Thursday, August 14, 2014

August 14: At last, we catch up...

The Thursday paper is easy. It has only one item in it worth reading - on p. D7. Brian Cormier has a column on depression, and it's a good one. As usual, it's a personal story rather than an opinion. But in this case, it works. And it's well-written.

The editorial writer attacks the party leaders for not having a policy entirely meeting the wishes of the TandT (and its boss). ---I notice the editorials are almost always on matters of interest to the boss, and always support his views.. This suggests, obviously, that the editors are hired shills. And it also suggests they aren't bright enough to write about anything else.

But they offer a brilliant idea concerning government grants to companies in order to create jobs. Instead of grants, we would just lower corporate taxes. Yeah. It's terrible the way we handicap those hard-working job creators with crushing taxes. Just lower corporate taxes. We can do it easily by closing all the hospitals. (However, how any of that is an improvement on our loans-to-billionaires policy isn't clear to me.)

Norbert's headline  is simply wrong. "All five leaders fail to answer hospital closure question". That is simply not true. What Norbert means is that they didn't do what he said they should do. I would agree that only one leader gave a clear and intelligent answer. That was Dominic Cardy who said that you don't start by cutting budgets; you start by determining what it is the people need.

Eric Lewis writes about bicycles on the streets. It's an issue on which Moncton is 50 years behind the rest of the developed world - and Eric Lewis adds nothing to it.

In summary - a bloody awful edition - except for Brian Cormier.
_______________________________________________________________________________

For Friday, the most interesting page of Section A is the obituary page.


NewsToday has an intriguing story on  it first page: "Role in Iraq plan possible for Canada". This concerns the attempt to get thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of Yazidis, Christians and other groups threatened by starvation and slaughter out of Iraq. Almost half a million displaced Iraqis have fled into Turkey.

Harper has given no clear response yet. (It seems normal for him to talk big on issues like this - and then do nothing.) Will he allow some of these people to enter Canada? I should hope so. But I think it unlikely.

Almost all other world trouble spots are on hold for a few days, at least. The first one to heat up will probably come when  a Russian truck convoy of humanitarian aid reaches the Ukraine border. Ukraine has vowed to block it.

For foreign news, this week of relative quiet should have been a chance for the paper to publish stories that give us deeper insight to the Russia-Ukraine, Israeli-Palestinian issues. Instead, it ran stories that told us nothing.

Page C 12 has an interesting article on two native groups which have ordered the closure of two mines in B.C., both on environmental grounds. It will be interesting to see which side the provincial and federal governments will take. This could set important precedents, one way or the other, for the role of native peoples in Canada.

The editorial is the usual hymn to Mr. Irving's opinions. And even Alec Bruce picks up that theme in his column which advocates making the the rest of us pay for the excesses of the very rich few.

Rod Allen tells an utterly pointless story about how he saw the red moon,  then adds other personal items about his daily life - as if anybody could care a damn.

Beth Lyons' column pretty much saves the paper for thursday. She urges us all to support LGBT Pride week. And that sounds fine to me. But, to the shock of my virginal mind, she refers to LGBT's as "queer".
Presumably, that is now socially acceptable. I just can't keep up with all these changes.

_________________________________________________________________________
Sorry. There is just nothing else in these two, miserable editions. And this when a potentially big crisis is coming to a boil.

In Missouri, an eighteen-year old African-American boy was shot to death by a policeman. That has provoked days and nights of rioting - and of police patrols in armoured cars stocked with military combat weapons. -oh, and of police wearing camouflage outfits - camouflage in a battlefield of paved streets and sidewalks, and block after block of stores and apartments.

CBC drew attention to this in a new report. It's something we should have noticed here in New Brunswick a year ago.

I remember the lineup of riot police as they faced a crowd, largely of native peoples, blockading shale gas trucks. And I remember the men behind them, wearing army combat camouflage and carrying combat rifles.
1. Why were they wearing camouflage clothing? They weren't crawling through underbrush. They were standing in the open.
2. Why the combat rifles with their very large magazines? These rifles are designed for the rapid fire of battle against a  heavily -armed enemy. They're designed for mass killing. That's why they have large magazines. They were never designed for sniping at individuals in a civilian gathering. So why did they have them?
3. And they didn't look like police. They all looked as if they came from the same cookie-cutter, the same standard of military conditioning that you see in men who do physical conditioning every day.

