Tag: Young people

A Dark History

Bullying

Another of the Catholic Churches’ dark history—a negative or harmful aspect of the past—is being exposed. The article, Ireland Digs Up 796 Infants’ Remains in Septic Tank Scandal! describes a mass forensic exposure at the site of a former Irish Catholic mother and baby institution where the remains of 796 infants and young children were found in an abandoned septic tank. This is a disturbing discovery tied to an institution who claims it is the “one true church” founded by Jesus Christ.” It was 40 years ago, when National Catholic Reporter (NCR) first exposed the Catholic Church’s sex abuse scandal. The coverage of this dark past was first revealed in June 1985 on NCR’s front page with an overview of sexual abuse cases of priests in several U.S. dioceses.

CBC has an article written by a Philippine girl titled, I’ve been a Catholic my entire life. But the church’s dark past is making me lose faith.  She writes:

My journey of discovery led me to the dark history of the Catholic church in Canada. I learned of the systemic and widespread sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests and the historical genocide of Indigenous people in Canada…I am profoundly disillusioned with the Catholic church. And I can’t be the only one. I can’t be alone in my feelings of betrayal and hurt. How could the church that served as my guiding moral compass to goodness all these years be the same establishment that has caused so much agony and suffering to so many?

I (#blogger #blog #somseason #YA #authors) can totally relate to this Philippine girl’s feelings. I’ve been disillusioned with the church for many years now for the same reasons. I was raised Catholic and was once a devout Catholic. I recently came across another piece of dark history concerning the Cathars. You’re likely wondering who the Cathars are and why I am bringing them up. Malcolm Barber is a scholar of medieval history and is described as the world’s leading expert on the Knights Templar. He wrote in his book,  The Cathars: Dualist Heretics in Languedoc in the High Middle Ages:

Catharism was the greatest heretical challenge faced by the Catholic Church in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The attempt by the Cathars to find an answer to the fundamental religious and philosophical problems posed by the existence of evil, combined with their success in persuading large numbers of Christians in the West that they had solved these problems, shook the Catholic hierarchy to its very core, and provoked a series of reactions more extreme than any previously contemplated.

If you read other accounts about the Cathars, they are said to be heretics. Heretics are those who have controversial opinions, especially ones who publicly dissent from the officially accepted dogma of the Roman Catholic Church. Now I had never heard of the Cathars until a few months ago. I was taught about the crusades, but never the Cathars. Cathars are tied to the crusades and Knight Templar, who I had also never heard about until a few years ago. The World History Encyclopedia says in their article, Crusades, “The Crusades were a series of military campaigns organised by popes and Christian western powers to take Jerusalem and the Holy Land back from Muslim control and then defend those gains.” According to The History of the Knights Templar, From Inception to Downfall there is much mystery surrounding the Knights Templar, as they began as a Catholic military order created to protect pilgrims on their journeys to and from the Holy Land. The article also says their original mission was to carry out “malicide” defined as the killing of evil itself. The connection between the Knights Templar and the Cathars is explained in the articles,  Knights Templar links to the Cathar heresy and Templars Were Mortal Enemies of Cathars.

Who were the Cathars?  The article, Cathar Beliefs, doctrines, theology and practices, says “Cathars clearly regarded themselves as good Christians, since that is exactly what they called themselves.”

World History Encyclopedia says in their article, Cathars; The Cathars, also known as Cathari, which means “pure ones” in Greek, were a dualist medieval religious sect of Southern France which flourished in the 12th century and challenged the authority of the Catholic Church. Both articles provide much information about their beliefs, practices, etc.

I was horrified while reading the article, Knights Templar links to the Cathar heresy, which says:

In the Middle Ages, France was convulsed by a crusade between the Catholic church and Christians who called themselves Cathars. They rejected many core Catholic beliefs…We think of the Crusades as a Christian versus Muslim thing – but it was also a Christian versus Christian affair. In the Baltics and Russia, Catholic knights fought the eastern Orthodox church. While in modern Turkey, the Fourth Crusade saw crusaders smash up the Christian city of Constantinople. But most terrifying of all, was the pope’s decision to crush the Cathars in southern France.

Now I was always led to believe that the crusades were about freeing the “Holy Land” from the Muslims. I was never taught that the crusade involved destroying those considered heretics. Could that be true?

The World History Edu’s article, History of the Catholic Church: How and When Did Catholicism Begin? says, “Christianity is often described as a religion that emerged from the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth (also known as Jesus Christ).” Does that mean Jesus taught that heretics need to be wiped out? I don’t believe that. That is not the Jesus I learned about and believe in. Something does not make sense. Why would the Catholic Church destroy a community who considered themselves good Christians? Yes, they were considered heretics by the church, but to wipe them out seems extreme. Would a church that emerged from the teachings of Jesus do that and keep that secret? Is the Catholic Church really true to who they say they are?

A response to Did the Church change its position on the punishment of heretics? answered the question of a person described as anti-Catholic and who wanted to know what Catholic Answers, whose mission is  sharing, explaining, and defending the Catholic faith, thought. The enquirer claims that the Church at the Fourth Lateran Council said heretics should be exterminated, but then later denied it.

Part of the Catholic Answers response was:

First, the issue Lateran IV (1215) addressed was not the “extermination” of heretics in the sense of killing them. Anti-Catholics have been confused by the use of the Latin extermino in the Council’s decree and have assumed the word means the same as the English verb “exterminate,” saying “the relevant passage of Lateran IV reads, “Catholics who take the cross and gird themselves up for the expulsion [“extermination”] of heretics shall enjoy the same indulgence and be strengthened by the same holy privilege as is granted to those who go to the aid of the holy land.” 

That implies, at least from the perspective of the person answering the question, that the church never killed heretics. So, which is it? Did they or didn’t they?

Paul Wallis is a Theological Educator who delivers courses on the History of Christian Thought and Biblical Hermeneutics—the principles of interpreting texts, something I know something about after taking Biblical Theology courses. He has a documentary titled, The Cathars The Untold Story. You can watch the documentary on his website: Paul Anthony Wallis – Researcher, Author, Speaker, on Rumble: The Cathars: The Untold Story (Documentary By Paul Wallis), or watch it below.

Mr. Wallis convincingly shows the killing of the Cathars by the Knights Templar. The article, Holy Horrors: Killing Heretics – Church and State, outlines the history of killing heretics. It says: “Killing heretics was endorsed by popes and saints. They quoted Old Testament mandates such as ‘He who blasphemes the name of the Lord shall be put to death.’”

What happens to heretics today? Are they exterminated? The 1983 Code of Canon Law outlines several sins that carry the penalty of automatic excommunication, including heresy. Excommunication does not mean a person is kicked out of the Church. It is when a person or group is prohibited from participating in certain activities and receiving the sacraments until the excommunication is lifted. That would mean heretics are not killed today, or at least that’s the official narrative.

