Saturday, March 21, 2015

We are all one, now, ok?

I had an experience tonight on Twitter which was to say the least quite unpleasant, especially since it was with someone I had previously greatly respected. I'm not gunna link the tweets, they exist, go find em yourselves. It's not important really, what is important is that the lack of attempt to understand what I was saying was routed in a bias against my color, and my race. I'm a white male.

I get it, First Nations, you're mad. I would be too. The colonizers are racist fucks, but I'm not one of them. I rally against them. Holding a grudge isn't going to get the human race as a whole anywhere fast.

I attended the #C51 nation wide rally last Saturday here in Edmonton and out of all the speakers only one I felt was the absolute truth. All the others were sugar coated with political platitudes, but this one, this very special one that filled my heart with joy to hear the truth, the full truth, and nothing but the truth spilled, was exactly what I wanted and needed to hear.

This speech reminded me of a video I saw a few years ago, which is mainly talking about the U.S. directly but in reality this same thing is happening everywhere. Yes I know this next video is from Infowars, I don't like to source them as they are not trust worthy, HOWEVER Russell Means was greatly respected by the late Michael C. Ruppert, who is/was greatly respected by me. SO WATCH THIS FUCKING VIDEO.

We're all one, now, ok? We're all being colonized.

Click here to recommend this post on and help other people find this information.

Richard Fantin is a self-taught software developer who has mostly throughout his career focused on financial applications and high frequency trading. He currently works for eQube gaming systems.

Nazayh Zanidean is a Project Coordinator for a mid-sized construction contractor in Calgary, Alberta. He enjoys writing as a hobby on topics that include foreign policy, international human rights, security and systemic media bias.

Thursday, March 12, 2015

Letter to the editor on C51

Over at they have a form to write letters to the editors of your local newspapers about C51. I'd encourage everyone to do so. As readers know I have quite a bit to say on the subject and so the 300 word limit was challenging. They provide numerous points to address on their form but I felt that plenty of people will likely be covering these points so I felt I should approach it from a different angle. Here is what I submitted.

There are plenty of reasons contained within C51 for which this bill should be demolished and destroyed that I could talk about. In essence with each additional anti-terror law liberty and due process become more and more inconvenient for the government and their investigators. While Jason Kenney tweets hoax pictures to rile up the public and support these laws, and the "war" effort, it seems everyone has forgotten the part we played in creating the monster we fight.

Under the headline: "Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links" published in the Guardian it was first revealed that portions of the "rebels" we were supporting to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi were al-Qaeda of Iraq and Levant, or what has become ISIS today. NATO's "war on terror" has created the very void with which ISIS has planted it's flag by removing secular governments (which were earlier directly supported by the U.S. to remain in power) and we have provided the initial support for ISIS to rebuild. In short, we created the threat.

We take no accountability for these actions, and many more I don't have the space to write here yet the government has the audacity to ask us to believe they can use the further destruction of rights with liberty and accountability in mind. We've mistakenly accused and tortured. We've killed innocents in our pursuits. Our moral authority is no greater than that of ISIS and the implementation of C51 will reflect that, mark my words.

Annnnnd I just realized I put Guardian instead of Telegraph. Sigh, oh well.

Click here to recommend this post on and help other people find this information.

Richard Fantin is a self-taught software developer who has mostly throughout his career focused on financial applications and high frequency trading. He currently works for eQube gaming systems.

Nazayh Zanidean is a Project Coordinator for a mid-sized construction contractor in Calgary, Alberta. He enjoys writing as a hobby on topics that include foreign policy, international human rights, security and systemic media bias.

Tuesday, March 10, 2015

Dispelling the myth of 'government for the people'

Every other day I'm sent a petition or campaign or something which proclaims something similar to the following: "tell Stephen Harper we don't want _________" as though on delivery of the petition or whatever it is Harper will say to himself: "Oh, gee, they don't want this law? Ok scratch that then".

The majority of laws being passed today are not in the interest of the people or of the country but are in service to global economic feudalism being implemented across the entire western world. Harper & pals are already well aware of how unpalatable these laws are which is why so many resources are spent on propaganda, manipulation, and manufacturing consent for them using what a former CSIS officer calls "fascist techniques". When a former intelligence officer invokes the word fascism, you had better pay attention.

But it's not just Harper, Trudeau and likely Muclair are playing along too in fact as a general rule of thumb when any politician says "jobs and growth" are their priority you should now instantly know who they're working for, and it's not you, it's the banks.

For instance: Justin Trudeau passes off his support of Bill C51 by claiming "Liberals Are Supporting Bill C-51 So Tories Can't Make 'Political Hay'" yet at the same time is 'making political hay' with his meaningless speeches. If Trudeau is so worried about appearing soft on terror then why make wild comparisons to World War II? Surely such comparisons are bound to create much more "political hay" than opposing bill C51 which amongst Liberal supporters would, I'm guessing, be quite popular.

