Ezra Levant warns the LGBTQ2SL+ movement risks losing public support by focusing on children, citing chants like "We’re here, we’re queer, we’re coming for your children" and policies in New Brunswick and the UK that bypass parental rights. He ties this to "cultural Marxism," framing it as ideological overreach, while also linking COVID-19 vaccine controversies—highlighting U.S. VAERS data (17K deaths, 26K injuries)—to suppressed debates on lab leaks and authoritarian pandemic measures. Unless patterns of power abuse are recognized, he argues, future crises could repeat them, echoing dystopian themes from Brave New World and listener concerns about faith’s role in resistance. [Automatically generated summary]
I think the LG and the B are at odds with the T. I'll explain my thinking, and I'll also explain why I'm terrified that LGBT2Q plus SLQWXYZ is targeting children now.
How did that happen?
I'll give you my thoughts and I'll show you some terrifying video.
But first, let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
That's the video version of this podcast.
And I think today's show, you really need it.
I'm going to show you some scenes from some recent pride parades, and I want you to see it with your own eyes.
That's RebelNewsPlus.com, eight bucks a month.
You get my show every weeknight.
Sheila Gunnreid has a weekly show.
And you know what?
We need to know because we don't get any money from Trudeau.
We never would take it even if it was offered.
That's why we're independent.
All right, here's today's show.
Tonight, if the gay rights movement focuses on children, it's going to lose support.
It's June 26th, and this is the Ezra Levant show.
Shame on you, you censorious bug.
Look at this protest over the weekend.
We're here.
We're queer.
We're coming for your children?
Gay rights used to mean just what it sounds like, civil rights for people who are homosexual.
In most ways, those rights were always there.
The right to own property, the right to vote, freedom of speech, etc.
But until a couple of generations ago, gay sex itself was a crime, not one that was often prosecuted, but it was formally on the books until 1969 in Canada.
So that was 54 years ago.
There were other limits on gay people, too.
Joining the military, for an example, that was ended in 1992 in Canada, so 31 years ago.
Gay marriage became lawful in various provinces in 2003, and the Supreme Court of Canada made it national law in 2005.
So that's 18 years ago.
Gay pride parades are amongst the largest parades in major cities like Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal now.
They are major corporate events drawing millions of dollars in sponsorship and government money, too.
There really are no areas in public life where being gay is a barrier to entry.
Not in the corporate world, not in the political world.
It's not insurgent anymore.
It's actually completely dominant.
It's gone corporate.
I think it has been that way for at least a generation, really two.
But that's the thing about cultural Marxism.
It exists to create conflict.
It makes identity a central political fact.
And just like the election and re-election of Barack Obama as U.S. president did not end racial division in America, but actually marked the beginning of a new era of woke racism.
So too has the total victory of the gay rights movement.
Instead of taking a victory lap, both movements became weaponized.
Obama was obviously elected by an enormous number of white people, but instead of using his unique position to heal racial wounds of the past, he actually used it to have a perpetual political war amongst Americans as a wedge based on race to put the Republicans on the back foot to drive his political agenda.
Now that's happening with gay rights too.
It's being weaponized for other purposes.
It's not actually about gay rights anymore.
I don't even think it's about gay at all.
In fact, I think the T in LGBT is actually inherently contrary to the LMG.
A gay man is gay.
A lesbian is a gay woman, but the T, that implies that a person is born in the wrong body.
They have to transition.
And the ultimate extension of that idea, I guess, is that if you are gay, you have to undergo extreme body-altering surgery and drugs to get into your proper body.
You can't just be a gay man or a lesbian.
You have to transition to being a trans woman or a trans man.
How is that not anti-gay, actually?
The T in LGBT used to be so fringe.
It was a rounding era.
I mean, in the 1980s, Dustin Hoffman's movie Tootsie was a fun, quirky comedy.
Same with the 1990s, Mrs. Doubtfire with Robin Williams.
Guys who dressed up as women as a disguise, but they were straight.
They just had some laughs.
I mean, that's how it was in society until about five minutes ago.
But now it is an identity.
And what are there, 53 genders now?
There's just not LGBT anymore.
There's 2SLGBTQ plus.
Can you tell me what those stand for?
I bet you can't.
Take a look at this guy.
2SLGBTQI rights are human rights.
I bet Trudeau doesn't know what that stands for either.
He's just good at memorizing a few lines, but I'll tell you: it says for two-spirited, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, and then additional sexual orientations and gender identities.
Like the plus means more to come.
So it's unlimited.
