Connect with us

Brownstone Institute

Make no mistake, the Israel-Hamas conflict is Canada’s fight too

Published

11 minute read

By Joe Adam George

The threats posed by the ‘new axis of evil’ comprising Russia, China and Iran have now mushroomed into two major conflicts

On October 7, Canadians woke up to images of grisly war crimes committed by Hamas, a listed terrorist entity in Canada, halfway across the world in Israel. Following their deadly and barbaric incursion into the Jewish nation from across the Gaza border, an estimated 1,000 Hamas terrorists methodically mutilated, raped, burned and murdered at least 1,300 Israelis in horrific ways not witnessed since the Holocaust. Still reeling from the surprise attack, Israel formally declared war on Hamas the next day, vowing to ‘wipe them off the face of the Earth’.

With the conflict now into its third week, the events unravelling in the Middle East and, indeed, across the globe, since the deadly morning of October 7 spell grim news for Canada. Still facing global ridicule and isolation after a crisis-laden September during which Prime Minister Justin Trudeau managed to get into a diplomatic spat with India and, inexplicably, honoured a former Nazi unit soldier in the Parliament in the presence of visiting Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the Israel-Hamas conflict is a headache he could have done without; especially given the complex nature of Jewish and Muslim vote bank politics at home.

As Canada turned inwards amidst culture wars and socio-economic crises in recent years, the threats posed by the ‘new axis of evil’ comprising Russia, China and Iran have now mushroomed into two major conflicts involving our allies, Ukraine and Israel. A third conflict, involving Taiwan, may be on the horizon. These conflicts have once again proven that rogue state and non-state actors cannot be reasoned or negotiated with. Any delusions of grandeur or signs of weakness will only lead to more violence, inevitably targeting innocent civilians.

Regrettably, a large (and stubborn) segment of the Western foreign policy elite continues to believe funding or coddling our ideological foes will somehow make them allies and acquiescent to change. On the contrary, they only hold us in further contempt by using our funds and credulity against us and our national interests. Take Pakistan as an example. Despite showering the terrorist haven with billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars in international aid, it continued to commit multiple transgressions, including allegedly harboring America’s Enemy No.1 and the late Al-Qaeda leader, Osama bin Laden (who, of course, was shot dead in his Abbottabad, Pakistan compound in 2011).

Fast forward to the Israel-Hamas conflict, it is clear the West hasn’t learned from its past follies. With reports confirming Iran’s role in Hamas’ attacks on Israel, one only needs to look at the deluded Iran nuclear deal and other appeasement policies of the Biden administration and fellow Western democracies to ascertain why Israel now finds itself in the fight of its life. It is also precisely why, this time around, the decades-long conflict feels different; not only because of the unspeakable violence Hamas unleashed on innocent Israelis but because of the Israelis’ resolve to wipe out the terror group. The West, including Canada, are culpable for having played down the existential threat posed the Hamas ‘death cult’ and even funding extremism through donations to controversial entities like the United Nations Relief Works Agency for Palestine and the Near East (UNRWA). We’ve also been far too lax in our own back yards, failing to exercise proper oversight over domestic charities and allowing university campuses to become hotbeds of vicious anti-Western and antisemitic sentiment.

Needless to say, the chickens have finally come home to roost. With five Canadians confirmed killed and another three held hostage by Hamas, it is bewildering and despicable to see fellow Canadians, sympathetic to the pro-Palestine cause, openly celebrate the death and destruction caused by the Hamas attacks.

Never one to disappoint when it comes to diaspora politics, the first inclination of the Trudeau government, faced with a deep fear of confronting an angry Arab mob or jeopardizing the Muslim vote bank, has been to appease and take no action against unauthorized pro-Hamas rallies promoting antisemitism and glorifying terrorism, even going so far as to disrupt antisemitism conferences. But this is the wrong instinct. Enabling support for a proscribed terror group guilty of heinous war crimes cannot be allowed in a country where all members of society are considered equally subject to the rule of law. The inaction of the West is what emboldened Hamas in the first place. It must end now.

Laws banning such rallies, similar to the one imposed by France, and canceling visas of foreign nationals participating in them must be seriously contemplated here in Canada. Also, in the interest of national security, amendments to the Citizenship Act ought to be made to revoke citizenship of individuals linked to terrorist groups even if it would render them stateless, as is practiced by the UK.