As they say: "talk is cheap" and "actions speak louder than words". Trudeau's actions are a deafening indicator as to what he truly believes in.

But for the Canadian people to continue believing in the myth of "a government for the people" some form of "opposition" must exist, or at least the appearance of such opposition. With no or little opposition mounted against C51 (what may be the most controversial law tabled in my lifetime) it would be all too obvious that it's passing is a mutual agenda among every party (aside from the Green Party) and so what we get instead is a false opposition; an opposition that talks big but really has no actions to back up that talk in fact directly contradicts that talk with their actions.

I've seen a new narrative development that says "Harper is focusing on terror and fear to distract from the economy", essentially framing C51 as some sort of election ploy: if you believe this you are head deep in the illusion of Canadian democracy and the myth of a government for the people where winning the election is an actual goal. elections today are merely a dog and pony show for the electorate to keep them believing in a democracy that no longer exists and C51 is not meant to be a distraction from Canada's failing economy, it is a preemptive response.

Back in 2013 I wrote a post titled "In the future there will be no law and order (only corporate policy and terrorism)" in which I forecast that within a relatively short time frame you'd see terrorism begin to take over the justice system. Here we are 2 years later and with the constant propaganda of "homegrown terror" I hope you all can see that this is already happening. The laws of the nation, and of the people, are taking a back seat to corporate policy and economic growth which is also being cast as a "national security issue" which then leads to the inevitable result that the net of what shall be considered "terrorism" will be ever expanding, bypassing due process and the rule of law, creating a second tier within the justice system for expedited trials, black site torturous interrogations, and kangaroo courts all in an attempt to preempt and disable the capacity for any type of people lead resistance to the new feudalistic economy.

Jobs & Growth

I talk a lot about the bi-partisan and global agenda of "jobs & growth" but have only a few times explained why it is misleading. We will revisit this topic now for new readers to the blog as well as for completion sake in the context of this post.

The jobs & growth mantra is a paradigm we currently believe in. What is a paradigm? A paradigm is what you think about something before you think about it. So in the case of "jobs & growth" this generally means people think of more job availability, growing wages, and a rising standard of living, but these things are not what the "jobs & growth" agenda is really about they are merely the generally accepted assumption of what these things are about and the common beliefs held about them all rest on other misleading or outright false paradigms we exist within: such as the belief that "growth = prosperity".

Chapter 5 - Growth vs Prosperity from Peak Prosperity on Vimeo.
(If you've never seen Chris Martenson's crash course I'd recommend the whole series)

From all corners of the political spectrum you hear a lot about "creating jobs", "growing the economy", and of course the "middle class". Do you notice though that despite the rampant talk of job creation that "wealth creation" is rarely if ever mentioned? You would think with the very visible "wealth inequality" and faltering quality of jobs that wealth creation would be front and center in the discussion of "recovering the economy" if the government and financiers were actually working in the "best interests" of society as a whole and yet it's practically nowhere to be found.

The focus on "growth" as opposed to prosperity is also likewise just as misleading. Readers of this blog know I often refer to the "economy" as the "ponziconomy" as the entire global economy operates on debt based currency. No matter what country you come from your government borrows from private banks at interest leading to a situation where at any given time there is always more outstanding debt than there is currency to pay it which of course means even more must be borrowed to service existing debt. When those in power talk about growth what they are actually talking about is 'credit growth' as the economy requires an exponentially increasing amount of loans to pay down existing debt and if these loans are not made the stability of the entire ponziconomy comes into question. This is why in the face of meager growth, rampant risk and immensely overvalued assets central banks are trying to artificially lower the cost of borrowing to "stimulate the economy".