It's not a man who is attracted to a man or a woman who is attracted to a woman.
That's what gay was about.
But this is now about queering and questioning everything, smashing conceptions, smashing structures and establishments.
That's explicitly the goal.
That's why there's queer math.
There is no gay math.
Math isn't gay or straight.
But queer math, queer spelling, queer history, is expressly to smash the oppressor who gave us two plus two equals four.
No, it isn't.
It really is like the satirical website, The Onion.
They were around a long time before the Babylon B. 22 years ago, The Onion published this headline: Gay Pride Parade sets mainstream acceptance of gays back 50 years.
Look at this, published in April 2001.
Let me read a little bit.
Hollywood, California.
The mainstream acceptance of gays and lesbians, a hard-won civil rights victory, came through decades of struggle against prejudice and discrimination, was set back at least 50 years Saturday in the wake of the annual Los Angeles Gay Pride Parade.
And it goes on in some graphic detail.
And then it has the punchline.
Allison Weber, 43, and El Segundo marketing consultants, also had her perceptions and assumptions about gays challenged by the parade.
Quote, my understanding was that gay people are just like everyone else, decent, hardworking people who care about their communities and have loving, committed relationships, Weber said.
But after this terrifying spectacle, I don't want them teaching my kids or living in my neighborhood.
Now, that was satire.
That was funny in 2001.
But satire really can't keep up with reality, can it?
The rainbow flag itself has given way to what Lawrence Fox calls the migraine flag.
And that too is already out of date.
I saw the autistic gay flag for the first time the other day.
It's so far past being about gay rights and gay equality.
But what I think is a bridge too far is that it's not just about the sexuality.
It's about a new focus on children.
And that's not the definition of gay or lesbian, is it?
That's not same-sex attraction.
That's now targeting children of tender years.
That is not about same-sex anymore.
That is about pedophilia.
They have a new phrase, minor attractive person, they're trying to normalize.
Why would you say this?
New York City drag marchers chant, we're here, we're queer, we're coming for your children.
Why would you say this?
A taunt?
A taunt?
A provocation?
Or is it actually real?
Well, if you've been paying attention at all to what's going on in schools, it is absolutely real.
How did gay rights, the right to free speech for gay people, the right to free association, the right to privacy for gay people, the right to join the army, the right not to be fired from a job, the right to marry another consenting adult, things that suddenly, how does that suddenly turn into targeting kids?
Where's the connection?
Targeting kids with any sexual orientation, because that's the thing about children.
They are pre-sexual.
What are you doing breaking that taboo?
What would you think if a group of heterosexual activists, I don't know what that would be, like a stripper or a prostitute or a pimp, had parades and said they were coming for your children?
It would be shocking and bizarre.
No children are allowed in strip clubs or in brothels.
It would be an arrestable offense if they were.
But not so with the new LGBTQ post-gay movement.
That is shockingly about children.
Why?
That ancient taboo just being detonated in front of our eyes.
How did that get grafted onto the LGB campaign?
Here's a group called Gays Against Groomers with a protest at the New York City Pride Parade.
Take a look at this.
Pride is not for kids.
Take them home.
There is no pride in sexualizing, indoctrinating, or mutilating kids, which is where the T and the Q are going.
It's not natural.
It's not authentic or self-originating.
This is an idea, this transgenderism planted in the minds of kids.
What are they doing talking to kids at all about sex?
Here's a sexually liberated leftist named Bill Maher, libertine, but he gets it.
Remember this?
If you attend a small dinner party of typically very liberal, upper-income Angelinos, it is not uncommon to hear parents who each have a trans kid having a conversation about that.
What are the odds of that happening in Youngstown, Ohio?
If this spike in trans children is all natural, why is it regional?
either ohio is shaming them or california is creating them it's like that day we suddenly all needed bottled water all the time If we can't admit that in certain enclaves there is some level of trendiness to the idea of being anything other than straight, then this is not a serious science-based discussion.
It's a blow being struck in the culture wars using children as cannon fodder.
I don't understand parents who won't let their nine-year-old walk to the corner without a helmet, an EpiPen, and a GPS tracker.
And God forbid their lips touch dairy.
But hormone blockers and genital surgery, fine.
And the way it is, secret clubs at school, having secret talks with children about their sexuality kept secret from their parents.
Here's Trudeau's Rosemary Barton of the CBC grilling the Premier of New Brunswick, who doesn't want to stop sex ed.
He just wants parents to know what's going on.
Do you have a problem with the idea of gender dysphoria?
Well, my position, Rosemary, is not the issue in that sense.
