Censorship Industrial Complex
Former residential school student refutes ‘genocide’ claims, recalls positive experience

From LifeSiteNews
An Indigenous whistleblower condemned the media-driven narrative about ‘mass’ graves at residential schools that led to church burnings across Canada.
An Indigenous whistleblower shared his positive experience at a Residential school, debunking the claim that the schools abused and murdered their students.
In an April 5 interview with Rebel News reporter Drea Humphrey, a Kamloops Band member and former Kamloops Indian Residential School student revealed that there was no”genocide” at the schools and many students benefited from the institution.
“A lot of the students were happy to be there,” the Band member, whose identity was kept anonymous, said. “They were away from abusive families, dysfunctional families, alcoholism. So, they were happy to be there.”
The former student revealed that he was treated well during his time at the residential schools in the 1970s. He also described the priests and nuns who ran the school as good people, referring to Father Noonan, the principal at the time, as “a real nice guy.”
Residential schools, while run by both the Catholic Church and other Christian churches, were mandated and set up by the federal government and ran from the late 19th century until the last school closed in 1996.
While some children did tragically die at the once-mandatory boarding schools, evidence has revealed that many of the children passed away as a result of unsanitary conditions due to underfunding by the federal government, not the Catholic Church.
As a consequence, since 2021, when the mainstream media ran with inflammatory and dubious claims that hundreds of children were buried and disregarded by Catholic priests and nuns who ran some of the schools, over 100 churches have been burned or vandalized across Canada in seeming retribution.
However, to date, there have been no mass graves discovered at any residential schools across Canada.
The Band member revealed that the Kamloops Band knows they “made a mistake” in labeling the ground anomalies as “unmarked graves.”
In fact, according to the Band member, in the 1990s, the Band used the supposed location of the 215 child graves for their new Powwow Arbour and Heritage Park. The project was only allowed to continue after studies concluded that there were no artifacts or archaeological remains at the site.
Therefore, if there were mass graves at that location, they would have been discovered in the 1990s, not in 2021.
The Band member revealed that he does not believe a “genocide” took place at residential schools, while condemning the church burnings across Canada.
“When I was growing up religion and church meant community and family,” he explained. “It seems like the Liberals want to destroy family so the way to do that is to attack religion.”
“Attacking religion was a good excuse to burn the churches,” he said.
Regardless of his testimony and the lack of evidence to support the claim, mainstream media outlets perpetuate the “mass graves” narrative and even threaten to punish those who oppose it. In November, CBC subtly suggested that “residential school denialism” should be criminalized.
2025 Federal Election
Mark Carney Says the Quiet Part Out Loud – Liberals Will Police ‘Wrong’ Speech Online

Dan Knight
The former central banker, who now postures as a man of the people, made it clear that if the Liberals are re-elected, the federal government will intensify efforts to regulate what Canadians are allowed to see, say, and share online.
At a campaign rally in Hamilton, Ontario, Liberal leader Mark Carney unveiled what can only be described as a coordinated assault on digital freedom in Canada. Behind the slogans, applause lines, and empty rhetoric about unity, one portion of Carney’s remarks stood out for its implications: a bold, unapologetic commitment to controlling online speech under the guise of “safety” and “misinformation.”
“We announced a series of measures with respect to online harm… a sea of misogyny, anti-Semitism, hatred, conspiracy theories—the sort of pollution that’s online that washes over our virtual borders from the United States.”
He then made clear his intention to act:
“My government, if we are elected, will be taking action on those American giants who come across [our] border.”
The former central banker, who now postures as a man of the people, made it clear that if the Liberals are re-elected, the federal government will intensify efforts to regulate what Canadians are allowed to see, say, and share online. His language was deliberate. Carney condemned what he called a “sea of misogyny, anti-Semitism, hatred, conspiracy theories” polluting Canada’s internet space—language borrowed directly from the Trudeau-era playbook. But this wasn’t just a moral denunciation. It was a legislative preview.
Carney spoke of a future Liberal government taking “action on those American giants who come across our borders.” Translation: he wants to bring Big Tech platforms under federal control, or at least force them to play the role of speech enforcers for the Canadian state. He blamed the United States for exporting “hate” into Canada, reinforcing the bizarre Liberal narrative that the greatest threat to national unity isn’t foreign actors like the CCP or radical Islamists—it’s Facebook memes and American podcasts.
