Bright Morning

Hello and welcome to the thirtieth (!) issue of the Bright Morning newsletter. This week, our stories are about the phenomenon on social media whereby minority perspectives are presented as mainstream wisdom. This is something that we touched upon last week when the idea of “canceling” Canada Day was presented as common sense. As we will see here, this phenomenon extends across all subjects. Whether it is COVID or political revolutions, social media companies bait viewers with a trending topic and then switch the narrative to present the opposite of truth.| COVID-19Vaccine passports and fascism: two interlocked, minority perspectivesReaders of this newsletter will know how much we oppose the concept of vaccine passports. The idea that an individual should be coerced into displaying his or her medical information in order to access a service is nothing short of authoritarian fascism. It demands compliance and the subjugation of the individual. As well, the logical end point of vaccine passports is segregation. This is because there will always be a substantial minority of individuals who choose to refuse medical intervention - whether it is for personal, medical, or religious reasons - and if these individuals are barred from participating in basic quality of life activities (such as going to a restaurant, gym, or cinema), it sets the foundation for a two-tiered society. Since we live in what is supposed to be a liberal democracy, this is wrong. End of story.There are a whole host of other issues with vaccine passports, (many of which we described back in April) but for now, we will just state that vaccine passports are no longer just a slow creep towards totalitarianism - they are an avalanche. This is because the corporate and legacy media outlets have been working overtime to suggest that we would all be “safer” if our lives were reduced to a series of checkpoints in which we submit our private medical information to nameless, faceless bureaucrats whom we do not know or trust. Take, for example, the manufactured controversy surrounding GoodLife Fitness in Canada. This past week, the fitness chain announced on Twitter that it is “not planning to require associates or members to be vaccinated to enter our locations. For privacy reasons, GoodLife will not disclose information regarding any individual associate's vaccination status.” This was a good move from GoodLife - one that respects human rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.Unfortunately, a very loud minority of activists disagreed with this stance and stated that they would be cancelling their memberships. Let's be real here - these people probably didn't even have gym memberships. They saw an opportunity to display faux-virtue online and jumped on it. Nevertheless, CBC called the responses an “uproar.” But was it? We know that Twitter skews towards outrage. The platform is designed to spotlight the most deranged perspectives and present them as if they are mainstream. This is why the concept of “canceling” Canada Day was presented as normal, even though it was nothing more than the amplified barks of a few disillusioned journalists. So, is there any reason to believe it would be different here? Furthermore, why put GoodLife in the spotlight? CBC is acting as if GoodLife is the only business not requiring proof of vaccination to enter its facilities, but its policies are the same as 99.99% of businesses in Ontario. To date, there are only six businesses in Ontario that require proof of vaccination, and since Premier Ford announced that he will not be mandating vaccine passports, we do not expect this number to meaningfully increase. Thus, vaccine passports, like support for fascism itself, is an extreme minority perspective. It is just the latest issue to gain some traction on social media and mislead people into believing it is an acceptable idea. It isn't.| CULTURERevolting against communism? Not on Twitter's watchLast week, a massive protest in Cuba took place against the country's communist dictatorship that has been in place for over 60 years. Like all communist societies, Cuba is a poor nation that frequently experiences shortages in food, basic medical necessities, and electricity. So, after having enough of these substandard living conditions, Cubans took to the streets and began demanding their freedom. Protesters could be seen waving American flags (a symbol of the desire for freedom) and chanting “Libertad.” Again, if someone relied on the Twitter trending page and White House Press Secretary meetings for his information, he would be misled into believing that Cubans were protesting against COVID. One of the most outrageous tweets from the State Department said that “peaceful protests are growing in #Cuba as the Cuban people exercise their right to peaceful assembly to express concern about rising COVID cases/deaths & medicine shortages.” No mention of the efforts against communism, nor the demand for liberty. The “trending” page on Twitter also echoed this lie, but it was not long until the true nature of the protests were revealed to the rest of the world. At this point, some of the most unpleasant activist groups took it upon themselves to attempt to mislead the public. The most notable example was the Black Lives Matter organization who, instead of admitting that the protests were against communism, lied and stated that the US was “undermining Cubans' right to choose their own government.” What BLM forgot to mention was that the real reason Cubans' cannot choose their own government is because there has not been an election since 1962. In case it was not obvious before that BLM is nothing more than a front for communism, then it certainly is now. This is an organization who claims to be against injustice, but voices their support for murderous dictators and police states. Apparently, black lives do not matter to Black Lives Matter. If readers want to listen to what black Cubans actually think about communism and the state of their nation, instead of listening to what wealthy race hucksters and charlatans want them to think, then we recommend this article from Jorge Felipe-Gonzalez. We do not agree with everything written in it, but it paints a far more nuanced picture than BLM could ever hope to achieve.Although Twitter attempted to present the perspectives of far-left ideologues as mainstream, the truth behind the protests at least broke out. In a televised address, Joe Biden called Cuba a “failed state” and condemned communism as an unsustainable ideology. This was against the wishes of the more radical base of the Democratic Party - such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who uttered the same falsehoods as BLM - but it was a move in the right direction. It is encouraging to see that truth can still prevail, even against the most aggressive attempts to suppress it. Like vaccine passports, the portrayal of the Cuban protests on social media demonstrates that there is a concerted effort from social media companies to alter the truth. This is why online discourse is so deranging and dementing. By presenting the most fringe perspectives as mainstream, reasonable people are being gaslit to believe that they are of a radical minority. This sort of bait and switch is not good because it prevents real conversations from taking place at a time when they are needed most. But so long as Twitter remains the primary platform for public conversation, we are going to continue seeing this distortion of reality. As Douglas Murray recently wrote, “on [Twitter] a very few shrill voices can be so magnified that people mistake that sound for the country as a whole. And so, 15 years after its launch, Twitter has become not just a megaphoning platform, but a distorting one, and the distortion continues to have a toxic impact on real life.”What is our solution? Log off and do not log back in. You will feel better and start to see the world for what it is, rather than for what activists are misleading us to believe it is. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit brightmorning.substack.com

Good morning, and welcome to the 29th issue of the Bright Morning newsletter. Before we begin, we would like readers to consider the following quote from George Orwell's classic, 1984, and keep it in mind as we proceed through the recent events and cultural updates from the past couple of weeks. As you will see, it seems strikingly relevant - almost prophetic. “Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless Present in which the Party is always right.”| CULTUREIn Defence of Canada DayIn Critical Social Justice (CSJ - the formal name for “woke ideology''), nothing is off limits. Not even national holidays, which are supposed to be a time when individuals and communities can set aside their political differences and celebrate the common fortune of living in a free(ish) nation. Instead, for the woke acolytes, the intention is not to celebrate a nation, but to problematize and deconstruct its history into a series of “powerful versus oppressed” narrative games, all without realizing that there is no society in existence that can withstand scrutiny under the microscope of Social Justice. This is what happened with the recent attempt  to “cancel” Canada Day upon the discovery of several mass graves at the locations of former residential schools. For our American friends, residential schools were a series of mandatory boarding schools for indigenous children that operated during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in Canada. These schools were rife with abuse (both physical and sexual), assault, and even murder. It is estimated that up to 30,000 indigenous children died at these schools. Thus, when mass graves were uncovered and the remains of over 1,000 indigenous children were found, it was a reminder that Canada does, in fact, have an ugly history. It is not clear how a society ought to react during a time like this. People grieve and mourn in different ways. However, while we might not know what to do, we can at least make assumptions about what not to do. And one of those assumptions might be that it is unwise to use historical atrocities as a battering ram to delegitimize (or to use the CSJ term, “decolonize”) the present. But this is exactly what unfolded in Canada at the end of June. In the weeks leading up to Canada Day, a small number of far-left activists, amplified by social media, made “Cancel Canada Day” trend online. Legacy media outlets (notably the Toronto Star and CBC) were falling over each other to declare how “systemically racist” we are as a nation. And some of the most unpleasant and violent activists did what they do best - destroying (or encouraging the destruction of) property that does not belong to them. This was exemplified with the toppling of a statue of Egerton Ryerson at Ryerson University and the burning of Christian and Catholic Churches (at least 8, to date) all with the nodding approval of journalists (an amalgamation of journalist and activist) at the CBC. The Prime Minister has been silent about this violence, of course. A quick question: are there historical precedents where citizens are permitted to use violence as a means for settling historic grievances? Any at all?If a person's media diet consisted of only legacy sources, such as the Toronto Star or CBC, he might be misled to believe that these actions are normal, acceptable, and supported by the majority of the public. But he would be wrong. According to recent polls, at least 86% of Canadians disagree with the idea of “canceling” the national holiday and instead prefer to honour their nation and its progress, even if its history contains some reprehensible actions. Even more telling is that this sentiment is stronger amongst non-white and immigrant Canadians. And so we are left with a situation in which a minority of wealthy, mostly-white, and metropolitan members of the Peloton class are attempting to skew the collective perception of our nation towards something that is untethered to reality. In a column from Rupa Subramanya, she aptly states the following:“For those of us who chose Canada, and didn't have the privilege of being born in one of the wealthiest, most advanced countries in the world, the notion of cancelling Canada Day seems truly bizarre. Many of us came from countries where racism and discrimination not only exist, but are often widespread, sanctioned by the state, and are realities of everyday life. Ask a non-Muslim living in the Arab world, where discrimination is baked into the system; or a Muslim in India, where, despite theoretical equality under the law, bigotry is pervasive, with the government often looking the other way. We need to compare Canada in the context of the real world, not compare it to a utopian ideal that has never existed and probably never will” (our emphasis). In other words, Canadians of all races and religions choose to celebrate Canada Day not because it is a perfect nation, but because the idea of Canada (and the West) is better than anything that has ever existed. And that idea is one that is predicated upon freedom, equality, and opportunity for all. Our nation might not have always lived up to that ideal, but progress is slow and steady. Thus, when we celebrate Canada Day, we are celebrating the progress our nation has made since its inception. We are celebrating the end of residential schools. We are celebrating the soldiers who died fighting real fascism. And we are celebrating the fact that other people across the world choose to see in us what the CSJ cult condemns us for wanting to see: that we are still a place where we can pursue the lives we want with a substantial degree of freedom.Jonathan Kay recently wrote that the CSJ cult “is unsustainable not just because no country can exist indefinitely without believing in its own worth, but because very few ordinary people share this belief system. And Canada Day itself is one of those few times of the year when ordinary folk actually wear their patriotism (or what passes for it in this country) on their sleeves.” Thus, to close out this section, we would like to wish a happy belated Canada Day to our Canadian audience and a happy belated Independence Day to our American audience. Do not be afraid to be grateful for living where you do. You are not settlers, you are citizens. Our history contains ugliness, but it also contains some of the best parts of human progress - all of which is worth knowing and understanding.| PUBLIC HEALTHThe Ivermectin DebateSilicon Valley is not morally or politically neutral. Tech companies like Google, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube do not sit back and let individuals speak in a free and open manner, despite their insistence to the contrary. The idea of an “open marketplace of ideas,” where individuals and groups can speak and challenge each other to work towards the truth, is not the objective of these companies. Instead, tech giants restrict speech, and more often than not, they restrict speech to serve a narrative. This is why the Lab Leak Hypothesis was forbidden (literally) to discuss on Facebook until a couple of months ago. However, after the overwhelming evidence to support the hypothesis (including the Fauci emails) was revealed, Facebook stopped removing posts which discussed the lab leak. There are still some attempts to discredit the hypothesis, though, such as Stephen Colbert's tut-tutting during Jon Stewart's comedic rant about the potential lab leak.This is not new information, of course. But it is worth reiterating so that we can set up the framework and discuss the latest example of tech censorship: the Ivermectin debate. Ivermectin is an anti-parasitic drug used to treat infections, including river blindness, scabies, and head lice, among other ailments. It was created in 1975 and put into widespread circulation in 1981, with approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Because it has been in widespread circulation for over 40 years, it has since lost its patent - meaning that it is no longer a source of significant revenue for its manufacturer due to its common use. According to the evolutionary biologist Bret Weinstein, Ivermectin has been used over 2 billion times to treat various parasites with minimal adverse effects, thus confirming its relative safety and efficacy. Weinstein, along with the critical care physician, Dr. Pierre Kory, and the founder of mRNA technology, Dr. Robert Malone, have also been vocally supportive of preliminary research and anecdotal evidence claiming that Ivermectin might be a potential treatment and prophylactic for COVID-19. There was a podcast discussion on Weinstein's YouTube channel, but it has since been taken down by the platform. However, at the time of writing, a video of Weinstein speaking with the AI-researcher Lex Fridman about censorship and the Ivermectin debate is still available on YouTube. There is also an episode of The Joe Rogan Experience on Spotify in which Weinstein and Kory talk about the potential benefits of Ivermectin. If the audience is looking for more context, then we recommend these two episodes.You would not know any of this with a quick Google search for Ivermectin. The top result is an FDA website which discusses the potential harms of taking “large doses” of Ivermectin as a potential treatment and prophylactic for COVID-19. Taking large doses of any drug seems unwise, but that is not what the debate is about. Instead, this debate is about whether or not we have a cheap and effective medicine that could be used to treat or prevent COVID. Of course, critics could suggest that the population already has access to free medicine within the vaccines, but that misses the point. Instead, consider the following argument: vaccine hesitancy exists because the COVID vaccines have been in circulation for less than one year. So, it is understandable how some people might feel uncomfortable or uneasy about the potential long-term adverse reactions (myocarditis and blood clotting being two notable examples). Then, there are the lies, half-truths, and data manipulation from our so-called public health experts over the past year and a half (which we have documented extensively). If we combine these two factors with the basic liberal argument for the right to refuse medicine and the right to informed consent - both of which are being undermined by the slow creep of vaccine passports - then we are left with a cocktail of mistrust for what was supposed to be a trusted authority (i.e. government and public health). So, if authorities truly want to eliminate all COVID cases, and there exists the chance of a cheap treatment and prophylactic for COVID that does not involve vaccination, then would it not be in everyone's best interest to explore this possibility? Are two choices not better than one? What if individuals who want to get vaccinated, get vaccinated, and individuals who choose to take Ivermectin (assuming its efficacy is confirmed), take Ivermectin? Why would research, conversation, and debate about this be denied? Could it be that there is no money attached to Ivermectin?For committing the sin of discussing Ivermectin - which has harmed no one - Weinstein now faces the prospect of losing his YouTube channel. Legacy media outlets are engaging in their usual hyperbole to suggest that the drug could be fatal. However, it looks like these censorship and disinformation strategies are not working as well as the tech giants might have hoped. This was exemplified by the liberal comedian, Bill Maher, condemning the tech giants on his show, Real Time with Bill Maher, stating that “YouTube should not be telling me what I can see about Ivermectin. Ivermectin isn't a registered Republican. It's a drug. I don't know if it works or not, and a lot of other doctors don't either.” So, at this time, we can at least be cautiously optimistic that there appears to be a mainstream interest in the debate, despite the censorship. And that is all that we want here: open research and open debate. We do not want to go down a road where public conversation is filtered through the moral and political lenses of Silicon Valley, whose ideological proclivities are several degrees to the left of a liberal arts college campus. Otherwise, we will be left with a culture that looks a lot like the George Orwell quote that we opened this article with. Unfortunately, our culture has been accelerating down that road for the past several years, but it is not too late. Reason can still prevail. It just requires a little civic courage and a commitment to free speech and the pursuit of truth. The truth, after all, is nothing more than the culmination of infinite debate.| EXTRASFurther Listening 

