International Journal of Coercion, Abuse, and Manipulation Volume 6 2023 86
apparent in Belanger’s other unsophisticated, even
ridiculous, materials.
Belanger is an inferior communicator, particularly
when compared with other leader figures in the
Canadian pseudolaw ecosystem. Belanger lacks the
folksy charm and personal familiarity of Freeman
Robert Arthur Menard (Netolitzky, 2021, p. 184), the
“muscular Freemanism” machismo of Dean Clifford
(Netolitzky, 2019, pp. 1171, 1195), or the intellectual
capacity, legal expertise, and clear communications
skills of David Kevin Lindsay (Netolitzky, 2016,
pp. 620-621 Netolitzky, 2023a, pp. 815-817).
Belanger communicates by monologue, unlike more
sophisticated “talk show” small group communicators,
such as Christopher James Pritchard of the “A Warrior
Calls” website (Netolitzky, 2023c, VI(A)).
Belanger obviously would prefer a broader audience, but
the litigation histories developed in this article suggest
Belanger is most effective when in close relationships
with a few individuals. Sometimes Belanger has
recorded videos during his one-on-one collaborations,
for example with the Volks. In these circumstances
Belanger heaps praise on his clientele, a practice that
parallels cultic “love bombing” techniques.
Belanger’s known pseudolaw activity is parasitic. He
attaches himself to and victimizes vulnerable persons.
Belanger drops and ejects his hosts once they no longer
serve his purpose. But what, exactly, is that purpose?
Here is the great puzzle with CERI. We have a strong
basis to conclude how CERI attracts affiliates. These
persons liked the power and scheme of pseudolaw,
tried one or more alternatives, failed, then turned to
CERI and Belanger as a replacement.
But what motivates Belanger to seek out and implant
himself within these conflict scenarios? He must,
at some level, know his ideas have not, and cannot,
work. So why has Belanger, for decades, operated
in this manner? One possible explanation is simply
personal gain. While Belanger admits he has received
money, he denies that he promotes pseudolaw for
profit (Netolitzky, 2019, p. 1196 Paraclete, 2012b).
Realistically, this denial means little, since Belanger
unilaterally declares practically anything a “religious”
activity, so no crass commercial “profit” could ever
occur.
In Meads v Meads (2012 ABQB 571, para. 184),
Associate Chief Justice Rooke classified CERI as a
“pot church,” in parallel to the Church of the Universe.
Belanger’s longer-term record and affiliations could
support that Belanger is simply a marijuana user
and legalization advocate who fabricated a religion
directed towards those objectives. While marijuana
use is clearly one of CERI’s foci, a more accurate
statement is that Belanger applies pseudolaw to engage
in criminal activity as a drug producer and trafficker.
In 2019 Belanger was convicted and sentenced to 75
days incarceration for large-scale illegal marijuana
production offenses (McCuaig, 2019, pp. 75-101 R
v Belanger (3 April 2019), Edmonton 180995987P1
(Alta PC)). However, Belanger’s illegal activity here
occurred after most restrictions on marijuana had been
lifted in Canada. Belanger’s drug production therefore
appears to have a commercial, rather than personal,
and/or political, objective. If so, perhaps Belanger has
been promoting CERI concepts so others can take the
fall, while Belanger develops a personal “get out of jail
free card” for his preferred economic activity: drug
production and trafficking.
But Belanger’s direct and proxy illegal activity,
supposedly justified on religious bases, is much
broader than that, and, for example, extends to illegal
motor vehicle use (R v Belanger (20 September 2018),
Edmonton 180222747P1 (Alta PC)), and getting “a
house for free” (Canada Trustco Mortgage Company v
Belanger, 2000f). Belanger’s objectives thus appear not
so much ideological, but, instead, results- and greed-
oriented. So that pattern makes Belanger little different
from the Canadian Freemen-on-the-Land, who sought
a social parasite and criminal lifestyle of “do as I please,”
and “take what I want” (Netolitzky, 2023a, pp. 818-
820).
Cultic studies expert Stephen Kent has argued
malignant narcissism is a commonplace characteristic
of cult leaders (Kent, 2021 Lane &Kent, 2008).
This condition combines narcissistic personality
disorder (“a grandiose sense of self-importance,” with
unwarranted belief in possessing “unique,” “perfect,” or
“gifted” qualities), with antisocial behavior, aggression,
and sadism (Campbell, 2009, p. 574 Shafti, 2019).
