Ezra Levant examines CTV’s study showing 50% of young Canadian men aged 19–29 struggle with "problem anger," up from 22%, blaming systemic pressures like $1T+ housing costs and job insecurity while questioning feminist media’s role in demonizing masculinity. He critiques Mark Carney’s NATO-compliant military reclassification gimmick—turning 45-year-old bureaucrats into reservists—while Tracy Wilson warns of government overreach against gun owners, despite recent bans. Levant ties this to Justin Trudeau’s Proud Boys terrorist designation and the CFIA’s brutal, whistleblower-confirmed ostrich culling in BC, exposing a pattern of suppressing dissent through agency intimidation, raising concerns about eroding property rights and male disconnection from traditional outlets like military service or fraternal clubs. [Automatically generated summary]
The CTV has a study that shows that young men are angsty and angry.
I think they're right.
I think it's obvious, but what do we do about it?
I'll show you CTV's view and then I'll tell you my own.
But first, let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
It's the video version of this podcast.
Just go to rebelnewsplus.com, click subscribe, eight bucks a month.
And not only do you get great video content, but you support Rebel News.
We rely on that dough because we take no money from the government and it shows.
Tonight, why does society make it so hard for young men?
I'll show you a new survey that tries to answer that and a TV station trying to figure out who to blame.
It's November 12th, and this is the Ezra Levant show.
Shame on you, you censorious bug.
I saw this tweet on CTB, which I am increasingly of the view, is just as much a mouthpiece of the liberal government as the CBC is.
Here's a tweet here: Half of young Canadian men are at risk of problem anger, survey finds.
And my antenna are out for what a feminist outlet like CTV would do here.
If men have mental health challenges, obviously blame the men.
There's a little bit of that undercurrent here, I think, in the wording.
But let me read the story a bit for you.
Which says, Half of young Canadian men risk letting their anger interfere with their daily life, relationships, and work.
New research suggests.
A survey conducted for intentions consulting and the Canadian Men's Health Foundation found that 50% of men between the ages of 19 and 29 are at risk of quote problem anger compared to just 22% of all Canadian men.
The findings reveal a troubling reality and warn of deeper stress and disconnection from support system for young men, the CMHF said in a Wednesday press release.
All right, I suppose it's sort of neutral so far.
Let me read some more because the next line actually surprised me a little bit, and it surprised me that CTV published it.
It's startling but not shocking, CMHF president and CEO Kenton Boston told CTV News Channel on Wednesday.
Boston said young men, like many Canadians, experience economic stressors, including affordability concerns, job insecurity, and a lack of housing options.
Now, I think that's true.
And I'd add in more, like the entire entertainment industry demonizing men, especially young men, as toxic.
Like the entire world denigrating masculinity and promoting, I don't know, transgenderism instead.
That Health Foundation spokesman mentioned affordability, jobs, and housing.
I can combine those words all into one: immigration.
That's why wages are low.
That's why inflation is up.
That's why housing is so high.
It just is.
Let me read some more.
There's also the switch that's happened in society about masculinity and the negative conversations that are often associated with that now.
And that all combines to put pressure on young men in particular, he said.
Right.
Like CTV, a feminist, leftist, anti-male advocacy group posing as a news station.
The story then quotes some results from the study.
The survey found that 39% of Canadian men between 19 and 29 reported a violent impulse when getting angry within the last month compared to 16% of all Canadian men.
Boston said, it's important for young men to develop ways to deal with their anger before an impulse turns into action.
Incidents of where your fuse is shorter than it normally is, those are the real signs about things to be challenged and looked into to make sure there is support to help to alleviate that angst and anger.
So he's saying that young men are angrier than older men.
I actually think that's been true for all history.
Young men are full of vim and vigor and instinct to travel and explore and fight and go on adventures and prove that they're men.
Young men traditionally joined the army or they, you know, found other adventures in business that had similar mindsets like thoughtful risk-taking and endurance.
I have no doubt that young men are angrier at a system that has jacked up housing beyond their reach, which then makes marriage less feasible.
Marriage, of course, transforms male impulses into productive ones, earning a living, protecting the family.
You can't do that without a family, and you can't get a family without a house.
But what's the advice of this expert?
He wants it to be sure that there is support to help to alleviate that angst and anger.
