Monday, December 26, 2022

Divide, Diversify and Conquer

“The quickest way to control a population is to turn it against itself. Divide, Diversify and Conquer.” That’s how the British ruled India. 

If you want to run a City or Country for the benefit of all the people who live in it, by contrast, you’d do the opposite of this. 


You’d deemphasize racial and gender differences along with wokeness, and NOT highlight them for political purposes.


You’d understand that in a society and community of many different ethnic groups, tribalism (Neotribalism) is the greatest threat to unity and order. And you would resist using the existence of racism and gender as an excuse for failure.

You would never allow anyone gender or race to blame an entire racial group or one gender for the sins of its ancestors. As this would serve only to embitter and divide the population. It might make a politician's job easier in the short term, yet over time it would wreck the City; community and indeed the country itself.

Politicians and businesses once understood this.


Politicians, today no longer oppose segregation. They no longer insist on treating all genders and races equally. They now consider gender and race the centre of human identity.

They demand that individuals be exalted or punished because of their gender or skin colour. Human citizens must be judged on what they do, not on how they look or who their parents were or what their ancestors did or did not do. 

Our elected politicians and political parties, at one time, stood for and said they did not believe in collective punishment or reward. They stood for and believed in the Individual. That’s why they opposed segregation.


Today activist protestors from numerous high schools, universities and colleges are demanding spaces entirely off-limits to WHITE people and are demanding segregated meeting areas within these publicly funded institutions of learnings, for Blacks ONLY.


And that is NOT what the honourable Reverend Martin Luther King stood for during his short life. And NO media, politicians, professors etc. have acknowledged the irony of banning people, WHITE people, or others based on skin colour.


Tell me, in the USA for example, when the Brown versus Board ruled that school segregation was ILLEGAL, then how are any of these today's efforts to divide people by race, colour, and gender legal???


For generations, it was an article of common sense and faith among politicians and businesses that integration was the key to racial and gender harmony. Bigotry grows from ignorance, was the assumption. The more personal exposure we all have to different groups, the more we’ll come to see that everyone’s basically the same. And that understanding is far less divisive than what we are now seeing today.


It’s sad that we no longer hear much from our so-called political leaders, academia, or business executives about the importance of racial and gender harmony. As the emphasis now is on our differences which is the essence of the diversity agenda, #IMHOPEOPLE.


And not surprisingly, this has led to an explosion of racial and gender hostility in North American life. It was once considered the greatest possible sin to criticize someone for his/her skin colour or gender. Yet today and now it is regarded as a sign of enlightenment. And it's everywhere, in academia, politics and business, but especially on campuses throughout Canada and the USA. and within the administration of cities, municipalities and towns.


The identity politics and policies of today may make a City, State, Province, or Country easier to govern, and it also makes them all much harder and unsafe to live in. Identity politics is based on the premise that everyone is a member of a subgroup, usually a racial or gender category.

The point of achieving political power is to divert resources to your group. Which is another word for tribalism!


And this my friends is the most divisive possible way to run a Country, City, Province, Municipality, State or Business. Because they are not about ideas, they are based on inborn characteristics, tribalism, wokeness and identity politics which are inherently unreasonable.

As there are no winning arguments of different opinions, or even having them. There is only victory or defeat for the groups. And this is NOT democracy its fascism at its worst.


In North America, virtually every non-white and or gender groups reap advantages from being racially and or gender-conscious and politically organized. So how long before someone asks the simple rational question: Why should the whites in North America not be allowed to think of themselves as a group and thus organize and agitate along racial and gender lines, too?


And when this happens and at this rate of identity politics it will, and when White people become another interest group politically fighting for the spoils, Democracy throughout North America as we’ve known it shall be over. In the sense that we’re all in this together, united by citizenship in a common endeavour of some kind, as Citizens of a Country, City, State or Province, that shall end forever along with democracy, free speech, diversity, and integration.


All thanks to politicians, bureaucrats, technocrats, special interest groups and lobbyists have developed a whole series of institutional problems and the lack of political legitimacy because of how politicians, academia, judges, and businesses fail to behave morally; ethically and transparently in matters that are central to the lives of most people and treated such obligations as unimportant.


