Mold by any other Name: Election Upset gives the “Greens” their Chance

by Kevin D. Annett

 Related image

 The Granola Crowd’s day has come. On May 9, British Columbia voters gave the Green Party three seats and the balance of power. Now Canada’s ostensibly environmental party will decide who will “govern” the west coast and its vast resources: the corporatist Liberals – presently holding 43 seats – or the moderate NDP with 41 seats.

For a Cambridge-educated climatologist, Andrew Weaver is a happy man. The B.C. Green leader has attained the best his party can realistically hope for on the Canadian scene, akin to the strategic position the NDP has always yearned for at the federal level: to control state policies indirectly as kingmaker. Of course, to wield such power requires a political astuteness and some actual policies to stand on. Andy Weaver and his party clearly lack both.

One would expect that a professedly “Green” party on the west coast would oppose the strip mining, oil tanker invasion and general savaging of the environment by rapacious American and Chinese cartels that is the norm in Lotus Land. Far from it. The Greens’ “platform” is indistinguishable in its vacuousness from both the Liberal and NDP programs. Andy Weaver wants better medical care, “stable communities”, ecological “sustainability” and all the other motherhood issues. But nowhere do the Greens propose legislative action to actually halt and reverse the massive war against the earth being waged by the foreign corporate interests that have always run British Columbia.

And as for Mr. Weaver himself: well, he’s a nice guy and all, but he should have stayed at Cambridge. For rather than show some substance and issue the terms under which he’d support either Left or Right, Andy has already jumped into bed with the Liberals, announcing his support for the incumbent regime without any conditions.

None of this is surprising for those of us who know the Green Party in B.C. In the spring of 1983 I was a delegate to the founding convention of that party in Vancouver. For a year I served as the Green Party chairman of its West Point Grey constitutency. And that’s about all I could tolerate. It’s not simply that the Greens lack moral fiber and ideological clarity. As I later encountered in the murky environs of the United Church of Canada, and in the immortal words of Alice B. Toklas, “There’s just no there there”.

Politically, this is hardly accidental. The west coast has always been polarized between left and right wing parties, and the latter have ruled by staying united against the bogey-man of the “socialist” NDP. Part of that unity involves drawing off NDP votes into controlled and artificial “third parties” like the Greens, which is precisely what happened on May 9. The Greens were created for just such a purpose.

In truth, like Greenpeace and other mainstream environmental groups, the Green Party is heavily controlled and funded by multinational corporate actors like Shell Oil, Canada’s Power Corporation and globalists George Soros and Maurice Strong. The Green’s tiresome slogan of “sustainability” is the codeword of the corporatist 2030 Agenda to desecrate and regiment the world. In the words of Canadian Green Party leader Elizabeth May,

“We support the call of the Global Green Congress to create a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly composed of the world’s governments that represents all the citizens of the world.” (April 7, 2012)

As in the church, most of the membership of the Greens don’t know what they belong to, nor do they seem to want to know. But even the least erudite Greenie no doubt appreciates the political power that has suddenly dropped into his or her lap. Not since 1903 has a small B.C. party held such power over the political map, when the Socialist Party and its two MLA’s forced from the governing Liberals the first laws banning child labour in the mines and creating the first injured workers compensation programs. But the Socialists of that era were put into office by the battle-hardened coal miners of Nanaimo and Cumberland, not by a melange of misled yuppies.

British Columbia is a critical spot these days in the battle between America, Russia and China for global supremacy. Its vast wealth, hydro-electric power and energy-rich resources are equally hungered after by all three nations, and now as ever, provincial politics blows with the prevailing money. China’s rising star has penetrated every level of the British Columbia government and especially its Ministry of Forests. In truth, Beijing runs the ruling Liberal government of B.C., and now, apparently, their junior partners too: the increasingly moldy ”Greens”.

To what degree this treason and perfidy will publicly emerge in the coming, post-coital months after the Liberal-Green election “victory” is anybody’s guess. But what is certain is that nothing has changed, except for the worse, for the people of the coast.

