Future of Canada

[Michael Hardner]

Love is the only thing worth living for, otherwise we are just surviving.

Which is why I work so hard for these things. But, believe me, your idea of effortless love charms me.

[fellowtraveller]

Unfortunately Alex Jones, undoes a lot of his good investigative work, by reacting and publishing a lot of material for which no due diligence has been conducted

Jones is a Truther, which is a polite way of saying a total blithering idiot.

[maple_leafs182]

Which is why I work so hard for these things. But, believe me, your idea of effortless love charms me.

Love may motivate you to do those things, but you don't have to work for love, you just love.

I'm going to explain how the central bank system works because I don't think people truly understand it.

If governments need money, they go to their Central Bank to get some.

Say the Government needs one billion dollars, the government turns to the Central Bank and says "We need one billion dollars". The central bank then goes and looks in their vault, sees nothing there, turns back to the government and gives them a one billion dollar cheque. This one billion dollars is being loaned from the central bank to the government, the government then has to pay a certain percent of interest on this loan. Where did the central bank get the money to loan to the government, nowhere, they just hit the print button, money created out of nothing backed by nothing.

So every dollar in existence today is actually being loaned to the government from the central bank, this immediately forces governments into debt. money is created out of debt. money=debt

Say their is 20 billion dollars in existence, the government has to pay interest on that 20 billion dollars, so eventually the government will owe say 20.1 billion dollars to the central bank. How can the government pay off that debt of 20.1 billion dollars if there is only 20 billion dollars in existence, they can't. They would be forced to get a loan from the central bank which just puts the government in more debt. Perpetual debt.

Where does the government get the money to pay the interest on this loan, from taxing the citizens. So the people are really the ones in debt to the Central bank. Central banks are privately ran corporations, they are not ran by governments, let me say that again, they are not ran by governments.

Central banks were put into place to stop depressions/recessions from occurring, to stabilize the economy, great job they are doing. The reason they were put into place was a lie, the real reason was to put countries into debt. debt=slavery.

When you control the value of a nations money, you control the economy, if you control the economy you control the nation.

Give me control over a nations currency, and I care not who makes its laws.

Baron M.A. Rothschild

America knew the dangers of central banks.

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. - Thomas Jefferson

READ THIS QUOTE OVER A FEW TIMES, THIS IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW.

This was the prime reason America fought the American Revolution, to escape the clutches of the international bankers.

The colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction. The inability of colonists to get power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of George the III and the international bankers was the PRIME reason for the Revolutionary War. - Benjamin Franklin

History deleted with one stroke.

Countries have the power to print their own money without going threw the central bank system. John F. Kennedy passed executive order 11110 June 4th 1963, this order gave power to the Treasury to print its own money backed by the silver. John F. Kennedy was assassinated five months later, the treasury pumped nearly 3 billion dollars in notes into circulation from the time the order was passed to his death. No president since has used executive order 11110 since.

It is not a conspiracy theory, just a conspiracy.

[bush_cheney2004]

This was the prime reason America fought the American Revolution, to escape the clutches of the international bankers.

No, the prime reason for the American Revolution was to escape from your empire's oppressive "Acts", to wit:

- Sedition Act

- Alien Act

- Quebec Act

- Quartering Act

- Townsend Act

- Sugar Act

- Tea Act

- Intolerable Act

So the American rebels told you to take your Acts and shove them!

History deleted with one stroke.

Yea, because all you seem to obsess on is US history! What about the rest of the world and central banking?

Edited January 29, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Jade Dragon]

Perhaps, but it should be noted that Canada already has much past experience as part of a fascist superstate.

Actually fascist superstates do not give permission for their colonies to become independent.

[ToadBrother]

Actually fascist superstates do not give permission for their colonies to become independent.

More than that, whatever the British Empire was, it wasn't fascist. The word has been so heavily abused that it barely has any meaning any more.

[bush_cheney2004]

Actually fascist superstates do not give permission for their colonies to become independent.

Correct...that's why some colonies had to use violent revolution.

[bush_cheney2004]

More than that, whatever the British Empire was, it wasn't fascist. The word has been so heavily abused that it barely has any meaning any more.