According to Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 1563, a Catholic priest represents and embodies Jesus, the high priest, both at Mass and at any other time or place. He acts “in persona Christi capitus,” in the person of Christ the head, and consequently, a priest configures himself to Jesus. Now the Gospels portray, Jesus as a model of virtue and love. His teachings emphasize compassion, forgiveness, humility, and love for one’s neighbor. Catholics are told to strive to emulate Jesus and exhibit Christ-like behavior in their interactions with others. This is where my struggles begin. How can people (priests, bishops, cardinals, popes) who claim to act “in persona Christi capitus,” carry out atrocities like the persecution of the early Christians such as the Cathars, anti-heresy witch hunts during the Grand Inquisition, carry out crusades, priest sexual abuse of children, the papal collaboration with the Nazis during World War II, and more? How can a church said to be founded by Jesus have such a dark history? It appears to have a history of bullying (#bullying, #antibullying). For me, this is unforgivable. The one true church founded by Jesus Christ would never carry out such evils. No one who truly embodies Jesus would carry out evil acts. I am disillusioned.

The Old World (Part Two)

In part one, I (#blogger #blog #somseason #YA #authors) deliberated on some of our history. Let’s continue with that discussion.

Have you ever heard of the “Orphan Trains?”  I hadn’t until recently. Wikipedia’s article, Orphan Train, says:

The Orphan Train Movement was a supervised welfare program that transported children from crowded Eastern cities of the United States to foster homes located largely in rural areas of the Midwestern United States short on farming labor. The orphan trains operated between 1854 and 1929, relocating from about 200,000 children. The co-founders of the orphan train movement claimed that these children were orphaned, abandoned, abused, or homeless, but this was not always true. They were mostly the children of new immigrants and the children of the poor and destitute families living in these cities.

There are lots of articles on Orphan Trains like Orphan Trains – Social Welfare History Project. Wikipedia has another article titled, Home Children, that states in 1869, a child migration scheme began where “more than 100,000 children were sent from the United Kingdom to Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa.” The article, England’s “migrant children; US “orphan trains” says, “According to the parliamentary report, the shipping out of children was done for a mix of reasons: 1) philanthropic – to remove children from the streets or from parents who posed a serious risk; 2) economic – in England, to lower the budgetary costs of the government providing for neglected children, and in the other countries, to provide a source of cheap labor; 3) racist – as the report states, “the importation of ‘good white stock’  was seen as a desirable policy objective in the developing British Colonies.” 

As you might expect, I have questions. Where did all these homeless children come from? Why were there so many homeless children in the US and Britain? Let’s look at New York City. Wikipedia’s Orphan Train article says, “Around 1830, the number of homeless children in large Eastern cities such as New York City exploded. In 1850, there were an estimated 10,000 to 30,000 homeless children in New York City. At the time, New York City’s population was only 500,000.”  News from the Office of the New York State Comptroller, in its article,  Numbers of Homeless Population Doubled in New York, states “there were more than 158,000 homeless New Yorkers in 2024 – about one in five of the nation’s homeless.” The Sleeping Bag Project’s article, 30K children lived in NYC homeless shelters every month in NYC in 2023. Numbers of homeless children in NYC appears to be roughly the same now as it was in the 1800s. Wouldn’t you expect homelessness to be much higher nowadays with the NY population being higher than 8 million? Why were there so many homeless children during the mid to late 1800s? Something doesn’t add up. What was going on in the 1800s that caused so much child homelessness? Question everything folks!

You’ve likely heard or learned about the Hindenburg disaster, the airship accident that happened on May 6, 1937. An airship is a dirigible balloon, a type of aerostat (lighter-than-air aircraft) that can navigate through the air flying under its own power. The Hindenburg, a German-made commercial passenger-carrying rigid airship was fuelled by hydrogen which caught fire and destroying it during its attempt to dock with its mooring tower. This disaster essentially stopped airship use.

The article, The Comprehensive History of Airships: A Journey Through Time says:

In the early 20th century, airships emerged as a revolutionary mode of passenger transport, offering an alternative to rail and sea travel. These floating giants provided passengers with an unparalleled view of the landscape below, allowing for a leisurely journey marked by comfort and elegance. Airship travel became particularly popular in Europe and North America, facilitated by the luxurious amenities onboard. Passengers enjoyed spacious lounges, exquisite dining experiences, and even sleeping quarters, reminiscent of a grand hotel experience high in the skies. The Grands Balloons offerings made air travel accessible to the affluent, thereby elevating the status of airships in society.

The article, Docking on the Empire State Building, shows these ships docked in city centers. The article, The Forgotten Era of the Airships in Rare Photographs, 1900s-1940s, shows many pictures of these magnificent ships. As expected, I have questions. Why was this type of air travel abandoned? The typical answer given to this question is there was fierce competition with airplanes, which offered faster and more efficient travel, plus the impact of major disasters, notably the Hindenburg catastrophe in 1937, which instilled public fear around airship travel. Now, I don’t know about you, but “spacious lounges, exquisite dining experiences, and even sleeping quarters” sounds much more appealing than crowded planes. It seems to me that with today’s technological advancements, airships would be a much safer  and a more tranquil type of air travel. Could it be that we were made to fear airships and indoctrinated to believe that airplanes were safer? Could it be that crowding people into planes with squashed seats is a way to increase profits? Could it be that airplanes are easy money as the article Airline Profits To Soar in 2024 as Travel Rebounds suggests? It was author, Devin Cabrera, who said, “Because the world runs on money and the ones that have it control everything. The less [money] you have, the less people care about you.” Profits do seem to take precedence over comfort.  Question everything folks!

Have you ever wondered about the many magnificent and beautiful cathedrals throughout the world? I’ve visited many of them, and I am amazed every time I am in one. Let look into Notre-Dame Basilica of Montréal. The Canadian Encyclopedia says, “Construction of on the new Notre-Dame Church—the present-day Basilica—began in 1824 and was completed in 1829.” This cathedral was built of carved solid stones during horse-drawn carriage days. According to Wikipedia, the first Canadian railway was opened outside Montreal in 1836, after the cathedral was built. So, we’re to believe that this grand building was built in 4 years during times of primitive technology. A much smaller building was recently built at our local college, and it took over two years to complete, and that is with modern equipment. Something doesn’t add up. Question everything people.

A cathedral is defined as a very large and important church with a bishop in charge of it. That is what I have always believed until recently. I have recently learned that there is a growing body of research suggesting that these structures may have served a dual purpose: as centers for healing, where sound, light, and sacred geometry joined to create powerful healing environments.  The articles Ancient Cathedrals as Healing Centers, The Healing Resonance of Churches, and Magnetism, Sound And Healing: Now And In Ancient Times explain the healing properties of churches. These articles claim churches do much more than spiritual healing. The Rumble video, Cathedrals are healing centers based on frequency, vibration & resonance provides a good explanation of this research. Could this be true? Could these ancient churches have been healing centers originally and that was kept from us? Why would someone do that? If it’s true, then we have been indirectly bullied (#bullying, #antibullying).

