a very few shrill voices can be so magnified that people mistake that sound for the country as a whole. And so, 15 years after its launch, Twitter has become not just a megaphoning platform, but a distorting one, and the distortion continues to have a toxic impact on real life.”

What is our solution? Log off and do not log back in. You will feel better and start to see the world for what it is, rather than for what activists are misleading us to believe it is. 

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit brightmorning.substack.com

Good morning, and welcome to the 29th issue of the Bright Morning newsletter. 

Before we begin, we would like readers to consider the following quote from George Orwell’s classic, 1984, and keep it in mind as we proceed through the recent events and cultural updates from the past couple of weeks. As you will see, it seems strikingly relevant - almost prophetic. 

“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless Present in which the Party is always right.”

| CULTURE

In Defence of Canada Day

In Critical Social Justice (CSJ - the formal name for “woke ideology''), nothing is off limits. Not even national holidays, which are supposed to be a time when individuals and communities can set aside their political differences and celebrate the common fortune of living in a free(ish) nation. Instead, for the woke acolytes, the intention is not to celebrate a nation, but to problematize and deconstruct its history into a series of “powerful versus oppressed” narrative games, all without realizing that there is no society in existence that can withstand scrutiny under the microscope of Social Justice. 

This is what happened with the recent attempt  to “cancel” Canada Day upon the discovery of several mass graves at the locations of former residential schools. For our American friends, residential schools were a series of mandatory boarding schools for indigenous children that operated during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in Canada. These schools were rife with abuse (both physical and sexual), assault, and even murder. It is estimated that up to 30,000 indigenous children died at these schools. Thus, when mass graves were uncovered and the remains of over 1,000 indigenous children were found, it was a reminder that Canada does, in fact, have an ugly history. 

It is not clear how a society ought to react during a time like this. People grieve and mourn in different ways. However, while we might not know what to do, we can at least make assumptions about what not to do. And one of those assumptions might be that it is unwise to use historical atrocities as a battering ram to delegitimize (or to use the CSJ term, “decolonize”) the present. But this is exactly what unfolded in Canada at the end of June. 

In the weeks leading up to Canada Day, a small number of far-left activists, amplified by social media, made “Cancel Canada Day” trend online. Legacy media outlets (notably the Toronto Star and CBC) were falling over each other to declare how “systemically racist” we are as a nation. And some of the most unpleasant and violent activists did what they do best - destroying (or encouraging the destruction of) property that does not belong to them. This was exemplified with the toppling of a statue of Egerton Ryerson at Ryerson University and the burning of Christian and Catholic Churches (at least 8, to date) all with the nodding approval of journalists (an amalgamation of journalist and activist) at the CBC. The Prime Minister has been silent about this violence, of course. A quick question: are there historical precedents where citizens are permitted to use violence as a means for settling historic grievances? Any at all?

If a person’s media diet consisted of only legacy sources, such as the Toronto Star or CBC, he might be misled to believe that these actions are normal, acceptable, and supported by the majority of the public. But he would be wrong. According to recent polls, at least 86% of Canadians disagree with the idea of “canceling” the national holiday and instead prefer to honour their nation and its progress, even if its history contains some reprehensible actions. Even more telling is that this sentiment is stronger amongst non-white and immigrant Canadians. And so we are left with a situation in which a minority of wealthy, mostly-white, and metropolitan members of the Peloton class are attempting to skew the collective perception of our nation towards something that is untethered to reality. In a column from Rupa Subramanya, she aptly states the following:

“For those of us who chose Canada, and didn’t have the privilege of being born in one of the wealthiest, most advanced countries in the world, the notion of cancelling Canada Day seems truly bizarre. Many of us came from countries where racism and discrimination not only exist, but are often widespread, sanctioned by the state, and are realities of everyday life. Ask a non-Muslim living in the Arab world, where discrimination is baked into the system; or a Muslim in India, where, despite theoretical equality under the law, bigotry is pervasive, with the government often looking the other way. We need to compare Canada in the context of the real world, not compare it to a utopian ideal that has never existed and probably never will” (our emphasis). 

In other words, Canadians of all races and religions choose to celebrate Canada Day not because it is a perfect nation, but because the idea of Canada (and the West) is better than anything that has ever existed. And that idea is one that is predicated upon freedom, equality, and opportunity for all. Our nation might not have always lived up to that ideal, but progress is slow and steady. Thus, when we celebrate Canada Day, we are celebrating the progress our nation has made since its inception. We are celebrating the end of residential schools. We are celebrating the soldiers who died fighting real fascism. And we are celebrating the fact that other people across the world choose to see in us what the CSJ cult condemns us for wanting to see: that we are still a place where we can pursue the lives we want with a substantial degree of freedom.

Jonathan Kay recently wrote that the CSJ cult “is unsustainable not just because no country can exist indefinitely without believing in its own worth, but because very few ordinary people share this belief system. And Canada Day itself is one of those few times of the year when ordinary folk actually wear their patriotism (or what passes for it in this country) on their sleeves.” Thus, to close out this section, we would like to wish a happy belated Canada Day to our Canadian audience and a happy belated Independence Day to our American audience. Do not be afraid to be grateful for living where you do. You are not settlers, you are citizens. Our history contains ugliness, but it also contains some of the best parts of human progress - all of which is worth knowing and understanding.

| PUBLIC HEALTH

The Ivermectin Debate

Silicon Valley is not morally or politically neutral. Tech companies like Google, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube do not sit back and let individuals speak in a free and open manner, despite their insistence to the contrary. The idea of an “open marketplace of ideas,” where individuals and groups can speak and challenge each other to work towards the truth, is not the objective of these companies. Instead, tech giants restrict speech, and more often than not, they restrict speech to serve a narrative. This is why the Lab Leak Hypothesis was forbidden (literally) to discuss on Facebook until a couple of months ago. However, after the overwhelming evidence to support the hypothesis (including the Fauci emails) was revealed, Facebook stopped removing posts which discussed the lab leak. There are still some attempts to discredit the hypothesis, though, such as Stephen Colbert’s tut-tutting during Jon Stewart’s comedic rant about the potential lab leak.

This is not new information, of course. But it is worth reiterating so that we can set up the framework and discuss the latest example of tech censorship: the Ivermectin debate. 

Ivermectin is an anti-parasitic drug used to treat infections, including river blindness, scabies, and head lice, among other ailments. It was created in 1975 and put into widespread circulation in 1981, with approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Because it has been in widespread circulation for over 40 years, it has since lost its patent - meaning that it is no longer a source of significant revenue for its manufacturer due to its common use. According to the evolutionary biologist Bret Weinstein, Ivermectin has been used over 2 billion times to treat various parasites with minimal adverse effects, thus confirming its relative safety and efficacy. 

Weinstein, along with the critical care physician, Dr. Pierre Kory, and the founder of mRNA technology, Dr. Robert Malone, have also been vocally supportive of preliminary research and anecdotal evidence claiming that Ivermectin might be a potential treatment and prophylactic for COVID-19. There was a podcast discussion on Weinstein’s YouTube channel, but it has since been taken down by the platform. However, at the time of writing, a video of Weinstein speaking with the AI-researcher Lex Fridman about censorship and the Ivermectin debate is still available on YouTube. There is also an episode of The Joe Rogan Experience on Spotify in which Weinstein and Kory talk about the potential benefits of Ivermectin. If the audience is looking for more context, then we recommend these two episodes.

You would not know any of this with a quick Google search for Ivermectin. The top result is an FDA website which discusses the potential harms of taking “large doses” of Ivermectin as a potential treatment and prophylactic for COVID-19. Taking large doses of any drug seems unwise, but that is not what the debate is about. Instead, this debate is about whether or not we have a cheap and effective medicine that could be used to treat or prevent COVID. Of course, critics could suggest that the population already has access to free medicine within the vaccines, but that misses the point. 

