Monday, October 19, 2015

I do not care about niqabs and pot

I do not care about niqabs and pot,
Child tax credits worth a little or a lot,
Who said what when seventeen,
Or peed in a cup-how obscene.

I see through wars started for gain,
Pretending we care about people in pain.

The campaign managers must laugh into the night,
Watching partisans insult and fight.

Yet it doesn't really matter which party gets in,
The banks own it all and they always win.

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 CenturyLink

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, October 9, 2015

#elxn42 breakdown - Part 4

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.

In part 2 of this post we looked at the resource wars currently going on with a focus on it's relation to peak oil and pipelines. The 14 year 'war on terror' has really been a resource war for the U.S. empire to position itself as the first and last global empire that is to be succeeded by corporations as we learned in Michael C. Ruppert's presentation.

In part 3 of this post we looked at the macro effects and purpose of the TPP and free trade in general. Now the TPP has been signed though it still needs to be ratified by the incoming government (it wasn't even supposed to be negotiated during the election anyway and the (Harper) government has so far pledged $5.3 billion dollars of your tax dollars for the auto and agriculture industries to counter their expected losses).

I was originally going to dedicate this post to the final category of issues "governmental issues" however time is growing short before the election now and with the quickly developing geopolitical situation I can't be sure I'll have enough time before the election to write part 5 and this section was really just to complete the context for this post but it is really the summary of what I think about all of this and how it ties into the election which is most important so we are going to skip most of that right to my summary. However, first I would like to touch briefly on the senate because my view on what is going on with it ties into a lot of what I'll be touching on in my summary.

The Senate

I started this post discussing my top issue: that we basically don't properly respect the way our parliament is supposed to work. Most people in this election are going to be voting for their "favourite party", or even worse their "favourite prime minister". A recent clarification by Justin Trudeau on the T.P.P. demonstrates the issue clearly:
OTTAWA — Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau will not allow his MPs a free vote on the massive Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement. 
Asked about it Wednesday morning, Trudeau was cautious with his answer.
"We're a long way from that," he told reporters. 
"We have a very clear policy on free votes that says elements that are in our platform, elements that go to the heart of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and elements that are confidence matters, that is, matters of budget, people would be expected to vote with the Liberal Party," Trudeau went on to say. 
"On other issues, they would be expected to stand up for the interests of their constituents right across the country because that is what we elect people to do."
Trudeau's gift for double-speak never ceases to amaze me. No Trudeau, they're elected to represent their constituents on every single fucking issue. "That is what we elect people to do". Look at the issues he's left to be voted on in your interest dear constituent: "other issues". Like the Niqab? Abortion? All those other divisive 'people issues' I was talking about? But matters that regard your civil liberties? The charter of rights and freedoms? "matters of budget" aka economy and spending, confidence matters; these things will not be voted on in your interest rather they will be voted on with the interest and platform of the Liberal party in mind. And people wonder why our political system is fucked?

Same thing goes for the senate, all the talk about the senate is on what is essentially considered "accomplishing the impossible" so that the corrupt individuals we put in there can't abuse their great power and freedom of the public purse. But is there any talk about maybe, you know, not appointing such corrupt useless partisan fuckwits to the Senate? How can we ever expect anything different regardless how "reformed" it is when we Canadians who are so eager to "get Harper out" are so fooled by this election? Most are so anxious to get rid of Harper they can't see that his replacements are simply replicas.

'First past the post' isn't broken, the problem is we're not using it properly. The senate isn't broken either, it's that the actors you "trust" and vote in then appoint their crony friends to the Senate. That's not a problem with the design of how the Senate should work, it is a problem with our corrupt politicians. Likewise the problem with our politicians isn't our voting system it is that our voting system has been perverted in a faux presidential race that is easily manipulated by public relations teams that can make any politician look exactly how they want to the public. We can reform the various "political systems" all we want, but until we as Canadians reform our politics it will all be an exercise in futility.

The senate should be reserved for distinguished Canadians, as it was meant to be, not washed up federal candidates or partisan hacks. Every appointment should be non-partisan with a clear defined reason. When I say distinguished Canadians I mean Canadians like Chris Hadfield. You know, the types of people like we used to honour with naming our public infrastructure after them before we started naming it after corporations.

The Canadian Trends election summary

Now before I start on my summary I once again want to remind people my summary here isn't partisan, it's not meant to vouch for one party or another. I also want to say that despite what you read here these aspects I've described don't have to be true for each and every individual candidate. The problem with our political system is that Canadians will be voting in now 338 MPs largely based on the performance, and appearance of a single candidate: the party leader. Of course this isn't true across the board, there's the coveted "undecided" vote, and naturally many Canadians do base it on their MP but it can not be denied it is mostly influenced by the leaders of the major parties and "who people want to be Prime Minister".