They ALL equally are responsible for encouraging today's permissiveness in the bedrooms that have found their way into the halls of Justice, Boardrooms, Political Parties and Governments. Diversity through wokeness is a new failure of society that is putting us all back into tribalism of Divide, Diversify and Conquer.

So-called self-proclaimed leaders, thanks to the media, in business, education and politics through their actions or non-actions have continued doing their utmost, NOT to create environments where people of all backgrounds, regardless of colour etc., can maximize their own potential.

Therefore, we need to work together democratically, to take power back from political parties, businesses, and academia, in my view.



PS Seeking wisdom based on facts then read Ship of Fools by Tucker Carlson (Author, Narrator)


Sunday, December 25, 2022

The Motives of Scientists

Science and technology provide the most important examples of surrogate activities. Science is a surrogate activity because scientists work mainly for the fulfillment, they get out of the work itself. 

Yet, of course, it’s not that simple. Other motives do play a role for many scientists. Some scientists claim that they are motivated by “curiosity” or by a desire to “benefit humanity.” But it is easy to see that neither of these can be the principal motive of most scientists.

As for “curiosity,” that notion is simply absurd. Most scientists work on highly specialized problems that are not the object of any normal curiosity. For example, is an astronomer, a mathematician, or an entomologist curious about the properties of isopropyl trimethyl methane? Of course not. 

Only a chemist is curious about such a thing, and he/she is curious about it only because chemistry is his surrogate activity. Is the chemist curious about the appropriate classification of a new species of beetle? No. That question is of interest only to the entomologist, and he is interested in it only because entomology is his surrogate activity. 

If the chemist and the entomologist had to exert themselves seriously to obtain the physical necessities, and if that effort exercised their abilities in an interesting way but in some non-scientific pursuit, then they wouldn’t care about isopropyl trimethyl methane or the classification of beetles. 

Suppose that lack of funds for postgraduate education had led the chemist to become an insurance broker instead of a chemist. In that case, he would have been very interested in insurance matters but would have cared nothing about isopropyl trimethyl methane. 

In any case, it is not normal to put into the satisfaction of mere curiosity the amount of time and effort that scientists put into their work. 

The “curiosity” explanation for the scientists’ motive just doesn’t stand up. 

The “benefit of humanity” explanation doesn’t work any better. Some scientific work has no conceivable relation to the welfare of humanity most archaeology or comparative linguistics for example. Some other areas of science present obviously dangerous possibilities. 

Yet scientists in these areas are just as enthusiastic about their work as those who develop vaccines or study air pollution. Science and technology constitute a power mass movement, and many scientists gratify their need for power through identification with this mass movement. 

In my view then, conceivably, science marches on blindly, without regard to the real welfare of humanity or to any other standard, obedient only to the psychological needs of the scientists and of the government officials and corporation executives who provide the funds for research and then profits from said research.

Thursday, November 10, 2022

Security and Individualism

What makes us FEEL secure is not so much the objective security of a Constitution, or even the justice system but rather a sense of confidence in our ability to take care of ourselves.

Today, families and individuals are threatened by many things against which we are helpless: nuclear accidents, inflation, carcinogens in food, environmental pollution, war, increasing taxes, invasion of one's privacy by large organizations, and nationwide social or economic phenomena that may disrupt our desired way of life.

It is true that society is powerless against some of the things that threaten us like disease for example. But we can accept the risk of disease stoically. It is part of the nature of things, it is no one’s fault unless it is the fault of some imaginary, impersonal demon. But threats to individuals and society or corporations by government tend to be MAN-MADE and to hell with the constitution or laws.

For example, in Canada, as per the actions of Justin Trudeau and his liberal party animated by the NDP, and propagandized by the mainstream media, protesting, or becoming angry against the government’s policies cannot be permitted unless such protesting is in support of and NOT contrary to government policies.

If voters do, then, of course, the government shall freeze your bank accounts, and arrest you and if you are not vaccinated the government then makes sure through their supporters in Big Teck, Banks, and other Corporations that one loses her/his job in many instances, as we all have witnessed these past few years.

Voters and thus citizens of Canada have become strapped down by the government’s mandated restrictions and regulations that have finally come to the surface within society and frustrated many of one’s family; personal choices and impulses that have interfered dramatically with our lives within a free and democratic so-called country.