Instead, consider the following argument: vaccine hesitancy exists because the COVID vaccines have been in circulation for less than one year. So, it is understandable how some people might feel uncomfortable or uneasy about the potential long-term adverse reactions (myocarditis and blood clotting being two notable examples). Then, there are the lies, half-truths, and data manipulation from our so-called public health experts over the past year and a half (which we have documented extensively). If we combine these two factors with the basic liberal argument for the right to refuse medicine and the right to informed consent - both of which are being undermined by the slow creep of vaccine passports - then we are left with a cocktail of mistrust for what was supposed to be a trusted authority (i.e. government and public health). So, if authorities truly want to eliminate all COVID cases, and there exists the chance of a cheap treatment and prophylactic for COVID that does not involve vaccination, then would it not be in everyone’s best interest to explore this possibility? Are two choices not better than one? What if individuals who want to get vaccinated, get vaccinated, and individuals who choose to take Ivermectin (assuming its efficacy is confirmed), take Ivermectin? Why would research, conversation, and debate about this be denied? Could it be that there is no money attached to Ivermectin?

For committing the sin of discussing Ivermectin - which has harmed no one - Weinstein now faces the prospect of losing his YouTube channel. Legacy media outlets are engaging in their usual hyperbole to suggest that the drug could be fatal. However, it looks like these censorship and disinformation strategies are not working as well as the tech giants might have hoped. This was exemplified by the liberal comedian, Bill Maher, condemning the tech giants on his show, Real Time with Bill Maher, stating that “YouTube should not be telling me what I can see about Ivermectin. Ivermectin isn’t a registered Republican. It’s a drug. I don’t know if it works or not, and a lot of other doctors don’t either.” So, at this time, we can at least be cautiously optimistic that there appears to be a mainstream interest in the debate, despite the censorship. 

And that is all that we want here: open research and open debate. We do not want to go down a road where public conversation is filtered through the moral and political lenses of Silicon Valley, whose ideological proclivities are several degrees to the left of a liberal arts college campus. Otherwise, we will be left with a culture that looks a lot like the George Orwell quote that we opened this article with. Unfortunately, our culture has been accelerating down that road for the past several years, but it is not too late. Reason can still prevail. It just requires a little civic courage and a commitment to free speech and the pursuit of truth. The truth, after all, is nothing more than the culmination of infinite debate.

| EXTRAS

Further Listening 🎞️

This week, we encourage the audience to listen to Andrew Doyle as he is interviewed by Jordan Peterson. Doyle is a comedian, playwright, and cultural commentator. In this interview, he discusses his new book, Free Speech And Why It Matters.

Free Speech and the Satirical Activist | Andrew Doyle | The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast - S4: E32

Enjoy your summer and we will see you next week. Cheers, everyone. 

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit brightmorning.substack.com

Hello, and welcome back to Bright Morning. We apologize for our absence last week, but as readers are aware, summer is now upon us. Therefore, this would be a good time for us to mention that our uploads might be shorter, more spaced out, or clustered (depending on how busy we are) over the next couple of months. 

Fear not - we are not leaving this newsletter behind (we made this clear in our podcast from several weeks ago), but now that the nice weather is here, we believe the best thing to do is to take advantage of what we have all been waiting for: the end of the pandemic and the chance to resume our lives. 

However, as we are about to see, there are those who do not want to let go of the pandemic. In fact, they need the pandemic. TV doctors, public health bureaucrats, and other COVID celebrities have been working overtime to suggest that the pandemic is about to get worse, at a time when it has never been better. 

| COVID

Ontario: the only place in the world with a fourth wave

As of this week, Ontario is now the most locked-down region in the world. In fact, it might be one of the only locked down regions in the world (aside from the UK, where Prime Minister Boris Johnson extended the lockdown until July 19th after he returned home from his Gatsby-like party weekend at the G7). 

While every other province in Canada has plans to remove all lockdown restrictions (including mask mandates) within the first weeks of July, Premier Doug Ford has plans to continue implementing some form of restrictions, with no official end date in sight. Even though Ontario has met all of the criteria to move into Stage 3 of Ford’s so-called “Road Map to Reopening,” the Premier continues to insist that Ontario is still at risk of a “fourth wave.”

And where might Ford get this idea? Well, look no further than the Ontario Science Table (OST - best referred to as the Ontario Scientology Table, considering their standards for scientific rigour is akin to that of L. Ron Hubbard). 

Several members of the OST, in particular the TV doctor known as David Fisman (the same doctor who propagated a conspiracy theory about Sick Kids Hospital being a shill for the PC Party), have argued that the so-called Delta variant poses a major threat to the province. Ontario’s new Chief Medical Officer, Kieran Moore, has put forward the same argument. However, what Fisman and company have conveniently left out is evidence. To date, there have been no studies to support the assertion that the Delta variant is more deadly than any of the other so-called “variants of concern.” In fact, the evidence suggests the opposite. That is, no other region in the world where the Delta variant has become the dominant strain has experienced a surge in excess morbidity. It might be more transmissible, but the purpose of a virus is to spread, not to kill. Thus, as viruses evolve, they become less deadly over time, not more. So why has the OST left out this extremely important detail?

The answer, of course, is status. We mentioned this several weeks ago, but it is worth repeating here. Over the course of the pandemic, public health bureaucrats have had the luxury of serving as the de facto leaders of the province without being accountable to the public. It is not clear that these people are prepared to give up this power, either. And why would they? The power and prestige that comes with being regarded as a pseudo-divine figure is guaranteed to derange anyone. And so, as the pandemic winds down, what we are seeing is a perpetual raising of their rhetoric from our expert class. After all, their careers depend on it. 

We need language to identify this raising of the rhetoric. Words like “corruption” and “fraud” are simultaneously too vague and too pointed to be effective. Instead, the bureaucrats who speak in hyperbole about COVID might best be described as demonstrating what Douglas Murray refers to as Saint George in Retirement Syndrome. “After slaying the dragon the brave warrior finds himself stalking the land looking for still more glorious fights. He needs his dragons. Eventually, after tiring himself out in pursuit of ever-smaller dragons he may eventually even be found swinging his sword at thin air, imagining it to contain dragons.” 

If this is a temptation for an actual Saint George, imagine people who are no saints, have won no glorious battles, but desperately attempt to prove that they will be the ones who will lead us through the fight. How might they act in such a scenario? Well, look no further than the rhetoric coming from public health.

| PUBLIC HEALTH

Why is there an obsession with vaccinating children?

With most of the older populations having already received their inoculations against the virus, public messaging campaigns have shifted to focus on children and youth. But why?

This is something that we do not have an answer for yet. After all, the evidence is overwhelmingly clear that children are not at a significant risk of COVID, nor are they significant sources of community spread. This is why children should have returned to school long ago, despite the erroneous advice from public health bureaucrats and government messengers to keep schools closed. Yet, despite this evidence, public health bureaucrats continue to insist that children must receive their jabs before they return to school in the fall, lest they become the source of a “fourth wave.”  Even Canadian government websites state that the Pfizer vaccine is “safe” for children between the ages of 12 and 17. But is it?

To date, there have been no studies to support this claim. In fact, once again, the evidence might suggest the opposite. As Dr. Martin Kuldorff and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya write, “the mortality risk is extremely low for young adults and children [...] even a slight risk of a serious vaccine adverse reaction could tip the benefit-risk calculation, making the vaccine more harmful than beneficial. We have already observed rare problems with blood clots (J&J vaccine) and myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle, Pfizer and Moderna) in younger people, and additional equally serious issues might still be found.” Even the WHO - that organization that is so Beijing-friendly - does not recommend inoculating children against COVID.

The key here is the benefit-risk calculation. As Kuldorff and Bhattacharya write, “medical interventions should pass the test of providing more benefits than risks. For the COVID vaccine, this is decidedly true for older populations but it is not yet clear for younger people.” In other words, the jab makes sense for older and more vulnerable populations, but the benefits of a jab simply do not outweigh the risks of COVID in younger populations. Additionally, the strong public pressure for young people to receive their vaccinations, such as making vaccination a condition of accessing education, public events, or services, risks shattering whatever trust might remain in public health. It is one thing for young people to choose medicine on their own volition - in fact, we endorse informed consent - but it is another thing entirely to threaten the civil liberties of those who choose not to take that risk. Our bodies, our choice. Right?