It suffocates the creativity that different ideas brought together can have to solve challenges and replaces that creativity with a sad partisan sports arena where people have teams and ideology and low-brow attacks rule all. Like, my God folks, the fucking Niqab? THIS IS WHAT IS DOMINATING OUR DISCUSSION? Dividing and conquering is how these people win.

Anyway, lets get to it.

Conservative Party

The Conservative Party is a contender but I don't believe Stephen Harper really wants to win. I haven't talked about the Conservatives much in this post and that is for a reason which I will describe here shortly. I anticipate that should the Conservatives not win a majority Stephen Harper will resign his seat and exit politics and probably already has some cushy gig lined up.

I believe this for several reasons:

First, despite the Conservative's campaigning might they've run a substandard, despicable, and slightly odd campaign. In fact as far as I can tell much of the Conservative campaign has been designed to give Justin Trudeau support. I know, it's been a nasty campaign against him so let me explain.

Let's start with prior to the election. The Conservatives all year have been running 'attack ads' against Justin Trudeau. But Justin Trudeau was the leader of the third party. Yes he was popular but not enough to warrant a sustained campaign against him. Of course a sustained campaign has the interesting side effect of exposure. It gets people asking things like 'why is Harper so scared of Justin Trudeau?'. Etc, etc. Trudeau was in your face all year, not because of Trudeau, but because of Harper.

Let's look at the Niqab: despite Harper's 'fear of Trudeau' Harper has chosen to spend the remaining portion of the election largely focusing on this pointless divisive debate. But it's interesting that this debate largely affects the NDP, not the Liberals. The NDP is bleeding support which has brought the Liberals into first place. Hmm, that's odd isn't it? Why would the Conservatives want to make the Liberals stronger, especially at a time they are already doing quite well at least if the polls are to be believed.

During the first portion of the election Harper was largely aloof. Which was especially strange considering what a strong campaign against Trudeau he had launched all year. There were reports of him keeping only his closest advisers near and "mutiny" within the Conservative ranks. But again I have to point out the Conservatives have always shown a phenomenal ability to mold public perception. Money is no object in their campaigns and I find it hard to believe they were actually caught so off guard.

Now that Harper has brought in his new Australian master advisor he's been doing other weird stuff like the Niqab, and using the saying 'old stock Canadians' during a debate. I mean, maybe it was just a slip of the tongue like Press for Truth shows in the introduction to this video:

Or, maybe it wasn't.

The word in political circles is Harper is playing to his base, but he doesn't need to play to his base his base is going to vote for him no matter what. These issues that 'play to his base' also happen to push those who are not in his base, or are not the target (IE: Quebec), away from him.

To my knowledge he hasn't yet once talked about getting a majority.

There is one final piece of the puzzle regarding Harper's probable intentions: the number of ministers that have left him. Such as John Baird:
During their departures I noticed many progressives saying they are "fleeing the sinking ship" but what I don't think Canadians yet understand is Harper completed his voyage. The damage is done with his finale of selling Canada out to the TPP. Everyone is worried about Harper, I believe so strongly in this theory now that I'm not. As Kathleen Smith (@kikkiplanet) said 'this is his farewell tour'.

Liberal Party

I believe the status-quo wants Justin Trudeau to become Prime Minister. He is a master actor, political royalty, bred from the ground up for this position. If you were a puppet master Trudeau would be the perfect puppet, he's Canada's Obama.

You may have noticed throughout this post that I have focused on what it is Trudeau is saying, or not saying, or saying but not have you believing, whatever you want to call it. The purpose of this is to show you that Trudeau is just as invested in the status-quo as Harper is. There is no difference.

Having Trudeau and the Liberals win is important to the status-quo, not just because the Liberals have always been in the pockets of the big banks, but because Trudeau will be elected with a mandate to keep bills like C51 and just supposedly repair them. Remember back before C51 when the media was pushing the narrative that 'the vast majority of Canadians support bill C51'? As I attempted to show back then it's not that Canadians discovered how bad the bill was, but rather it was that the 'vast support' didn't exist in the first place. They were manufacturing consent.

But it didn't work. Trudeau came out supporting the bill and his support dropped off a cliff and the media has been building him up ever since. Manufacturing consent around bills like C51 is necessary because they can not really be used and abused without the public's consent. Push the people too far, or take too much for granted, and they may revolt. Having C51 on the books isn't good enough, the next incoming government must have a mandate to use it. Justin Trudeau just happens to have such a mandate and his meaningless "repairs" are simply whitewashing a dangerous bill.

