Friday, February 20, 2015

"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.


  1. I don't put much credence into polls, but one would have to be dead from the neck up to not see that bill C-51 threatens the rights of Canadians. The real issue in all of this is Harpers grab for power, again. He is concerned only with achieving power, just like every other dictator.

    1. These laws (and the similar laws being passed by both "right wing" and "left wing" governments in western societies) are far beyond Harper. Harper is just the implementer, they will stay on the books for subsequent governments to use.

      The real dictatorship sits above the PMO, above the government, with the banking sector and the associated oligarchs. Harper has greatly accelerated the agenda of centralizing the tools of manipulation and intimidation within the PMO on one hand, but on the other has been giving away Canadian control of it's own sovereignty in the form of free trade deals which answer to an "international committee".

      Both Justin Trudeau, and Stephen Harper, are controlled by the same people which is why when you look to any issue that impacts the elite and the global agenda these two are in lock step. All of their differences reside in what I call "people issues" - issues important to you and I but for the global elite are inconsequential and are simply used to create division amongst the population. Two sides of the same coin. I'm still on the fence about whether the NDP has been co-opted in the same fashion. Initially on C51 they adopted the "more oversight needed" narrative though have now changed to full opposition of the bill. The time delay in doing so concerns me though, almost reactionary as the loss of freedoms proved to be unpalatable to their base.

    2. I plan to return to the "why" of C51 in my next post on the economic situation.

    3. I am aware that Harpers neo-liberalism is at the center of his public policies and his trade agreements . All done behind closed doors and his neo-liberal agenda is somewhat controlled by the outside banking sector and various 'international commitee. But his authoritarian agenda is purely Harpers. I don't believe he gets his orders from the new world order and then acts on those orders and he is just the implementor. Third world countries are dictated to like this through the IMF not countries like Canada. Harper agrees with these outside bankers and oligarchs, but for the most part his legislation is of his own making. Neo-liberalism has been around since Trudeau and was practiced by Mulroney,Chretian and Martin Canada was still recognizable under these prime ministers.The legislation may stay on the books, but the next government can repeal them. To have an outside entity that dictates to Canadian prime ministers and they just follow orders is a bit far fetched. I do not doubt that there are international financial and otherwise institutions and organizations that can bring pressure to bear on a Canadian prime minister, bur giving orders that the prime minister just obeys is an exaggeration. Harper is complicit in the unconstitutional legislation that he creates and he pursues power dismantling Canada's democracy of his own choosing. All of these instutions like the IMF, WTO etc enforce neo-liberal policies on many countries, but they don't have to do it in Canada. Harper has been a neo-liberal since his university days and continues in this belief up to the present day. Harper is not just following orders.

    4. "Following orders" isn't entirely accurate. The militarization of police, the infinite expansion of intelligence agencies within the five eyes, and the effort to more and more conflate "terrorism" and "activism" has long been in the making. As you point out it started before Harper and will continue after him. The agenda were following to lock down the citizenry is textbook and in lockstep with what is happening in western nations around the world.

      While subsequent governments could repeal it, it would require getting a government working for the people into power in the first place and here-in lies the problem.

      I personally don't like the term 'New World Order' as it implies a lot of things which I frankly don't believe to be true, however to deny that those in the upper echelons don't conspire to protect their own interests is what I find to be far-fetched. Scandals like LIBOR and numerous other efforts to rig global markets as well as central bank coordination prove without a doubt that control sits at the top, not with the Prime Minister.

      To wit, Harper has said explicitly Canada must sacrifice it's sovereignty which flies directly in the face of his more public "protect Canada's sovereignty" antics.

      He even does a Freudian slip interchanging "global governance" with "global government". Harper absolutely has a vested personal interest in servicing the global elite, for he is himself an elite. Politics for these people doesn't represent actual power, it is a stepping stone into positions of real power. I can find no concrete proof that Harper's ambition is personal power in the PMO.

    5. Here is the piece on the economy and 'why' of C51:

    6. Richard, of course the upper echelon conspire to protect their own interests and yes they rig global markets as well as central bank coordination but I do not see that as proof without a doubt that control sits at the top, not with the Prime Minister. Harper shares the same economic beliefs as the global elites.What proof do you need apart from Harpers continuous application of dictatorial policies, agreements and legislation. He is not governed by a 'global government; who dictates his undemocratic behaviour. He is authoritarian to the bone. It's his identity. Harper's ambition is political power not personal power. Your saying that we as a country have no choice at all and must submit to this global government. What would happen if a Prime Minister said said no to this global government? Anyway we'll probably have to agree to disagree. I've never believed that Harper or any future Prime Minister is a puppet to international forces that totally control various countries governments. Not yet anyway.

