Reality vs. CBC: was this Manitoba hospital OVERWHELMED with COVID-19 patients?

  Take Action Shop   Donate  

Reality vs. CBC: was this Manitoba hospital OVERWHELMED with COVID-19 patients?
A recent report by the CBC sent shockwaves across the country. But was any of it true? CBC published that the Bethesda Regional Health Centre in Steinbach, Manitoba, had been so overwhelmed with COVID-19 patients that nurses were forced to triage people in their cars in the parking lot!

But we’re well aware of the blatant lies and mistruths regularly peddled by our state-broadcaster, so I decided to go and see for myself. What I found will surprise you:

According to Manitoba’s official numbers, the day we showed up at the hospital there were just 300 COVID patients across all 58 Manitoba hospitals. That’s five people per hospital! Even less when you consider that only 52 of those people are in ICU.   Is that all it takes to overwhelm Manitoba’s healthcare system? Of course not.  

But it hasn’t stopped Manitoba Premier Brian Pallister from inflating the perceived risk of this virus to give himself more authority over the lives of Manitobans.   Why does the mainstream media continue to push this narrative and support this tyrant?  This isn’t a crisis. It never was. The only crisis is that people continue to fall for CBC’s hysterical reporting. 

Yours truly, 

Keean Bexte 

The Vengeance of the Medico-Stalinists In Queen’s Park– MPP Randy Hiller Fined for Orgamizing a Rally

“Do we want to live in a country where people are not free to gather?” MPP Randy Hillier ticketed for organizing a rally. Welcome to Medico-Stalinist vengeance. “If you follow unjust laws, you’re an asshole.” “I’ll go to court & I won’t be wearing a mask.”

Anti-Freedom Fanatics Want GoFundMe for Adam Skelly Shut Down

People want GoFundMe to stop hosting fundraiser for Adamson BBQ

Stay in the loop

Sign up for our free email newsletter. Unsubscribe anytime or contact us for details.

The GoFundMe to back Adamson BBQ owner Adam Skelly, who is facing steep fines after famously hosting diners inside one of his Toronto restaurants last week despite lockdown measures, has raised nearly $300,000 since it was launched four days ago, and many are pretty sickened by the show of support.

Skelly has become a hero for anti-lockdowners everywhere, ranging from those who feel for small businesses on the verge of certain demise due to pandemic closures to those who think COVID-19 is a complete hoax.

In response to the hundreds of thousands that Skelly has received from fans, people have started calling for GoFundMe to take down his campaign before it becomes any more lucrative for the rule flouter, who some feel put public health at risk for permitting indoor maskless dining for not one, but three days in a row at his Etobicoke location.

The 33-year-old restaurateur was arrested outside his restaurant at the QEW and Royal York last Thursday after a dramatic confrontation between throngs of his supporters and police, and now faces multiple charges that include operating without the business license authorities seized from him after his first day of illegal opening on Tuesday.

He may also be convicted for violations of the province’s emergency orders amid the health crisis, including defying indoor dining regulations and hosting a prohibited gathering, which could bring penalties of more than $100,000 plus jail time.

The fundraiser initially started to pay Skelly’s legal fees “for violating unconstitutional and draconian COVID ‘public health orders'” — which has become the site’s top crusade — now has a counter petition asking for its removal, as well as growing opposition online.

But, members of the public are justly able to crowdfund for “just about anything” they want, as the platform itself states, and those donating to the Adamson page presumably know exactly what they’re backing.

Still, others have aptly pointed out the countless other small businesses and causes that residents can direct their money toward instead during a time when so many are floundering (and still following the law).

Skelly headed to an anti-lockdown protest at Yonge-Dundas Square on Saturday — where he encouraged other businesses owners to contend the rules and open their doors — after being released on $50,000 bail the day prior.

He has garnered the avid support of notorious anti-masker Chris Sky, who is currently promoting a solidarity barbecue due to take place 200 m from Adamson BBQ property today.