We've covered a lot about Trudeau this series so I'll leave you with this:

New Democrat Party

The NDP are a bigger question mark in my mind. I don't trust Mulcair - like at all - particularly since he seems to have morals for hire. He seems like a plant to me, much like Ignatieff was to bring Harper his majority, and the NDP are running a weak campaign.

However, on the flip side I don't believe the NDP are as thoroughly corrupted as the Conservative or Liberal parties and if you care about your civil liberties, or Canada's sovereignty, and actually hope your vote has some effect as to repealing or withdrawing from these types of activities then they are probably the best bet.

I think Mulcair's economics, like all of their economics, are bullshit, but until Canadians address our exponential growth fiat monetary system the "economy" is going to suck so don't expect any changes on that front. Unlike my forecasts for Alberta's NDP I am not as confident the federal NDP will direct tax dollars where they need to go either in attempting to future proof Canada.

Outside of that I don't have much to say about the NDP, they probably represent the closest thing to "real change".


Soooooo.. ya. Slim pickens.

But as I said, if we as Canadians reclaim our democracy and use our political system properly none of this shit matters. The leader is only as strong as those under him and I'll take a house filled with honourable people who will stand up for the interests of their constituents even if that fuckwit Trudeau says vote with the party over the partisan free for all we have now. That's what we need and we're really the only ones who can do that for us.

So with all that in mind, I leave you with this question: Of the three videos shown above how many displayed an ad for Justin Trudeau (if you're Canadian), and how many for Harper, or Mulcair?

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 CenturyLink

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, October 2, 2015

Another "conspiracy theory" proven true: government absolutely plants messaging in media

In my last post we started out reviewing a piece by James Howard Kunstler in which he stated the following:
Charlie Rose, 60-Minutes — and perhaps by extension US government agencies with an interest in propagandizing — seem to want to put over the story that Russia has involved itself in Syria only to aggrandize its role on in world affairs.
Well it seems that may be a lot closer to the mark regarding the idiotic line of clearly pro-US narrative that Charlie Rose was asking Putin as a recently uncovered email regarding Hillary Clinton's on-going scandal shows.

The contents of the email are shown here:
From: Crowley, Philip J Sent:Friday, January 28, 2011 8:08 PM To: Cc: Mills, Cheryl D; Sullivan, Jacob J; Koh, Harold Hongju; Mull, Stephen D; Reines, Philippe I; McHale, Judith A; Verma, Richard R; Goldberg, Philip S; Abedin, Huma; Steinberg, James B; Nides, Thomas R; Burns, William J 
Subject: 60 Minutes Sunday 
Madame Secretary, 
a very quick update. I just received confirmation from 60 Minutes that a piece on Julian Assange will air Sunday night. He will be the only person featured. We had made a number of suggestions for outside experts and former diplomats to interview to "balance" the piece. 60 Minutes assures me that they raised a number of questions and concerns we planted with them during the course of the interview. We will be prepared to respond to the narrative Assange presents during the program. 
This email is UNCLASSIFIED.
Ahh, there is nothing like government "balance" planted in a news story eh? Keep this in mind the next time you see reporters using the exact same phrases on every channel to describe an event as 'The Daily Show' was so good at highlighting (yet also overlooking how incredibly odd it was that it happened all the time).

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 CenturyLink

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, September 29, 2015

UPDATE-2: Tables turn in Syrian war effort

With the more prominent Russian presence in the war the tables have turned for the U.S. narrative so I'm going to be taking a break from my #elxn42 breakdown series to refocus on the war in Syria as it's now at a pivotal point.

Recently 60 Minutes did an interview with Putin which I would really encourage you to watch. Putin is succinct and clear with his answers despite 60 Minutes' obviously pointed questions. Of course Russia is "up to something", we're all "up to something" in this region with everyone using humanitarianism and ISIS as a cover. But the Russian strategy (which we will be discussing throughout this post) is quite clever.