I recently watched a documentary called, Old World Order, Everything We’ve Been Told Is A Lie.  I strongly encourage you to watch it! So, what is the video’s premise? It provides answers to many questions, like those I expressed above, and in Part one. When you see the possibility of a different truth, the world makes way more sense. And with that, “Every person must choose how much truth he [or she] can stand.” Psychiatrist, Irvin D. Yalom said that. You can watch this video below.

You can also watch this film on Stew Peter’s website, Old World Order (2024), and on Rumble:  OLD WORLD ORDER – A DOCUMENTARY BY STEW PETERS

What if our history is false or has been altered? If it is false, then I want to know our true past. The world needs real truth. Is our history fake? Has our true history been concealed?  As I mentioned in a previous blog, George Orwell, author of 1984, said, “The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history,” and Napoleon Bonaparte allegedly said, “History is a set of lies agreed upon.” Were these people trying to tell us something?  I am beginning to think they were.

I did my own research and I have come to my own conclusions. As mentioned in previous blogs, I no longer believe everything I’ve been told. I question everything and draw my own conclusions. So, before you label me a crazy conspiracy theorist, I remind you of what American columnist, Will Cain, said: “Accusations like conspiracy theories, words like disinformation and misinformation, these aren’t words that are meant to guide you as to how much trust you should place in the story. These are weapons used to destroy opposition and you already know that when it comes to debate, disagreement or even election outcomes.” American writer and intellectualist, Gore Vidal, says, “Apparently, ‘conspiracy stuff’ is now shorthand for unspeakable truth.” And never forget what Danish theologian and philosopher, Soren Kierkegaard once said, “There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” You decide.

The Old World (Part One)

I (#blogger #blog #somseason #YA #authors) have always been fascinated with history. It’s one of the reason’s I minored in Social Studies, where history is taught in Alberta. The article, What is the Difference Between History and the Past? states:

The past refers to all the events that have ever happened since the beginning of time until the present moment. History, on the other hand, is the interpretation of the past through the study of records and evidence left behind by previous generations. It is a process of interpreting evidence in a thoughtful and informed way, and it gives meaning, sense, and explanatory force to the past in the present. History is open to change and revision as new evidence is discovered and new interpretations are proposed.

This was my approach to teaching Social Studies classes. In the above quote, I especially like the sentence; “History is open to change and revision as new evidence is discovered and new interpretations are proposed.” In the past few months,  I have come across some thought provoking videos and articles, like the one I talked about in my last post, Is Canada Real? That video got me wondering: Is what I taught, and what our history books tell us, really true? Is it really reflecting the world’s past? It was Britain’s war time prime minister, Winston Churchill who allegedly said, “History is written by the victors,” and it was the author of 1984, George Orwell who said, “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” Why would they say such things? Are we missing something? Think about the word history—”his story.” Is history just someone’s, or some group’s story? Is the history we’ve been taught a lie or at the very least altered truth?

I am fascinated with historical buildings. Take, for example, the Canada Permanent Building, located in downtown Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. You can see a picture of this building and learn about it in the articles, CANADA PERMANENT BUILDING and HistoricPlaces.ca .  I have driven by this building many times.  It is said to be built of sandstone and red brick and constructed in 1909. No mention of when construction actually began or finished, so one can only conclude that it was built in 12 months or less. What I find interesting is that this was during the time of dirt roads, and horse and carts, at least that is what we were told. A new smaller sized building was constructed at the local college where I live and it took over 2 years to construct and that’s with modern equipment. It’s bewilders me how a stone and brick building could be constructed in one year in the 1900s when it took over 2 years to construct a building with modern equipment today. Something doesn’t add up.

Another example is First Presbyterian Church, also located in Edmonton. I have walked past this beautiful building many times. You can learn about this building in the articles, FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH and Wikipedia’s First Presbyterian Church (Edmonton). This brick and sandstone church is said to be constructed in 1911 in the first article, but Wikipedia says the present building was completed in November 1912. The first article says the architect is Wilson and Herrald, but has n/a (non-applicable?) listed for the builder. Why such little information? The first article implies it was built in a year or less, which seems unlikely to me. Like I said above, how can a stone and brick building be constructed in just one year in the 1900s, during a time of horse and carts when it takes two or more years to construct a building of smaller size today with modern equipment?  I question that. Question everything folks!

Teaching Social Studies, I often taught about various empires like the Roman Empire, Chinese Empire, and the British Empire. Never in my 35 years of teaching have I ever come across the Tatarian Empire (also known as Great Tartary and Tartaria). I first learned of Tartaria about two years ago. There is a map of Tartaria located in the Library of Congress which is located in Washington D.C. That means it is real. Here is a link to the Map of the Great Tartary.  Discover Magazine’s article, What Is the Lost Empire Of Tartaria? says:

People who believe in the Tartarian Empire contend it was once a sophisticated, worldwide civilization with impressive architecture. Because such an empire is not mentioned in history books, conspiracy theorists claim it has been intentionally erased. 

Notice that Discover Magazine tries to discredit Tartaria calling it “The Tartarian Empire conspiracy theory.”  If you want to learn about Tartaria, you can read about it in the articles, Tartaria Mud Flood Reset: A Missing Legacy and Tartaria: Lost Timeline of a Global Empire. My question is: why has Tartarian history been kept from us? If you do your own research, you will find lots of articles calling it a conspiracy theory and myth, but is it? The first article says, “the Tartarians were masters of masonry, brickwork, steam punk style technology, universally free energy, and grand architecture.” It also says, “Churches, cathedrals, mosques, and other buildings of worship were originally aetheric power stations, water stations, and sound resonating acoustical healing centers.” Could this be why they kept knowledge of the Tartarians from us? Are they (whoever they are) trying to hide a history with advanced technologies from us? There are various videos to watch in the second article. Watch them, and draw your own conclusions.

What happened to Tartaria? Many say it was wiped out with a mud flood. To understand what I mean, watch this video titled: The Mud Flood Reset that Time Forgot!?

You can also refer to the article, Mud Flood, Dirt Rain, and the story of the Buried Buildings, which has lots of pictures. Many of the buildings from Tartaria still stand and have been repurposed; many cathedrals for example. Could the two buildings I talked about earlier be Tartarian buildings? It would explain why the histories of these building are so vague. Has our history been re-written and hidden from us? Could this be why those who question it are called crazy conspiracy theorists? Question everything people.

Have you ever wondered about the “Great Fires” of cities that happened? I can’t help but think about this with all the news about fires in Los Angeles, California, like this news article, Eaton and Palisades fires. It reminds me of Lahaina in Maui which burned in August of 2023.