Rex Murphy Blasts Snowflake Employees of Random House Who Wept & Protested Publishing Jordan Peterson’s New Book — Sadly Some People in Publishing Just Don’t Get the Notion of Freedom

Should Penguin Random House give so much as an inch on the cardinal idea of free expression, let it get out of the book tradeRex MurphyPublishing date:Nov 25, 2020  •  Last Updated 4 days ago  •  4 minute read

Employees at Jordan Peterson’s publisher, Penguin Random House Canada, have objected to the publication of his new book, a followup to his best-selling 12 Rules for Life. Photo by Hollie Adams/Newspix/Getty Images

Axiom 1. The purpose of an enterprise is not to assuage or submit to the immature predispositions of its most self-centred and querulous employees.

Rule 1. Any employees at a publishing house who break down in tears when they hear a certain book is to be published should be kept far, far away from the author’s promotional tour. [Penguin Random House – take note.]

OK. Enough is enough. Who let the toddlers run the day care?

In the unlikely event you haven’t heard, there has been a woke-monsoon at Penguin Random House Canada. Tears were shed. People wept.

Who let the toddlers run the day care?

Details I’ll come to, but first some general principles.

The inanity, silliness, indulgence, narcissism and anti-rationality of the woke mobs have been tolerated and coddled far too long. They should not be listened to. They should be laughed at. And they should never be given the slightest influence or leverage in the major decisions of the company that pays their salaries.


Story continues below

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Article content continued

The woke mindset brings nothing to the table. Its principal identifiers are but two: weeping and whining. Both infallibly accompanied by “demands” for the weird thing they call a “safe space,” which may most easily be defined as anywhere they can break out their toys and stage their incessant tantrums.

It is degrading to adult dignity and intellectual integrity to allow a woke mob sway or say over anything. And most emphatically over what may or should be written or said.

The woke mindset brings nothing to the table

The most prominent Canadian intellectual of our day, Jordan Peterson, has a followup book to his incredibly successful, international best-seller, 12 Rules for Life. It sold millions. 12 Rules had an impact that no other book of its kind can pretend to. It rocket-shot Dr. Peterson into world prominence and influence, and was a King Solomon’s mine for its publishers.

And now (this makes the teeth to grind) we hear that Penguin Random House (PRH) has endured one of those Mao-like “thought-sessions” that wokesters put on whenever they sense a wisp of a thought, or a fragment of opinion that injures their eggshell sensibilities, or threatens a dent to their highly-inflated and unendurably fragile self-esteem. The princess and the pea-under-the-mattress is the woke template.

It is reported that staff at PRH held a meeting at which — and this from international headlines the day after — “staffers broke down in tears over release of (a new) Jordan Peterson book.”


Story continues belowThis advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Article content continued

What it is, really, is just vanity holding hands with folly

The staff meeting at PRH was described — it is disgraceful to learn this — as a “tearful town hall.” There was an “emotional outcry” from staff and “an effort by employees to pressure the company into cancelling” the release of Dr. Peterson’s new book.

Ah yes, this makes sense; employees at a book company clamouring for a censorship veto over forthcoming books. A little like bread-makers protesting dough. Or dogwalkers allergic to barking.

Emotional outcry? Tearful? People were weeping. Did somebody die? Was a favourite pet run over? This precious bunch whined they “were ambushed” by the news. Ambushed mind you — a very animated verb in this context. Were they lured into the Canyon of Dangerous Books and bombarded from above with blurb-heavy dust jackets? Perilous business this, working at a publisher’s.

What it is, really, is just vanity holding hands with folly. If there are people in full employment at a respected publishing house crying over a book yet to be published, and if there are actual tears rolling down social justice cheeks, because the company they work for has the gift of Jordan Peterson as one of its authors, it is probably too late: but send in the therapists. By the bus load.

What are the accomplishments of the would-be censors compared with Dr. Peterson’s? What are their intellectual attainments compared with his? What have they written, what audiences have they attracted? How many books have they sold?