Stay tuned for more reports on criminality in high places in B.C., at and on Radio Free Kanata, Sundays at 3 pm pacific on .


The Forgiveness Fallacy: Standing by our Painful Truth

by Kevin Annett

Inline image 3

Whenever my abusive boyfriend wanted to make up with me, he’d tell me he was sorry for beating me up, and naturally, I’d forgive him. That was just a green light for him to start beating me up all over again.
- Carol M., Vancouver, February 2010

By refusing to forgive, I give up my illusions.
- Alice Miller, Breaking Down the Wall of Silence

While Harry Wilson lived he was homeless, starving, plagued by alcoholism and drug addiction, and regularly beaten and robbed on Vancouver’s meanest streets. Yet neither that suffering, nor his childhood rape and torture by a clergyman with an electric cattle prod, caused him to collapse, as had most of his fellow alumni from the death camps called Indian Residential Schools.

Most of these others never found their voice, but Harry did: and when he spoke of his life, he often ended by saying the same thing:

I’ll never forgive those bastards for what they did to me.”

Harry Wilson proved to me something I have observed over many years as a street counselor and practicing clergyman: that the people who endure torture with a semblance of self-respect are those who have never forgiven what was done to them, especially as a child.

I’ve recently begun to ask counselors and other “helping” professionals why they believe that a traumatized man or woman must forgive their abuser if they are to become well. I have yet to receive a clear or logical answer. Rather, it is simply a self-evident and unquestioned assumption of these “experts” that forgiveness is indispensable to recovery from any form of torture or abuse.

In reality, when we look beneath this surface conjecture, we find that the exact opposite is true: namely, that the most basic requirement of commencing recovery from any pain or trauma is to never surrender the capacity to remember and name the wrong and the wrongdoer, but rather to be able to freely speak about it and express our natural outrage at what has happened to us. And yet precisely such a surrender and self-silencing is required for survivors to undertake the gesture of “forgiving”, which in practice means to inwardly resign oneself to having been tortured at the hands of another who has invariably escaped justice or accountability for his crime.

According to the dominant religious, medical and psychological paradigm in our culture, “forgiving” a tormenter is inexplicably framed as a medicinal stage towards recovery, and yet must involve a unilateral, non-reciprocal act on the part of the victim that does not require the victimizer to change. “Forgiveness” is seen as a simple end in itself that will somehow magically bring about “healing”, rather than in reality being the start of a long, painful process of change that prevents the abuse from re-occurring.

The fact that, under this dominant model, the abuse can continue, and is actually encouraged to continue, doesn’t seem to count for as much as the need for supplication and self-abasement by the one who has been abused. In short, modern “therapists” seem intent on subjecting victims of trauma to precisely what is needed to sustain them in a state of unalleviated humiliation and non-recovery.

Anger and the refusal to let go of our violation is seen by such therapists as a hindrance to “moving on”, as if not accommodating to one’s wronged condition is the source of one’s problem. “Forgive and forget, and you will be better” is the unchallengeable secular creed of counseling psychology. The onus, in other words, is placed upon the victim, and not the victimizer, to change.

Why is this?

It is alarming to the extent that so-called “helping” professionals base their methods not upon provable truths but on this partisan bias towards the abuser. To do so is to operate from an underlying and very destructive assumption that there is something wrong and unhealthy about challenging or confronting one’s abusers.

In this approach, there seems to be endless room for “reconciliation” and “forgiveness” by the victim, but just so much time and space allowed for the naming of the full and terrible truth: as if the sheep cannot be “reconciled” with the wolf except by agreeing to be eaten over and over again.

More people than I care to remember have told me how their counselors have told them that healing is only possible by moving beyond their past, “having closure”, and learning to live with the injustices and betrayals done to them. Remarkably, a victim of violence is thereby being asked to repress the memory of the crime and disassociate their life from its consequences: precisely what one should not do if one is to come to grips with a traumatic experience, and not be legally and morally complicit in aiding the concealment of a crime.

