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 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.


  1. 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.