First I'd like to review a bit of commentary by James Howard Kunstler over at Clusterfucknation on this interview (though again you really should read the entire thing it's - I think anyway - hilarious)
This bit on Ukraine was only a little more appalling than Charlie’s earlier segment on Syria. Was Putin trying to rescue the Assad government? Charlie asked, in the context of President Obama’s statement years ago that “Assad has to go.” 
Putin answered as if he were explaining something that should have been self-evident to a not-very-bright high school freshman: “To remove the legitimate government would create a situation which you can witness in other countries of the region, for instance Libya, where all the state institutions have disintegrated. We see a similar situation in Iraq. There’s no other solution to the Syrian crisis than strengthening the government structure.” 
I guess Charlie and the 60-Minutes production crew hadn’t noticed what had gone on around the Middle East the past fifteen years with America’s program of toppling dictators into the maw of anarchy. Not such great outcomes. 
Charlie persisted though, following his script: Was Putin trying to rescue Assad? Vlad had to lay it out for him as if he were introducing Charlie to the game of Animal Lotto: “What do you think about those who support the terrorist organizations only to oust Assad without thinking about what happens to the country after all the state institutions have been demolished…? Look at those who are in control of 60 percent of the territory of Syria. 
Meaning ISIS. Al Nusra (formerly al Qaeda in Syria), i.e., groups internationally recognized as terrorist organizations. 
Charlie Rose, 60-Minutes — and perhaps by extension US government agencies with an interest in propagandizing — seem to want to put over the story that Russia has involved itself in Syria only to aggrandize its role on in world affairs. 
Forgive me for being so blunt, but what sort of stupid fucking idea is this? And are there any non-lobotomized adults left in the USA who can’t see straight through it? The truth is that American policy in Syria (plus Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, Somalia, Afghanistan) is an impressive record of failure in terms of the one basic aim that most rational people might agree upon: stabilizing the region in a way that does not leave Islamic jihadi maniacs in charge.
Why now? What are the Russians really up to?

A big question on everyone's minds seems to be. Why now? What are the Russians really up to? As Kunstler rightly notes the official narrative so far has more or less been that they are "Russia has involved itself in Syria only to aggrandize its role on in world affairs". Of course they're there to fortify Assad and prevent what I must remind you is the sovereign government of Syria from being overrun by U.S. empire backed terrorists. But based on their actions there is clearly a lot more to it than that.

It's of course suspected (obvious really) that should the official U.S. 'moderate' rebels attack the SAA they will be fair game but they are also taking this opportunity to reinforce the Syrian government against NATO itself.

September 22nd: Russia Has Added Dozens of Aircraft to Its Growing Military Presence in Syria: Reports

Here's an interesting excerpt:
Vladimir Putin has reportedly added drones, attack helicopters and aircraft to its force in Syria in recent weeks. 
Russia rapidly increased its aerial attack capabilities in Syria over the weekend, U.S. officials told Agence France-Presse on Monday, including 28 combat planes that have been sighted at a new Russian air base in the Syrian province of Latakia. 
The fleet includes 12 SU-24 attack aircraft, 12 SU-25 ground attack aircraft and four Flanker fighter jets, the officials told the news agency on condition of anonymity. An influx of new weaponry was also reported separately by the New York Times and CNN. 
One of the officials told AFP of the additional presence of around 20 combat helicopters and said Russian forces are flying surveillance drones over the Middle Eastern nation’s airspace. 
According to the Times, Russia’s military presence in Syria also includes at least three surface-to-air missiles, nine tanks and around 500 marines. 
“The equipment and personnel just keep flowing in,” another official told the Times. “They were very busy over the weekend.”
So why recent weeks? Let's take a look at some of the headlines  from 'recent weeks'.

On September 18th a "special representative to the United States and the United Nations for the Syrian National Coalition." wrote an op-ed in the New York Times calling for a No-Fly Zone.

On August 28th in the Globe & Mail: "The time for a ‘no-fly zone’ over Syria has arrived"

Yesterday, September 28th "Kevin McCarthy calls for no-fly zone over Syria"

Calls for a no-fly zone in mainstream media have been all over the place again suddenly and maybe this is why as back in July:
The U.S. flew “no-fly zones” over northern and southern Iraq for more than a decade before the 2003 U.S. invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein. U.S. warplanes kept Iraqi aircraft out of the sky, and targeted Iraqi air-defense systems that threatened to shoot. Now, along with neighboring Turkey, the U.S. is planning to launch something similar over a stretch of northern Syria.

Now of course the other hand of the U.S. immediately "shot down" this idea but you'd have to be an idiot to actually believe it's not being considered and I don't think Putin is an idiot, do you?

I read a great blog post on the type of system Putin is deploying which I really suggest you check out.

Utilizing the court of public opinion

In part 2 of my series on the Canadian federal election we took a trip down memory lane on some of the events that lead to the Syrian 'civil' war. Since the Russian build up the western narrative on Syria has changed significantly almost overnight. Russia is forming it's own coalition to fight ISIS - and it is legal and operating within Syria at the invitation of the Syrian government. As the Financial Times noted "this puts the U.S. on the back foot".

If you'll recall from part 2 of my series on the Canadian election, prior to John Kerry failing to convince the world of the urgent need to bomb the Syrian government there was no ISIS narrative in the news, it was all "rebels" with sprinkles of al-Qaeda. The al-Qaeda participation was downplayed and frankly I don't think the public was ever supposed to know about their participation. Syria was supposed to go down like Libya where hardly any of the population was aware of the fact the rebels were actually mostly terrorists.

