Thank you for taking the time to read and reflect on my original piece on my 21st Century Channel.
I appreciate how you framed this — the idea that civil fracture begins long before any visible conflict is something I take very seriously. You’re right that breakdown is often behavioural before it is physical.
For anyone here who may be interested, the article that sparked this conversation was:
After the Invasion: The Day Canada Stops Being Canada
And I’ve since written a follow-up that explores the internal dynamics you’re touching on here, particularly the social and civic stresses that precede open conflict:
Your point about access-to-information requests stretching into years really hits home for me. I spend my days digging through government records for my readers. I recently read the transcripts from the ETHI committee (the group of MPs tasked with overseeing government transparency). Members of Parliament were repeatedly questioning officials about the massive system backlog. Basic public inquiries now regularly take up to three years to process. The government usually blames outdated technology for the problem. I think the real issue aligns perfectly with your theory. We are watching a slow, quiet erosion of public visibility. The legal framework technically exists on paper. In reality, these massive delays create a completely black box. Citizens cannot get straight answers about how public decisions actually happen. They naturally start to assume the very worst about the people in charge. I see this exact type of institutional distrust building every week in the official parliamentary records.
This is the path Canada is on. Most won't recognize it. This is why Alberta separatism is gaining strength. Ottawa and the rest of Kanadastan is in for a big surprise.
This post is exactly the kind of disinformation, dressed up with a word salad of comparisons to other countries in the most superficial way, that is designed to sow dissent, and discord in Canada.
I have gone through the posting history here, and post after post is just a more erudite, verbose version of “Canada is Broken.”
It's not. But your activity in this regard is trying to make it so.
Ok, here's an example-comparing straibs on our social cohesion to Yugoslavian experience is a non-starter.
That country was cobbled together after World War 2, out of ethnic and religious affinity groups with identities that went back hundreds of years prior, and as a manufactured state, endured 40+ years of totalitarian communist rule under Josip Broz Tito.
There are so many dissimilarities, it's disingenous to suggest we might apply their experience to our own body politic. It's not just apples to oranges, it's apples to turnips.
The analogy isn’t claiming sameness. It’s highlighting how trust erodes before systems fracture. Dismissing the comparison avoids engaging the pattern being discussed.
Completely agree. Many comparisons with no real words.
In bullet points what are the issues you believe exist enough to cause a civil war? And note a civil war is not a bunch of dudes in F350s crying that they only got 2 pipelines instead of 5.....that's Foreign interference.
Thank you for taking the time to read and reflect on my original piece on my 21st Century Channel.
I appreciate how you framed this — the idea that civil fracture begins long before any visible conflict is something I take very seriously. You’re right that breakdown is often behavioural before it is physical.
For anyone here who may be interested, the article that sparked this conversation was:
After the Invasion: The Day Canada Stops Being Canada
https://21stcenturywitness.substack.com/p/after-the-invasion-the-day-canada
And I’ve since written a follow-up that explores the internal dynamics you’re touching on here, particularly the social and civic stresses that precede open conflict:
After the Invasion: Civil War at the Edges
https://21stcenturywitness.substack.com/p/after-the-invasion-civil-war-at-the
I’m grateful for the thoughtful engagement. These are not comfortable topics, but they are important ones to examine carefully and without theatrics.
Your point about access-to-information requests stretching into years really hits home for me. I spend my days digging through government records for my readers. I recently read the transcripts from the ETHI committee (the group of MPs tasked with overseeing government transparency). Members of Parliament were repeatedly questioning officials about the massive system backlog. Basic public inquiries now regularly take up to three years to process. The government usually blames outdated technology for the problem. I think the real issue aligns perfectly with your theory. We are watching a slow, quiet erosion of public visibility. The legal framework technically exists on paper. In reality, these massive delays create a completely black box. Citizens cannot get straight answers about how public decisions actually happen. They naturally start to assume the very worst about the people in charge. I see this exact type of institutional distrust building every week in the official parliamentary records.
the owners of the BRofC have been wanting a civil war since the 40's Nothing new here
This is the path Canada is on. Most won't recognize it. This is why Alberta separatism is gaining strength. Ottawa and the rest of Kanadastan is in for a big surprise.
This post is exactly the kind of disinformation, dressed up with a word salad of comparisons to other countries in the most superficial way, that is designed to sow dissent, and discord in Canada.
I have gone through the posting history here, and post after post is just a more erudite, verbose version of “Canada is Broken.”
It's not. But your activity in this regard is trying to make it so.
If the argument is wrong, identify the factual error. “Word salad” and “disinformation” are conclusions, not rebuttals.
Examining institutional performance isn’t an attempt to make Canada fail. It’s an attempt to understand how it’s functioning.
Ok, here's an example-comparing straibs on our social cohesion to Yugoslavian experience is a non-starter.
That country was cobbled together after World War 2, out of ethnic and religious affinity groups with identities that went back hundreds of years prior, and as a manufactured state, endured 40+ years of totalitarian communist rule under Josip Broz Tito.
There are so many dissimilarities, it's disingenous to suggest we might apply their experience to our own body politic. It's not just apples to oranges, it's apples to turnips.
The analogy isn’t claiming sameness. It’s highlighting how trust erodes before systems fracture. Dismissing the comparison avoids engaging the pattern being discussed.
Completely agree. Many comparisons with no real words.
In bullet points what are the issues you believe exist enough to cause a civil war? And note a civil war is not a bunch of dudes in F350s crying that they only got 2 pipelines instead of 5.....that's Foreign interference.