The article, Top 10 Most Famous Fires in History, lists—looking at 1800 and 1900s—Boston 1872, Chicago 1871, San Francisco 1906, Peshtigo, Wisconsin 1871, Texas City, Texas 1947, Halifax, Nova Scotia 1917, and Tokyo, Japan 1923 as the most famous city fires. Wikipedia’s List of fires in Canada lists 15 Canadian city fires in the 1800s, and 8 in the 1900s, with some cities being listed more than once with fires in different years. In the USA, I counted 16 great city fires in Wikipedia’s Urban fires in the United States throughout 1700s to 1900s. Why did so many cities burn?

Let’s look at the Great Toronto fire of 1904. The Canadian Encyclopedia’s article, Great Fire of Toronto (1904) has pictures. What’s interesting is the pictures show, what looks like a war zone of brick and stone buildings. How can a fire destroy at least 98 stone buildings? Stone doesn’t burn. Let’s look at the Boston fire of 1872 as explained in the above mentioned article, Top 10 Most Famous Fires in History. This article says, “some 776 building and twenty people—being turned into charred cinders, making it one of the East Coast’s most devastating fires”. Wikipedia’s article, Great Boston Fire of 1872 says,  the fire began “in the basement of a commercial warehouse,” and that “many of the affected buildings were made of brick and stone, but with wooden framing.” It also says “the fire could spread from rooftop to rooftop, and across narrow streets.”  Now I have questions. How can 776 buildings be destroyed and only 20 people die? Why would wood framing be used for brick and stone buildings? Is wood strong enough to support brick and stone? I can’t imagine it is. Something doesn’t make sense. Question everything friends.

I have to wonder if the history we’ve been told is really our true history.  Have we been indoctrinated to believe someone’s fake story? Have we been programmed to believe a history that has been falsified, altered, or hidden? Why would someone do that? If that’s true, then we have been indirectly bullied (#bullying, #antibullying). English writer, Kate Atkinson once said, “Alternate history fascinates me, as it fascinates all novelists, because ‘What if?’ is the big thing.” What if our history is false or altered? George Orwell, author of 1984, said, “The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history,” and it was Napoleon Bonaparte who allegedly said, “History is a set of lies agreed upon.” Why would they say such things? Were they trying to tell us something?  It is time for us to do our own investigating instead of blindly believing what we’re told. I have more to say on this topic, and possible answers to my questions above, in Part Two.

Is Canada Real?

For years now, I (#blogger #blog #somseason #YA #authors) have read books that say things like “everything is an illusion.” For a long time I have tried to understand what that means, because I am the type of person who must understand things, so I research a topic until I do. Since the Covid era, I’ve looked into many topics and learned some disturbing things. I now question everything because I no longer blindly accept the “official narratives” of officialdom. I believe I now understand what is meant by “everything is an illusion.”  Ironically, I just recently learned about a video by Timm Stein titled, Canada – the Illusion. I was immediately intrigued.

By now, I’m sure you’ve heard about Trump trolling Trudeau and calling him ‘governor’ of the ‘Great State of Canada’. President Elect, Donald Trump seemingly wants to take over Canada, Greenland and the Panama Canal and his son, Eric Trump even posted an image of Donald Trump ‘Buying’ Canada, Greenland and Panama Canal in a social media post. The CBC says, it’s No longer a joke: Ministers say Trump’s threats to absorb Canada need to be taken seriously. This article quotes Trump as saying, “You get rid of the artificially drawn line [the Canada-US border] and you take a look at what that looks like and it would also be much better national security.”  Is he wanting Canada and the US united for security reasons? I think there is way more to it. Trudeau wrote in a social media post, “There isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell that Canada would become part of the United States.” Now that’s laughable, since he is a “lame duck,” has clearly shown in his years as PM that he doesn’t care about this country, and I don’t believe he has the confidence of Canadians to make a decision as huge as this one. There certainly would be pros and cons to the two countries uniting in some form.  

Pierre Karl Péladeau, the new Parti Québécois leader, called Canada an ‘imaginary country’ but The National Post says, Experts agree: Canada is a real country (and Pierre Karl Péladeau is wrong). First of all, who are these experts?Is Parti Québécois leader right? Is Canada an imaginary country? Let’s explore that.

I just watched the video, Canada – the Illusion, which left me stunned after watching it. It immediately starts off with the words on the screen, “The following film is entirely based on facts, not opinions. The viewer is strongly encouraged to verify each fact!”  Now I always told my students that “your opinions aren’t worth anything unless you back them up.” In other words, if you’re going to make a claim, you better be prepared to back it up with factual information. This video convincingly did exactly that. You can watch the video below:

The website, Canada – The Illusion, has links to watch it on other platforms and even gives you the option to download it. I strongly encourage you to watch it! So, what is the video’s premise? An illusion is an idea or belief that is not true, or something that is not really what it seems to be. The title of this video seems to suggest that Canada is not really what we’ve been taught it is. The Facebook page titled, The video Canada: The Illusion… – Alberta: The Grassroots, describes the video as critically examining:

“Canada’s legal and historical foundations, exposing that the nation was established through fraud and deception. It exposes that Canada operates without a legitimate legal government, rendering its authority—and practices such as law enforcement and taxation—unlawful. Furthermore, the documentary exposes that the “government,” as it exists today, functions as a criminal entity, nothing more than an illegal corporate theft of the lands of Canada, which legally belong to “we the people,” creating unlawful laws and agreements to enrich powerful elites while systematically misleading and controlling the population through misinformation and deception.”

Now those are strong allegations! Essentially, the video asserts that Canada is NOT a legitimate country, that it is a corporation instead. The legal dictionary defines a “corporation is a legal business entity in which the owners are protected from liability for the company’s actions and financial status.” Is Canada just a business entity? Some say so, as the article, Fact Check: Canada NOT Owned By The ‘United States Corporation’, is refuting someone’s claim that  “the corporation of Canada is owned by the United States Corporation.”  Wait, now are people claiming the USA is a corporation too? Let me be clear. I don’t give any credibility to fact checkers as they are hired to discredit anything that goes against the “official narrative,” but could that be true?

The Cambridge University Press has an article, Is the U.S. Government a Corporation? The Corporate Origins of Modern Constitutionalism, saying in its abstract, “The U.S. Constitution is best understood not as a “social contract,” but as a popularly issued corporate charter.”   The article, What Every American Should Know: The Republic vs The Corporation, says, “The corporation was created for the District of Columbia, aka Washington, D.C., via the Act of 1871. THE UNITED STATES corporation operates under private international law with their own corporate constitution.” It goes on to say, ‘If you want proof of this, look at subsections 15 and 15(A) in Title 28 U.S. Code § 3002 and you should see this sentence, “United States” means— (A) a Federal corporation.” Another article, The United States Isn’t a Country — It’s a Corporation! also claims that the USA is a corporation. If the US is, then it is likely Canada is as well. The YouTube video, Is Canada a CORPORATION? Canada is CORPORATION PROOF gives pretty convincing evidence.  I did what the gentleman in the video did and sure enough CANADA (CIK 0000230098) comes up as a company name. Now don’t take my word for any of this. Do your own research and draw your own conclusions.