If you remember the media atmosphere back then it was largely the public's recent awareness to the presence of al-Qaeda within the rebels that made it so difficult for the United States to get a coalition and public mandate to bomb the Syrian government. There was too much doubt about the still dubious 'chemical weapons' which were presented to strengthen the argument given the presence of al-Qaeda. It was only following Kerry's failure to bomb Assad that the media latched onto the phrase ISIS.

The necessity of the change in focus and narrative can not be understated. The United States can not invoke the 'War on Terror' to attack a sovereign state. They need a reason, they need public support. They tried to get it, and failed. However, the 'War on Terror' allows them to attack terrorists anywhere in the world regardless of borders. They got their bombing of Syria, and they got it by instead of hiding the presence of al-Qaeda - and their atrocities as "the rebels" - moving to a strategy that highlighted them. The heinous acts of ISIS coupled with some likely propaganda aided by intelligence for media purposes were finally enough to gain support for limited military action in Iraq and Syria.

The narrative changed and in what seemed almost overnight there wasn't just a few terrorist fighters, there were tons, and now they terrorize 60% of Syria. It really is a testament to the awesome power of manipulation that exists within the military industrial complex.

This narrative has a weakness however, and now for the second time Russia has seized on the weakness in the U.S. narrative to deny them what they want. The first time in 2013 when Kerry occidentally provided a direct path for Russia to follow that would thwart the U.S. attack that the U.S. had to honour to save face and now this time by using their "ineffective" war against ISIS as the same pretext for their fortification of the Syrian state which much like the U.S. being able to strike the Syrian government directly would raise suspicion if not for the convenient excuse of ISIS. Russia is beating the U.S. at it's own game of public relations.

The rhetoric now has greatly changed because the U.S. is trapped in their own ISIS narrative. The hopes for a no-fly zone necessary in the NATO strategy for regime change is now extremely unlikely to occur without a direct confrontation with Russian hardware. The cover for the 'moderate' rebels (which if you remember from part 2 of my series on the Canadian election Joe Biden said "there are no moderate rebels") is now useless as Russia is within every legal right internationally to aid Syria.

Russia is playing the situation by the book, using the same humanitarian crisis excuse that the U.S. has been using to enter Syria to begin a real fight against ISIS which the U.S. and it's coalition has not truly been doing. They have been working to contain ISIS and force Assad from power for their benefit causing untold grief on the people of Syria for as long as Syria doesn't play ball. The U.S. has repeatedly warned that Russia's entry into the war will prolong the war but the conflated reasoning for this is simple: the western proxy will not stop fighting until the U.S. and it's allies get what they want.

In response to the Russian fortification now Saudi Arabia has warned that they may get directly involved in the conflict against the Syrian government and there are rumours of Chinese involvement in defence of the Syrian government too.

Things are definitely heating up and it seems the U.S. is quickly losing control both of it's humanitarian shield narrative, and it's allies.


Russian parliament green lights use of troops in Syria


U.S. doubts Russia targeting Islamic State positions in Syria
President Vladimir Putin sought to portray the airstrikes as a pre-emptive attack against the Islamic militants who have taken over large parts of Syria and Iraq. Russia estimates at least 2,400 of its own citizens are already fighting alongside extremists in Syria and Iraq. 
"If they (militants) succeed in Syria, they will return to their home country, and they will come to Russia, too," Putin said in a televised speech at a government session. 
The U.S. and Russia both agree on the need to fight Islamic State, but are in dispute about what to do about Syrian President Bashar Assad's government. At the U.N. General Assembly, President Barack Obama said the U.S. and Russia could work together on a political transition, but only if Assad leaving power was the result. Putin is Assad's most powerful backer. 
The Russian airstrikes targeted positions, vehicles and warehouses that Moscow believes belong to IS militants, Russian Defence Ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov told Russian news agencies. 
A senior U.S. official, however, said the airstrikes don't appear to be targeting IS, because the militants aren't in the western part of the country, beyond Homs, where the strikes were directed. 
It appears the strikes were directed against opposition groups fighting against Assad, according to the official, who wasn't authorized to discuss the Russian airstrikes publicly so spoke on condition of anonymity. 
Syrian state television quoted an unnamed military official as saying that Russian warplanes have targeted IS positions in central Syria, including the areas of Rastan and Talbiseh, and areas near the town of Salamiyeh in Hama province. 
IS controls parts of Homs province, including the historic town of Palmyra. Homs also has positions run by al-Qaida's affiliate in Syria, known as the Nusra Front. Both groups have fighters from the former Soviet Union including Chechens. 
Genevieve Casagrande of the Institute of the Study of War, using an alternative acronym for Islamic State, said the airstrike on Talbisah, "did not hit ISIS militants and rather resulted in a large number of civilian casualties." 
"If confirmed, the airstrike would signal Russian intent to assist in the Syrian regime's war effort at large, rather than securing the regime's coastal heartland of Latakia and Tartous," she said. 
U.S. State Department spokesman John Kirby said in a statement that a Russian official in Baghdad informed U.S. Embassy personnel that Russian military aircraft would shortly begin flying anti-IS missions over Syria. The Russian official also asked that U.S. aircraft avoid Syrian airspace during those missions Wednesday. Kirby didn't say whether the U.S. agreed to that request.
This reminds me of a cryptic warning given by Zbigniew Brzezinski to Russia on the anniversary of September the 11th:

