IS THIS THE MAN WHO PUT PIERRE POILIEVRE IN POWER?

Guess who's back? Yep, it's Tom "Tasty Pix" Flanagan. Here's what you need to know.

Hey Folks,

Well, folks, you heard it here first.

Back in October of last year, I appeared on the Grimerica Podcast to share my view that Canada’s weird new holiday - “Orange Shirt Day” - was part of a campaign of ideological subversion meant to demoralize Canadians and weaken the indigenous sovereignty movement by promoting a victim mentality.

All this will make a lot more sense if you know the story of KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov, or if you’ve read Quotations from Chairman Mao.

In the interview, I explain how the CBC lied on a massive scale about discoveries of unmarked graves and mass graves at Canada’s notorious Indian Residential Schools.

Go watch it! It’s aged well.

Fast forward nine months, and a book called Grave Error: How The Media Misled Us (And The Truth About Residential Schools) is a #1 bestseller on Amazon, despite a total lack of attention from the mainstream media.

THE CAT’S OUT OF THE BAG, FOLKS

In other words, the cat’s out of the bag. Yeah, I know, this is going to be really awkward for some people. You’ll get over it.

The CBC, which is the propaganda arm of the Canadian state, had a lot of people thinking that burning down churches was morally justified because priests had literally murdered scores of indigenous children and dumped their bodies in mass graves, where they lay unnoticed until government-funded archaeologists located them by newfangled ground-penetrating radar technology.

I would say that you can’t make this shit up, but apparently you can. Apparently Canadians are so rabidly anti-Catholic now that they think that priests and nuns are a bunch of mass child murderers.

This cartoon hits the nail on the head:

The irony, of course, is that Christians have been much more oppressed than indigenous people in Canada in recent years.

NO PREVIOUSLY UNIDENTIFIED HUMAN REMAINS WERE FOUND IN NEWLY DISCOVERED “UNMARKED GRAVES”

To my indigenous friends, I’m sorry if I’m being crude, but I’m going to make a lot of jokes throughout this piece, despite the fact that there really isn’t anything funny about residential schools. But sometimes your choice is either laugh or scream and tear your hair out. Hopefully you agree with me that laughter is the best medicine.

The hoax that the government perpetuated was a textbook example of a propaganda technique called “The Big Lie”. It’s a tried-and-true technique, and it works.

In this case, the lie has now been exposed and become overwhelmingly obvious to the people who have taken the time to look into it.

Honestly, all you have to do is google “Ground-penetrating radar” and you’ll figure it out in no time. And in this case, keeping your head buried in the sand isn’t going to be an option for much longer.

As I said, the cat is out of the bag. Shame Day is indeed a psy op, and by the time September 30th rolls around, I’m guessing everyone will know it.

Should be interesting. Anyone want to bet that they retire the #EveryChildMatters hashtag this year? I feel like that slogan might not be inclusive enough for all the people who now think murdering children is fine so long as they’re not Jews.

DON’T GET CAUGHT FLAT-FOOTED!

In the coming days I’m going to share some key takeaways from Grave Error, which I’ve just finished reading. I’ll share what I think are the most salient pieces of information, as well as my critiques of certain parts of it.

Although the book contains a great wealth of invaluable research, there are most certainly things that I passionately disagree with, and at certain points it feels like the authors are trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube, so to speak. There are a lot of statistics that I found completely uncompelling.

But maybe that’s just me. I hate statistics. I can make up numbers too, you know. I just don’t, because why bother? You can’t tell this story with statistics.

I think that, for the most part, the authors of Grave Error are well-meaning Canadian patriots coming to the defence of their country. I feel some affinity with them, and I truly believe that most of them truly are acting in service of the truth.

That said, I also feel that they clearly want to go back to “the good ol’ days” of believing what they used to about Canada. I understand the desire, but I consider it unrealistic. We were living in a different world back in the 1990s. Those days aren’t coming back.

Furthermore, in my opinion some of the contributors do minimize and downplay the harm that occurred. Hell, one of the chapters is called Did Residential Schools Really Cause Intergenerational Trauma? And yes, it’s just as bad as it sounds. But you know what? Reading it might piss you off, but it won’t hurt you. It may even help you clarify your own thoughts. We’re all grown-ups. We need to stop acting like survivors are snowflakes who will melt if it gets too hot. I definitely recommend people to get their hands on a copy of this book. If you don’t want to support the authors, you can download an ebook version here.