You know, maybe I'm just a skeptic, but I don't know if therapy, typically that's with a middle-aged female psychologist, I don't know if therapy is an answer for young men feeling stressed and angsty.
I just don't think that calling some government helpline is how it works in the real world with young men.
I don't think sharing your feelings with an expert works in many cases, let alone for young men.
I think men have traditionally hung out with other men, role models, colleagues, peers, not whining and crying, but just being guys in pubs, in a club, a men's club.
There used to be those.
And I'm not talking about a dance club.
I mean, for generations, there were men's clubs and women's clubs, I suppose, but mainly men's clubs, a place where they could get away.
It's sort of like the man cave in a house.
Rotary club, lions club, even a bowling league.
There were male things to do.
A ton of different clubs.
Some of them were a little bit quirky, to be sure, but it was a place for guys to be guys, just even for a few hours a week.
These days, those are all called sexist.
And often a same-sex club has been sued into oblivion.
Fraternities are practically banned from colleges.
Groups like the Proud Boys, started by our alumnus, Gavin McInnes, that's basically a masculine club that venerated the West.
That was actually deemed a terrorist group by Justin Trudeau, with no basis, by the way.
Public Servants and Firearms00:15:02
I don't know.
I think the study is right.
Men are angry, especially young men.
I think the study halfway gets the explanation for why.
I think it failed in the what are we going to do about it part.
I think part of the reason that young men are becoming nihilist trolls like that Nick Fuentes is because the usual outlets for male aggression, having a healthy relationship with a wife and building a family and shouldering the heavy burden and making a living for the whole family, that would take all a man's energy and angst.
You'd be exhausted.
But all of those things have been Removed as they've been removed for women, too.
No wonder the birth rate is plummeting.
And the globalist left solution, replacement immigration, only makes the problem worse.
Stay with us for more.
Hi, everybody.
Remember yesterday when I told you about this big idea for Mark Carney to expand the size of our military, not by actually hiring more soldiers who are ready to fight as warriors, but by calling existing civil servants soldiers for the purpose of tricking the United States and saying, no, no, Donald Trump.
You see, we have doubled our defense budget because we're simply calling paper pushers in the Department of Whatever.
We're calling them part of the reserve now.
It's sort of ridiculous.
You know, here's the phrase from David Pugliac's report in the Ottawa Citizen.
You heard me say this yesterday.
They'll shoot guns, drive trucks, and fly drones.
I have to tell you, I have done all three of those things, and they're fun.
It's like the old joke about the American ATF, Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Bureau.
That does sound like a party.
Is it good defense?
Is it good economics?
Does it make any sense?
Joani has to talk about this as someone who thinks a lot about firearms.
It's our friend Tracy Wilson with the Canadian Coalition for Firearms Rights.
Tracy, great to see you again.
Thanks for having me, Ezra.
I'm really happy to be here.
You know, it's a very strange story.
My first thought was: this is wacky.
I don't even get it.
My second thought was, ah, this is a trick to reclassify paper-pushing bureaucrats as military expenses.
It's just an accounting trick.
My third idea, my third thought that I thunk was maybe it'll get people who would never in their lives have touched a firearm.
Maybe it'll get them some firearms training.
Maybe it'll normalize gun ownership, I thought.
Anyway, those are some of my thoughts.
What did you think of when you heard this sort of cockamame idea to get paper-pushing bureaucrats to become a kind of reserve?
Well, I can tell you that although I have never personally served in the military, I'm not a veteran, there's about 70 years of military experience sitting at my dining room table.
And, you know, hearing this, it sounds like something out of South Park.
It was, you know, it all relates back to a directive signed by the Chief of Defense Staff, General Jenny Karignan, where she's looking for ways to increase the reserve force.
Of course, it's not only is the Army completely understaffed in Canada, but so are our reserve force and our supplementary reserves.
And she's looking to boost that by 300,000, which is insane.
So this would include one week of training.
They'd learn how to handle firearms, drive trucks, fly drones.
They would prioritize public servants over regular average citizens by reducing those entry requirements, such as age and physical ability and fitness.
So personally, I think it's a recipe for disaster.
I think the Canadian military has a rich, solid history in producing some of the world's greatest warriors.
And I think that this idea sort of diminishes that.