(No, I don't mean police are fat and sloppy. They were certainly a husky bunch. But they have a job to do. They can't spend all day, every day in training. Soldiers can.)

I'm not surprised that no Irving reporter seems to have noticed this. But the difference in appearance between the riot squad and the snipers was remarkable. They didn't look like police. They looked and acted like a foreign military come to defeat us.

Were they army? Or were they a new branch of police trained as soldiers? That would explain their bizarre use of camouflage and their combat rifles. And there is, or should be, a big difference between police and soldiers. Police exist to protect people. Men who wear camouflage and carry combat rifles exist to kill whoever they are  told to kill.

For some years now, police in the US have been militarizing in their training, weapons, and clothes. Some of the police in Missouri, as I said, were wearing military camouflage outfits - in the middle of a town where they would have had a searcg to find a leaf to hide behind.

In other cities in the US, police on duty checking people on the streets in daytime for their ID cards wear  camouflage outfits. They also wear them for (unauthorized) raids on people's homes. The message is clear.
This isn't policing. This is war. And the police aren't there to protect us. They're there to make us do what the boss wants.

This process is in quite an advanced condition in the US -  which is one reason many people call the US a police state. I have no reason to doubt that the same process is happening in Canada. And that process may be what we were watching in last summer's shale gas blockade.

It poses special and immediate problems in the US. It is a country which has done almost nothing about its racial tensions since 1865. The hatreds and resentments run deep on both sides. And this September, for the first time, the majority of children registering for kindergarten will be non-white.

What's happening in Missouri may be just a start on the final blow to the empire.

Watch, too, for the gun nuts, the ones who say they must have guns to defend the constitution. The constitution has been in shreds for years. And they did nothing. But if the rioting spreads, they'll join with the government people who destroyed the constitution, and they'll shoot the rioters.

Meanwhile, it would be nice if an editor who is bright enough could order a reporter who is a real reporter - if there is one - to find out exactly who were those men in camouflage outfits last summer - and why they wore camouflage outfits.




20 comments:

  1. Nice! Edgy and confrontational, but no conspiracy theories to be found. Its the kind of blog that makes me wish you'd do a podcast or something that gets more people's attention. Although the part about 'conducting unauthorized raids' is something that could use some backup.

    The policing issue is no different in Canada than the US. I'm surprised you didn't mention the G20 meeting which has numerous class action lawsuits going. Heck, remember when Jean Chretien was punching protestors in the face? You should check out "Pepper in our Eyes", a book about the APEC summit where Chretien was meeting with our good friend Suharto and made sure to stamp out any protest that may have made our favourite dictator oh so uncomfortable.

    This was actually big news over a decade ago in Ontario, in fact it hit the fan so badly that police forces have actually started moving in the other direction. However, usually you will see a mix of those nice friendly looking white police cars and those more menacing looking black cars.

    But that was a great tie in with Missouri. An interesting anecdote was from a black Senator from Missouri, who was complaining to the police because she had been gassed even though she was protesting peacefully AND was the state senator. The police replied that they hoped it wouldn't happen again, but didn't give any guarantees.

    So 'police state' can mean an awful lot of things, in fact people have been calling Canada a police state longer than the US, that was one of the reasons to 'liberate' Canada in 1812, which many were giving (although certainly plenty just wanted to annex it to the US). Their individual rights are pretty enshrined, even if they are occasionally, or often, broken. Whereas in Canada ALL of our rights are subject to government's interpretation. ALL of our rights are 'limited' by government, while its obvious that we have more rights than places that are terrible, our rights are not absolute, just ask Marc Emery, just back from his US prison.