Excessive credit creation with little or no wealth creation to speak of to back it up however simply results in compounding the problem which is increasingly and more frequently forcing us to manipulate the metrics we use for economic health as well, such as inflation.
Already, food prices have seen sharp gains, although not only because of the dollar. Overall consumer prices rose 1 per cent in January from a year earlier, with food inflation up 4.6 per cent, the largest gain since November, 2011, Statistics Canada said. 
At some point, we expect some cost inflation pressures,” Eric La Fl├Ęche, CEO of grocer Metro Inc., said in late January. “We will be treated fairly by the suppliers and we will be competitive.” 
The council’s report said retailers expect to raise prices mostly in the second half of 2015, which could “amplify the trend toward online shopping, where price is the critical variable.” 
Some merchants are considering ways to skirt the problems, such as changing their product mix, specifications or suppliers, it said. Some are considering purchasing renminbi to pay for their Chinese goods. For now, “the outlook for margins is gloomy, driven by the devaluation of the dollar,” the report said. 
Mr. Manchon said that to soften the blow of price hikes, many companies are reducing package sizes or the amount contained in each one. 
Research shows consumers are generally more sensitive to price changes than to changes in the quantity of goods, he said. For example, suppliers shrink the depth of a package while the height and width remain unchanged, so the silhouette of the package looks the same on the shelf, he said. 
Other ways to try to disguise a price increase in a smaller package are by using new descriptions such as “more portable” (smaller bags for takeout), “greener” (lighter for the environment) or “healthier” (fewer calories), Mr. Manchon said.
The unfortunate thing about the way government calculates manipulates inflation data is that, among many tricks, it does not account for actions by companies such as "suppliers shrink the depth of a package while the height and width remain unchanged, so the silhouette of the package looks the same on the shelf". These are tricks everyone is aware of yet somehow are always overlooked whenever discussions of cost-of-living or inflation come up. It is in the governments and banks best interest to maintain the "low inflation" story even though in reality inflation is probably running upwards of 10% (it's nearly impossible to actually determine as almost all data today is massaged to look better than it is - example (reality starts about halfway down)) even with the collapse in oil prices especially in Canada thanks to the subsequent collapse of the Canadian dollar facilitated by the central bank's policy of lower and lower interest rates (no it's not fucking Dutch Disease, another myth pushed by the political system).

The low inflation narrative is imperative for companies and the government as the claim of there being low inflation provides the excuse companies need to not offer sufficient wage increases to cover for the increases in the cost-of-living caused by rampant credit expansion. It means the government has an excuse to underfund infrastructure and services as well as keep any obligations they owe lower than they should be. If the rate of inflation was being honestly reported the lack of wealth creation would become painfully obvious as obligations quickly dropped every government and corporate budget in the red. The low inflation narrative also provides the justification the central bank needs to keep interest rates low to facilitate credit expansion where as if inflation was being honestly reported they would have no choice but to raise interest rates to address systemic financial risk and prevent the further formation of asset bubbles.

The expanding trend towards automation perhaps offers the best example of how prosperity and growth are not necessarily one and the same. The implementation of technology allows corporations to significantly save on labour costs allowing machines with perhaps a small team or even a single operator to produce the same amount of goods it would have taken hundreds or thousands of human labour to produce. While at first glance the implementation of machines to automate labour may appear to facilitate growth it is in reality not growth but in fact deflationary. I'll explain why.

In theory machines replacing human labour is great. It means we all would or more accurately should have more time for our own endeavors. We have this time because the productive capacity of the economy hasn't changed in fact for most tasks machines can do it more accurately and faster than human labour ever could hope. However the result of this migration to a more automated world hasn't quite been what people are expecting. The reason for this is that the economy hasn't changed; it is still an infinite growth debt economy predicated on the concept of borrowing new debt to pay off the old. That can be private debt, or that can be public debt, all currency in the system at some point down the line was borrowed into existence.

So when it comes to private debt machines are deflationary for the obvious reason that all of the people replaced no longer have a job. They no longer have the income to leverage against new loans, they likely had to downsize (if their job was high paying) which may mean selling off items which then facilitate other people's needs who may have otherwise bought something freshly produced. This puts pressure on the credit system as it requires ever growing expansion and as we saw in 2008 contraction can be catastrophic.

Public debt is affected too as machines don't pay taxes do they? Yes there is the corporate tax on their income but you must remember each and every employee is also taxed on their income and these taxes can not be replaced. So while the government is forced into a position to borrow more and more to meet ever rising interest (alternatively they can cut services to "balance the budget" but whether taking new debt or downsizing government both represent a deterioration in standard-of-living as actually balancing the budget in a debt based economy is impossible) they are also faced with a shrinking revenue base.

So is the innovation of technology and freedom at fault? Or is an infinite growth ponziconomy at fault? Is technology destroying "the economy"? Or is it that the economy is holding back our potential? I'd submit that without the artificial obligations a debt based society places on us we would be free to actually have a better of standard of living in a society free from the "growth" requirement which is actually already dead (due to peak oil, and "peak everything") with new growth in reality just transferred from some other sector of the economy, or fabricated altogether. Some who have read my blog may have the impression that I don't believe a different, better, healthier future is possible which couldn't be further from the truth. I do believe it is possible, I also believe it is impossible to accomplish without addressing the dependence on "growth" our current monetary system relies on and until we do address it attempting change absent of the monetary system is futile.

A society built on myths and paradigms

Maintaining this system is of the up most importance to those in power, it is the only thing that is important to those in power as their position and status in society directly rides on it. The different options provided by political parties are all just slight variations on different management styles for managing the same infinite growth dependant system. Whether it's the NDP, the Liberals or the Conservatives all of them have repeated many times the "jobs & growth" goal they would like the public to believe they have. The prevalence of these myths and paradigms actually work against real political change and corrections within the system. It is the fear that this paradigm might break which began the cycle of bailouts and emergency procedures we now exist under.