Story continues below

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Article content continued

Biggest question of all: Who do they think they are that they should judge him?

By what standards, intellectual or moral, do those who do not like what Dr. Peterson writes claim the right to shut him down?

Who do they think they are that they should judge him?

Here’s a few more questions I’ll guarantee didn’t come up at the “town hall.”

Do they know more? Have they read more deeply, more widely? Are they as educated as he is? Have they produced work of equal range and force? Do they over-match his intellect?

Just what, besides adolescent cowardice and bluster in the face of notions different from their own shielded and limited half-thoughts, do they have to offer the world?

It is time to be direct about these adolescent displays. The lachrymose venting at Penguin Random House was a pathetic and embarrassing display of over-indulged “activists” and cause-addicts.

Should Penguin Random House give so much as an inch on the cardinal idea of free expression, or bend a knee, so much a single centimetre, to still the clamours of the jejune Pharisees whose salaries it pays, then let it get out of the book trade and go into something honourable like refurbishing used tires.

The New Intolerance: Social Justice Warriors Shut Down Toronto Eatery

The New Intolerance: Social Justice Warriors Shut Down Toronto Eatery

Have you seen my latest video?

Despite the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and the ensuing lockdowns, a Toronto Star editor caused the closing of a Toronto eatery because of “cultural appropriation.” 

So much for “we’re all in this together” right?

The Toronto Star’s Evy Kwong went on Twitter to complain about the owner of Ripe Nutrition, a white woman, because she dared to sell food from another culture. 


Have you ever cooked food from another culture? 
Did you ever think you were committing “cultural appropriation?” 
Of course not.

I’m so tired of cancel culture.
This is why True North will never hesitate to call these social justice warriors out – especially when they’re targeting small businesses at a time when so many Canadians are struggling to stay afloat.

Legacy media outlets like the Toronto Star receive thousands of taxpayers’ dollars courtesy of the federal government to pursue their leftist pet causes. 

Unlike the legacy media, True North is not part of the government’s media bailout. We depend on Canadians like you to stand up for the truth and freedom. 
If you’re comfortable doing so, please consider making a tax-deductible donation to support True North today.
Thank you,
Lindsay Shepherd Fellow, True North 

Roussin’s Victims

Throne, Altar, Liberty

The Canadian Red Ensign

The Canadian Red Ensign

Thursday, November 26, 2020

Roussin’s Victims

The province of Manitoba in the Dominion of Canada, one of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II’s Commonwealth Realms, is my home.   We have seen two types of protests directed against the provincial government in recent months, both objecting to the province’s response to the spread of the Wuhan bat flu.   One type of protest, such as that which took place in Steinbach on the 14th of November, expresses opposition to the public health orders as trampling all over our basic freedoms of association, assembly and religion and our prescriptive and constitutional civil rights.   The other type of protest expressed the views of the socialist opposition party, its leader Wab Kinew and his health critic, and their far left echo chamber in the media which features such automatons as the CBC’s Bartley Kives and the Winnipeg Free Press’s Dan Lett and Ryan Thorpe.   Those involved in this type of protest take the position that the government’s public health orders have been too few, too light, and too slowly enacted, and that the government by not imposing a harsh lockdown the moment the case numbers started to rise in the fall, is responsible for all the deaths we have seen since September.

My sympathies are entirely with the first group of protesters, as anyone who has read a word I have previously written on the subject already knows.   I should say that my sympathies are with the protesters’ basic position.   I don’t much care for the rhetoric of civil disobedience, rebellion, and populism in which that position is often expressed at those protests.

While the second group of protesters are certainly entitled to their opinion and the free expression of the same, a freedom that I note many if not most of them would prefer to deny to me and others who take my side of the issue, their position is easily debunked from an ethical point of view.

When a virus is spreading, government is not required to do everything in its power to slow or stop the spread.   Indeed, it has a moral obligation NOT to do everything in its power to slow or stop the spread of the virus.   This is because the government has the power to do tremendous evil as well as good.