    And the example in New Brunswick pretty much confirms it-AND it preceded Missouri by many months, so its a little ironic to be comparing a similar situation in Canada and the US which shows the exact same government thuggery, but then talk about how the US is a police state, and we are 'on the way'. It sounds pretty identical to me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The most important US civil rights no longer exist. People can be (and are) arrested and jailed with no charge or trial.) They can be (and are) killed without charge or trial. Torture is common in the prisons. People are constantly spied on in violation of their rights. Each year, some 80,000 homes are broken into at night by police conducting searches "on suspicion". They are in camouflage and full combat gear, and they have no warrant. People have awakened in the night to the sounds of the break-in, have assumed it is thieves, and have tried to defend their homes. Several have been killed. Children, even babies, have been killed by gun-happy police in these raids using both guns and concussion grenades.

      I have never seen New Brunswick police behaviour to match that which we saw in Missouri. I think we're moving in the direction of the US - but it's still well ahead of us as a police state.

      Delete

  2. Good article.

    Have to say however;

    I might disagree with the gun nut perspective thingy.

    A long time ago, I once thought the same way about southern-fried gun nuts , etc.

    You know, the type of gun nut living down narrow, back, dirt roads with equally narrow minds.

    However, I didn't realize I'd been infected with a mainstream media induced, lefty-academic, socialist syndrome the same way for instance Sweden has been afflicted with.

    Canada is certainly not far behind. Unlike Switzerland which is armed to the teeth, Canada and Sweden have fallen victim to much social engineering, and in just a couple of generations, lost our earlier heritage of working the ground, as well as hunting.

    From what I also understand, urbanized Swedes are truly on their way to an extremely tyrannical form of left leaning socialism, as well a nanny state in which political correctness is paramount, and as such, blinds its practitioners to a whole new set of evil it fosters.

    Though, Sweden's welfare state is quickly drying up their state funds, it is making its citizens dependent, less independent of non-groupthink, and fueling the creation of ever increasing numbers of new, privileged statists.

    On the other hand, Libertarians and/or anarchists certainly don't want this model, as they are too well aware of it.

    What they want is small, limited (tiny) government, and at the most as far as policing goes, local, voluntary militias to meet and train once a month to be ready yo maintain the rule of law.

    But as with any hierarchical organization susceptible to corruption, overly large bureaucratic governments of today, and the police forces that serve them appear to become the very terrorist entities they say they are tasked with protecting its citizens from.

    Yes, the US is being used as a weapon of war against the world, but private constitutionalists and their millions of black rifles, etc. are the only thing holding a tyrannical government at bay (for the moment).

    Yet, the provision in the NDAA which allows the US government to use propaganda, is being utilized to fool people with a recent spate of shooting hoaxes.

    Whether a false flag medical martial law will be imposed some day in the near future or not, may very likely be the only way to disarm many gun owners.

    That, and/or bring in UN troops under the pretext of providing aid and then disarm Americans, that is, if enough American soldiers balk at the task of the disarmament of their fellow citizens.

    The medical martial law could also be utilized to provide political cover for the sinking and collapsing economy.

    Instead of Wall Street and Banker corruption being blamed, a medical martial law could be used as the scapegoat.

    Anyway, here's something slightly off topic, but equally bizarre...

    I never watch it since I don't watch TV, but check out the Family Guy cartoon connection with Robin Williams death.

    I understand a recent episode aired in the UK just prior to Williams' death, in which Peter Griffin's character has a dream in which anyone he touches turns into Robin Williams.

    At first, it appears a novelty. Then a nightmare as he continues to create more Robin Williams.

    After a while, there are so many Robin Williams running around, Griffin on the verge of going mad, decides to attempt suicide.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm aware of Carl Jung's collective unconscious synchronicity theory regarding seemingly unrelated coincidences such as Williams death.

    But, another more likely theory could simply involve an insider at Family Guy being on unfriendly terms with Robin Williams, or at the very least, aware of Williams' bouts of depression, and maliciously deciding to use it?

    Whatever the truth may be or how the episode came about, it'll probably remain just another celebrity death's mystery.

    Though, it does remind me how one particular banker's suicide report this past year involved shooting himself several times with a nail gun.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dude, what social engineering has stopped you from hunting? You can go now if you want, heck, the government even got rid of the gun registry. In Saint John the kennebecasis valley has too many deer, in order to 'study' the issue, the government is handing out licenses to shoot them all. The government also just expanded the beer hunt. Yeah, thats some real 'social engineering' away from firearms all right!