I took a little run over to the Reddit thread with the public servants on there, and they're pretty much saying the same thing.
So it's hilarious.
They're making fun of their own co-workers in there.
And, you know, at the end of the day, I see what Carney's trying to do here.
You are right.
He is trying to fluff up those numbers to show that he is investing in defense spending.
But at the same time, our existing regular force members are working with broken or out-of-date kit.
You know, they're missing things.
They're eating expired moldy rations.
You know, there's all kinds of places where we can invest money in our military, aside from crossing over paper pushers to call them, you know, makeshift warriors.
You know, I think it's designed to trick Trump, although I don't think he'll trick him.
I think it's designed to trick the public, but mainly it's to fool ourselves.
I mean, no one thinks that this will be part of a fighting force.
I mean, and I really don't, I have a tough time imagining someone who is, you know, the average age of the civil servants is 45.
And listen, I'm not saying 45-year-olds can't do things, but when I think of the military, I think of young men in their 20s, physically top fitness, who can run, who can march, who can do pull-ups, who can, like, I think of the same thing when I think of firemen.
If you're not able to carry someone over your shoulder down the stairs, don't become a fireman.
It's not, quote, discrimination, other than in the true meaning of the sense, if you can't do it, you're not allowed to do it.
I don't know.
I just, I think that it's the most unserious thing I've heard in ages.
Yes.
And it so contrasts so starkly with Pete Hegaseth's warrior culture that he's bringing back in the States.
Yeah, I would agree with you on that.
And like, look, there are a lot of positions within the military that are administrative, that are, you know, people sitting at a desk doing paperwork like that.
But those people don't need firearms handling or learn how to fly a drone.
So if you're looking to repurpose public servants as a measure to reduce spending in the public service and increase your military spending, that's, you know, presented as that.
But don't try to pretend that you're going to take, you know, 50 or 60 year old people.
And like, I mean, I'm in that category, right?
And send them out there to be soldiers.
Yeah, I think it's dishonest.
And I think that on the world stage, it's sort of, it looks like buffoonery.
And I worry about, you know, the degradation of our Canadian military history when it's almost become like an internet meme at this point.
Yeah.
You know, I don't want to make light of it, even though it's so goofy, but it does sound like a low-budget movie starring Eugene Levy as some, you know, 70-year-old civil servant who somehow, through a typographical error, gets recruited into the military.
Like I could just picture him and his eyebrows just going full tilt and maybe Catherine O'Hara again.
You know, basically the crew from Shitt's Creek.
Like it's so goofy.
There's so many rich storylines, but that's because it's all making the Canadian forces the punchline of a joke.
And whenever I see something in the military about, you know, we want to reduce the carbon footprint of our military vehicles, we have to be aware of the carbon footprint.
I think, what would Xi Jinping think?
What would Vladimir Putin think?
What would be, and both of those countries, by the way, are trying to make claims in the Arctic.
Like, this is not all theoretical.
Both China and Russia have ambitions for the far north.
How does training, you know, a pink collar or white-collar civil servant in Ottawa to drive a truck have anything to do with protecting our Arctic?
There's also this other theory that I have.
You know, it's almost like a dystopian idea of disarming your trained and tested civilians at the same time that you're militarizing your bureaucratic adversaries.
Wow, wow, wow.
Like, I'm not, you know, I'm trying to loosen the tinfoil in my hat here, but I can't help but think about this.
You know, over the last six years of this liberal regime, we've got gun ban after gun ban on people like me who are already tested.
We are trained.
We are vetted.
We already know how to use those things.
Then they decide to ban those.
Then they decide to talk about maybe taking them away from us, confiscating them, and sending them to Ukraine.
And now, all of a sudden, in the midst of all this, instead of dropping that plan and maybe looking at the civilian firearm ownership community for the possibility of reservists, now they're looking at a bunch of paper pushers and talking about arming them up.
So I don't know.
I think when you have a government that is disarming its tested and trained citizens at the same time that it's arming up its bureaucrats, I don't know.
It just, it makes it even worse than a South Park joke.
You know, that's a very dystopian scenario you've just outlined.
I just came back from the ostrich farm in BC, where there was an enormous amount of government firepower.
The protesters, the farmers, completely peaceful, not even a hint of resistance or force.