The video ends saying, “Since the people on the land mass known as “Canada” have been indoctrinated for decades, and conditioned to be obedient slaves of the system, many may have to suffer immensely to be broken enough to accept the truth, and to have the will to change.” Have we been lied to? Have we been indoctrinated to believe an illusion? I spent much of my career as a teacher proudly teaching Canadian history, a history like that described in the Canadian Encyclopedia article, Constitutional History of Canada. I taught that Canada was a confederation with Sir John A MacDonald being one of the founders. The video claims this is false. Was I teaching lies? Was I just an indoctrinated teacher used to indoctrinate others? Canada’s National Anthem has a line that says, “True North strong and free.” Now I question if we were ever free.

Care Learning has an article titled, The key features of the different types of bullying (#bullying, #antibullying) which talks about Indirect Bullying, a less direct type of bullying, involving manipulation and sabotage. This type of bullying is much harder to detect and undermines trust. If the video is truth, then we Canadians have been indirectly bullied through manipulation and sabotage.

I did my own research and I have come to my own conclusions. Since the Covid era, I no longer believe everything I’ve been told. I’ve said many times in other blog posts, “question everything,” which I do. As the Buddha allegedly said, “Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.” And before you label me crazy, remember what Danish theologian and philosopher, Soren Kierkegaard said,  “There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.”

Why the Ominous Language?

I know it’s been some time since I (#blogger #blog #somseason #YA #authors) have written a blog post. Let me explain. Our daughter got married in March in Portugal, so that monopolized some of my time. We also bought a lake property and had lots of projects there to contend with, so that took up our summer. I know, these sound like excuses and you’re right, they are. The truth is, I needed a break from blogging. As they say, ‘You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.” In other words, you can show someone the truth, but you can’t force them to explore or accept truth if they don’t want to. Or, as Danish theologian and philosopher, Soren Kierkegaard says, “There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” New Thought self-help book author, W. Clement Stone, once said, “Truth will always be truth, regardless of lack of understanding, disbelief or ignorance.” The fact is, truth does not mind being questioned, but a lie does not like being challenged. It felt like I was beating a dead horse meaning I was wasting my time and effort trying to do something that is impossible, which is to wake up people to what is really going on. Anyway, I’m back.

I’ve been noticing a pattern lately when it comes to the weather. It seems that rain has become a flood warning. Snow has become a snow warning. Wind is now a tornado or hurricane warning. Summertime has become an extreme heat warning, and wintertime has become extreme cold alert. Even more, the language being used by meteorologists to describe weather phenomena has become very threatening, like the CBC news article, How can B.C. protect itself from the next atmospheric river? Or the NASA website’s report, Another Atmospheric River Hits British Columbia. I have never heard of atmospheric rivers until recently. In my day, we would say, “that was a downpour.”  The article, What are atmospheric rivers? says atmospheric rivers are relatively long, narrow regions in the atmosphere – like rivers in the sky. It says they come in many shapes and sizes, those that contain the largest amounts of water vapor and the strongest winds can create extreme rainfall and floods, often by stalling over watersheds vulnerable to flooding. There has always being heavy rains that caused flooding. Wikipedia reports that between the years 1900 and 2005 there were 241 flood disasters in Canada. Why weren’t atmospheric rivers to blame then?  Why the ominous language?

According to the Time Magazine article, ‘Bomb Cyclone’ and Other Weird Weather Words for Our Climate Change Era, Atmospheric Lakes –a term coined in 2021—are a thing. This article defines atmospheric lakes as “compact, slow-moving, moisture-rich pools” of water vapor that detach from atmospheric rivers to create their own smaller, slower weather system. Not sure if Atmospheric Lakes are real, but in my day we would call these of rains a “soaker.” Are they just trying to scare us?

Another strange weather expression I heard was regarding a storm in our neighbouring province of British Columbia (BC). I saw headlines such as, Another bomb cyclone heads for B.C. this weekend, but this will be different and Bomb cyclone: What is the weather phenomenon slamming B.C. and U.S.?  In my day, we would say, “that was a wicked storm,” but it was just another storm. The article, What are bomb cyclones and how do they form? defines a bomb cyclone as… “a mid-latitude cyclone that has rapidly intensifies.” A cyclone is a low-pressure weather system with winds rotating inward, counter clockwise in the northern hemisphere. According to Wikpedia, there have been many recorded Pacific hurricanes (tropical cyclones) since 1858. Seldom do they reach BC though. Why don’t they just say cyclone or hurricane instead of the scary-sounding weather term bomb cyclone?

Then there are Firenados, as in the CNN news article, California’s largest single wildfire spawned two massive firenados. According to the Time article, Firendados are a blend of fire and tornado, that is, flaming columns of rotating fire, often erupting during a wildfire (where else would they occur?) when intense heat rises and combines with turbulent winds up to 100 mph. I’ve heard about forest fires all my life, but never a Firenado. Weird! Is this just another weather term to scare us?

The article, The weirdest and rarest weather phenomena from around the world, talks about microbursts. Never heard of those as a kid. A microburst is a smaller version of a downburst, the opposite of a tornado.  The article claims instead of the wind pulling air to a central point and then sucking it up from the ground, a downburst drops the air and forces it out in all directions once it reaches the ground which can lead to a lot of strong winds emanating from a single point. Apparently, there are wet downbursts associated with large amounts of rainfall during a thunderstorm, while a microburst is the same but on a smaller scale. In my day, we’d say that was a wicked thunder storm, but you must admit, downbursts and microbursts sound a lot scarier.

Have you heard of a flash drought? I’ve heard of flash floods, but flash droughts? Come on, that seems a bit of a stretch. The Time Magazine article I sited earlier defines it as the “rapid onset or intensification of drought” when a period of lower-than-normal precipitation rates combines with extreme heat and wind. These typically develop quickly over the course of a month or less. We’d call these dry spells as a kid; a period of time when it didn’t rain in over a month, but let’s face it, a flash drought sounds more ominous.

Now the weather term—a term that quickly gained popularity with mainstream U.S. media—is “heatflation.” This term was coined to describe scenarios “when hot temperatures sent prices soaring.” Now droughts have always killed crops, and caused less food to be produced, but heatflation? Come on, that is just fear porn to support the climate change narrative.

Why all these scary weather terms? My answer is the climate change agenda. Climate change has always occurred and the narrative that we humans are causing it is a fraud. When government and corporate elites stop flying around in their private jets, which contributes much higher CO2 emissions than vehicles, then I’ll take climate change seriously. These weather terms are fear-mongering!

It was Adolf Hitler who said, “By means of shrewd lies, unremittingly repeated, it is possible to make people believe that heaven is hell – and hell heaven. The greater the lie, the more readily it will be believed.” He also said, “Tell a lie loud enough and long enough and people will believe it.” Remember, “A lie doesn’t become truth, wrong doesn’t become right, and evil doesn’t become good, just because it’s accepted by a majority.” American educator, author, Booker T. Washington said that.