These are not the results of chance but are IMPOSED on us by other persons whose decisions society as an individual, is unable to influence. Consequently, we feel frustrated, humiliated, and angry especially when we realize that governments enact legislation or laws that are Ultra Virus and no one in government or in Corporations is held accountable.

WHY? And that question WHY is NO LONGER taught in Universities or high schools let alone at grade level or group discussions?

Perhaps that is why today's so-called elected representatives of the public at all levels of government are in fact elected on average by FEWER than 10% of ALL ELIGIBLE VOTERS.

And this does NOT represent democracy, in my view.


Saturday, June 25, 2022

Quebec's Language Bill 96 is Unconstitutional and Spits in the Face of 90 percent of Canadians

Quebec's language Bill 96 is unconstitutional and the PM must evoke the disallowance power which remains part and parcel of the Consolidation of Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982.

When if ever shall the electorate have a political party and its leaders with enough sense and fortitude to stand up for Canada and its citizens by using the disallowance power under the existing Canadian Constitution i.e. Constitution Act, 1867 – the disallowance power which remains part and parcel of the Consolidation of Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982? It remains part of the Canadian constitution as protection for minority rights and from discriminatory laws passed by provincial governments i.e., Quebec’s Bill 96 and others.

Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that what is written in the Constitution remains in force, NO matter if such powers written within the Constitution are often used or not. They remain part of the Constitution until the Constitution is amended by the Canadian Constitution amendment procedures and NOT by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Academics can debate until the end of Global warming about whether the powers within the Constitution remain legitimate constitutional tools if they are not used from time to time or for many years as this is simply an academic theory and NOT a law or power as written within the Constitution.

Further, as the disallowance power remains in the written text of the Constitution Act, of 1867, to be of no force, it would need to have lapsed through a convention. For a convention to arise, all parties affected must consider the convention to be binding on them.

Since no Prime Minister has declared the disallowance power to be obsolete, legally it is still a legitimate part of Canada’s Constitution and can or could and should be used to ensure that all provinces respect and adhere to the Canadian Consolidation of Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982 in my view.

Further, some debates, mainly by academics, have taken place on whether a constitutional convention can invalidate a written law. It is legally difficult to see how a lack of exercise can or could vitiate a written and legal constitutional power. Especially, since the courts upheld the appointment of eight additional senators in 1990, although the pertinent section of the Canada Act 1867, had never been previously used and was considered, by some, to be archaic.

Tuesday, May 3, 2022

Callaghan J. Ontario High Court of Justice Decision in Favour of Peter Clarke 1981

 In 1981, Peter Clarke, through his lawyer, W. Ross Hitch, sued the Clarkson Co. Ltd and the government of Ontario (HER MAJESTY, and the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario), for illegally enacting and passing the following legislation that “was frustrating the laws of the Dominion and the provincial Legislature has no mandate to supplement federal legislation.”

“An Act respecting Certain Potential Assets of Co-operative Health Services of Ontario”

Callaghan J. Ontario High Court of Justice Decision in Favour of Clarke

The Act in assuming to protect potential estate assets and thereby directly frustrating a compromise arrangement negotiated by the liquidator under the Winding-up Act is, in my view, legislation in relation to matters falling directly within the subject of insolvency and is, accordingly, ultra vires. The declaration sought will be granted and the question of law propounded will be answered in accordance with these reasons. [27] Application granted.



PS Conceivably, if there had been internet crowdfunding availability at the time, one could have continued a lawsuit against all members of the legislature, their respective political parties and leaders, for Breach of Trust, Deralection of Duty, and neglect of official duty for an improper and ultra vires purpose under criminal and civil laws. As citizens, we all unfortunately over the years continue to witness that our elected officials and their political party leaders and others in government seem never to be accountable for such actions! 


Saturday, March 26, 2022

Toronto's Upcoming Election for Councillors


Who, other than the propagandists in the mainstream media, like yourselves in the Toronto Star etc., who constantly write telling the electorate what they want or why they need a progressive council at City Hall?

 Especially since that is what Toronto has been stuck with for far too long now!