Hello, and welcome back to Bright Morning. We apologize for our absence last week, but as readers are aware, summer is now upon us. Therefore, this would be a good time for us to mention that our uploads might be shorter, more spaced out, or clustered (depending on how busy we are) over the next couple of months. Fear not - we are not leaving this newsletter behind (we made this clear in our podcast from several weeks ago), but now that the nice weather is here, we believe the best thing to do is to take advantage of what we have all been waiting for: the end of the pandemic and the chance to resume our lives. However, as we are about to see, there are those who do not want to let go of the pandemic. In fact, they need the pandemic. TV doctors, public health bureaucrats, and other COVID celebrities have been working overtime to suggest that the pandemic is about to get worse, at a time when it has never been better. | COVIDOntario: the only place in the world with a fourth waveAs of this week, Ontario is now the most locked-down region in the world. In fact, it might be one of the only locked down regions in the world (aside from the UK, where Prime Minister Boris Johnson extended the lockdown until July 19th after he returned home from his Gatsby-like party weekend at the G7). While every other province in Canada has plans to remove all lockdown restrictions (including mask mandates) within the first weeks of July, Premier Doug Ford has plans to continue implementing some form of restrictions, with no official end date in sight. Even though Ontario has met all of the criteria to move into Stage 3 of Ford's so-called “Road Map to Reopening,” the Premier continues to insist that Ontario is still at risk of a “fourth wave.”And where might Ford get this idea? Well, look no further than the Ontario Science Table (OST - best referred to as the Ontario Scientology Table, considering their standards for scientific rigour is akin to that of L. Ron Hubbard). Several members of the OST, in particular the TV doctor known as David Fisman (the same doctor who propagated a conspiracy theory about Sick Kids Hospital being a shill for the PC Party), have argued that the so-called Delta variant poses a major threat to the province. Ontario's new Chief Medical Officer, Kieran Moore, has put forward the same argument. However, what Fisman and company have conveniently left out is evidence. To date, there have been no studies to support the assertion that the Delta variant is more deadly than any of the other so-called “variants of concern.” In fact, the evidence suggests the opposite. That is, no other region in the world where the Delta variant has become the dominant strain has experienced a surge in excess morbidity. It might be more transmissible, but the purpose of a virus is to spread, not to kill. Thus, as viruses evolve, they become less deadly over time, not more. So why has the OST left out this extremely important detail?The answer, of course, is status. We mentioned this several weeks ago, but it is worth repeating here. Over the course of the pandemic, public health bureaucrats have had the luxury of serving as the de facto leaders of the province without being accountable to the public. It is not clear that these people are prepared to give up this power, either. And why would they? The power and prestige that comes with being regarded as a pseudo-divine figure is guaranteed to derange anyone. And so, as the pandemic winds down, what we are seeing is a perpetual raising of their rhetoric from our expert class. After all, their careers depend on it. We need language to identify this raising of the rhetoric. Words like “corruption” and “fraud” are simultaneously too vague and too pointed to be effective. Instead, the bureaucrats who speak in hyperbole about COVID might best be described as demonstrating what Douglas Murray refers to as Saint George in Retirement Syndrome. “After slaying the dragon the brave warrior finds himself stalking the land looking for still more glorious fights. He needs his dragons. Eventually, after tiring himself out in pursuit of ever-smaller dragons he may eventually even be found swinging his sword at thin air, imagining it to contain dragons.” If this is a temptation for an actual Saint George, imagine people who are no saints, have won no glorious battles, but desperately attempt to prove that they will be the ones who will lead us through the fight. How might they act in such a scenario? Well, look no further than the rhetoric coming from public health.| PUBLIC HEALTHWhy is there an obsession with vaccinating children?With most of the older populations having already received their inoculations against the virus, public messaging campaigns have shifted to focus on children and youth. But why?This is something that we do not have an answer for yet. After all, the evidence is overwhelmingly clear that children are not at a significant risk of COVID, nor are they significant sources of community spread. This is why children should have returned to school long ago, despite the erroneous advice from public health bureaucrats and government messengers to keep schools closed. Yet, despite this evidence, public health bureaucrats continue to insist that children must receive their jabs before they return to school in the fall, lest they become the source of a “fourth wave.”  Even Canadian government websites state that the Pfizer vaccine is “safe” for children between the ages of 12 and 17. But is it?To date, there have been no studies to support this claim. In fact, once again, the evidence might suggest the opposite. As Dr. Martin Kuldorff and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya write, “the mortality risk is extremely low for young adults and children [...] even a slight risk of a serious vaccine adverse reaction could tip the benefit-risk calculation, making the vaccine more harmful than beneficial. We have already observed rare problems with blood clots (J&J vaccine) and myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle, Pfizer and Moderna) in younger people, and additional equally serious issues might still be found.” Even the WHO - that organization that is so Beijing-friendly - does not recommend inoculating children against COVID.The key here is the benefit-risk calculation. As Kuldorff and Bhattacharya write, “medical interventions should pass the test of providing more benefits than risks. For the COVID vaccine, this is decidedly true for older populations but it is not yet clear for younger people.” In other words, the jab makes sense for older and more vulnerable populations, but the benefits of a jab simply do not outweigh the risks of COVID in younger populations. Additionally, the strong public pressure for young people to receive their vaccinations, such as making vaccination a condition of accessing education, public events, or services, risks shattering whatever trust might remain in public health. It is one thing for young people to choose medicine on their own volition - in fact, we endorse informed consent - but it is another thing entirely to threaten the civil liberties of those who choose not to take that risk. Our bodies, our choice. Right?Unfortunately, at this time, it does not look like public health bureaucrats are going to heed the advice from Kuldorff and Bhattacharya. For the record, these two are not quacks, either - both hold prestigious positions at Harvard Medical School and Stanford University, respectively. Nevertheless, their warnings are receiving about as much attention as their Great Barrington Declaration, which outlined the dangers of extended lockdown policies. We are now even witnessing public health bureaucrats undermining parental authority by bribing children with ice cream if they show up to a vaccination clinic - without the consent of their parents.This brings us to the original question: despite the overwhelming evidence against the mass vaccination of children, why is there a massive push for it? It could be another case of Saint George in Retirement Syndrome, where public health bureaucrats scramble to prove that the fight is just beginning, even though it is all but over. Or, could it be one of the oldest explanations in the world: money? It is worth remembering that pharmaceutical companies did not manufacture vaccines exclusively out of the goodness of their hearts. There was a lot of money invested into these companies from governments all around the world, and so it is entirely possible that these same governments want to see every last dollar put to use, even when the products they paid for might not be necessary for certain people. After all, in this day and age, who would be the first to admit to overreacting, and then to overcorrecting?| LOCKDOWNSAdamson Barbecue: risk it for the brisket Let us wind the clock back to December 2020, when we wrote our very first issue in which we covered Adam Skelly - the owner and operator of Adamson Barbecue in Toronto - who defied public health orders and opened his restaurant to the public. Legacy media outlets threw everything except the kitchen sink at Skelly, accusing him of being racist (because wanting to operate a restaurant without government interference is a well-known tenet of racial prejudice), “privileged,” and so on. Nonetheless, Skelly persisted - he kept his restaurant open for three days before he was arrested. Upon his arrest, a Go Fund Me page was promptly set up to help his family cover the legal fees that resulted from his actions. To date, he has received over $300,000 in voluntary contributions. Since his arrest in December, Skelly has been an extremely vocal critic of lockdowns. He might come off as somewhat of an eccentric character, but he is undoubtedly a man with principle. This was demonstrated this week after he was set to deliver a constitutional challenge against the Province of Ontario.  Skelly's challenge did look promising. He had an “impressive list” of expert witnesses, “featuring former Manitoba Chief Medical Officer of Health Dr. Joel Kettner, Harvard and MIT-educated pulmonologist Dr. Gilbert Berdine, Yale epidemiology professor Dr. Harvey Risch, author and former Cornell professor Dr. William Matt Briggs, University of Guelph virology and immunology professor Dr. Byram Bridle, and Simon Fraser economics professor Dr. Douglas Allen.” His challenge was ntended to prove that “governments have invoked extraordinary executive powers predicated on unsubstantiated scientific and legal grounds with catastrophic consequences to people in Ontario, Canada and indeed throughout the world.”If Skelly's challenge was successful, it would have meant the province did not “demonstrably justify” the limitations on our Charter rights and therefore walk back all lockdowns and enforcement measures. It also could have had global implications, as it would have shown that lockdowns should never have been the default response to the pandemic - a point rigorously argued by historian Niall Ferguson in his new book “Doom: The Politics of Catastrophe.”The reason we are speaking in past tense about “what could have been” is that at the time of writing this week's issue, Skelly posted an update stating that his challenge was all but dismissed by the Ontario Superior Court. None of Skelly's expert witnesses were challenged by the government and nothing was heard. The judge overseeing the challenge said that the claims raised by Skelly were not in the “jurisdiction” of the Ontario Superior Court. This begs the question: who does have the jurisdiction? How can citizens challenge the rules of the government if the government is not even willing to hear their concerns?According to Skelly's update, this was the “first time a Notice of Constitutional Question, served and filed months in advance with a huge evidentiary record, was refused to be heard in a Superior Court in Canadian history.”We hoped Skelly's challenge was successful. We believe that individuals like Skelly, though sometimes dipping their toes in hyperbole, will be looked upon favourably by history. We have mentioned this before, but it takes grit for someone to dig in their heels and declare “no” to the government, the police, and the media. This is why Skelly has become a leading figure in the We Are All Essential movement - an initiative designed to help Canadians understand their rights in the face of unlawful emergency powers. Despite facing yet another roadblock, it looks like Skelly will continue to explore other options so that he can be heard. And to him, we say “thank you.”| EXTRASFurther Listening

Welcome back to another issue of Bright Morning! This week, we are pleased to bring you our sixth long-form podcast. In this episode, we discuss, among other things, the continuing lockdowns in Canada (surprise!). Specifically, we break down the hypocrisy of G7 leaders, Justin Trudeau, and what the satirical leadership of these individuals says about our culture as a whole. Then, we move on to discuss some surprising cultural shifts, some of which might suggest that “wokeness,” or Critical Social Justice, is nearing its natural endpoint. We hope that you enjoy this conversation! Until next week, thank you for your time. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit brightmorning.substack.com

Hello, and welcome back to the Bright Morning newsletter. In case you missed it last week, we released our fifth long-form podcast discussion. In that episode, we spoke about the province of Ontario, vaccine passports, and we responded to what we believe was some rather disingenuous criticism of our work. It was a fun and light-hearted conversation - a nice shake-up from our usual style. Having said that, this week we were greeted with some stories that, among other things, were not that surprising. Instead, the events that transpired over the past week or so felt more like confirmation of what we have suspected all along: public health bureaucracies, in Canada and in America, have not been giving it to us straight. We have two case studies below to highlight how the faces of these institutions are more likely to dig in their heels and stick to the narrative, instead of demonstrating humility, when being confronted with evidence of their errors.| PUBLIC HEALTHOntario: science vs. The Science™Before we kick off, we need to establish the difference between science and The Science™. Science, as we have mentioned before, is a process that relies upon empiricism to test hypotheses and establish provisional truths. One of the core tenets of science is that we welcome new evidence if it disproves what we have all come to accept as truth, so long as the new evidence is subjected to the same, rigorous testing (or better). In other words, science must be falsifiable, otherwise it is no longer science, but dogma. The Science™, however, is dogma. It is the rigid, prescriptive, and often-wrong “solutions” or narratives that politicians and bureaucrats (who we once called “public health experts”) use to dismiss scientific evidence for some personal, reputational, or financial gain. So, when you hear a politician or bureaucrat utter the words “I am following the science” or “I believe in science,” it is unlikely that he is speaking about his commitment to the scientific method and empiricism. Instead, he is hanging onto The Science™ (his narrative) as if it is a life raft that is running out of air in the middle of an ocean storm. This brings us to the most recent update in Ontario, or as we like to refer to it, The Peoples' Republic of Lockdown. After once again outsourcing his leadership to unelected bureaucrats by seeking “consensus” on whether or not schools are safe (they are), Premier Doug Ford announced that children will not be returning to in-person learning until September. In his speech to the public in which he attempted to justify this decision, Ford uttered some remarks that were either misleading or outright false. So, allow us to provide the fact check.First, Ford stated that he did not “want to risk the health of our kids.” Schools are safe and children are safe in them. For the past several months, virtually every pediatrician and pediatric organization in Ontario has been begging Ford to open schools for in-person learning. Sick Kids Hospital wrote a letter in response to Ford's search for “consensus” and stated that school closures facilitate a “substantial deterioration of mental health status among children and youth,” and that this “deterioration is now evident in the form of increased ambulatory care use and hospital admissions, most poignantly for children and youth with eating disorders.” Dr. Martha Fulford, Chief of Medicine at McMaster University Medical Centre, also appeared on CTV News to state that children “are not at risk from Covid,” even when accounting for the overhyped “variants of concern.” When faced with this criticism, David Fisman - one of the most vocal bureaucrats on the Ontario Science Table (OST) and a paid teachers' union expert - did not counter with evidence, but deflected to a conspiracy theory in which he accused Sick Kids of being in bed with the PC Party (makes sense?) and then turned to a sarcastic remark about kids' mental health. Ford also stated that he is “really concerned about putting all of the kids in the classroom” and that having children in the classroom will lead to “thousands of new cases.” Regarding the first comment, Ford did not explain why he is “really concerned.” In fact, his own Chief Medical Officer, David Williams, has confirmed there are “very few” examples of in-class transmission. As for the second comment, Ford's OST said that a return to in-person learning would create an 11% surge in cases, at most. However, given that the OST has been completely and entirely wrong in all of their predictions and modeling (here is the most recent error in their predictions), it is hard to take anything that they say seriously.Oh, did we mention that the entire premise of lockdowns are also in contention with (if not direct opposition to) scientific consensus? We have been arguing this for months, but here is Martin Kuldorff, a professor of medicine at Harvard, confirming this argument. It is not unreasonable for us to suggest that Doug Ford and the OST are, at this point in the game, anti-science. They are using The Science™ to shield themselves from criticism and ignore real evidence. But why? What is to be gained here? Well, for starters, it is entirely possible that the members of the OST enjoy the attention. Throughout the pandemic, these Covid celebrities and TV doctors have become the de facto leaders of the province. They appear on television daily to offer predictions that keep proving to be wrong. It is also unlikely that they are not being generously reimbursed for their time, either. Then, there are perks attached to their position. For example, Dr. Michael Warner - another lockdown zealot - was given tickets to a Maple Leafs game with his friends, only to fear monger about a fourth wave just a few days later. Status, prestige, and massive financial incentives are hard to give up, and so is it that much of a surprise why these bureaucrats want to drag out lockdowns for as long as possible?The Fauci EmailsLast week, through a freedom of information request submitted by Buzzfeed, over ten thousand emails belonging to the inbox of Dr. Anthony Fauci was released to the public. The findings within these emails were, to say the least, explosive. A common theme within them was that what Fauci had been saying behind the scenes bore almost no resemblance to what he had been saying to the public. The first example pertained to everyone's favourite subject: mask usage. Last year, we might recall that Fauci initially stated that masks were “not that effective.” Then, a month or two later, he said that masks are critical to stopping the transmission of Covid. When asked about this sudden change in tune, he said that the science had changed. Fauci then doubled-down (literally) on his insistence for masks by suggesting that Americans ought to wear two masks. When asked for evidence about this, he said it was “just common sense.” But was it?Masks, according to Fauci's emails, are not that effective for keeping out the virus, which is small enough to pass through the material. However, Fauci did argue that there might be a benefit for an infected person to wear a mask, should they cough or sneeze, but aside from this slight caveat, Fauci's emails confirm what most people have been arguing since last year.Next in the lineup of Fauci's emails pertained to what legacy media, public health, and politicians had been vehemently dismissing as a conspiracy theory since March 2020: The Lab Leak Hypothesis. We spoke about this two weeks ago, but the short version is that there is strong evidence to support the claim that SARS-CoV-2 was developed in a lab, as opposed to being a bat-borne virus that jumped to humans. Fauci, however, has been adamantly opposed to this hypothesis, even going so far as to suggest that it is not worth investigating. Well, once again, we can see that what Fauci really believes - that is, what he says when no one else is watching - bears no resemblance to the words in his public appearances. There were several emails from high-profile researchers warning Fauci that the genetic sequence of SARS-CoV-2 looks like it could have been engineered, instead of being a product of nature. At the same time, Fauci received emails from researchers - one of whom belonged to the Institute of Zoology at the Chinese Academy of Science - thanking him for downplaying the possibility of a lab spillover during his press conferences. Now, it is fair to say Fauci himself did not give credence to the Lab Leak Hypothesis in these emails, but it does, at the very least, confirm his dishonesty with the public, because we now have evidence that he received fair and substantiated warnings from his associates about the plausibility of such a theory. Then, we stumbled into the biggest bombshell of them all - the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 could have been the product of Fauci's own research funding. Several of Fauci's emails made reference to so-called gain of function research, where scientists work to make viruses more transmissible and deadly (ideally to advance vaccine development). According to the emails, Fauci's own National Institute of Health (NIH) was involved in the funding of gain of function research, possibly at the Wuhan Institute of Virology - the very lab from which the virus is believed to have leaked. However, it was no less than three weeks ago when Fauci denied having any knowledge of this during his testimony to Senator Rand Paul. What does all of this mean?What do the anti-evidence positions of the OST and Fauci's emails have in common? Do they suggest that we are ruled by evil, malicious people, who wish to do us harm? This seems unlikely. Consider this: before the pandemic started, no one knew who Dr. Fauci or any members of the OST were. Do fame and recognition automatically amount to good work? Absolutely not. However, starting in March 2020, these people were on our televisions and computers so much that they might as well have been our screensavers. Thus, we had the opportunity to witness their abilities as scientists, leaders, and advisers in real time. In other words, we could see if their ability to perform in these roles was worth the high salaries they were earning throughout the years, and in some cases, decades (salaries that are funded through tax dollars, mind you). Is this what we saw? Far from it. Instead, what we saw was a consistent and insistent pattern of lies, half-truths, political pandering, flip-flopping, and most egregious of all, a refusal to welcome new evidence. Take, for example, the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD). This was a worldwide call from some of the most well-respected scientists, doctors, and researchers in the world to end lockdowns. According to Martin Kuldorff, who we mentioned earlier, “there was never a scientific consensus for lockdowns.” Lockdowns were supposed to be a temporary measure to buy time for hospitals so that we could prepare for a potential influx of infected patients. However, as we have all learned by now, if you give an inch, they will take a mile. As Kuldorff stated, “instead of understanding the pandemic, we were encouraged to fear it. Instead of life, we got lockdowns and death. We got delayed cancer diagnoses, worse cardiovascular-disease outcomes, deteriorating mental health, and a lot more collateral public-health damage.” Worst of all, our leaders refused to acknowledge the countries and regions, such as Sweden and Taiwan, that kept the pandemic under control, despite never being locked down. Faced with this new evidence, Kuldorff and his colleagues co-authored the GBD to show that lockdowns were not, and should not, be the appropriate response to the virus. But it was ignored. Furthermore, those who questioned the scientific justification for lockdowns, both inside and outside of the scientific community, were excommunicated and labeled as “conspiracy theorists,” “murderers,” and in some cases, “Nazis.” The example of the GBD shows that the faces of public health were more concerned about their reputations than they were basing their decisions on new and incoming evidence. This is why fifteen months after the pandemic started, public health bureaucrats, like Fauci and the OST, continue to act as if we do not know what the virus is or how it spreads. It also explains why the industrial-strength fear-mongering surrounding the virus has reached its peak in Ontario, despite the third wave of Covid being the least deadly. However, when faced with this evidence, public health attributes it to lockdowns, even though cases have decreased as mobility has increased. To close, what we are seeing with the OST and Dr. Fauci is not good leadership or good science, but the expected actions of institutional bureaucrats who are attempting to save face. Their failures might have gone unnoticed in their roles before the pandemic, but now they are on display for the world. Their raising of the rhetoric in recent weeks is nothing more than an attempt to drown out the justified screams from a population who has been duped. It is unlikely that they will leave the public eye quietly, but when they do, they will have left in their place a legacy of colossal mistrust towards the political and expert classes. And if they have any humility left, can they truly be surprised?| EXTRASFurther ListeningThis week, we encourage the audience to listen to Jordan Peterson as he interviews Yeonmi Park. The following description has been provided by Peterson's YouTube channel and podcast:Yeonmi Park is a North Korean defector and human rights activist trying to shine a light on the atrocities still being committed in North Korea by the current Kim regime. She wrote her experiences into a bestseller, “In Order to Live.” She tells stories of her childhood and escaping to remind the world of how terrible things are for North Koreans. She also discusses her escape, her slavery in China, and the frustration and disappointment she experiences pursuing a humanities degree at Columbia.If there was ever a conversation that needed to be heard, this would be it. Tyranny, Slavery and Columbia U | Yeonmi Park | The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast - S4: E26Until next week, thank you for your time. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit brightmorning.substack.com