Torture and rape victims are told over and over by modern “therapy” that they are somehow damaging or belittling themselves by not forgiving and forgetting those who harmed them. And so “closure” means, in practice, closing off forever one’s memories, legitimate anger, and the capacity to secure justice and personal vindication.

It is pretty clear whose interests such a self-destructive approach actually serves.

In the case of aboriginal survivors of Christian genocide, such a charade of “healing” is an obvious political maneuver by government and church-paid therapists to sideline and prevent lawsuits and protests by the survivors. But the argument is the same, whether for aboriginal or non-native refugees from childhood rape and torture: the abuser is not responsible for changing, and must ultimately be appeased and placated by being forgiven by his victims.

The fact that this attitude is so universal, and that the capacity to “forgive” their torturers is held up as some sort of qualifying morality test for victims, suggests that it arises from something more intrinsic and basic in our culture. I suggest that this something is the collective, fearful memory of parental retaliation: a fear that gives rise to our entire structure of personal and societal morality in European Christian culture which is based on a dominat​er, “winner and loser” model of social relationships.


In a nutshell, Christian morality states that goodness consists of respecting and obeying constituted authority and one’s elders, especially the ultimate parental authority: God. By definition, one cannot be wronged or abused by those in such authority because they are superior to us, and thus, are incapable of being in error in relation to us or guilty of a crime.

Or in the words of medieval inquisitors, “Holy Mother Church is never in error; only the heretic is.”

This explains, in part, why no prominent politician, church leader or other father-figure ever goes to jail or is even held accountable for the crimes and murders committed by their institution, when the law clearly requires that they be. For the terrorizing of the innocent by the mighty is in practice not only legitimate, but a functionally necessary part of any hierarchical social order.

The template of such elite-worshiping morality, of course, is the Biblical message that a “rebellious” humanity and all of creation is being punished by an all-wise father-figure “god” because his instructions were disobeyed by our original ancestors, Adam and Eve. Yet the same punishing deity offers us a way back into his graces if we will return to our original unthinking state of obedience through our blind faith in his son Jesus Christ – and in those who claim to “represent” him. If we reject this one-time offer, however, we are damned for eternity as amoral and evil people.

In this Christian paradigm, we are all inherently lost and sick souls, but we can become “moral” and well again through obedience to those powerful and dominating figures who know better than we do, whether they are familial, religious or political leaders. In short, morality and well being means unflagging obedience and conformity to the very power that harms and endangers us.

To kiss the hand that strikes you makes no sense, at the best of times. But the absolute mandate to do precisely that pervades all of our clinical and therapeutic thinking and social practice, however subtly it is disguised or elaborately it is rationalized. And so it is hardly surprising that the pressure to conform to the unchallengeable interests of authority figures conditions virtually every aspect of our lives, from religion to political activism to social and family relationships.

By this scheme, humanity is divided into the dominaters and the subjugated. In our western religious-philosophical tradition, one cannot envision anything – and in fact, nothing is allowed to operate in any substantial way – outside the bipolar dynamic between the dominater (abuser-winner) and the accommodater (the abused-loser) personalities.

Even for those unfamiliar with this prevailing paradigm of Euro-Christian culture, it remains their firm belief that they must personally forgive a wrong done to ​them if they are to avoid a crippling resentment and thirst for revenge. This attitude is especially prevalent in not only Christian circles but in allegedly “secular” treatment centers, where it’s routinely espoused that “I must forgive not for the sake of another, but for my own sake.” And after all, Jesus himself explicitly seems to condone an absolute forgiving of all those who harm us.


In reality, the word “forgiveness” in the New Testament, the Greek word aphiemi, is not an absolute moral term, but is akin to the Biblical Hebrew word for “repentance”, shuba, which means to turn around and walk in a completely different direction. Jesus was saying, simply, to not be like the person who has harmed us, but instead to be different. This is a radically dissimilar thing than saying be reconciled with one who has harmed you. Indeed, it actually means the opposite: to leave and be separated from such a person.

