Ezra Levant and Dr. James Lindsay expose January 6th’s exaggerated framing as political theater, citing unanswered questions about FBI informants like Ray Epps and Garland’s domestic terrorism label for conservative parents. They link this to Soros’ wartime amoral survival tactics, his influence on Canadian immigration policy, and the government’s five-year Access to Information cover-up—later confirmed by the Information Commissioner. Trust in institutions, from media to healthcare, crumbles under such secrecy, raising parallels to historical betrayals of public accountability, while underscoring the need for transparency to preserve freedom. [Automatically generated summary]
A feature interview with James Lindsay, who is an edgy, tough philosopher.
Do those things go together, being tough and a philosopher?
Well, with James, they do.
I've had an interesting conversation.
I didn't mean to talk to him as long as I did, but there was just so many things I wanted to cover with him.
I hope you find it interesting, too.
Before I go, let me invite you to become a subscriber to Revel News Plus.
It's the video version of these podcasts.
Eight bucks a month, half the price of Netflix.
Just go to RevelNewsPlus.com, click subscribe.
You get my videos every day, plus Sheila Gunread, David Menzies, Andrew Chapatos, and the satisfaction of keeping one of Canada's only independent news companies strong.
here's today's show.
Tonight, a feature interview with American philosopher James Lindsay.
It's January 12th, and this is the Ezra Levant show.
Why should others go to jail when you're a biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here, and you won't give them an answer.
The only thing I have to say to the government about why I publish it is because it's my bloody right to do so.
Well, when I was in high school, I wore a leather jacket that I thought was sort of cool.
Why Epps Matters00:15:59
It looked like a World War II bomber jacket, and one of the patches on the arm said, remember Pearl Harbor.
It was a date that was hallowed, I guess.
It was the most atrocious attack on American history to that point.
Of course, 9-11 was seared into the memory of everyone my age.
The Democrats want to make January 6th their Easter, Christmas, Passover, and Yom Kippur combined.
January 6th, the day they say is the worst day in American history, worse even than 9-11 or the Civil War, and they've compared it to that.
You may be thinking, what happened on January 6th?
It was when a crowd of Donald Trump supporters went to Washington to stop what they called the steal, what they felt was the stolen election by Joe Biden.
And a number of rowdies in the more than 100,000 who were there that day broke into the Capitol building.
And a friend of mine calls it the great meandering because they didn't torch the place.
They didn't sack it.
They sort of wandered around.
They sat in Nancy Pelosi's chair, apparently put their legs up, one of them lifted up a podium.
But I don't think it quite rises to the level of a riot.
I think it was an important day to the left because they wanted to transform all of their critics into violent terrorists, domestic terrorists, that they could then deploy all the powers of the state against the FBI, even the Army, counterintelligence.
They wanted to treat conservative Trump supporters the same way that Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups have been treated under the Patriot Act and use some of the same tools against them.
However, things started to fall apart.
It's been over a year and not a single protester, meanderer, or if you want to use the word rioter, has been charged with insurrection or anything like that, even though that charge is available to them.
Many of the protesters remain in jail to this day.
The Democrats had a hearing on Capitol Hill where they wanted to concentrate the day and gin up a case against conservatives.
I want to show you an exchange, though, between Texas Senator Ted Cruz and Jill Sanborn of the FBI, because videotape evidence emerged of people who were agents' provocateurs, people who were goading and egging on the crowd, calling on them to break into the Capitol.
And some of these folks were identified by name, and yet they were not arrested or charged.
One of them is named Ray Epps.
Watch this three-minute clip of Senator Ted Cruz and Jill Sanborn of the FBI.
Take a look.
I want to turn to the FBI.
How many FBI agents or confidential informants actively participated in the events of January 6th?
Sir, I'm sure you can appreciate that I can't go into the specifics of sources and methods.
Did any FBI agents or confidential informants actively participate in the events of January 6th?
Yes or no?
January 6th.
Yes or no?
Sir, I can't answer that.
Did any FBI agents or confidential informants commit crimes of violence on January 6th?
6th.
I can't answer that, sir.
Did any FBI agents or FBI informants actively encourage and incite crimes of violence on January 6th?
6th.
Sir, I can't answer that.
Ms. Sandburn, who is Ray Epps?
Epps.
I'm aware of the individual, sir.
I don't have the specific background to him.
Well, there are a lot of people who are understandably very concerned about Mr. Epps.
On the night of January 5th, 2021, Epps wandered around the crowd that had gathered, and there's video out there of him chanting, tomorrow we need to get into the Capitol, into the Capitol.
This was strange behavior, so strange that the crowd began chanting, Fed, Ms. Sandburn, was Ray Epps a Fed?
Sir, I cannot answer that question.
The next day, on January 6th, Mr. Epps is seen whispering to a person, and five seconds later, five seconds after he's whispering to a person, that same person begins to forcibly tear down the barricades.
Did Mr. Epps urge them to tear down the barricades?
Sir, similar to the other answers, I cannot answer that.
Shortly thereafter, the FBI put out a public post listing, seeking information on individuals connected with violent crimes on January 6th.
Among those individuals in the bottom there is Mr. Epps.
The FBI publicly asked for information identifying, offering cash rewards leading to information leading to information leading to the arrest.
This was posted, and then some time later, magically, Mr. Epps disappeared from the public posting.
According to public records, Mr. Epps has not been charged with anything.
No one's explained why a person videoed urging people to go to the Capitol, a person whose conduct was so suspect the crowd believed he was a fed, would magically disappear from the list of people the FBI was looking at.
Ms. Sandburn, a lot of Americans are concerned that the federal government deliberately encouraged illegal and violent conduct on January 6th.
My question to you, and this is not an ordinary law enforcement question, this is a question of public accountability.
Did federal agents or those in service of federal agent actively encourage violent and criminal conduct on January 6th?
Not to my knowledge, sir.
Thank you.
Well, there you have it.
The exchange between Senator Ted Cruz and Jill Sanborn of the FBI joining us now, Vice Guy from Tennessee to talk about it.
It's James Lindsay, author and the boss of New Discourses website.
He joins us.
Now, James, great to see you again.
Thanks for making the time to be here.
That was a riveting exchange.
I saw a similar exchange with Kentucky Congressman Thomas Massey of other officials.
He played videotape of what Ray Epps did.
If someone were to ask me, did someone from Rebel News do all these things?
I would say no.
I would say, I don't know what you're talking about.
There's no connection.
I would just say no.
It's so easy to say no.
If there's no connection to you, you would say no.
She was saying I can't answer, but the questions begged for someone to say no.
And the fact that she couldn't or wouldn't, I think it's, I think that the burden of proof lies with her to disprove it.
And I don't think she did.