Seems like Russia's response is: challenge accepted.

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 CenturyLink

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.

Saturday, September 26, 2015

#elxn42 breakdown - Part 3

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.

In part 2 of this post we looked at the resource wars currently going on with a focus on it's relation to peak oil and pipelines. The 14 year 'war on terror' has really been a resource war for the U.S. empire to position itself as the first and last global empire that is to be succeeded by corporations as we learned in Michael C. Ruppert's presentation.

In this part we're going to look at the T.P.P. and free trade and how the process of succession towards corporate governance has already begun under the auspices of 'trade'. We will take a quick look at the party positions on trade and how those positions tie into assertions already made.

Just a note before we begin: I realize this is now part 3 and I've said very little about the election itself. What I am providing is the background information you require to understand why I believe what I do regarding the election and the parties involved so that when we finally arrive at my summary of my position on the various parties you'll understand what it is I'm talking about.

T.P.P. and Free Trade
[...] many of America’s leaders actually accept that there is an unelected, unappointed, and unaccountable presence within the system that actually manages what is taking place behind the scenes. That would be the American deep state.
Philip Giraldi
Recently the New York Times (of all places) published an article about a paper written by former CIA officer Philip Giraldi about the American deep state. Of course readers of this post already know all about it as it is the very same deep state Michael C. Ruppert describes in his presentation. An interconnected deep state of revolving doors around Wall Street, Washington, intelligence, media and the military industrial complex. It is within this deep state that the continuity of government is possible and it exists here in Canada, too.

In the last post I linked to a tweet containing a video where the CBC discusses on air the "brutal reality" of the civilian casualties that will happen to fight ISIS and then goes on to talk about how we have to remove Assad (you know, for killing civilians in his true fight against ISIS which western media continues to call a "civil war" even though it's clear it's anything but). The "Assad is bad" narrative makes less and less sense every day yet our media sticks to it. This is the official narrative; this is war propaganda and the deep state at work.

It's important to understand how deep the complicity of media goes within our own country to understand that this extends to discussions of free trade (or the lack there of). In the media these are referred simply to "trade deals" but they are really about far more than trade. They subvert national sovereignty and hand it over to unelected, unaccountable international panels that bend to corporate whim. Piece by piece each additional trade deal removes the ability for the people of a country to make democratic decisions about the type of business conducted in their country.

These deliberations are kept secret and rarely if ever reported on even though the result of them is almost always a democratic law being overturned or taxpayers paying fines to corporations for all sorts of reasons which the corporation claims impedes their business. On the flip side attempts by democracies to utilize the rules to hold these very same corporations accountable are in every case I've ever found thrown out.

'Trade' is the mechanism being used by corporations to subvert democratic governments in secret of willing participants of the U.S. empire because it hides the process from the citizenry. Trade is a weakness in our democratic process in that traditionally trade deals are allowed to be conducted in secret thus the details of which are not apparent to the citizens of the nations until the deal is already signed. Rather all we get are vague details from leaked drafts of the deal or statements from those who are involved.
What I say to the auto sector in particular, I’m not suggesting they will necessarily like everything that is in that, but what I am saying is we simply cannot afford as a country to have our auto sector shut out of global supply chains. That would be a disaster.
We’re going to make sure we get the best deal for that and all of our sectors, but we are committed as a government to making sure we do not fall behind in our access to a global trading economy which is so integrated. If we do that, that would be disastrous for this country.

Stephen Harper
Yes, it is "so integrated" largely due to the actions of those now making it more integrated. The secrecy surrounding these 'trade' deals ensures that no real discussion can ever really take place as any real concerns that come to light can easily be swept away with generic statements like "but what I am saying is we simply cannot afford as a country to have our auto sector shut out of global supply chains". The secrecy and deliberate confusion that is sewn provides the framing of all those against 'free trade' as against the concept of 'trade' itself when the truth is that those of us against 'free trade' are against it for all of the reasons besides actual trade that come with these deals. Wrapping the subversion of democracy in the cloak of trade is what is really going on.