Malignant narcissism is a further potential explanation
for Belanger’s activities. Belanger is formally trained
as an artist, but not active as such. Belanger has been
apparent in Belanger’s other unsophisticated, even
ridiculous, materials.
Belanger is an inferior communicator, particularly
when compared with other leader figures in the
Canadian pseudolaw ecosystem. Belanger lacks the
folksy charm and personal familiarity of Freeman
Robert Arthur Menard (Netolitzky, 2021, p. 184), the
“muscular Freemanism” machismo of Dean Clifford
(Netolitzky, 2019, pp. 1171, 1195), or the intellectual
capacity, legal expertise, and clear communications
skills of David Kevin Lindsay (Netolitzky, 2016,
pp. 620-621 Netolitzky, 2023a, pp. 815-817).
Belanger communicates by monologue, unlike more
sophisticated “talk show” small group communicators,
such as Christopher James Pritchard of the “A Warrior
Calls” website (Netolitzky, 2023c, VI(A)).
Belanger obviously would prefer a broader audience, but
the litigation histories developed in this article suggest
Belanger is most effective when in close relationships
with a few individuals. Sometimes Belanger has
recorded videos during his one-on-one collaborations,
for example with the Volks. In these circumstances
Belanger heaps praise on his clientele, a practice that
parallels cultic “love bombing” techniques.
Belanger’s known pseudolaw activity is parasitic. He
attaches himself to and victimizes vulnerable persons.
Belanger drops and ejects his hosts once they no longer
serve his purpose. But what, exactly, is that purpose?
Here is the great puzzle with CERI. We have a strong
basis to conclude how CERI attracts affiliates. These
persons liked the power and scheme of pseudolaw,
tried one or more alternatives, failed, then turned to
CERI and Belanger as a replacement.
But what motivates Belanger to seek out and implant
himself within these conflict scenarios? He must,
at some level, know his ideas have not, and cannot,
work. So why has Belanger, for decades, operated
in this manner? One possible explanation is simply
personal gain. While Belanger admits he has received
money, he denies that he promotes pseudolaw for
profit (Netolitzky, 2019, p. 1196 Paraclete, 2012b).
Realistically, this denial means little, since Belanger
unilaterally declares practically anything a “religious”
activity, so no crass commercial “profit” could ever
occur.
In Meads v Meads (2012 ABQB 571, para. 184),
Associate Chief Justice Rooke classified CERI as a
“pot church,” in parallel to the Church of the Universe.
Belanger’s longer-term record and affiliations could
support that Belanger is simply a marijuana user
and legalization advocate who fabricated a religion
directed towards those objectives. While marijuana
use is clearly one of CERI’s foci, a more accurate
statement is that Belanger applies pseudolaw to engage
in criminal activity as a drug producer and trafficker.
In 2019 Belanger was convicted and sentenced to 75
days incarceration for large-scale illegal marijuana
production offenses (McCuaig, 2019, pp. 75-101 R
v Belanger (3 April 2019), Edmonton 180995987P1
(Alta PC)). However, Belanger’s illegal activity here
occurred after most restrictions on marijuana had been
lifted in Canada. Belanger’s drug production therefore
appears to have a commercial, rather than personal,
and/or political, objective. If so, perhaps Belanger has
been promoting CERI concepts so others can take the
fall, while Belanger develops a personal “get out of jail
free card” for his preferred economic activity: drug
production and trafficking.
But Belanger’s direct and proxy illegal activity,
supposedly justified on religious bases, is much
broader than that, and, for example, extends to illegal
motor vehicle use (R v Belanger (20 September 2018),
Edmonton 180222747P1 (Alta PC)), and getting “a
house for free” (Canada Trustco Mortgage Company v
Belanger, 2000f). Belanger’s objectives thus appear not
so much ideological, but, instead, results- and greed-
oriented. So that pattern makes Belanger little different
from the Canadian Freemen-on-the-Land, who sought
a social parasite and criminal lifestyle of “do as I please,”
and “take what I want” (Netolitzky, 2023a, pp. 818-
820).
Cultic studies expert Stephen Kent has argued
malignant narcissism is a commonplace characteristic
of cult leaders (Kent, 2021 Lane &Kent, 2008).
This condition combines narcissistic personality
disorder (“a grandiose sense of self-importance,” with
unwarranted belief in possessing “unique,” “perfect,” or
“gifted” qualities), with antisocial behavior, aggression,
and sadism (Campbell, 2009, p. 574 Shafti, 2019).
Malignant narcissism is a further potential explanation
for Belanger’s activities. Belanger is formally trained
as an artist, but not active as such. Belanger has been
