Was Quebec Terror Attack a False Flag?


Was the recent attack and murder of 6 muslim men at a mosque in Quebec city the action of a lone racist gunman or was it something more? The timing and location of this event are highly suspicious, coming only a day after the Prime Minister openly tweeted that Canada would be accepting the refugees banned from the U.S.

While Canada is unmistakably a nation of immigrants with enough room for a few more people, the current post 9/11 clash of cultures has put the western world on edge and the election of Donald Trump to the presidency is proof that unfettered immigration is of concern to the under educated and unemployed American voter.

While the acceptance of refugees into the country is a noble and compassionate policy the driving factors of this mass migration is conveniently ignored.

First, that the West has been bombing the middle east, Afghanistan and parts of Africa for decades and the destruction of these lands leads to the displacement of people.

Second, the clash of cultures created by the waves of immigrants entering our country has led to political push back from a population that sees immigration as a negative.

Third and most importantly, the secretive, almost dishonest way government has sold it’s action policy towards Terrorism and Immigration.

Is immigration the side effect or the reason?

Was the Quebec mosque attack the act of an angry hater or a way to sell more muslim immigration to an already under employed Canadian population?

Journalists at Press For Truth believe there may be a CSIS connection to this story.

What we know for sure is that the RCMP and CSIS have a history of entrapment and the use of false operations for the purpose of affecting public opinion.

Is this latest event one of them?

Lies & Spin in Quebec


In the 18 hours since the attack on the mosque in Quebec in which six people died, the details released have painted two pictures. Original reports from eye witnesses describe two men in balaclavas involved in the shooting; today that has officially changed to only one man – Alexandre Bissonnette. The other suspect, Mohamed Khadir has been identified as a witness.

Witnesses are notoriously unreliable in such incidents, but two men in Balaclavas instead of just one is fairly substantial, considering those witnesses managed to identify an accent as ‘good Quebecois’ and report that the gunmen shouted “Allahu Akbar.”

Last night, shortly after the shooting, a witness who asked to remain anonymous told Radio-Canada that two masked individuals entered the mosque.

“It seemed to me that they had a Québécois accent. They started to fire, and as they shot, they yelled, ‘Allahu akbar!’ The bullets hit people that were praying. People who were praying lost their lives. A bullet passed right over my head.

“There were even kids. There was even a three-year-old who was with his father,” the witness said. Read More

Those early reports have now all but disappeared, to be replaced by the news today that only person is being charged; the other, a witness – supporting the claim that this was potentially Canada’s first Islamophobic terror attack.

‘Two men, both in their 20s, have been arrested. However, just after noon Monday, Sûreté du Québec police tweeted that only one man is considered a suspect; the other is now being treated as a witness. While police are not naming the men or speculating on possible motives, other media outlets have identified them as Laval University students Alexandre Bissonnette and Mohamed El Khadir. La Presse is reporting that Bissonnette is the suspect and is expected to appear in court this afternoon.’ More from Vice

Already, this does not add up. Are we being told the truth, or is this incident is being manipulated to support a crackdown on dissent over Trudeau’s ambitious and zealous globalist agenda to turn Canada into something resembling that progressive dystopian nightmare, Sweden?

Hours after the attack, by then knowing the identities of the attackers, and therefore a fairly good idea of their motives, Trudeau described it as a “terror attack against Muslims”. The implication being that it was carried out by others – Islamophobes. Despite eye witnesses also claiming the attackers shouted “Allahu Akbar.” Read More

Jihad Watch: Quebec mosque mass murderers Alexandre Bissonnette and Mohamed Khadir

In light of the witness statement that they screamed “Allahu akbar,” it is likely that Bissonnette is a convert to Islam, and that this was a case of Muslims firing upon other Muslims whom they deemed heretical: a Sunni-Shia dispute, or adherents of the Islamic State versus opponents of it, or Sunnis firing upon Ahmadiyya — depending on what kind of mosque it is. But there is no basis at this point for the widespread assumption that this was an “Islamophobic” attack.  Read More

All of which was unfolding on the backdrop of Trump’s immigration crackdown, and Trudeau’s moment as the caped saviour of decency.


However, unlike Trudeau, Trump has identified the threat correctly, albeit way ahead of the curve in terms of the imminent threat it posses to the U.S. The threat to Canada is much more serious given the blinkered & voracious appetite the Trudeau government has for importing Islam large scale, as Europe can woefully attest. There, a total blanket ban of Islamic immigration is the only thing that can save the continent from being turned into Bosnia on steroids for their grandchildren.