Let us agree that saving lives that are at risk from the virus is in itself a good and worthy goal.   Stopping and slowing the spread of the virus may be a means to that end, but whether it is a good means to a good end or a bad means to a good end is debatable.  Slowing the spread of the virus increases the total length of the pandemic, stretching out the time we have to deal with this plague over a much longer period than would otherwise be the case.   That can hardly be regarded as desirable in itself.   Quite the contrary in fact.   Whether this is an acceptable evil, worth tolerating in order to achieve the end of lives saved, depends upon a couple of considerations.

First it depends upon the effectiveness of the method of slowing the spread of the virus in saving lives.   If the method is not effective, then the evil of artificially lengthening the period of the pandemic is much less tolerable.

Second it depends upon the means whereby the stopping or slowing of the virus, considered as an end itself, is to be accomplished.   If those means are themselves bad, this compounds the evil of stretching out the pandemic.

Neither of these considerations provides much in the way of support for concluding that a longer pandemic is an evil made tolerable by a good end, such as saving lives.

With regards to the first consideration, it is by no means clear that any lives have been saved in this way at all.  Indeed, at the beginning of the first lockdown, back when everyone was repeating the phrase “flatten the curve” ad naseum, the experts advising this strategy told us that it would not decrease the total lives lost  but merely spread them out so that the hospitals would not be overwhelmed at once.   This, in my opinion at least, was not nearly as desirable an end as saving lives and not one sufficient to make the lockdown measures acceptable.

This brings us to our second criteria.   The means by which our government health officials have tried to slow or stop the spread of the virus are neither morally neutral nor positively good.   On the contrary, they are positively evil.  They inflict all sorts of unnecessary misery upon people.  Advocates of the lockdown method sometimes maintain that the damage inflicted is merely economic and therefore “worth it” to save lives.   This would be a dubious conclusion even if the premise were valid.   The premise is not valid, however, and it is highly unlikely that those who state it seriously believe what they are saying.  

Telling people to stay home and avoid all contact with other people does not just hurt people financially, although it certainly does that if their business is forced to close or their job is deemed by some bureaucrat to be “non-essential”.  It forces people to act against their nature as social beings, deprives them of social contact which is essential to their psychological and spiritual wellbeing, which are in turn essential to their physical wellbeing.   Mens sana in corpore sano.   The longer people are deprived of social contact, the more loneliness and a sense of isolation will erode away at their mental health.   Phone, e-mail, and even video chat, are not adequate substitutes for in-person social contact.

All of this was true of the first lockdown in the spring but it is that much more true with regards to the second lockdowns that are now being imposed.   The first lockdown was bad enough, but the second lockdown, imposed for at least a month, coming right before Christmas in the same year as the first, will be certain to pile a sense of hopelessness and despair on top of the inevitable loneliness and isolation.  The government has kept liquor stores and marijuana vendors open, even though the combination of alcohol and pot with hopelessness, loneliness, and despair is a recipe for self-destructive behaviour, while ordering all the churches, which offer, among other things, hope, to close.    This is evil of truly monstrous proportions.    It can only lead to death – whether by suicide, addictive self-destruction, or just plain heart brokenness.   

The protesters who accuse Brian Pallister and the government he leads of murder for having re-opened our economy from the first lockdown and not having imposed a second one right away when the cases began to rise are wrong-headed about the matter as they, generally being leftists, are wrong-headed about everything.   The government does not become morally culpable for deaths because it refrains from taking actions which are extremely morally wrong in themselves in order to achieve the goal of saving lives.   Not imposing a draconian lockdown does not translate into the murder of those for whom the respiratory disease caused by the coronavirus becomes one health complication too many.

Where Pallister does bear moral culpability for deaths is with regards to all the people who will kill themselves, or perhaps snap and kill others, drink themselves to death or accomplish the same with drugs, or simply give up on life in hopeless gloom and despair because he has allowed Brent Roussin, once again, to impose these totalitarian public health orders.