They’ve been lying about humans triggering climate change for a long time. The article, Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions says in the 1970’s, we were told an ice age was coming, and oil reserves would run out. In the 1980s there were dire warnings about ozone depletion. In the 1990s global warming, due to the Greenhouse Effect, would cause long hot summers and droughts. In the 2000s we were warned of melting arctic ice and rising sea levels. Well, none of it happened. It’s all to keep us fearful; bullying (#bullying, #antibullying) really to get us to pay things like carbon taxes as Trudeau imposed on Canadians. In fact, at the 2023 COP28 Summit, Africa proposed global carbon taxes to fight climate change.

Yes, I know I sound like one of those crazy conspiracy theorists, and you probably think I believe weather is manipulated. Yet it is interesting that there is a company called Weather Modification and that there are Eight American States Seeding Clouds to Overcome Megadrought. Explain that.

The author of 1984 and Animal Farm, George Orwell said, “In a time of universal deceit – telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” Being called a conspiracy theorist is actually a complement to me as a conspiracy theorist is someone who figures out the truth before most people do. “You must always be willing to truly consider evidence that contradicts your beliefs, and admit the possibility that you may be wrong. Intelligence isn’t knowing everything, it’s the ability to challenge everything you know.”  Author unknown. Sometimes pride gets in the way of seeking truth.

When Did Critical Thinking Disappear?

On Feb. 6, 2024, former Fox News host, Tucker Carlson, sat down with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin for an interview. If you haven’t seen the interview, you can watch it here: The Vladimir Putin Interview.

I (#blogger #blog #somseason #YA #authors) took the time to watch the full interview because I wanted to know Putin’s perspective on the war in the Ukraine. The interview was fascinating. Why would I watch this interview? Vladimir Putin is the enemy, isn’t he? If you listen to the Mainstream Media (MM), he is. Here is a sampling of headlines after the interview aired. Tucker Carlson faces media fury over Putin interview, Tucker Carlson faces new backlash over Putin interview after Navalny death, EU Bureaucrats Look to BAN Tucker Carlson Following CONTROVERSIAL Putin Interview, Tucker Carlson’s Putin Interview Was a TV Turn-Off for Russians, and Zelensky on Tucker Carlson interview with Putin: ‘2 hours of bulls‑‑‑’.  For those who don’t know, bullshit refers to something worthless or deceptive. Watch how Tucker Carlson is mocked in this video.

If you believe the MM, Everybody hates Vladimir Putin according to CNN. Putin now among most hated world figures according to The Washington Post. Why does the MM want us to hate Putin so much? Why do they demonize or dehumanize Russia’s President? What are they afraid of? What don’t they want us to know? They did the same thing with former US president Donald Trump. They demonized Trump to manipulate us into hating him. Demonizing or dehumanizing is nothing new. The MM have always done it as shown by Welfare Queens and Scroungers: How Media Narratives Demonize the Poor, How Media Demonize Religious Minorities, and 3 Ways That Media Outlets Demonize Black Families, The article, The Media Must Stop Demonizing Immigrants explains that “dehumanization of whole groups of people for the purposes of attacking them in the United States and across the world is nothing new. As Isabel Wilkerson points out in her book Caste, the creation of a dominant caste depends upon the dehumanization of the other.”

It is now being reported that there was a Tucker Carlson assassination attempted in Russia. Reports say a native Russian was arrested for the attempted assassination of Tucker Carlson. The unsuccessful assassin was allegedly hired by Ukraine’s Main Directorate of Intelligence who offered to pay the man $4,000. Why would the Ukraine want to stop the Carlson-Putin interview? The answer seems obvious to me. They wanted to prevent people from hearing Russia’s perspective on the war. It’s also why they demonize the Russian president as well. Maybe Putin has just cause to attack Ukraine.

MM, and governments, don’t want the general public to think for themselves. When I taught Social Studies, I tried to teach critical thinking, which is the ability to interpret, evaluate, and analyze facts and information, to form a judgment or decide if something is right or wrong. I always taught that there are two sides to every story; that to make an informed decision, you need to listen to and understand both differing perspectives.

This was especially true when I taught my students how to write position papers. I emphasized the importance that a position paper needed an analysis of both sides of the subject matter and the main point is to address both aspects of the argument. Any guide to writing position papers will tell you this. Why does the MM only focus on one side of an argument?

The latest buzz words used by governments and MM is ‘disinformation’ and ‘misinformation,’ as shown in the articles, The real ‘fake news’: how to spot misinformation and disinformation online, and Fake News, Big Lies: How Did We Get Here and Where Are We Going? Disinformation, as defined by the UK government, is the deliberate creation and/or sharing of false information in order to mislead, and misinformation is the act of sharing information without realizing it’s wrong. Is the MM feeding us disinformation to mislead us? Seems like it to me. Why else would they demonize and dehumanize Tucker Carlson and President Putin? They constantly inundate us with the plight of Ukraine, saying we—the Western World—need to defend Ukrainian independence. They never tell us Russia’s perspective on Ukraine, at least not that I am aware of.

As I understand it, back in 2022, Putin recognized the “independence and sovereignty” of the two eastern Ukraine provinces, Donetsk and Luhansk, and ordered Russian peacekeepers to protect them.  Justin Trudeau sums up the rhetoric of the MM when he strongly condemned Russia’s recognition of ‘independent states’ in Ukraine as a “blatant violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and international law.” That was the only point of view we were given, at least here in Canada and the USA. What is wrong with hearing Russia’s side? Why is the MM trying to prevent us from hearing the Russian side? Is there more to the story? Are they hiding something? To quote Heather Vogel Frederick, “There’s always more to the story.” Listen to Putin in the interview and decide for yourself if he is the horrible person the MM maintain he is. Give yourself permission to think for yourself instead of the MM doing the thinking for you.

I find it interesting that Canada’s prime minister claims Conspiracy theorists threaten mainstream media. As the article, The Mainstream Media Are Dying of Self-Inflicted Wounds says, they are doing it to themselves. The article says just 7 percent of Americans have “a great deal” of trust and confidence in the media. It is interesting that Journalists now lecture us, contributing to the lack of trust in media. This article sites a poll that was commissioned by the Canada’s federal government saying that just 32.5% trust the media in Canada. The article goes on to say, “As traditional media outlets continue to lose audience share, it might be worth asking why people are tuning us out or losing trust. Far too often, it’s that people think we have an agenda…” The article speaks truth when it says the problem is journalists are lecturing the public instead of informing them. Is their agenda to manipulate us into believing one point of view?