    And a little knowledge is usually a bad thing. Switzerland is hardly 'armed to the teeth'. The swiss have a militia military force, which means they keep their rifles in their homes until their conscription has passed. However, handguns are banned, and while people have a rifle in their home, they are not allowed to have any ammunition. A gun without ammunition isn't much of a threat. Despite that, Switzerland does pay a price in that homicides with firearms are higher than neighbouring countries.

    Canada has FAR looser gun regulations than Switzerland, and is far friendlier to 'gun culture' than switzerland, where a lack of wildlife means 'hunting' isn't that big of a 'sport'. The swiss take their guns very seriously, as they are a means of protection against foreign attack, NOT because they are worried about government, because their government is a direct democracy. In the US you will notice these gun nuts have more worries about their own 'gubment' than they do of foreign powers. At least at the time of drafting the constitution there was at least a THREAT from foreign powers. Now, well, they're just nuts.

    The idea that US individuals with guns is somehow stemming back a tide of government fascism is downright laughable. Har har har. Individual gun ownership has skyrocketed about the same speed as government oppression. If you think having a gun is going to keep you from being arrested, good luck with that. You may have a glock, but police have about 50,000 bullets to every one of yours, plus stun grenades, armoured vehicles, and a dozen other toys you've never thought of.

    I have no idea what "medical martial law" is, its too crazy a phrase to even want to know what it means, but if anybody thinks Obamacare is 'oppressive', well, it came at a point when individual americans were armed to the teeth and they did nothing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have owned many, many guns - rifles, shotguns, revolvers, pistols - even a six-barreled muzzle loader. It was owning all those that convinced me that having guns is dangerous, even when you're careful. So I got rid of them all.

      As for hunting, I have shot a rabbit and a duck. I didn't enjoy it. (Actually, I was never good with a shotgun. Somehow, I hit a duck at high altitude. But I never found the pellets in it. I think it was an elderly duck on his last trip south, and he had a heart attack at the sound of the gun.

      Delete
  5. If you don't like federal laws that's one thing, what has stymied them is politial activity in the form of electing almost as nutty tea partiers and republicans who essentially shut down the legislature. Not a single weapon was used or necessary.

    As for 'nanny states', you may want to actually do some research, and you'll notice that Sweden's GDP pretty much mirrors every other western country, its hardly the case that their state is breaking them. Again, as numerous commentators have said, the United States actually spends far more on health care than virtually any other country, the only difference is that it is private instead of public. Which means individuals bear the cost.

    As for 'shooting hoaxes', yeah, tell that to the families of the victims:

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html

    That gun control line was one of the best. Its worth noting that in Missouri this was a BLACK protest primarily, and while molotov cocktails were used, there was no sign of any of the excessive weaponry which is easily available to the protestors. That shows just who is 'violent' down there, as if we didn't know. And absolutely, those southern gun nuts would be lining up with the cops to shoot blacks LONG before they would be lining up with protestors.

    But after all, this is a protest AGAINST government forces, so by the logic mentioned above, all these gun nuts should be out standing with these protestors and protecting them. But you don't see many white faces in that crowd, certainly not armed ones.




    PS I lifted your analogy about New Brunswick and Missouri for a media post that was written very much like "look how bad it is in the US, good thing we don't live there". Thanks for that.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Why are you discussing 'nanny' states and Sweden? First, I think all states are nanny states. It's just that ours is a nanny to the Irvings.

    And I've never mentioned Sweden at all.

    ReplyDelete
  7. For half a century, many individuals have been pronouncing a police state was coming to America as a result of widening income gaps, and deepening government and corporate collusion, etc.

    They also spoke of shadow governments such as the Council of Foreign Relations, and the induction of ancient occult worship beliefs with modern politics, and political philosophy.

    It doesn't matter what you or I believe. That's not the point. What matters is what some people at the top of the food chain believe, or think they believe as they practice these ancient rituals.

    Today, through our standard media houses, we are becoming normalized to one set of violent atrocities after the next. We are then inundated with an entourage of so-called experts as to how to think about it all.