I welcome this book in part because it makes intelligent discourse possible. In order to have a debate, you need to have two sides. Yet for years no one has been willing to take Canada’s side.

Now that someone has, it will be much easier to approach the truth. The authors may feel that they have now set the record straight, and that their take will be the final word, but I emphatically disagree.

Residential schools were part of Canada’s systematic oppression of indigenous people, but by no means were they the only part. Not one of the book’s many contributors mention the Pass System, for instance. That seems like a pretty glaring oversight, doesn’t it?

Anyway, if anyone is in any doubt as to where my loyalties lie, I refer to my short story Facing What Consumes You is the Only Way to be Free.

I believe that physical and sexual abuse was rampant in some (but apparently not all) residential schools, and that many deaths due to rampant disease was, as many have called it, a national crime.

That said, the true history of residential schools is considerably more complicated than the insane “Murderous Nuns” narrative would have you believe.

If you’re interested in learning the true history, I would suggest checking out a book called A National Crime: The Canadian Government and the Residential School System, 1879 to 1986.

THIS IS A TEXTBOOK EXAMPLE OF A MORAL PANIC

I think we should all be able to agree that there’s a big difference between sexual abuse and murder, and that there’s a big difference between deaths resulting from neglect and deaths caused by deliberate homicide, which is to say murder.

There has not been a single confirmed case of any staff member at any residential school intentionally killing any student.

(Correct me if I’m wrong!)

At the end of the day, the mass hysteria triggered by the CBC was a textbook case of a moral panic.

At the end of the day, the lesson is this:

WHO SAYS YOU CAN’T JUDGE A BOOK BY ITS COVER?

Like I said, I’ve got a lot to say about this book.

What I’m going to cover today is just the cover. I know they say you’re not supposed to judge a book by its cover, but let’s be honest. We all do.

In this case, there’s a lot to unpack, so I’m going to need you to take a close look.

Yup, that’s a bunch of smiling indigenous children in what is presumably an Indian Residential School, along with a picture of a school that looks like a castle.

Here, let me blow them up for you:

The message is clear: residential schools weren’t nearly as bad as they’ve been made out to be.

Well, shucks. Two can play at this game.

That last one speaks volumes. How would you like to like to live in a dorm with zero privacy with 20+ other kids?

EXPERIENCES AT RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL VARIED FROM SCHOOL TO SCHOOLS

I could leave it there, but for the sake of fairness I’ll throw in a few pictures of less-miserable-looking students.

The reasonable conclusion is that not all residential schools were equally bad. That last one sure doesn’t look underfunded, does it?

The truth is that some students who attended residential school had good experiences.

As one contributor points out:

Tomson Highway, Canada’s most distinguished First Nations author, has raved about how the Guy Hill Residential School near The Pas, Manitoba, launched him on a professional musical and literary career that would have been otherwise impossible.

Run by the Oblate Fathers and Sisters of St. Joseph, its building accommodating 200 students, was situated on the edge of an 'emerald-watered lake.' Its facilities — including gymnasiums, playrooms, lounges, laundry rooms, kitchens, a giant boiler room, etc. — constituted 'a labyrinth, … a kingdom of magic.' At night, 'with the crisp clean sheets, warm wool blankets and central heating I am in heaven.'

Elsewhere he has declared, “Nine of the happiest years of my life I spent at that school ... There are many very successful people today who went to those schools and have brilliant careers and are very functional people, very happy people like myself. I have a thriving international career, and it wouldn’t have happened without that school.”

But I digress. Back to the cover:

More important than the pictures are the names Conrad Black and Tom Flanagan.

To have these two names appear on the same book cover is a very big deal, because both exited the Canadian political scene in disgrace. That the two of them have teamed up sends an unmistakable message - Canada hasn’t heard the last of them. This is a dual comeback, and it’s perfectly timed.

Say what you want about Tom Flanagan, but he ain’t no slouch.

WHO IS CONRAD BLACK?

