In part 1 of this post we focused on the need for exponential growth and the monetary system behind our need for this type of growth. We learned that the monetary system in it's current form is a textbook definition of a Ponzi-scheme requiring ever growing production to meet ever growing debt at the top because at any given time there is always more total debt with interest than there is actual currency to pay for it and the only way to conjure up the currency needed to pay outstanding debt is to borrow even more currency resulting in a never ending cycle where the debt load and subsequent "growth" required are perfectly exponential.
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 [2009]
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".
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.
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:
2012.
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.
“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.
The government is us; we are the government, you and I.
Theodore Roosevelt
This blog has always tried to shy away from partisan direct political speech and influence and I've been proud to try and provide a space for Canadians (and international visitors) free from partisan rhetoric and spin. The purpose of this blog has never been to influence you politically, but rather to influence you personally so that you can evaluate the information I present and make personal decisions in your immediate life. With each and every post my attempt is to provide a comprehensive view of what I think is really going on and let you come to your own conclusions about what should or shouldn't be done. I don't have any faith or skin invested in the political game I only am invested in my own personal game, my family's game, of which the solutions do not reside with the talking heads on 24 Sussex.
There are a few exceptions such as the recent Alberta election wherein clearly my positions on issues are directly contradictory to the old Progressive Conservative Party that ruled Alberta for 44 years. After 44 years of rule under one political ideology and party it no longer becomes about the party: the party and the government are one and the same.
Astute readers may note that I rarely refer to the "government" in terms of the political party other than where I deem it appropriate and that is because when I criticize the government I am not criticizing an ideology, or a political party, I am criticizing actual actions by actual people that have power in this country and that is all I care about and in that same context readers may notice I do not jump on bandwagons like "Stop Harper". "Stopping Harper" is not a solution to Canada's major issues no more than "stop checking your email" is a solution to internet spam.
So why am I telling you all this and what is this post really about? You might be asking yourself as we now enter the 4th paragraph. I'm glad you asked. All of this preamble is building up to the fact that I am about to provide my personal, and I really want to stress personal, opinions of what I see as Canada's major issues, where I see the 4 major running national party's standing on these issues, and most importantly: whether or not I actually believe them and why. I've gotten a few questions regarding the election from readers and twitter followers and while I hope my ramblings here are not what you're waiting for in regards to a final decision on who or what you will support there's been enough interest that I may as well lay it all out rather than try to explain my position in 140 characters.
First before we get into the issues themselves I need to provide my primary position which is issue and party agnostic: vote local and vote with your heart.
We do not need "anything but conservative" campaigns, we do not need to treat our political race like a presidential one. It is most important to remember that you're not really voting for an ideology but rather for a local representative. This is a person that can represent your riding and it's needs; it is up to the members of the house to decide which coalition of MPs forms the government. There is absolutely nothing that says that a government must be made up of the winning party, or any party at all. It could in theory be made up of an MP from various parties and even without an official party coalition. It could be a private coalition among members who are all on the same page and can command the confidence of the house.
Now obviously many of the combinations I listed above are likely not going to happen especially with the divisive, hostile, and weary political environment we exist in today - an environment which is ripe for manipulation I might add. But it's important to remember above all what it is you're really voting for and I believe a house made up of honourable Canadians with the best intentions as opposed to party hacks and globalist insiders would be far superior to any easily co-opted ideology. If the best MP is a Conservative - one which answers your questions and takes your criticisms seriously and doesn't pussyfoot around real issues - then please vote them in.
That being said our electoral system has been completely perverted into a faux presidential race and it is within this mindset most voters base their decision making and since I do not have the time, patience, energy or fucks to give about what each individual candidate represents for their constituents, nor do I have the experience to describe community level issues where I do not live, we will be looking at the highest level issues only from the perspective of the party leader/party ideology. Keep in mind your local candidate for the party may not entirely agree with the party position on every issue and it is therefore useful to find that out on an individual basis.