But the most revealing moment came when Carney linked online speech directly to violence. He asserted that digital “pollution” affects how Canadians behave in real life, specifically pointing to conjugal violence, antisemitism, and drug abuse. This is how the ground is prepared for censorship: first by tying speech to harm, then by criminalizing what the state deems harmful.
What Carney didn’t say is just as important. He made no distinction between actual criminal incitement and political dissent. He offered no assurance that free expression—a right enshrined in Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms—would be respected. He provided no definition of what constitutes a “conspiracy theory” or who gets to make that determination. Under this framework, any criticism of government policy, of global institutions, or of the new technocratic order could be flagged, throttled, and punished.
And that’s the point.
Mark Carney isn’t interested in dialogue. He wants obedience. He doesn’t trust Canadians to discern truth from fiction. He believes it’s the job of government—his government—to curate the national conversation, to protect citizens from wrongthink, to act as referee over what is and isn’t acceptable discourse. In short, he wants Ottawa to become the Ministry of Truth.
Why They Don’t Actually Care About Antisemitism
The Liberal establishment talks a big game about fighting hate—but when it comes to actual antisemitic violence, they’ve shown nothing but selective enforcement and political cowardice.
Let’s look at the facts.
In 2023, B’nai Brith Canada recorded nearly 6,000 antisemitic incidents, including 77 violent attacks—from firebombed synagogues to shots fired at Jewish schools in Montreal and Toronto. This wasn’t a marginal increase. It was a 208% spike in violent antisemitism in a single year.
Statistics Canada echoed the same alarm bells. Jews—who make up just 1% of Canada’s population—were the victims of 70% of all religiously motivated hate crimes. That’s nearly 900 recorded incidents, up 71% from the previous year. Then came October 2023, when Hamas launched its attack on Israel—and the wave of hate turned into a tsunami: a 670% increase in antisemitic incidents across the country. Jewish schools, synagogues, and community centers were hit with bomb threats, arson attempts, and intimidation campaigns. This was a national security issue, not just a policing matter.
And yet, the government’s response? Virtually nonexistent.
Case in point: the Montreal Riot, November 2024. A 600-person mob, waving anti-NATO and pro-Palestinian banners, turned violent—setting fires, smashing windows, and attacking police. Amid this chaos, a man was filmed screaming “Final Solution”—a direct reference to the Nazi plan to exterminate the Jews. It went viral. There was no ambiguity, no misunderstanding. It was a public call for genocide.
So what happened?
Three arrests. None for hate crimes. None related to antisemitism. Montreal Police Chief Fady Dagher insisted there were “no confirmed antisemitic acts,” and as of early 2025, no hate crime charges have been filed against the individual caught on camera.
That man, as it turns out, owned a Second Cup franchise. His punishment? His café was shut down by the company. Not by law enforcement. Not by hate crime investigators. A corporate HR department showed more backbone than Canada’s justice system.
And this is what reveals the truth: they don’t care. They’ll enforce hate speech laws when it’s politically convenient—when it can be used to silence critics, crush dissent, or placate woke constituencies. But when Jewish communities are being threatened, attacked, and terrorized? The same laws suddenly go limp. The same political class that claims to protect minorities becomes paralyzed. They won’t touch it. Because confronting real antisemitism would require standing up to their political allies in activist circles, university campuses, and radical protest movements.
This isn’t an accident. It’s a pattern.
The Liberals aren’t weak on antisemitism because they’re unaware of it. They’re weak on it because they don’t see political value in enforcing the law when it conflicts with their ideological allies. Their obsession isn’t with hate speech—it’s with controlling “wrong” speech. And what qualifies as “wrong” isn’t defined by law or principle. It’s defined by what the Liberal establishment deems unacceptable.
Their target isn’t violent bigotry. It’s dissent. They’ll chase down citizens for questioning carbon taxes or criticizing globalist policy—but when Jewish schools get shot at, or someone calls for genocide in the street, they shrug.
This isn’t leadership. It’s selective justice. And it proves, beyond any doubt, that their agenda was never about protecting Canadians. It was always about protecting control.