    We are being systematically desensitized, and destroyed as thinking human beings.

    This is a purposeful plan. Do I have concrete proof for this. No I don't. But it doesn't change the reality we do see the evidence all around us.

    Is it state sanctioned? I say it is.

    Many people become conditioned without realizing it. Ironically, they often refer to themselves as progressives.

    I once did as well, until I realized I was simply becoming an enabler of a certain faction of elites who are seeking total dominion over us as their end goal.

    We may not quite live in a full fledged police state yet, but if Mikel you can't accept what is actually taking place in our world, and for the reasons they're happening, then you're welcome to believe whatever government and controlled media propaganda you want to if it makes you feel better. Many people do.

    BTW, any large media outlet such as Slate, the Huffington Post , Daily Mail, etc. are controlled media, or controlled opposition designed to mix truth with lies, and to fool you into believing between only two paradigms...what the right says versus what the left says.

    In the end, it's all about the money, it's all about extreme wealth, and it's all about extreme power by a very privileged and well connected group of egomaniacs and psychopaths.



    ReplyDelete
  8. Uh dude, ask a native american when a 'police state' was coming to 'america'. Probably about 1492. The problem is that you simply don't know any history if you think the gubment is oppressive now. Go read the labour history of the United States, people were being MURDERED by their employers and the state for asking for a five day work week!

    Go read the history of the civil rights movement. You think its bad NOW?? Black people would disappear all the time. Go talk to a black man of about 60, they'll tell you about lynchings and burnings and beatings, and on and on-and if you don't think the police were part of it, think again. The only reason you notice these things NOW, is because you are alive NOW. If you think far far worse oppression didn't happen in the past, then you are as crazy as your comments about the occult make me think you are.

    Canada wasn't quite as bad, but there was certainly plenty of violence. When I was at college in fredericton all the students from africa would constantly be telling me about police harassment. Some would say thats not completely gone, but it certainly is better, and people have at least a way to challenge that behaviour.

    That there are powerful interests that run the world isn't particularly surprising or even debated, in fact I've never even challenged any such claim. The idea that its somehow secret knowledge that you've gleaned from your investigative work means only that for most of your life you haven't paid attention to the real world.

    Just like New Brunswickers know Irving runs the province, its pretty clear who runs the world. These are not contentious issues, anybody who pays even remote attention knows these things.

    That stuff about the occult is just insane garbage though and not even worth discussing, as is the idea that the council on foreign relations is some sort of 'shadow government'. Yeah right, Google ramming through tax concessions and laughing at the government during senate hearings doesn't mean they are in charge, its really, lets have a look at their membership...oh yeah, its Angelina Jolie, Brian Williams, and Fareed Zakaria who are really 'running the world'. Pardon me while I laugh my ass off.

    As for the Sweden nanny state stuff, not sure who the blogger is referring to, I was discussing it because it was mentioned, and I agree, it really has nothing to do with what is being discussed, but like the Robin Williams stuff, schizophrenic thinking seems to be all the rage in some comments.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Gee, you know a lot of things that I never even heard of. (I have a doctorate in history. But that's piddling stuff compared to you.)

    However, I do know what words mean. And you don't. The massacres and mistreatment of native peoples, the persecution of US blacks, and the murder of union members by corporation bosses were certainly terrible. But they are not what the term "police state" means.

    And, gee, I never knew that Irving ran New Brunswick. I've led a sheltered life; but I'm learning fast from you.

    Yes, people know that Irving runs the province. But it really doesn't make a dent on their consciousness, and they don't even think of doing something about it. That's why I so frequently mention it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Mikel - Most people are aware of that type of history.

    And you certainly have a way of cherry picking names, and contexts.

    I could interject something sarcastic here the way you often would, but what's the point?

    Many good people are choosing to live in an illusion.

    I can understand why. It's easier that way. To look reality in the face is now very frightening today.

    No one wants to believe the world they grew up has changed so radically in such a short time, but it has.

    The truth is; democracy is dead.

    The truth is; It's much further destroyed than most are willing to face up to.

    Democracy only lives on the lips of our puppet leaders as a useful word to fool some into thinking it's still a relative and healthy ideal.