Conrad Black is a big deal in Canadian politics, or at least he used to be. He was charged with fraud and obstruction of justice in the U.S. for allegedly funds from Hollinger International, a major newspaper holding company he controlled.

In 2007, Black was convicted of three counts of mail fraud and one count of obstruction of justice, resulting in a prison sentence. He served 37 months before being released in 2012. In 2019, U.S. President Donald Trump granted him a full pardon. He and Trump are reportedly close personal friends.

He renounced his Canadian citizenship in 2001 in order to become a member of the British House of Lords. Apparently he now resides in Toronto, which I wouldn’t have guessed. I kinda thought he was in some sort of unofficial exile, to be honest.

If you’re wondering who C.P. Champion is, he’s an author and the editor of The Dorchester Review, a small historical journal. I hadn’t heard of him before, but I definitely get the feeling he’s committed to factual accuracy.

Many of the authors who contributed to Grave Error also contribute to The Dorchester Review.

WHO IS TOM FLANAGAN?

Tom Flanagan is a key player in Canadian politics, though most Canadians have never heard of him. Basically, he’s the eminence grise of the Canadian conservative movement.

Flanagan identifies as a libertarian and cites Friedrich Hayek as a key influence.

He played a key role in the Reform Party, which later was renamed the Canadian Alliance.

Probably the easiest way to explain his importance is that he’s the man who made Stephen Harper prime minister.

Think I’m exaggerating? I’m not.

Let’s let Chat GPT explain:

Tom Flanagan and Stephen Harper have had a significant and multifaceted relationship over the years. Flanagan, an American-born Canadian political scientist, author, and conservative political activist, began teaching at the University of Calgary in 1968. It was there that he first met Harper, who was a student of his in the early 1980s.

Flanagan became a mentor to Harper, significantly influencing his political ideology and career. Their professional collaboration deepened when Flanagan co-authored several policy pieces with Harper, including the well-known "Alberta Agenda" or "Firewall Letter," which advocated for Alberta to take greater control over its own affairs, largely to counter what they saw as an overly centralized federal government.

In the early 2000s, Flanagan played a critical role in Harper's political rise. He was the national co-chair of the "Draft Harper" movement, which was instrumental in bringing Harper back into federal politics after a brief hiatus. Flanagan subsequently served as Harper’s chief of staff and campaign manager during Harper's successful bids for leadership of the Canadian Alliance and the newly formed Conservative Party of Canada​.

See what I mean? Not only did Flanagan mentor Harper literally from the time he was a undergrad, he was also his chief of staff.

Their collaboration continued as Flanagan advised Harper during his time as Prime Minister, though their relationship experienced strain over the years, particularly after Flanagan made controversial public statements that led to his distancing from Harper and the Conservative Party around 2013. Despite any personal or professional disagreements, Flanagan's influence on Harper's political philosophy and career trajectory has been profound and enduring​.

And that brings us to the subject of child porn. As for Pierre Poilievre, I’m getting to that, don’t you worry.

TOM FLANAGAN & CHILD PORN

If you’re wondering what Harper’s controversial statements were, basically he kinda sorta defended child pornography.

According to Wikipedia:

On 27 February 2013, Flanagan was invited to give a speech on whether it was time to repeal the Indian Act to a group of students at the University of Lethbridge. Flanagan was warned that members of Idle No More were planning on attending and disrupting the speech. Flanagan learned after the event that the Idle No More protesters had organized the event with the intent of creating a "Gotcha!" moment and denouncing Flanagan's views on aboriginals. In fact, the video of Flanagan's comments distinctly includes the protester exclaiming "Gotcha Tom!" as Flanagan responded.

One of the protesters, "Levi Little Moustache," stood and quoted Flanagan's 2009 comments on child pornography. Flanagan responded that "I certainly have no sympathy for child molesters, but I do have some grave doubts about putting people in jail because of their taste in pictures. I don't look at these pictures." A video of the remarks was posted to YouTube overnight and his remarks proved controversial.

Here’s a video of his comments:

It’s absolutely wild to me how this was just 15 years ago. We were so innocent back then!

Now that we know what Jeffrey Epstein and Peter Nygard were up to, this really doesn’t land the same way it did then, does it?

Anyway, that video went viral and from that point forward Flanagan was “that child porn guy” in the minds of most Canadians, who never understood his importance to begin with.