Unfortunately, at this time, it does not look like public health bureaucrats are going to heed the advice from Kuldorff and Bhattacharya. For the record, these two are not quacks, either - both hold prestigious positions at Harvard Medical School and Stanford University, respectively. Nevertheless, their warnings are receiving about as much attention as their Great Barrington Declaration, which outlined the dangers of extended lockdown policies. We are now even witnessing public health bureaucrats undermining parental authority by bribing children with ice cream if they show up to a vaccination clinic - without the consent of their parents.

This brings us to the original question: despite the overwhelming evidence against the mass vaccination of children, why is there a massive push for it? It could be another case of Saint George in Retirement Syndrome, where public health bureaucrats scramble to prove that the fight is just beginning, even though it is all but over. Or, could it be one of the oldest explanations in the world: money? It is worth remembering that pharmaceutical companies did not manufacture vaccines exclusively out of the goodness of their hearts. There was a lot of money invested into these companies from governments all around the world, and so it is entirely possible that these same governments want to see every last dollar put to use, even when the products they paid for might not be necessary for certain people. After all, in this day and age, who would be the first to admit to overreacting, and then to overcorrecting?

| LOCKDOWNS

Adamson Barbecue: risk it for the brisket 

Let us wind the clock back to December 2020, when we wrote our very first issue in which we covered Adam Skelly - the owner and operator of Adamson Barbecue in Toronto - who defied public health orders and opened his restaurant to the public. 

Legacy media outlets threw everything except the kitchen sink at Skelly, accusing him of being racist (because wanting to operate a restaurant without government interference is a well-known tenet of racial prejudice), “privileged,” and so on. Nonetheless, Skelly persisted - he kept his restaurant open for three days before he was arrested. Upon his arrest, a Go Fund Me page was promptly set up to help his family cover the legal fees that resulted from his actions. To date, he has received over $300,000 in voluntary contributions. 

Since his arrest in December, Skelly has been an extremely vocal critic of lockdowns. He might come off as somewhat of an eccentric character, but he is undoubtedly a man with principle. This was demonstrated this week after he was set to deliver a constitutional challenge against the Province of Ontario.  

Skelly’s challenge did look promising. He had an “impressive list” of expert witnesses, “featuring former Manitoba Chief Medical Officer of Health Dr. Joel Kettner, Harvard and MIT-educated pulmonologist Dr. Gilbert Berdine, Yale epidemiology professor Dr. Harvey Risch, author and former Cornell professor Dr. William Matt Briggs, University of Guelph virology and immunology professor Dr. Byram Bridle, and Simon Fraser economics professor Dr. Douglas Allen.” His challenge was ntended to prove that “governments have invoked extraordinary executive powers predicated on unsubstantiated scientific and legal grounds with catastrophic consequences to people in Ontario, Canada and indeed throughout the world.”

If Skelly’s challenge was successful, it would have meant the province did not “demonstrably justify” the limitations on our Charter rights and therefore walk back all lockdowns and enforcement measures. It also could have had global implications, as it would have shown that lockdowns should never have been the default response to the pandemic - a point rigorously argued by historian Niall Ferguson in his new book “Doom: The Politics of Catastrophe.”

The reason we are speaking in past tense about “what could have been” is that at the time of writing this week’s issue, Skelly posted an update stating that his challenge was all but dismissed by the Ontario Superior Court. None of Skelly’s expert witnesses were challenged by the government and nothing was heard. The judge overseeing the challenge said that the claims raised by Skelly were not in the “jurisdiction” of the Ontario Superior Court. This begs the question: who does have the jurisdiction? How can citizens challenge the rules of the government if the government is not even willing to hear their concerns?

According to Skelly’s update, this was the “first time a Notice of Constitutional Question, served and filed months in advance with a huge evidentiary record, was refused to be heard in a Superior Court in Canadian history.”

We hoped Skelly’s challenge was successful. We believe that individuals like Skelly, though sometimes dipping their toes in hyperbole, will be looked upon favourably by history. We have mentioned this before, but it takes grit for someone to dig in their heels and declare “no” to the government, the police, and the media. This is why Skelly has become a leading figure in the We Are All Essential movement - an initiative designed to help Canadians understand their rights in the face of unlawful emergency powers. 

Despite facing yet another roadblock, it looks like Skelly will continue to explore other options so that he can be heard. And to him, we say “thank you.”

| EXTRAS

Further Listening 🎞️

This week, we encourage the audience to listen to historian Niall Ferugsion as he speaks about his new book Doom: The Politics of Catastrophe. Ferguson highlights how the global response to COVID was first an underreaction and then swiftly changed to overreaction. Ferguson also touches upon lockdowns, authoritarianism, and the future of public health. The interview is short and sweet, and it should be listened to by everyone.

Niall Ferguson on COVID, Lockdowns and Authoritarianism

See you next week. 

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit brightmorning.substack.com

Welcome back to another issue of Bright Morning! This week, we are pleased to bring you our sixth long-form podcast. In this episode, we discuss, among other things, the continuing lockdowns in Canada (surprise!). Specifically, we break down the hypocrisy of G7 leaders, Justin Trudeau, and what the satirical leadership of these individuals says about our culture as a whole. Then, we move on to discuss some surprising cultural shifts, some of which might suggest that “wokeness,” or Critical Social Justice, is nearing its natural endpoint. 

We hope that you enjoy this conversation! Until next week, thank you for your time. 

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit brightmorning.substack.com

Hello, and welcome back to the Bright Morning newsletter. In case you missed it last week, we released our fifth long-form podcast discussion. In that episode, we spoke about the province of Ontario, vaccine passports, and we responded to what we believe was some rather disingenuous criticism of our work. It was a fun and light-hearted conversation - a nice shake-up from our usual style. 

Having said that, this week we were greeted with some stories that, among other things, were not that surprising. Instead, the events that transpired over the past week or so felt more like confirmation of what we have suspected all along: public health bureaucracies, in Canada and in America, have not been giving it to us straight. We have two case studies below to highlight how the faces of these institutions are more likely to dig in their heels and stick to the narrative, instead of demonstrating humility, when being confronted with evidence of their errors.

| PUBLIC HEALTH

Ontario: science vs. The Science™

Before we kick off, we need to establish the difference between science and The Science™. Science, as we have mentioned before, is a process that relies upon empiricism to test hypotheses and establish provisional truths. One of the core tenets of science is that we welcome new evidence if it disproves what we have all come to accept as truth, so long as the new evidence is subjected to the same, rigorous testing (or better). In other words, science must be falsifiable, otherwise it is no longer science, but dogma. 

The Science™, however, is dogma. It is the rigid, prescriptive, and often-wrong “solutions” or narratives that politicians and bureaucrats (who we once called “public health experts”) use to dismiss scientific evidence for some personal, reputational, or financial gain. So, when you hear a politician or bureaucrat utter the words “I am following the science” or “I believe in science,” it is unlikely that he is speaking about his commitment to the scientific method and empiricism. Instead, he is hanging onto The Science™ (his narrative) as if it is a life raft that is running out of air in the middle of an ocean storm. 

This brings us to the most recent update in Ontario, or as we like to refer to it, The Peoples’ Republic of Lockdown. After once again outsourcing his leadership to unelected bureaucrats by seeking “consensus” on whether or not schools are safe (they are), Premier Doug Ford announced that children will not be returning to in-person learning until September. In his speech to the public in which he attempted to justify this decision, Ford uttered some remarks that were either misleading or outright false. So, allow us to provide the fact check.