My position as a grandfather and as a father is that I think that kids, especially these vulnerable years and elementary school years, are, let's say, toddlers being exposed to, well, I may not be a boy or girl.
That is the role that parents need to play.
Those are very formative years.
And so how do we ensure that everyone understands what is being presented, what's in the school system, and then we work through it.
Sure, sure.
But I guess I'm wondering, Premier, if your personal views are influencing your policy decisions, because it sounds like they are.
No, Rosemary, it's not about my personal views at all.
It's about a role as a parent and a grandparent and thinking about my grandchildren now that would be attending school and the fact that her parents would not know what she was being taught or what information was being supplied.
Because I think most parents, you know, take for granted that the school system is doing everything that they would approve of.
But there's so many things that parents are asked to have their consent on.
So many things.
And yet gender identity is not one of them.
But do you understand that there are children who would not be comfortable telling their parents that, who would not feel safe having that conversation with their parents?
And so school would be the safe place for them to identify in the gender of their choosing.
I do understand that.
And that's why our goal is to put a process in place and work with parents and children, teachers and the guidance counselors, the professionals, to help us build a plan in place.
A plan that allows for the child to be protected and a plan that eventually would have parents involved in supporting their children, not alienating the parents and the child, but finding a way to bridge the gaps that exist in maybe certainly how they're thinking.
There are critics, as you know, that say that this policy is transphobic.
That's super gross.
Children want to make secrets with teachers and keep those secrets from parents, and that's Barton's side.
The policy is transphobic.
If you want to know what secret conversations your young child is having with sexualized teachers talking about sex, you're transphobic now.
Why don't you just throw in racism?
Gender Confusion Policies00:09:20
You need parental consent to take your kid on a field trip, but not to join a sexual club and talk to guidance counselors about sexual things, including changing their bodies.
Here's Chris Austin, a cabinet minister in New Brunswick, where this is a political crisis now.
Take a listen to his speech.
My daughter in grade two can change her name and her gender, not just without my consent, but most importantly, without me even knowing it, to the point that the school would literally deceive me as a parent should I ask to know what's going on.
I have a serious problem with that.
And I can tell you one thing, the vast majority of parents in this province have a very serious problem with that as well.
And I will not back down.
You need permission to take a kid on a field trip like Boy Scouts or girl guides.
You used to trust them to take care of your kids.
Now they are overtly sexual.
Here's the girl guides at the New York Pride Parade.
What are they doing there?
Pride is not for kids.
Kids are pre-sexual.
Stop telling them things about sex, gay or straight.
Stop keeping it a secret from parents, you predators.
How on earth did molesting children and sexualizing them go from being the most horrific crime imaginable to a politically protected category of speech and action?
Here's a simple solution.
I think this is a litmus test, really, how someone reacts to this proposal by a UK member of parliament.
Here's a story in the Daily Mail today.
MPs push for sex education transparency where parents could see lesson plans and materials under new law.
Miriam Cates, the MP for Pennistone and Stockridge, you don't want to mispronounce that, will today introduce the bill.
It would stop schools using unpublished materials from third-party provider.
Seriously, what are you doing allowing sex groups into the school with their secret pamphlets?
What do you do?
Imagine needing a law for this, that parents get to see what their kids are being taught.
Not even to know what the kids are saying or if they're secretly changing their names or their gender, just to see what propaganda your own children are being shown.
Look at this, though.
Parents could be able to see sex education lesson plans and other materials under a new law proposed by a Conservative MP, Miriam Cates, the MP for Pennistone and Stockridge, will today introduce a sex education transparency private members bill.
It would create a legal duty for English schools to share materials used in relationships and sex education, RSE, lessons with parents, and prevent schools from using unpublished materials if they are provided by a third-party provider.
Imagine being against that.
Imagine that this isn't a law right now and that it needs to be a law.
This is the crazy part.
The proposal comes after Claire Page, 47, lost a legal fight to see the sex education lesson plan used at her daughter's school.
A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party provider outweighed the public interest in having the school hand over the material.
So making commercial money out of porn is more important than a parent's rights?
What?
Someone has more rights to your own child than you do?
That is so gross.
The schools have gone mad.
Here's a video from the UK, but do you doubt it's the same here?
Listen to this.
It's a few minutes long.
Not just changing genders, changing species.
They've gone crazy.
How dare you?
You've just really upset someone.
Saying things like, should be in an asylum.
I don't know.
I just said if they want to identify as a cat or something, then they're genuinely on that.
And they've gone crazy.
You were questioning their identity.