It's very suspicious.
There's literally no way to watch that and not come away thinking this is very suspicious.
I think for the millions of Americans that Senator Cruz was talking about and for, they are not wrong to have their suspicions confirmed, whether that's about Mr. Epps specifically or about federal government involvement on the January 6th, apparently worst day of history.
So I agree with you completely in that regard.
It should have been very easy to disavow.
Of course, she's under oath, which makes that a little bit more difficult if she knows that she cannot disavow it.
And so I think that what we see here is something extraordinarily suspicious that should increase, not decrease, Americans' concerns and people throughout the world's concerns about what exactly was going on and what the point of the entire January 6th facade a year ago and its follow-up celebration or whatever they tried to do with it this year, what that actually represents.
It gives off this, not to invoke something too big of a stalking horse of history, but it invokes the memory of the Reichstag fire at that point.
Yeah.
You know, I think the Democrats have tried to build this up and do a big thing.
I saw a report of a political focus group that says it's just not resonating with ordinary people, including with Democrats.
I think there's so many crises in America now from the lockdowns and the pandemic to inflation, the price of gas and, you know, open borders.
And I mean, there's China, other parts.
There's so many crises around the world.
If it really was like 9-11 or Pearl Harbor, you wouldn't need to tell us.
I mean, that patch, remember Pearl Harbor, you wear that 50 years later because maybe you weren't there to live it.
Every one of us lived through January 6th, 2021.
And the fact that I think 99% of Americans would say, what?
What day are you talking about?
What happened then?
Shows that it isn't a thing.
Other than maybe it was a sort of entrapment, a sort of, I mean, really the continuation of the five-year war against Donald Trump of what is known as the deep state.
I mean, the deep state is, I think, defined as the permanent governing class, bureaucrats, civil servants who watch politicians come and go.
It's the FBI.
I would imagine that trust in the FBI has got to be at an all-time low since the time of J. Edgar Hoover.
It is from what polls I've seen, and I saw that about the focus groups as well.
It's not resonating with Americans.
And frankly, the reason is because Americans aren't as stupid as some of these elite leaders want us to believe that we are.
If we wanted to get all philosophical about it, we could invoke John Baudrillard, the French postmodernist who talked about the creation of hyper-reality, which is a false reality that was attempted to be depicted in the film The Matrix.
And kind of the point there is that when you learn to see that that's what's happening, that they're creating something fake, it doesn't resonate with you.
It wasn't a momentous event for most Americans.
It wasn't a significant event in any regard.
It was a huge act of political theater.
Again, to invoke Joan Baudrillard, he famously wrote a book titled, The Gulf War Did Not Take Place.
Well, January 6th did not take place.
He said that the Gulf War was an atrocity masquerading as a war.
And what we have here is a farce masquerading as the worst day in American history.
But the point is given away.
The point is given away very clearly by the New York Times.
On the 1st of January this year, they published an article carrying the title, Every Day is January 6th now, which is, of course, preposterous, but one has to ask, what does that mean?
And you read the article and you get the impression that we're now in this kind of after the events of January 6th, we're at the tipping point of fascism constantly.
And students of philosophical history will have read their Herbert Marcusa from 1965 with the famous essay, Repressive Tolerance, where he says that we must suppress all movements from the right, including censorship, pre-censorship, even using violence against them.
We must tolerate movements from the left, even if they are censorious or violent.
And the reason being that in the whole, he says, the whole of the post-fascist era is one of clear and present danger that justifies the removal of democratic tolerance from right-wing and reactionary movements.
And so we see the recreation of this philosophy that brought about the violence of the 1960s, the end of the 1960s, 68, and 69.
We see the resurrection of this now from the New York Times echoing this farce that's being perpetrated by the federal government.
Not to say that January 6th, 2021, or 2020, sorry, 21, was I get my ears mixed up because they last 300 years each now, if you will.
But not to say that they, Ray Apps, et cetera, perpetrated this, but to say that they've tried to create this hyper-real fantasy that there was as bad a day in American history as the Civil War or as Pearl Harbor or as 9-11.
This is just farcical.
Americans see straight through it.
And what it's doing, just like we see with so much of the terrible bogus policy around COVID, is it's draining trust in these institutions.
And like you said, the FBI, the polling right now is that the FBI is, I think, the least it's been trusted, at least since the days of J. Edgar Hoover, and maybe longer, maybe period.
You know, it's incredible, this huge commission to look into things.
I think the purpose, as you say, is to denormalize conservatives.
And just like there's demand exceeds supply for racist acts, that's why Jussie Smollett and the NASCAR, you know, garage noose handle.
You know, so many racial incidents turn out to be hoaxes.
In this country, we had the famous hijab hoax where a young girl claimed that an Asian man snipped it with scissors.
And the media is so desperate for these things to be true, they run with them, even if they're laughably fake from the outset.
Demand exceeds supply.
And so I think this committee, they want evidence that conservatives and PTA moms and MAGA Trump supporters are these horrific people.
But when that evidence doesn't happen organically, they give it a little nudge with guys like Ray Epps.
they send in agents provocateurs well it would be useful to have inquiries into the summer of arson and riot that the black lives matter movement which was clearly organized and funded and we don't know by whom and i don't think anyone ever looked into it you would think they would look into that Like Washington, D.C. itself was ablaze.
No inquiries into that.
Yeah, that's exactly the problem.
And people see it and people see through it and people are getting increasingly suspicious and just to cut to the chase, angry that this is happening because the contract, if you will, in society is we're going to elect these leaders and they're going to represent us and they're going to do the things that are with the consent of the government.
They're not going to become tyrants that just kind of trample across the freedoms and liberties and equality that should be guaranteed to free citizens in a free country.
And so people are rightfully getting very upset.
You mentioned the PTA moms and we again see the same story evolving there.
We have these investigative reporters, including people like Azra Namani, that have been digging in and have discovered that this infamous letter by Attorney General Merritt Garland, naming parents at school board meetings who are upset about what's being done in the schools, both with regard to COVID policy and critical race theory and these other social emotional learning and the queer theory and all of these things,
likening them to domestic terrorists and bringing the weight of the FBI and other federal investigative agencies down upon them, not local law enforcement to deal with anybody who gets too heated or anything.
People Are Rightfully Upset00:15:49
But no, these are federal incidents.
And then this investigative reporting now shows that this didn't originate organically with, say, teachers or teachers' unions or school board members.
Not that the teachers' unions are particularly organic either.
It originated in-house.
And so this was a thing that the Biden administration created, made it look like it came from somebody else, and then instituted, which is just a means to trample the rights of angry parents who have every right to be angry about the abuses that are being pressed upon their children.
And we're seeing this kind of pattern play out again and again.