At no point was Flanagan accused of a crime, nor was “pornography” ever defined in the ensuing hoopla.

Personally, I think we would all do well to absorb some of Bill Hicks’s wisdom:

After all, Flanagan said “pictures”, not “photos”. Arguably, he could have been referring to drawings of fictional characters. These days, illicit porn could even be AI-generated. What are the ethics of that? Should people be imprisoned for looking at naughty comics? That’s pretty extreme, isn’t it?

A lot of people have been calling themselves “free speech absolutists” in the last few days, but have they really thought about what the limits of that? If you really think about it, you’ll realize that it is the exceptions to rules that define those rules.

Here, let me give you an example. Back in 2020 an Alberta oilfield company printed some tasteless stickers featuring the likeness of a naked Greta Thunberg, who I guess was underage at the time.

For some reason, this made headlines across Canada, with some people calling for whoever made it to be charged with child pornography.

What do you think? Is this child pornography?

Should I go to jail for sharing that picture? Should you go to jail for looking at it?

What? You said no??? HOW DARE YOU! YOU’RE A MONSTER!

I also agree with Bill Burr - people really need to take it down a notch with all the Stranger Danger stuff. It’s just another flavour of fear.

If you want to hear Flanagan defend the right of people to talk about controversial subjects, by the way, the following video is well worth watching:

CBC-STYLE CANCEL CULTURE

In retrospect, the sudden takedown of Tom Flanagan seems like an early example of CBC-style cancel culture. Given how lax Canada is on the sexual abuse of children, I highly doubt that the smear campaign against him had anything to do with genuine concern about the harms of child pornography. I suspect that his political opponents saw their chance to take him down and took it.

After all, there’s zero chance that the higher-ups at the CBC didn’t know about Peter Nygard’s decades-long career as a serial sexual predator.

Plus, am I the only fucking one who reads anymore? Why don’t people cancel Camille Paglia? She’s openly pro-paedophilia and child porn!

And why is Foucault still academia’s favourite sociologist? Not only did he advocate for sex between adults and children, it’s widely believed he practiced what he preached.

And how about Woody Allen? How in the fuck does he get a pass? Dude’s one sick fuck!

Or what about Prince Andrew? He’s the brother of Canada’s head of state, ferchrissake!

So what did Tommy Flan-Flan do again? Say some words? Invite discussion on a controversial subject? Encourage people to think things through? The horror! There is only one acceptable position on pictures of naked children, and that is throw everyone in jail, end of story.

If you ask me, we should start with Jane Goodall.

Not only is she a bona fide child pornographer, she’s also a zoophile.

LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!

Then move on to those perverts over at National Geographic:

Then let’s lay the down and make an example of those degenerates over at Coppertone Sunscreen, who have been profiting off of child pornography for decades.

Kill ‘em all, I say! Nothing like some good old-fashioned murder to bring out the best in people!

You see my point? There’s no reason that anyone should ever discuss child pornography, because there’s nothing to discuss. Everyone already knows everything that anyone needs to know about it, and therefore it need never be discussed. Any questions?

But I digress. Back to Tommy “Tasty-Pix” Flan-Flan.

Immediately following his public disgrace, Flanagan went on sabbatical. Five months later, he officially retired from the University of Calgary, where he had been Head of the Political Science Department since 1993. He then mostly vanished from the public eye, though he never really went away completely.

In 2014, he published a book called Persona Non Grata, which was a polemic against cancel culture.

In this book, Flanagan critiques the erosion of free speech in the digital era, arguing that political correctness and online outrage have stifled open discourse. He highlights cases where individuals, including himself, faced condemnation and ostracism for expressing controversial views. Flanagan warns against the dangers of suppressing dissenting opinions, advocating for a robust defence of free speech as fundamental to democratic societies.

He also accuses Stephen Harper of throwing him under the bus, calling him “Nixonian”. Sounds to me like he was calling him a crook. Given what I know about the Nexen deal, I have a feeling I could guess as to what he’s getting at.