No, mine wasn't a question.
I was just saying about the gender.
I haven't said anything about them.
Where'd you get this idea from there's only two genders?
I can't say my opinion.
That is my opinion.
If I respect their opinion, can't they respect mine?
It is not an opinion.
It's not an opinion.
There's only two people that are going to be gender.
Because I'm your boy under that bill today.
There's no other private part.
Gender is not linked to do with the parts that you were born with.
Gender is about how you identify.
Which is what I said right from the very beginning.
So why should I have to listen to that?
Biological sex.
There is actually three biological sex.
Because you can be born into sex.
You can be born with male and female body parts or hormones.
Did you know that?
Yeah, there's free.
It's not three androids.
It doesn't mean that there's three.
I'm talking about biological sex.
In terms of gender, there are lots of genders.
There is transgender, there is agender, people who don't believe they have a gender at all.
Yeah, but you can't have that.
You are not.
No, you can't have that.
It's not a law.
Yeah, no, it's not a law book.
It's all opinion.
We just don't agree with it.
We just think it's all just, you have a penis you're wrong.
Yeah.
But cisgender is not necessarily the way to be.
You were talking about the fact that cisgender is the norm.
That you identify with the gender of the sexual organ that you're born with, or you're with.
That's basically what you're saying.
Yeah.
Which is really despicable.
How?
When it's called my mum right now, my mum feel my dad.
If I call my mum, she's sad.
Well, that's very sad as well, then.
How is it?
Most of people agree with that.
There's only a small majority of people who actually think that.
And why do you think we have so many problems in the world with homophobia?
Yeah, but it's not homophobic.
I'm fine with lesbians and gay people.
I've got nothing against them.
But gender is.
There is a link between it in your hand that people can't change to be.
They can't.
Unless you get a phenomenal attached.
No, I'm not.
You're confusing that sex and gender.
No, I'm not, though, because if you haven't given me your girl, I've never been a single boy.
Yeah, you can't have a vagina be a girl.
But then it's separate.
Even though you're going to value identity.
How you identify.
I mean, it's not an opinion within this.
Yes, it is.
No, it's not.
And if you don't like it, you need to go to a different school.
So if I'm reporting you to Miss Willis, you need to have a proper educational conversation about equality, diversity, and inclusion.
Because I'm not having that expressed in my lesson.
When I'm teaching you about you can be who you want to be, how you identify is up to you.
They just don't say it because then all this happens.
Maybe because they're polite and maybe they're sensitive.
I haven't said anything in all of the lessons.
It's just because they turned around and started saying something.
So I'd say, how can you identify as a cat when you're a girl?
Oh, they're now writing a statement.
I would imagine that you'll be asked to write a statement as well.
We will.
Yeah, we will.
This has suddenly come from everywhere, all at the same time.
It seems all at once.
Here's a video published by the WHO, the World Health Organization.
You know, the pandemic fear mongers.
Take a look at this craziness.
Toch niet?
Waarom doe je dat niet in de klas?
Wanneer kan je nou aan je piemel zitten?
De puiskunst.
Maar dat is niet alleen jongens die klaar kunnen komen, ook meisjes kunnen klaar komen.
Maar die hebben dan geen zaadlozing, want wij hebben geen zaadjes.
Maar het is wel een prettig gevoel.
En je hebt natuurlijk je vagina altijd wat bekeken.
Je hebt je schaamlippen, je binnenste schaamlippen.
En er zitten twee gaatjes.
Eén op de plassen en één waar de baby uitkomt.
Maar boven die gaatjes zit ook nog een soort knopje.
Heb je dat wel eens gezien of niet?
Heb je nog nooit zo bestudeerd, hè?
Maar dat knopje is eigenlijk, dat noem je je clitoris.
Maar als je daar aan zit, kan dat een heel fijn gevoel geven.
And I fully dotted and I died.
What are you doing talking to children like that?
And it's not just talk, it's action.
You can separate children from the parents, if you can create distrust between parents and children, if you can put agents of the state in place of parents with this secret sexualization to replace parental authority with moral activists, you know, telling a new morality, a new authority to the kids, a new ideology, all is lost.
Realizing My Mistake00:04:02
That's what they mean by queering the system.
Like being a teenager is hard enough, puberty hormones fitting in.
It's hard, and some kids are gay.
Imagine telling them that they have to take hormones and drugs and get irreversible surgery instead of just giving them loving help at an awkward time of life.
Here's a three-minute video by a girl, probably pretty common.
There's a hundred of these videos out there.