With Canada-based individuals and groups allegedly laundering money on behalf of Hamas and Hezbollah, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) and the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC) must be directed to conduct regular and independent forensic audits of these entities in partnership with the Five Eyes and other global law enforcement agencies.

The Trudeau government’s awful record of accountability and vetting when it comes to disbursing funds to vile anti-Semites is a key reason why the $10 million Canadian aid promised to Palestinian civilians must be frozen to prevent it ending up in Hamas’ hands.

Other time-critical countermeasures to support Israel and prevent this war from spilling over would be to list the notorious Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organization and reimpose the UN sanctions to kneecap Iran’s capability to purchase and supply missiles to its regional terror proxies, including Hamas and Hezbollah.

The West needs to understand that Israel is doing them a favour by eliminating Hamas. Fueled by the widespread (and deplorable) global support for their attacks, we can expect an emboldened Hamas, which recently called for a  global ‘Day of Jihad’, to encourage lone-wolf attacks like the ones that took place in Beijing and Paris. The complete and total destruction of Hamas isn’t just a matter of Israeli security; it’s a matter of global security.

Make no mistake. Just as Hamas took advantage of the distraction created by the political infighting in Israel, the West is highly susceptible to similar attacks given the domestic turbulence in many countries, including Canada. Moreover, as FBI Director Christopher Wray warned Americans, the success of the Hamas attacks is likely to inspire other terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS to call for similar attacks in Western democracies, as seen from this week’s attack in the Belgian capital of Brussels.

Yet, the Trudeau government remains sheltered from the ugly realities of the rest of the world, especially the Global South, and woefully unprepared to protect Canadians from the emerging threats, as seen from the recent blocking of the Conservative opposition’s Bill C-350 to list the IRGC as a terrorist entity in Canada.

While Canada remains a safe haven for terrorists and transnational criminal organizations, Canadian values, interests and national security continue to be severely undermined by vote bank politics, foreign interference, criminal impunity, poor intelligence sharing and defence budget cuts. With the Liberal government prone to sleepwalking into one political disaster after another, the Israel-Hamas conflict ought to serve as a much needed wake-up call for PM Trudeau to prioritize Canada’s foreign policy and national security interests over self-serving vote bank politics. It may already be too late for Canada to avoid Europe’s fate as a hotbed for jihadist terrorism.

If the Liberal government isn’t up for this fight, it’d be in Canadians’ best interests for them to step aside and allow more serious people to take charge.

Joe Adam George is a former foreign policy and national security research intern with the Washington, D.C.-based policy think tank, Hudson Institute, and a communications strategist. He lives in Ottawa

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Brownstone Institute

The CDC Planned Quarantine Camps Nationwide

Published on

From the Brownstone Institute

By Jeffrey A Tucker Jeffrey A. Tucker 

The document was only removed on about March 26, 2023. During the entire intervening time, the plan survived on the CDC’s public site with little to no public notice or controversy. 

No matter how bad you think Covid policies were, they were intended to be worse. 

Consider the vaccine passports alone. Six cities were locked down to include only the vaccinated in public indoor places. They were New York City, Boston, Chicago, New Orleans, Washington, D.C., and Seattle. The plan was to enforce this with a vaccine passport. It broke. Once the news leaked that the shot didn’t stop infection or transmission, the planners lost public support and the scheme collapsed.

It was undoubtedly planned to be permanent and nationwide if not worldwide. Instead, the scheme had to be dialed back.

Features of the CDC’s edicts did incredible damage. It imposed the rent moratorium. It decreed the ridiculous “six feet of distance” and mask mandates. It forced Plexiglas as the interface for commercial transactions. It implied that mail-in balloting must be the norm, which probably flipped the election. It delayed the reopening as long as possible. It was sadistic.

Even with all that, worse was planned. On July 26, 2020, with the George Floyd riots having finally settled down, the CDC issued a plan for establishing nationwide quarantine camps. People were to be isolated, given only food and some cleaning supplies. They would be banned from participating in any religious services. The plan included contingencies for preventing suicide. There were no provisions made for any legal appeals or even the right to legal counsel. 

The plan’s authors were unnamed but included 26 footnotes. It was completely official. The document was only removed on about March 26, 2023. During the entire intervening time, the plan survived on the CDC’s public site with little to no public notice or controversy. 