The Online Harms Act: Carney’s Blueprint for Speech Control
This isn’t hypothetical. Mark Carney’s remarks in Hamilton mirror the exact logic and intent behind the Online Harms Act (Bill C-63)—legislation drafted under the Liberal banner and introduced in 2024 that pushes Canada into territory no free society should accept.
At its core, Bill C-63 hands the federal government sweeping powers to police digital speech. It creates a Digital Safety Commission, an unelected bureaucratic authority empowered to monitor, investigate, and punish online platforms and individuals for content deemed “harmful.” That word—harmful—is never concretely defined. It includes things like “hate speech,” “conspiracy theories,” and vague notions of “harm to children,” but it’s written broadly enough to be used as a political weapon.
The most chilling provision? Preemptive imprisonment. Under this law, Canadians could be jailed for up to a year—without having committed a crime—if a judge believes they might post something harmful in the future. This isn’t law enforcement. This is thought policing.
Carney didn’t just echo this approach—he amplified it. In his Hamilton rally, he described the internet as being flooded with “misogyny, anti-Semitism, hatred, conspiracy theories,” and laid blame on foreign content “washing over our borders from the United States.” He didn’t argue for open debate or for empowering users to challenge dangerous ideas. He argued for the state to intervene and shut them down.
He told Canadians that these ideas are “changing how people behave” and claimed his government will go after “those American giants” that allow this content to circulate. There’s no ambiguity here: this is a public declaration that a Liberal government under Mark Carney intends to censor, de-platform, and penalize dissenting views. Not illegal ones—just ones they don’t like.
And this isn’t new for him. Back in 2022, during the Freedom Convoy, Carney referred to protesters as committing “sedition” and demanded the government “thoroughly punish” them. These weren’t violent rioters or foreign agitators—these were working-class Canadians honking their horns and standing in the cold, protesting vaccine mandates. For Carney, their real crime was disobedience.
Carney’s view of speech is simple: if it challenges the ruling order, it’s dangerous. And now, with Bill C-63 on the table and Carney at the helm, he’s building the legal infrastructure to lock down the digital public square—not to protect Canadians from violence, but to protect the Liberal establishment from criticism.
That law is real. Carney’s agenda is real. And if he wins, enforcement is coming.
Final thoughts
This is the Canada Mark Carney envisions—one where citizens can’t speak freely online without first checking their views against government guidelines. A country where speech is no longer a right but a privilege granted by bureaucrats. A country where opposition isn’t argued with, it’s labeled harmful and erased.
There was a time when Liberals championed civil liberties. That era is over. The new Liberalism is authoritarian—cloaked in the language of safety and inclusion, but animated by control. Carney’s rally in Hamilton wasn’t a policy rollout. It was a warning to anyone who still thinks they live in a country where dissent is allowed.
They don’t want to fight hate. They want to define “wrong” speech—and then eliminate it. And by “wrong,” they mean anything the Liberal establishment disapproves of. Criticize the government, question the orthodoxy, challenge the state’s narrative, and you’ll be branded a threat. Not a citizen. Not a participant. A threat.
So here we are.
The speech laws are written. The censors are waiting. And Mark Carney is ready to pull the trigger.
This election isn’t about tax credits or campaign slogans. It’s about whether Canada remains a free country or slides deeper into soft tyranny, one regulation, one commission, one silenced voice at a time.
There is a choice. And the choice is this: bring it home—restore freedom, restore sanity, restore this country.
Or: hand the keys to the same people who think you’re the problem for having the nerve to think for yourself.
Censorship Industrial Complex
Scott Atlas: COVID lockdowns, censorship have left a ‘permanent black mark on America’

From LifeSiteNews
Editor’s note: The following text is taken from a speech delivered by radiologist and political commentator Scott Atlas to the Independent Medical Alliance conference in Atlanta, Georgia, on April 5, 2025. Transcription provided by Dr. Robert Malone.
ATLANTA (Robert Malone) — First, thank you to the organizers, and to my many friends and supporters here. It’s great to be here – surrounded by people who believe in personal freedom!
At the recent international Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC) forum in London, I was invited to address the question, “Can Institutions be Reformed?” Begun with Jordan Peterson, ARC joins voices from all over the world to discuss how to refresh the institutions and best values of Western heritage, values that provided the world with history’s most successful societies, particularly the commitment to freedom.