Hello, as some of you might know, my name is Ash, and I am a detransitioner.
I recently made a little video on this topic, not really explaining much of it, and got quite a bit of backlash in my comment section, so I just want to come on and share my story.
And some of you guys, you're gonna hate me for this, but I need to speak the truth.
And I don't care what you say in my comments.
I'm not gonna turn my comments off.
Growing up, I didn't really show any signs of gender dysphoria.
I was perfectly happy with my body and being a girl.
And of course, I was uncomfortable with like puberty and stuff, but that was for other reasons.
Every girl is uncomfortable with their changing body.
And when I was 13, I started to struggle a lot with depression, anxiety, that sort of stuff.
I spent a lot of time on the internet, specifically TikTok, way more than I should have rather than going out in the real world, especially with COVID and everything else that was going on.
Now, at the time, there were a million, million videos of all these trans people coming out.
And because I was so unhappy with myself and who I was, I thought that that might be what was wrong with me.
And I convinced myself that that's what was wrong with me, and that's what would fix me.
And I went really, really, really far to pass as a male to the point where nobody that I knew knew that I was born a female.
Here's a little picture of me from that time.
Had the facial hair and everything.
When I first transitioned, I really didn't have any issues with my body.
But as I went on, I realized that I needed to fit into this box if I wanted to be a male.
And because of how my body did not fit into that box, I became increasingly more uncomfortable with it.
But it wasn't gender dysphoria.
It was me trying to fit myself into a box that I simply didn't fit into.
In a way, I sort of brainwashed myself into thinking that I had gender dysphoria.
And naturally, this brought me into a really bad place mentally where I started struggling with drugs, self-harm, suicidal ideation, all that stuff.
And I assumed this was because I wasn't male enough, but it was really because I wasn't a male at all.
I got on testosterone when I was 15 years old.
And the thing that I think is absolutely wild is that I went to one appointment before I was given my prescription.
One.
You might be thinking, oh, well, they probably asked you a ton of questions.
Nope.
They barely asked me anything.
I basically walked in there and was like, I'm trans.
And they were like, okay.
They didn't question me.
They didn't sit down with me and question and talk.
Like, is this really what's right for you?
They were just like, okay, this is the next step in your transition.
We'll give it to you.
I was on testosterone for about six months, and luckily it didn't affect me super bad.
I can still talk in a higher range and pass as female.
Of course, there's a lot of changes that are permanent that I'm going to have to live with for the rest of my life.
After about two years of living as a male, I realized I was wrong.
But I didn't come out about that right away.
I stayed living as male for another year before I really finally decided that I needed to do this.
And it was one of the most scary things that I ever did.
I've faced so much backlash.
I've found it that people are so quick to accept trans people, but so quick to criticize detransitioners.
Once I detransitioned, all my mental problems were gone.
I'm happy.
That was my issue.
The fact that I'd convinced myself that I was a dude.
Big pharma loves the trans agenda.
So many drugs to sell.
Cultural Marxists love it, pitting us against each other based on our sexual identities.
Making a sort of civil war, just like Black Lives Matter pitted race against race, where there had been relative harmony.
And the beautiful moment of America electing a black president now, after true LGB equality, a new cultural Marxist war amongst ourselves to devour our children, and the shocking colonization of all our institutions so quickly.
Schools, the law, politics, big business.
Cultural Wars and Divide00:04:46
Unbelievable.
You can see it happening already, though.
The number of Americans supporting same-sex relationships has dropped from 71 to 64% compared to one year ago, with more people thinking it not morally acceptable, according to a new Gallup poll, a change driven mostly by Republicans.
Yeah, those awful Republicans.
In one year, that is a shocking fall.
I think it's pretty obvious why.
It's not the LG, the G or the B. I'd say it's parents, not Republicans, just parents.
Parents of kids who are being pressured to hate their own bodies.
Parents of girls who are being pushed out of sports by men who fake being women.
Parents who are afraid to turn on the TV set or to watch a movie, even a Disney movie, for fear of bizarre indoctrination, targeting their kids.
Leave the kids alone.
It's madness, and closing your eyes won't make this madness go away.
I hope New Brunswick has a snap election on this.
Let's see what real people think, not just regime puppets like the CBC's Rosemary Barton.
Let's see what people think.
Stay with us for more.
Well, it was a pleasure the other day to meet with Mark Milke, who has founded the Aristotle Foundation, a new freedom-oriented charity in Canada.
We know Mark Milke from before.
He's an author and a scholar, but it's great that he has this new institution.
And I think Canada needs a lot more of them on our side of things.