But the CFIA, the Canadian Food and Inspection Agency, the RCMP had a huge show of force.
And then there was these anonymous marksmen, as they were called, that were brought in to shoot hundreds of birds overnight.
Well, and it sort of speaks to that property rights issue.
You know, when we started our federal court challenge against the gun ban, we looked at it, excuse me, as more of a property rights thing.
Like, can the government come into your home or into your space and take away things from you that you've legally owned with no, you know, you've done nothing to warrant that.
And unfortunately, so far in the court battle, we've seen that the truth is yes.
So whether it's your firearms or your ostriches, the government can take or destroy anything it wants from you.
And that's, you know, that's something that all Canadians should have a look at.
What's next down the line?
I feel like gun owners were just the canary in the coal mine, and we may see more of this type of behavior.
You're so right.
And I think a lot of political extremism by the government is only possible with a disarmed population.
Like I'm not sure if that absurd, nonsensical, anti-science bullying ostrich massacre would have happened in a place like Texas or Florida.
I think it would more likely happen in a place like Canada that is completely disarmed and where the government is getting more and more audacious.
And of course, let me just clarify, if anyone misunderstands me, I'm not saying that anyone should have used firearms to stop the government.
I'm not saying that.
But there is some reason in the Second Amendment and the United States that the people have some power reserved to them in case all hellblight breaks loose.
Like the U.S. Revolutionary War has been lawfully vindicated in the form of the U.S. Constitution.
I don't know.
I just think a lot of bad things are happening because we are becoming physically weaker and weaker and the government is becoming physically stronger and stronger.
Yeah, well, that's another reason why Canadians should really have a look at this.
I mean, look, I get it.
There are, you know, with the budget and the state of the economy that tenures of the Trudeau government and now the Kearney government has put us in.
Yes, there needs to be cuts to the bloated public service.
I understand that.
And yes, we need to find better ways to recruit people into the military and to retain the people that are already there who are good soldiers.
This, I don't believe, is the way.
So I, you know, I think that unfortunately it's it makes a fool of us on the world stage.
And sometimes that matters more than anything.
So I worry about those things.
Tracy, thanks so much for spending some time with us.
Good luck out there.
Keep up the fight.
Thanks, Ezra.
All right, there it is.
Tracy Wilson from the Canadian Coalition of Firearm Rights.
Stay with us more ahead.
Hey, welcome back.
Your letters to me about this scheme to turn bureaucrats into soldiers.
Let me read those letters.
Jojo Paggs 6667 says, sounds like a new movie like Police Academy coming soon.
That's exactly what I was thinking.
I thought it would be sillier than that because, I mean, you could just imagine, I mean, and I'm not picking on civil servants really, but the average age of a civil servant is the average demographic is a late 40s woman who works at a desk.
I got nothing against late 40s women who work at a desk, but that's not a demographic that's going to go to war.
It just isn't.
Papa Bear 187 says, how many of those public servants are new Canadians that won't pass a security check?
Well, that's another thing, is we've reduced the standards to be in the Canadian military.
I'm not smart enough to have an opinion on should people who are permanent residents or applying to become citizens join the army.
But these days, I would be nervous if we had foreign nationals who haven't sworn an oath of allegiance to Canada.
I'd be nervous if they were in the military.
And I don't know the answer off the top of my head, but I bet that they are allowed in.
And I don't know if that makes sense in this day and age.
Entity 752 says you are missing the big picture.
The cost of these employees will be woven into Canada's 2% contribution to NATO.
This is how they will go from 1.3% to 2%.
No, that was my first instinct.
That's my biggest point, is it's all an accounting trick.
It's just like what Mark Carney did when he claimed he was going to hire a thousand new border guards to stop migration and drugs across the border.
No, he just renamed all paper pushers in the department as border guards, even though none of them had ever been near the border and didn't guard anything.
Exact same thing here.
The question is, will Trump be fooled?
I don't know.
I don't think Trump pays a lot of attention to Canada, but every once in a while he certainly does.
People Refuse to Come Forward00:06:25
I think this is just a trick.
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, and keep fighting for freedom.
Absolute horror.
That is what I captured for you and what I witnessed firsthand on November 6th and 7th in Edgewood, British Columbia at Universal Ostrich Farms.