Roussin has been going on television as of late, showing pictures of people who have died, and lecturing Manitobans on how these are not just numbers but people.   This is a kind of sleight-of-hand, by which he hopes to distract the public from all the harm he is actively causing, and he knows full well that lockdowns are themselves destructive and lethal for he admitted as much a couple of months ago thus compounding his guilt now, by manipulating their emotions.

Does Roussin realize that this street runs both ways?

What about the young man, Roussin, who would otherwise have had decades of life ahead of him, much more than those whose deaths you have been exploiting to justify your bad decisions, but who killed himself because you cancelled his job as “non-essential”, took away  his social life, and left him with the prospect of long-term isolation?   Do you not realize that he is a person as well?

In the end, those who die from the lockdown may very well turn out to outnumber by far those who succumb to the bat flu.   In which case all that Roussin will have accomplished will have been to exchange a smaller number of deaths for which he would not have been morally responsible for a larger number of deaths that leave his hands permanently stained with blood. Posted by Gerry T. Neal at 1:30 AM

Labels: addiction, Bartley Kives, Brent Roussin, Brian Pallister, CBC, COVID-19, Dan Lett, despair, hope, lockdowns, Manitoba, Ryan Thorpe, suicide, Wab Kinew, Winnipeg Free Press


  1. Bruce CharltonNovember 26, 2020 at 4:41 AM“In the end, those who die from the lockdown may very well turn out to outnumber by far those who succumb to the bat flu. “

    From what I can tell from the numbers William Briggs provides, this point has already, several months since, been surpassed in the UK; and the toll continues to mount.

    Plus the severity of intense and chronic human misery – perhaps especially nasty among children, teens and young adults – is clearly appalling but the extent is only known to the immediate circle of neighbours and family.

    …As would be expected from an illness with such a modest mortality rate – even accepting all the inflated and false counting – such as including all influenza deaths, and many other dishonest methods to numerous to list the inflated-rate seems to be considerably less than 1 in a 1000 and very concentrated among the old and already ill who would have a short life expectancy anyway.

    (The non-Christian’s terror of his own death, and the desire to delay it a short while at any price, has a lot to do with this.)

    Here in the UK many of the most basic aspects of medical care, such as actually meeting a doctor, diagnosing and treating lethal cancers etc, have been almost abandoned.

    However, nonetheless, there is a widespread passive acceptance and even embrace of the response – and there is no doubt that poeple-as-a-whole deserve what they are getting – since they keep asking for more of the same; and most of those who don’t like it have ne better justification for their objection than hedonism – which does not sustain courage, and offers no motivating alternative.

    This has been long coming, long building (pervasive and worsening sub-fertility among the most intelligent, wealthy and high status people being an index) – but we are now seeing an accelerating process of civilizational suicide – caused, obviously, by the denial of God (denial of any God – not only the true God).

    Even without our extraordinarily evil and psychopathic global leadership our civilization would be doomed (as I wrote in Thought Prison, 2011) – just more slowly than is happening now

    Men cannot live without God/s – even at the basic biological level; since all human societies evolved with religions, and depend upon religion for much that is basic to survival. ReplyReplies
    1. Gerry T. NealNovember 27, 2020 at 6:37 AMBruce, that we have long ago passed the point where the numbers dead from the lockdowns exceeds those dead from the virus is my understanding as well. I worded it more cautiously here because I was focusing on the local situation in Manitoba where the statistics about deaths from causes such as suicide for this year are suspiciously difficult to obtain.

      We have the same situation with regards to basic medical care here. My father has had to come into Winnipeg annually to see specialists for several years now, but both visits were cancelled this year. One of the specialists was able to do a kind of online videochat examination through the small rural hospital closest to him, but the other just postponed the visit since it has to do with an eye condition that requires an in-person examination. Someone I know who had been waiting for important surgery for years which had finally been scheduled had it postponed due to the virus. I could mention several other specific examples of this sort.