And this is the kind of pattern that comes from a tyrannical government, not from a legitimate government in a free society.
I think it's worse in Canada because at least in America, you have a countervailing force.
You have a Senator Ted Cruz.
You have a Senator Rand Paul.
You have some independent-minded Republicans and even some thoughtful Democrats.
There are some.
In Canada, it's a political monoculture.
Our, quote, conservative opposition is neither conservative nor do they oppose.
Certainly nothing on the crisis of the hour, the pandemic and the lockdowns.
There has been no dissent from any government or any official opposition in this country to that.
And we would never have freewheeling risky, so to speak, committee hearings like we just saw there because it's too controlled by the party leaders who are all in cahoots.
I want to show you one more thing that we would simply not have this in Canada, and that is another senator, Rand Paul, who I think is excellent, grilling Anthony Fauci, perhaps the most powerful member of the deep state there is when you come right down to it.
I want to play a couple minutes of this, Rand Paul versus Anthony Fauci, and then we'll come right back to talk more with James Lindsey here.
Take a look at this.
Senator Paul.
Dr. Fauci, the idea that a government official like yourself would claim unilaterally to represent science, that any criticism of you would be considered a criticism of science itself, is quite dangerous.
Central planning, whether it be of the economy or of science, is risky because of the fallibility of the planner.
It would not be so catastrophic if the planner were simply one physician in Peoria.
Then the mistakes would only affect that physician's patients.
the people who chose that physician.
But when the planner is a government official like yourself who rules by mandate, the errors are compounded and become much more harmful.
A planner who believes he is the science leads to an arrogance that justifies, in his mind, using government resources to smear and to destroy the reputations of other scientists who disagree with him.
In an email exchange with Dr. Collins, you conspire, and I quote here directly from the email, to create a quick and devastating published takedown of three prominent epidemiologists from Harvard, Oxford, and Stanford.
Apparently there's a lot of fringe epidemiologists at Harvard, Oxford, and Stanford.
And you quote in the email that they were from Dr. Collins, and you agree that they are fringe.
And immediately there's this takedown effort.
A published takedown, though, you know, doesn't exactly conjure up the image of a dispassionate scientist.
Instead of engaging them on the merits, you and Dr. Collins sought to smear them as fringe and take them down.
And not in journals, in lay press.
This is not only antithetical to the scientific method, it's the epitome of cheap politics, and it's reprehensible, Dr. Fauci.
Do you really think it's appropriate to use your $420,000 salary to attack scientists that disagree with you?
Senator, the email you're referring to was an email of Dr. Collins to me.
If you look at the email that you responded to and hurried up and said, I can do it, I can do it.
We got something in wired magazine.
No, no, I think in usual fashion, Senator, you are distorting everything about me.
Did you ever object to Dr. Collins' characterization of them as fringe?
Did you write back to Dr. Collins and say, no, they're not fringe, they're esteemed scientists.
And it would be beneath me.
You responded to him that you would do it.
And you immediately got an article in Wired.
You sent it back to him and said, hey, look, I've got him.
I nailed him in Wired of all scientists.
That's not publications.
There you go again.
You just did the same thing every year.
That was your response.
And this wasn't the only time.
So your desire to take down people.
You are incorrect.
As usual, Senator, you are incorrect almost everything you say.
Well, no, you deny, you deny, but the emails tell the truth of this.
No.
This wasn't the only time.
Your desire to take down those who disagree with you didn't stop with Harvard, Oxford, and Stanford.
You conspired with Peter Days, who you communicated with privately, and other members of the scientific community that wrote opinion pieces for nature.
Five of them signed a paper for nature, an opinion piece.
17 signed a paper that called it conspiracy theory, the idea that the virus could have originated in the lab.
Do you think words like conspiracy theory should be in a scientific paper?
Senator, I never used that word when I was referring to it.
You're distorting virtually everything.
Did you communicate with the five scientists who wrote the opinion piece in Nature where they were describing, oh, there's no way this could have come from the lab?
Me.
Did you talk with any of those scientists privately?
You keep the story the truth.
Did you talk to any of the scientists privately who wrote the opinion?
You did.
What were they telling you privately?
Well, let me explain.
You know, you're going back to that original discussion when I brought together a group of people to look at every possibility with an open mind.
So, not only are you distorting it, you are completely turning it around.
Were most of you scientists that came to you privately?
Did they come to you privately and say, no way, this came from the lab?
Or was their initial impression, Dr. Gary and others that were involved, was their initial impression actually that it looked very suspicious for a virus that came from a lab?
Senator, we are here at a committee to look at a virus now that has killed almost 900,000 people.
And the purpose of the committee was to try and get things out how we can help to get the American public.
And you keep coming back to personal attacks on me that have absolutely no relevance to reality.
Do you think anybody has had more influence over the years?
Let me finish this than you have.
Do you think that's a great success?
Do you think it's a great success what's happened so far?
Do you think the lockdowns are good for our kids?
Do you think we slowed down the death rate?
More people have died now under President Biden than did under President Trump.
You are the one responsible.
You are the architect.
You are the lead architect for the response from the government.
And now 800,000 people have died.
Do you think it's a winning success?
Well, that exchange goes on for some time.
Iran Paul asking questions that in Canada would be unthinkable to ask any public health official.
I don't even know why we have so many public health officials.
Every city, every province, every jurisdiction has a public health doctor.
When really, it's just a game of Simon says.
They all parrot what the top dog says.
James Lindsay, I just said that Anthony Fauci is the most powerful member of the deep state.
He's not an FBI man.
He's not a CIA man or a defense man.
But this pandemic, or more accurately, the lockdowns and the infringements on our civil liberties in the name of the pandemic have done more to destroy American notions of freedom and limited government than anything else I can think of.
Since the Civil War and the policy of slavery, I think you could say slavery was a greater infringement on civil liberty than the lockdowns.
But other than slavery, this is the worst thing that's ever happened to America.
I completely agree.
I have about a million things at once that I feel like I want to say.
You ask, for example, why you have so many public health officials and they all play a game of Simon says.
You can ask why the Soviet Union had so many commissars and they all said the same thing.
And I don't draw that comparison flippantly or glibly.
And another thing is, you know, just like we talked about how January 6th and the John Baudrillardian sense did not take place.
The COVID-19 pandemic did not take place.
It was a power grab masquerading as a pandemic.
As I think, not to say that the virus isn't real, not to say that millions of people didn't get sick, not to say that many people didn't die as a result of getting sick, though we don't know how many now that the information is coming out that those statistics were clearly inflated.
But what we have is a, is exactly what you said, the greatest infringement upon civil liberties upon free people in free countries, United States and Canada, both among them, since slavery.
And you have to wonder, because this didn't just happen in the United States and Canada.