The British Empire, politiely considered to be "imperialism", adopted all the practical elements of "fascism" when necessary to assure that the sun never set. I agree that the word "fascism" has been abused for political purposes, and do not hesitate to throw Great Britain into the same contemporary pot.

[Smallc]

Correct...that's why some colonies had to use violent revolution.

And many others didn't have to.

[bush_cheney2004]

And many others didn't have to.

Correct...they waited much longer for the empire's permission instead.

[nicky10013]

The British Empire, politiely considered to be "imperialism", adopted all the practical elements of "fascism" when necessary to assure that the sun never set. I agree that the word "fascism" has been abused for political purposes, and do not hesitate to throw Great Britain into the same contemporary pot.

The US has politely been using the same methods as the British Empire. Does that denote the US as being a fascist superstate?

[bush_cheney2004]

The US has politely been using the same methods as the British Empire. Does that denote the US as being a fascist superstate?

Of course...Americans have been hearing that since the end of WW2. Canada's methods are cleverly disguised as "peacekilling" !

[ToadBrother]

The British Empire, politiely considered to be "imperialism", adopted all the practical elements of "fascism" when necessary to assure that the sun never set. I agree that the word "fascism" has been abused for political purposes, and do not hesitate to throw Great Britain into the same contemporary pot.

The British Empire, for most of its existence, was controlled by an at least semi-democratically constituted legislative body, and certainly by the mid-Victorian period, when the expansion reached its height, Parliament was seeing a series of reforms that increased its democratic nature substantially.

I'm sorry, you're out to lunch. Imperialism is not Fascism. I mean, you're basically accusing guys like Disraeli and Gladstone of being fascists. It's a ludicrous, unsupportable claim.

[nicky10013]

Of course...Americans have been hearing that since the end of WW2. Canada's methods are cleverly disguised as "peacekilling" !

You seem to have missed my point. It's not about what you hear all the time but what you actually think. I wasn't calling Americans fascists. You called the British Empire fascists. I merely pointed out that your nation and the British Empire use the same methods. So, do you really believe that they were fascist? Do you believe America is? If not, why the hypocrisy?

[bush_cheney2004]

The British Empire, for most of its existence, was controlled by an at least semi-democratically constituted legislative body, and certainly by the mid-Victorian period, when the expansion reached its height, Parliament was seeing a series of reforms that increased its democratic nature substantially.

...but not for the American colonials!

I'm sorry, you're out to lunch. Imperialism is not Fascism. I mean, you're basically accusing guys like Disraeli and Gladstone of being fascists. It's a ludicrous, unsupportable claim.

Save it for poly-sci classes...the practical impact often looks and feels the same on the receiving end. Sorry, but powdered wigs and tea don't make it more civilized. God save the Queen...and all that jazz.

[ToadBrother]

...but not for the American colonials!

And fascim isn't the only form of tyranny.

Save it for poly-sci classes...the practical impact often looks and feels the same on the receiving end. Sorry, but powdered wigs and tea don't make it more civilized. God save the Queen...and all that jazz.

Yes, indeed, save it for the facts. Who wants their prejudices dealt a blow?

[bush_cheney2004]

And fascim isn't the only form of tyranny.

Indeed...lot's of "isms" are no longer welcome in such a context.

Yes, indeed, save it for the facts. Who wants their prejudices dealt a blow?

Your attempts at painting a very progressive democratic tradition for Great Britain are noted, it's just that the facts and practical application around the world left much to be desired. Today's definition of fascism is no longer confined to the narrow attributes articulated by the arrogant and sanctimonious imperialists.

[ToadBrother]

Your attempts at painting a very progressive democratic tradition for Great Britain are noted, it's just that the facts and practical application around the world left much to be desired. Today's definition of fascism is no longer confined to the narrow attributes articulated by the arrogant and sanctimonious imperialists.

It's an interesting, if incredibly dishonest tactic, to redefine words to win debates. Fascism has a very particular meaning, and the government of the British Empire and its colonies, while bad in many ways, was not fascist. There may have been some rather fascist-like people (Cecil Rhodes comes to mind), but they often were more trouble to the Empire than good. A lot of the empire building, like in India, was largely done by private or semi-private interests, and it's not altogether clear whether the government of the time was particularly happy as it meant having to keep a rather large number of troops in the subcontinent.