 Progressive, in today’s Ontario and world politics, means progressivism that is considered part of the left-liberalism tradition. A political movement that identifies as progressive is "a social or political movement, through big government actions at the expense of the free-market system and individual rights and freedoms.  

 For example, A progressive candidate’s philosophy is to ask, “what am I owed, “and “what must my city or country do for me” or “what has offended me today”.

 While a true Conservative candidate on the other hand has a philosophy that asks, “what can I do for myself, my family, my community and my fellow citizens”.

 Further for your political progressives, a variety of opinions and ideas are not welcomed, unless they are totally in line with the liberal socialist leftism political philosophies of big government from cradle to grave entitlements. And when it comes to choices, well, your progressive’s they attack free speech, and they also do not want “choices” to apply to any decisions on education, health care or even how and where we live out ones’ religious faith along with what one eats or drinks for that matter.

 Progressive political candidates also stipulate that one political solution (“theirs”) fits all and Conservative candidates believe that the electorate and the citizens should have” choices” made and decided by them, not governments.

 In summary, Conservative philosophy, NOT Progressive philosophy, is what Toronto City council urgently requires so that our conservative elected representatives of the electorate believe in individual rights, NOT special rights for this group or that group at the expense of the other groups, and allowing Scarborough to be Scarborough, and North York to be North York. 

As Conservative candidates strongly believe that the electorate can vote with our feet about where one wants and what laws one wants to live under as opposed to being mandated for all by your progressive government types.  



Peter Clarke




Wednesday, March 16, 2022

Unacknowledged War Crimes NOT Classed as or Crimes Against Humanity? Why?

What UN Resolution or World Court Approved the Confiscating (stealing) of Assets and Freezing of Bank Accounts of Citizens Because two Countries had a Conflict?

Note:  According to Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, only the UN Security Council has a mandate by the international community to apply sanctions (Article 41) that must be complied with by all UN member states (Article 2,2).

In WW2 over 40 million civilians were killed yet no government, bureaucrats or technocrats were charged with war crimes associated with the aerial and ground bombardments of entire cities? Other than those associated with the holocaust no government leaders were charged with crimes against humanity or called criminals, madmen etc.

In the Iraqi war between 180,000 to 210,000 civilians were killed of which 5,529 civilians killed by USA forces yet to this day no government, bureaucrats or technocrats were charged with war crimes associated with the aerial and ground bombardments of entire villages, homes or cities?

In the Afghanistan war 46, 319 civilians were killed 1,620 civilians yet as of this year no government, bureaucrats or technocrats were charged with war crimes associated with the aerial and ground bombardments of entire villages, homes, or cities?

In the Syrian war 159,774 civilians were killed of which 1,271 civilians killed by USA forces yet as of this year no government, bureaucrats or technocrats were charged with war crimes associated with the aerial and ground bombardments of entire villages, homes, or cities?

In the NATO war on Libyan war at least 72 civilians were killed by NATO forces yet as of this year no government, bureaucrats or technocrats were charged with war crimes associated with the aerial and ground bombardments of entire villages, homes, or cities?

 Sanctions Fact: According to Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, only the UN Security Council has a mandate by the international community to apply sanctions (Article 41) that must be complied with by all UN member states (Article 2,2). They serve as the international community's most powerful peaceful means to prevent threats to international peace and security or to settle them. Sanctions do not include the use of military force. However, if sanctions do not lead to the diplomatic settlement of a conflict, the use of force can be authorized by the Security Council separately under Article 42.

UN sanctions should not be confused with unilateral sanctions that are imposed by individual countries in furtherance of their strategic interests.[5] Typically intended as strong economic coercion, measures applied under unilateral sanctions can range between coercive diplomatic efforts, economic warfare, or as preludes to war.

 Drone strikes are supposed to be precise - surgical is the word often used - to target terrorists and threats and avoid killing innocent civilians. But a deep investigation by the New York Times Magazine finds that U.S. airstrikes have killed thousands of civilians - including small children - in places that include Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan.

Investigative reporter Azmat Khan has spent the last five years reporting on U.S. military drone operations and airstrikes and civilian casualties and joins us now.

Tuesday, March 15, 2022

Overpopulation is the Disaster Waiting for the Planet Sooner than Climate Change

With more than ONE BILLION people on this earth going hungry every year, and the world at present is already overpopulated at close to 8 billion people, which is projected to grow to TEN BILLION people within a mere 28 years, Over Population of the Planet is the Disaster awaiting to happen far sooner than climate change.