First, Ford stated that he did not “want to risk the health of our kids.” Schools are safe and children are safe in them. For the past several months, virtually every pediatrician and pediatric organization in Ontario has been begging Ford to open schools for in-person learning. Sick Kids Hospital wrote a letter in response to Ford’s search for “consensus” and stated that school closures facilitate a “substantial deterioration of mental health status among children and youth,” and that this “deterioration is now evident in the form of increased ambulatory care use and hospital admissions, most poignantly for children and youth with eating disorders.” Dr. Martha Fulford, Chief of Medicine at McMaster University Medical Centre, also appeared on CTV News to state that children “are not at risk from Covid,” even when accounting for the overhyped “variants of concern.” When faced with this criticism, David Fisman - one of the most vocal bureaucrats on the Ontario Science Table (OST) and a paid teachers’ union expert - did not counter with evidence, but deflected to a conspiracy theory in which he accused Sick Kids of being in bed with the PC Party (makes sense?) and then turned to a sarcastic remark about kids’ mental health. 

Ford also stated that he is “really concerned about putting all of the kids in the classroom” and that having children in the classroom will lead to “thousands of new cases.” Regarding the first comment, Ford did not explain why he is “really concerned.” In fact, his own Chief Medical Officer, David Williams, has confirmed there are “very few” examples of in-class transmission. As for the second comment, Ford’s OST said that a return to in-person learning would create an 11% surge in cases, at most. However, given that the OST has been completely and entirely wrong in all of their predictions and modeling (here is the most recent error in their predictions), it is hard to take anything that they say seriously.

Oh, did we mention that the entire premise of lockdowns are also in contention with (if not direct opposition to) scientific consensus? We have been arguing this for months, but here is Martin Kuldorff, a professor of medicine at Harvard, confirming this argument. 

It is not unreasonable for us to suggest that Doug Ford and the OST are, at this point in the game, anti-science. They are using The Science™ to shield themselves from criticism and ignore real evidence. But why? What is to be gained here? Well, for starters, it is entirely possible that the members of the OST enjoy the attention. Throughout the pandemic, these Covid celebrities and TV doctors have become the de facto leaders of the province. They appear on television daily to offer predictions that keep proving to be wrong. It is also unlikely that they are not being generously reimbursed for their time, either. Then, there are perks attached to their position. For example, Dr. Michael Warner - another lockdown zealot - was given tickets to a Maple Leafs game with his friends, only to fear monger about a fourth wave just a few days later. Status, prestige, and massive financial incentives are hard to give up, and so is it that much of a surprise why these bureaucrats want to drag out lockdowns for as long as possible?

The Fauci Emails

Last week, through a freedom of information request submitted by Buzzfeed, over ten thousand emails belonging to the inbox of Dr. Anthony Fauci was released to the public. The findings within these emails were, to say the least, explosive. A common theme within them was that what Fauci had been saying behind the scenes bore almost no resemblance to what he had been saying to the public. 

The first example pertained to everyone’s favourite subject: mask usage. Last year, we might recall that Fauci initially stated that masks were “not that effective.” Then, a month or two later, he said that masks are critical to stopping the transmission of Covid. When asked about this sudden change in tune, he said that the science had changed. Fauci then doubled-down (literally) on his insistence for masks by suggesting that Americans ought to wear two masks. When asked for evidence about this, he said it was “just common sense.” But was it?

Masks, according to Fauci’s emails, are not that effective for keeping out the virus, which is small enough to pass through the material. However, Fauci did argue that there might be a benefit for an infected person to wear a mask, should they cough or sneeze, but aside from this slight caveat, Fauci’s emails confirm what most people have been arguing since last year.

Next in the lineup of Fauci’s emails pertained to what legacy media, public health, and politicians had been vehemently dismissing as a conspiracy theory since March 2020: The Lab Leak Hypothesis. We spoke about this two weeks ago, but the short version is that there is strong evidence to support the claim that SARS-CoV-2 was developed in a lab, as opposed to being a bat-borne virus that jumped to humans. Fauci, however, has been adamantly opposed to this hypothesis, even going so far as to suggest that it is not worth investigating. 

Well, once again, we can see that what Fauci really believes - that is, what he says when no one else is watching - bears no resemblance to the words in his public appearances. There were several emails from high-profile researchers warning Fauci that the genetic sequence of SARS-CoV-2 looks like it could have been engineered, instead of being a product of nature. At the same time, Fauci received emails from researchers - one of whom belonged to the Institute of Zoology at the Chinese Academy of Science - thanking him for downplaying the possibility of a lab spillover during his press conferences. Now, it is fair to say Fauci himself did not give credence to the Lab Leak Hypothesis in these emails, but it does, at the very least, confirm his dishonesty with the public, because we now have evidence that he received fair and substantiated warnings from his associates about the plausibility of such a theory. 

Then, we stumbled into the biggest bombshell of them all - the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 could have been the product of Fauci’s own research funding. Several of Fauci’s emails made reference to so-called gain of function research, where scientists work to make viruses more transmissible and deadly (ideally to advance vaccine development). According to the emails, Fauci’s own National Institute of Health (NIH) was involved in the funding of gain of function research, possibly at the Wuhan Institute of Virology - the very lab from which the virus is believed to have leaked. However, it was no less than three weeks ago when Fauci denied having any knowledge of this during his testimony to Senator Rand Paul. 

What does all of this mean?

What do the anti-evidence positions of the OST and Fauci’s emails have in common? Do they suggest that we are ruled by evil, malicious people, who wish to do us harm? This seems unlikely. 

Consider this: before the pandemic started, no one knew who Dr. Fauci or any members of the OST were. Do fame and recognition automatically amount to good work? Absolutely not. However, starting in March 2020, these people were on our televisions and computers so much that they might as well have been our screensavers. Thus, we had the opportunity to witness their abilities as scientists, leaders, and advisers in real time. In other words, we could see if their ability to perform in these roles was worth the high salaries they were earning throughout the years, and in some cases, decades (salaries that are funded through tax dollars, mind you). 

Is this what we saw? Far from it. Instead, what we saw was a consistent and insistent pattern of lies, half-truths, political pandering, flip-flopping, and most egregious of all, a refusal to welcome new evidence. 

Take, for example, the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD). This was a worldwide call from some of the most well-respected scientists, doctors, and researchers in the world to end lockdowns. According to Martin Kuldorff, who we mentioned earlier, “there was never a scientific consensus for lockdowns.” Lockdowns were supposed to be a temporary measure to buy time for hospitals so that we could prepare for a potential influx of infected patients. However, as we have all learned by now, if you give an inch, they will take a mile. As Kuldorff stated, “instead of understanding the pandemic, we were encouraged to fear it. Instead of life, we got lockdowns and death. We got delayed cancer diagnoses, worse cardiovascular-disease outcomes, deteriorating mental health, and a lot more collateral public-health damage.” Worst of all, our leaders refused to acknowledge the countries and regions, such as Sweden and Taiwan, that kept the pandemic under control, despite never being locked down. Faced with this new evidence, Kuldorff and his colleagues co-authored the GBD to show that lockdowns were not, and should not, be the appropriate response to the virus. But it was ignored. Furthermore, those who questioned the scientific justification for lockdowns, both inside and outside of the scientific community, were excommunicated and labeled as “conspiracy theorists,” “murderers,” and in some cases, “Nazis.” 

The example of the GBD shows that the faces of public health were more concerned about their reputations than they were basing their decisions on new and incoming evidence. This is why fifteen months after the pandemic started, public health bureaucrats, like Fauci and the OST, continue to act as if we do not know what the virus is or how it spreads. It also explains why the industrial-strength fear-mongering surrounding the virus has reached its peak in Ontario, despite the third wave of Covid being the least deadly. However, when faced with this evidence, public health attributes it to lockdowns, even though cases have decreased as mobility has increased. 