And there's another institution that has been around for a while called C2C Journal.
And the two is the number two, C2CJournal.ca.
And they write interesting pieces.
They're not heartbreaking news.
Like you don't go to C2C Journal for what happened in the last two hours.
They have more thoughtful, deeply researched essays.
So there is a lot of facts there.
There's also commentary.
And I thought, you know, they have interesting things there, interesting columns, and we ought to take advantage of that and show our viewers what's cooking in C2C Journal and give them a shout out for their good work at the same time.
We've done that a few times now, and so we do so again today, happily.
Margaret Coppala is an author and public policy activist.
She has a new essay on C2C Journal called The Virus, the Vaccine, the Victims, Beginning the Great Reckoning.
And let me just read a sentence from it before I call on Margaret Coppola.
She says, as COVID-19 recedes, a worldwide evaluation of how the pandemic was handled is finally underway.
As much as governments, public health leaders, and official science want to avoid questions, others with courage and determination are digging in and finding answers, including Canada's privately organized National Citizens Inquiry.
And as rebel viewers know, we have covered that very intensively.
Margaret Coppala examines the damage done by misguided public health measures and presents disturbing new evidence that vaccines were not only pointless, but have caused injury and death on a horrific scale.
And she reveals how efforts to fight back in the courts and against the media are gaining traction.
As more information comes out, the truth about the greatest disaster of our time is becoming clearer.
Joining me now is Margaret Coppola.
Well, Margaret, that's a very bold thesis statement.
These are dangerous things to talk about.
The other day, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., nephew of the great president, Democratic presidential primary candidate, lifelong activist, criticized the vaccines on various programs, criticized in an interview with Jordan Peterson, criticized them in an interview with Joe Rogan, and YouTube censored it, deleted the video.
Here's a Kennedy.
He could be president.
His uncle was.
And he's being censored for saying unapproved, disapproved things about big pharma.
These are dangerous things to talk about, aren't they?
Yes, indeed.
But I'm proud to say I think I'm in very good company.
And in fact, wouldn't be writing about any of this at all if it wasn't thoroughly documented and thoroughly studied.
And the people who are speaking out about this, I mean, people like Robert F. Kennedy, like Peter McCullough, like Robert Law, like, I mean, there's a whole slew of thoroughly intellectually and morally courageous people who have stood up,
Sudden Power Deaths Inquiries00:15:23
done the hard work, highly credentialed people, many of them more credentialed than your average public health officer, who are doing the heavy lifting and scouring the studies.
And there are thousands of them now, thousands, who are pointing to all kinds of problems with the vaccines.
And our worst fears, of course, are coming true, that they are doing much more harm than any good they might have done.
Well, tell me where some of these inquiries are happening.
You mentioned the National Citizen Inquiry here in Canada.
That is a private initiative, like it's a citizens' initiative, as the name suggests.
So it doesn't have certain government powers.
It doesn't have the power to compel attendance.
It doesn't have the power to subpoena documents.
It doesn't have the power to swear someone in under oath and hold them to task for perjury if they lie.
So many of the things that we rely on the government to do through judicial inquiries or public inquiries, that's not happening here.
And whenever we get public inquiries, like with the Trucker Convoy, they seem to be rigged.
We look at David Johnson and his inquiry into Chinese influence peddling.
So I don't think we're going to see a real vigorous legal inquiry in Canada.
But are there other countries where they actually are having inquiries with the force of the law behind them?
To tell you the truth, no.
Inquiries per se, no, they aren't.
In fact, our own National Citizens Inquiry may be a shining example of what everybody should be doing and aren't so far.
That said, I will use the term used by Peter McCullough that, you know, the U.S. is in a state of near capitulation.
I mean, as he puts it, you know, we've got finally got recognition that this virus resulted as a lab leak from Wuhan.
I mean, just bare months ago, this was considered conspiracy theory talk.
We now know that they are going to, in fact, Congress has voted to release, declassify all of the documentation around U.S. involvement in Wuhan and what actually happened in Wuhan, all of that.
We already know a lot about that, by the way, because there's all kinds of people very knowledgeable and closely associated with what went on at Wuhan, have already written books about it.
And so you've got also a withdrawal by the U.S. Nobody knows about this here.
Certainly it's not happening here.
They have withdrawn the monovalent vaccines, the original two vaccines, the three vaccines, I guess, there were.
And nobody's doing that here, though.
But they're just not being offered anymore in the US.