Good morning and welcome back to the Bright Morning newsletter. This week, we bring you our fifth long-form podcast. In this episode, we speak about the state of perpetual Covid lockdowns in Ontario (and Canada, more broadly), market retaliations to vaccine passports, and the difference between the Canadian and American responses to the pandemic. We also touch on the future of the newsletter, where we intend on taking the project, and our response to some of the more absurd misinterpretations of our work. This was a fun and light-hearted episode and we hope that you enjoy it. As always, please consider liking, sharing, and subscribing (if you have not yet done so). Thanks for your time, and we will catch up with you next week. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit brightmorning.substack.com

Good morning, and welcome back to the Bright Morning newsletter! We hope that everyone is taking advantage of the wonderful weather that we have been having (at least in Southern Ontario, or as we like to call it, The People's Republic of Lockdown). There is not much housekeeping to attend to before we begin, and so we will jump in right away. But first, we would like to remind readers to please share, comment, and like our work so that we know if we are headed in the right direction.Nuancing Conspiracy Theories“Conspiracy Theory” is a phrase that we have all heard a lot over the past year. Like the words racism, sexism, homophobia, and so on, conspiracy theory is also a term that is losing its meaning - and fast. This is because it has been weaponized as a catch-all phrase to discredit any one person or group who is questioning the narratives, motivations, and policies of the parties in power. This is a tough needle to thread because there are legitimate conspiracy theorists out there. People Like David Icke or Alex Jones are known for propagating falsehoods and lies, such as their respective claims that COVID-19 is transmitted through 5G towers or that the Sandy Hook school shooting was a hoax.However, as ridiculous as these statements are, sometimes there are kernels of truth baked into the claims of conspiracy theorists. The best example was when Alex Jones propagated the Pizzagate conspiracy theory, which was based around the idea that the Clinton Foundation organized underground sex trafficking rings with minors. Of course, Pizzagate was mostly false, but after the murder (not suicide) of convicted pedophile and rapist Jeffrey Epstein, it was revealed that Bill Clinton was a frequent flyer on Epstein's private jet, believed to be called the Lolita Express (yikes), to Epstein's private island. Other notable guests included Kevin Spacey. So, is it really plausible to believe that Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, and other monolithic figures - all of whom had close ties to Epstein - knew nothing about Epstein's crimes?Of course, the murder of Epstein has been covered with as much dirt as possible, but it is incidents like this which prove the importance of free speech. That is, sometimes the most ridiculous claims have some kernel of truth deep inside of them, and so it should be up to us to seek out that truth. Now that we have made this distinction, please keep it in mind as we examine how some of the most condemned “conspiracy theories” over the past year have miraculously gained support.Conspiracy #1: The Lab Leak HypothesisIf we wind back the clock to the beginning of the pandemic, the Lab Leak Hypothesis - the argument that SARS-CoV-2 originated in a lab - was treated with intense scorn. Even to this day, legacy media outlets, such as Forbes, continue calling the theory a “conspiracy,” even if they begrudgingly admit that there is a “germ of truth” to the claim that the virus was created by people. As evolutionary biologists Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying state, many scientists were either afraid to speak out or smeared as “conspiracy theorists” for merely proposing the idea that we ought to determine if the virus did, in fact, come from a lab. And is this not a reasonable question to ask? Why would this argument be treated with so much condemnation?Well, all roads lead back to Donald Trump. From the onset of the pandemic, Trump insisted on letting the world know that the virus did, in fact, originate in China. At the time, institutions such as the World Health Organization (WHO) - which have uncomfortable ties to the Chinese Communist Party (to say the least) - were reluctant to assign blame to China, even going so far as to push their official, propagandistic narrative that there was no “human-to-human transmission [of the virus].” In fact, when developing a name for the disease caused by the virus, the WHO landed on “COVID-19” because they wanted to “avoid stigma” (even though illnesses such as the Spanish Flu, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome, and the Zika virus all refer to the geographical origin of the virus). This is why there was a semi-official ban on calling COVID-19 the “Chinese Virus,” with legacy media outlets asserting that it was a “racist” term. However, Trump saw through this and continued to remind the world that “it's China's fault. It should never have happened.” He was correct, but since this is the age of social media and political religions, if Trump is for something, then polite society must, by necessity of virtue signaling, be against it. And so, from the beginning of the pandemic, the virus was a culture war focal point and we were cursed with dishonest discourse, half-truths, and outright lies. Now that Trump is no longer in office, though, the question of the virus' origins is reclaiming attention and the Lab Leak Theory is becoming a more accepted hypothesis. More and more scientists are now openly stating that the Lab Leak Hypothesis “cannot be ruled out,” with the former director of the CDC not only agreeing that the theory cannot and should not be dismissed, but that it could also be true. Referring to Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying again, the two have been arguing for the investigation of the Lab Leak Hypothesis from the beginning. Their rationale is that bat-borne viruses do not transmit well indoors because bats are not indoor animals. But as we have seen, COVID-19 transmits extremely well indoors, and so this alone is worth investigating. Therefore, what was once regarded as an outlandish conspiracy theory is now becoming a more plausible explanation. There ought to be a feeling of vindication for scientists like Weinstein and Heying and a feeling of shame for people like Dr. Fauci (and other institutional shills) who weaponized the phrase “conspiracy theorist.” This callousness has obstructed public inquiries into the origin of the virus for over a year, and were it not for this deliberate dishonesty (and propaganda from the Chinese Communist Party), we could have had our answers by now. Nonetheless, this at least proves that freedom of speech is an important tool for the pursuit of truth, even if it invites the occasional witch hunt. Conspiracy #2: Bill C-10 and Trudeau's Thought PoliceThe audience might recall our podcast discussion from two weeks ago where we spoke about Bill C-10 in Canada and its implications for freedom of speech. However, in case readers are unfamiliar with this legislation - which is getting closer and closer to being passed now that it has the support of the Bloc Quebecois - allow us to fill you in on the details. As Canadian MP Pierre Poilievre demonstrated, Trudeau and the federal Liberals are working overtime to paint Bill C-10 as a supposedly harmless bill that would bring tech giants, such as Netflix and Amazon, under the control of the Broadcast Act to “create a level playing field.” This means that in theory, Netflix and Amazon would have to broadcast an approved amount of Canadian-made content for its Canadian users. Of course, Trudeau is not known for his commitment to truth and ethics, and so we can be certain that his assurance of the bill's hypothetical harmlessness is worth as much as the gum on our shoes. What the bill actually does is provide the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) - Canada's federal regulatory agency for broadcasting - with oversight duties for most, if not all, internet content produced in Canada. The Liberals also quietly removed the exemption for social media users, and so social media accounts such as YouTube channels, Twitter pages, and newsletters such as the one you are currently reading, will likely be subjected to CRTC supervision. Legal experts and former CRTC commissioners have described Bill C-10 as a “hammer” with major implications for free speech. In fact, one of the most prominent critics of the bill is Michael Geist, a Law professor at the University of Ottawa, who called C-10 one of the most egregious assaults on freedom of speech he has ever seen. Geist also examined memos from the Liberals confirming that C-10 will not be restricted to tech giants, but will apply to podcasts, newsletters, audiobooks, and even workout apps. In other words, all internet-based content will be under the control and supervision of Trudeau's Liberals. Therefore, Bill C-10 turns the Liberal-controlled CRTC into a literal thought police organization who will determine what Canadians can see, hear, read, watch, and speak while on the internet. When it comes to internet regulation of this sort, the only other notable example is the Chinese Communist Party, who employs a similar practice. Then again, Trudeau once famously stated that he “admires” China's basic dictatorship, and so this assault on freedom of speech cannot come as a total surprise. So, the evidence is in plain sight. We can see, with our own eyes, what this bill is capable of. But when Trudeau was pressed by Pierre Poilievre about the implications of the bill during question period, how do you think he responded? He not only referred to the criticism as a (ding ding!) “conspiracy theory,” but also suggested that bill would somehow benefit Canadians. Thus, Bill C-10 is another example of political elites telling us what they are going to do (in this case, regulating the internet), and then when they are faced with objections to their own, explicitly-stated intentions, they use the phrase “conspiracy theory” as a shield to deflect criticism. Conspiracy #3: The Great Reset The pattern of political and cultural leaders stating their intentions and then calling criticism of those intentions “conspiracy theories” is something that occurs with increasing frequency. Another example of this pattern in action is in leaders' responses to criticism of The Great Reset - an initiative led by billionaires and world leaders in the World Economic Forum (WEF) to rebuild and “reimagine” societies following the COVID-19 pandemic. The ambition of this initiative is to empower tech companies, who are already multinational, monopolistic, and accountable to no one, with even more power so that they can hypothetically assist in economic reconstruction. What is conveniently left out, however, is that the initiative is not concerned with the little things, such as our civil liberties. This is why tech companies have been the most vocal in their support for controversial and unconstitutional vaccine passports (to see our full criticism on vaccine passports, refer to our article from April 14). There are even articles on the WEF website that explicitly state that by 2030, we (meaning the lowly middle and working-class proles) “will own nothing and be happy.” Yet, when pressed with criticism over the obvious encroachment on civil liberties, leaders and legacy media outlets dismiss these concerns as “baseless conspiracy theories.” Of course, there are absurd actors whose rhetoric is conspiratorial, but this mostly comes from hive minds in the dark corners of the internet. But this should not distract us from the legitimate and warranted criticism of tech and political institutions. We could go down a rabbit hole with this, but we will instead leave you with a quote from a Forbes article which called the initiative “another example of wealthy, powerful elites saving their consciences with faux efforts to help the masses, and in the process make themselves even wealthier and more powerful.” We have all seen unethical behaviour from institutions and leaders over the past year and a half, and so is criticism like this really that “baseless”?| EXTRASFurther Listening 