To close, what we are seeing with the OST and Dr. Fauci is not good leadership or good science, but the expected actions of institutional bureaucrats who are attempting to save face. Their failures might have gone unnoticed in their roles before the pandemic, but now they are on display for the world. Their raising of the rhetoric in recent weeks is nothing more than an attempt to drown out the justified screams from a population who has been duped. It is unlikely that they will leave the public eye quietly, but when they do, they will have left in their place a legacy of colossal mistrust towards the political and expert classes. And if they have any humility left, can they truly be surprised?

| EXTRAS

Further Listening

This week, we encourage the audience to listen to Jordan Peterson as he interviews Yeonmi Park. The following description has been provided by Peterson’s YouTube channel and podcast:

Yeonmi Park is a North Korean defector and human rights activist trying to shine a light on the atrocities still being committed in North Korea by the current Kim regime. She wrote her experiences into a bestseller, “In Order to Live.” She tells stories of her childhood and escaping to remind the world of how terrible things are for North Koreans. She also discusses her escape, her slavery in China, and the frustration and disappointment she experiences pursuing a humanities degree at Columbia.

If there was ever a conversation that needed to be heard, this would be it. 

Tyranny, Slavery and Columbia U | Yeonmi Park | The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast - S4: E26

Until next week, thank you for your time. 

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit brightmorning.substack.com

Good morning and welcome back to the Bright Morning newsletter. This week, we bring you our fifth long-form podcast. In this episode, we speak about the state of perpetual Covid lockdowns in Ontario (and Canada, more broadly), market retaliations to vaccine passports, and the difference between the Canadian and American responses to the pandemic. We also touch on the future of the newsletter, where we intend on taking the project, and our response to some of the more absurd misinterpretations of our work. 

This was a fun and light-hearted episode and we hope that you enjoy it. 

As always, please consider liking, sharing, and subscribing (if you have not yet done so). Thanks for your time, and we will catch up with you next week. 

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit brightmorning.substack.com

Good morning, and welcome back to the Bright Morning newsletter! We hope that everyone is taking advantage of the wonderful weather that we have been having (at least in Southern Ontario, or as we like to call it, The People’s Republic of Lockdown). 

There is not much housekeeping to attend to before we begin, and so we will jump in right away. But first, we would like to remind readers to please share, comment, and like our work so that we know if we are headed in the right direction.

Nuancing Conspiracy Theories

“Conspiracy Theory” is a phrase that we have all heard a lot over the past year. Like the words racism, sexism, homophobia, and so on, conspiracy theory is also a term that is losing its meaning - and fast. This is because it has been weaponized as a catch-all phrase to discredit any one person or group who is questioning the narratives, motivations, and policies of the parties in power. 

This is a tough needle to thread because there are legitimate conspiracy theorists out there. People Like David Icke or Alex Jones are known for propagating falsehoods and lies, such as their respective claims that COVID-19 is transmitted through 5G towers or that the Sandy Hook school shooting was a hoax.

However, as ridiculous as these statements are, sometimes there are kernels of truth baked into the claims of conspiracy theorists. The best example was when Alex Jones propagated the Pizzagate conspiracy theory, which was based around the idea that the Clinton Foundation organized underground sex trafficking rings with minors. Of course, Pizzagate was mostly false, but after the murder (not suicide) of convicted pedophile and rapist Jeffrey Epstein, it was revealed that Bill Clinton was a frequent flyer on Epstein’s private jet, believed to be called the Lolita Express (yikes), to Epstein’s private island. Other notable guests included Kevin Spacey. So, is it really plausible to believe that Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, and other monolithic figures - all of whom had close ties to Epstein - knew nothing about Epstein’s crimes?

Of course, the murder of Epstein has been covered with as much dirt as possible, but it is incidents like this which prove the importance of free speech. That is, sometimes the most ridiculous claims have some kernel of truth deep inside of them, and so it should be up to us to seek out that truth. 

Now that we have made this distinction, please keep it in mind as we examine how some of the most condemned “conspiracy theories” over the past year have miraculously gained support.

Conspiracy #1: The Lab Leak Hypothesis

If we wind back the clock to the beginning of the pandemic, the Lab Leak Hypothesis - the argument that SARS-CoV-2 originated in a lab - was treated with intense scorn. Even to this day, legacy media outlets, such as Forbes, continue calling the theory a “conspiracy,” even if they begrudgingly admit that there is a “germ of truth” to the claim that the virus was created by people. As evolutionary biologists Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying state, many scientists were either afraid to speak out or smeared as “conspiracy theorists” for merely proposing the idea that we ought to determine if the virus did, in fact, come from a lab. And is this not a reasonable question to ask? Why would this argument be treated with so much condemnation?

Well, all roads lead back to Donald Trump. From the onset of the pandemic, Trump insisted on letting the world know that the virus did, in fact, originate in China. At the time, institutions such as the World Health Organization (WHO) - which have uncomfortable ties to the Chinese Communist Party (to say the least) - were reluctant to assign blame to China, even going so far as to push their official, propagandistic narrative that there was no “human-to-human transmission [of the virus].” In fact, when developing a name for the disease caused by the virus, the WHO landed on “COVID-19” because they wanted to “avoid stigma” (even though illnesses such as the Spanish Flu, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome, and the Zika virus all refer to the geographical origin of the virus). This is why there was a semi-official ban on calling COVID-19 the “Chinese Virus,” with legacy media outlets asserting that it was a “racist” term. 

However, Trump saw through this and continued to remind the world that “it’s China’s fault. It should never have happened.” He was correct, but since this is the age of social media and political religions, if Trump is for something, then polite society must, by necessity of virtue signaling, be against it. And so, from the beginning of the pandemic, the virus was a culture war focal point and we were cursed with dishonest discourse, half-truths, and outright lies. 

Now that Trump is no longer in office, though, the question of the virus’ origins is reclaiming attention and the Lab Leak Theory is becoming a more accepted hypothesis. More and more scientists are now openly stating that the Lab Leak Hypothesis “cannot be ruled out,” with the former director of the CDC not only agreeing that the theory cannot and should not be dismissed, but that it could also be true. Referring to Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying again, the two have been arguing for the investigation of the Lab Leak Hypothesis from the beginning. Their rationale is that bat-borne viruses do not transmit well indoors because bats are not indoor animals. But as we have seen, COVID-19 transmits extremely well indoors, and so this alone is worth investigating. 

Therefore, what was once regarded as an outlandish conspiracy theory is now becoming a more plausible explanation. There ought to be a feeling of vindication for scientists like Weinstein and Heying and a feeling of shame for people like Dr. Fauci (and other institutional shills) who weaponized the phrase “conspiracy theorist.” This callousness has obstructed public inquiries into the origin of the virus for over a year, and were it not for this deliberate dishonesty (and propaganda from the Chinese Communist Party), we could have had our answers by now. Nonetheless, this at least proves that freedom of speech is an important tool for the pursuit of truth, even if it invites the occasional witch hunt. 

Conspiracy #2: Bill C-10 and Trudeau’s Thought Police

The audience might recall our podcast discussion from two weeks ago where we spoke about Bill C-10 in Canada and its implications for freedom of speech. However, in case readers are unfamiliar with this legislation - which is getting closer and closer to being passed now that it has the support of the Bloc Quebecois - allow us to fill you in on the details. 

As Canadian MP Pierre Poilievre demonstrated, Trudeau and the federal Liberals are working overtime to paint Bill C-10 as a supposedly harmless bill that would bring tech giants, such as Netflix and Amazon, under the control of the Broadcast Act to “create a level playing field.” This means that in theory, Netflix and Amazon would have to broadcast an approved amount of Canadian-made content for its Canadian users. 

Of course, Trudeau is not known for his commitment to truth and ethics, and so we can be certain that his assurance of the bill’s hypothetical harmlessness is worth as much as the gum on our shoes. What the bill actually does is provide the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) - Canada’s federal regulatory agency for broadcasting - with oversight duties for most, if not all, internet content produced in Canada. The Liberals also quietly removed the exemption for social media users, and so social media accounts such as YouTube channels, Twitter pages, and newsletters such as the one you are currently reading, will likely be subjected to CRTC supervision. 