Australia is in worst shape than Canada.
This has happened across Europe, which is mostly in worst shape, at least in the United States, and in some places, even than Canada, the sole exceptions being Sweden and Switzerland, to the degree of knowledge that I have.
It's certainly happening within the UK.
And so something that, you know, ominously might be named Operation Lockstep got let loose in the name of this pandemic.
And we see people like Fauci not being able to answer very important, very clear questions.
For example, why he's declaring himself to be the science, which to invoke another French postmodernist, Michelle Foucault, warned us about under the name of biopower.
You should not allow technocrats to take power and claim the mantle of science as though it's just absolute truth and the justification for their seat of power.
And we have him not being able to answer simple questions about his involvement in certain activities, such as we saw in the clip where he's smearing the scientists that gave the Great Barrington Declaration, who doubted that the approach that Operation Lockstep or whatever it happened to be was reflecting in the pandemic in not just the United States, not just Canada, but in every major Western nation simultaneously.
And it raises serious questions that are not being answered.
And again, you know, why?
Why do we have so many of these public health officials who are saying exactly the same thing?
And I bring the question back to the table.
Why did the Soviet Union have so many commissars who said exactly the same thing?
You know, you want to be careful of conspiracy theories.
I always say to our reporters, you don't need to go there.
The facts that are out in plain sight are more shocking than what your imagination could come up with if you tried to speculate.
There was this great editorial by Neil Oliver of Scotland the other day where he says, look at the language, build back better.
That exact slogan, exact words being used by Joe Biden, Justin Trudeau, Boris Johnson.
Like, how did that just happen?
Did they have a call about it?
Do they share marketing strategies?
How did that phrase or the great reset, which we know where that comes from?
That's the World Economic Forum.
How did these ideas, where did they come from?
And I don't think you have to be in a mad fever to say there is some sort of communication and coordination that we are not allowed to observe.
Over the last two years, I think so much of governing has been done by order rather than through laws debated, you know, vetted public consultations, transcripts of hearings.
Like that's how it's normally done in a Congress or a parliament.
Parliaments and Congresses and the British Parliament in particular hasn't debated or voted on any of these things.
They've just been emergency orders issued by bureaucrats that we never even heard of until 18 months ago.
And I don't think it's a conspiracy theory to ask the question, how did that pattern, like to notice the patterns and say, how did that happen?
And you would think that journalists, just out of basic curiosity, would ask that, but they seem to be the most ardent defenders of these new, I don't know, ideologies, these global memes around the world.
Yeah, that raises yet another question.
Why is that the case as well?
And I agree with you that the facts on the table raise significant questions.
What is the World Economic Forum?
What is the intention of the Great Reset?
Who is involved?
Who knew what and when to kind of paraphrase the infamous Watergate trials?
Because somebody knew something.
Did your banker, did the officials of Goldman Sachs who show up to these Davos things, did they know when they signed you a 30-year mortgage that they're going to engage in a great reset that looks like it's going to crash currencies and cause rampant inflation as part of the program?
Did they know this?
Did they know that Klaus Schwab put out a video with the World Economic Forum in 2016 that says by 2030, you will own nothing and you will be happy?
But they were selling you a house.
Who knew what and when?
Why did so many CEOs suddenly resign in 2019?
Why is there another wave of CEOs that have been resigning over the past few months in so many large major corporations?
There are sufficient facts on the table now to start asking extraordinarily hard questions.
And one of them ties back exactly like you said to what Neil Oliver said: the phrasing build back better coming out of so many mouths all at once, just like the policy for the response to the hyper-real pandemic was all in lockstep and the same from all corners.
We don't just have that.
They're talking about a great reset.
They're talking about a narrow window of opportunity in which to do this great reset, which that language comes straight out of Klaus Schwab's book, COVID-19, The Great Reset, which he published very rapidly last year after the pandemic, or the year before last, after the pandemic started.
I think it was out by summer of 2020.
And so we should be asking these questions: who's involved?
What did they know?
What is the role, for example, a phrase that hasn't been used here, but what is the role of these new ESG investment metrics that score corporations and institutions along the lines of environmental, social, and governance scores that are decided by who?
These exact same kind of elite technocrats who are making these decisions behind closed doors.
We already have evidence that we have with the social media big tech companies that we have the corporate world in the United States getting around the Constitution, doing the bidding of the Democrats and government through censoring people where the government doesn't have the ability to do that and vice versa.
Confiscation Of Jewish Property00:05:57
So that you can have this very weird what Klaus Schwab refers to as a public-private partnership between public entities like federal governments and private entities like gigantic corporations who all seem to be on the same page, who all happen to attend the same big club meeting in Davos on the regular and have a series of commitments that they have to make in order to continue being part of that club.
These questions need to be brought to the fore at this point.
And it's no longer going to be, after the past 24 months or so, it's no longer sufficient to dismiss these questions by saying that sounds conspiratorial.
That sounds like a conspiracy theory.
People need to get answers to these questions.
You're right.
I mean, we haven't even talked about George Soros.
I regard it as an unusual moment in my own life when George Soros sued me personally for writing about him in the Toronto Sun.
I had just joined the Toronto Sun, and this was months before the launch of the Sun News Network.
And the newspaper made the decision to retract and apologize.
I don't think they wanted to fight George Soros.
I resisted that, but he literally was just hired by Sun News, and I was in no position to resist it.
I've been interested in him ever since.
I mean, I simply wrote what he told his own biographer that he, I mean, when he was a teenage boy, for those of you who don't know, he was in Hungary and he was a Jew, even though him and his father really were they abandoned their Jewishness.
They, you know, they spoke Esperanto at home.
He was a very early, I guess you could say, globalist or transnationalist.
And his father said, We're going to get through this thing.
You're a teenage boy, do what you need to survive.
And for a while, he would ride his bike around Budapest and hand the death notices to the Jews to show up to the train stations.
And then later, his dad placed him with like a Nazi overseer who was confiscating Jewish property.
Like, I mean, you can't really blame a teenage boy for doing what his father says and for doing anything to survive the war.
But it was fascinating in that clip on 60 Minutes, decades later, when he was asked, you know, you did things to survive that would put anyone on the psychologist's couch forever.
Do you have any remorse?
And I think that's a fair question.
Not, did you make the right decision when you were 15, but how do you feel now decades later?
And he told his biographers, and he said as much to 60 Minutes, that it was the most exciting time of his life and that he has no compunction about it.
And it was, if he didn't do it, someone else would.
It's like a market.
He felt completely amoral.
Here's a clip from 60 Minutes, just in case you don't know what I'm talking about.
When the Nazis occupied Budapest in 1944, George Soros's father was a successful lawyer.
He lived on an island in the Danube and liked to commute to work in a rowboat.