Try and avoid deliberate attempts to further divide the populace and learn how to spot these attempts. Here is an example:
The Con and NDP twitter crackpots are out in force - the ones with 200 times more tweets than followers -so they're upset #cdnpoli
Here is Bob Rae, an "honourable MP" and long term political insider, adding fuel to the divide and conquer fire. Much like WWE wrestling, or other pro-sports, rivalries are an act. In the wrestling ring opponents might "hate" each other but that's only for the public eye and to keep the confidence in the WWE act of the fan base much like the divide and conquer act played out in politics is to keep the confidence of the electorate in the system. And much like hockey or other team sports the idea a politician believes so fundamentally in the party and it's ideology is also an act. Political teams trade players all the time and as with Thomas Mulcair or Bill Blair we find that the end decision mostly depends on the contract they get with the team. Keep this in mind the next time you might mention how "lefties do this" or "rwnjs do that", to the players of the games they're all just "fans" (meaning fanatics) and it is with this knowledge of the psychology of fandom that the game of divide and conquer is played ultimately with the hope of getting the peasantry to point the fingers at each other rather than those at the top.
Wow. I didn't realize I had so much to say on this election and we haven't even gotten into the issues or parties yet! Seriously though, I do apologize for the long read. Ok. The issues...
This is by no means meant to be an exhaustive list and you'll note political party corruption and issues with candidates are missing. We will not be talking about Duffy, the NDPs expenses, PeeGate, or anything of the sort as these things are largely irrelevant from the global agenda at play and simply serve to distract the people from the real issues. We will also be avoiding issues that have the direct intent to divide the people (what I call "people issues") and which those at the top truly just don't care an example being pro-life/pro-choice - while your position on that issue may be very important to you I can assure you regardless of ideology or political party that whether or not women should/can have abortions matters not to the people in the top echelon beyond the umbrella implications of population control or the future strength of the tax base. We will instead be looking at issues that effect everyone and the trends which will define the future of Canada. These are as follows:
Domestic Issues
- The economy
- The environment
- Civil liberties
- First Nation treaties and rights
Foreign Issues
- The resource wars (or for the uninformed: 'The Syrian Refugee Crisis')
- T.P.P. and Free Trade
Governmental Issues
- The senate
- The centralization of power
Each of these issues really demands an entire post unto itself but I will do my best to explore the most important aspects of each and tie it all together, each of these issues is related to each other.
The Economy
War is the continuation of politics by other means
Carl von Clausewitz
Politics is the continuation of economics by other means
Michael C. Ruppert
The economy is probably the most important of the issues listed above and not for the reasons Harper or the other leaders claim. It is the most important because everything else that is listed there takes place in an economic context and unless you understand that context and the implications of it you can easily be swept away in fancy statements with little or no meaning such as "growth that the middle class needs", "sustainable growth", or "a stable and strong economy". In fact it is only the Green party in this regard which identifies the primary problem Canada (and all western nations and indeed the entire planet) is facing.
We need to correct the perception that economic success is dependent on growth and build understanding of the benefits of a steady-state economy (non-boom/bust economy). Continued exponential growth is counter to the realities of a finite planet.
Notice that they explicitly state that what we engage in is "exponential growth" and that exponential growth is "counter to the realities of a finite planet". To some of you this may seem like a load of hippie hogwash and "leftist drizzle" but its actually rooted in the same monetary theory many that would consider themselves "Libertarians" (typically considered a far-right ideology) subscribe to. I also subscribe to this monetary theory of which the anti-thesis is our current monetary system.
The growth that is demanded from our debt-based ponzi-conomy is exponential growth, which is why one of the big telling red-flags of those in the pockets of the bankers which aim to keep the unsustainable debt-based monetary system operating as long as possible is when a politician talks of the "need for growth". Chris Martenson has an excellent presentation on the consequences of a finite planet and exponential growth monetary systems which I would say is required viewing for making an informed decision about Canada's future:
His presentation doesn't really get into how the monetary system works (though he has many other pieces that do) rather it focuses on the consequences so if this type of material is basically unheard of to you it may be useful for you to first understand the monetary system itself of which Mike Maloney has a great presentation which is easy to understand.
After watching those presentations you should now have a fairly good understanding as to why the NDP's suggestion of "sustainable growth" is patently false. The two words are an oxymoron especially being that the type of growth demanded by the monetary system is infinite and exponential. Further you should realize that the need for growth is no longer to service populations but is now purely to maintain the banking system and the elites that benefit from it. I know that sounds great but what does that mean for you and in practical terms?