It was called “Interim Operational Considerations for Implementing the Shielding Approach to Prevent COVID-19 Infections in Humanitarian Settings.” 

By absence of empirical data, the meaning is: nothing like this has ever been tried. The point of the document was to map out how it could be possible and alert authorities to possible pitfalls to be avoided.

“This document presents considerations from the perspective of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) for implementing the shielding approach in humanitarian settings as outlined in guidance documents focused on camps, displaced populations and low-resource settings. This approach has never been documented and has raised questions and concerns among humanitarian partners who support response activities in these settings. The purpose of this document is to highlight potential implementation challenges of the shielding approach from CDC’s perspective and guide thinking around implementation in the absence of empirical data. Considerations are based on current evidence known about the transmission and severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and may need to be revised as more information becomes available.”

The meaning of “shielding” is “to reduce the number of severe Covid-19 cases by limiting contact between individuals at higher risk of developing severe disease (‘high-risk’) and the general population (‘low-risk’). High-risk individuals would be temporarily relocated to safe or ‘green zones’ established at the household, neighborhood, camp/sector, or community level depending on the context and setting. They would have minimal contact with family members and other low-risk residents.”

In other words, this is what used to be concentration camps.

Who are these people who would be rounded up? They are “older adults and people of any age who have serious underlying medical conditions.” Who determines this? Public health authorities. The purpose? The CDC explains: “physically separating high-risk individuals from the general population” allows authorities “to prioritize the use of the limited available resources.”

This sounds a lot like condemning people to death in the name of protecting them.

The model establishes three levels. First is the household level. Here high-risk people are“physically isolated from other household members.” That alone is objectionable. Elders need people to take care of them. They need love and to be surrounded by family. The CDC should never imagine that it would intervene in households to force old people into separate places.

The model jumps from households to the “neighborhood level.” Here we have the same approach: forced separation of those deemed vulnerable.

From there, the model jumps again to the “camp/sector level.” Here it is different. “A group of shelters such as schools, community buildings within a camp/sector (max 50 high-risk individuals per single green zone) where high-risk individuals are physically isolated together. One entry point is used for exchange of food, supplies, etc. A meeting area is used for residents and visitors to interact while practicing physical distancing (2 meters). No movement into or outside the green zone.”

Yes, you read that correctly. The CDC is here proposing concentration camps for the sick or anyone they deem to be in danger of medically significant consequences of infection.

Further: “to minimize external contact, each green zone should include able-bodied high-risk individuals capable of caring for residents who have disabilities or are less mobile. Otherwise, designate low-risk individuals for these tasks, preferably who have recovered from confirmed COVID-19 and are assumed to be immune.”

The plan says in passing, contradicting thousands of years of experience, “Currently, we do not know if prior infection confers immunity.” Therefore the only solution is to minimize all exposure throughout the whole population. Getting sick is criminalized.

These camps require a “dedicated staff” to “monitor each green zone. Monitoring includes both adherence to protocols and potential adverse effects or outcomes due to isolation and stigma. It may be necessary to assign someone within the green zone, if feasible, to minimize movement in/out of green zones.”

The people housed in these camps need to have good explanations of why they are denied even basic religious freedom. The report explains:

“Proactive planning ahead of time, including strong community engagement and risk communication is needed to better understand the issues and concerns of restricting individuals from participating in communal practices because they are being shielded. Failure to do so could lead to both interpersonal and communal violence.”

Further, there must be some mechanisms to prohibit suicide:

Additional stress and worry are common during any epidemic and may be more pronounced with COVID-19 due to the novelty of the disease and increased fear of infection, increased childcare responsibilities due to school closures, and loss of livelihoods. Thus, in addition to the risk of stigmatization and feeling of isolation, this shielding approach may have an important psychological impact and may lead to significant emotional distress, exacerbate existing mental illness or contribute to anxiety, depression, helplessness, grief, substance abuse, or thoughts of suicide among those who are separated or have been left behind. Shielded individuals with concurrent severe mental health conditions should not be left alone. There must be a caregiver allocated to them to prevent further protection risks such as neglect and abuse.

The biggest risk, the document explains, is as follows: “While the shielding approach is not meant to be coercive, it may appear forced or be misunderstood in humanitarian settings.”