But knowing there were problems ahead for the Jews, he decided to split his family up.
He bought them forged papers, and he bribed a government official to take 14-year-old George Soros in and swear that he was his Christian godson.
But survival carried a heavy price tag.
While hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews were being shipped off to the death camps, George Soros accompanied his phony godfather on his appointed rounds, confiscating property from the Jews.
These are pictures from 1944 of what happened to George Soros's friends and neighbors.
You're a Hungarian Jew who escaped the Holocaust by posing as a Christian.
Right.
And you watched lots of people get shipped off to the death camps.
I was 14 years old.
And I would say that that's when my character was made.
In what way?
That one should think ahead, one should understand and anticipate events.
And one is threatened.
It was a tremendous threat of evil.
I mean, it was a very personal experience of evil.
My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted godson.
Yes.
Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.
That's right.
Yes.
I mean, that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years.
Was it difficult?
Not at all.
Not at all.
Maybe as a child, you don't see the connection, but it created no problem at all.
No feeling of guilt.
No.
For example, that I'm Jewish and here I am watching these people go, I could just as easily be there.
I should be there.
None of that.
Well, of course, I could be on the other side.
I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away.
But there was no sense that I shouldn't be there because that was Well, actually, funny way, it's just like in markets that if I weren't there, of course I wasn't doing it, but somebody else would be taking it away anyhow.
Whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator.
The property was being taken away.
So I had no role in taking away that property.
So I had no sense of guilt.
High Trust Society00:13:39
So the reason I mentioned George Soros is because I know a little bit about him and how he likes to censor.
And I regret the fact that the son did bend the knee to him about a decade ago.
But that made me curious.
And forgive me for going on here, James.
I just want to tell you a story.
So when I heard that George Soros was working with Justin Trudeau on Canadian immigration policy, and George Soros has no connection to Canada, he's not a Canadian, doesn't live here, we filed an access to information request to our government asking for the background on this because it was a government press release that Soros was basically the policy brains for Canada's immigration policy.
Okay, government press release says this happens.
We did an access to information request and they said, no, we have no record of it.
So we didn't believe that.
And it was a five-year battle for them to release the records.
And at the end of our interview, I'll play Sheila's story showing that.
And here's my point.
I'm sorry to have such a long story, James.
But there are so many conspiracy theories around George Soros that when the government announces that it's doing a policy, it's outsourcing Canadian immigration policy to George Soros' Open Society Foundations.
And then when we ask for the paperwork behind that, they claim it does not exist.
And five years later, we find out they were hiding it.
That destroys trust in the entire institution of government.
And it doesn't tamp down conspiracy theories.
It gives them credence.
Because I believe we have, in the story I just said, and we'll close this interview, but I'll show you what Sheila got in those records.
When the government does secret business with George Soros and hides the proof of it for five years and has to be taken to task five years later by the Information Commissioner, how can you believe anything they say?
And whether it's the American FBI, the American IRS, the American CIA, the Department of Defense, the NSA, or any Canadian institution, let alone our health institutions, I think that there is a large crisis.
There is not a single institution I trust more now than I trusted two years ago, whether it's a COP or the College of Physicians and Surgeons.
There is no institution I trust more now than I did two years ago.
Maybe that's part of the plan, though, James.
You know, that's one of the things that I wonder and worry about is that the crumbling of trust in our institutions, because whether we like it or not, society actually is largely a product of its ability to trust its institutions and what its institutions are able to accomplish for it, at least an advanced society is.
And when you dissolve trust in those, you create conditions in which change is easy to bring about one way or another.
It's what Marxists would refer to as revolutionary conditions or revolutionary moment.
And that I share your destruction of trust in institutions.
I even would hesitate, say, that I were in a car accident or something and injured.
I would hesitate to go to the hospital for fear that they might attempt to vaccinate me against my wishes or something along these lines.
And that's a tremendous loss of trust in an institution.
And this kind of thing can be part of This is, this is, it's, I think I saw the phrase in the media recently.
This is an inflection point in history where things can be pushed in a particular direction or they can go in some other direction, but things will not, I think, be able to continue as they were.
I do know some pathways, so we don't end on such a dour note, but I do know some pathways to where trust institutions can be regained, though we have to be cautious.
We see the CDC in the United States, for example, attempting this by suddenly telling us all kinds of things that people have known to be true about the pandemic for a year and a half.
And now suddenly they realize it too.
Now that the Omicron variant or some releases of information or exposés or whatever have forced their hand, decisions by federal judges or whatever have forced their hand.
All of a sudden, things that people have known to be true, they're overcounting cases that died with COVID versus died of COVID distinction, for example.
They're releasing this information.
A thorough house cleaning, though, of the people who have lied to us and misled us, meaning their removal from power, possibly their prosecution or lawsuits against them or the institutions that they represented is the first step.
And then replacing them with people that we have good reason to believe are of higher integrity while coming clean on many of these lies.
In fact, ideally all of these lies that they've been telling us is the first step to regaining that trust in institutions.
So it is possible.
I don't think that the people that are currently in power are going to be able to do that because it's too incriminating.
Just like we began this interview with the woman from the FBI who could not answer that question, who could not answer that question, who could not answer that question.
And so, like I said, I think the pathway is going to be a lot of honesty, a lot of transparency, and a lot of house cleaning.
Hopefully, this starts to take place sooner rather than later.
And of course, hopefully it all proceeds peacefully and through legal means because this is a moment, a crucial moment in the literal sense of the word cross, crucial in history throughout the West,
where either we are facing a trajectory reminiscent of the 1930s in Europe, or we're facing a trajectory reminiscent of maybe the end of the 18th century in North America.
And I'm on the side of freedom in that fight, whichever way it goes.
You know, trust is so essential for the West.
There are some parts of the world where if you hear help, rape, men come and run to help the rape victim.
I think that's most of the West.
But there are some parts of the world.
There's a terrible story I once reported from Pakistan where a young boy, and I'm so sorry to say this adult content on the show, a young boy was being raped on a bus.
The bus driver pulled over and joined in.
And I'm sorry to say such a terrible thing, but that's a low trust society.
There's a concept in parts of the Muslim world called Taharush.
That's what happened to Lara Logan when she was in Tahrir Square in Cairo.
Once the rape began, other men didn't pull them off.
They joined in.
I'm sorry to go so dark so quickly, but that is the definition of a low trust society where you can't trust anyone.
That's why you have to wrap women from head to toe.
And that's why they're not allowed out without a male guardian.
It's not merely because it's a punitive act.
It's actually a protective act in a zero trust society.
And, you know, there is, if you understand where trust comes from, it comes over centuries.
One of the reasons I think that we live in a high trust society is because cousin marriage was banned in certain parts of Christendom.