If you want to hear Flanagan talk some smack about Harper, you can check out this video:

AND THEN EVERYONE FORGOT ALL ABOUT POOR ‘OL TOMMY FLAN-FLAN…

In 2015, Justin Trudeau was elected on a platform of not being Stephen Harper (oh yeah, and legalizing weed). As for Harper, he’s been laying low ever since, presumably hoping no one figures out how badly he betrayed Canada.

And the world forgot all about poor ol’ Tommy Tasty-Pix, the freedom-loving libertarian who just wanted patriotic Canadians to be able to enjoy smutty pictures in peace.

Except, no. Flanagan doesn’t truly deserve to be called a libertarian.

WHY TOM FLANAGAN IS NOT A LIBERTARIAN

First off, he’s a statist, and statism is incompatible with libertarianism, which presupposes the sovereignty of the individual.

If you support mandatory taxation, you are not a libertarian. You are a statist with Stockholm Syndrome.

Second, in 2010 Flanagan called for Julian Assange to be assassinated on CBC’s Power & Politics.

His exact words were: "I think Assange should be assassinated.”

For what, exactly? For using words? For exposing war crimes and criminality at the highest levels of government? So people shouldn’t be punished for their taste in pictures but they should be punished for their taste in reading material?

He later tried to pass his comment off as a joke. Take that for what it’s worth.

BY THEIR DEEDS YE SHALL KNOW THEM

Third, Flanagan supported Bush’s invasion of Iraq. Need I say more? You’re either for truth or you’re not. The War on Terror was a War on Truth.

Flanagan is indisputably a genius. He is far too intelligent to have fallen for the flimsy-ass lies used to justify the invasion of Iraq, meaning that his newfound zeal for truth-telling should be taken with a grain of salt.

Tommy-boy might talk a good game, but actions speak louder than words. He wanted to send Canadians to Iraq to kill Iraqis so American corporations could make a killing, literally.

Is that something a libertarian would support? I don’t fucking think so. Do you?

TO HIS CREDIT, FLANAGAN SUPPORTS THE ABOLITION OF THE MONARCHY

Lastly, however, I will give credit where credit is due: Tom Flanagan is on record calling for the abolition of the monarchy in Canada. I can’t not respect that.

Yep, you heard that right. The eminence grise of Canadian conservatism has called for the abolition of the monarchy in Canada. In various writings and public statements, Flanagan has argued that Canada should become a republic and move away from its “constitutional monarchy”.

He has suggested that the country would benefit from having its own head of state rather than maintaining ties to the British monarchy.

In fact, he’s arguably the most prominent Canadian who openly opposes monarchism.

Can’t hate on that.

WHY SHOULD YOU CARE ABOUT THIS GUY?

So… why do I think that this is so important to understand? After all, Stephen Harper’s long gone, and it doesn’t seem like he’s coming back anytime soon.

Well, because Tom Flanagan was the power behind the throne during the Harper years, the last time the Conservatives held power.

As we all know, it’s only a matter of time before Justin Trudeau is replaced by Pierre Poilievre, who will then tell us that the Liberals spent all our money and now we need austerity measures because a wrathful god called “The Economy” must be appeased.

If Flanagan is back in the picture, it’s probably good to know a thing or two about him, isn’t it?. And make no mistake: he’s extremely politically savvy and he’s about as well-connected as you could possibly be.

Also, there’s a case to be made that he’ll still be the power behind the throne when Poilievre is prime minister.

To be fair, he is 80 years old, so I doubt he’ll be any kind of puppet-master or anything. Although he still seems pretty sharp, it’s foolishness to expect an octogenarian to be a top performer in anything.

Isn’t Biden ample proof of that?

DID TOM FLANAGAN GROOM PIERRE POILIEVRE?

There’s also the fact that Pierre Poilievre has been influenced by Tom Flanagan since he was an undergrad.

Want to take a wild stab in the dark about where Poilievre went to school? You guessed it - the University of Calgary.

Pierre Poilievre studied Political Science at the University of Calgary from 1997 to 2001. As you’ll recall, Tom Flanagan became head of that department in 1993.

Is it a coincidence that both Stephen Harper and Pierre Poilievre attended the same program at the same school? I don’t think so. Do you?

It’s worth noting that neither Harper nor Poilievre come from elite families. In both cases, their families were ordinary, middle-class, white-bread “Old Stock” Euro-Canadians.