It is the fear of the unknown that keeps us in line and adverse to real change benefiting the few at the expense of the many.

Click here to recommend this post on and help other people find this information.

Richard Fantin is a self-taught software developer who has mostly throughout his career focused on financial applications and high frequency trading. He currently works for eQube gaming systems.

Nazayh Zanidean is a Project Coordinator for a mid-sized construction contractor in Calgary, Alberta. He enjoys writing as a hobby on topics that include foreign policy, international human rights, security and systemic media bias.

Tuesday, March 3, 2015

Expanding the domestic threat

Just a quick update in response to an article I saw today.
But under the heading Domestic Extremism, the spy service also underscored what might be the flip side of that coin — the recent development "of a Canadian online anti-Islam movement, similar to ones in Europe." 
CSIS characterized it as an "ongoing risk, particularly as its proponents advocate violence." 
The Sept. 18 briefing for Blaney's office came a little more than a month before soldiers were killed in Canadian attacks just two days apart — murders committed by young men that authorities say were motivated by Islamic extremism. 
Shortly after the killings, there was vandalism of mosques in Ottawa and Cold Lake, Alta., threats against the B.C. Muslim Association, and a general increase in reports of public bullying and harassment of Muslims. 
CSIS likely monitoring anti-immigrant sentiment: expert 
However, CSIS is likely more interested in the kind of anti-immigrant, anti-Islam sentiment that has taken root in some parts of northern Europe, even among the middle class, said Lorne Dawson, a University of Waterloo sociology professor and co-director of the Canadian Network for Research on Terrorism, Security and Society.
A Norwegian official briefed CSIS shortly before the release of an inquiry report that found the Scandinavian country's security services could have prevented Breivik's attack.CSIS spokeswoman Tahera Mufti did not respond to requests for comment. 
A simple online search quickly turns up websites with Canadian domain addresses spouting anti-Islamic invective. 
The government's anti-terrorism bill, to be scrutinized at a Commons committee starting next week, would give the RCMP power to seek a judge's order to remove extremist propaganda from websites. 
National security threats are not confined to Canadian borders, the CSIS presentation notes warn."International developments have a considerable impact on Canada's interests." 
CSIS faces a challenging investigative environment in which the rapid movement of people and modern communications technology has "extended the reach" of those who pose a threat and has increased the ease and speed with which they can act, the notes add. 
"Co-operation with domestic and foreign partners is critical, including reliable access to information." 
So you now see the net expanding and suddenly those who have been strong proponents of legislation such as C51 influenced with a direct fear being associated with Muslims - which is being fomented by the government and media themselves - are now being cast in the same net, along with environmentalists.

Websites, perhaps like Ezra Levants' "CanadianJihad"? Where an entire 8, yes 8, whole questionable out of context examples have been compiled by a "researcher" Jonathan Halevi who if you follow the links back to his own website you discover is:
Senior researcher of the Middle East and radical Islam at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, a co-founder of the Orient Research Group Ltd. and a former advisor to the Policy Planning Division of the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Gee, what a surprise eh? Because Israel doesn't lie for it's own agenda does it?

Ezra Levants' followers don't understand he has lead them into a trap and the trust they place in the government to leave them alone is misplaced. What group of people in Canada comes to mind when you hear of the anti-Islam crowd?

This entire thing is being manufactured. You, no matter what label you fall under will sooner or later be considered a threat for something. That's the entire point, to allow the rendition of anyone at anytime, to disable our ability to fight back. The fear of the islamic terrorist I think barely exists, the portrayal of it in the media is being amplified. The polls showing the fear manipulated. As we've been discussing over the past month your consent to having severe restrictions placed on your rights is being manufactured through multiple different facets, and a false opposition.

Divide and conquer. There is no Canada, only Zuul.

Click here to recommend this post on and help other people find this information.

Richard Fantin is a self-taught software developer who has mostly throughout his career focused on financial applications and high frequency trading. He currently works for eQube gaming systems.

Nazayh Zanidean is a Project Coordinator for a mid-sized construction contractor in Calgary, Alberta. He enjoys writing as a hobby on topics that include foreign policy, international human rights, security and systemic media bias.

Tuesday, February 24, 2015

Guardian exposes domestic 'black site' in U.S.

It really says something about the 'normalization' of extrajudicial methods to "get the bad guy" when a major newspaper can run a story about domestic anti-terror 'black sites' being used to detain protestors and nobody even blinks an eye.
The Chicago police department operates an off-the-books interrogation compound, rendering Americans unable to be found by family or attorneys while locked inside what lawyers say is the domestic equivalent of a CIA black site.

The facility, a nondescript warehouse on Chicago’s west side known as Homan Square, has long been the scene of secretive work by special police units. Interviews with local attorneys and one protester who spent the better part of a day shackled in Homan Square describe operations that deny access to basic constitutional rights.