You'll remember in part 1 of this series that we took a brief look at Justin Trudeau's pro free trade op-ed in which he asked the "vexing question" where the next wave of growth will come from. Politicians complicit  in this agenda aren't lying when they talk about the growth 'free trade' will bring, the part they're not telling you however and as Trudeau pointed out is that the "middle class" will not be benefiting by the "growth created by trade". This growth will go purely to the top end of the international corporations subverting the democratic process for profits and control and to keep the economic ponzi-scheme operating.

If the resource wars are how the U.S. empire's deep state aims to maintain dominance in the world among non-voluntary state actors it is free trade, along with the central banking ponzi-scheme and credit markets, which is the mechanism of accomplishing the same thing among voluntary state actors. Their implications run far beyond simple trade and aim to incrementally move more and more control of the types of business and rules for business away from national and democratic control towards international technocratic control where the clear and only beneficiaries are international corporations that have no national home.

This web of secret trade regulation is tying the hands of governments and their ability to act in favour of their people while fear-mongering about jobs and "economic growth" is used to convince populations to accept these deals but the economic growth they will bring will be for international corporations and their top echelon at the expense of the world population's standard of living. As we covered in part 1 hidden in Trudeau's news speak was admittance that the "middle class" never benefited from trade (in which he means 'free trade') but what he fails to mention is this was by design. Trudeau mentions how 'trade' (meaning 'free trade') has brought immense wealth but never says who received this wealth, of course indirectly admitting it certainly wasn't the middle class, or the lower class, so it must be the highest class. This is also by design.

This same design of stealing wealth and control is what is driving 'free trade' today and those parties who support it aim to fool you that being against 'free trade' is to be against 'trade'. This is a deliberate, malicious, lie meant to confuse and convince Canadians that giving up national sovereignty and the ability to decide what business can and can not do on Canadians soil will somehow translate into immense wealth and economic growth. As Stephen Harper once said "there isn't really a Canadian economy any more, it is a global economy" and "I know some people might not like it, it's a loss of national sovereignty but it's a simple reality that were in a global economy".

Of course what those in power omit from telling you is that this "global economy" which results in a loss of national sovereignty was designed by those operating it to do exactly that and they also omit that those who are operating it are not elected, accountable, or democratic. It is nothing short of a global economic dictatorship being operated and asserted by the American Deep State.

In part 4 of this post we will look at governmental issues and how they tie into what has already been covered here and then I will provide my final summary of the political landscape.

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 CenturyLink

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, September 18, 2015

#elxn42 breakdown - Part 2

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.
2011. This was also when the Syrian revolt began.

In 2012 I caught eye of an article put out by the Council on Foreign Relations which contains the following:
Al-Qaeda is not sacrificing its "martyrs" in Syria merely to overthrow Assad. Liberation of the Syrian people is a bonus, but the main aim is to create an Islamist state in all or part of the country. Failing that, they hope to at least establish a strategic base for the organization's remnants across the border in Iraq, and create a regional headquarters where mujahideen can enjoy a safe haven. If al-Qaeda continues to play an increasingly important role in the rebellion, then a post-Assad government will be indebted to the tribes and regions allied to the Jabhat. Failing to honor the Jabhat's future requests, assuming Assad falls, could see a continuation of conflict in Syria. 
Thus far, Washington seems reluctant to weigh heavily into this issue. In May 2012, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta publicly accepted al-Qaeda's presence in Syria (Guardian). And in July, the State Department's counterterrorism chief, Daniel Benjamin, rather incredulously suggested that the United States will simply ask the FSA to reject al-Qaeda. The unspoken political calculation among policymakers is to get rid of Assad first—weakening Iran's position in the region—and then deal with al-Qaeda later.
Hmm. Starting to see a recurring pattern here? How did ISIS become so powerful, so quickly? Especially when "al-Qaeda" was practically defeated? I'll let Joe Biden tell you:


In 2013 John Kerry tried to convince the world that to stop the suffering of the Syrian people from chemical weapons we had to bomb the Assad government but during the Q&A was caught off guard by a reporters question. Russia, who knows exactly what the U.S. is up to (which we will get to in a moment) instantly seized on this opportunity preventing NATO from bombing Syria and overthrowing Assad. Remember that when this was occurring there was never any talk of ISIS, despite the fact that it was clear the U.S. government knew that al-Qaeda intended to create an Islamic State for at least a full year and probably longer ('cause you know... they set the whole thing in motion) yet Kerry was insistent about Assad. Had NATO bombed Syria the entire region would be overrun with al-Qaeda. Kerry fucked up because that's exactly what they wanted.

