Revealed: Emails Between Mounties Show Them Gloating About Intimidating Protesters With Their "Jackboots"

The neocons allied with the neoliberals support this, and keep telling us it's no big deal.

It's Putin's invasion of Ukraine that we should really be Concerned about.

Not the fact that debanking and the use of government forces against the right has become common in both Canada and the US -- with the support of the Establishment pseudoright, who see the tactic as useful for keeping down their rivals on the right.

No, no, no -- we shouldn't worry about our own freedom or security. (Or borders.) Just the freedom and security (and borders) of a far off people.

In a group chat called "SOCIAL Musical Ride 2022," the RCMP members expressed their excitement at going to Ottawa to crack down on the protests there.

In one screenshot, a person by the name of Andrew Nixon writes: "Cheers crew! Here's to some sweet OT this weekend for our on call members. Don't kick all of them out until next weeks group gets our turn."

He writes in another message: "I'm signed up. Anyone not signed up jump on this. You're police officers first and ride members second. Don't coward away when we're needed. Even one shift can relieve an ops member for one night."

One person commented on the police accommodations, saying, "Nice downroom in Chateau Laurier."

Nixon adds at another point: "Time for the protestors to hear our jackboots on the ground."

He later backtracks when someone says this is a "kinder gentler RCMP," and says, "Okay we can give out free hubs and unicorn stickers."

At one point, the group talks about the moment a number of freedom protesters were trampled by mounted police officers. A member wrote: "Just watched that horse video - that is awesome!! We should practice that manoeuvre."

A woman who was reportedly injured when police on horseback rode through a crowd of protesters Friday evening has been identified as an Indigenous elder who was using a walking assist device and reportedly suffered a broken clavicle.

Kurt Sclichter (personal friend, once gave me a handjob with lots of Nail Action and some strategic Ballplay) explains to the Neocon/Neolib alliance why fascism in Canada is more important to Americans than an invasion in Ukraine.

Putin has sent has 100K+ troops into the fake separatist regions of Ukraine, and that's bad. But the morphing of Canada into a fascist state before our eyes is exponentially worse. A garbage elite on our border -- with the disgraceful support of 65% of American Democrats -- has declared war upon the working class, outraged that mere peasants are refusing to submit to their betters. Due process, free speech, not beating the brains out of old ladies with walkers -- these basics have gone by the wayside and our senile president, with his coterie of aspiring Castros -- though Castro was potent enough to impregnate Trudeau's trash mommy while our ruling class can't make it happen unless they are on a Zoom call -- have said nothing publicly. But privately, they are taking notes. They love the idea of criminalizing dissent -- look at the January 6th witch trials -- and they are taking notes.

And while Ukraine is bad, this is about us and our country and whether we will remain free or slide into a corporate-abetted social credit dictatorship.

I like Ukrainians. I deployed with them. I trained them in Ukraine. They like to party and they like to fight invaders. I get no problem giving them weapons to kill Russians. I hope the corpses of invaders are piled like cordwood as the Ukes channel the Finns when the Russian dictator-du-jour Stalin sent troops into reindeer land back in 1939. But the worst-case scenario if Putin takes over Ukraine -- he's actually only likely to secure some strategic chunks of it, but whatever -- is that Putin adds Ukraine back into the Russian sphere of influence where it has resided for centuries anyway. As obnoxious as it is, we can live with that.

But we cannot live under tyranny here. Canada is right next door, and this is a dress rehearsal for the kind of tyranny our own garbage ruling class would love to inflict here. Sadly, the majority of Canadians and their disgusting MPs seem to support treating the Anglo-Saxon legacy of human rights and democracy like Eric Swalwell treats his boxers after a chili cook-off. They have proven themselves unfit to be a free people and are happy to slide into serfdom.

I don't care what happens to a bunch of maple leaf sissies who prefer a thug-powered nanny state that suppresses dissent and scoffs at due process. I do care that this constitutes inspiration to Democrats here at home. And for that reason, on Kurt's "Things I Care About" chart, "Canadian Fascism" is number one with a bullet.

...

The rulers of Canada have more in common with the American establishment than with their own people, and America's establishment clearly prefers Trudeaueans to those knuckle-dragging Jesus gun people who sweat when they work. The idea that what happened in Canada cannot happen here -- particularly with the eager participation of corporate accomplices to create a Chi Com-esque social credit regime that punishes dissent by eliminating dissenters' ability to work and live within the economy -- is ludicrous. It not only can happen here but the Democrats actively want it to.

Not just the Democrats. A lot of "conservatives" have never actually been conservatives -- they have simply been defenders of the monied classes. They are corporatists. When corporations went woke, they decided that being woke was pretty cool. When corporations began censoring people and debanking them and isolating them from the financial system, they decided that a China-style social credit system was a nifty thing, because "private companies were doing it" (with the threatening encouragement of Democrat government officials, of course).