So you had to naturally be open to and trust other clans, other communities.
You couldn't just keep everything within the extended family.
The old saying, me against my brother, me and my brother against my cousin, me, brother, my cousin against the other family, me and my family against the town, me and my town against the other town.
That kind of clannishness broke down when you had to build up trust in the world.
We trust that when a young woman leaves a bar drunk at 1 a.m., that the taxi driver is not going to rape her on the way home.
But when people come from low trust societies to our high trust society, they look around and say, what a bunch of suckers.
It's for the taking.
And that's why there's a series of taxi rapes in the city of Halifax.
And I'm worried that those who remain high trust people are going to be the dupes.
They're going to be the fools.
You can be a high trust person and take mail-in voting very seriously, but you're a sucker because the other side is not high trust.
They're taking advantage of your high trust.
You can be a sucker and say, well, I have ID and I'm voting and I would never vote twice.
Well, the other side doesn't share that point of view.
And so they're going to rig the elections.
And, you know, our friend Joel Pollack says the U.S. election wasn't stolen.
It was more rigged.
They changed the rules in advance.
It wasn't that the laws were broken.
It said the laws were changed to allow it.
But I'm terrified that we're heading to a world where if you are a trusting person, you're just a sucker.
That would be a terrible loss because that trust, as you said, actually becomes the basis for so much freedom, so much opportunity, so much of what makes life good and worth living.
And it's really sad.
I actually, just briefly, do have a story corroborating exactly what you just said.
I was recently, fairly recently, in California, just before the gubernatorial recall election that happened last fall.
And somebody had there, I was with a conservative and a Republican, and somebody had said, well, we received, you know, some peculiar number of ballots in the mail, four or whatever.
And, you know, somebody joked back, well, you should just vote with all of them.
And they said, well, of course I wouldn't do that.
And that's exactly what you're talking about: is that the Republican side refused.
They said, no, you're supposed to vote once and only once, and that's the right thing to do.
And so that's the way it would be.
Whereas the other side, you know, sees four ballots and sees four opportunities, which should be, you know, illegal and should be preventable.
But this is exactly the kind of situation.
So people who want to have, I think this is an excellent way to frame going forward, is we need to be thinking in terms of how do we regain and regenerate trust in our high trust society.
And what steps do we have to take to be sure that low trust individuals cannot take advantage of high trust individuals and make them into naive dupes?
And I think that this is, again, we're at this crucial moment in our history throughout the West where we have to fight back for that high trust circumstance and to create the institutional house cleaning, et cetera, that enables it.
Yeah, I'm worried.
I mean, it's so funny.
I think of the word trust.
Justin Trudeau, when he announced his media bailout in Canada, $600 million, he said it's only for trustworthy media.
What does he mean?
He obviously doesn't mean media that the people trust.
He means media that he can trust will do the right thing.
And fact checkers, like, so there's deceptive uses of trust.
Fact-checkers claim to be trustworthy, but they're actually anti-journalists or counter-journalists.
Or, you know, their job is not to hold government and powerful people to account.
But so many of the official fact-checking groups are fact-checking lowly dissenters.
They're not fact-checking Joe Biden or Justin Trudeau, let alone the president of Pfizer.
I have not seen a single fact-check from Reuters, an AFP, an Associated Press, all these major noisy, I'm a fact-checker groups.
Never seen them go after Pfizer or the CDC.
And the only credit I can give in that direction is they did go after Justice Sotomayor recently with her egregious claim.
But on the other hand, just to be completely fair, they also fact-checked the satire site, the Babylon Bee, not once, but many times.
And in particular, they one time fact-checked them for an article that they published saying a joke.
You couldn't be more obviously joking that CNN purchases large washing machines in which they spin the news before they put it out.
They fact-checked that and said, No, they didn't purchase any large washing machines.
And so, what you're saying, despite the fact that they did, you know, fact-checked Sotomayor for this egregious claim that 100,000 children or whatever the number was are on ventilators, which is false, strictly false.
Despite the fact that they fact-checked her correctly there, they're acting largely exactly as you say.
And in the U.S., I constantly hear trusted sources are reputable sources, which is unfortunate if that is a captured definition.
You know, reputable to whom and to whom's to whose benefit, as the critical theorists would instruct us in their very kind of paranoid way, that you have to look at society.
And so I hate that they are making this kind of critical, low trust, even postmodern view of society true, but that's because they've weaponized it against us.
And we have to take them out of these positions of power and get back to a society where we can trust their institutions.
The Exposure Continues00:07:55
And that's going to require, I think, nothing short of getting the people who are abusing these powers out of office, out of positions where their hands are on the levers of power, whether that's in government, whether that's in media, whether that's in business.
And I think it's going to be a necessary and ugly step.
You know, I think you're right.
I think it's possible in the United States.
You see countervailing politicians who would step in and take the place.
You see the examples of Republican governors in Florida and Texas and South Dakota.
There is a B team or a government in waiting.
The problem with Canada is there is no other team.
Everyone's in league on it.
The five main political parties that were at the leaders' debate, they kept the sixth party out in the government-run debates.
But the five parties who were there had a, they recorded like a joint statement about vaccines together.
Like it really is, you know, in Japan, I think it was called a karitsu.
It's a, I think it has the trappings of a liberal democracy here, but really every institution, there is no opposition in any institution in Canada.
So if you threw the bums out, who would you replace them with?
I know who you could theoretically replace Biden with.
Ron DeSantis would be my favorite pick.
Like there is another team, another point of view.
There is Fox News and Breitbart, and there are some skeptics there.
There are some skeptical doctors, McCullough, Malone, whatever, but not in this country.
And that makes me deeply sad.
And I think what happened 200 some years ago is Americans who had that free spirit rebelled against Britain, but the more submissive ones who preferred to be governed by the king, they came north to Ontario.
They were called United Empire loyalists.
And I think every country has a bit of a character.
And I think the character of the people who really populated Ontario were a little more passive, a little more agreeable, a little bit more obedient, a little bit more compliant.
Canada didn't have a revolution to be born.
And I think that Canadian character, which is so nice, you know, person to person, no one's rude.
Everyone says please.
Everyone says sorry, sorry, sorry.
That's really nice when you're living a private life.
And, you know, it's a social lubricant that makes it very pleasant.
But when a crisis comes, it means Canadians are too trusting of tricksters and too obedient and too compliant and sometimes too complicit.
And, you know, I love Canada and I don't want to leave.
I feel like I have to stay and fight to the end.
But there are so few who have within them a natural dissonance.
And it's amazing that so many of our terrible stories here are only reported in the American press, that they're just not even reported up here.
Well, listen, we've taken up so much of your time.
I only expected to spend a short while with you, and here we are.