(It should go without saying but this “shielding” approach suggested here has nothing to do with focused protection of the Great Barrington Declaration. Focused protection specifically says: “schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.”)

In four years of research, and encountering truly shocking documents and evidence of what happened in the Covid years, this one certainly ranks up at the top of the list of totalitarian schemes for pathogenic control prior to vaccination. It is quite simply mind-blowing that such a scheme could ever be contemplated.

Who wrote it? What kind of deep institutional pathology exists that enabled this to be contemplated? The CDC has 10,600 full-time employees and contractors and a budget of $11.5 billion. In light of this report, and everything else that has gone on there for four years, both numbers should be zero.

Author

Jeffrey A Tucker

Jeffrey Tucker is Founder, Author, and President at Brownstone Institute. He is also Senior Economics Columnist for Epoch Times, author of 10 books, including Life After Lockdown, and many thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press. He speaks widely on topics of economics, technology, social philosophy, and culture.

Continue Reading

Brownstone Institute

They Are Scrubbing the Internet Right Now

Published on

From the Brownstone Institute

By Jeffrey A TuckerJeffrey A. TuckerDebbie Lerman  

For the first time in 30 years, we have gone a long swath of time – since October 8-10 – since this service has chronicled the life of the Internet in real time.

Instances of censorship are growing to the point of normalization. Despite ongoing litigation and more public attention, mainstream social media has been more ferocious in recent months than ever before. Podcasters know for sure what will be instantly deleted and debate among themselves over content in gray areas. Some like Brownstone have given up on YouTube in favor of Rumble, sacrificing vast audiences if only to see their content survive to see the light of day.

It’s not always about being censored or not. Today’s algorithms include a range of tools that affect searchability and findability. For example, the Joe Rogan interview with Donald Trump racked up an astonishing 34 million views before YouTube and Google tweaked their search engines to make it hard to discover, while even presiding over a technical malfunction that disabled viewing for many people. Faced with this, Rogan went to the platform X to post all three hours.

Navigating this thicket of censorship and quasi-censorship has become part of the business model of alternative media.

Those are just the headline cases. Beneath the headlines, there are technical events taking place that are fundamentally affecting the ability of any historian even to look back and tell what is happening. Incredibly, the service Archive.org which has been around since 1994 has stopped taking images of content on all platforms. For the first time in 30 years, we have gone a long swath of time – since October 8-10 – since this service has chronicled the life of the Internet in real time.

As of this writing, we have no way to verify content that has been posted for three weeks of October leading to the days of the most contentious and consequential election of our lifetimes. Crucially, this is not about partisanship or ideological discrimination. No websites on the Internet are being archived in ways that are available to users. In effect, the whole memory of our main information system is just a big black hole right now.

The trouble on Archive.org began on October 8, 2024, when the service was suddenly hit with a massive Denial of Service attack (DDOS) that not only took down the service but introduced a level of failure that nearly took it out completely. Working around the clock, Archive.org came back as a read-only service where it stands today. However, you can only read content that was posted before the attack. The service has yet to resume any public display of mirroring of any sites on the Internet.

In other words, the only source on the entire World Wide Web that mirrors content in real time has been disabled. For the first time since the invention of the web browser itself, researchers have been robbed of the ability to compare past with future content, an action that is a staple of researchers looking into government and corporate actions.

It was using this service, for example, that enabled Brownstone researchers to discover precisely what the CDC had said about Plexiglas, filtration systems, mail-in ballots, and rental moratoriums. That content was all later scrubbed off the live Internet, so accessing archive copies was the only way we could know and verify what was true. It was the same with the World Health Organization and its disparagement of natural immunity which was later changed. We were able to document the shifting definitions thanks only to this tool which is now disabled.

What this means is the following: Any website can post anything today and take it down tomorrow and leave no record of what they posted unless some user somewhere happened to take a screenshot. Even then there is no way to verify its authenticity. The standard approach to know who said what and when is now gone. That is to say that the whole Internet is already being censored in real time so that during these crucial weeks, when vast swaths of the public fully expect foul play, anyone in the information industry can get away with anything and not get caught.