The Only Picture Canadians Should Need To See To Keep Them Awake


The stakes are high at this stage. Globalist puppet master, George Soros is increasingly out of favour in both Europe and the U.S. The one place he can find a willing errand boy ready to sacrifice his country for an ideological experiment, is in Canada under Trudeau.

Soros must see Canada as crucial to the survival of his global mission at this stage. And a political crackdown on the right within the country would make Canada an ideological counter balance to Trump’s America, essential for Soros in a western world that is waking.

That’s why we should remain sceptical over a narrative which does not add up.

Socialism and Islam vs the West. William Cooper Tried to Warn us


U.S. Navy and Military Intelligence Officer Milton William Cooper tried to warn us.

First, in his book ‘Behold A Pale Horse‘ published in 1991, then on his radio program ‘The Hour of the Time‘ broadcast through out the 90’s until his death in 2001 just months before the shocking events of 9/11, an attack on America that he predicted on air, June 28, 2001.

Was he a prophet or just an educated man who saw the writing on the wall?

His belief was that the people have been deliberately taught lies in order to divide and control humanity and he spent his last years trying to warn us.

Among his warnings, was the assertion that a secret society of elites were working towards planetary dominance through war, famine, terrorism, debt, taxation and cultural division, with the aim of creating a single world government.

He described that Islam and the tyranny of Socialism would unite in battle against the west to destroy humanities remaining free people.

In what may be his most shocking and controversial revelation William Cooper describes not only that the Apollo Moon landings were hoaxed but that, (when the time was right) a false Alien invasion of earth would be created to unite the planet under a single army to combat the extra terrestrial threat and would ultimately lead to humanities enslavement.

Does all this sound crazy? Sure it does. That’s why no one would ever believe it but he has the research and military intelligence to form an interesting argument.

William Cooper was an expressed believer in God and taught that the elites who run the world were followers of Lucifer, Prometheus, the bringer of light and forbidden knowledge. The great deceiver who promises his disciples wisdom and wealth.

What would you do for ultimate power and glory? Would you start a war or murder an unborn baby? Would you destroy your town or city for an ideology? Would you demonize a person for believing in hard work and the right to own property? Would you vote for a known psychopath because they said nice things?

If we are not living in crazy days, then, the end times will surely be madness.


Hate Trump? You’ll Love Islam


After Trump used his first speech as president to re-affirm his commitment to  ‘wipe radical Islamic terror from the face of the planet’, liberals & the left lost their minds.


Which begs the obvious question: What aspect of Islamic extremism are you eager to retain or introduce?

Organizers of the protest marches planned for the day after also launched a series of ‘inclusive’ artworks which did nothing to dismantle or address this question.

More Details

Why are Western liberal women so reluctant to address or condemn the treatment of women in Islamic culture; a culture they are so eager to import?

You would be forgiven for thinking that some sections of society are no longer in the business of thinking things through; or are able to identify their best interests. That skill has been removed from them as they have been reduced to fake news modified emotional children triggered by political click bait.

The outpouring of instability, anger and grief over the inauguration of Donald Trump was a powerful pantomime performed by a cast of emotionally charged children clutching at flimsy motives. I mean, it wasn’t as if they hadn’t had time to get used to the idea, yet they sought this opportunity to indulge in a collective rage of epic embarrassment.

Interacting with anyone invested in this position has been like trying to interact with a traumatized child.


And heaven help you if you got in the way or answered invasive questioning incorrectly.

There seems little point engaging in discussion with such people at this stage. Their collective de-coupling from reality has rendered them unstable and unpredictable. The coercive narrative they have helped build and police over the past 30 years is crumbling, and they can’t blame themselves. That’s where you come in.

CIA Reduced to Drinking Urine


In a barren wilderness devoid of evidence connecting Russia to Trump’s election, I suppose you can say that thirst has driven the most desperate to drink piss.

This bizarre story emerged as part of a 35 page intelligence document, within which were some rather colourful and too-good-to-be-true accusations that Trump was a pervert and that Russia had this information and were using it to control him.

The dossier, which is a collection of memos written over a period of months, “includes specific, unverified and potentially unverifiable allegations of contact between Trump aides and Russian operatives, and graphic claims of sexual acts documented by the Russians” according to Buzzfeed.  Read More

Later in the day, it was being reported that Trump had allegedly employed two Moscow prostitutes to piss on each other in a bed formerly used by the Obamas. Read More

At this point alarm bells should have been ringing for everyone – the scenario only existed as the creation of 4Chan activists, who originally fed the story to dupe anti-Trump Republicans. But under pressure to back up their allegations that Russia hacked the November U.S. election of Trump, and without any other credible evidence, it would seem that the thirst for these allegations to be true has driven not only John McCain, but also the CIA, CNN & Buzzfeed themselves to drink urine.