Good morning and welcome back to the Bright Morning newsletter! If you have not yet had the chance to listen to last week's podcast, please consider checking it out. In that episode, we spoke about Bill C-10 in Canada and how it threatens freedom of speech. We also spoke more broadly about the culture of free speech and why it is so important not only for our pursuit of greater knowledge, but also as a means for reducing the influence of bad ideas. It has been a little while since we examined some hot-button issues in the culture wars, and so that is what we decided to do this week. However, fear not, because we do not leave readers with a doom-and-gloom view of the world. In fact, we highlight how the foundations of progressive ideology might just be crumbling.We hope that you enjoy it, and please consider leaving us a comment. | THE GAVIN CHRONICLESGoodbye, GavinRemember Gavin Newsom? Of course you do. We have been covering the California Governor since our very first issue. Our feelings for this man were most aptly described in our issue from March 25th. Normally, we try to set emotions aside when discussing political or cultural issues, but when it comes to Newsom, the lure of schadenfreude is too overwhelming. So, we were extremely pleased to see that the 1.6 million signatures required to trigger a recall election for Newsom have been verified. The next stage in the process is a 30-business-day window in which voters can request that their signatures be removed from the recall petition. If a sufficient number of signatures are withdrawn, then the recall election will be avoided. If not, then the state will move forward with an election. Of course, Newsom attempted to frame this as a “Republican recall,” but as we have mentioned before, the distaste for Newsom is so overwhelming in California that it has eroded partisan divisions. Nothing brings people together quite like a common enemy. But who would replace Newsom? There have been rumours about who could defeat the Governor in an overwhelmingly blue state, but it looks like the new contender in town might just stand a chance. This person is none other than Caitlyn Jenner, who recently filed paperwork to campaign for Governor in the forthcoming recall election. If this is the beginning of the end of Gavin Newsom, then that should be cause for celebration. However, progressives in America are not willing to let their boy Gavin go down without a fight. And as we are about to see, this fight will be filled with the ugly rhetoric that we have all grown accustomed to witnessing from mainstream figures in the American Left.| CULTURECaitlyn Jenner: The Wrong Kind of Trans WomanIn a recent campaign ad, Caitlyn Jenner correctly identified that California's homeless problem has spiraled out of control under the governance of career politicians, like Gavin Newsom. This is apparent to all, but heaven forbid that it is mentioned, lest we be referred to as dispassionate conspiracy theorists. However, the jig is up. Californians, and Americans more broadly, can see how the Golden State has become a trainwreck. This is why there is a mass exodus from California towards more conservative states, as exemplified by the recent relocation of Elon Musk, Ben Shapiro, and Joe Rogan. In fact, so many people have moved out of California that it is even at risk of losing seats in the House of Representatives. Jenner has acknowledged this; referring to herself as a “compassionate disruptor,” she believes that she can bring businesses back to California and eliminate the influence of career politicians.At the same time, Jenner stated that she is against trans-women, such as herself (that is, biological males who present as women), competing against females in sports. When asked about the subject, Jenner stated that she opposes “biological boys who are trans competing in girls' sports in school. It just isn't fair and we have to protect girls' sports in our schools.” Again, this is something we all know, but our era demands that we dismiss biological realities. However, Jenner is 100% correct in her estimation that it eliminates fair competition. A recent study in the British Sports Journal of Medicine confirmed that biological males have an advantage over females, even after hormone therapy - something that Gender Identity Theory activists claim will even the competition. Both of Jenner's uncontroversial statements earned her condemnation from the usual suspects. Jimmy Kimmel called her an “a*****e,” while Sarah Silverman slandered her as “transphobic.” This is so typical that it is almost not worth mentioning, but the irony needs addressing. Caitlyn Jenner is transgender, yet she is slandered as “transphobic” by a wealthy celebrity for pointing out biological realities. At the same time, Jimmy Kimmel and other legacy media figures are working overtime to paint Jenner as a right-wing conspiracy theorist for correctly asserting that homelessness is out of control and small businesses need revivification. Would Jenner be subjected to the same, ugly harassment from these media personalities if she were running as a Democrat? Unlikely. Jenner is a Republican, and therefore she is inconvenient to the Woke Left. The woke pretend they are “allies” and “advocates” for hypothetically endangered minority groups, but whenever an individual from one of these groups goes rogue - that is, voices an opinion that counters progressive orthodoxy, as Jenner did - the woke throw a tantrum, hurl insults, and attempt to oust them from polite society. But it does not look like these tactics will work anymore, as Jenner is receiving a considerable amount of support.For years, we have been told that conservatism is a threat to minorities, but this is clearly a falsehood. As Barbara Minney (who is a trans woman) wrote for Politico, the bigger threat is the progressive orthodoxy which firmly insists that transgender individuals must hold a certain set of views (or else be subjected to threats and condemnation from public figures). She says “it is not healthy to reduce such a diverse and complex community to one set of beliefs.” We agree. It is frustrating to see the race for California's future being dominated by two wealthy socialites, both of whom have a history of questionable and unethical behaviour (at best). However, at least Caitlyn Jenner is bold enough to cut against the suffocating constraints of progressive dogma to defend a fading middle class, as well as biological realities, in a once-great state. We hope she succeeds in this endeavour. | CULUTREThe Racism of Anti-RacistsThe backlash against Caitlyn Jenner mirrors another story occurring in Canada - one that also demonstrates how identity attributes such as race, gender, and sexual orientation are only sacred if the individuals or groups in question champion the same progressive orthodoxy. Take, for example, the ongoing saga of a psychology professor named Rima Azar - a Lebanese woman who escaped civil war during her teen years. Although her native tongue is Arabic, Azar considers herself a proud Canadian - she writes in her blog about classical liberal values, the ongoing challenges in Lebanon, and how the symbol of the Maple Leaf “means the world” to her. As Jonathan Kay wrote in the National Post, “if you know of a more intersectional Canadian, I'd like to meet them.”Despite meeting all of the intersectionalist criteria that our culture obsesses over, Azar was recently suspended from her position at Mount Allison University after a mob of mostly white, middle-to-upper-middle class students demanded that she be fired. How did this happen?Like Jenner, Azar is a minority woman who has espoused the wrong political views. When a local activist opined that New Brunswick, and Canada as a whole, was “systemically racist,” Azar argued that it was not. Having experienced the violent and gruesome civil war in Lebanon - which is a product of the same identity politics that our culture obsesses over - she fears that Canada will make the same mistakes if the culture continues overemphasizing differences. She also argued against the claim that Canada is a “patriarchy” afflicted with “rape culture.” She noted that if we want to see a “real rape culture,” then we ought to look at “ISIS practices in Syria.” Then, Azar committed the greatest sin of our era: she criticized Black Lives Matter, specifically their goals of creating a “global liberation movement” that wishes to “dismantle capitalism, abolish prisons, and erase national borders.”For the record, each of these uncontroversial statements are correct. Canada is not a racist country, it is not afflicted with rape culture, and Black Lives Matter is a radical movement. As always, we urge readers not be deceived by the anti-oppositional phrases, like “anti-racist,” that radicals employ as camouflage. For committing these sins, Azar's mostly white colleagues and mostly white students claimed that her views were “hurtful,” and then lobbied the university on Twitter and sent emails to the president demanding that she lose her job. One comment on Twitter read “I am a privileged cis white 50-year-old woman. How is it that I understand systemic racism and she doesn't? She needs to be removed immediately!” Mount Allison then suspended Azar for racism, even though there was not a single identifiable racist comment that could be pointed at. Are we beginning to recognize a pattern yet? The cycle looks something like this:Progressives claim to value diversity (except viewpoint diversity - which they consider “harmful”).Institutions imbibe unprovable assertions, such as the claim that our culture is “systematically racist,” sexist, homophobic, queerphobic, fatphobic, transphobic, etc. Individuals, often from minority groups, oppose these ideas with sound and reasoned arguments. Progressives attempt to “unperson” these individuals - they form a mob and demand these proverbial heretics be removed from their positions and replaced with someone who will adhere to the orthodoxy. Repeat. This is racism in action. The reason it can be classified as such is because it demonstrates how there is an expectation for minorities to champion specific beliefs. If minorities oppose these views, then they are subjected to bullying, threats, and job-loss at the behest of their mostly white peers. Of course, this same pattern of cancelation works for non-minorities, as well. But the point still stands. Thus, racial essentialism is a feature, and not a bug, of progressive orthodoxy. Once again, the true threat to minorities (and the culture which they admire) is the suffocating progressive ideology which demands their rigid adherence to its essentialist dogma. Fortunately, Rima Azar is no stranger to conflict, and she has fought harder battles than those brought to her by cowardly students and bureaucrats. However, she has been suspended without pay during a pandemic in which many Canadians are prohibited from working. As a result, she has set up a Go Fund Me page for support with her legal fees. The link can be found here. Please consider supporting this brave woman who is a true defender of classical liberalism. | EXTRASFurther ListeningThis week, we encourage the audience to listen to John McWhorter as he speaks with Michael Shermer about his new thesis: neo-racists posing as anti-racists and their threat to America (and western culture, more broadly). This thesis is self-explanatory, but it is an insightful look into what we just pointed out in this article.Shermer with John McWhorter—Neoracists Posing as Antiracists & Their Threat to Progressive AmericaThank you for your time and we will see you next week. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit brightmorning.substack.com

Good morning, folks! Welcome back to Bright Morning. We apologize for our absence last week, but we are back with another long-form podcast. In this week's episode, Chris and Klayton speak about the culture of free speech and how it is threatened under new Canadian legislation. We also discuss why free speech is so important, the impossibilities of defining “hate speech,” and potential solutions and culture changes.We hope that you enjoy this discussion. As always, please feel free to leave us a comment and share this episode with anyone who might be interested. Next week, we will be back with another article which, among other things, will update readers on our old friend, Gavin Newsom. Thank you for your time and have a great week. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit brightmorning.substack.com

Hello, and welcome back to the twenty-first episode of the Bright Morning Newsletter. Just as a quick recap: we released our third long-form podcast discussion last week. As we mentioned in last week's discussion, we are grateful for your feedback, and we are pleased to announce that the comment section will be available on all subsequent articles and podcasts. Please consider taking some time at the end of each article and letting us know your thoughts. It might also be a good chance to generate new discussions with other members of the audience.Moreover, since it appears to be a hit with our audience, we will be doing even more long-form podcasts in the near future. We hope that you enjoy this slight change in format, and as always, please consider sharing our work. Having said that, let us dig into some of the big issues of the past week. | FINANCEThe Canadian budget: a reflection of us?The Nitty Gritty:Prime Minister Trudeau is up for a new award

Good morning, and welcome back to another issue of Bright Morning! This week, we are pleased to offer you another long-form podcast between your two hosts: Chris and Klayton. Listen now as we discuss a range of topics including the current state of lockdowns in Ontario (and the attitude of Canadians towards lockdowns), the failure of Canadian leadership, COVID-19 (mis)information and hysteria, and what we can do to depoliticize our lives. As well, we are thankful for your feedback in last week's survey. We are pleased to announce that within the coming weeks, we will be launching more long-form podcasts, as well as opening up the comment sections on our articles. We believe this will be a great way to engage with our audience more directly. We really enjoyed this conversation and look forward to hearing your feedback. See you next week. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit brightmorning.substack.com

Good morning, and welcome to the nineteenth issue of the Bright Morning newsletter.

Hello, and welcome to the eighteenth issue of the Bright Morning newsletter. We hope that you all had a wonderful Easter weekend and, if you live in Ontario, enjoyed the first and last chance that you'll have to sit on a patio for at least the next four weeks (more on this shortly). In the meantime, we are always experimenting with new ways to both expand our audience and increase reader engagement. So, we would, once again, like to reach out to you for feedback. When you finish reading the article, please ask yourself the following questions: how did it make you feel to read our work? Did it brighten your morning (pun somewhat intended)? Or did it depress you? Did it feel like we were bombarding you with our opinions? Or did we leave enough room for thoughtful questions? Please reply to this email (contact@thebrightmorning.com) and let us know. There are no right or wrong answers, either. We just want to know how our audience feels about our work so that we know if we are meeting our goals.Finally, as always, please continue to share our work, and also sit back and enjoy the show as we dissect the events from the past week. | COVIDOntario: The Definition of InsanityThe Nitty Gritty:Ontario Premier, Doug Ford, ordered a new “shutdown” for the province to “slow the spread” of COVID-19At the time of this issues release, the Premier is threatening even stricter restrictions in the province; similar to the stay-at-home order from March 2020 (back when we knew nothing about the virus)There is a scene halfway through the 2012 video game Far Cry 3 where the main villain, Vaas - a sadistic warlord - describes to the protagonist, Jason Brody, the definition of insanity. “Insanity is doing the exact same f*ing thing, over and over again, expecting sh*t to change. That is crazy.” Setting aside the fact that this wisdom is coming to us from a video game, there is, admittedly, something timeless about this idea. That is, how can we expect others to take us seriously if we keep doing the exact same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results each time? Well, look no further than the Ontario Government, who now has implemented so many lockdown sequels that it will soon be on track to rival The Fast and Furious franchise. Except, for the people of Ontario, it does not look like “one last ride.”Last week, Premier Doug Ford ordered yet another province-wide “shutdown” (see, it's not a “lockdown” - it's different!) to act as a “circuit-breaker” and combat rising cases of COVID-19 in Ontario. This announcement came less than two weeks after Ford announced that restaurants in the “grey-level” of Ontario's tiered reopening system could host outdoor dining on their patios, while those in the “red-level” could increase their indoor capacity to 50%. It looks like we are eating our words from two weeks ago, when we said that Ford was “showing progress.” Mea culpa. So, you might ask, what is involved with this new “shutdown?” The full list can be found here, but the short version is that small businesses, once again, are getting the shaft. Restaurants cannot host indoor or outdoor dining, and gyms and personal care services must close down, because these three sectors are totally responsible for “superspreader” events (obvious sarcasm is obvious). At the same time, Ford and our favourite public health experts have decided that it is perfectly safe to continue walking around big box stores and liquor stores.There is nothing we can say that we have not already said before. However, at the risk of sounding “insane” ourselves, we will, once again, reiterate a very important question that Ford and Friends never answer (and legacy media outlets never ask) during the now-infamous daily briefings. Can anyone in charge, whether it is Ford himself or the public health bureaucrats whom he leans so hard on, demonstrate to the public how, exactly, the spread of COVID “variants of concern” is exacerbated by gyms, personal care services, or restaurants? Anyone at all? The businesses impacted by this new lockdown are also waiting for an answer to this question. Paola Girotti, chair of the Beauty United Council of Ontario, had this to say about Ford and the lockdown: “I think that there are other measures that this government can be doing to prevent the spread, including contact tracing. But I'm also really angry because he's specifically targeting our sector, gyms, and restaurants. And particularly in Toronto and Peel, we haven't even been open [since November]. We're not contributing to any of this spread, or these variants.” We do not agree with everything Girotti says, but we believe she is accurate here. Meanwhile, chef Michael Hunter, co-owner of Antler Kitchen & Bar in Toronto, sent Ford a $431.00 invoice for spoiled beer. The letter read: “two weeks ago, you assured Toronto restaurateurs that we were safe to open outdoor spaces to our diners. Having been locked down for over 100 days in Toronto, and competing with restaurants open for indoor dining just outside the city, we followed all the proper protocols and jumped at the chance to open. It was a path for our business to survive.” The Premier's Office did not respond.At the same time, the provincial government is also doing its best to infer that this third wave will wipe out the younger population, even though there is no data whatsoever to confirm this hypothesis. In fact, the main driver of this narrative is Dr. Michael Warner, who once said that we were in the midst of “World War Three” (definitely not hyperbole). Warner is now stating that this new “shutdown” will not work, and is even going so far as to suggest that we need tougher restrictions, such as the stay-at-home order that the province saw in January. Is this a responsible message to be advancing? Is it not misleading to suggest that young and healthy individuals are facing something akin to an existential risk during this third wave? According to the CDC, 78% of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were either overweight or obese. Despite what Cosmopolitan magazine wants to suggest, obesity is not healthy. Therefore, instead of encouraging people to live sedentary lives at home - which is something that actually increases risk of hospitalization, should we be exposed to the virus - governments and public health officials should be encouraging people to get outside, exercise, and get healthier. The focus on the number of cases is also a smokescreen. Decisions should not be based around how many people get COVID-19, but rather who gets COVID-19. The government has had over one year to figure out how to protect vulnerable populations, yet they continue to recycle the same, ineffective lockdown strategies, where small businesses suffer, mental health deteriorates, and the virus continues to spread. Is this the definition of insanity? | POLITICSCanada: A Case Study in MismanagementWe have spent a lot of time in this newsletter critiquing the policies and practices of the Ontario government throughout the pandemic, but we cannot leave all of the blame at Doug Ford's doorstep. For what it's worth, Ford can only work with the resources that he is given, and if he wants to continue outsourcing his responsibilities as a leader to unelected public health bureaucrats, then he can suffer the consequences at the ballot box next year. But there is one person who we have left unexamined in a lot of our coverage: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Last week, Pierre Poilievre, an MP with the Conservative Party of Canada, gave a speech to Parliament in which he condemned Trudeau and the Liberal's handling of the pandemic, and the subsequent vaccine rollout plan. Please watch the video. (If you are interested, this is not the first time Poilievre has mopped the floor with Trudeau - here is another, unrelated example).The overarching theme of Poilievre's speech is that while the rest of the world is reopening, Canada is one of the only countries that is talking about (and enforcing) more lockdowns. For example, Taiwan has had the lowest COVID mortality rate, with only 7 deaths total, even though it is right next door to China - the country in which COVID originated. Furthermore, aside from a few short weeks of lockdown in March of last year, life in Taiwan has, for the most part, been normal. Then, south of the border, Washington - a state whose ideological inclinations are in alignment with the Trudeau government - has permitted the Seattle Mariners to host 9,000 fans in their stadium at an upcoming baseball game. Meanwhile, the Toronto Blue Jays will be hosting their baseball games in Florida - a state that has not even come close to leading the charge with COVID mortality rates, even though it has the oldest population. In other words, Florida is a state that has been governed properly, and now they are reaping the rewards of that good governance. Then, there is Canada - a country that has been managed so poorly that it now ranks amongst the highest in the misery index, with soaring increases in calls to suicide hotlines, overdoses, actual suicides, and unemployment. The list of embarrassments goes on and on. Again, we implore you to watch Poilivre's full speech.While all of this is occuring, Canadians are continuing to be threatened by the Trudeau government with forced quarantine, at their own cost, in government-designated hotels if they dare to travel outside of the country (even if they are vaccinated and present negative PCR tests). To date, the Trudeau government has presented zero evidence to support their justification for these hotels, and there have now been multiple reports of sexual assaults occurring within these facilities, as reported by MP Michelle Rempel Garner. At the same time, it has been reported that the Government of Canada is paying “influencers” to praise the federal response to the pandemic on social media in an attempt to protect its reputation. So, what can we conclude from all of this? To summarize, while the rest of the world is reopening, Canada is enforcing more lockdowns. Vaccine distribution has been mismanaged because Trudeau chose to invest in Chinese companies that ended up producing nothing. Travellers are being fined large sums of money for refusing to stay in government-mandated quarantine hotels, even though they have been vaccinated. On top of all of this, Canada now ranks higher in the misery index, even though it was once described by the UN as one of the best places to live. What do Canadians have to show for this? What have our sacrifices over the past year meant? Speaking honestly, not much. Unless, of course, we are satisfied by Trudeau's tweets, where he assures us that “in the meantime, with new restrictions coming into place in various parts of the country, know that we're going to be here for you.” Okay.| ECONOMYThe Canadian Housing Market: The Elephant in the RoomThe Nitty Gritty:The cost of purchasing a home in Ontario (and all over North America) continues to soar, creating bubble-era concerns over the state of the economySo far, this article has focused heavily on the response to COVID at the federal and provincial levels, but I would now like to direct your attention to what everyone knows is a problem, but leaders often ignore: the housing market. Anyone who lives in Ontario knows that the housing market has become somewhat of a runaway train. About three months ago, I was prepared to put in an offer on a small condo in the East End of Hamilton. The condo was small (about 500 square feet), but it was well-maintained and it was obvious that the homeowner cared for the place. It was priced somewhat high (about $259,000), but it was not unaffordable. It looked like a perfect starter home, where a young person, like myself, could enter the housing market and start building equity. However, within the first 24 hours of the condo being listed, it was clear that a bidding war was forming. When all was said and done, the condo sold for over $100,000 over the asking price. That's right. A 500 square foot apartment-style condo, in a working class neighbourhood, in a city that has struggled to develop a modern economy, sold for almost $400,000. You might think that I am just another bitter millennial complaining about the cost of living, but I know that I am not the first (or the last) person who this has happened to. In fact, I would be surprised if readers found someone who does not have a story like this. In the Canadian housing market, it is now expected that prospective homebuyers will have to cough up an additional $100,000 (and in some cases, $200,000) over the asking price. How on earth is this happening? And why?When the pandemic first hit us last year, I naively assumed that the situation would create an opportunity to enter the housing market, but the opposite happened. Housing prices skyrocketed. To a certain extent, this made sense - with the transition to working-from-home, those who were living in urban centres wanted to trade in their highrise condos for more space in the suburbs. However, we are more than a year into this trend, and there are no signs of it slowing down. The housing market has become so unaffordable that the Bank of Canada has decided to weigh in on the issue. Calling the situation “worrying,” the Bank of Canada said that citizens are “taking on too much debt to buy into the nation's hot housing market.” The Governor of the Bank of Canada, Tiff Macklem, also said “there is evidence that loan levels relative to home values are growing - an indication that borrowers could be overextending.” He warned that “people have begun to make purchases based on the belief that prices will continue rising.” In other words, a bubble is forming. Meanwhile, the federal government continues to fumble around the issue - as they have been doing for the past several years. Trudeau's solution is to place a tax on foreign non-resident homeowners, but considering that he has danced around this issue since he took office in 2015, I will not hold my breath. I do, however, hope that if and when the bubble bursts, it does not leave us in a situation that is similar to the housing market collapse of 2008 (depicted beautifully in the 2015 film The Big Short). This, combined with the government spending that continues to occur during the pandemic, could leave Canada in rough waters. I hope that I am wrong, but as Pierre Poilievre said about the issue, “when even the people causing the housing bubble are worried about it, you know we are in trouble.”This leaves us some final questions: where is the incentive for investment in Canada? With interminable lockdowns, unaffordable housing, and taxes that are going nowhere but up, how could we turn this around? What could we do to steer the country in a more positive vision? Will it be up to the working and middle classes to clean up this mess? Is that the point? | EXTRASFurther Listening