    7. See my post: "There is no Canada, only Zuul": for answers as to how this control is achieved as well as the newest post on interest rates for answers to those questions.

      If C51 is Harper's ambition alone, then why does Justin Trudeau support it (even without oversight)? Why are former Liberal and Conservative Prime Ministers coming out to support the bill conceptually but oppose the lack of oversight? The oversight is a red herring, in the end they are all saying this bill will "protect Canadians" but none can explain how. It is a bi-partisan agenda, not only Harpers, and the coincidence of the same narrative coming from every corner of the Canadian political scene isn't coincidence at all.

      Keep in mind that when Paul Martin enacted the cuts in the 90s it was due directly to the IMFs influence and warnings over Canada's credit rating. The IMF may have faded into the background in recent years but don't be fooled, we are absolutely under the same system that is squeezing Greece currently.

      I'm not saying we can't do anything, but I don't see the _will_ in the Canadian people to do anything and the false hopes in our established political entities such as Trudeau and the integrity of the vote remain far too strong. It took Greece practically collapsing before the fringe Syrzia party finally garnered support and Canada faces an equally long road to reform. In all likelihood we will have to hit rock bottom first.

  2. I know we are under the same system that is squeezing Greece. It is called neo-liberalism and it's worldwide. Some people consider the IMF and such to be an extension of American foreign policy. I am also aware of the IMF influence on Paul Martin, but Paul Martin did not enact unconstitutional legislation. Apart from neo-liberalism Canada still looked like Canada under Paul Martin. The process of dismantling democracy is uniquely Harper. Trudeau supporting the anti-terror bill is not proof that outside influences are dictating what his decision should be.

    1. Here is what you said in an earlier post: "Third world countries are dictated to like this through the IMF not countries like Canada".

      Why does what is dictated have to be unconstitutional to be considered outside influence? Those cuts were brutal for Canada and they were made at the behest of the IMF's global banking and credit system. They will be back, too. Sorry but you have now directly contradicted yourself.

      Paul Martin is also the person who privatized our currency in the first place making what the IMF says matter as we now borrow from private banks. Not very constitutional.

      You admit "neoliberalism is global" yet don't explain why, as if all of these people in power all independently decided to follow the same agenda. Sorry but if you can't explain how these things happened I'm not inclined to believe you.

      You haven't actually answered my question of why four former prime ministers, Justin trudeau, and numerous other high profile people are all spinning the exact same narrative for those opposed to the legislation: that the legislation "protects Canadians" but needs oversight which my post here shows is already useless. Why? If it doesn't show a concerted bi-partisan agenda than can you explain why it appears so?

      I've been writing about this for years, and I can provide a lot more links regarding the global banking cartel and how they influence policy making and exert control but frankly I don't believe you're actually looking at them. How can you look at that video of Harper calling for "global governance" (after he says global government by accident), saying the G20 embodies this global government, free trade deals which remove national sovereignty: "global neoliberalism".

      As for your comment on IMF being an extension of American Foreign Policy - that's a complex topic both true and false, but difficult to understand when in denial about the way the global "neoliberal" system operates today. I don't care what you want to call it "neoliberalism" "neoconservativism" "the easter bunny" don't care what ya call it, you're simply describing what I am by another name.

      Terms like "neoliberal" and "neocon" etc don't have much meaning on this blog. Everyone thinks of them as slightly different, they are not well defined and even less so in the current political climate. I avoid blanket ideological terms like these for that reason. I am describing how the "neoliberal" system works.

    2. Here is Paul Martin speaking on the G20:

      Notice how closely it matches Harpers thoughts on the subject. Same thing: loss of sovereignty. It is a bi-partisan agenda. Just as C51 is a bi-partisan agenda. Just as both The Liberals and Conservatives both want police chief Bill Blair as a member - now infamous for the violation of Charter Rights at G20, lying to the public, etc -

    3. Addendum:

      Getting back to the original debate here the primary problem I have with the assertion that Harper's sole ambition is political power is that by definition of the types of policies and deals he has enacted during his time in power, while he may have more _personal power_ over the media, and security, and daily operations he actually has less power over decision making of Canada's economic future, industrial future, etc.

      So when you compare Harper to those in history who actually have ambition for political power - we will use Hitler as an example but pretty well any dictator would do - they obtain power over everything. Hitler, despite being right wing (national socialism is considered an extreme right wing ideology) nationalized all industrial production, took direct control over war efforts, etc. Those in history with the ambition for power always try to get as much power over everything as possible. Not Harper though, Harper is giving away the keys to the castle. It's a liquidation, not a power grab, the power he is grabbing all serves a purpose in controlling perception and handling blow back as a means to the end.