I asked that audience to first consider:
Why, at this moment in history, are we finally focusing on how institutions should be reformed, or if institutions can even be reformed?
After all, for decades we have been aware that our institutions were failing – editorialized, dishonest journalism; wasteful, corrupt government; and agenda-driven schools and universities increasingly unbalanced toward the left, with many conservative faculty and students often self-censoring, afraid to offer unpopular views.
The answer? It is COVID, the pandemic mismanagement specifically – the most tragic breakdown of leadership and ethics that free societies have seen in our lifetimes.
COVID fully exposed the massive, across-the-board, institutional failure – including the shocking reality of overt censorship in our country, the loss of freedoms and the frank violation of human rights – in this country, one explicitly founded on a commitment to freedom.
Yet, oddly, the pandemic remained invisible at the ARC conference, unmentioned by dozens of speakers addressing freedom. It was the elephant in the room – just as explaining the truth about lockdowns, the pseudoscience mandates on masks and social distancing, closing churches and businesses, prohibiting visits to elderly parents in nursing homes while they die – all are missing from post-election discussions today in the United States, including, notably, any of the very public statements and proclamations from the new administration about health care today.
Today, in the wake of COVID, we are left with an undeniable crisis in health. Trust in health guidance has plummeted more rapidly since 2019 than any other government institution, with almost two-thirds now rating the FDA and the CDC as “only fair or poor.”
Half of America no longer has much confidence in science itself. Trust in our doctors and hospitals dropped from 71 percent in 2019 to 40 percent in 2024. The loss of trust is part of the disgraceful legacy of those who held power, who were relied upon to use critical thinking and an ethical compass on behalf of the public, who were handed the precious gift of automatic credibility and almost blind trust.
To understand how to move forward to restore trust, it’s important to first acknowledge basic facts about the pandemic, and keep repeating them, because truth serves as the starting point of all rational discussion. And we must live in a society where facts are acknowledged.
Remember – lockdowns were not caused by the virus. Human beings decided to impose lockdowns.
Indeed, lockdowns were widely instituted, they failed to stop the dying, and they failed to stop the spread – that’s the data: Bjornskov, 2021; Bendavid, 2021; Agarwal, 2021; Herby, 2022; Kerpen, 2023; Ioannidis, 2024; Atlas, 2024.
Lockdowners ignored Henderson’s classic review 15 years earlier showing lockdowns were both ineffective and extremely harmful. They rejected the alternative, targeted protection, first recommended on national media in March 2020 independently by Ioannidis, by Katz, and by me (Atlas) – and then repeatedly for months – based on data already known back then, in spring of 2020. It was not learned 7 months later in 2020, when the Great Barrington Declaration reiterated it, or in 2021, or 2022, or more recently.
And the Birx-Fauci lockdowns directly inflicted massive damage on children and literally killed millions, especially, sinfully, the poor. “The U.S. alone would have had 1.6 million fewer deaths (through July 2023) if it had the performance of Sweden,” according to a review of 34 countries. Bianchi calculates that over the next 15-20 years, the unemployment alone will cause another million additional American deaths – from the economic shutdown, not the virus.
Beyond a reckless disregard for foreseeable death from their policies, America’s leaders imposed sinful harms and long-lasting damage on our children, the totality of which may not be realized for decades. Mandatory school closings, forced isolation of teens and college students, and required injections of healthy children with experimental drugs attempting to shield adults will be a permanent black mark on America.
It is also worth remembering that this was a health policy problem.
While credentials are not the sole determinant of expertise, I was the only health policy scholar on the White House Task Force and advising the president. Virology is not health policy; epidemiology is not health policy. And while physicians are important in contributing, they are not inherently expert in health policy. Those are only pieces of a larger, more complex puzzle. The stunning fact is – I was the only medical expert there focused on stopping both the death and destruction from the virus and the death and destruction from the policy itself.
As Hannah Arendt observed in “Eichmann in Jerusalem”:
What has come to light is neither nihilism nor cynicism, as one might have expected, but a quite extraordinary confusion over elementary questions of morality.
More than massive incompetence, more than a fundamental lack of critical thinking, we saw the disappearance of society’s moral compass, so pervasive that we have rightfully lost trust in our institutions, leaders, and fellow citizens, trust that is essential to the function of any free and diverse society.