Hello, and welcome back to the Bright Morning newsletter. This week, we are delighted to announce that, for the first time in a while, it has been a slow week for news. This might sound like a perverse thing for us to celebrate (given that our entire project is dependent upon current events), but in an age where there is so much useless noise from the culture wars, it is refreshing to not have to respond to the latest cancelation, uncontroversial statement, or unprovable assertion. Instead, we will take advantage of this opportunity and take a deeper look into some of the unintended (but not surprising) consequences of COVID. As always, if you are enjoying our work each week, please consider sharing our work with friends, family, peers, and detractors. | PUBLIC HEALTHThe changing attitudes towards working-from-homeLast week, an article from The Globe and Mail brought attention to the obvious, but often ignored, consequence that lockdowns have on mental health. If we wind back the clock by one year, we will remember the internet exploding with stories and images of people who were enjoying the transition to working from home. For most people, working from home was a blessing in disguise because it offered us more time with family, it reduced the costs of commuting, and of course, we could do our jobs without wearing pants (so long as we did not pull a Jeffrey Toobin

Good morning, and welcome back to the Bright Morning newsletter. Last week, we took some time off from writing and instead released another podcast between the two hosts: Chris and Klayton. In case you have not yet had the chance to listen, the link can be found here. As always, your comments, questions, and critiques are more than welcome, so please consider writing to us at contact@thebrightmorning.com, as well as sharing our work with friends, family, peers, and detractors.

Good morning and welcome back for another issue of Bright Morning. There is no sense dancing around - we have a lot to get through today. Do you remember what we discussed last week, specifically on Critical Race Theory (CRT) and how it is infecting our culture at an accelerating pace? Well, as we have mentioned in this newsletter before, it is almost like the news writes itself, only so that we can be proven right. Allow us to illuminate. But first, are you enjoying what you read here each week? Based on the feedback that we receive, we believe that you are

Good morning, and welcome to lucky number thirteen of the Bright Morning newsletter. For the past few weeks, we have been focusing almost exclusively on political issues within Canada. This week, we are taking a step back and focusing on broader cultural issues in the West. This week's issue does contain heavier content (especially towards the end), however, we promise that we will not leave you feeling hopeless. In fact, we end this article with some resources that we hope you will find valuable, should you wish to continue learning about the topics we cover.Please let us know your thoughts by replying to this issue or sending us an email at contact@thebrightmorning.com. | POLITICSAmerican Failure: The Andrew Cuomo StoryThe Nitty Gritty:Actually, this one is too good to summarize.Read on and, enjoy.Let us begin with a little thought experiment. Imagine that you are the leader of one of the largest States (by population). You tow the Party line and the media consistently (although undeservedly) sing your praises. But there is a reason for the undeserved praise. You and your Party share a common enemy: a loud, orange man who just so happens to be the President of the country.One day, a virus from China begins to rapidly spread across the globe and it reaches your State. The infections begin to skyrocket, elderly people who are vulnerable to the virus begin to die, and you begin to panic. You were unprepared, and so what is a leader in your position supposed to do?Instead of setting aside partisan differences and working with the President, you begin to antagonize him. You accuse him of not being prepared, even though the President closed the border to China when it became clear that the country was in a crisis. You accuse the President of not providing you with ventilators, even though what happens in your State is your responsibility and the President has already given you the tools you will need to respond. Then, unprepared and lacking ethical leadership decisions, you send recovering patients - who are still testing positive for the virus - back into nursing homes, where the virus spreads like wildfire and kills many more elderly in the process. But you cover this up. Meanwhile, the media continue to sing your praises and vilify the President. When media outlets attempt to expose your scandal, you label them as “conspiracy theorists.” You begin to make daily speeches on television, speaking in a soft and compassionate voice. You appear on the country's leading propaganda network, CNN, having fun and lighthearted interviews with your brother while the unemployment rate and deaths in your State continue to skyrocket. You even receive an Emmy award for your daily speeches on television, even though they are littered with falsehoods and half-truths. At the same time, you publish a book in which you boast about your leadership, lie about the deaths that resulted from your policies, and falsely claim that you defeated the virus. But the truth always finds a way. After nearly a year of deceit, the FBI launches an investigation after learning that you have been deliberately underreporting the number of people who have died in nursing homes. The leak quickly transforms into a flood, as members of your own Party speak about how you have been threatening them to support your lies. Your entire career comes crashing down, yet you show no signs of humility or repentance. Instead, you continue to blame the Orange Man. Even though you continue outsourcing your responsibility, it cannot stop the growing mountain of evidence against you. There might even be a bipartisan impeachment probe, which would end your career and find you guilty of obstruction of justice. It is over for you. This thought experiment requires no imagination. This is the saga of the Governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo. He is learning a valuable lesson right now: every lie told is a debt towards the truth, and eventually, the bill comes due. | CULTUREWoke-a-Cola: Enjoy Racism The Nitty GrittyCoca Cola (small beverage company, perhaps you've heard of them) is facing backlash over leaked slides from an internal training course allegedly delivered to employees last week that had, dare we say.. racist language.It is with great regret that we must now return to the culture wars. Not because we want to, but because we need to. We wish we could say that the threat posed to our culture by so-called anti-racism and Critical Race Theory (CRT - which is actually just racism) is exaggerated, but it is not. CRT is gaining traction at an uncomfortable speed, and we believe that it would be morally irresponsible if we did not raise awareness so that everyday people will feel emboldened to voice dissenting opinions.A couple of weeks ago, an internal whistleblower at Coca Cola leaked images of a so-called anti-racist training course that was mandated for employees. The course, which has been developed by one of the leading charlatans of our age, Robin DiAngelo, contains several slides which encourage learners to “try to be less white.” In one slide, a message reads as follows: “To be less white is to: be less oppressive; be less arrogant; be less certain; be less defensive; be less ignorant; be more humble; listen; believe; break with apathy; break with white solidarity.” This is a textbook example of cult indoctrination. Cults are successful when they induce a state of vulnerability and then provide a solution for the manufactured problem. In this case, it is the suggestion that being “defensive” is somehow indicative of white supremacy (or the “system of whiteness”). According to CRT, if someone baselessly accuses you of racism and you become upset and attempt to defend yourself, then your emotional vulnerability and defensiveness implicates you in a system of white supremacy. In other words, you must demoralize yourself by rejecting your dignity, accepting the labels imposed upon you, and mindlessly obeying the pathway to redemption that is conveniently laid out for you. Do not fall for this manipulation. This is also racism. Race hucksters and charlatans would have you believe that racism is a mystical force that operates in every system, interaction, and individual within a society. In other words, it is like the Force in Star Wars. But racism is simply an attitude based on the prejudicial belief that certain racial or ethnic groups are inferior or superior. If you require additional proof that the Coca Cola training is, in fact, racist, then consider the following thought experiment. What if, instead of suggesting that employees “be less white,” this course encouraged employees to be “less black,” “less asian,” or “less jewish”?It is also worth mentioning that the leading huckster of CRT, Robin DiAngelo (author of White Fragility and “professor of whiteness studies”) has suggested that white people who see people as individuals, rather than by their skin colour, are, in fact, dangerous. In other words, it has taken just over half a century for racists posing as anti-racists to advance an ideology that is precisely the opposite of Martin Luther King Jr's dream.But this is just one company… right? | CULTURERacism in EducationUnfortunately, the racism described above is not restricted to companies who want to serve as mouthpieces for CRT. This is a problem that has infected what should be our most trusted institution: education. On Friday, journalist and podcast host Megyn Kelly appeared on Real Time with Bill Maher to discuss how CRT has crept into the education system. Kelly stated that she has pulled her children out of school because of the overwhelming emphasis on CRT activism. Kelly also provided Maher with a copy of a letter that was given to students in the school where her children previously attended. Some notable excerpts from the letter included the following: “There is a killer cop sitting in every school where white children learn.”“White children are left unchecked and unbothered in their homes.”“I'm tired of white people reveling in their state-sanctioned depravity, snuffing out black life with no consequence.”Again, this is the language of cults. In what universe is it acceptable for teachers to impose this rhetoric on children? What gives teachers, and the education system more broadly, the right to turn children - who cannot even spell the word “activist” - into proponents of an ideology that they cannot possibly understand? As Kelly stated in the interview, children have “got things to worry about, other than social activism. If [children] are going to be activated, then [my husband] and I should be doing it - not some Kindergarten teacher who didn't run it by us.” Another public school in New York came under intense criticism (and deservedly so) for pushing a similar message associated with CRT. The graphic has a caption which states the following:“There is a regime of whiteness, and there are action-oriented white identities. People who identify with whiteness are one of these. It's about time we build an ethnography of whiteness since white people have been the ones writing about and governing Others.”It is unethical for teachers and the education system to be imposing this pseudo-religious belief onto children. Not only does it incorrectly suggest that western society is rooted in a series of zero-sum power relations between racial groups, but it is something that children are incapable of understanding. Therefore, this content, as well as the educators and institutions who instruct it, deserve serious condemnation from parents, the taxpaying public, and any media institution that has the courage to call this exactly what it is: racism and cult indoctrination. What can be done?We recognize that this week's newsletter contained heavy content, but we cannot stop this monster unless we have the courage to look it in the eyes. Individuals cannot keep dismissing CRT as another typical, left-wing campus movement. At its core, CRT is an anti-liberal and racist ideology. As well, it is a threat that is no longer restricted to universities. As we just demonstrated, this material is now being instructed in schools without the consent of parents. But what is to be done? We do not have all of the answers, but we do have some helpful suggestions.Understand the game, but do not participate in it. To push back against an ideology, we must first understand it. There are valuable resources that we can use to navigate through this movement, rather than tiptoe around it. If we can understand and identify the fundamental errors within Social Justice Ideology, Intersectionality, and CRT, then we stand a better chance than if we just use shootdown quotes or respond in a way that would otherwise add fuel to the fire.Recognize that the water is never as cold as we fear it will be. It is unlikely that the majority of the population is sympathetic to CRT, but instead they are crippled by the fear of cancellation, job loss, and otherwise being removed from polite society. This is understandable, but as Douglas Murray consistently points out, we will demoralize ourselves even more if we do not at least take small steps towards the truth. Seek out like-minded people and organize collective opposition. There is always strength in numbers. For example: parents who are concerned about CRT in schools ought to organize, prepare strategies, and confront the teachers, principals, and education boards who insist on teaching this material to children. The same strategy can be used in public and private sector workplaces. To close, this should go without saying, but we will state it clearly for those who might suspect us of holding dishonest motives: we are not advocating for combatting CRT on racial or ethnic grounds. We believe that divisive identity politics movements, which pit groups against each other (such as CRT), are among the most dangerous ideologies ever invented. Instead, we believe in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream, where we actively work for a world in which individuals are not judged by the colour of their skin, but on the content of their character. CRT, and other far-left ideologies such as Intersectionality and Social Justice, seek to shatter this dream and return us to a much uglier period in human history - one in which race (or other immutable characteristics) become the primary lens through which we view the world. We do not want to go there.If you are interested in learning more so that you have some tools to respond to CRT when it appears in conversation, at work, or in schools, please consider the links and resources below. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have questions, comments, critiques, or would like more resources. John McWhorter: The Neoracists - PersuasionDouglas Murray and His Continuing Fight against the "Madness of Crowds” - YouTubeHas Anti-Racism Become A New Religion? with John McWhorter (Ep.2) - YouTubeAndrew Doyle | I'm Not Exaggerating The Problem | Modern Wisdom Podcast 232 - YouTubeDouglas Murray on Overcoming Tribalism the Asymmetry of Wokeness and the Rise of Victimhood | Ep. 55 - YouTubeUntil next week, thank you all for your time. Take care. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit brightmorning.substack.com