Alleged police practices at Homan Square, according to those familiar with the facility who spoke out to the Guardian after
its investigation into Chicago police abuse, include: 
Keeping arrestees out of official booking databases.

Beating by police, resulting in head wounds.

Shackling for prolonged periods.
Denying attorneys access to the “secure” facility. 
Holding people without legal counsel for between 12 and 24 hours, including people as young as 15.

At least one man was found unresponsive in a Homan Square “interview room” and later pronounced dead.
Do you understand how serious this is? Consider that the U.S. is one of the nations that our standards for "oversight" are being compared to and this is happening in their country. It is strikingly similar in terms of the methods used at the "temporary facility" at G20 in 2010 which I believe was a public test run of these new standards for holding inmates and operating political black sites. This is the model moving forward.

This is the path were on with laws like C51, make no mistake.

Click here to recommend this post on and help other people find this information.

Richard Fantin is a self-taught software developer who has mostly throughout his career focused on financial applications and high frequency trading. He currently works for eQube gaming systems.

Nazayh Zanidean is a Project Coordinator for a mid-sized construction contractor in Calgary, Alberta. He enjoys writing as a hobby on topics that include foreign policy, international human rights, security and systemic media bias.

Friday, February 20, 2015

Understanding low interest in the risk adverse "free market"

Alrighty, in the meantime while I debate with myself what to do with this blog I do have more stuff to say about things. Last night I accidently published this post in an incomplete state and it was picked up by progressivebloggers before I could delete it. Oddly just my summary garnered two votes (as the link to the post itself is now dead) so I must be on the right track! We've been talking a lot about C51 (or what we shall dub 'the Orwell act') but plenty has been happening in the global ponziconomy too (which is why Canada is now moving so rapidly to get these "anti-terror" freedom killing laws in place).

The spectre of negative interest rates in Europe really is something isn't it? It occurred to me when the Swiss announced their further rate cut (though now that rates are negative maybe "rate increase" is more accurate in the new normal) to -0.75% that really in this bizarre risk adverse world makes perfect sense. Behind all of the jargon, the supposed intent, is a declaration: the omnipotence of the central bank and it's printing press, destroyer of risk.

Of course the idea of total risk banishment is quite insane, which provides the logical basis for why economists believed negative rates were impossible. No one in their right mind in a sound economy would pay to hold risk and yet somehow, they are. This indicates that either the basic logic surrounding risk has been flawed all along or that the global economy is far from sound. My bet is on the latter.

It's been awhile since we've gotten deep into banking so I will rehash some of the more important relevant points needed to fully understand what negative rates (or for those nations that haven't crossed the 0% barrier yet, continually decreasing rates) anywhere in the world now represent. The starting point for this story of utter insanity is your bank account.

You earn interest on your "deposits" in your bank account at a floating rate loosely based on the overnight lending rate. I say loosely as because with all other commercial rates banks don't actually have to follow the central banks overnight rate at all with their prime rate but largely do follow the trends as their competitors likely will follow them thus making their loans more attractive (collusion of the banks on rates such as in the LIBOR scandal is obviously implied but outside the scope of this write-up). To not match the rate change especially when the rate is lowered amounts to the commercial bank quite obviously pocketing the difference as they are now borrowing cheaper than they are lending themselves.

The reason you earn interest on your deposits is because you are assuming risk, you are not a depositor, in fact you've deposited nothing into "your" bank account but rather what you have done is loaned the bank your "deposit" so that they can take it and loan it to someone else and earn interest on it to boot. They keep a small portion of your "deposit" on reserve and the rest is out the door being loaned at interest as soon as possible.

Interest rates and monetary policy, or at least the people's perception of these things, is extremely important today; the fact you see central bankers making headline news is a testament to that. If the global economy were truly even remotely healthy they wouldn't need to be out nearly everyday reassuring markets and providing forward guidance. Prior to 2008 most people barely knew what a central bank even was. Yet despite all the talk about interest rates, and all the talk about growing inequality and the generational gap, very few seem to talk about growing inequality and the interest rate policy together at the same time.

With prolonged low interest rates, along with the ever increasing introduction of "bank fees" which shouldn't exist at all or "ATM fees" (which shouldn't exist either as banks introduced ATMs to reduce their direct labour cost in tellers) multiple generations now have had to live with savings accounts that earn literally less than nothing. At the end of the day we have already been paying banks for the risk we assume in their lending as over time the concept of "savings and loan" has been distorted.

The global economy hasn't been sound for a long time and the spectacle of low and negative interest rates is simply the next phase in it's long deterioration. With low interest rates the only way you can get a return on your savings is to "invest" it and that is the direct intent of the central bankers: to force you to play the investment game and feed the market and ponziconomy. Of course to invest in the market you have to have some significant amount of capital actually available to invest, if you don't and are living cheque to cheque you currently have no avenue to earn a return on your income and keep up with the rate of inflation, you are losing money simply by holding on to it and the concept of "saving" is nearly impossible.