Further, even on the level of the moralistic claim that forgiving those who trespass against us bestows a sort of psychic and personal cleansing, the empirical evidence does not bear this out.

To try to forgive one’s abuser is to deny our most basic common sense and our capacity to freely express our feelings and defend ourselves from further attacks. Unilateral “forgiveness” is not only unhealthy and suicidal, but fosters the illusion that a wrong is somehow wiped clean by killing in oneself the desire to protect our dignity and seek restitution for our pain. Not only is this not true, but it requires that the victim feel ashamed of harboring a natural and just desire for accountability.

That is, it’s clear that when we forgive one who has abused and wronged us, we must not only repress our natural feelings but deny what we know is true for the sake of a supposed settlement with an abuser who usually shows little or no remorse for his action.

In practice, such a resolution is rarely achieved, and yet the desperate “forgiver” is not permitted to recognize this but is invariably blamed for not finding a settlement with his adversary. For only the abused, and not the abuser, must change. As a result of such masochistic assumptions, the victim becomes entrenched in an even deeper denial about his own condition, like any battered child who keeps proclaiming, “I’ve told my abusive father I love him! Why does he keep beating me?”

In this manner, the cycle of abuse and torture continues.

To accept on blind faith the efficacy and “healing power” of unilateral forgiveness is simply another form of repression and denial of one’s actual condition. By repressing one’s own truth for the sake of a phony unanimity with an abuser, the abused person must immerse himself in a permanently dissociated mental state to convince himself that his act of “forgiveness” has both redeemed his abuse and reformed his abuser – neither of which is true.

For modern “therapists” to help engender such a neurotic and fragmented psyche in those who have survived abuse and torture is not only sadistic and untherapeutic, but actually continues that affliction under another name. And yet, aided and abetted by such a fraudulent model of “therapy”, this destructive pathology is imposed most strongly on those people who have suffered most severely at the hands of others.

I witnessed this in 2010, when a strange and sad gathering of aboriginal people assembled on Parliament Hill in Ottawa to unilaterally offer to the government of Canada a so-called “Forgiveness Charter” in the name, absurdly, of everyone who ever attended an Indian residential school, the dead as well as the living.

The event was sponsored, predictably, by the very churches that ran the death camps called “schools”, acting through various puppet aboriginal politicians and preachers. But the rally was filled with hundreds of everyday survivors of rape and torture in these institutions: people who sincerely believed that their unilateral “forgiving” of the government would make everything better.

The very fact that this forgiveness was directed not to those who are actually responsible for the residential schools atrocities – the Catholic and Protestant churches themselves – but to the more distantly guilty government of Canada, spoke volumes of the deceitful and obscuring purpose of the event. Nor did the enormous pretense and travesty of publicly absolving murderers for a crime on behalf of the silent and slaughtered victims who have no say in the matter seemed not to have occurred to anyone at the rally, or to the slavish national media that widely and uncritically reported the charade.

Nevertheless, what I described earlier as the innate dread of parental retaliation that so molds our society’s notion of well being and morality was displayed everywhere at the Forgiveness Charter Rally. Each aboriginal speaker implored his fellow survivors of Christian terror to believe that much harder in Christianity, to love those who had harmed them, and to completely absolve both church and state for all the wrongs they had committed against native people: even the massacre of children.

The fear in the speakers’ eyes and voices was palpable that day, as was their pitiful hope that their torturers would approve of their words, and stop their reign of terror against them. I have seen the same look in every battered woman who is convinced that just a bit more love from her will still the blows of her husband. The hopes of the eternal victim, robbed of their own voice and the capacity to confront and then depart from their abuser, are always the same – and are never realized.

An Alternative

What would a genuine recovery, geared to the needs of the victims themselves, look like? I have given such recovery the name “Aletheia Therapy”, from the Greek word for Truth.