Hello, and welcome to the twelfth issue of Bright Morning! Thank you to everyone who listened to and shared our podcast last week. For those who have not yet had a chance to listen, the link to our conversation can be found here. We had a lot of fun with last week's episode and we received some excellent feedback as well. We will be sure to record more long-form discussions in the very near future.In the meantime, we have a lot to cover this week, and so we will not waste any more of your time. Let's do this. | POLITICSSkin in the Game: The Roman Baber StoryThe Nitty Gritty:Canadian politician, Roman Baber, displayed testicular fortitude by introducing a bill that wold reduce the salaries of parliamentarians to the stimulus level that fellow Canadians receive after their businesses are shuttered by government lockdownsLast month, we wrote about Roman Baber, the Ontario MPP who was ousted from the Progressive Conservative Party for his heretical criticism of Premier Doug Ford's Church of Lockdown. Normally, when political controversies occur, those who are at the center will fold like a cheap carpet, walk back on everything that they said, and humiliate themselves as they post endless faux-apologetic Tweets. Such was the case with Ontario's former Finance Minister, Rod Phillips, when he was busted for sipping pina coladas in St. Bart's while the rest of the province was told to “stay home, stay safe, and save lives.” Fortunately, Roman Baber is not that cheap carpet. In fact, he is a leader who says what he means and means what he says. It really is a refreshing breath of fresh air in Canadian politics. Last week, Baber introduced a bill to slash the pay of parliamentarians to CERB levels so long as lockdown orders remained in place. The bill, called the “We Are All In This Together Act,” (well done) would have reduced the wages of all MPPs from approximately $2,240 per week to $500 per week. Prior to introducing the bill, Baber explained that “it's easy to pass laws that destroy people's livelihoods when you're on government salary. My PMB will encourage MPPs to fully appreciate the consequences of their actions, when many Ontarians can't afford to put food on the table.” Even if one is in favour of lockdowns, it is hard to disagree with Baber's argument. If we truly are all in this together, then should it not be the case that our leaders receive the same level of pay as those who are forcibly prevented from working? Perhaps Ontario's “top doctors,” David Williams and Eileen de Villa, have scientific explanations against this argument. Now, if there was ever a testament to the character of our elected officials, the following reaction from parliamentarians would be it. After his bill was introduced, government house leader Paul Calandra countered with a motion to have only Baber's salary reduced to $500 per week. Then, Calandra's counter-motion was passed with unanimous support. That's right. Everyone in the PCs, the NDP, and whatever is left of the Liberal Party voted in favour of Calandra's motion. Instead of debating the clear asymmetry where elected officials earn upper class wages while an overwhelming number of Ontarians are out of a job, all of the MPPs turned the debate into a joke. But why did the NDP vote in favour of this? Aren't socialist parties supposed to be advocating for worker's rights? Perhaps Baber wasn't intersectional enough. Nonetheless, proving that he was literally prepared to put his money where his mouth is, Baber also voted in favour of Calandra's motion. Of course, the motion was not passed because salaries are determined by legislative statute and cannot be amended by motion. But the message is clear: elected officials are not interested in considering the ramifications of their support for lockdowns. A wise, bald, loud-mouthed statistician by the name of Nassim Nicholas Taleb once wrote a book called Skin in the Game. In the book, Taleb explores hidden asymmetries in everyday life and argues that “bureaucracy is a construction by which a person is conveniently separated from the consequences of his or her actions.” It is hard to imagine a sentence that captures the current state of Canadian governments better than this. As we approach the one-year anniversary of “two weeks to flatten the curve,” we see, each day, how our elected officials willingly separate themselves from the consequences of their actions. Therefore, when someone like Roman Baber, who demonstrates “skin in the game,” comes along and exposes this asymmetry, it is not surprising to see our parliamentarians rush to cover it up, only then to go on lecturing the public about how “we are all in this together.”| CULTURE?Genocide? What Genocide? Ahhh China. The land of the unfree and the home of dictatorial communist rule, forced abortions, comepelled speech, concentration camps, and other daily human rights violations. Sounds pretty awful, right? Well, not according to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and President Joe Biden. According to these two wonderful, progressive, and empathetic leaders, human rights violations in China can just be chalked up to “cultural differences.” In other words, who are we to judge? Last week, Erin O'Toole, leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, wrote an op-ed for the Toronto Star arguing that Canada should call upon the International Olympic Committee to relocate the 2022 Olympics out of Beijing. O'Toole argued that it is imperative for Canada to take a stand against China because “there is genocide going on in Xinjiang. The Chinese embassy in Washington bragged on social media about forced sterilization measures being undertaken, going so far as to refer to Uighur women as ‘baby-making machines.'” O'Toole cited other human rights violations, such as the police state in Hong Kong and the kidnapping of two Canadians who have been held hostage for two years (which Trudeau has done nothing about). It was an admirable stance by O'Toole, because until very recently, the only world leader to take aggressive stances towards China has been the former United States President, Donald Trump. Leave it to Canada's snowboard instructor-in-chief, Trudeau, to entirely miss the point. Ignoring the arguments that O'Toole put forward, Trudeau instead questioned whether or not we should be describing what is occurring in Xinjiang as “genocide.” Amidst all the “uh's” and “um's” that are so characteristic of Trudeau's speeches, he said that the word “genocide” is “extremely loaded” and should only be used when it is “justified and demonstrated.” This is true, but it is also true that there is genocide occuring in China, as there are currently over one million Uighurs in concentration camps in Xinjiang. Moreover, Trudeau is not actually concerned with misusing the word “genocide,” because he has called himself the leader of a “genocide state” (referring to Canada). In other words, he is happy to take up the mantle of woke virtue-signalling and self-flagellating, but when it comes out to advancing western values - such as condemning literal genocide states - Trudeau is noticably silent.South of the border, President Biden gave a similar response when asked about the Uighur concentration camps during a CNN Town Hall. The response is nearly incoherent, but there was one utterance glaring at us. Biden said that “[Xi Jinping] gets it. Culturally, there are different norms that their leaders are expected to follow.” That's right, folks, forced sterilization and slavery are just “different norms.” We wish we were surprised by these statements, but we're not. Utterances like these are commonplace for those who are sympathetic to woke ideology. This cultural relativist nonsense, where morally repugnant actions are explained away as “cultural differences,” is a tenet of postcolonialism - an Applied Postmodernist Theory suggesting that westerners who are critical of anything in non-western countries are continuing the legacy of colonialism, and henceforth acting as oppressors. This is why people like Justin Trudeau are also quick to suggest that “free speech has limits” when it comes to cartoon depictions of Muhammad, but have nothing to say about female genital mutiliation or homosexuals being publicly hanged in Islamic nations. Cultural relativism, when imbibed as an approach towards foreign intervention, leaves us impotent as a nation. Sadly, the slavery and genocide will continue as our leaders fumble around the issues, like an awkward teenager who cannot muster up the courage to move in for a kiss.*Update: As of Monday, February 22, 2021 (past the date that this episode was recorded), Canada's Parliament voted to recognize Uighur concentration camps in China as genocide. However, Trudeau did not vote on the issue. Now why might that be?| POLITICSLegal gun owners are the problem, criminals are notThe Nitty GrittyLeaders north and south of the border are getting lax on gun-related crimes and looking to reduce sentences for those offenders.The same leaders that also want to take away your guns. Because that's the problem..As if there weren't enough asymmetries last week, Trudeau decided to introduce another one, just for the fun of it. Two days after Trudeau complained that growing gun violence in Canada is “unacceptable,” his government introduced legislation to reduce sentences for gun-related crimes including, but not limited to, weapons trafficking, use of firearms in commission of an offence, armed robbery, armed extortion, and illegal discharge of a firearm with intent. The full list can be found in this Toronto Sun article.Why would the Trudeau government possibly do such a thing? According to the Justice Minister David Lametti, “these are people with health problems. These are single mothers. These are young people who have perhaps made a couple of mistakes.” This is laughable nonsense. Robbing someone at gunpoint is not a mistake. Trafficking illegal guns is not a mistake. Illegally discharging a firearm with intent is not a mistake. Each of these criminal offences are conscious decisions. When this was rightly pointed out, Lametti blamed the former Conservative government of Stephen Harper - just as the Liberals always do. However, the mandatory minimums that Lametti had been complaining about were actually put in place by Justin Trudeau's father, Pierre Trudeau. It is amusing how such an important detail was overlooked. Trudeau has a habit of lecturing the public about gun violence in lieu of discussing actual policy. He has already moved forward on his plan to ban 1,500 “military-style assault rifles,” even though there is no such thing as a “military-style assault rifle.” This is not an insignificant detail either - “military-style” or “assault-style” are not real classifications for firearms. Instead, they are scare words that Trudeau uses to drum up support for his policy. While Trudeau is banning guns based on their appearance, legal gun owners are paying the price (literally). Trudeau released his “plan” for the firearm buyback program, which will likely see Canadians receiving pennies on the dollar in return for their firearms. At the same time, criminals who do not have firearms licenses will continue purchasing illegal guns, using them for illicit purposes, and then be blessed with reduced sentences - all at the good graces of our Prime Minister. Further Listening

Good morning, and welcome to the eleventh issue of Bright Morning! As promised, in lieu of an article this week, we bring you a long-form podcast discussion between the two co-founders of Bright Morning: Chris and Klayton. In this episode, we discuss how we developed Bright Morning, why we decided to take on this project, and the risks and rewards of putting our thoughts into words each week for a growing audience. We also discuss the accelerating creep of cancel culture, as well as some pragmatic, actionable steps that individuals can take as they learn to stand up for themselves in the face of ideological bullying. We close by making a plea with the audience. This week, we ask each audience member to please share this podcast with at least three other people. As we mention in the discussion, we face an uphill battle in our quest to build a larger audience. Our hope is that with your support, we can reach more people who will not only find value in the work that we do, but also some inspiration to seek out and engage in better conversations. As well, we are hoping that we can communicate with more people and even engage in challenged conversations with those who disagree with our perspectives. Please let us know your thoughts on this week's podcast by sending us an email at contact@thebrightmorning.com or replying directly to this email.Until next week, thank you all for your time. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit brightmorning.substack.com

Good morning, folks, and welcome to the tenth issue of Bright Morning. We say this quite often, but it's hard to believe that we are ten weeks into this project. Before we kick off, we would like to offer some words of appreciation and reflection. This project kicked off with an idea: would we be interested in starting a newsletter? Neither one of us even really liked reading newsletters, and after we talked about it for a bit, we quickly realized why: we had not found anything interesting to read. Obviously our sample was not representative, but based on what we had seen, we thought that newsletters only offered small snapshots of stories without any probes for thought. As well, a lot of newsletters out there only offered cookie-cutter, boring, and faux-progressive talking points. And out of this realization, we found an opportunity. What if we could try to do it better? What if we could talk about the big stories of the week through the lens of our own conservative and classical liberal values? Is there an audience out there who would be receptive to this ambition? It turns out that there was. And so, ten weeks into the development of Bright Morning, we believe that we have landed on something that works. We have learned a lot in the past ten weeks, and we look forward to continuing to learn. We hope that while we are satisfying our need to write about what is important to us, we are also meeting your need for honest and authentic analysis. We really are thankful for your continued support of our project.Having said that, let us now turn our heads to some of the stand-out absurdities from the week, shall we?| CULTUREJordan Peterson returns, and so do the hit-pieces The Nitty GrittyOutrageously famous Canadian psychologist, Dr. Jordan Peterson, appears to be back in action after a long hiatus from the public eyeNow that he's back, so are the critiques

Hello, and welcome to the ninth issue of Bright Morning! ☕ News always seems to find a way to fall right into our laps. In some cases, it's almost like this stuff writes itself. However, in contrast to previous weeks, the overarching theme behind the major stories is not so much about left versus right, as it is about David versus Goliath. This week, it appears that common people, on both the left and the right, are in unanimous agreement on something: some of our institutions block out ordinary people - or proles, to use the Orwellian phrase - from participation. Perhaps it is the case that underneath all of the endless debates about intersectional privilege that have been dominating our culture in recent years, it is the arrogance in our institutions that has been fanning the flames of discontent. Perhaps the “privilege” game has been amplified by these very same institutions to distract us from this problem. And, as we will see, perhaps some people have had enough, and are justifiably deciding to do something about it. | ECONOMY & CULTUREPlay video games and bring down Wall Street - all in a day's workThe Nitty Gritty:Last week, a group of new-age investors from /rWallStreetBets pulled a major short squeeze on a laundry list of weathered stocks (most popular being GameStop) causing Wall Street to lose billions almost instantlyRobinhood, the popular stock trading app was under fire when they (and several other companies) all of a sudden halted the ability to open new positions in our favourite disheveled stocks out of fear of pissing off Daddy Wall St.Unfortunately, they were joined by the likes of other institutions such as, NASDAQ and Discord in an effort to further censor and seemingly control the rules of the gameWe all know about Wall Street, right? We have all heard the famous phrase from Oliver Stone's 1987 movie where Michael Douglas' character, Gordon Gekko, boasts that “greed is good.” We have all seen movies like The Wolf of Wall Street and The Big Short, which portray the consequences of insider trading, rent-seeking, market manipulation, and endless corruption. To call Wall Street shady would barely be scratching the surface. However, as conservative commentator Saagar Enjeti notes, there are some prominent Wall Street figures - such as the CEO of Nasdaq, Adena Friedman - who are suddenly calling for more regulation in the financial industry. Why? Has Wall Street experienced a collective epiphany moment, where they have recognized the errors of their ways and want to atone for the devastation they have brought to the lives of the citizenry? In the words of Steven Tyler of Aerosmith: “dream on.”Last week, a number of hedge funds on Wall Street took out a massive short position - selling stocks with the intention of repurchasing later at a lower price - on the company GameStop. A group of Redditors (members of the website Reddit) called their bluff and used the trading app Robinhood to purchase stocks in GameStop, thus increasing their value by thousands of percentiles. This forced the hedge funds to liquidate billions of dollars in losses, as the group of Redditors said that they would “hold the line” to maintain the inflated value of GameStop. Saagar Enjeti, co-host of The Rising, has an excellent summary here. In case it was not immediately obvious that certain institutions do not take kindly to ordinary citizens becoming wealthy at the expense of billionaires, then it is now. The response from the institutions was not to cut their losses, but to cut participation. Discord, the app which hosted the chat forum for r/WallStreetBets (the subreddit which started the movement), promptly deplatformed the subreddit for “hate speech.” As well, the trading app Robinhood responded by blocking users from purchasing shares in GameStop, while TD Ameritrade restricted clients from purchasing shares in AMC and GameStop “in the interest of mitigating risk for [their] company and clients.” In other words, there was a coordinated response from tech companies and the financial industry to not only protect the hedge funds and speculators, but also to remove the means through which the Redditors were communicating. Therefore, normal people were punished for manipulating Wall Street in the exact same way that hedge funds have been doing for decades. So much for the democratization of trading.Does this response sound familiar? It should. It bears a striking resemblance to the crackdowns on freedom of speech that we described a few weeks ago when Google, Apple, and Amazon Web Services all engaged in a coordinated takedown of Parler because they claimed it was promulgating “hate speech.” In other words, this is the second time in less than one month that big tech companies have colluded to deplatform normal people, en masse, because they do not like what they are saying or doing. You do not have to agree with the utterances, behaviours, or motivations of some people on Parler to recognize how creepy the intrusion on freedom of speech is. Equally, you do not have to agree with the behaviour r/WallStreetBets to recognize how alarming it is when tech companies - who possess all the power and none of the accountability - can restrict the financial activity of normal people on a whim to protect their billionaire friends. Nonetheless, at least this is a rare instance where most people, on the left and on the right, are in agreement that this crackdown is unacceptable because it is a textbook example of system rigging. Perhaps this could be the start of a larger pushback from normal people who are waking up to the fact that some elites in our institutions do not have our best interests in mind, and in fact resent our ability to communicate and participate freely. Or perhaps social media and tech companies will distract us, like the Eye of Sauron, by redirecting our attention towards another manufactured issue in the culture wars, and we will all forget about this by next week as we go back to screaming about who has more privilege. | ORWELLIAN PUBLIC HEALTHWelcome to Hotel COVID, where you can check out, but you can never leaveThe Nitty Gritty:New international travel restrictions were introduced for travelers coming into CanadaThe restrictions now include: a negative COVID test before you get on the plane, a PCR test once you land in Canada, 3-day government sanctioned hotel stay (at a $2,000 expense per person), followed by the completion of your 14-day mandatory quarantineWe think we got it all.. ask us again next week. It will have changed.Last week, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau decided that now, and not twelve months ago, would be a good time to introduce new travel restrictions for Canadians. Starting February 3, all individuals arriving in Canada will be required to take a PCR test - you know, the one test that is so flawed that it cannot even determine if a person is infectious (here is the fact check). After being tested, Canadians will be required to stay in a hotel, at their own expense, for at least 3 days while the results of their tests are processed. These hotel expenses can exceed $2,000.00 (room service not included). Then, even if the test comes back negative, individuals will be required to quarantine at home for an additional 11 days so that they can meet the arbitrary 14 day self-isolation period. There is one possible exception to this rule, however, and that is rich, professional athletes, who will likely continue to come and go as they please, as they have been doing since March 2020. Mandatory quarantine is just for the proles. But this all makes perfect sense, right? Well, it should. Believe science. Amidst all the absurdities embedded within these new restrictions, there is one glaring everyone in the face. That is, why is this happening now? If there was ever an award for bad timing, Justin Trudeau and Doug Ford would be co-recipients. This is something that should have occurred last winter when nobody understood what the virus was and people were justifiably fearful of what could happen. Now, we are in the position where we do know about the virus. For example, we know that if you are under 70 and have no severe pre-existing conditions, then it is almost guaranteed you will shake off the illness in a few days. We know that only 2% of virus transmission is linked to international travel. We also know that the downstream effects of these insane restrictions - such as an increase in suicides, domestic violence, child abuse, overdoses, missed cancer screenings, depression, anxiety, obesity, etc. - are much worse than the virus itself. Finally, we know that ICUs are not as apocalyptic as Justin Trudeau, Doug Ford, Theresa Tam, David Williams, or any other public figure tell us they are during their stone-faced, finger-wagging lectures on television. Don't believe us? Here is a letter from a group of doctors who support every claim that we just made. In fact, there have now been thousands of doctors who have spoken in opposition to this lockdown madness. So, if “believe the experts” is the only principle under which we are supposed to accept lockdown measures, then the argument that opposes lockdowns is even stronger because it is also coming from experts - except these ones happen to be using real evidence and not demonstrably flawed statistical modeling. Aside from the Toronto Maple Leafs, unelected public health “experts” are the only people who are consistently paid ridiculous amounts of money to do their jobs as bad as they do. For example, it turns out that these incompetent, bumbling fools could not even properly maintain an Excel spreadsheet, as they have been overreporting the total number of Ontarians who have been vaccinated by a rate of almost-double. This begs the question: what else have they overreported? It is certainly the case that they have overestimated how much patience we all have. It would also appear that our public health bureaucrats have forgotten what public health means. Public health does not mean “absence of COVID,” but it does mean advocating for policies that maximize the well-being of citizens. In other words, public health should include all of the aforementioned health consequences being kept at a minimum, instead of being accelerated and then outright ignored. Oh well. Believe science. Organized resistanceFortunately, a group of Ontarians are organizing to politely but firmly fight this madness. Toronto-based personal trainer and podcaster Amer Kamra, also known on Instagram as amerthehammer, has been extremely vocal in his opposition to lockdown policies. Not because he is a “conspiracy theorist” who believes that COVID does not exist (as his critics have suggested), but because he, like the doctors we have cited, is concerned about the devastating effects of lockdown restrictions on mental health. Kamra believes that the reason lockdown protests, such as the one initiated by Adam Skelly of Adamson Barbecue, have been unsuccessful in swaying public opinion or governmental policy is that they are too fragmented. Almost every weekend, we see small anti-lockdown protests pop up in Toronto, which are then promptly shut down by Toronto Police Service (apparently the police have solved all of the murders, sexual assaults, and thefts that plague the city). So much for the right to peacefully protest. Nonetheless, Kamra is working with small business owners, nurses, and everyday people to unionize opposition (for lack of a better phrase). In other words, he is organizing a council of business owners, with legal representation, and bringing formal challenges to the policymakers and unelected public health “experts.” If their concerns continue to be ignored, Kamra promises escalation. What that might look like, we do not know. However, it is unlikely that the opposition he is organizing will be so easily shut down. He is gaining more support with every passing day, as he posts countless messages from doctors, nurses, business owners, and others who are aligning with his cause. Meanwhile, down in California, Governor Gavin Newsom - better known as American Psycho - is also staring down the barrel of collective opposition. In addition to the “Recall Gavin” campaign, which seeks to have the Governor removed from office for his botched handling of the pandemic, Newsom is facing scrutiny from fellow Democrats. Prominent figures, on the left and right, appear to be in agreement that Newsom is a failure when it comes to providing transparency and evidence-based justification for some of his more egregious lockdown measures, such as the stay-at-home order which made it illegal for citizens to walk outside (believe science). If Newsom is eventually recalled from office, perhaps he can use the money from his retirement package to celebrate his short and not so sweet tenure by sneaking out to another dinner at the French Laundry. The arrogance of our elected officials has gone on for too long. We believe in reasserting the values embedded within the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically “the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.” Lockdowns are not justice, they are anti-justice. As Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration said, we have accepted a system of “trickle down epidemiology,” where lockdowns have made elites, big businesses, and taxpayer-funded public workers rich while simultaneously convincing the rest of the population that wanting an independent life with dignity is somehow selfish, dangerous, or even “privileged.” This is not in the interest of public health, this is deranged gaslighting. Thus, to all of the vocal and forceful opposition out there, we say “thank you” and look forward to seeing how you progress. | EXTRASFurther ListeningThis week, we encourage you to listen to Megyn Kelly as she interviews Dr. Jay Bhattacharya and Dr. Martin Kulldorff, two of the doctors behind the Great Barrington Declaration, as well as Dr. David Dowdy, to discuss all things COVID. Megyn Kelly is a renegade journalist and her podcast has been an unexpected breath of fresh air in recent months. Enjoy.(1) COVID Truth on Lockdowns, Vaccines and Schools | Ep. 34 - YouTubeUntil next week, thank you all for your time. Have a lovely week. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit brightmorning.substack.com