Legal experts and former CRTC commissioners have described Bill C-10 as a “hammer” with major implications for free speech. In fact, one of the most prominent critics of the bill is Michael Geist, a Law professor at the University of Ottawa, who called C-10 one of the most egregious assaults on freedom of speech he has ever seen. Geist also examined memos from the Liberals confirming that C-10 will not be restricted to tech giants, but will apply to podcasts, newsletters, audiobooks, and even workout apps. In other words, all internet-based content will be under the control and supervision of Trudeau’s Liberals. Therefore, Bill C-10 turns the Liberal-controlled CRTC into a literal thought police organization who will determine what Canadians can see, hear, read, watch, and speak while on the internet. 

When it comes to internet regulation of this sort, the only other notable example is the Chinese Communist Party, who employs a similar practice. Then again, Trudeau once famously stated that he “admires” China’s basic dictatorship, and so this assault on freedom of speech cannot come as a total surprise. 

So, the evidence is in plain sight. We can see, with our own eyes, what this bill is capable of. But when Trudeau was pressed by Pierre Poilievre about the implications of the bill during question period, how do you think he responded? He not only referred to the criticism as a (ding ding!) “conspiracy theory,” but also suggested that bill would somehow benefit Canadians. Thus, Bill C-10 is another example of political elites telling us what they are going to do (in this case, regulating the internet), and then when they are faced with objections to their own, explicitly-stated intentions, they use the phrase “conspiracy theory” as a shield to deflect criticism. 

Conspiracy #3: The Great Reset 

The pattern of political and cultural leaders stating their intentions and then calling criticism of those intentions “conspiracy theories” is something that occurs with increasing frequency. 

Another example of this pattern in action is in leaders’ responses to criticism of The Great Reset - an initiative led by billionaires and world leaders in the World Economic Forum (WEF) to rebuild and “reimagine” societies following the COVID-19 pandemic. The ambition of this initiative is to empower tech companies, who are already multinational, monopolistic, and accountable to no one, with even more power so that they can hypothetically assist in economic reconstruction. 

What is conveniently left out, however, is that the initiative is not concerned with the little things, such as our civil liberties. This is why tech companies have been the most vocal in their support for controversial and unconstitutional vaccine passports (to see our full criticism on vaccine passports, refer to our article from April 14). There are even articles on the WEF website that explicitly state that by 2030, we (meaning the lowly middle and working-class proles) “will own nothing and be happy.” 

Yet, when pressed with criticism over the obvious encroachment on civil liberties, leaders and legacy media outlets dismiss these concerns as “baseless conspiracy theories.” Of course, there are absurd actors whose rhetoric is conspiratorial, but this mostly comes from hive minds in the dark corners of the internet. But this should not distract us from the legitimate and warranted criticism of tech and political institutions. We could go down a rabbit hole with this, but we will instead leave you with a quote from a Forbes article which called the initiative “another example of wealthy, powerful elites saving their consciences with faux efforts to help the masses, and in the process make themselves even wealthier and more powerful.” We have all seen unethical behaviour from institutions and leaders over the past year and a half, and so is criticism like this really that “baseless”?

| EXTRAS

Further Listening 🎙️

Thank you all for staying with us during this article. It is tough to talk about conspiracy theories because there is always the risk of perpetuating falsehoods, but we hope this was a fun and insightful examination into the weaponization of the term. 

That being said, we encourage you to listen to historian Niall Ferguson on the authoritarianism that is baked into Covid lockdowns. 

Niall Ferguson on COVID, Lockdowns and Authoritarianism

See you next week. 

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit brightmorning.substack.com

Good morning and welcome back to the Bright Morning newsletter! If you have not yet had the chance to listen to last week’s podcast, please consider checking it out. In that episode, we spoke about Bill C-10 in Canada and how it threatens freedom of speech. We also spoke more broadly about the culture of free speech and why it is so important not only for our pursuit of greater knowledge, but also as a means for reducing the influence of bad ideas. 

It has been a little while since we examined some hot-button issues in the culture wars, and so that is what we decided to do this week. However, fear not, because we do not leave readers with a doom-and-gloom view of the world. In fact, we highlight how the foundations of progressive ideology might just be crumbling.

We hope that you enjoy it, and please consider leaving us a comment. 

| THE GAVIN CHRONICLES

Goodbye, Gavin

Remember Gavin Newsom? Of course you do. We have been covering the California Governor since our very first issue. Our feelings for this man were most aptly described in our issue from March 25th. 

Normally, we try to set emotions aside when discussing political or cultural issues, but when it comes to Newsom, the lure of schadenfreude is too overwhelming. So, we were extremely pleased to see that the 1.6 million signatures required to trigger a recall election for Newsom have been verified. 

The next stage in the process is a 30-business-day window in which voters can request that their signatures be removed from the recall petition. If a sufficient number of signatures are withdrawn, then the recall election will be avoided. If not, then the state will move forward with an election. 

Of course, Newsom attempted to frame this as a “Republican recall,” but as we have mentioned before, the distaste for Newsom is so overwhelming in California that it has eroded partisan divisions. Nothing brings people together quite like a common enemy. 

But who would replace Newsom? There have been rumours about who could defeat the Governor in an overwhelmingly blue state, but it looks like the new contender in town might just stand a chance. This person is none other than Caitlyn Jenner, who recently filed paperwork to campaign for Governor in the forthcoming recall election. 

If this is the beginning of the end of Gavin Newsom, then that should be cause for celebration. However, progressives in America are not willing to let their boy Gavin go down without a fight. And as we are about to see, this fight will be filled with the ugly rhetoric that we have all grown accustomed to witnessing from mainstream figures in the American Left.

| CULTURE

Caitlyn Jenner: The Wrong Kind of Trans Woman

In a recent campaign ad, Caitlyn Jenner correctly identified that California’s homeless problem has spiraled out of control under the governance of career politicians, like Gavin Newsom. This is apparent to all, but heaven forbid that it is mentioned, lest we be referred to as dispassionate conspiracy theorists. 

However, the jig is up. Californians, and Americans more broadly, can see how the Golden State has become a trainwreck. This is why there is a mass exodus from California towards more conservative states, as exemplified by the recent relocation of Elon Musk, Ben Shapiro, and Joe Rogan. In fact, so many people have moved out of California that it is even at risk of losing seats in the House of Representatives. Jenner has acknowledged this; referring to herself as a “compassionate disruptor,” she believes that she can bring businesses back to California and eliminate the influence of career politicians.

At the same time, Jenner stated that she is against trans-women, such as herself (that is, biological males who present as women), competing against females in sports. When asked about the subject, Jenner stated that she opposes “biological boys who are trans competing in girls’ sports in school. It just isn’t fair and we have to protect girls’ sports in our schools.” Again, this is something we all know, but our era demands that we dismiss biological realities. However, Jenner is 100% correct in her estimation that it eliminates fair competition. A recent study in the British Sports Journal of Medicine confirmed that biological males have an advantage over females, even after hormone therapy - something that Gender Identity Theory activists claim will even the competition. 

Both of Jenner’s uncontroversial statements earned her condemnation from the usual suspects. Jimmy Kimmel called her an “a*****e,” while Sarah Silverman slandered her as “transphobic.” This is so typical that it is almost not worth mentioning, but the irony needs addressing. Caitlyn Jenner is transgender, yet she is slandered as “transphobic” by a wealthy celebrity for pointing out biological realities. At the same time, Jimmy Kimmel and other legacy media figures are working overtime to paint Jenner as a right-wing conspiracy theorist for correctly asserting that homelessness is out of control and small businesses need revivification. 

Would Jenner be subjected to the same, ugly harassment from these media personalities if she were running as a Democrat? Unlikely. Jenner is a Republican, and therefore she is inconvenient to the Woke Left. The woke pretend they are “allies” and “advocates” for hypothetically endangered minority groups, but whenever an individual from one of these groups goes rogue - that is, voices an opinion that counters progressive orthodoxy, as Jenner did - the woke throw a tantrum, hurl insults, and attempt to oust them from polite society. But it does not look like these tactics will work anymore, as Jenner is receiving a considerable amount of support.