Aletheia means, literally, that which is not concealed, but is seen and expressed as it really is. Such genuineness is at the core of all life and recovery, but is accessible only through complete self-honesty and remembrance in a climate free of intimidation and domination.

Rather than the Christian paradigm that sees humanity as inherently debased and flawed, and in need of continual correction by a wiser external authority, Aletheia Therapy arises from the Natural Law axiom that every man and woman is born as a complete , sufficient and self-governing being who holds within themselves the key to what is necessary for their own health and recovery. Since the truth is indeed within us, it is only by remembering who we are and what we have experienced in its totality that we can find ourselves and our wholeness again.

This approach is radically in line with the teachings of Jesus, and ironically, radically counter posed to the heritage of institutional Christianity and western patriarchy, and its authoritarian insistence that we respect and reconcile with our abuser-dominater.

In short, we begin by ignoring such a “forgiveness imperative” in dealing with our own pain and trauma, and begin instead from the first and fundamental necessity of knowing our own truth by always retaining our capacity to speak freely for ourselves about who and what has caused our affliction. Doing so, we can avoid the self-defeating pitfalls of silencing ourselves and burying our feelings for the sake of our abusers.

By not worrying about forgiveness, we free ourselves from any illusion about our actual condition, and we retain our capacity to speak freely about what we feel and know is true. Time and again I have observed in trauma healing circles that only when victims have reached such a stage of inner freedom can genuine recovery from self-isolating destructiveness begin.

In the words of Alice Miller, “To live with one’s own truth is to be at home with oneself. That is the opposite of isolation.”

My fondest and most inspiring memory of such actual recovery occurred not in a healing circle at all, but at a public protest inside the sanctuary of the Roman Catholic cathedral in downtown Vancouver just before Easter in 2007. Aboriginal survivors of torture in Catholic residential schools held aloft their banners and signs, and spoke to the congregation of the crimes committed against them by their church, and in the process burst apart their own fears.

The same men and women who could not enter a catholic church or see a crucifix without becoming nauseous because of the awful memories of their torture as children strode bravely and calmly amidst the pews that day and handed leaflets to the dumbstruck crowd.

Remarkably, these survivors faced down the threats of policemen and priests that day, and stated their case to them without a trace of fear; and then they peacefully left the building to the sound of their own drum beats, laughter, cheers and joyful triumph.

Outside, as we all hugged and congratulated one another, a permanent cloud of despair seemed to lift from the native men and women gathered there, and during the following week, several of them actually stopped drinking and doing drugs, for the first time in many years. Time and again these people would remark, “I really showed them this time” or “I’m not afraid of them anymore”.

What had caused this incredible change that day was summed up by one of the victors, a native man named William Combes, when he said later on my radio program,

I thought I was going to crap out and let you all down, but then I saw you outside the church and it gave me the courage to walk up those steps with you. Then inside the church you all kept me safe. Just doing the right thing with everybody made me feel safe. Just speaking the truth to those bastards and facing down the priests, then I didn’t fear them. I didn’t give a shit anymore what they could do to me. I was angrier at what they’d done to all my little friends at residential school. I felt like a man for the first time ever.

On that glorious day, William and the others reminded me that when the battered victims finally speak and act in their own name without thought of their abuser is when the true process of recovery begins: not just for victims but for all of us, by making justice an actuality. And such justice, and the equality it breeds, always precedes any possibility of the kind of mutual forgiveness that abolishes all distinctions of winners and losers.

Standing by our own painful truth is as necessary as standing by one another – and as dangerous to a society like ours which is based on domination and torture. In times like these, just naming what we feel and know to be true is a subversive act, and will become more difficult to do in the face of ever-growing oppression by the few who rule by psychically dominating a crippled and traumatized majority.

It is perhaps for this reason that, among establishment educators, counselors and “helping professionals” whose devotion to the political status quo is as solid as their own dogma, encouraging such inner freedom and the owning of one’s own truth among the abused and victimized is seen as rank heresy and, in the words of one psychologist, “can be dangerously provocative.”