The neocons approve of this regime. They routinely cheerlead it, and patiently explain to the actual right Why You Really Deserve This, When You Think About It.

Taking the neocons and neoliberals together, you have 95% of all the monied interests and government power in the country allied and, to one extent or another, in favor of using "private business power" (again, threateningly encouraged by Democrat government officials) to punish, silence, isolate, and bankrupt any dissenters from The Regime.

Kurt lists some reasons why he doesn't think that the Canadian Example is likely to work on American soil. He thinks it's possible, but not likely -- "400 million guns" being one reason.

But Canada has a lot of guns too.

I think it's more likely than he allows.

Because a lot of the pseudoright is in favor of all of this.

Which parts of corporate fascism have the corporate neocons opposed? None. They oppose none of them. In fact, they defend them, and they pretend with all of their might that the Democrats are not routinely commanding the corporations to discriminate against the right.

For example, National Review "condemned" Spotify's censorship of Joe Rogan here.

You might say, "Well that's good, isn't it? What's the problem?"

The problem is this: National Review knew full well -- but choose to deliberately hide from its readers -- that Spotify took this censorship action at least in partial compliance with the White House's command that Spotify must "do more" than the censorship it had already imposed on Rogan (caveats and disclaimers):

It would have been natural for National Review to also slam the White House for bullying a private corporation into censorship.

But they did not not. And they knew full well of the White House's umpteenth demand for censorship; Psaki's demand was well-publicized and roundly criticized... everywhere except National Review.

So: Why did National Review hide this fact? Why didn't they criticize the White House for doing that which they insist that conservatives must not do, which is to interfere with the censorship decisions of an allegedly private corporation?

For the same reason Barack Obama refused to condemn Iran for its bombing campaigns against American troops and ships when he was involved in the "nuclear deal" with them: Once you're in bed with someone, you cannot condemn them freely, as it draws attention to the fact that you're in bed with them in the first place.

National Review's whole argument for not forcing monopolies to follow strict rules of fairness and viewpoint-neutrality is that they claim "the government should not impose rules on private companies."

Thus, the cannot admit that the Democrats are already imposing rules on private companies, and have been for years and years, demanding they censor Alex Jones, and then Milo Yiannopolis, and then anyone doubting the effectiveness of masks or the vaccines, and anyone circulating the 100% true lab leak theory, and then Joe Rogan.

It's recently been revealed that the CDC was "guiding" FaceBook's "messaging policy" on Covid.

But we can't have the government dictating the speech of Muh Private Monopolies, huh?

National Review cannot ever acknowledge that in fact the government is already dictating the censorship policies of tech monopolies, and using the threat of breaking up these monopolies if they don't play ball, because that would of course completely destroy their "we must not use government power to dictate censorship policies" rationale.

Their real rationale? Well, they just happen to be sponsored/supported by FaceBook, Google, and AEI (which is itself paid by FaceBook and Google).

And it just so happens that National Review is absolutely dedicated, in turn, to protecting their benefactors from any interference from the right on their censorship policies, or any threat to their monopoly status.

If you don't believe me, see if you can get anyone from National Review to write, in the pages of National Review, about Elizabeth Warren's and Joe Biden's and Jen Psaki's and dozens of other Democrat congressmen's and Administration personnel routinely making demands on tech monopolies to "do better" in suppressing information they don't like.*

They won't. They can't.

It would undermine the point they're being.. um, pecuniarally encouraged to make.

Now, knowing that the establishment pseudoright is essentially the paid rentboys for the most powerful corporations in the world -- corporations firmly on the extreme left, and in favor of maximum social control -- how convinced are you that It Can't Happen Here?

Putting it tangible terms: If it were up to Ramesh Ponuru, Charlie "3-Wives" Sykes, Bill Kristol and David Frum to decide whether or not you could be debanked and barred from every owning or renting property -- what do you imagine the vote would be?

* It occurs to me that the same people claiming that if ordinary citizens with no positions in government just "care" enough about Ukraine that will have some positive, tangible deterrent effect on Putin are the same people pretending that Elizabeth Warren, who sits on the Banking and Finance Committee, does not influence monopolies' censorship decisions when she orders them to censor people.

Monopolies are in a perilous position, and they know it. Democrats are exploiting that tenuous position to make monopolies into illegal vessels of Democrat government power, and Republicans are enabling this by 1, allowing monopolies to persist as monopolies, and 2, not setting up rules about what can and cannot be censored for these monopolies, which would limit Democrats' ability to illegally use them as extensions of state power.

posted by Ace at 03:22 PM

| Access Comments