Explains a little bit why despite the constant broken promises of "recovery", uncertain "growth" prospects, and a continually worsening geopolitical situation, world markets just continue hitting new highs without a care in the world, doesn't it? Which the political class then uses as evidence of the illusive recovery narrative we hear so much about yet don't see in daily life.

There is an investment side to this story as well, aside from forcing citizens into the rigged market interest rates are also being used to make sovereign bonds and their perceived "safe haven" status less appealing by artificially increasing demand for the bonds. The goal here is to push investors and people looking for a safe place to retain the value of their income back out into the risk laden market which in fact proves the logical fallacy of sovereign bonds being a safe haven.

Sovereign bonds are perceived to be safe because they are backed by the government, which is in turn backed by "the people" (or more accurately the people's labour). As I've pointed out before you are in fact nothing more than a human resource. Your S.I.N. or Social Insurance Number represents you as collateral on the public debt.

So what do negative interest rates say? They say that no matter what the people's labour that is backing these bonds will in any circumstance and with no chance of failure absolutely will be able to produce enough wealth to pay back the bonds. This concept seems fine and dandy until you remember that the way people produce the wealth that is to service this debt is by working for the companies whose future is so uncertain that central banks are having to artificially lower interest rates to drive investment dollars into (which the companies are themselves taking and instead of expanding are simply engaging in stock "buybacks").

We've now come full circle, and as Greece's situation shows the people will only tolerate having their labour used as collateral on the debts so long as they're getting something out of it. The "Troika" has been forcing Greece to hand over not only their public assets but the spoils of Greece's human labour itself as previous government's, like all government's, have put their citizens lives up for collateral on the debt with absolutely no guarantee it can actually be paid back. It is the citizens who suffer while those in the oligarchy use the public debt for their private gain and stick the people with the tab.

There is one final piece to how low interest rates, or negative interest rates, are being used to kick the economic can down the road and that is by making consumption in the post-peak-oil world seemingly more affordable especially when it comes to the housing bubble, student loans and auto loans, and most importantly cheap loans for expensive energy production in an effort to make the projects seem temporarily viable.

The importance of low interest rates for the banks, and their vested interest in extreme energy producers can not be understated. Often I talk about the fact that contrary to popular belief amongst Canadians big oil doesn't sit on top, the banks do and big oil operates at the behest of the banks. There is no intrinsic interest in oil for the oligarchy beyond the fact that oil (cheap conventional oil, to be exact) is the only energy source that can support infinite exponential growth.

The energy companies own all of the patents to "alternative energy" (in reality derivative energy), the resistance to begin the long process of switching to other energy sources is not rooted in some ideological dislike for "Green energy", it is rooted in the fact that switching to Green energy will collapse the ponziconomy. Not the people's economy, the oligarchs credit ponziconomy where more and more loans must occur to service existing debt, where more and more consumption must occur and saving must not, where more and more must be produced quicker, sold faster, and made cheaper.

The ponziconomy requires an ever growing energy surplus to support infinite exponential growth while the green economy inherently represents a contraction in the energy surplus (doing more with less) and would require a sustainable balance between the environment and the resources we depend on and economic growth. Under this scenario the borrowing binge the western world has been on with no proof the debts can ever be repaid would be impossible as the risk and uncertainty around future wealth would be much more apparent and interest rates that account for this risk would likely follow. It is the historical observation of the results of an economy running on cheap conventional oil which provides for our (always wrong) future outlooks today.

The reason economist theories and predictions on growth and the effects of interest rates, currency pair valuations, and the like are not working out is because the fundamental structure of the economy has changed. Forecasts are no longer being made based on proof of potential future production, they are being made on the hope of it.

The migration from oil would also mark the migration of the status-quo towards something more honest, balanced, and which wouldn't revolve around "growth" as a measure of success because growth itself inherently is not wealth we've just been fooled into thinking it is. Concepts like "planned obsolescence" provide a glimpse into how quickly consumables must be turned over these days to keep "growth" humming, which represents the waste of wealth not the accumulation of it. GDP today in a world that has peaked it's natural growth potential is now a measure of energy inefficiency and nothing more.

Depending on the actions Greece takes the confidence in central bank omnipotence itself may be in danger (hopefully in danger, as every day the world continues under this false reality adds to the impact the resulting monetary collapse is going to have when these bond bubbles finally pop).

The great deflation

The majority of the world economy is now supported by near zero, zero, or negative interest rates. Seven years on from the peak-oil induced "great recession" central banks are finally out of ammo. Inevitably this situation can not last forever and with the Saudi's pushing the collapse in oil price the stage has been set, and in fact the play is already in the first act, for deflationary spiral the world has never seen the likes of before because the world has never seen a fiat asset bubble of this size before.
The expected benefit economists are expecting from lower oil and gas prices are not going to materialize as the middle class which is the primary driver of this trend has been crushed by unaffordable consumption and debt accumulation. The easiest path for this excess wealth to take is towards paying down debt which in itself is inherently deflationary and will only contribute further to the deflationary spiral we've entered.