What it means is that we "need" temporary foreign workers because we can't find Canadians to work the counters at all of the sprawling Tim Hortons' that we likewise "need". We "need" these numerous establishments so much and they receive so much business that they can not afford to engage in wage competition instead complaining that workers demand too much compensation and as such they are "lazy". Canada's "need" to artificially expand it's labour pool is perhaps one of the most blatant proofs that the type of growth we engage in is no longer relevant, necessary, or sustainable.
"Sustainable growth" is a catchy saying but it runs counter to the very meaning and reasons we currently "need" growth. Understand that when we talk about growth it is in addition to all of the collective growth up until now. %1 growth this year, is larger than 1% growth last year because this year's 1% is on top of the total of last year which already includes last year's 1%, get it? This is the nature of the "exponential" in exponential growth and it is for this reason that Mulcair's "sustainable growth" is a lie.
Because growth is always on top of all previous growth, to return to something "sustainable" would represent in Canada a major initial contraction. This isn't to say that Mulcair's ideas in "sustainable growth" are bad ideas. We should be investing in a clean and modern future but this clean and modern future must come with a reform of how the economy and monetary creation now works.
Trudeau and Harper's economic positions are much more militantly "pro-growth" than Mulcair's though I wouldn't say by that much. In truth all of them are really promoting ideas very close to the others and wrapping it in the appropriate spin for their bases. Mulcair ties "sustainable" and "growth" together hoping "far-left" progressives don't know what the word sustainable means. Trudeau wraps his in the "middle class" claiming he has the answers to the "growth the middle class needs" which is even more meaningless than Mulcair's catch-phrase.
For much of our history, the only trading relationship that mattered was with the United States. From Laurier to Mulroney, it defined our politics in watershed elections that bookended the last century, and inflamed passionate debates about national identity throughout. As we grew more confident, Canadians arrived at the conclusion, supported by the evidence, that openness to trade is good for us. It expands our horizons, as well as our national wealth.
That was the 20th century. The 21st century is different. Trade remains a paramount objective, but we can no longer rely on the U.S. alone to drive our growth.
I am not one of those who believe the U.S. is in serious decline. Our relationship with our southern neighbour remains our most important, but we cannot afford to miss vital opportunities elsewhere. By 2030, two-thirds of the planet’s middle class will be in Asia. How we define and manage our relationship with Asian economies to play a Canadian role in fuelling that growth will matter as much to the Canadian middle class in this century as our relationship with the U.S. did in the last.
So how are we doing? Canada benefited from being the first western country to recognize the People’s Republic of China, but we have lost ground recently. The Conservatives kicked off their stewardship of the relationship with unhelpful sabre-rattling, followed by a stubborn silence. Recently, they have made attempts at courtship, but China’s leadership has a long memory. Influence and trust is built through consistent, constructive engagement.
Further, the Conservatives have developed their approach to Asia, such as it is, behind closed doors. This is a mistake. Where is the leadership to explain to Canadians why this relationship is so important, to engage Canadians in the conversation, to make us aware of the opportunities?
Because we have failed to make the case for trade, Canadians are understandably anxious. Because we failed to ensure that the middle class participates in the growth created by trade, support for it has recently broken down.
This is from Trudeau's article on CNOOC and free trade back in 2012 where in he within a few paragraphs completely contradicts himself and admits that "we failed to ensure that the middle class participates in the growth created by trade" yet talks about how free trade has increased our national wealth. Well if it's not the middle class who received this wealth, and it's not the poor who received this wealth who did? This type of doublespeak exists within all of Trudeau's economic content to varying degrees but no contradiction shows where his real interests lie more than his CNOOC article. Don't believe me?
Personal income for middle-class Canadians has stagnated for more than a generation. This deeply troubling development is masked by a rise in family income, due to the entry of a new generation of well-educated, hard-working women into the workforce. While this phenomenon is overwhelmingly positive, we must be clear-eyed in understanding that it is a one-time benefit.
So, we’re left with the vexing question: where will the next wave of growth for the middle class come from?
This paragraph is littered with news-speak so you may need to read it a few times, especially if you're a woman. Go on, I'll wait.
Alright, hopefully you have spotted the problem and if not then welcome to Propaganda 101. What Trudeau is essentially saying here is that "we need to find new suckers to keep the monetary ponzi-scheme going and we've already exhausted the entry of women into the workforce so we're left with the vexing question where will the next wave of growth for the middle-class come from?". Notice also that by claiming the entry of women into the workforce was the "last wave" of growth for the middle-class he confirms once again that "we failed to ensure that the middle class participates in the growth created by trade".