Hello, and welcome to the eighth weekly issue of Bright Morning. It is hard to believe that we have been at this for eight weeks already. As always, we are extremely grateful for your viewership and hope that you continue to provide us with feedback as we grow. Having said that, let us jump into some hot, spicy stories and analysis from the past week.| POLITICS & ECONOMYGone, the Orange Man is… begun, the Trade Wars haveThe Nitty Gritty:On his first day in office, President Biden cancelled the Keystone XL Pipeline project, which instantly washed away thousands of jobsThe Orange Man is gone. Persona non grata. Never to be spoken of again. Joe Biden has been sworn in as President, and now we can all celebrate our unity as we run along flowery meadows and rainbow skies, as the children splash around in the rivers of chocolate and play with gumdrop smiles. We've been saved… right?Well, within hours of his inauguration, Biden signed a tsunami of executive orders that are, at the very least, divisive - particularly towards the working class. The most significant was the cancellation of the Keystone XL Pipeline. In one swift motion, thousands of Canadians and Americans saw their jobs erased and over 1.5 billion dollars washed down the drain. That's right, folks. In a time when unemployment is soaring and all wheels need to be rolling towards economic recovery, Biden's first move as President was to make more Canadians and Americans unemployed. Fortunately, not all Canadians are pushovers. Jason Kenney, the Premier of Alberta, was furious. Correctly referring to the order as a “gut punch,” Kenney vowed retaliation, with or without the support of Justin Trudeau. Trudeau, whose response to the cancellation can best be described as a halfhearted shaking of the head, said that he is “disappointed.” However, a group of Ontario Premiers have Kenney's back and are pressing Trudeau to retaliate via “proportional economic consequences,” including, but not limited to, demands that the US Administration pays for the project that it just flushed down the toilet. You might be against the use of fossil fuels - as you read or listen to this on your computer, phone, or tablet that was made with fossil fuels - but there is no denying how much of a slap in the face this move is. It sets a dangerous precedent for Canada-US relations. If Trudeau does not respond (which is the most likely outcome), then it will signal to Biden that he can simply renege on any deal, regardless of how much time and money has been invested, and that we will take it. The move also signals a return to the tried-and-failed policies of Barack Obama, where his protectionism severely crippled the Canadian steel industry. And just like Obama used to do immediately after rear-ending Canada, Biden will woo us with flowery language about how much he loves Canada, Hockey, and Tim Hortons. As Ben Shapiro describes, despite the drooling from the media and rich elites over the inauguration of Biden, the harsh reality is that this is the tip of the iceberg for bad economic policies. And the working class is going to pay for it - literally. | CULTUREThe New Glass CeilingThe Nitty Gritty:Amongst the plethora of executive orders signed on Biden's first day in office included one of which that severely threatens women's rights: Preventing and Combatting Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual OrientationIn addition to the erasure of thousands of jobs, Biden's first day as President also saw the erasure of women's spaces via executive order. The order, called “Preventing and Combatting Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation” claims that “every person should be treated with respect and dignity, no matter who they are or whom they love.” It is hard to disagree with this statement, and that is precisely the point - anti-oppositional language is a feature of ideologues. But underneath this flowery language is the elimination of women's spaces. As Abigail Shrier writes, what this executive order does is permit “biological boys who self-identify as girls on to girls' sports teams, or [the schools will] face administrative action from the Education Department.” In other words, if a biological man claims that he is a woman, he can now play on women's sports teams, compete against women, or enter women's bathrooms and locker rooms. We are about to wade into very deep waters with this following argument, so we will tread carefully. First, it should go without saying that the issue here is not that we believe trans women (biological men who identify as women) are predators, abusers, and rapists. We are also not suggesting that individuals who identify as trans should not be treated with dignity or respect. So, please consider extending us some generosity as we proceed. The problem with this executive order is that it denies biology. Men are not women. There are biological differences that exist between men and women; the most notable being that men are, on average, physically larger, stronger, and faster. Thus, to allow biological men to compete in women's sports is to eliminate fair competition for women. Abigail Shrier has done extensive research in this area and she has documented a concerning trend where women feel “demoralized by the blatant unfairness of a rigged competition.” Even less helpful is that when women raise objections to this intrusion, they are denounced as “transphobic.” Consider the following example: a trans woman competes against a biological woman in a college-level wrestling or boxing match. Given the physical advantages afforded to the trans woman, such as increased strength and bone density via higher levels of testosterone, it is likely that the trans woman will seriously injure the biological woman. This will all be done under the approval of ideologically-motivated politicians. Is this morally acceptable? Does it not cut against the entire movement of second wave feminism, which fought for women's spaces, the right for women to not be judged according to the standards of men, and the right to leave abusive environments? What if you were the parent of the daughter who just suffered a brain injury from this government-sanctioned beatdown? Is it responsible for governments to mandate this potential for serious injury? Would you be “transphobic” if you objected?Better solutions are needed. Now. The excesses of trans ideology are threatening women and it does not benefit us to avoid the conversation any longer out of a fear of transphobia. As evolutionary biologist Bret Weinstein tweeted, “it's not possible to provide protections for women if a man can declare himself a woman and access the same protections. That's not an opinion. That is a logical fact. Evolution endowed the sexes differently. Protections for women are just and must be defended.” We agree. | POLITICSThe War on (Domestic) TerrorWhile legacy media outlets and celebrities continue to drool over Biden's inaugural speech, there were several utterances that were left unexamined. In his speech, Biden identified new enemies for America, stating that there is “a rise in political extremism, white supremacy, domestic terrorism that we will confront and defeat.” Okay. But how are we defining these threats? When speaking about “confronting and defeating” internal threats, we need to be absolutely sure that our language is precise, specific, and accurate. But the way in which these threats are defined is the opposite of that. What and who is a political extremist? Is it all 74 million people who voted for Donald Trump? CNN Anchor Don Lemon certainly thinks so. What is a white supremacist? Is it a member of the Ku Klux Klan (which would be accurate), or is it anyone who disagrees with Robin DiAngelo or Ibrim X. Kendi's understanding of the term, where white supremacy effectively operates like the Force in Star Wars - that is, a mystical presence that some are more sensitive to than others? Moreover, who is a domestic terrorist? We do not know, but former director of the CIA John Brennan certainly seems to have an idea. According to Brennan, these internal threats can include “religious extremists, authoritarians, fascists, bigots, racists, nativists, even libertarians” (our emphasis). Setting aside the lack of specificity given to any of these labels for a moment, let us focus on one absurdity glaring us in the face: libertarians. Really? A libertarian, by definition, is someone who “seeks to maximize autonomy and political freedom, emphasizing free association, freedom of choice, individualism and voluntary association.” But not anymore. Now, this person is among the ranks of the Unabomber. What about Antifa groups, though? Are they domestic terrorists? Nope. According to Joe Biden, “Antifa is just an idea.”| POLITICSLanguage MattersOver 74 million Americans voted for Donald Trump. Despite the virtuous calls for unity during Biden's inauguration speech, people on the left appear to be reducing them all down to “white supremacists”, “racists” et al.Is anyone stopping to ask why half of the country voted for the orange man? This vague, sweeping language is a feature, and not a bug, for ideologues. If Joe Biden and Kamala Harris want to unify the country, then perhaps they should start by attempting to understand their opposition. What led to Trump's appeal in the first place? After 4 years, there have been no serious attempts by the Democratic Party to contend with this question. Instead, the Democrats have doubled-down on Hillary Clinton's insightful analysis that Trump voters are a “basket of deplorables” and now imbibe this idea within their policies and language. More broadly, conservatism continues to be treated as a dirty word. It appears that the label “conservative” carries with it the image of a cartoonish, fat-faced, uptight, and misogynistic WASP from the 1950s. But nothing could be further from the truth. As we have been at pains to point out, we see conservatism as a restraining impulse. It is a rational skepticism that is designed to test new ideas before they enter the culture en masse. It is a value system that seeks to do the least amount of damage possible as the culture evolves. It is the recognition that it is easier to destroy than it is to build, and that we should not carelessly denigrate institutions and values simply because they are older. It has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with values. Evidence of this can be seen with the fact that Donald Trump received a larger number of votes from visible minorities than any other Republican candidate since the 1960s. Yet the Democrats (and progressives, in general) continue to ignore this. Why?Perhaps conservatives (and classical liberals) could be more assertive in making this distinction in everyday speech. Instead of masking their beliefs, as they so often do, with meaningless statements such as “I am socially liberal but fiscally conservative,” perhaps they could learn to articulate their values with honesty and without shame. It is okay to think differently. In fact, our entire society is designed to work in concert with people who think differently. Speak up, or else someone will speak for you. Similarly, it is important that we do not imbibe ideas that we do not believe in. As Douglas Murray states, such behaviour demoralizes our souls. Finally, as a friend from across the aisle recently told me, it is imperative that we learn to speak without debating. To close, not every Trump voter was a rioter on Capitol Hill. Not every person who opposes wokeism is a white supremacist. Not every pot-smoking libertarian with a Rand Paul bumper sticker is a domestic terrorist. But at this time, it appears that the new Administration has no interest in recognizing this extremely important distinction. Instead of “unity,” the ethos of Biden and Harris looks a lot more like “unify with us… or else.”| EXTRASFurther Listening

Hello, and welcome to the seventh weekly issue of Bright Morning. Have you subscribed to the audio version of Bright Morning on Spotify yet?Instead of offering our usual preamble, we will instead recite a quote and ask readers to keep it in mind as you proceed through the article. “I was a loyal Soviet citizen until the age of 20. What it meant to be a loyal citizen was to say what you were supposed to say, to read what you were permitted to read, to vote the way you were told to vote and, at the same time, to know that it was all a lie.”- Natan Sharansky | Canadian PoliticsDoug Ford's Church of LockdownThe Nitty Gritty:As stay-at-home orders and draconian COVID lockdowns continue, efforts to shed light on the actual science behind lockdowns sees further censorshipLast week Ontario Premier Doug Ford gave the ole' boot to MPP Roman Baber for writing an open letter against lockdownsWe really wanted to avoid discussing lockdowns this week. How much more is there to say? But as Michael Corleone laments in The Godfather Part III, “just when I thought I was out, they pulled me back in!” On January 15, the MPP for York Centre in Ontario, Roman Baber, published an open letter to Ontario Premier Doug Ford on his Twitter page requesting an end to the lockdown in Ontario. Baber argued that the effects of the lockdown are more damaging to the public than COVID-19, citing drastic increases in suicides, divorces, bankruptcies, eating disorders, soaring unemployment, and drug overdoses. Baber also referenced an increase in cancer screenings, quoting one oncologist who fears a “tsunami of cancer.” Baber closed his letter with very reasonable suggestions such as expanding hospital capacity outside of the GTA, training more ICU nurses, protecting Long Term Care homes with the money that would otherwise be spent on “relief,” and most importantly, ending the hysteria by having responsible conversations about the dangers of the virus. “COVID is real, but the fear of COVID is exaggerated,” he said. The response was instantaneous. Ford swiftly ejected Baber from the Progressive Conservative caucus, forcing him to either sit as an independent or join another political party. In a statement that reads like an excommunication, Ford accused Baber of spreading “misinformation” and stated that his comments were “irresponsible.” However, Ford's most deranged comment was that “there is no room for political ideology in our fight against COVID-19 - rather, our response has been and always will be driven by evidence and data.” This is a lie. The data presented by Baber was from the CDC, CMHA, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Sick Kids Hospital, and many other credible sources - all of which were posted on his Twitter page. Meanwhile, Ford and his team of public health “experts” have provided no data whatsoever to demonstrate how, exactly, the spread of the virus is exacerbated by dining rooms, gyms, or small businesses. Instead, as Baber argues, the crisis is mostly occurring in Long Term Care homes - a crisis which can be laid entirely at the feet of Doug Ford.It is quite amusing (and frightening) that Ford accused Baber of being ideological, not least because Ford has now imbibed the ideology of Lockdown (with a capital L). He is unwilling to debate his authoritarian stay-at-home order, and he is even now repeating mantras like “Believe the Science” or “Stay home. Stay safe. Save lives.” It is time for a reality check. Science is not a belief system. Science is a process of rational skepticism that is predicated upon testing hypotheses to establish provisional truths until they can be disproven by more convincing networks of evidence. In other words, science invites skepticism. Ideologies, on the other hand, are belief systems. Like fundamentalist religions, ideologies are hostile to opposing evidence, they provide a sense of moral superiority, and they are rooted in faith. Thus, Lockdown is an ideology. Doug Ford's team of unelected public health bureaucrats have been proven wrong, time and time again, yet he remains firm in his belief that Lockdown is the only way forward. In this new Church of Lockdown, Ford is the High Priest, his public health “experts” are the scripture, and Roman Baber is the heretic who dared to question the faith. | US PoliticsImpeachment 2: Bigger, Louder, Badder The Nitty Gritty:Last week the house voted to impeach Trump. Again.