For years, we have been told that conservatism is a threat to minorities, but this is clearly a falsehood. As Barbara Minney (who is a trans woman) wrote for Politico, the bigger threat is the progressive orthodoxy which firmly insists that transgender individuals must hold a certain set of views (or else be subjected to threats and condemnation from public figures). She says “it is not healthy to reduce such a diverse and complex community to one set of beliefs.” We agree. 

It is frustrating to see the race for California’s future being dominated by two wealthy socialites, both of whom have a history of questionable and unethical behaviour (at best). However, at least Caitlyn Jenner is bold enough to cut against the suffocating constraints of progressive dogma to defend a fading middle class, as well as biological realities, in a once-great state. We hope she succeeds in this endeavour. 

| CULUTRE

The Racism of Anti-Racists

The backlash against Caitlyn Jenner mirrors another story occurring in Canada - one that also demonstrates how identity attributes such as race, gender, and sexual orientation are only sacred if the individuals or groups in question champion the same progressive orthodoxy. 

Take, for example, the ongoing saga of a psychology professor named Rima Azar - a Lebanese woman who escaped civil war during her teen years. Although her native tongue is Arabic, Azar considers herself a proud Canadian - she writes in her blog about classical liberal values, the ongoing challenges in Lebanon, and how the symbol of the Maple Leaf “means the world” to her. As Jonathan Kay wrote in the National Post, “if you know of a more intersectional Canadian, I’d like to meet them.”

Despite meeting all of the intersectionalist criteria that our culture obsesses over, Azar was recently suspended from her position at Mount Allison University after a mob of mostly white, middle-to-upper-middle class students demanded that she be fired. How did this happen?

Like Jenner, Azar is a minority woman who has espoused the wrong political views. When a local activist opined that New Brunswick, and Canada as a whole, was “systemically racist,” Azar argued that it was not. Having experienced the violent and gruesome civil war in Lebanon - which is a product of the same identity politics that our culture obsesses over - she fears that Canada will make the same mistakes if the culture continues overemphasizing differences. She also argued against the claim that Canada is a “patriarchy” afflicted with “rape culture.” She noted that if we want to see a “real rape culture,” then we ought to look at “ISIS practices in Syria.” Then, Azar committed the greatest sin of our era: she criticized Black Lives Matter, specifically their goals of creating a “global liberation movement” that wishes to “dismantle capitalism, abolish prisons, and erase national borders.”

For the record, each of these uncontroversial statements are correct. Canada is not a racist country, it is not afflicted with rape culture, and Black Lives Matter is a radical movement. As always, we urge readers not be deceived by the anti-oppositional phrases, like “anti-racist,” that radicals employ as camouflage. 

For committing these sins, Azar’s mostly white colleagues and mostly white students claimed that her views were “hurtful,” and then lobbied the university on Twitter and sent emails to the president demanding that she lose her job. One comment on Twitter read “I am a privileged cis white 50-year-old woman. How is it that I understand systemic racism and she doesn’t? She needs to be removed immediately!” Mount Allison then suspended Azar for racism, even though there was not a single identifiable racist comment that could be pointed at. 

Are we beginning to recognize a pattern yet? The cycle looks something like this:

* Progressives claim to value diversity (except viewpoint diversity - which they consider “harmful”).

* Institutions imbibe unprovable assertions, such as the claim that our culture is “systematically racist,” sexist, homophobic, queerphobic, fatphobic, transphobic, etc. 

* Individuals, often from minority groups, oppose these ideas with sound and reasoned arguments. 

* Progressives attempt to “unperson” these individuals - they form a mob and demand these proverbial heretics be removed from their positions and replaced with someone who will adhere to the orthodoxy. 

* Repeat. 

This is racism in action. The reason it can be classified as such is because it demonstrates how there is an expectation for minorities to champion specific beliefs. If minorities oppose these views, then they are subjected to bullying, threats, and job-loss at the behest of their mostly white peers. Of course, this same pattern of cancelation works for non-minorities, as well. But the point still stands. Thus, racial essentialism is a feature, and not a bug, of progressive orthodoxy. Once again, the true threat to minorities (and the culture which they admire) is the suffocating progressive ideology which demands their rigid adherence to its essentialist dogma. 

Fortunately, Rima Azar is no stranger to conflict, and she has fought harder battles than those brought to her by cowardly students and bureaucrats. However, she has been suspended without pay during a pandemic in which many Canadians are prohibited from working. As a result, she has set up a Go Fund Me page for support with her legal fees. The link can be found here. Please consider supporting this brave woman who is a true defender of classical liberalism. 

| EXTRAS

Further Listening

This week, we encourage the audience to listen to John McWhorter as he speaks with Michael Shermer about his new thesis: neo-racists posing as anti-racists and their threat to America (and western culture, more broadly). This thesis is self-explanatory, but it is an insightful look into what we just pointed out in this article.

Shermer with John McWhorter—Neoracists Posing as Antiracists & Their Threat to Progressive America

Thank you for your time and we will see you next week.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit brightmorning.substack.com

Good morning, folks! Welcome back to Bright Morning. We apologize for our absence last week, but we are back with another long-form podcast. In this week’s episode, Chris and Klayton speak about the culture of free speech and how it is threatened under new Canadian legislation. We also discuss why free speech is so important, the impossibilities of defining “hate speech,” and potential solutions and culture changes.

We hope that you enjoy this discussion. As always, please feel free to leave us a comment and share this episode with anyone who might be interested. 

Next week, we will be back with another article which, among other things, will update readers on our old friend, Gavin Newsom. 

Thank you for your time and have a great week.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit brightmorning.substack.com

Hello, and welcome back to the twenty-first episode of the Bright Morning Newsletter. Just as a quick recap: we released our third long-form podcast discussion last week. 

As we mentioned in last week’s discussion, we are grateful for your feedback, and we are pleased to announce that the comment section will be available on all subsequent articles and podcasts. Please consider taking some time at the end of each article and letting us know your thoughts. It might also be a good chance to generate new discussions with other members of the audience.

Moreover, since it appears to be a hit with our audience, we will be doing even more long-form podcasts in the near future. We hope that you enjoy this slight change in format, and as always, please consider sharing our work. 

Having said that, let us dig into some of the big issues of the past week. 

| FINANCE

The Canadian budget: a reflection of us?

The Nitty Gritty:

* Prime Minister Trudeau is up for a new award 🥇 (whether he likes it or not). By 2023, he will have increased the federal budget more than all other Prime Minsters.. combined.

Last week, after over two years, the Trudeau government released its 2021 budget. We are not afraid to admit that Trudeau’s government is skilled at political theatre and virtue signalling, and so it came as no surprise when we saw the hypothetically nice and fluffy language sprinkled throughout the budget. The major themes included “job creation; small business and growth; women and early learning and child care; climate action and a green economy; and young Canadians.” But what do each of these mean? And more importantly, what do they cost?

According to one National Post article, “should the government survive long enough to put its plans into place, the federal debt will hit $1.4 trillion by 2026 (up from $615 billion when Justin Trudeau became Prime Minister).” Upon reviewing the budget, MP Pierre Poilievre stated that “by 2023, Trudeau will have added more debt in 7 years than Canada added in the prior 148 years.” In other words, Trudeau will have added more to the national debt than all previous Canadian Prime Ministers combined. A figure like that ought to make your eyes burst out of your skull.

As Chris mentioned in last week’s podcast, the Canadian government seems determined to print its way out of the pandemic. There are two possible reasons for this: either the federal government does not understand the ramifications of their spending, or they do understand, but do not care. Based on the figures we just identified, it seems self-evident that the latter is more likely. 

Furthemore, when conservatives raise objections to the national debt, they are dismissed - as if worrying about economic depression is mere nitpicking. This hubris was on display when a Liberal MP, Sean Fraser, suggested that the Canadian spending throughout the pandemic was not only inconsequential, but somehow successful. This prompted Poilievre to ask: “why is it that this government can only judge success by how expensive it can be, rather than by the results?”