This paragraph is worded as it is to bring to mind ideals of equality for women in the workforce when it couldn't be farther from. It is perhaps the most compelling evidence Trudeau is fully aware of how the monetary system really operates and that like the others in the top echelon view people as nothing more than "human resources" necessary to work at the bottom to feed the top. Notice you don't see Trudeau saying we should return to a level of income required for a "single-income family" rather the "vexing question" is where the "next wave" of growth will come from.
Reading Trudeau's full CNOOC article you'll see the answer is the Chinese, back in 2012 when they were building 20+ empty cities and calling that growth which has lead to their overvalued stock market of today, the volatility, and the loss in faith that China is where the "next wave" will come from. Politicians are now back to the idea it will be coming from the U.S. but notice no one is saying it will be coming from Canadians. The reason why is simple: the Canadian ponzi-conomy has grown larger than our sparse population, and if you read between the lines in these politician's statements you'll see that they know this.
Harper's position on the economy offers nothing new to this conversation so I won't explore the Conservative platform further on this.
As a general rule I personally go by: if a politician talks about the need for "growth" they're either brainwashed with modern voodoo economic fundamentalism, or worse as I suspect with the 3 main party leaders: they are beholden to the international bankers and the neo-feudalist corporate empire being built on the ashes of the United States and are fully-aware and intentionally deceiving as to the operation of this system.
I cover this material a lot on this blog so I won't go further into it now but if you're a new-comer please feel free to browse, regular readers have heard this all before.
Hopefully now you have a sense as to why I say the economy is the most important issue and as you'll see each additional issue I'll be getting into all revolves around maintaining stability of the banking system and the ponzi-scheme we call an economy.
The Environment
I've listed the environment second as contrary to popular belief these two are directly intertwined and much of the economic misinformation translates to environmental misinformation as well. This is especially true when it comes to carbon tax or carbon trading schemes and their supposed value which purposely feeds off people's misinformation of how the economy actually works. I explore these thoughts in full in another post but in regards to this I leave you with this "vexing" question: if banks were not allowed to fail what makes you think a failing energy company deemed "too big to fail" will not also receive printed central bank currency bailouts?
The idea we can "buy" credit in the environment with currency that is literally printed out of thin air and backed by nothing but future labour and production is absolutely insane. The idea of using currency (money) to regulate environmental destruction and emission growth would only work if the currency itself was sound and finite to properly reflect the reality of a finite planet. Short of that there is nothing stopping central banks from conjuring up new currency to pay for the carbon and as a result the supposed limit it puts is meaningless. Much as banks are simply able to write-off risk on to the back of the taxpayer so too will energy companies and emitters as their survival is essential to the survival of the monetary system without the sort of contraction we discussed earlier in regards to Mulcair's "sustainable development".
These facts might be forgiveable if their usage to invest in the future was genuine but like most big-money schemes this one is likewise false. The carbon tax outright will likely over time simply end up in general revenue providing yet another tax base for expansionary monetary policy which if the banking system is not to collapse the government will need to engage in. The carbon trading market on the other hand is just the next market bubble oriented around the only thing more plentiful and common than printed currency itself and is the only financial bubble that can hope to exceed the global bond bubble.
Neither solution is a true solution, and yes the problem is very real. For those hard-line partisans understand its not that: "global warming is false and everything is a scam", or "global warming is real and we need to price carbon", it is that "global warming is real and carbon pricing is a scam". This is a classic case of the global elite not "letting a good crisis go to waste" which for all those surprised by the World Bank and IMF supporting these schemes: now you know why.
Being that this is the case my position on the party lines on the economy also doubles for the environment. Any party that is all about growth is not only lying about sustainability, the middle-class, but also the true meaning of being environmentally responsible. As I discussed recently about Alberta as the economic situation deteriorates further largely due to peak (conventional) oil all sorts of 'corner cutting' will become more and more acceptable and necessary to service the exponential growth monetary system's debt load and expected levels of production needed to meet that debt load.
I know, its been a long read so far. Time for an intermission.