And it's not like the Americans didn't try their share of imperialism. They stole northern Mexico on the most ludicrous of justifications. They took part in equal share in the humiliation of the Chinese Empire through the Unequal Treaties. They went to war against the Spanish with the hopes of expanding into Latin America and the East Indies (and for all of it got Puerto Rico). The chief difference between the Americans and the Brits was the Brits were better at building empires. The Americans were able to hold on to their continental holdings, but Cuba and the Philippines slipped away. The only erstwhile empire that did a worse job was the Italians.

Yes, the Americans got treated badly, and a few folks even in Britain were wide-eyed at the high taxes and attacks on the colonies' traditional liberties, but at no point was the British Empire ever as bad as the German, Hungarian or Italian fascists (you know, actual fascists). It's policies certainly weren't fascist in any meaningful political sense.

[bush_cheney2004]

It's an interesting, if incredibly dishonest tactic, to redefine words to win debates. Fascism has a very particular meaning, and the government of the British Empire and its colonies, while bad in many ways, was not fascist. There may have been some rather fascist-like people (Cecil Rhodes comes to mind), but they often were more trouble to the Empire than good.

Nevertheless, even classic examples of fascism are easy to find in Great Britain (e.g. Tariff Reform League). Britain's continental competition gave rise to even more fascist episodes for the world to enjoy.

A lot of the empire building, like in India, was largely done by private or semi-private interests, and it's not altogether clear whether the government of the time was particularly happy as it meant having to keep a rather large number of troops in the subcontinent.

No matter...their unhappiness does not relieve them of the historical burden or labels, now co-opted as "fascism" whenever military or economic force is used to subjugate the locals.

And it's not like the Americans didn't try their share of imperialism. They stole northern Mexico on the most ludicrous of justifications. They took part in equal share in the humiliation of the Chinese Empire through the Unequal Treaties. They went to war against the Spanish with the hopes of expanding into Latin America and the East Indies (and for all of it got Puerto Rico).

No problem for me to readily accept the fascist label for the American hegemon. The American imperialists had to send the old guard on its merry way, starting with Great Britain and Canada, their oldest enemy.

The chief difference between the Americans and the Brits was the Brits were better at building empires. The Americans were able to hold on to their continental holdings, but Cuba and the Philippines slipped away. The only erstwhile empire that did a worse job was the Italians.

No, the Americans were far better at extracting economic value, eschewing the romantic notions of empire and throne.

Yes, the Americans got treated badly, and a few folks even in Britain were wide-eyed at the high taxes and attacks on the colonies' traditional liberties, but at no point was the British Empire ever as bad as the German, Hungarian or Italian fascists (you know, actual fascists). It's policies certainly weren't fascist in any meaningful political sense.

Really? Do you think the slave trade was "not as bad"? How about Acadians and the "Great Upheaval"? Canada's past is wedded to such imperialism and fascism, same as its future.

Edited January 29, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[whowhere]

defined by the big dog on the block, the United States of America.

China's bigger in population, geography, manufacturing ability and they are moving full steam ahead. The US only thinks its the big dog on the block. Science/Mathematical numbers speak for themselves. Not only that, china has no problem sustaining its population naturally and growing it. That's a strike contrast to the viagara impetent North American culture. In the next few years the EU and China will make the US irrelevant unless the US has some new tricks up its sleave. Not only that Russia has 2 times the land mass and their population is 170 million. Half of the US but all real Ruskies, not the mutt population of North America via some deluded immigrant populating scheme. The US is irrelevant, put a fork in them.

Besides, the US tightened border security with Canada. Canadians require a passport, that's not uniting North America, that's dividing it. Canada would be better served to find ways to start divorcing itself from the US and diversify with other countries, Starting with the EU.

[nicky10013]

Nevertheless, even classic examples of fascism are easy to find in Great Britain (e.g. Tariff Reform League). Britain's continental competition gave rise to even more fascist episodes for the world to enjoy.

Such as?

No problem for me to readily accept the fascist label for the American hegemon. The American imperialists had to send the old guard on its merry way, starting with Great Britain and Canada, their oldest enemy.