Throughout the pandemic, we have heard some Canadian politicians insist that “we cannot have a healthy economy without healthy people.” For a virus that has a 99.98% survival rate, this seems like an overstatement, especially when societies are capable of being operational while managing the COVID crisis (as we have pointed out several times). Nonetheless, this attitude is indicative of the lens through which Canadian politicians view our society - that is, there is an underlying assumption that we can spend money without making money, and then pay back the debt with more printed money (it is Modern Monetary Theory in action).

More broadly, we cannot help but question what this says about our society. Why is unlimited spending responded to with callous indifference? How does this not further entrench a culture of dependence on government subsidies? What sort of society are we setting up for young people, who are destined (or doomed) to inherit this unprecedented debt? 

Trudeau appears to be under the impression that there will be an economic boom when the pandemic is behind us, but as his predecessor, Stephen Harper, has warned, investors are losing faith in Canada. And why wouldn’t they lose faith? Our government is spending like a gambling addict who believes that he will receive his big payoff after just one more bet. On that note, Canada is not a country that rewards innovation anymore. This is why the NDP is proposing a $20.00/hour minimum wage and taxing billionaires at 100%, while the Liberals are in favour of Universal Basic Income (UBI). Policy proposals are a reaction to cultural changes, and so based on these proposals alone, it stands to reason that there is a growing attitude amongst Canadians that we should feel comfortable vilifying success, punishing those who risk innovation, and disincentivizing work. Does this sound like a country that is set up for success? What does that say about us?

| CULTURE

Fake feminism

The Nitty Gritty

* Last week, the United Nations voted to elect China and Iran to the international body’s commission on women’s rights. Yup 🤡 🌎.

We mentioned that the Trudeau government is skilled at political theatre and virtue signalling. Since 2015, this government has branded itself as a “feminist government,” with the hypothetical goal of advancing equality between men and women not just on a national level, but on an international level. Even in the 2021 budget, the government identifies “advancing a national plan to end gender-based violence” as one of its commitments. 

If we combine the commitment to “end gender-based violence” with the Trudeau government’s desire to spend money on foreign aid, then we could reasonably assume that at least some of that money would be reserved for human rights abuses, especially those directed towards women, right? 

Well, Canada and the United States continued their patterns of silence on international human rights abuse this past week after the United Nations elected Iran and China to the Commission on the Status of Women - a commission which claims to be “exclusively dedicated to the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of women.”

In case readers are not familiar with both nations’ records on women’s rights, allow us to jog your memories. Iran “allows underage marriages of girls as young as 13 - and as young as 9 with parental permission - enforces strict restrictions on women’s clothing, and carries out child executions. Women are severely limited regarding their physical mobility, education, financial independence, and work opportunities, and pay.” Furthermore, so-called honour killings - where women are murdered if they are perceived to be dishonouring their families - are not an uncommon practice in Iran, with up to 450 occurring each year. In China, on the other hand, women are limited to having only two children, an increase from their decades-old One Child Policy, which resulted in forced abortions on Chinese women. At the same time, the Chinese Communist Party currently has over one million Uyghur men and women in concentration camps and “systematically forces minority women to take pregnancy tests and submit to forced sterilization, intrauterine birth control devices, and abortions.”

Shocked? Apparently it was not shocking enough for Trudeau to comment on. As we have pointed out, this is not the first time Trudeau has been silent on the abuse of women in China (he refused to use the word “genocide” when referring to the Uyghur concentration camps). For that matter, President Biden and Vice President Harris were also silent. Of course, leaders of Canada and the US are happy to condemn their own societies as irredeemably racist, sexist, and corrupt, but when it comes to condemning real systemic oppression, Trudeau, Biden, and Harris are nowhere to be seen.

What should be the takeaway here? We urge people to look at this as yet another example of the camouflage employed by pseudo-progressive leaders, like Trudeau. They wrap themselves up with the warm and fuzzy cloak of “feminism” because they know that it is a useful shield from criticism. Thus, when we see phrases like “advancing a national plan to end gender-based violence” in the budget, we can be almost certain that it will have nothing to do with its stated goal. Instead, it means one thing and one thing only: tax increases. 

Don’t like it? Well, then you must be for violence against women. See how easy this game can be played?

| CULTURE, POLITICS & SOCIETY

Derek Chauvin and the court of public opinion

Last week, former Minneapolis police officer, Derek Chauvin, was found guilty of second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter in relation to the death of George Floyd. The trial of Chauvin was heavily publicized and politicized, and so the response was never going to be anything but polarizing. After Chauvin was found guilty, the internet exploded with reactions. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris even addressed the nation afterwards, with Harris claiming that “this is a day of justice in America.”

But was it? Did the American justice system prevail, as intended? 

Instead of commenting on the conviction or picking apart each piece of evidence (we are not the jurors, after all), we would instead like to highlight some instances in which outside pressures might have influenced the verdict. 

As Larry Elder wrote, legacy media outlets worked overtime to ensure that this trial was portrayed not just as a referendum on American policing, but on the country itself. Cable news outlets covered the trial from start to finish, with ads “showing two fists tearing an American flag in half, with the caption ‘America’s Very Soul is on Trial.’” For the record, America’s soul was not on trial, but Derek Chauvin was. To extrapolate the trial of one man to the entire nation is to be deliberately dishonest. A well-meaning critic who wants to see the improvement of his or her society would never make this statement, but an ideologue - a person who seeks to tear down sacred institutions - would. 

There were also blatant examples of intimidation on display from both activists and elected representatives. For example: in a now-deleted video that went viral, Black Lives Matter activist Maya Echols threatened that “if George Floyd’s murderer is not sentenced, just know that all hell is gonna break loose. Don’t be surprised when buildings are on fire. Just sayin’.” Similarly, Representative Maxine Waters - who is no stranger to issuing threats of violence - rallied with protesters in the streets and claimed that “we’ve got to stay on the street and we’ve got to get more active, we’ve got to get more confrontational. We’ve got to make sure that they know we mean business.” Although Waters’ choice of words was not as explicitly threatening as Echols’, it was just as impactful. So much so that the Judge in the Chauvin trial had to publicly condemn Waters’ comments, stating that it could “prejudice the jury.”

These examples are only scratching the surface, but they do highlight one thing: pressure from the public and elected officials for a guilty verdict was strong. And how could members of the jury not feel this pressure, especially when the riots (sorry, “mostly peaceful protests”) that followed Floyd’s death last year were among the most violent and destructive in American history? An alternative Chauvin juror even went on record to state that she was “concerned about people coming to [her] house if they were not happy with the verdict.” Furthermore, the time in which the verdict was decided also raises questions. As Ben Shapiro said in his conversation with legal analyst Misty Marris, there was certainly a strong case for manslaughter, but it is hard to believe that an objective verification of the evidence could have occurred in under 10 hours, with no questions asked from the jury.  Oh, and did we mention that the jury was never sequestered in this case?

To close, it does not seem unreasonable for us to suggest that outside pressures that could have prejudiced the jury (even before the trial started, as well), and so we would not be surprised if we learn that an appeal is on the horizon. However, if this sets a precedent for the influence of mob rule in the justice system, then we are entering frightening waters. As Gerald Morgan said on an episode of Louder With Crowder (time stamp at 44:00), if we create a culture whereby jurors are afraid to make fair and unbiased decisions, then we are risking the integrity of the entire legal system. The justice system is a sacred institution - one that has taken generations to build - and it deserves to be treated with the utmost care and respect. 

| EXTRAS

Further Listening

This week, we encourage the audience to listen to Andrew Doyle as he speaks with Michael Shermer about his new book “Free Speech: And Why It Matters.” This interview was fascinating to listen to. Andrew eloquently explains how we are always one generation away from losing free speech and argues why it is a moral duty for us, as individuals, to defend the principle - even when we might find speech objectionable. Given that censorship is on the rise in our culture, we believe this is an important discussion for the audience to hear.  

Andrew Doyle (a.k.a. Titania McGrath) — Free Speech: And Why It Matters - YouTube

Thank you for your time. Please don’t forget to like, share, and comment, and we will see you next week. 

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit brightmorning.substack.com