Civil Liberties
It is in this area this election where the NDP really shines even though they took their time fully opposing bill C51 and essentially followed the Green Party's lead. That said it is highly unlikely the Green Party will form a government and the NDP have a fair shot of doing so and the importance of C51 can not be understated. The pledge to repeal C51 has been a primary talking point of Mulcair's and would be difficult for him to renegade on. There are a few caveats to the NDP position in this regard though:
Nothing has been said about what if anything C51 would be replaced with. The assumption amongst NDP supporters is that it would be repealed and that is the end of it but the NDP hasn't explicitly said that either. My biggest fear in supporting the NDP explicitly for this reason is that without addressing the larger encroaching surveillance state they do not go far enough in fingering the culprits and those who want it.
In the same context as them leaving this topic open-ended beyond repealing bill C51 and championing the Charter of Rights (or what's left of it) their position also leaves the existing intrusive unaccountable system intact which while not making the situation worse it doesn't really solve anything either.
I can summarize Trudeau's and Harper's position on civil liberties in two words: Bill Blair.
Bills like C51 are essential for what will become increasingly authoritarian governments to micro-manage economic growth and try to prevent revolt. It is imperative to understand that they are not being enacted to "protect us from terrorists". They are not being enacted for our safety. Terrorism (as we will get to a bit later in this post) is a multi-faceted excuse for western foreign and domestic policy which goes against our traditional values (as we're told those values are, not our real values like colonialism) and as such requires external influence to manipulate a popular consensus on.
Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.
It is for this reason, and my suspicions of Mulcair's true allegiances to the banking oligarchy that I find Mulcair's C51 position slightly hallow and I'd ask Canadians to at least be wary of that fact.
Another general rule: all campaign promises should be taken with a grain of salt.
First Nation treaties and rights
First Nation issues are vast and encompassing and I would never try to speak for them. Frankly, not being First Nation, I am simply not qualified to do so. In fact I believe we have plenty to learn from them.
The First Nations, even if most Canadians don't know it yet, are Canadas front line of defence against infinite exponential growth and the international corporate authoritarian system being implemented through covert means. While Canadians might be fooled or confused as to the intents of the system with no direct experience being on the receiving end the First Nation people are able to identify instantly what is being done. This makes them dangerous.
They're even more dangerous because unlike the faux "sustainable growth" Canadians believe in the First Nation people have recollection and stories of actual sustainable living. Sustainable to them and sustainable to us mean very different things and as such fooling them into supporting "sustainable growth", or any growth, won't be easy.
It's no coincidence that the greater focus on "consultation with First Nation people" has grown in focus following their militant blockades of pipelines and economic expansion. It is important to understand that "consultation" is really code for "pay offs". The government is dumping significant resources into getting their permission for economic expansion, but comparatively other First Nation issues like the Missing and Murdered, or basic water access, are held back by endless red tape and a general lack of effort. The two in contrast are shocking.
Understand that "consulting" with First Nations is really just a discussion of which number is the right number. What number is big enough that the Chiefs and their bands can not say no? especially when they have been subject to rampant poverty and neglect? This is billed to the Canadian people as "working with" First Nations but in reality they are being given no choice. This type of negotiation is not much different than an economic hitman getting a sovereign nation to agree to a punitive trade deal; sure in the end it's the "country" that agreed to the trade deal but the agreement is made under duress and so it is with energy companies, land rights, and First Nations.
First Nations are thirdly dangerous because they truly do have the legal right to do what they are doing and their systematic suppression is not by accident.
This brings us to the end of the 'domestic issues' portion. By now it should be clear how the central theme of infinite exponential growth and the survival of the banking system and status-quo is the top priority at work and permeates into every thread of Canadian life and policy.
That brings us to the end of part 1. In part 2 we will look at the remaining issues I've pointed to as the underlying trends in Canada, a summary of my position on each party, and a few more general statements. Used with permission originally posted at Canadian Trends.
Facility is a four piece screamo band from New Jersey. The split with An Anecdote is their sophomore EP. It picks up from where they left off with on their debut EP The First Four. Intent is their most chaotic song to date while Seven is tighter and more riff focused. If you liked The First Four you will like this as it is more of the same.
An Anecdote is a five piece screamo band from Gothenburg, Sweden. The split with Facility is their third EP. Another Schoolyard Confession comes barreling out of the gates firing on all cylinders while North American Takeover slows down slightly, putting alternating screaming vocalists to great use. Both these songs are noisy, chaotic explosions that barely let up for a moment only to slam down even harder in the next moment. These are both bands to watch as they put their stamp on what a modern screamo band should sound like.