Why did free people accept these draconian, unprecedented, and illogical lockdowns?
This is the question. And the answer reveals the reason for today’s silence on the pandemic.
Clearly, censorship and propaganda are key parts of the explanation, tools of control that convinced the public of two fallacies – that a consensus of experts on lockdowns existed, and dissenters to that false consensus were highly dangerous.
Censorship first was done by the media companies themselves – when it counted most:
- In 2020, before the Biden administration, when school closures and lockdowns were being implemented;
- May 2020, YouTube bragged about its “aggressive policies against misinformation”;
- August 2020, Facebook shamelessly admitted to the Washington Post it had already taken down 7 million posts on the pandemic;
- My interviews as advisor to the president were pulled down by YouTube on September 11, 2020, by Twitter blocking me on October 18, 2020.
You might think the public – in a free society – should know what the advisor to the president was saying?
And what was the response to truth at America’s universities, our centers for the free exchange of ideas, including Stanford, my employer?
Censorship: character assassination, intimidation, and to me, formal censure.
Why is censorship used? To shut someone up, yes; but more importantly, to deceive the public – to stop others from hearing, to convince a naïve public there is a “consensus on truth.”
Truth is not a team sport.
Truth is not determined by consensus, or by numbers of people who agree, or by titles. It is discovered by debate, proven by critical analysis of evidence. Arguments are won by data and logic, not by personal attack or censoring others.
I am proud to be an outlier – happily proven right when the inliers are so wrong – but Cancel Culture is effective because it stops others from speaking. I received hundreds of emails from doctors and scientists all over the country, including from Stanford, from other professors, and from inside the NIH, saying, “Keep talking, Scott, you’re 100 percent right, but we’re afraid for our families and our jobs.”
And indeed, no one at Stanford Medical School – not a single faculty member there – spoke publicly against their attack on me. Only Martin Kulldorff, then a Harvard epidemiologist, wrote in and publicly challenged the 98 signatories at Stanford to debate on whether I was correct or not (none accepted that challenge!).
But that alone doesn’t explain today’s silence about that extraordinary collapse. It is not simply “issue fatigue.”
It is also that so many smart people, including many claiming to support the new “disruptors,” bought into the irrational measures when it counted most, when our kids and particularly the poor were being destroyed in 2020, uncomfortable to discuss and admit, but far more fundamental than the Sars2 origin, or Fauci, or the vaccine. That acquiescence, that silence, that cowardice, and that failure to grasp reality are inconvenient truths that no one wants to admit.
Today, disruption is sorely needed, and many are basking in the resounding victory of history’s most disruptive politician, President Donald J. Trump.
As promised, his new administration is moving quickly, disrupting on several fronts: national security, energy, trade, justice, immigration, and perhaps most importantly with Elon Musk’s effort to eliminate government waste and fraud, and protect our money. After all, the government has no money – it’s all our money, taxpayers’ money!
In health care, important changes in the status quo have also begun, first with Elon Musk’s much needed DOGE, streamlining tens of thousands of Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) bureaucrats while exposing massive fraud and waste in programs like Medicaid.
And Secretary of HHS Bobby Kennedy has also provoked an important, new national dialogue with his “Make America Healthy Again” mantra focused on wholesome foods to achieve the goal everyone readily supports – good health for themselves and their children. And no doubt, ensuring safety of all drugs and eliminating corruption in pharma and the food industry are also crucial to health. I am a strong supporter of those ideas.
We also have two excellent appointments in health – my friends and colleagues, Marty Makary to FDA and Jay Bhattacharya to NIH. Both Marty and Jay are highly knowledgeable, have top training and expertise, and are committed to critical thinking, to legitimate science, and most importantly to free scientific debate.
But I am concerned that most are simultaneously eager to “turn the page” on the human rights violations, the censorship, the true “constitutional crisis” – no setting the record straight, no official recognition of facts, no accountability? The ultimate disruptor won, and his disruptor appointees will now be in charge – so all is well?