I really appreciate you coming on and your point of view.
Why don't you leave us with your thoughts?
We've been very pessimistic, the two of us.
And I think that's part of the communist way.
Yuri Besminov talked about demoralizing a society to dash their sense of right and wrong and up and down.
And once they're demoralized, then they're ripe for revolution.
As he said, why don't you try your best to leave us on a positive note?
Is there something out there that you've observed in, I don't know, in the short time we've been in 2022 that makes you think maybe we'll get through this okay?
Yes, actually.
I have transitioned from the middle of last year being what I described as hopefully pessimistic about our prospects to being cautiously optimistic.
And I'm losing some of that caution.
I'm becoming more optimistic as I watch kind of the broad narrative crumble.
And I do think it's crumbling.
I don't think that they're merely shifting to another phase.
There's so much damage control happening right now, especially around the pandemic narrative.
There's so many people that have risen up, at least in the United States.
And, you know, you guys up north follow us to some degree.
So if we get this right, then we set the standard for the rest of the West and many will follow.
But they're rising up against critical race theory.
They're rising up against the abuses in our schools.
Parents are mobilizing.
Parents are a tremendous force because you'll bear any indignity for your children when you realize that your children are at threat.
And so there are lots of reasons for optimism.
But more than anything, what I think the reason for optimism is, is exactly the way we're communicating right now, which is the internet.
And I think that we are actually at the beginning of the second Enlightenment.
We're maybe a decade or two decades into this new enlightenment phase, just like happened, you know, three, 400 years ago.
And the problem for the regime is that the truth is like a flame.
It's a bright, bright fire, and it will burn away anything that tries to contain it eventually.
The question is a matter of scales.
The Soviet Union lasted 69 years.
That's a long time of things being quite terrible.
But the truth will burn its way out.
And with the internet, it's so easy for a fire to leap from one area to another, to another, to another so quickly.
It's not to say that this is guaranteed.
People have to get, you know, as they say, based so that they are able to stand in themselves and have principles and to get the courage to take action.
But I don't think they can contain the truth.
I think these crimes against humanity and against our fellow man are going to be continually exposed.
I think the true nature of these ideologies, whether that's the critical theories or whatever, is going to continue to be exposed.
And I think that the spirit of the people, which maybe is more docile and agreeable in Canada than it is here in the United States, but I think that the spirit of the people is going to be awakened by the one thing that awakens the human spirit more than any other thing, which is the truth.
The truth always awakens the human spirit.
And I think it's coming.
And I think, in fact, it's not just coming, it's unstoppable.
And what we're actually watching, this bid at tyranny, is the regime's last great gasp to try to control the free information flow that's about to come before they lose grasp on the control they used to have.
They want to take us back to a feudalist era when they had more total control over things before they lose their grip because they're going to be exposed as frauds, as charlatans, and as criminals in many cases.
And it's coming.
And I don't think they can stop it.
Well, I could try and rebut that and be pessimist and try and give you reasons for despair, but I won't do that because I much prefer your reasons for hope.
And I'm glad you take the torch and you obviously do.
And you've got your eyes open.
You've certainly looked at evil in its eye.
And I encourage people to follow you on Twitter.
We'll have your Twitter account underneath the video here.
I really appreciate all the time you've given us.
We've been talking with James Lindsay from Tennessee of the New Discourses website.
Good to talk to you.
I hope to catch up with you before too long.
Thanks for being with us today.
I'd love it.
Thanks.
All right.
There you have it, James Lindsay.
Stay with us.
More ahead, including that video I mentioned about Sheila and George Soros.
Scaring People in Health Care00:04:36
I did not plan to talk to him for that long, but I enjoyed the conversation.
I think I talked a little too much, which is what I usually do in interviews.
But he's a smart guy.
I didn't know all of his philosophical and historical references.
He's clearly thought about things very deeply.
I'm so glad he ended on the positive note he did.
I'm pessimistic because maybe because I feel like I'm behind enemy lines sometimes.
We don't have that culture of resilient freedom in Canada they do in the States.
I'm not kidding or I'm not glossing over things when I say every party in Canada, except for the People's Party of Canada federally, which has no seeds and which is in single digits in the polls, everyone's on the other side of this.
So I feel a little less hopeful up here, but you have to keep hope alive.
Let me read some of your letters.
Stephen Yule says, Will our corrupt federal government and some of the provinces bring in mandatory COVID shots once the truckers quit over mandates and walk off the job in February?
I'm betting they will.
In the meantime, what Quebec is doing looks more like theater than anything else because you have to be a pretty bad actor to take that $100 script seriously.
You say a lot of things here.
The first is the incredible rule that truckers now have to be vaccinated.
So I think about it, other than a lighthousekeeper, is there any more reclusive or solo job than being a trucker?
You're in your little cab driving your truck all the time.
And a lot of trucks, truckers sleep in, they have a little sleeper there.
And if they sleep in a motel, they don't have a lot of interaction.
Like the idea of forcing truckers to be vaxed is so, there's no science behind it.
There's no science behind it.
And, you know, you think inflation is bad now.
You think empty shelves are bad now.
You think supply chain issues are bad now.
Imagine tens of thousands of trucks just not driving.
I think that's incredible, but that's where we are.
That's public policy.
And you're right about this thing to force Quebecers to get jabbed.
So much of public policy over the last year and a half has been announcing outrageous and tyrannical ideas by way of press conference, but not actually putting the meat on the bones in terms of orders or laws.
There's two reasons for that.
First of all, three reasons.
One is the main reason is to scare people, scare people into doing things.
The second reason is they don't know how to implement this.
And then the third reason is, is it would probably be illegal.
And as soon as they passed the law, it would be subject to legal challenge.
So you have the worst policymaking in Canadian history.
Chuck Andrews says, should taxing the stupid be limited to only the unvexed?
My wife had to wait for hours to be treated because the ambulance brought in some idiots who propelled themselves down Mount Sutton on a pair of wooden slates and broke their legs.
Or could we treat everyone the same?
Well, listen, I mean, we can have private insurance for everyone.
And maybe some would charge smokers more and some would charge fat people more and some would charge you more if you left the house and if you were a young man, more likely to get into a fight.
If you ever been into a bar, more likely to get into a fight.
Or if you were downhill ski, more likely to break your ankle if you drank, or I mean there's so many different risk factors.
Um, I thought universal health care meant.
Universal health care is that you didn't have a risk rating.
You were all in it together.
I mean we, we got to choose.
Because, if that's the case, I would like to um apportion my health care money a little bit differently.
Um, I don't want to pay for a lot of the goofy things that our Medicare system does, for example, transgender surgery.
I just don't believe that that's a a healthcare issue.
Um, that may be a personal choice.