And although they're still offering the biovalent vaccines, many other countries are going through the same order of, as it were, well, if not capitulation, maybe too strong a word, but certainly withdrawal from the whole pandemic mode, although the pandemic is not over, according to the WHO.
The emergency is over, but not the pandemic itself.
But you've got countries like Denmark as no longer offering the vaccine at all to anybody under 50.
You've got states like Florida saying, no, children should not get it.
Teenagers should not get it.
Even the WHO is saying that children of teenagers should not be getting this vaccine.
So you've got this steady progress.
Switzerland has just withdrawn it from everybody, saying, no, don't take it.
And in fact, I believe in some cases they're telling doctors that you can offer it, but it's all you accept liability for taking it.
So yeah, we are seeing some kind of a reckoning underway, even though nobody's saying the word out loud.
And in fact, it's happening everywhere, but of course right here in Canada, where it's only like in the last year or so, we finally got some safety data system up and running.
And we finally have a website from the government of Canada that gives us some statistics on what kind of injuries and disabilities and what kind of problems have arisen around the vaccine.
But these numbers were well to hand within the last over for more than a year in other countries.
The US, for instance, has the various data system, 17,000 deaths in the US alone being attributed to the vaccine.
26,000, I think, injuries and deaths, injuries and disabilities.
In fact, we even have a case I write about it in the article by somebody who comes at it from an entirely different angle, not a medical angle, but from an insurance angle.
He looks at the insurance statistics and sees all of a sudden that from the time of the vaccine rollout in the US to the end of its major rollout, that insurance claims were going through the roof by whom?
Not by the usual suspects.
I mean, the people, the elderly or others who we know were very severely affected by this virus, but this time by young professionals, ordinarily extremely healthy people who are and on whom insurance companies make huge amounts of money because normally they don't die.
But all of a sudden, they were dying.
And guess what?
It correlated exactly with the rollout of the vaccine.
If you look at the charts, you've got the doses are going up this and then the deaths are going up this way.
So the article is sprinkled with charts like that where you can see direct relationship between dosages and deaths.
Let me read one paragraph from your essay about this vaccine reporting system.
It's called VAYERS, which stands for Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, which is a voluntary system.
So it doesn't catch all of it.
Before COVID-19, McCullough, that's Dr. McCullough noted, all vaccines combined in the U.S. generated a total on average of 158 deaths per year.
By contrast, the mRNA vaccines developed to combat COVID-19.
I'm just going to skip ahead here.
As of March 3rd, 2023, McCullough said Veyers, that's the reporting system, I recorded 17,071 deaths in just the U.S. that occurred within a few days of taking COVID-19 and 16,454 permanently disabled.
That's orders of magnitude more.
You'd think that would be huge news, but it really isn't.
I mean, when COVID deaths were being reported, they would include anything.
If you died of a heart attack, but had COVID at the same time, it would be marked as a COVID death.
They did everything to expand the numbers.
There was a crazy case, someone fell off a ladder, and it was called a COVID death.
Whereas a death from a vaccine, it's the exact opposite.
They would do anything to ascribe it to a cause other than the vaccine.
That's not a normal way to compile statistics.
That's a stitch-up.
That's an inside job.
That's right.
And I'm, you know, I mean, the general theory about all of that is that, and I think it's well accepted across the board, that they use fear tactics in order to get people to get vaccinated.
And they may have done so for the best of reasons.
They honestly believe that the vaccine would prevent infections.
They honestly believe that it would help encourage herd immunity, all those things.
But absolutely none of those things have come to pass.
The vaccine does not prevent infection.
It does not prevent transmission.
And in fact, we now know thanks to a recent study from the Cleveland study that worse than that, the more vaccines you get, the more likely you are to contract COVID.
And the least, the fewer vaccines you have, shots you have, in fact, better off if you have none at all, you are least at risk of getting COVID.
So, I mean, this vaccine business has absolutely totally backfired.
Not only has it, is it not doing the job it should have done, it might have helped a little bit at the beginning because it does confer some help for, you know, immunity maybe for a few weeks or a few months.
But we learned very quickly it runs out.
It peters out.
The immune protection function peters out.
Yeah, they had to change the definition of vaccine because if you're not stopping someone from catching a disease, it's not really a vaccine.
It may be a therapy of some sort, but it's not a vaccine.
Let me ask you a question that's on my mind, because you and I are awake to these things.
And I think a lot of people were woken up by it.
People of different political backgrounds, by the way, conservatives who didn't like the government accreting this power to themselves, but also liberals who always swore by my body, my choice, new Democrats and Green Party members who said, what's with the support for big pharma or what's with forcing this on collective bargaining workers without a bargain?