So be it. Our aim, after all, is to turn the world upside down. For once we unite and confront those who are the cause of our torment, there begins to grow something even greater than healing, or forgiveness, and that is transformation, both of ourselves and a hierarchical and oppressive society that requires that we remain dissociated and brutalized people.

On one of the last times I ever saw William Combes, he handed me a scrap of paper with a brief poem he’d found that summed up his triumph. It read,

I looked for healing, but healing escaped me. I sought after God, and I searched for love, but neither could I  see. I found myself, and I discovered all three.




Inline image 2

​The author (right) and Canadian Genocide survivor Harry Wilson, 1997​


On Growing Up and Moving Out: Some Advice to Targeted Individuals

by Kevin D. Annett

April 20, 2017

Image result for broken shackles

A subconscious need to please and placate our parents arising from the guilt that we have not lived up to their expectations: this attitude conditions our view of authority. And so like any untreated abused child, when authority attacks or threatens us we tend to defer to it, rushing into its arms and seeking relief and understanding from it, the very force that is oppressing us. Even the most politically conscious or self-aware individual falls prey to this infantile psychic condition, which is that of the trapped child unable to challenge and leave its parental sphere or even imagine a world outside such authority. Until we have released ourselves from this dreadful chimera, any possibility of fundamental social change or even effective dissent is pure illusion. - Erich Fromm


This past week, not surprisingly, two of my friends who have publicly challenged ritual child torture and trafficking in Canada were suddenly attacked and threatened with the loss of their children or their professional livelihood. Their response to this assault has been the same: to seek relief within the courts of the very authority that is attacking them.

Neither of these friends are uninformed or naive individuals; on the contrary, they have fought the system for years and understand its implacable and criminal nature. But when personally struck and threatened with losing what they love, their first reflex has been to toss their understanding out the window with the discredited belief that “things can be worked out” with their attacker. They refuse to see that they have both been targeted for elimination because of who they are. And so they both anxiously exclaimed to me,

“What alternative do I have but to negotiate?”

“Walk away from them” I answered. “Seek out your own justice.”

“But that will just get me in worse trouble” was their timid refrain.

Max Planck was a smart old man, for a scientist. A century or more ago he discovered that all matter is actually energy, despite its appearance of solidity. And not being exempt from the laws of the universe, society is like that, too. An apparently immoveable institution is in fact a constantly-changing energy field that is either fed or dissipated. And each of us, also being energy, can either nourish it or redirect its energy, once we know our own true nature.

The particular energy signal of the thing that is attacking my two friends this week feeds off fear, and directs it to paralyze and capture the energy of its targets. That’s always how a criminal institution deals with its critics: by nudging or bludgeoning them back into the fold where they can be fed off, or wiped out. And the reason that usually works is because even the most erudite activist or specialist has not mastered their own energy signal – what Sun Tzu inThe Art of War calls the “shih” – and so must habitually hand it over to their adversary with the helpless and fearful attitude: “What else can I do?”

Let’s talk basics. We and our children and nature itself are all facing a global war of extermination. We all are at risk just living in the 21st century because we are in a state of permanent war. And yet when we clash with the system waging war on us and attacks begin against us, we respond like people who are in a state of peace. We rely on a humanity and good will in our enemy that is not there. In short, we are not mentally geared to the conditions of war, which is a fatal condition to be in.

Being at war means operating according to a rock solid realism, which means seeing situations and opponents as they are and not as we want them to be: including when those forces attack us personally. And that’s the hard part. For as any perusal of the internet shows us, it’s easy for us to have solutions to dangers brought against others. But when the same dangers strike at us, we tend to run for cover behind the barricade of our own illusions and our dependency on the very system that is seeking our compliance or our destruction.

Growing up and moving out from dependency is never an easy thing to do, especially for one who is acclimatized to the pseudo-securities of job, family and home. The mental cage that keeps us bound to the status quo, despite all our best intentions, consists of our careful calculating of our actions according to what we might gain in relation to what we might lose. The kept soul always wants a way out of any risky situation and some absolute guarantee of safety before they act.