I there's a lot of things I would do if I didn't have to belong to a uh, one-size-fits-all Medicare system.
Um, it's just sort of weird that this is the one thing that they're fighting over.
Paul Mccullis says, did we need more?
Uh, examples of why public health care sucks.
The lesson here, government needs to get out of our lives.
Well, and and to the earlier letter writer um, it may not be stupid not to take the vaccine.
Let's say you've had the disease naturally and have a natural immunity.
It would be really weird to take the vaccine once you're immune, I think, especially since we know that the vaccine doesn't stop breakthrough infections.
Um, so there may be a lot of good reasons not to not to do that.
Um, I don't know.
I just think, as I said to James Lindsay, this has destroyed my trust in so many institutions including frankly, doctors.
Reasonable Search, Hidden Truth00:06:38
I mean, i've said it before, for the first 90 of my life, I was slavishly pro-police.
I can't say that anymore.
Um, I think the only people I held in higher esteem were doctors.
But how can I trust doctors about anything other than their very narrow specialty?
Because I'm just not interested in them being Simon Says repeaters of what Teresa Tamar, Anthony Fauci, had to say.
Every institution has been robbed, not by the virus, but by the lockdowns and lockdownism.
That's our show for today.
Until tomorrow, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, to you at home, good night.
Keep fighting for freedom.
And let me leave you finally with this video, I promise, the video of the day, Sheila, talking about the Information Commissioner ruling that the Liberals lied about George Soros and his immigration contract.
I'll leave you with that.
Goodbye.
We've just had to spend three years fighting the Immigration Ministry for documents that they claimed didn't exist.
Our first request was filed November 26, 2018.
And since January 2019, they've been telling us they've got no records.
Three years later, the government has had to admit they were lying, confirmed to us in writing by the Information Commissioner.
The Liberals can no longer hide their dealings with George Soros and his Open Society Foundation.
In September 2016, the Trudeau government partnered with George Soros' Open Society Foundation to increase the number of refugees entering Canada.
Now, what exactly was that agreement?
I'm a Canadian.
I want to know.
I think you want to know too.
And we are legally entitled to know this stuff through access to information.
To find out more details on the agreement, we sent a simple letter to the Immigration Department under access to information law.
We did this way back in 2018.
And we do this sort of work through crowdfunding to a special website, rebelinvestigates.com.
Now, here's what we asked.
It was simple.
Regarding the agreement between the government of Canada, the United Nations HCR, and the Open Society Foundation to launch a joint initiative aimed at increasing private sponsorship of refugees around the world, as announced at the below link, please provide copies of all background and supporting policy documents, include copies of any agreements involved, provide only final or latest versions of documents.
And they wrote back to us, following a thorough search of our information holdings, I regret to inform you that no records were found that respond to your request.
This is impossible.
The government can't do anything without a dozen or so bureaucrats being involved.
And that's not even close to an exaggeration.
I know because I see these documents all the time.
I see the email chains, the endless email chains with hundreds of bureaucrats.
For example, that's how about two dozen bureaucrats were involved in the planning of Catherine McKenna's constantly embarrassing tweets when she was our ridiculous climate change minister.
They were all in the email chain.
But there's not a word on paper this time, not a chance in hell.
We knew they were lying.
How does a major international immigration announcement prompt zero emails, not even for the planning of the press release itself?
So we went to work appealing this refusal.
The government, however, doesn't call it a refusal.
They say there's just nothing to give, which is 100% not true.
The access to information law is clear.
If there are relevant records, I have the right to be told that.
And unless there is a special exemption, such as national security, we all have a right to see them.
Immigration did not invoke any such exemption.
They just claimed there's nothing there.
And we now have proof that they were lying.
Here's the letter I got from the Information Commissioner.
Now, this is bigger news than just an ATIP being hidden.
The government was actively hiding their collaboration with George Soros.
And they were calling anyone who asked about it a conspiracy theorist or an anti-Semite.
If we didn't pursue and push and fight, nothing would have ever come out.
And whatever information there is to know about George Soros' Open Society Foundation and the Canadian government's dealings with that left-wing megacharity would remain hidden from the people who have to live with the consequences of those dealings.
I have one document and I'm going through it now.
Information Commissioner's final report.
Complaint.
The complaint alleged that immigration refugees and citizenship Canada did not conduct a reasonable search in response to an access request under the Access to Information Act regarding the agreement between the Government of Canada, the UNHCR, and the Open Society Foundation to launch a joint initiative to increase private sponsorship of refugees.
Investigation.
The IRCC was required to conduct a reasonable search for records that fall within the scope of the access request.
That is, one or more experienced employees knowledgeable in the subject matter of the request must have made reasonable efforts to identify and locate all records reasonably related to the request.
A reasonable search involves a level of effort that would be expected of any fair, sensible person tasked with searching for responsive records where they are likely to be stored.
This search does not have to be perfect.
An institution is therefore not required to prove with absolute certainty that further records do not exist.
Institutions must, however, be able to show that they took reasonable steps to identify and locate responsive records.
What they're saying here is the bar is actually pretty low.
They don't have to be perfect, but they have to be able to demonstrate that they kind of tried.
Let's keep reading.
Did the institution conduct a reasonable search for records?
Based on IRCC's representations and following the Office of the Information Commissioner's intervention, IRCC provided the complainant with a responsive record that IRCC claims did not exist at the time of the request.
The result?
The complaint is resolved.
This is so much larger than just one access to information being hidden from us.
We know now the government was actively hiding their collaboration with George Soros and calling anyone who asked about it a conspiracy theorist or an anti-Semite.
Government Lies Exposed00:01:33
If we didn't pursue and push and fight, nothing would have ever come out.
And whatever information there is to know about George Soros's Open Society Foundation and the Canadian government's dealings with that left-wing megacharity would remain hidden from the people who have to live with the consequences of those dealings.
That's us, Canadians.
Now, we have one document.
I'm going through it right now, and we aren't even close to done with these liars.
We've also sent in a new access to information about the frenzied communications that surely went back and forth as bureaucrats plotted to break access to information laws and lie to Canadians for the sake of protecting a powerful left-wing foreign billionaire who is very, very friendly with the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister Christia Freeland.
Now, we can't do this work without your help.
We're fighting an army of obviously lying bureaucrats for information they're legally obligated to release to us.
We have been working and filing and appealing this one for three years without a penny in bailouts.
We rely on the support of our viewers at home to ask questions.
The mainstream media is paid by Trudeau to never ask, but to also smear the askers for the crime of being intellectually curious.
To help fund our research and access to information investigations, please visit rebelinvestigates.com and donate today.
And please be sure to subscribe to RebelNews.com because I am going through this Soros information package now and you don't want to miss that story.