So I think a lot of people were wakened up to it, but I think a lot of others just got way too comfy with the authoritarianism.
They loved being bossed around.
They loved complying.
They sort of felt a sense of community in it.
And here's my question to you.
Yes, they were doing, you know, they were taking it for the team.
They were doing something for the community.
Yes.
And we were protecting grandma and they were protecting the kids.
All of those things.
It gave them a sense of meaning.
It gave them a sense of belonging and meaning.
Let me urge you.
Let me urge you, Jesra.
I have another essay, an earlier essay.
I've been covering the pandemic through C2C now over the last couple of years.
And the really pertinent essay on this is a piece on the psychology of totalitarianism and how people end up buying into, and the vast majority do.
This is a sad thing.
The vast majority, even the highly educated, people who should know better, who suspend all critical thinking and feel, and whether it's the fear factor that takes over or whether it's the sense of meaning and purpose because they're in there fighting the good fight along with everybody else.
It's a community thing.
We're suffering here in our isolation.
We're doing this, you know, for whatever number of reasons.
And yes, that's how it happens.
They look for meaning.
They look for purpose.
It starts with a feeling of anxiety and isolation.
And all of a sudden, you have a reason for behaving in a certain way.
And some people can take it to such an extent.
Of course, it gets very dangerous when you, and we've seen the excesses in the worst of totalitarian systems where they start demonizing others.
Well, Trudeau got right into that.
Well, let me ask you, I think the most important question, if I may, like, there's lots of details and there's lots of scandals within the major scandal, but here's what's on my mind.
Are we more or less likely to do this again?
I mean, there will be more viruses.
I mean, we're learning that in Wuhan, China, they went out to the caves to bring the viruses back to work on them, to give them gain of function.
We're learning the terrible things that were done.
There will be more outbreaks.
I mean, Bill Gates says there will be, and he would know.
So are we more or less likely to have vaccine mandates, lockdowns, mask mandates, shutting down schools, funerals, churches, weddings?
Are we more or less likely to go through that same abuse of research?
This is rehearsal.
This is the rehearsal, Ezra.
And whether the next round results from a new virus or a mutation, or whether it's any kind of emergency.
It could be a bogus climate emergency.
And all of a sudden, I mean, where do you think the notion of 15-minute cities has come from?
And where do you think the digital currencies are coming from?
I mean, these are all de facto control mechanisms.
And yes, I mean, what has happened is you've got the amplification factor, which is, you know, once you have governments tasting the kind of power they've enjoyed and with limitless freedom to print money, to fund all this stuff, never mind, we're paying it for it all now with inflation.
Yes, absolutely, we will get more of this unless, unless those few of us who are awake to all of this and the more of us who get awake to all of this, unless we can prevent it.
And yes, it is preventable because, hey, we talk about it, just like we're talking about it right now.
Very interesting.
The essay is called The Virus, The Vaccine, the Victims, Beginning the Great Reckoning.
The author is Margaret Coppola, and the journal is c2cjournal.ca.
Great to talk with you again.
Thank you for doing this work.
And we look forward to following the reckoning, as you say, and hopefully it will come.
Great to see you.
And more to come, a more to come, I think.
Yeah.
All right.
There you have it.
Stay with us.
More ahead.
Hey, welcome back.
Your letters to me.
Citizen Jerry says, Ezra, Michael Matt, a leading voice for the traditional Catholic Latin Mass, suggested that Orwell got the story's ending wrong because he was an agnostic.
Orwell could only see the cruel tyranny of Oceania.
He missed the millions of godly people standing ready to push back against the demonic evil that seeks only to enslave the world.
But we know how the story ends.
Thanks for your consideration.
Hey, that's a great point.
That's a great point, is that faith, by definition, gives people hope where sometimes there is no rational reason to hope.
Where there's life, there's hope.
That's a Catholic saying, isn't it?
Joe B. says, What a wonderful move, Ezra, republishing Orwell's classic novel.
It certainly required reading, even a reread.
I can't help but feel we have been living through his animal farm struggle for freedom and are now engulfed in the real dystopian world of Winston Smith.
And your mention of Huxley's Brave New World is appropriate.
I said, absolutely smacks of the world economic forums.
You will owe nothing and you will be happy.
Those were gifted writers who perceived the future and gave us the warnings.
I've ordered this one.
I think you're exactly right with Brave New World.
And it's incredible how they perceived those changes decades ago, those authors.
That's our show for today.
Until tomorrow, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, see you at home.