We are no longer being informed, we are being misled, manipulated, and propagandized. MM news outlets have an agenda; the agenda to get the public to believe a certain narrative. It doesn’t want you to know both sides of the story. They only want you to hear their biased side or their narrative. They want to tell you what to think. This is bullying (#bullying, #antibullying) in my view! The MM wants to “bully” you into believing their narrative regarding an event. It is time we got back to thinking critically for ourselves, and that means listening to both points of views. I am grateful to Tucker Carlson for giving me Putin’s view of the war in Ukraine because I sure didn’t get it from the western media.

Coffee Drinkers Beware

I (#blogger #blog #somseason #YA #authors) have not paid much attention to the 2024 World Economic Forum (WEF) meeting that happened from Jan. 15 to Jan. 19 in Davos, Switzerland as it’s just a bunch of elites wanting to dictate to us how to live our lives . The WEF was founded by Klaus Schwab, who is still the Founder and Executive Chairman. The WEF’s stated mission is “improving the state of the world by engaging business, political, academic, and other leaders of society to shape global, regional, and industry agendas.” In plain speak, the WEF knows what’s best for us non-elites.

This non-elected group of the world’s elites (political and corporate elites) fly to Davos every year in their private jets to decide how we non-elites should live. What are some of their plans? The WEF published ‘8 predictions for the world in 2030’ in 2016 outlining their objectives. Watch the video to discover these 8 predictions.

The most controversial prediction is “You’ll own nothing” and “you’ll be happy about it.” Now keep in mind, they never said ‘we’ (the elites) will own nothing. It’s us commoners that will own nothing.

Another prediction is “You’ll eat much less meat” as meat will be “an occasional treat, not a staple, for the good of the environment and our health.” These elites who travel around the globe in their private jets claim the cattle industry is in part causing a climate crisis, so to save the planet, we need eat less meat. Yet, the article, It’s time to stop comparing meat emissions to flying, clearly shows that private jets have a much larger carbon footprint than the cattle industry. Why would anyone listen to these hypocrites?

As I said earlier, I wasn’t paying much attention to the WEF until the headline, WEF Demands Crackdown on Public Coffee-Drinking to ‘Fight Climate Change’ caught my attention. Excuse me! Are you telling me I need to stop drinking coffee? You’re talking to a coffee lover here. According to the WEF elites, they need to stop the public from drinking coffee to ‘save the planet’ from a “climate crisis.”  How does drinking coffee cause a climate crisis? According to the WEF, the consumption of coffee emits between 15 and 20 tons of CO2 per ton of coffee. Let’s compare the said coffee carbon footprint to the elite’s private jets. According to the article, Flying Private Has Never Been More Popular. But Is It Taking Us on a Flightpath to Climate Hell? private aviation accounted for 37.1 million tons of CO2 in 2019.  That’s more, much more than what they claim coffee releases. I’ll stop drinking coffee when the elites stop flying in their private jets. I find it insulting that the elites solicit our trust in them, as said the article, WEF says rebuilding trust only possible with cooperation as Davos meet ends. I simply cannot trust hypocrites.

I’m not the only one that feels this way.  Watch Tucker Carlson’s veiws on the elites and their private jets (See Tucker’s video) Watch Tucker’s reaction to John Kerry’s excuse for using a private jet.

The agenda of this year’s WEF meeting, Davos 2024: 4 things to know, claims we have an ‘existential climate crisis’, with one of the WEF elites saying, “A sense of urgency is our only savior.” The document also states that failure to act on climate change has implications for the planet, and claims the climate crisis is also a health crisis.

Independent media, The Eureporter, published an article, Climate change and nature loss pose greatest risks for humanity: WEF Global Risk Report 2024 that agrees with the WEF Global Risks 2024 Report. The report makes the claim that extreme weather events and critical change to the Earth systems is the greatest concern facing the world over the next decade. While misinformation and disinformation—the latest buzz words—is seen as the biggest short-term risk over the next two years, while environmental risks dominate over a ten-year period.

On January 23 of the new year, the Doomsday Clock will remain at 90 seconds to midnight in 2024. This is the second year in a row the clock was set at 90 seconds to midnight. The clock is a symbolic timepiece showing how close the world is to ending because of climate change. As you can see, the climate crisis rhetoric, or shall I say propaganda machine, is in full swing early in this new year.

It’s all fear porn. Why would I say such an outrageous statement? The truth is, we’ve being hearing the climate doomsday scenario for years. The article, 10 times ‘experts’ predicted the world would end by now, shows 10 times when so called “experts” said the world would end because of climate change and human overpopulation, dating back to 1975, yet the world has never ended. If the elites have been propagating a sense of urgency—fear porn really—since 1975, likely even sooner, and no doomsday has ever arrived, then there is no urgency. They want us afraid to exert control over us.

Not only that, 2023 is considered a year of intense global wildfire activity, where the article claims global wildfires generated approximately 2,170 megatons of carbon emissions in 2023, of which the Canadian wildfires accounted for 22%. The article doesn’t directly relate CO2 emissions to the climate crisis, but it is certainly implied.

Now, I am not denying that climate change exists. The climate is changing, and always has, but is it changing because of human activity? I am skeptical that we humans are the problem when CO2 is only 0.04% of the planet’s atmosphere. Reading articles about how CO2 contributes to climate change, the “experts” refer to CO2 in parts per million (ppm). The article, If CO2 Is Only 0.04% of the Atmosphere, How Does it Drive Global Warming? says before the industrial revolution, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 288 ppm, but now has reached about 414 ppm. Yes, that sounds alarming as it almost doubled, but when you’re talking ppm, that is a very small amount of 0.04%. It doesn’t convince me that humans are the problem, and no I don’t trust the science.

Yet, governments continue to push the climate crisis agenda motivating Thousands of German farmers block highways over climate cuts over government climate policies. Here in Canada, Trudeau hopes to stop climate change with more taxes; with the Carbon Tax. As the article, The Trudeau climate plan runs into reality says, Canada missed its emission targets, has huge public backlash against the carbon tax, and there is growing realization that nothing Canada does will change global temperatures.

Since the new year has arrived, I’ve seen many January 2024 articles like, A conspiracy theorist who blamed the government for forest fires admitted that he started 14 himself, Nova Scotia man charged for starting massive forest fire that Liberals blamed on climate change, and Quebec man pleads guilty to starting 14 forest fires . I find it very difficult the believe that climate change is to be blamed for the wildfires of 2023 when over and over I read about humans admitting to starting the fires. My question is why did these people start the fires? Were they paid to create the illusion of climate change? I merely ask the question.

I know, I know, I sound like a crazy conspiracy theorist. When you google ‘conspiracy theorists,’ the articles that come up all try to discredit people who go against the official narrative. The article, Top 2022 conspiracy theories that turned out to be true, lists numerous stories that Legacy Media called “conspiracy theories” that were actually true. There is also the articles, Top 10 Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out To Be True and Not so crazy now: Five theories that dropped the ‘conspiracy’ in 2021. It seems to me that crazy conspiracy theorists speak truth. Maybe I am not so crazy after all.