Silently turning the page on modern history’s most egregious societal failure would be extraordinarily harmful. Failure to issue official statements of truth by the new government health agency leaders about the pandemic management would prevent closure for the millions who lost loved ones and whose children suffered such harms. And it would completely eliminate all accountability. Remember, only public accountability will prevent recurrence, and accountability is necessary to restore trust in institutions, leadership, and among fellow citizens.
My second concern: the era of trusting experts based solely on credentials must be over. But will that backlash against the failed “expert class” usher in a different wave of false belief? We cannot forget that legitimate expertise is still legitimate; that known, solid medical science is still valid; that unfounded theories based on simple correlations are not scientifically sound.
And we do not want to inadvertently replicate the cancel culture that harmed so many, with another wave of demonizing anyone who doesn’t 100 percent support the new narratives. It’s already begun – that if you disagree with any of the incoming opinions, then you must be “bought by pharma!” Blind support is just as bad as blind opposition; critical thinking must prevail.
What reforms are needed now?
- The first step to restore trust is formal, official statements of truth on the COVID lockdowns, masks, and other pseudoscience mandates from new HHS, NIH, FDA, CDC, CMS leaders.
- We need to forbid – by law – all shutdowns and reset that the CDC and other health agencies are (only) advisory. They recommend; they give information – they don’t set laws. They don’t have the power to set mandates. And if our guaranteed freedoms are not always valid, especially during crises, then they are not guaranteed at all.
- We need to add term limits (5 years?) to all mid- and top-level health agency positions. We cannot continue the perverse incentives of career bureaucrats accruing personal power, like Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx with their 30-plus years in government.
- All new heads of HHS, FDA, NIH, CDC, and CMS should be prohibited from post-government company board positions in health sectors they regulate for ~5 years. It’s unethical, an overt conflict-of-interest. Why hasn’t that been announced?
- We need to forbid drug royalty sharing by employees of the NIH, the FDA, and the CDC. $325 million of royalties were shared with pharma by those people over the 10 years prior to the pandemic. That’s a shocking conflict of interest.
- We should forbid all mandates forcing people to take drugs. First, the essence of all ethical medical practice is informed consent. And what kind of a “free country” requires you to inject a drug into your child or yourself? No – that’s antithetical to freedom. In public health, you give the information… you shouldn’t need to force anything legitimate, but you do need to prove the case.
- We need to require the immediate posting of discussions in all FDA, CDC, and NIH meetings. They work for us. What are they saying? We should know in real-time.
- We need accountability for all government funding. We have 15+ universities getting >$500M/year from NIH alone. The essence of research is free debate. If they’re thwarting that with intimidation, like faculty censures, why would they be entitled to U.S. taxpayers’ money?
More broadly, I and others are working on policies to ensure the free exchange of ideas – the essence of all legitimate science, the basis for the mission of education.
Ideological gatekeeping in public discourse has no place in free societies, especially in science and health.
Here’s the point – the solution to misinformation is more information. No one should be trusted to be the arbiter of truth.
Ultimately, most solutions come from individuals, and ultimately, it is individuals, not institutions, who will save freedom.
I fear we still have a disastrous void in courage in our society today.
To quote CS Lewis, “Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point.”
We cannot have a peaceful, free society if it’s filled with people who lack the courage to speak and act with certainty on Hannah Arendt’s “elementary questions of morality.”
Finally, to the young people here, never forget what GK Chesterton said:
Right is right, even if nobody does it. Wrong is wrong, even if everybody is wrong about it.
Reprinted with permission from Robert Malone.
-
2025 Federal Election21 hours ago
BLOCKBUSTER REPORT: Canada’s ties to Wuhan Institute of Virology and creation of COVID uncovered by Sam Cooper of The Bureau
-
espionage13 hours ago
Hong Kong Detains Parents of Activist Frances Hui Amid $1M Bounty, Echoing Election Interference Fears in Canada
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Taxpayers urge federal party leaders to drop home sale reporting to CRA
-
Business14 hours ago
Closing information gaps to strengthen Canada’s border security and track fentanyl
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
‘Sadistic’ Canadian murderer claiming to be woman denied transfer to female prison
-
International1 day ago
Bill Maher Breaks His Silence on His Private Meeting With President Trump
-
Business2 days ago
Musk Slashes DOGE Savings Forecast By 85%
-
Alberta22 hours ago
Province introducing “Patient-Focused Funding Model” to fund acute care in Alberta