The artificial deflation of oil is having a direct effect on the outlook for oil related employment and income which both Canada and the U.S. have been completely reliant on for wealth generation. The entire myth of the current "U.S. recovery" which Canadian economists are banking on is essentially based on the economic performance of the shale oil industry prior to the collapse in price (you'll remember the latest U.S. recovery narrative was originally about the boom of shale oil) which is no longer valid. Without the high incomes oil related jobs provide the unaffordable asset bubbles become completely unbalanced. This is why the Bank of Canada is citing mitigating the effect of low oil prices (lower inflation) as the reason for lowering interest rates while effectively ignoring the increase in inflation high oil prices represent. They are selectively interpreting the situation to service their own needs of maintaining the credit markets.

No amount of low interest or free currency can ever hope to make up for the loss in energy bounty as a result of peak oil and the focus on low EROI energy production though as currency is not wealth itself but the representation of wealth, it has an end of life and this is where C51 becomes very important for the status-quo.

I'm very happy to see Canadians quickly becoming wise to the obvious implications for those fighting the environmental fight in Canada though unfortunately I believe it is also leading to another false narrative in regards to it. While the critical infrastructure portion of the bill is important what is most important is that "economic and financial stability" is mentioned.

When you consider the great deflation of the credit markets, the asset markets, and then throw in the newish "bailin" regime and insufficient funds held by the CDIC to insure Canadian deposits the picture of inherent danger of C51 becomes a lot more clear. The broad reaching implications of this bill did not happen by accident.

You can be certain that when the deflationary pressure hits Canada in full force the government will become even more aggressive in it's "economic action plan" likely at your expense. Why is the government pushing pipelines? Why did the government reduce rail safety standards? For the economy, and as the real affordability of economic consumption declines more and more shortcuts will be taken to make up for it.

The further along we go down this rabbit hole the more obvious it will become that western governments have gone rogue and are sacrificing the livelihood of the people in the name of economic growth to service the private banks. They will sacrifice your livelihood by reducing your safety in the name of economic growth and they will sacrifice your livelihood by offering your deposits to the alter of debt as enshrined in their "bail-in" regime in the name of economic stability. The illusion of "voting for change" will disintegrate the moment people realize every single party stands for the same thing: growth at any cost. The people of course will be covering that cost.

Eventually the inevitable conclusion will be reached (as it almost was with the Occupy movement before it was co-opted) that only a direct revolt by the people and a rejection of the infinite growth model will offer any significant change and it is for that eventuality that C51 exists.

Click here to recommend this post on and help other people find this information.

Richard Fantin is a self-taught software developer who has mostly throughout his career focused on financial applications and high frequency trading. He currently works for eQube gaming systems.

Nazayh Zanidean is a Project Coordinator for a mid-sized construction contractor in Calgary, Alberta. He enjoys writing as a hobby on topics that include foreign policy, international human rights, security and systemic media bias.

"Oversight" initiative implanted, manipulation complete

I was writing a post on the latest developments in the global economy when I decided to take a break and check out what's new on I've seen a lot of posts reference this Angus Reid poll being pushed by the Globe & Mail (yes them again...) and I really feel the need to respond. I will use Montreal Simon's post on the subject as the basis for my reply as his blog is quite popular and thus likely represents a good chunk of public opinion.

In it he quotes and writes:
So it was really good to see a distinguished group of Canadians standing up to him, and reading him the riot act.

As the Harper government moved to speed up the parliamentary debate on its latest anti-terrorism legislation, four former prime ministers — three Liberal and one Progressive Conservative — are among almost two dozen prominent Canadians calling for stronger security oversight.

"Protecting human rights and protecting public safety are complementary objectives, but experience has shown that serious human rights abuses can occur in the name of maintaining national security," the statement says.

"This results not only in devastating personal consequences for the individuals, but a profoundly negative impact on Canada's reputation as a rights-respecting nation."

And what was also encouraging was to read the many comments in the MSM denouncing Harper's bill. Including the ones in this scary story I ran
last night.

Count me out of the 82%. I lived through this same nonsense in the US after 9-11. Harper is using fear to take away our rights.

Its all about fear! Are you scared enough? If you are that scared, then support this government taking away our freedom a piece at a time, all in the name of security. If not then rise above the fear mongering and support a just, open society. Confident in who we are, and not fearful of lunatics hellbent on causing chaos and destruction.

Because what all of the above tells me is things are not as bad as they seem. And that there is a growing revolt out there.