We know what you are thinking. Surely this DDOS attack was not a coincidence. The time was just too perfect. And maybe that is right. We just do not know. Does Archive.org suspect something along those lines? Here is what they say:

Last week, along with a DDOS attack and exposure of patron email addresses and encrypted passwords, the Internet Archive’s website javascript was defaced, leading us to bring the site down to access and improve our security. The stored data of the Internet Archive is safe and we are working on resuming services safely. This new reality requires heightened attention to cyber security and we are responding. We apologize for the impact of these library services being unavailable.

Deep state? As with all these things, there is no way to know, but the effort to blast away the ability of the Internet to have a verified history fits neatly into the stakeholder model of information distribution that has clearly been prioritized on a global level. The Declaration of the Future of the Internet makes that very clear: the Internet should be “governed through the multi-stakeholder approach, whereby governments and relevant authorities partner with academics, civil society, the private sector, technical community and others.”  All of these stakeholders benefit from the ability to act online without leaving a trace.

To be sure, a librarian at Archive.org has written that “While the Wayback Machine has been in read-only mode, web crawling and archiving have continued. Those materials will be available via the Wayback Machine as services are secured.”

When? We do not know. Before the election? In five years? There might be some technical reasons but it might seem that if web crawling is continuing behind the scenes, as the note suggests, that too could be available in read-only mode now. It is not.

Disturbingly, this erasure of Internet memory is happening in more than one place. For many years,  Google offered a cached version of the link you were seeking just below the live version. They have plenty of server space to enable that now, but no: that service is now completely gone. In fact, the Google cache service officially ended just a week or two before the Archive.org crash, at the end of September 2024.

Thus the two available tools for searching cached pages on the Internet disappeared within weeks of each other and within weeks of the November 5th election.

Other disturbing trends are also turning Internet search results increasingly into AI-controlled lists of establishment-approved narratives. The web standard used to be for search result rankings to be governed by user behavior, links, citations, and so forth. These were more or less organic metrics, based on an aggregation of data indicating how useful a search result was to Internet users. Put very simply, the more people found a search result useful, the higher it would rank. Google now uses very different metrics to rank search results, including what it considers “trusted sources” and other opaque, subjective determinations.

Furthermore, the most widely used service that once ranked websites based on traffic is now gone. That service was called Alexa. The company that created it was independent. Then one day in 1999, it was bought by Amazon. That seemed encouraging because Amazon was well-heeled. The acquisition seemed to codify the tool that everyone was using as a kind of metric of status on the web. It was common back in the day to take note of an article somewhere on the web and then look it up on Alexa to see its reach. If it was important, one would take notice, but if it was not, no one particularly cared.

This is how an entire generation of web technicians functioned. The system worked as well as one could possibly expect.

Then, in 2014, years after acquiring the ranking service Alexa, Amazon did a strange thing. It released its home assistant (and surveillance device) with the same name. Suddenly, everyone had them in their homes and would find out anything by saying “Hey Alexa.” Something seemed strange about Amazon naming its new product after an unrelated business it had acquired years earlier. No doubt there was some confusion caused by the naming overlap.

Here’s what happened next. In 2022, Amazon actively took down the web ranking tool. It didn’t sell it. It didn’t raise the prices. It didn’t do anything with it. It suddenly made it go completely dark.

No one could figure out why. It was the industry standard, and suddenly it was gone. Not sold, just blasted away. No longer could anyone figure out the traffic-based website rankings of anything without paying very high prices for hard-to-use proprietary products.

All of these data points that might seem unrelated when considered individually, are actually part of a long trajectory that has shifted our information landscape into unrecognizable territory. The Covid events of 2020-2023, with massive global censorship and propaganda efforts, greatly accelerated these trends.

One wonders if anyone will remember what it was once like. The hacking and hobbling of Archive.org underscores the point: there will be no more memory.

As of this writing, fully three weeks of web content have not been archived. What we are missing and what has changed is anyone’s guess. And we have no idea when the service will come back. It is entirely possible that it will not come back, that the only real history to which we can take recourse will be pre-October 8, 2024, the date on which everything changed.

The Internet was founded to be free and democratic. It will require herculean efforts at this point to restore that vision, because something else is quickly replacing it.

Authors

Jeffrey A Tucker

Jeffrey Tucker is Founder, Author, and President at Brownstone Institute. He is also Senior Economics Columnist for Epoch Times, author of 10 books, including Life After Lockdown, and many thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press. He speaks widely on topics of economics, technology, social philosophy, and culture.

Continue Reading

Trending

X