We identified 4 interconnected domestic issues and discussed how the need for exponential growth is the primary driver behind them and also the solutions that are framed for you by the major political parties to address them which can be summed up as "we need more growth".
In this portion we will be looking at 'the resource wars' only as the topic is very very large and must be explained in full for you to really grasp what is happening here.
Before we get into these issues though I just wanted to amend the 'First Nations' portion from the last post as some additional material was provided by Justin Trudeau in last night's debate, or rather, following it.
(Update: it seems the G&M has removed the post-debate portion while i was writing the post from the video! I am trying to locate another. If anyone has a link to Trudeau's Q&A post-debate please let me know in the comments.)
Now I've set the embedding of this video to start at 3h03s but if it doesn't work for you skip forward to this time. Observe what Justin Trudeau's answer is to the question:
"Near the end you mentioned First Nations hadn't been a part of the debate at all why didn't you bring it up earlier?"
And his response:
"Ah, you know, there was an awful lot of topics covered and in a very short period of time. Uh, and I kept hoping that it would be brought up but I think it's important to highlight uh that that fact is uh that First Nations have the largest proportion of young people in this country and the future of those communities are also about the future of our country; needing to get our resources to market, needing to develop our resources needs to happen in partnership on a nation to nation basis with First Nations and that's exactly what the Liberal Party is committed to do and I was glad to be able to highlight that in the debate which talked of many aspects of our economy but didn't speak enough about the opportunities and the challenges faced by indigenous Canadians."
So apparently the only issue and challenge facing First Nations is that the government needs to get resources to market. Sounds a lot more like the issue the government is having with First Nations to me, not the issues and challenges that they are facing. Also note how he says 'in partnership on a Nation to Nation basis' but at the end slips up calling them 'Canadians'. First Nations are not Canadians, they are Nations we have a treaty with. You can't both partner with other Nations, and assimilate those Nations. I know it may seem like a minor language screw up, and perhaps it was, but when you review his answer where the clear focus has nothing to do with the issues actually facing First Nations (other than those created for them by the government itself, of course) it may be a Freudian slip.
Alright. Let's resume the original post.
The Resource Wars (or for the uninformed: 'The Syrian Refugee Crisis')
Julian Assange revealed in an exclusive with RT that the overthrow of Assad was planned as early as 2006 during the Bush/Cheney years. Much like the continuity of our government despite parties, this is also the way it operates in the U.S. The direction and agenda set during the Bush years following 9/11 are still the driving force at work today. The war happening in Syria is a continuation of the war NATO has been engaging in for the last 14 years.
Beginning in 2008 a new narrative had been formed around al-Qaeda, that it's "capacities had been greatly diminished". The focus in the media moved away from al-Qaeda and towards the inevitable withdrawing of NATO troops that was to occur.
WSJ: Al Qaeda's Diminished Role Stirs Afghan Troop Debate 
and January 2008: Al Qaeda in Iraq’s shrinking area of operations
Go back in to the news archives and you can find numerous articles. The public was quickly losing it's patience with the 'War on Terror' and something had to be done especially with the 'up and coming' and 'currently happening' financial crisis. So NATO ended the war, and that more or less culminated with the "killing of Osama Bin Laden" in which Obama promptly tossed the dead body out to sea. The al-Qaeda narrative was dead. They were now to be nothing more than a diminished group of has-beens from our point of view, a new strategy was needed one which re-invigorated the public's support for unilateral war.
Luckily for us the Arab Revolution came along (which if you'll remember from the presentation on the monetary system by Mike Maloney that Max Keiser mentions how it was Federal Reserve interest rates which sparked food inflation) and we had the perfect inroad to resume the war.
al-Qaeda was to be reborn, but not as al-Qaeda, but ISIS. A new entity which is really just al-Qaeda renamed. So, in 2011 we aided the Libyan's revolution. You all remember that right? We materially funded the "Libyan rebels". Now, some of you may recall from the first debate Elizabeth May making a remark about us supporting the rebels who were infiltrated by al-Qaeda.
In 2011 the citizens of NATO countries were not supposed to know that they were really just aiding al-Qaeda, though a few reports came out...
In an interview with the Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore, Mr al-Hasidi admitted that he had recruited "around 25" men from the Derna area in eastern Libya to fight against coalition troops in Iraq. Some of them, he said, are "today are on the front lines in Adjabiya".2011. This was also when the Syrian revolt began.
Mr al-Hasidi insisted his fighters "are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists," but added that the "members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader".
His revelations came even as Idriss Deby Itno, Chad's president, said al-Qaeda had managed to pillage military arsenals in the Libyan rebel zone and acquired arms, "including surface-to-air missiles, which were then smuggled into their sanctuaries".
Mr al-Hasidi admitted he had earlier fought against "the foreign invasion" in Afghanistan, before being "captured in 2002 in Peshwar, inPakistan". He was later handed over to the US, and then held in Libya before being released in 2008.
US and British government sources said Mr al-Hasidi was a member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, or LIFG, which killed dozens of Libyan troops in guerrilla attacks around Derna and Benghazi in 1995 and 1996.