Which isn't surprising. For buried in that poll is also this:

There is one note of caution for the Conservative government as it presses ahead: a large majority, 69 per cent, believe there should be additional oversight so police agencies “do not go overboard with these new powers.”
Canadians may want their government to take strong action against any wannabe Jihadis, but they they don't trust the Con regime or the Harper Police with our civil rights or our internet freedom.

This revolt can only grow as more Canadians understand more about the bill and how it could turn us into a
police state.
Here are some other important parts from the G&M article that Simon doesn't reference:
But the Angus Reid poll indicates just what a political juggernaut the security bill is – widely popular in every province, every age group, and across party lines.
“It’s across the board,” said Shachi Kurl, senior vice-president with the Angus Reid Institute. “Whenever you’ve got four out of five Canadians agreeing on anything, that’s significant.”


Editor's Note: The original newspaper version of this story and an earlier digital version mistakenly referred to a margin of error for this poll. The poll was conducted with a randomly selected sample of 1,509 people drawn from an Angus Reid panel of 130,000 people. Because it was not a random sample of the whole population, the pollster, the Angus Reid Institute, does not cite a margin of error. It instead noted the margin of error for a probabilistic sample of the same size. This digital version has been corrected.
So here they are talking about how "across the board of every age and province and yadda yadda" and it's not even a real sample of the actual population, it's from a panel of people they have. If 82% of Canadians really supported this bill why would letters like this one exist?

Just look at the 5-star cast that is coming out to play the consent building game and all of them predictably point to oversight as the missing component. Oversight. Please, please, please Canadians don't be fooled by this bullshit dog and pony "fight" over oversight. If oversight actually mattered then the Canadian "police" wouldn't already be involved in highly questionable pipeline related activity, would they?
The Mounties bombed an oil installation as part of a dirty tricks campaign in their investigation into sabotage in the Alberta's oil patch.
The revelation came at the bail hearing Thursday of two farmers who the Crown says have turned their complaints that oil industry pollution is making their families ill into acts of vandalism and mischief.

Their lawyer produced evidence that the RCMP bombed a wellsite and that they did it with the full support of the energy company that owned it. The Crown admits the allegations are true.
The police have been under pressure from the industry and the government to put an end to two years of attacks which have caused millions of dollars in damage.

Lawyer Richard Secord told Court of Queen's Bench that when Alberta Energy Co. and police blew up an AEC shed last Oct. 14, they blamed it on his client, farmer Wiebo Ludwig.

Secord also claims AEC offered to buy a neighbour's property for $109,000 if he gave them information about Ludwig.

Ludwig and Richard Boonstra face nine charges involving vandalism at energy installations.

They were denied bail.
Oversight, yet no one in our government as is seems to know what the fuck our intelligence agencies are doing.

Do I even need to bring up the "anarchist conspiracy" of the G20? Or how about this former CSIS officer who says that: "the measures proposed in C-51 are unnecessary, a threat to the rights of Canadians and that the prime minister is using fascist techniques to push the bill".

Yes, you read that right, a former intelligence officer believes the Prime Minister is using fascist techniques to pass this bill. You're all being taken on one giant mind fuck of a ride.

This is what manufacturing consent looks like. The system is trying to ram something you don't like down your throat and they know that and to control dissent against it they are exaggerating popular support for this government, and the bill, and also popular support for the "oversight argument".

You are meant to acquiesce to a paltry increase in meaningless oversight, that is the whole point of this badly written b-script exercise.  You are under the influence of highly advanced fascist propaganda. It's not propaganda coming from Harper, it's propaganda coming from the system. It is bi-partisan propaganda because this anti-terror bill isn't about a people issue meant to create division, it is about creating a security blanket around the oligarchy and requires mass consent so as not to alarm the public. You are being conditioned.

There is a very disheartening belief amongst the numerous Canadians Harper's policies and aggressive approach have beaten down, that the fix for the system resides in getting Harper out. Mark my words, Canadians: any supporter of C51 in any form with oversight or without, any person who regurgitates the bullshit about our safety and security from the ominous "terrorists" all around us justifying the incredible amount of cash being dumped into this and incredible loss of liberty while simultaneously excusing train cars that are "blowing up all over the place" far more frequently than terrorist attacks occur without the same sort of vigorous "safety" campaign and push to overhaul, is not your friend, is not looking out for your best interests, and is operating in good faith of the banks (not big oil).

The system is a giant layer cake of lies and deceit, peel back one layer and you just land in another.

Click here to recommend this post on and help other people find this information.

Richard Fantin is a self-taught software developer who has mostly throughout his career focused on financial applications and high frequency trading. He currently works for eQube gaming systems.

Nazayh Zanidean is a Project Coordinator for a mid-sized construction contractor in Calgary, Alberta. He enjoys writing as a hobby on topics that include foreign policy, international human rights, security and systemic media bias.