All I am saying is the elites will need to do a much better job convincing me to give up coffee.

(#bullying, #antibullying)

Let’s Talk about Christmas

In 2017, US President Donald Trump claimed that political correctness had gotten in the way of celebrating Christmas saying, “We’re getting near that beautiful Christmas season that people don’t talk about anymore. They don’t use the word Christmas because it’s not politically correct.” (see Trump: ‘We’re saying merry Christmas again’). It seems every holiday season there is another debate about whether to say “Happy Holidays” or “Merry Christmas.” I (#blogger #blog #somseason #YA #authors) wrote about this in Christmas Controversies 3.0 and Christmas Controversies 3.1 in 2017.

The ridiculousness has continued this year as the National Post reports that Canada’s Federal commission declares Christmas holiday is ‘religious intolerance’. The Canadian Human Rights Commission — an agency created in 1977 to enforce the Canadian Human Rights Act and is fully funded by the Canadian government—argued that a day off on Christmas is ‘discriminatory.’ Christmas, really?  Christmas has been around since at least the 4th century (more on that later), and suddenly it’s discriminatory?

The commission published a Discussion Paper on Religious Intolerance saying that the Christian holidays of Christmas and Easter get days off, while non-Christians have to “request special accommodations to observe their holy days.” The discussion paper cited the statutory Christmas holidays as a form of “religious intolerance” arguing that this constitutes a “form of discrimination.”

That is a ridiculous argument because polls clearly show that non-Christian Canadians almost universally have no problem with Christian holidays. A Leger poll from 2022 asked non-Christian Canadians whether they were offended by the greeting “Merry Christmas.” Of respondents, 92% said “no.” It also asked Canadians of all religious faiths if Christmas if “religious” holidays should be struck from the country’s official statutory holidays. Only 6% said “yes.”  That means potentially, only 6% of Canadians think Christian holidays are discriminatory. Does that warrant removing Christmas as a statutory holiday? Absolutely not.

Then there was the law Student’s request to display a menorah prompting the University of Alberta to remove Christmas trees instead. A University of Alberta law student is frustrated after her request to display a menorah alongside a Christmas tree in a study space led the faculty to remove the Christmas trees. The student says she never took issue with the Christmas trees. The decision to remove the trees and confine any potentially non-secular displays to an out-of-the-way room left her baffled. Now that seems a pretty extreme reaction to me, and borders on bullying (#bullying, #antibullying).

Christmas is the festival that Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus. Is Christmas really the day Jesus was born? It seems the birthdate of Jesus is in dispute as indicated in the article, Why scholars disagree with Christmas birth date. The article states that “despite scholarly research regarding Christmas Day, most ‘experts’ are still unsure about the true date” of Jesus’ birth. The article, On what day and month was Jesus born? using scriptural evidence, places Jesus’ birth between September 16 and 29, while other theologians have suggested that Jesus was born sometime in the spring. This is based on the biblical narrative that shepherds were watching over their flocks in the fields on the night of Jesus’ birth. When I studied Biblical Theology, we were taught that the biblical stories were myth, that they were a symbolic narrative, and not historical.

Why do we celebrate Christmas on December 25th? According to Wikipedia the Roman Empire held a festival called the Dies Natalis Solis Invicti (‘birthday of the Invincible Sun’) on 25 December, the date of the winter solstice in the Roman calendar. It was dedicated to the sun god “Sol Invictus” (the Unconquered Sun). Some argue that this was the pagan festival that was Christianized . When I took Biblical Theology courses, we were told Christmas was a pagan festival that was Christianized, so that makes sense.

According to The History of Christmas, the church ‘Christianized’ the Saturnalia festival  in the 4th century CE, hoping to take the pagan masses in with it.  This holiday was a week-long period of lawlessness celebrated between December 17-25.  Roman law dictated that no one would be punished for damaging property or injuring people during the weeklong celebration. The festival began when Roman authorities chose “an enemy of the Roman people” to represent the “Lord of Misrule.”  Each community selected a victim whom they forced to indulge in food and other physical pleasures throughout the week.  At the festival’s conclusion, December 25th, Roman authorities believed they were destroying the forces of darkness by brutally murdering this innocent man or woman.

This same article refers to the ancient Greek poet and historian Lucian, who in his dialogue entitled Saturnalia, describes the festival’s observance.  He references human sacrifice, widespread intoxication, going house to house singing naked, rape, other sexual activities, and consuming human-shaped biscuits.

According to that article, the DePascha Computus, an anonymous document allegedly written around 243 CE, placed Jesus’ birth on March 28.  Clement, a bishop of Alexandria (d. ca. 215 CE), thought Jesus was born on November 18. Joseph B. Fitzmyer, professor of Biblical Studies at the Catholic University of America guesses that Jesus birth occurred on September 11, 3 BCE. He based his guess on historical records. 

All of this leaves me with many questions. Why would church fathers choose to Christianize a pagan festival involving such debauchery? Why would church fathers choose December 25th as the birth date of Jesus when most ‘experts’ are unsure about the true date of Jesus’ birth? Furthermore, wouldn’t it make more sense to base the date on biblical evidence placing the date of Jesus’ birth in September or sometime in the spring? Is there some hidden relevance to the December 25th date that is being kept from us?

According to The History of Christmas, many of the most popular Christmas traditions, including Christmas trees, mistletoe, Christmas presents, and Santa Claus, are modern embodiments of depraved pagan rituals. The article provides a more detailed explanation of this. I doubt many Christians know that. Why would church fathers allow these traditions to creep into the said birthdate of Christian saviour, and the one that Christians proclaim as the Son of God?

No one can deny that Christmas is a hugely commercialized holiday. Christmas focuses on the buying and selling of gifts, with its advertising to convince people what items they should buy as Christmas gifts. How Did Christmas Become Commercialized?  It’s not uncommon to hear slogans like “Keep Christ in Christmas” and “Jesus is the Reason for the Season” because Christmas has become so commercialized. There is even a Keep Christ in Christmas Evangelization Program, a campaign that sends religious Christmas cards throughout the US.

I am not trying to put a downer on the Christmas season. Christmas was my favourite time when I was a kid. As an adult, Christmas doesn’t make sense anymore. December 25th is likely not the actual birth date of Jesus. Governments and media are now calling Christmas a form of “religious intolerance.”  Some universities are removing Christmas decorations for reasons that are unclear, likely because Christmas trees are politically incorrect. Calgary’s mayor, Jyoti Gondek, declined to attend a Hanukkah event at city hall, claiming it had “been repositioned as an event to support Israel” and its invasion of Gaza as shown in the news article, Social media reacts to Calgary mayor’s decision to not attend City Hall menorah lighting. It seems Religious festivals are becoming politicized.

As Andy Williams’ traditional Christmas song, “It’s (Christmas) the Most Wonderful Time of the Year” says, Christmas is supposed to be the most wonderful time of the year. What has changed?