In reality, the issue is never about the risk involved in any conflict but rather our own fear of loss and ending. Until that fear is faced and surmounted and we recover our own shih, we are inwardly helpless before any close attack pressed against us. And our adversary knows that very well.

Sun Tzu said that in any battle, whatever we love makes us vulnerable, and must therefore be relinquished. My two friends are indicating by their actions that they are unwilling to do so. And consequently their enemy knows exactly how to control them and direct their shih energy.

Common sense (and Sun Tzu) tells us that when facing a more powerful adversary, we must not engage it on its terms but withdraw in order to dissipate its attack and find the space and time to act on our own terms. But walking away from their enemy is not an option for either of my friends: not simply because of their fear of doing so but more fundamentally because they are still caught in the mindset and shih energy of their enemy.

For example, the immediate concern of both of my friends was what not what they themselves would do next, but what their adversary would do. Their eyes were on another rather than their own substance. In fact, when attacked, we must never respond on the terms of our enemy, which only feeds its power. Rather, we create our own terrain and terms of battle. For whoever sets the terms tends to win the battle, if experience teaches us anything. But to do that we must first focus on and garner our own shih.

Regardless of your size in relation to a big institution, you can set the terms and define the terrain of the battle, provided that you don’t first surrender your shih to your opponent.

But what is equally true is that you can’t do so alone. Rather than even respond to the letters or threats of your adversary, you must first seek out others who will help you establish your own power. You must create a collective counterweight to what is assaulting you, since it is near-impossible for one individual on their own to break from the status quo and establish their own shih. An equal counterweight is needed to a big power: that’s just simple physics. And so you must immediately go public, make a stink, and rally others to you, if only to show your enemy that you are not alone.

I recommended this response to both of my friends, but neither of them could hear me. Their only concern was what the bad guy might do to them next, and how they could individually avoid being hurt. They were afraid of others knowing what happened to them in case that might upset the adversary and “compromise” a settlement. Such a capitulated, defensive mentality has already lost my friends the battle, since they have surrendered their own autonomy and capacity to maneuver and respond on their own terms, which is the only safeguard of a smaller force against a bigger one.

Anyone who is targeted for institutional destruction faces exactly these same dilemmas and choices. The targeted individual learns very quickly that their biggest weakness is their own learned deference to authority: to not upsetting the raised hand of the parental figure. But for those who have let go of the conditioned habit to win the approval of authority, they quickly learn that their capacity to out maneuver and overcome their bigger and more cumbersome opponent is limitless.

Fear, as always, is the main barrier to such empowerment. Most people still don’t believe me when I tell them I have no regular income and have no worry about where it will come from. They do not understand me because they have not personally experienced the liberating effect of losing everything and everyone in one’s life and yet still being alive and capable. Once the fear of death is gone, an eternal life and power is opened in each one of us. And that power is the only safeguard of anyone suddenly caught in the cross hairs of tyranny.

My two friends who are battling in fear this week do not understand that fact yet in a way that will cause them to act differently. They will have to learn from their own pain and experience that what is actually being asked of them by their adversary is not a mere compliance with wrong but the surrender of their very substance. Energetically, that is after all the nature of the parasitic corporate entity that we all face: it wants to incorporate all of us into itself, which literally means to make us dead, as part of its own corpse. But for that to happen what must die first is our belief in ourselves and our own capacity to say no and act on our own terms, regardless of the dangers facing us.

George Bernard Shaw once said, “The only real fear that nags at official authority is not that the people will resist it, but that they will ignore it.”

Go forth and do so, and reclaim the world.