Great Britain was never America's "oldest enemy." Everyone was hunky dory with the Empire until god forbid British Parliament placed taxes on goods to try and save the government from bankruptcy; bankruptcy which was caused from protecting the American colonies during the 7 Years War. The merchant class got pissed and mobilized the dumb idiots. The revolution was never about liberty and the freedom of tyranny because frankly, even after the Americans won, Britain had a higher proportion of citizens in the empire that could actually vote. Nay, the revolution was about greedy shop owners trying to keep their grimey fingers on a buck than to repay the government which had protected them during the war. What's the most telling fact about that is only about 30% fought for the rebels. 30% fought against as loyalists and 30-40% did nothing. The American Revolution was as much a civil war as it was a revolution and one of the largest migrations to take place in North America happened as people loyal to the crown fled to Canada. I guess they feared having to ride the rail or feared being drawn and quartered. That's not oppression, though.

No, the Americans were far better at extracting economic value, eschewing the romantic notions of empire and throne.

No, America really hasn't. The best the US can do is open up free trade agreements. Wherever the US has tried to open up markets and build democracy, they've failed terribly. The only success story has been Germany, but unfortunately, it's the exception rather than the rule. As for Britain, there's a pattern of democratic success in former colonies. You speak of horrible atrocities in India, and indeed they happened and were horrible. On the other hand, would India have become independent and more importantly a democracy if leaders of 1947 weren't educated at Cambridge and Oxford?

The British Empire for the most part let colonies govern themselves. All they wanted was nominal control and access for British companies. Development in British Colonies was 40x higher before de-colonization rather than after. Why? The British Army was the ultimate guarantor of investment. People felt secure in sending their pounds overseas due to the fact that British security was backing their gambles.

The pattern of US involvement has been to invade, create a temporary government and get out. It totally ignores the fact that democracy takes a horribly long time to develop. Is it any coincidence that the countries from the British Empire that are the least democratic today are the colonies that the British had the least amount of time to work with? I don't think so.

Really? Do you think the slave trade was "not as bad"? How about Acadians and the "Great Upheaval"? Canada's past is wedded to such imperialism and fascism, same as its future.

Which nation used military force to end the slave trade? Great Britain. It pissed off a lot of people, but they did it anyways because the Royal Navy could. Name me one unilateral military American manoever that was as positive for the entire world as Britain using the Royal Navy to end the slave trade.

[bush_cheney2004]

Such as?

See "History of the 20th Century".

Great Britain was never America's "oldest enemy."

Nonsense....by definition and declaration it is so:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident,

..... But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

The American Revolution was as much a civil war as it was a revolution and one of the largest migrations to take place in North America happened as people loyal to the crown fled to Canada. I guess they feared having to ride the rail or feared being drawn and quartered. That's not oppression, though.

Nope....all lilly livered loyalists fled to the throne's tyranny, the only bosom they had ever known. The rest, as they say, is history.

No, America really hasn't. The best the US can do is open up free trade agreements. Wherever the US has tried to open up markets and build democracy, they've failed terribly. The only success story has been Germany, but unfortunately, it's the exception rather than the rule. As for Britain, there's a pattern of democratic success in former colonies.

Which nation is Canada's biggest trading partner? Duh!

You speak of horrible atrocities in India, and indeed they happened and were horrible. On the other hand, would India have become independent and more importantly a democracy if leaders of 1947 weren't educated at Cambridge and Oxford?

...and slavery was good too because those black savages got some edumacation. LOL!

The British Empire for the most part let colonies govern themselves. All they wanted was nominal control and access for British companies. Development in British Colonies was 40x higher before de-colonization rather than after. Why? The British Army was the ultimate guarantor of investment. People felt secure in sending their pounds overseas due to the fact that British security was backing their gambles.

"British security" = fascism

The pattern of US involvement has been to invade, create a temporary government and get out. It totally ignores the fact that democracy takes a horribly long time to develop. Is it any coincidence that the countries from the British Empire that are the least democratic today are the colonies that the British had the least amount of time to work with? I don't think so.

Oh sure...South Africa was a beautiful example of a thriving democracy!

Which nation used military force to end the slave trade? Great Britain. It pissed off a lot of people, but they did it anyways because the Royal Navy could. Name me one unilateral military American manoever that was as positive for the entire world as Britain using the Royal Navy to end the slave trade.

Edited January 30, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[nicky10013]

See "History of the 20th Century".