Following this the narrative of ISIS was born.

Have you ever played Roller Coaster Tycoon? Did you know when one of your roller coasters blows up rather than changing or repairing it you can simply rename it and the people in your park will literally think it's a different roller coaster? It's a really neat trick to get the money rolling in again without having to actually create something new. Slowly the narrative has shifted since 2013 away from al-Qaeda and towards ISIS to the point that many people actually believe they are two different things. They're not. They need to be different in the public's eye because the al-Qaeda narrative was killed. This is the next phase of the war Dick Cheney told us "would not end in our lifetime".

Now would be a good time to show you another presentation I actually posted just recently as he provides much of the background you're going to need to understand in the context of the geopolitical environment we now exist in. I know I'm providing a lot of material and that it literally takes hours to go through all of it, but these are complex topics and without the background much of what is going on today is not going to make a lot of sense.

In this next presentation Michael C. Ruppert discusses many topics all revolving around the things we've been talking about and describes the (then) coming wars.

Pay special note and listen for some of the current day topics and hot spots such as: Columbia, Venezuela, West Africa, and North Korea. Also note the endgame(s): Russia, and China. Particularly the maps showing how the U.S. is trying to keep Russia out of the region keeping in mind that for instance in response to Russia aiding their ally and the sovereign government of Syria's Assad "in the fight against ISIS" they will be destabilizing the region. Here is this presentation.

I hope you're starting now to see what is going on here. So what else has happened in this conflict? Canada's bud Israel isn't taking in a single refugee, not one. But we're not hearing much about that are we? It might be because along with Dick Cheney's Haliburton (remember them from the presentation?) they've been drilling for oil in the illegally occupied Golan which just prior to the Syrian civilian war they had been feuding over.

There are also competing gas pipelines and a multitude of other reasons why NATO wants Assad out. But as was revealed recently, it's not really about Assad. Here is the telling paragraph:
“The weakest point is Ahtisaari’s claim that Churkin was speaking with Moscow’s authority. I think if he had told me what Churkin had said, I would have replied I wanted to hear it from [President Vladimir] Putin too before I could take it seriously. And even then I’d have wanted to be sure it wasn’t a Putin trick to draw us in to a process that ultimately preserved Assad’s state under a different leader but with the same outcome.”
That "ultimately preserved Assad's state under a different leader but with the same outcome". The "same outcome" of course being a government that isn't a NATO puppet.

These refugees aren't just "kind of" our fault. They are 100% our fault. Of course Assad has bombed some civilians, he has been claiming the entire time that his army has been fighting foreign terrorists and defending his country from them. It is our media, and our government, that lied to us and said he is mass murdering his "own people". They weren't his own people they were the terrorists that were to become ISIS. Terrorists we supported, trained, funded, aided, and let loose on the Syrian people. When it comes to the "refugees" Elizabeth May has been the only one that has been brave enough to at least try to touch on this fact. The other 3 leaders are lying to you. If you want to help the Syrian refugees then please listen to Syrian Girl's story and pester our politicians on NATOs true involvement, this entire plan rests on us believing we're "fighting ISIS" and not actually helping them overthrow the Syrian government.

Contrary to popular rhetoric NATO is not "helping Assad". But we should be if we were actually honest and serious both about fighting ISIS and defending Syrian lives. We should only of course help the Syrian people at Assad's request. It would protect Syrian lives because our support would of course be only on the condition he uses the same rules of war we do. But it is not about fighting ISIS and with this story of the resource wars I told you I ask you read this piece and contemplate how much you really know about what's going on over there. I hope by now in this series you're starting to pick up on language and key words and how they are being used to manipulate the public so pay attention and see if you can spot them.

This topic is a lot to digest so I will save the remaining topics for part 3.

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 CenturyLink

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.

Monday, September 14, 2015

#elxn42 breakdown - Part 1

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:
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.

I say it is more meaningless as Trudeau's plan is really nothing more than the status-quo and he has even told you this before.
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.

As with other governments in the world it is highly likely that as real conditions on the ground deteriorate further and the 'recovery' narrative losses confidence in the critical mass or another environmental mistake is made while cutting corners on par or worse than Lac-M├ęgantic the government itself may start losing legitimacy. Put simply: anti-terror legislation exists for the sole reason of thwarting any attempt at overthrowing the criminal status-quo. The insistence by governments all across the globe in unison that they must violate civil liberties to "protect us from the terrorists" is nothing more than further usage of the following as written by Zbigniew Brzezinski in 'The Grand Chessboard':
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.

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 CenturyLink

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.