In other words, both of them were elevated into their positions. So who elevated them?

It’s undeniable that Tom Flanagan is responsible for Stephen Harper’s career, and it seems to me very likely that Poilievre was his protege as well.

I’ve even got a theory as to why Flanagan would choose to groom Poilievre: his name.

SPEAKING FRENCH IS A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT TO BE PRIME MINISTER… AND BEING FRENCH IS OPTIMAL.

When I hear about a candidate for prime minister, my first question is “Does he (or she) speak French?” and my second is “How well?”

The fact of the matter is that any candidate for prime minister MUST be bilingual. For all intents and purposes, it is a requirement. After all, almost a quarter of Canadian citizens are francophones, and they don’t take kindly to people who want to rule over them without even bothering to learn their language.

This is a perpetual problem for the Conservatives, whose base is in the prairies, where less than 5% of people speak French.

The Conservatives wanted to get Canadian reality TV star Kevin O’Leary to be their leader, but he couldn’t speak French. He took lessons for awhile but eventually gave up.

Learning a language as an adult is fucking hard, and French is fucking hard to pronounce. Plus, Quebeckers just aren’t that forgiving when it comes to bad French. It’s gotta be pretty damn good to be good enough.

This is resented by Albertans, but can you imagine them voting for a prime minister who spoke mangled English? It’d never happen. So are Quebeckers being sleazy? Not really. But the whole language thing works in their favour. And when things happen to be unfair in your favour, you’re probably not going to be in a hurry to fix it, are you?

The Quebecois hold the balance of power in Canada, and they know it. And they’re not shy about putting themselves first.

That’s part of the reason that I’m for Quebec independence, by the way. There’s just no good reason why Albertans and Quebeckers need to be part of the same polity.

Furthermore, Quebeckers are a lot likelier to vote for someone they perceive as one of them. It’s human nature, I guess.

Hell, they voted for Justin Trudeau even though his dad literally declared war on Quebec!

You’d think a thing like that would stick in people’s memories for a generation or two, but nope.

Fucking people have the memory of goldfish.

PIERRE POILIEVRE ISN’T QUEBECOIS

Enter Pierre Poilievre. He’s not Quebecois, but he’s the Frenchest guy they’ve got.

Most people don’t know this, but Pierre Poilievre is actually an Albertan. Because he has such a French name, people assume he’s Quebecois, but he actually grew up in Calgary. His first language is English.

If you want to hear him speak French, you can check out the following video. Obviously, he’s not Quebecois. But he’s got what it takes.

You see where I’m going with this? I think that Pierre Poilievre is where he is because he ticked the right boxes. And I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that Tom Flanagan had something to do with putting him on the path that he’s on now. You think Albertans with a name like Pierre Poilievre are a dime a dozen? I can assure you they’re not.

When and if he becomes prime minister, that’ll be the second Canadian prime minister who owes his career to the same man - Tom Flanagan.

Do you see why all this stuff is important now?

To be fair, I’m not saying that Tom Flanagan is the lone Svengali of Canadian Conservatism. I don’t think that. He’s far from alone. He has allies, he has powerful backers, and he is part of a movement that goes back decades.

WHAT IS THE CALGARY SCHOOL?

According to Wikipedia:

Flanagan is often described as a member of the Calgary School, which includes a group of conservatively inclined professors at the University of Calgary, such as Barry F. Cooper, F.L.(Ted) Morton, Rainer Knopff and history professor David Bercuson, who are strongly committed to strategic and direct influence on public affairs with a long-term vision.

He is also a senior fellow of the conservative think tank the Fraser Institute, which promotes itself as “Canada’s leading think tank”.

Okay! Well, that’s a wrap for today, folks!

What do you think? Am I hitting the nail on the head? Do you know something I don’t about the Conservative Party? Have you read Grave Error? Do you plan to? Have you come around on the “unmarked graves” thing yet, or is this all new to you? Do you think I’m a Holocaust-denying far-right hatemonger spreading dangerous misinformation? Should I die in prison like Ernst Zundel?

I always want to hear what you have to say!

And if you haven’t already, please do check out the interview I did with the Grimerica guys.

Also, if you haven’t already subscribed, what are you waiting for?

for the wild,

Crow Qu’appelle