Author’s Note:  More of the strategy and outlook in this article is elaborated in my book Truth Tellers Shield: A Whistle Blower’s Manual which can be ordered at and

In a Mirror, Darkly: Some Advice to a Holocaust Denier from Kevin D. Annett

News item: Ottawa, March 8, 2017 – Canadian Senator Lynn Beyak defends Indian residential schools, claims “they didn’t mean to harm anybody”

Inline image 1     Inline image 2

Senator Lynn Beyak


Dear Lynn,

It’s been said that life in the Canadian Senate is so droll that all you can hear is the sound of cud-chewing and pork barreling. So I want to thank you for proving all those cynics wrong. I had no idea that your snug little coterie of hack political appointees could produce a thinker of such unusual originality as yourself!

What a breath of fresh air to actually hear a Canadian politician claim that black really is white, and with such absolute conviction! And to think that I had lost hope in the capacity of any of our leaders here in the Great White North to master Machiavellian realpolitick. Well done, I say!

Senator, I grant you an A plus in terms of effort, but if you allow me, I have some counsel for you concerning the best way to propagate your particular Big Lie. In a word, you’re too brash. Subtlety, after all, is always the best way to conceal Group Crime and convince people it never happened: something your Senate colleague Murray “Mister TRC Whitewash” Sinclair knows only too well.

Tone down your hyperbole, first of all. Even the most lily white, Injun-fearing Canuck is going to find it hard to swallow when you claim that your typical child-whacking priest was “only trying to do good” to all them savages. I mean, come on Lynn. Going out on a rhetorical limb like that just allows your self-righteous critics to cut you down with a simple citing of the constant fifty percent death rate among all those brown kids in what you call “residential schools”.

The Big Lie, in short, has to be convincing.

Next point: to the neutral observer, you’re acting like a straight man in somebody else’s pre-arranged script. I mean, just look at how every aboriginal fat cat is jumping all over your words like a child rapist in heat. You’re handing Murray Sinclair, Pat Brazeau and all the other Sultans of Sellout the perfect way to pose as champions of the very people – their fellow Indians – who they’ve been screwing for years. Is that what you really want?

And as for your claim that the Christian internment camps actually saved rather than took the lives of the brown kids: again, there you go way out on a limb again, without any backup. Why not line up the usual gang of ass-kissing, around-the-fort ab-original “survivors” to publicly endorse your claim and affirm how wonderful life was in the camps? God knows, there are enough of them around. And they don’t charge much, either.

Finally, try to toss a few rhetorical crumbs to the beast known as Political Correctness. It’s the best way to disarm your critics. Give us a few lines about healing and reconciliation. Us pale Canucks love to hear those words. They make us feel so good about ourselves, which is after all the whole point of the exercise: especially now that we’re all part of a convicted criminal conspiracy.

Admittedly, none of these errors may be all that important in the long run considering what a splash you’re making in the press and among a whole lot of us pale Canucks. Finally there’s emerged a leader who says what all of them down-home churchgoers have felt but, being Canadians, have never said: that the Injuns have just had it too good and are milking us all dry, and shit, may even end up owning the whole frigging place again!

I hope you’re considering running for Prime Minister. Or maybe that’s what this is all about.

In any event, to really master the art of deception, Lynn, you have to understand the details of what you’re trying to spin. Knowing your enemy is the key to winning any battle, after all. So I urge you to look over some of the hard evidence of life and death in your alleged Fun O Rama called Indian residential schools, held in my twenty-year composition entitled Murder by Decree ( I wrote it to put a cattle prod up the nether regions of Murray Sinclair, so you should get a kick out of it.

One of the many survivors I quote in my book, Sylvester Green, was on the burial detail of the United Church camp in Edmonton during the 1960′s. He must have stuck over a hundred other kids in the ground over the two years he was incarcerated there, before he escaped.

Sylvester told me once that on Christmas Eve he and the other kids were given clean clothes for a change and then paraded in front of a local all-white congregation to sing Christmas carols for all the happy and appreciative Christian folks. Then Sylvester and the other children would be carted back to the camp and rewarded for their singing by getting to choose from among their number which of them would be raped and worse by Reverend Jim Ludford and his buddies. Normally the children had no choice.

I just thought you’d appreciate Sylvester’s account of how the system wasn’t so bad after all.


Kevin Annett