How 4Chan McFooled John McCain, Buzzfeed, and the CIA Into Believing Trump’s Golden Showers

I know this appears to be unbelievable, but it’s all verifiable. The neocon shill of a reporter from Buzzfeed, Rick Wilson, was catfished by some autist from the Hitler loving 4chan message boards and made to believe Trump enjoyed getting urinated on and all sorts of outlandish stuff. Truly, this is incredible.  Read Full Article


Now, quite predictably, Buzzed & CNN are being accused of engaging in ‘Fake News’ by not only the Trump camp, but also none other than their former comrades in fake arms, the NYT. Full Story How much better can this get?

At this rate, the media execution squads are going to be working non-stop on January 21st.


How to not look like a desperate old Hollywood THOT

What not to do case study #1, Madonna, who is pushing 60:


(No, the answer isn’t Photoshop. Photoshop is part of the problem.)

Camille Paglia writes at the Hollywood Reporter about Madonna’s “prolonged midlife crisis” that has her insisting on still dressing in outfits that would have been trampy for her in her early 80s heyday and shrilly screeching “misogyny” when men no longer find that sort of thing sexy.

Paglia helpfully suggests that maybe Madonna ought to look to the longevity of stars who have aged a little more gracefully (not to mention doing so without wearing any ass-exposing dresses), a stance for which the deluded feminazis will no doubt consider Paglia a traitor to her sex rather than, say, a sane person with functioning eyes and a sense of dignity.

If aging stars want to be taken seriously, they must find or recover a mature persona. Stop cannibalizing the young! Scrambling to stay relevant, Madonna is addicted to pointless provocations like her juvenile Instagrams or her trashy outfit with strapped-up bare buttocks and duct-taped nipples at the Metropolitan Museum of Art Gala in May. She has forgotten the legacy of her great precursor, Marlene Dietrich, who retained her class and style to the end of her public life.

If you’re wondering what that Met Gala atrocity looked like:


(Before you complain that that photo just made you vomit and/or lose your appetite: We know how tough it is to stick to diet-related New Year’s resolutions, so we’re just doing our part to help you keep yours. You’re welcome.)

As a palette cleanser, here’s Marlene Dietrich in her 60s:


(Plus an interview with Marlene from the same era, in which she’s far saner than Madonna about the whole myth of the sex goddess thing.)

Anyway, Camille continues:

Most disappointing about Madonna’s speech was her collapse into rote male-bashing, which has escalated in Hollywood and surely will increase its cultural isolation from the national audience. The young Madonna was refreshingly sane in her teasing affection for men. Top movie actresses once projected an emotional depth, composure and adult authority that can only be called womanliness. Ingrid Bergman, Susan Hayward, Elizabeth Taylor, Deborah Kerr and Sophia Loren were no victims: They’re strong-willed personalities — onscreen and off. But all of them liked men, and it showed.

Read the rest here.

A service dog walks into a gay bar…


Wait, no… wrong gay dog pic… more like this:


Or this:



We almost missed this late-December gem from David Cole over at Taki’s Magazine, all about the amusing parallels between people sneaking their pets into gay bars while pretending they’re service dogs and dudes wanting to sneak into women’s washrooms while pretending to be transsexuals and the laws that make it all OK whether people like it or not:

…She was direct in her response: “It was less likely anti-straight bias than it was all about the dog. Lots of queer bar owners hate the ADA because of the service-dog regulations.”

I was surprised. “But I thought gays loved their dogs…you know, pampering them, dressing them up in little hats and bow ties and shit.”

“Exactly,” my friend answered. “Queers are always trying to bring their non-service dogs into gay bars, and the owners and managers hate the ADA for the fact that it makes it almost impossible to turn them away. It’s a feeling of government intrusion; the owners feel like their right to run their own business is being violated by a law that demands access in the name of civil rights.”

LOL… oh that’s funny… maybe not for the average run-of-the-mill queer folks, but in light of their activist shit-disturbers, it’s hilariously obtuse. And Cole agrees:

Okay, this is rich. Gay club owners getting pissed off about federal laws mandating access in the name of civil rights. But here’s the thing: The gay bar owners have a point regarding service dogs and the ADA. The law is a hot mess of government illogic. Establishments are allowed to bar any dogs that are not “genuine” service animals (as opposed to simple pets or “emotional support animals”), but, and here comes government doing what it does best—crafting irrational and contradictory rules and regulations—establishments may not demand proof that a dog is a genuine service animal. In other words, you can ban non-service animals, but you are banned from asking for proof that an animal is a service animal; you have to take the customer’s word for it.

Gee, that sounds kinda familiar, doesn’t it?

Read the whole thing here.