Unfortunately, the political theories of today’s leftist liberalism and its social reformers remain living in their construed unrealistic unicorn world of the belief that with proper government and big Teck social structures, all ills of the people on the planet could be eradicated.

 However, back in the 1700 century, we all were warned about the inability of the planet to adequately feed, water, or house a world population of over say 5 BILLION people. And with over ONE MILLION people going hungry each year the theory of Malthus, is today, now more than ever, acceptable to economists and far more accurate than those of Alfred Russel Wallace and Charles Darwin, in my opinion.

 Overpopulation, NOT climate change, shall far sooner than the latter, cause a global epidemic of famine, poverty, starvation that neither government, big Teck companies or advances in science, shall overcome the scarcity of water or food supply once the planet has surpassed its capabilities thanks to the world’s overpopulation combined with societies irresponsibility’s and inability to effectively support more people because of the planet’s scarcity and incapacity of resources.

   world population counter

Facts: Worldwide, one in three people do not have access to safe drinking watertwo out of five people do not have a basic hand-washing facility with soap and water, and more than 673 million people still practise open defecation.

40 percent shortfall in freshwater resources by 2030 coupled with a rising world
population has the world careening towards a global water crisis. 

Monday, February 21, 2022

Canada Declared Trucker Emergency

 This article was written by the By 

 of the WSJ.

The trucker's protest against vaccine mandates, vilified by Mr. Trudeau as “racist” and “violent,” has been peaceful, but not every peaceful protest is legal. Blocking roads and border crossings disrupt lives and commerce. The government’s job is to maintain public order while respecting civil liberties.

Canada has failed on both scores. For weeks authorities tried to wish away the problem. When that failed, Mr. Trudeau overreached, invoking new powers before Canadian jurisdictions had tried to enforce existing law. Ottawa police chief Peter Sloly was a progressive reformer. He criticizes the “reactive enforcement model” of policing, and when truckers took over his downtown, he failed to react. Mr. Sloly resigned Tuesday.

On Thursday Ottawa police, with provincial and federal help, finally came out in numbers, blocked highway exits, set up a perimeter and checkpoints and arrested blockade leaders. All of this could have been done under existing law. On Friday police began mopping up the protests methodically, with occasional scuffles and use of pepper spray. This too could have been done, albeit differentiating between the lawful and unlawful, and without threatening media with arrest for covering the action.

Mr. Trudeau justifies the “public-order emergency” by inflating the protest into a terrorist plot to overthrow the government. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association disagrees and sued Thursday. It says the standards for an emergency— “threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property” that “seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians” beyond “the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it”—are not met.

Protests aren’t emergencies, and Western leaders had better get used to handling civil disobedience firmly without traducing civil liberties. Mr. Trudeau criminalized a protest movement, deputizing financial institutions, without due process or liability, to find and freeze personal accounts of blockaders and anyone who helps them. These extraordinary measures are a needless abuse of power.

Toronto limited the problem by closing downtown roads. Blockades at crucial border crossings were allowed to drag on and cost the North American auto industry hundreds of millions of dollars. Yet when police finally acted, border blockades dispersed peacefully, no emergency powers were needed. One ended with handshakes between police and protesters.

Weak responses to civil disobedience have hurt Canada for years. New gas pipelines are increasingly stymied by blockades, often by green or aboriginal activists. On Thursday men wielding axes attacked a pipeline drill site and its workers in British Columbia. That’s worse than anything the truckers have done.

In early 2020 Mr. Trudeau urged dialogue with pipeline blockaders. Facing Black Lives Matter protests in violation of Covid rules in June 2020, Mr. Trudeau joined in. But with the truckers, the Prime Minister refused to meet or compromise. Even as province after province ends Covid restrictions, he drags his feet.

When the Emergencies Act was first passed, critics were assured “emergency powers can only be used when the situation is so drastic that no other law of Canada can deal with the situation.” In abusing these powers for a nonemergency, Mr. Trudeau crossed a democratic line. Canadians wanted the blockades to end, but it never should have come at the expense of the rule of law.