The farmers, their loved ones, their neighbors and supporters screaming through the evening as hundreds of bullets riddled through the night, impaling what was their healthy, vibrant flock of over 300 ostriches.
What some of the supporters are seeing, and I'm going to make a phone call to Katie's cousin, who is also breaking.
It sounds as though gunshots are being heard at the pen.
My birds are getting shot.
I know they have died.
They're stopping.
They're not getting shot in the head.
They're not doing that humanity.
The CFIA, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, under the Liberal government, hired professional marksmen to corner these ostriches in droves into a pen and hunt them down.
Many of you saw some of the horrific footage from that night.
It symboled the end of the save the ostriches battle and the beginning of avenging the ostriches.
I'm Drea Humphrey with Rebel News and to start that at our special website called avenge theostriches.com.
Today I interview a whistleblower of sorts who was brought to my attention by Sean Rickard, a Canadian businessman who's still challenging the federal government over COVID-19 overreach.
This whistleblower, whom I identified, is a seasoned person in the industry who will be keeping anonymous, who is an expert when it comes to culling.
He is going to speak to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's claims that what they did on that night was humane.
Here's what he has to say.
Tell us why it was so important for you to come forward with what you're feeling and what you believe.
When I saw what happened, having such experience in the industry, I knew that there was no way it was humane.
It was done at night under floodlight and those animals would have been running around.
Normally when you euthanize an animal, you have it in a confined space.
Some animals do get stressed, but you normally have it confined where it can't run around or move consistently because if you don't get a direct shot, you don't euthanize the animal instantly.
To put two guys in towers, as I believe it, and just take random shots at an ostrich is not fair.
An ostrich runs at, I think it's 43 or 45 miles an hour.
I don't believe there's any marksman in the world that would get a direct hit into the brain of an animal that's running 43 to 45 miles an hour, with an ostrich head being probably 10 square centimeters.
And it just outraged me.
And in your expert opinion, could you please describe what you think would have been the most humane way to have gone ahead and done this?
The most humane way would have been to round all the animals up, put them in through a shed and walk them through a crack, like you do with most animals when you drench them or you shorn them, and then put the bag over the head, walk them into a confined area, and then put a euthanasia gun directly on the head.
Pull the trigger.
One shot.
Bang.
Dead.
You wouldn't take your pet dog or your cow to a place and let someone take four or five shots and putting it to sleep.
When you take your dog to the vet, they give an injection.
That's humane.
When you put a cow down on a farm, you shoot it in the head.
That's humane.
When you slaughter meat for human consumption, you shoot it once straight into the brain.
That's humane.
You would not stand a cow out on a farm and say, we're going to eat it and just take nine or ten shots at it and hope you hit a bottle open and kill it.
What can you say about how fast it was done?
Everything I had researched ahead of time indicated this was going to take a while.
I would say it probably took around six hours for them to go ahead and slaughter hundreds of ostriches.
Do you make anything of that?
No, that was not the quickest and most humane way to do it.
I think it was done as a message to serve a lot of people.
I think there will be more to come when they start looking at poultry.
And also the other thing is, I don't really notice ostriches are not poultry.
They are red meat.
There is a difference.
Yes, that's what the farmers tried to argue.
Even our Canadian government specifies that, yet the CFIA would not budge when it came to these healthy ostriches.
This is definitely planned because they said that for starters, the appeals court wouldn't even look at it.
They kicked it out before they got there.
And why wouldn't the CFIA let the people retest it?
That would be like saying, sorry, your dad's got cancer and then we can give him made.
And you say, well, let's get a second opinion.
And they say, oh, no, we just can give him made.
So sad.
Too bad he's dead now.
You don't do that.
You just don't do that.
Now you're an expert.
You've come forward.
What can you tell us?
Is it just you or do you know that other people in the industry are feeling the exact same way?
People that own slaughterhouses are outraged as well, but they cannot be seen to come forward.
The CFIA can shut them down.
And as we know, if you go against a government in this country, you tend to not do very well in the future.
Well, again, I thank you so much for your bravery for coming forward.
We will, of course, conceal and protect your identity.
Very important information.
Humane or horrific?
You tell me in the comments whose side of this story you believe.
I'm Drea Humphrey with Rebel News, and you can support our ongoing investigation into the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's handling of this so-called call at avenge theostriches.com.