Doesn't cut it

Nonsense....by definition and declaration it is so:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident,

..... But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Just because it's written doesn't make it so. To wit:

Article 54. Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed inviolability of the person. No one may be arrested except by a court decision or on the warrant of a procurator.

Article 55. Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed inviolability of the home. No one may, without lawful grounds, enter a home against the will of those residing in it.

Article 56. The privacy of citizens, and of their correspondence, telephone conversations, and telegraphic communications is protected by law.

Article 57. Respect for the individual and protection of the rights and freedoms of citizens are the duty of all state bodies, public organisations, and officials.

Citizens of the USSR have the right to protection by the courts against encroachments on their honour and reputation, life and health, and personal freedom and property

Nope....all lilly livered loyalists fled to the throne's tyranny, the only bosom they had ever known. The rest, as they say, is history.

Funny

...and slavery was good too because those black savages got some edumacation. LOL!

Unfortunately, not so funny. Don't quit your day job.

"British security" = fascism

If you're such an expert on fascism, please, enlighten me with a definition. It's like most idiots down by you calling Obama Hitler and Stalin at the same time. People use words for which they have no meaningful idea what it is defined as. It only serves to hurt their cause at it only makes themselves look more stupid.

Oh sure...South Africa was a beautiful example of a thriving democracy!

I didn't say all were successful, just that the empire was far more successful than any other, inclusive of the United States. If I were you I would've used Zimbabwe as a better example.

Which nation used military force to end the slave trade? Great Britain. It pissed off a lot of people, but they did it anyways because the Royal Navy could. Name me one unilateral military American manoever that was as positive for the entire world as Britain using the Royal Navy to end the slave trade.

I guess you dropped the ball on replying to this one, though, anyone would've as an example simply doesn't exist.

[bush_cheney2004]

Doesn't cut it

I guess you missed it....really messy!

Just because it's written doesn't make it so. To wit:

....Citizens of the USSR have the right to protection by the courts against encroachments on their honour and reputation, life and health, and personal freedom and property[/i]

The USSR is defunct. Guess it didn't work out after all.

Funny

Peace, Order and Good Government....please, your Majesty.

Unfortunately, not so funny. Don't quit your day job.

So much for your original logic....so easily dispatched.

If you're such an expert on fascism, please, enlighten me with a definition. It's like most idiots down by you calling Obama Hitler and Stalin at the same time. People use words for which they have no meaningful idea what it is defined as. It only serves to hurt their cause at it only makes themselves look more stupid.

Thoughts are not clear here, but at least your feeling of superiority is intact, a royal trait that is so cute.

I didn't say all were successful, just that the empire was far more successful than any other, inclusive of the United States. If I were you I would've used Zimbabwe as a better example.

Successful for who? Where is this successful empire today?

I guess you dropped the ball on replying to this one, though, anyone would've as an example simply doesn't exist.

It's not all about you...sorry.

[g_bambino]

Great Britain was never America's "oldest enemy." Everyone was hunky dory with the Empire until god forbid British Parliament placed taxes on goods to try and save the government from bankruptcy; bankruptcy which was caused from protecting the American colonies during the 7 Years War. The merchant class got pissed and mobilized the dumb idiots. The revolution was never about liberty and the freedom of tyranny... What's the most telling fact about that is only about 30% fought for the rebels. 30% fought against as loyalists and 30-40% did nothing. The American Revolution was as much a civil war as it was a revolution and one of the largest migrations to take place in North America happened as people loyal to the crown fled to Canada. I guess they feared having to ride the rail or feared being drawn and quartered. That's not oppression, though.

Quite right; the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and the Quebec Act also factored into this. The latter was offensive to the American "libertarians" because it - gasp! - guaranteed the linguistic and religious rights of the French population of Quebec. The former angered as it dared to reserve lands for Indians right in the way of the expansionist ideas of the 13 Colonies' businessmen and frontiersmen. Toss in those places that fell to Manifest Destiny - Hawaii, northern Mexico, Alaska, Puerto Rico, Guam - and you can kiss goodbye the idea that America ever "eschew[ed] the romantic notions of empire." The idea of the American Empire has been pumping up American national mythology since the country was founded; they just never had the guts to call it what it was.