Good morning, and welcome to the sixth issue of Bright Morning. We have a lot to cover this week. But first, we would like to deliver a quick message on what this newsletter is about and how it relates to our broader value of freedom of speech. As we are about to cover, there is an alarming assault on freedom of speech that is rapidly gaining momentum. This is not good. As Douglas Murray stated in a recent interview, every generation has had disputes about freedom of speech. And as any student of history knows, it never ends well when governments and institutions restrict the number of opinions we can be exposed to. In John Stuart Mill's essay On Liberty, which is effectively the founding document for freedom of speech in our societies, it is made clear that freedom of speech is important not just because we need to hear, truthfully, the widest possible range of arguments, but also because freedom of speech helps us recognize when we are in error. If we clamp down on freedom of speech, then we remove the ability to determine if we are wrong. This newsletter is our contribution to freedom of speech. We are doing the best we can with what we have available to contribute to more honest and thought-provoking conversations. However, as we are about to point out, the crackdowns on freedom of speech in the tech industry will likely threaten our ability to reach a wider audience. Therefore, we rely on word-of-mouth from our readers. At the risk of sounding like shameless internet beggars, we do ask you to consider sharing our work. We cannot allow the conversations in our culture to be limited to an increasingly narrow range of opinions. Freedom of speech is a non-negotiable value of western societies, and if we cede this value to information monopolies, then we are effectively handing over the keys to our ability to think. Now that we have that out of the way, let us jump into some stories from this week. As we all know by now, there was certainly no shortage of news.The Great Tech PurgeThe Nitty Gritty:Following a series of indecisive actions, Twitter recently banned President Trump from the social media platform. Permanently.President Trump has now been banned from a laundry list of communication platforms, following the early moves from Facebook and Twitter.The pro-free speech Twitter alternative, Parler, shot to the top of the app store listings after the announcement but was swiftly suppressed by Google and Apple when they decided to remove Parler from their respective app stores.Soon after, Amazon decided to shut off Parler's access to AWS (Amazon Web Services) which hosts the sites servers, claiming incitement of violence on the app.Shortly after the events of January 6, when a fringe group of Trump supporters breached the Capitol building in Washington DC, the tech monopolies used this as an opportunity to advance their crackdowns on freedom of speech. President Trump was promptly removed from Facebook, with Mark Zuckerberg stating that he believes “the risks of allowing the President to continue using [Facebook] during this period are simply too great.” Soon after, Trump's Twitter and Instagram accounts were also deleted. When it was expected that Trump would gain more traction on Parler - a social networking service that markets itself as a “free speech alternative” to Twitter and Facebook - Google, Apple, and Amazon all removed the ability for Parler to operate on their systems. Their justification was that Parler would be used “to incite ongoing violence,” and claiming that their intentions are to create safe environments. This is rich, especially because Twitter allows the Chinese Communist Party and the Ayatollah of Iran to maintain active accounts. The former recently boasted about indoctrinating (and possibly sterilizing) Uyghur women, while the latter openly advocates for the annihilation of the Israeli state.This blitzkrieg censorship is alarming for a number of reasons. Censorship is not about “maintaining safety,” but it is about limiting the ability to think. Whatever your thoughts might be on the events that transpired at the Capitol, that is for you to determine. When tech companies restrict the number of opinions we are exposed to, they are effectively operating as Ministries of Truth. Censorship is their way of enforcing what the truth must be. To be clear, this is not to say that we condone the events that occurred at Capitol Hill. Truthfully, our team is still debating amongst ourselves on what to make of it. But this is the point - we are having open conversations and using this as an opportunity for introspection. It should be a chance for everyone to take a step back, reflect upon the cultural rot that is occurring, and then communicate freely about the steps we should take before we pass the point of no return. However, when tech companies restrict the means through which we communicate, as well as impose a limited number of acceptable opinions, they are robbing us of that ability to introspect and instead fanning the flames of ideological narratives that evolve into unquestionable dogma. But is this not the aim? As we have pointed out in this newsletter several times, there is a certain sect of the leftist leadership class that believes individuals cannot, and should not, be trusted to make their own decisions. Thus, it appears to be the case that tech companies have imbibed this idea and are now implementing it on a mass scale. As always, our argument here is not that private companies cannot operate however they choose, but rather our concern is that these companies have become so large and are so influential that it is now impossible to compete. The case with the coordinated removal of Parler proves this. At the end of the day, people always have and always will say ugly things to each other. This is part of what it means to be human. However, it should never be the case where any one person or institution acts as the moral arbiter for what can and cannot be said. Furthermore, what happens when these institutions purge all of their enemies? Will they be satisfied? Unlikely. As Douglas Murray writes, the business model of these companies is to profit from the outrage directed at their enemies, and then dispose of them when they are no longer politically or financially useful. COVID “Detainment Centers” - yup, that could be a thingRecently, New York State has introduced a bill (Assembly Bill A416) that would, among other things, serve as “an act to amend the public health law, in relation to the removal of cases, contacts and carriers of communicable diseases who are potentially dangerous to the public health.” In other words, if New York Public Health deems an individual to be a danger to the public, including those who test positive for COVID-19, this bill would allow authorities to detain these individuals in a designated facility, henceforth concentrating them… in a camp-like institution. Don't believe us? Here is the proposed bill from the government website. Look, oftentimes when people make comparisons to Communist China or the Soviet Union, it sounds hyperbolic and it is easy to wave your hand at the idea. However, we encourage you to read about Article 58 in the Soviet Union and see for yourself the similarities to A416. For example, both pieces of legislation use all-encompassing language, such as “potentially dangerous.” This could mean anything, and that is precisely the point. Legislation should never be vague. For those who insist on making excuses for such draconian ideas, let us offer you one piece of advice: when someone tells you what they are going to do, believe them the first time. It was not that long ago that we thought it was impossible for governments to force business closures for as long as they have, and now look where we are. The province of Quebec recently mandated curfews of 8:00 p.m., because as we all know, there is a high chance you will catch and spread COVID if you are out for an evening walk after a stressful work day. As they say, “trust the science.” To reiterate our plea from last week: if you disagree with such ideas, practice your sense of courage by writing or calling your local representatives and voicing your concerns. There is absolutely no science behind this decision making whatsoever. It is power for the sake of power and control for the sake of control. And as the proposed legislation in New York shows, nothing is outside the realm of possibility. No, Cosmopolitan, obesity is not healthySometimes, something so ridiculous will jump out at you that it will make your head spin around in confusion, then make you laugh, and then finally leave you with a sigh. That was certainly the case for us after we saw one of the new covers for Cosmopolitan magazine this week. In the picture, an obese woman stands on one foot doing a yoga pose while the caption “this is healthy!” is superimposed overtop. Look folks, obesity is not healthy. It's just not. Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? In most cases, sure. Should we be mean to people who are struggling with their weight? Absolutely not. But should we promote obesity as a healthy lifestyle, as this magazine cover does? The answer is an unequivocal no. It is anti-evidence, and it is also ethically and morally questionable. There is a mountain of scientific literature proving that obesity is strongly linked to poor mental health, diabetes, heart disease, bone degeneration, and since this is the hot topic right now, COVID morbidity. Thus, in an era when “saving lives” has become the ethos by which we must all live by, is it not shameful to promote a message that directly harms lives? As well, think about how this message could impact younger women who might have eating disorders. They might see this and use it as justification to ignore the weight loss advice from their doctors, therefore leading to more self-harm. Finally, in case anyone is wondering, we do not believe this should be censored. But we do believe it is worthy of intense criticism, which is precisely why we brought it up. Everyday heroesWell, that was an intense week, but let us finish on a positive note. It is no secret that the COVID lockdowns have devastated small businesses. In fact, our friend Jordan Peterson has been back in action as of late, and he recently shared an article from the Toronto Sun which  argued that “the harms of lockdowns are ten times greater than their benefits.” And in true Peterson fashion, there are everyday heroes who rise to the occasion to help people suffering from the horrific economic and social effects of these lockdowns. For example, we wanted to bring readers' attention to Chef Jagger Gordon, a veteran and the founder of Feed it Forward. Feed it Forward is a non-profit organization that offers free food to Canadians and also operates a “Pay-What-You-Can” grocery store. According to the website, “53% of all food produced in Canada ends up in landfills while 1 in 5 families currently live with food insecurities.” It is Gordon's mission to alleviate some of these food insecurities while reducing food waste, and so he takes the food that would otherwise be sent to landfills and has it donated to his store or food trucks.Meanwhile, Dave Portnoy, founder of Barstool Sports, recently created the Barstool Fund to help small businesses suffering financial hardship from the lockdowns. According to the Barstool Fund, “companies can apply via email for assistance with needs such as rent or tax payments, so long as they have continued to pay their employees throughout the pandemic.” Thus far, the Barstool Fund has been successful and has helped save many businesses from financial collapse. However, despite this organization gaining momentum, it has received almost no coverage in the news. Nor has Chef Jagger Gordon and the Feed it Forward program. Nonetheless, if you search for good people, you will find good people. And that is the message that we wanted to close with. Until next week, thank you all for reading. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit brightmorning.substack.com

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the first issue of Bright Morning in 2021. We hope that you had good Christmas and New Year's, and if possible, had the opportunity to spend some time with family and friends. We would also like to thank those of you who completed last week's survey (click here to fill it out if you haven't already). The feedback has been overwhelmingly positive and we seem to have landed on a formula that the audience enjoys. We appreciate your readership and look forward to continuing as the year progresses. Having said that, let us dive in, head first, into some stand-out stories from the week. Ontario is shopping for a new Finance MinisterLast week, we wrote about some of the top “do as I say, not as I do” moments from politicians in 2020. Such a shame that we finished this list before the year's end because, as fate would have it, the year closed with a story that arguably rivaled the hypocrisy of our favourite people, Eric Garcetti and Gavin Newsom. On December 31, Ontario Minister of Finance Rod Phillips resigned from his position as news broke out that he and his family had left for vacation to St. Bart's on December 13, despite the interminable statements from the Ontario government to “stay home.” To rub salt in the wound, Phillips even went so far as to cover up his time sipping margaritas on the beach by posting a series of pre-recorded videos on his Twitter feed (including one uploaded on Christmas Eve where he is seated comfortably next to his fireplace) to give the illusion that he was, as he phrased it, “making sacrifices” by staying home.  For its part, CBC has provided a good timeline of the scandal.As can be expected in situations like this, Phillips was treated with kid gloves by his political friends. Premier Doug Ford admitted that he was aware of Phillips' trip after he had already left the country, but did not approve of it. Ford later accepted Phillips' resignation as Finance Minister when he returned home on December 31 (likely giving him the chance to step down to save face for the party), but Phillips will continue to serve as the MPP for Ajax. Toronto Mayor John Tory, the man whose permafrown makes him look like the father from Home Alone, even excused Phillips' actions by stating that “everyone makes mistakes,” but that he “stands by his friends.” How heartwarming. Remember just a few weeks ago when Tory said that he hoped Toronto Police would “throw the book” at Adam Skelly for opening his restaurant in defiance of the Reopening Ontario Act? If only Tory could show the same level of generosity and forgiveness for a restaurant owner as he does for his millionaire political pal. But this is par for the course now. We mentioned this last week, but it is worth reiterating here: these leaders are not making mistakes. They are making conscious decisions to violate their own rules because they do not believe in their own rules. End of story. As Rex Murphy wrote in his column for the National Post, we are not all in this together and we never were. So why do we listen?Conservatives vs. Conservatives: The COVID Relief BillThe Nitty Gritty:The United States congress passed a 1.4 trillion dollar spending bill that includes a 900 billion dollar stimulus package for COVID reliefAt the 11th hour, President Trump suggested that the individual $600 stimulus checks going to families wasn't enough and suggested $2,000 checks per personThis sparked much debate in the republican camp on what the actual solution to this “problem” is, while democrats were unsurprisingly overjoyedTwo weeks ago, we spoke about an ongoing debate between conservative camps. This debate is now manifesting in how these camps are responding to the infamous COVID relief bills that were recently passed by the United States Congress. The bills have been widely criticized for “wasteful spending” on foreign aid, most of which has absolutely nothing to do with COVID, while leaving American families with a mere $600.00 in relief. In his monologue on the issue, Tucker Carlson heavily criticized Republican Senator Lindsey Graham for being “really worried” about the state of gender programs in Pakistan (which the bill funds), yet having no concern whatsoever for the forced impoverishment of Americans via lockdown policies. If massive amounts of money from the federal reserve are going to be spent, why not spend it on Americans? Similarly, Senator Rand Paul questioned the long-term effectiveness of these bills. That is, what is the point of printing money and handing it out, whether it be to Americans or for foreign aid, while the economy continues to remain on hold? Is this not leaving behind a massive pile of debt for future generations to clean up? Why, exactly, is printing money the solution? Since we are all individuals capable of determining risk for ourselves, would reopening the economy and allowing businesses to operate not be a better solution? As the new year begins and issues like this continue to arise, this sort of political warfare shows no signs of slowing down. In fact, it will likely continue to grow as citizens become increasingly frustrated and disillusioned from the lack of attention given to their grievances.The worst is behind usThe Nitty Gritty:Raw mortality data from Europe shows an initial spike in excess deaths from the beginning of COVID-19 epidemicThankfully, data from this winter suggests that COVID-19 is no more deadly than a moderately bad flu seasonMoving on, aside from our opposition to lockdown policies, we have been fairly tight-lipped about COVID-19. However, we would now like to present you with some summaries of data on the virus that will hopefully brighten your morning (get it?), if not your outlook on the upcoming year. Towards the end of last winter (beginning in March 2020 and lasting until May 2020), there was a noticeable spike in worldwide deaths compared to previous years. However, this spike was not much larger than the spike that we see in normal winters. Now that we are into the second winter with COVID-19, the total number of deaths appears to be on a similar trajectory to previous years (and it is now even trending downwards). When this gets broken down to look at individual countries, we can see a different pattern. That is, after an initial spike in deaths, the total number of deaths is stable when compared with previous years, regardless of season. Furthermore, each of these countries have had different policies and approaches to the virus, ranging from no lockdown restrictions or masks (e.g. Sweden) to full-blown, red alarm lockdowns, masks, and restrictions on gatherings (e.g. UK). In other words, we are not seeing excess deaths anymore. The worst of it is over and it has been for quite some time, regardless of location. In an era of alarmist and sensationalist headlines that would have us believe we are all subject to impending doom, disease, and death, this is good news. Less people have died than we feared. As well, we encourage you to look at our sources to make up your own mind (Ivor Cummins on YouTube has been a particularly valuable resource). Nonetheless, this is something that we can all look at with some optimism. A message for the New YearThe start of a new year always brings with it the promise of something greater. After a year such as the one we just lived through, where our societies reached industrial strength levels of hysteria, it is only natural for us to believe that the following year will be better. A quick scan through Twitter and Instagram will reveal countless posts about how much things will improve for all of us in 2021. We do not believe it is unreasonable to have a sense of optimism for 2021, but this expectation must be managed wisely. Humans are adaptable creatures. We might not be conscious of this at all times and in all situations, but we are surprisingly effective at adapting to challenges. Although this is good because it means we are more resilient than we might expect, it also has the downside effects where we become quick to forget, even quicker to rationalize, and therefore are susceptible to complacency. This is why, in spite of the overwhelming evidence against the effectiveness of lockdowns, a large segment of the population demands more restrictions. There are those who believe that we somehow deserve to be locked down, using borderline paganistic language and referring to the virus as a “sign from mother nature.” Even stranger are those who obsessively monitor the number of COVID cases each day, see an increase, and use this as an excuse to lambast others whom they have never met (all without realizing the myriad variables that influence case counts such as false positives, seasonality, and crossover with other coronaviruses).If 2021 is going to be better, then we need to remember who we are and how much more meaningful our lives can be. We need to remember all the good things we had, and how much we had taken them for granted. We must also learn to recognize what is in our control. The virus is not in our control, but how we respond to it is. If we keep going at each other's throats over the number of COVID cases each day, then all we are doing is distracting ourselves from the source of the problem: bad leaders and bad policies. We gave up our sense of control to bad leaders who did not respect that transfer of power, and look how that turned out. Time and time again, we have seen leaders shamelessly excuse themselves from their own rules, make exceptions for others on the grounds of their political ideology, and constantly reimpose tried and failed policies. If things are going to be better, then we must reprioritize ourselves. We cannot continue outsourcing our sense of responsibility to leaders who do not have our best interests in mind. Therefore, the best way to usher in a better year is to practice developing our sense of courage. Learn to stand up and speak up. Demand a return to normalcy, or at the very least, better solutions. Demand accountability. Write to your local representatives and propose ideas. At the same time, perhaps it would be healthier for us all if we wean ourselves off the daily COVID updates. At this point, it seems that their only function is to dump gas on the fire of collective hysteria. Perhaps this time could be better spent reading, cooking, walking outside, or talking with friends on the phone. Who knows, we may even find a deeper sense of meaning as we learn to make our voices heard and exercise more control over our lives. After all, responsibility is what our lives, and our societies, are all about. Until next week, thank you all for reading and Happy New Year. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit brightmorning.substack.com

If you'd rather listen to this issue than read, you can do that now