In 2012 I caught eye of an article put out by the Council on Foreign Relations which contains the following:
Al-Qaeda is not sacrificing its "martyrs" in Syria merely to overthrow Assad. Liberation of the Syrian people is a bonus, but the main aim is to create an Islamist state in all or part of the country. Failing that, they hope to at least establish a strategic base for the organization's remnants across the border in Iraq, and create a regional headquarters where mujahideen can enjoy a safe haven. If al-Qaeda continues to play an increasingly important role in the rebellion, then a post-Assad government will be indebted to the tribes and regions allied to the Jabhat. Failing to honor the Jabhat's future requests, assuming Assad falls, could see a continuation of conflict in Syria.
Thus far, Washington seems reluctant to weigh heavily into this issue. In May 2012, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta publicly accepted al-Qaeda's presence in Syria (Guardian). And in July, the State Department's counterterrorism chief, Daniel Benjamin, rather incredulously suggested that the United States will simply ask the FSA to reject al-Qaeda. The unspoken political calculation among policymakers is to get rid of Assad first—weakening Iran's position in the region—and then deal with al-Qaeda later.Hmm. Starting to see a recurring pattern here? How did ISIS become so powerful, so quickly? Especially when "al-Qaeda" was practically defeated? I'll let Joe Biden tell you:
In 2013 John Kerry tried to convince the world that to stop the suffering of the Syrian people from chemical weapons we had to bomb the Assad government but during the Q&A was caught off guard by a reporters question. Russia, who knows exactly what the U.S. is up to (which we will get to in a moment) instantly seized on this opportunity preventing NATO from bombing Syria and overthrowing Assad. Remember that when this was occurring there was never any talk of ISIS, despite the fact that it was clear the U.S. government knew that al-Qaeda intended to create an Islamic State for at least a full year and probably longer ('cause you know... they set the whole thing in motion) yet Kerry was insistent about Assad. Had NATO bombed Syria the entire region would be overrun with al-Qaeda. Kerry fucked up because that's exactly what they wanted.
Following this the narrative of ISIS was born.
Have you ever played Roller Coaster Tycoon? Did you know when one of your roller coasters blows up rather than changing or repairing it you can simply rename it and the people in your park will literally think it's a different roller coaster? It's a really neat trick to get the money rolling in again without having to actually create something new. Slowly the narrative has shifted since 2013 away from al-Qaeda and towards ISIS to the point that many people actually believe they are two different things. They're not. They need to be different in the public's eye because the al-Qaeda narrative was killed. This is the next phase of the war Dick Cheney told us "would not end in our lifetime".
Now would be a good time to show you another presentation I actually posted just recently as he provides much of the background you're going to need to understand in the context of the geopolitical environment we now exist in. I know I'm providing a lot of material and that it literally takes hours to go through all of it, but these are complex topics and without the background much of what is going on today is not going to make a lot of sense.
In this next presentation Michael C. Ruppert discusses many topics all revolving around the things we've been talking about and describes the (then) coming wars.
Pay special note and listen for some of the current day topics and hot spots such as: Columbia, Venezuela, West Africa, and North Korea. Also note the endgame(s): Russia, and China. Particularly the maps showing how the U.S. is trying to keep Russia out of the region keeping in mind that for instance in response to Russia aiding their ally and the sovereign government of Syria's Assad "in the fight against ISIS" they will be destabilizing the region. Here is this presentation.
There are also competing gas pipelines and a multitude of other reasons why NATO wants Assad out. But as was revealed recently, it's not really about Assad. Here is the telling paragraph:
“The weakest point is Ahtisaari’s claim that Churkin was speaking with Moscow’s authority. I think if he had told me what Churkin had said, I would have replied I wanted to hear it from [President Vladimir] Putin too before I could take it seriously. And even then I’d have wanted to be sure it wasn’t a Putin trick to draw us in to a process that ultimately preserved Assad’s state under a different leader but with the same outcome.”That "ultimately preserved Assad's state under a different leader but with the same outcome". The "same outcome" of course being a government that isn't a NATO puppet.
These refugees aren't just "kind of" our fault. They are 100% our fault. Of course Assad has bombed some civilians, he has been claiming the entire time that his army has been fighting foreign terrorists and defending his country from them. It is our media, and our government, that lied to us and said he is mass murdering his "own people". They weren't his own people they were the terrorists that were to become ISIS. Terrorists we supported, trained, funded, aided, and let loose on the Syrian people. When it comes to the "refugees" Elizabeth May has been the only one that has been brave enough to at least try to touch on this fact. The other 3 leaders are lying to you. If you want to help the Syrian refugees then please listen to Syrian Girl's story and pester our politicians on NATOs true involvement, this entire plan rests on us believing we're "fighting ISIS" and not actually helping them overthrow the Syrian government.
Contrary to popular rhetoric NATO is not "helping Assad". But we should be if we were actually honest and serious both about fighting ISIS and defending Syrian lives. We should only of course help the Syrian people at Assad's request. It would protect Syrian lives because our support would of course be only on the condition he uses the same rules of war we do. But it is not about fighting ISIS and with this story of the resource wars I told you I ask you read this piece and contemplate how much you really know about what's going on over there. I hope by now in this series you're starting to pick up on language and key words and how they are being used to manipulate the public so pay attention and see if you can spot them.
This topic is a lot to digest so I will save the remaining topics for part 3.
Used with permission originally posted at Canadian Trends.