    It\s up to the individual to stop being such a team player and realize what is happening.

    Instead, we have moral relativism which is subjective to one's own personal perspective, but one's personal perspective is being subjugated by the larger culture which is actually moving towards chaos through top down tyranny and this appears to be setting the example for many in the lower portion of the pyramid to follow.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Uh, who do you think attacked striking workers? Sometimes it was company security, but usually it was the local police-often they were one in the same. Take a look at the chicago democratic convention in 1968, those were police and military. In the 1919 Winnipeg General strike union leaders were arrested by the federal government, JS Woodworth was arrested for 'seditious libel' in editorials he had written. Why don't you ask those guys who spent time in prison just for attending a protest what they thought of whether they were living in a 'police state'. The communist party, a perfectly legitimate political party, was essentially run out of the country. Nowadays I doubt the police would even bother attending one of their meetings.

    Woodworth was writing stuff that was tame compared to what is written at this blog, how many times have you or John Ackerson been arrested for 'seditious libel'?

    People have been monitored practically since the country began. We already know that Tommy Douglas had a police file on him and was under suveillance over four decades ago. Thats a police state-at least to Tommy Douglas. The only people who DON"T call it a police state are people who don't do anything. People who never did squat about the nazi's didn't think Hitler created a 'police state'. And right now IF a couple of police officers showed up at your house and 'warned' you to stop writing a blog then you would call it a police state too.

    And ask those natives in the fifties when police showed up at their door with government workers and took their kids whether it was a 'police state'. I can pretty well guarantee you that they will. Its actually almost insulting that somebody would say its not: "oh, its only a police state if they are watching ME and recording MY phone calls and MY comments online..or trying to stop me from having as many guns or ammunition as I want, or stop me from speeding.."

    And PS, my comment wasn't addressed to the blog but to the comments above. I couldn't care less how many times you say Irving runs the province, I was reacting to Mr. Ackerson's constant refrain that he somehow possesses some secret knowledge that I simply am not aware of. Congratulations on finally becoming politically aware, its unfortunate that its taken such a weirdly conspiratorial turn, but at least we don't have to worry about you helping fund Harper or Trudeau's election campaign.

    But for the sarcasm I'll just add that I don't think repeating something people already know makes any difference in whether they 'do something about it'. There are numerous people who are running as independants and for the Greens and People's Alliance who are challenging Irving because of the aggregious forestry deal, and I don't think any of them even know about this website, and I really haven't seen anybody claiming that "well, since you told me Irving runs the province for the hundredth time I guess I should do something".

    People know darn well Irving and other companies run the province, and I've got no fancy PHD or anything like that, but I DO know some history, particularly of New Brunswick, and if you don't think people have been 'doing' something about it for quite some time, then you haven't lived in the province very long. Maybe you should try getting some information from somewhere BESIDES the Irving paper you'll find that your being just as brainwashed as everybody else. Isolating people and making them think that everybody else are lazy idiots is part of the propaganda machine. That way people can feel 'smug' with their superior intellect rather than getting off their high horse, joining or starting a political movement, and not lecturing people on things they already know and work WITH them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can you talk without getting hysterical and personally insulting? And if you do write in that way, doesn't it indicate a sense of intellectual superiority?

      And when province has Brian Gallant as the favourite to win the election, I would not say it is politically aware and active.

      Delete
  12. Hey dude, I get sarcastic when people include my name in their rant. Are you seriously accusing ME of 'cherry picking' names and contexts? The guy who went off his main point to talk about Robin Williams??

    Anyway, that last post wasn't that bad, but certainly debatable. You say that OTHER people aren't living in the real world but in a land of fantasy. I've got news for you, anybody reading your blog posts is going to think the exact same thing about you.

    Some people immerse themselves in bad TV shows to forget their problems. Personally I like the old All creatures Great and Small show. Nothing wrong with that. You instead spend your time doing research and talking about conspiracy theories. What exactly makes what YOU do more laudable than what somebody who doesn't concern themselves with such things?

    My opinion is that BOTH are a problem when they keep people from interacting with other people in order to challenge that instutional order. You think that writing rants on a blog is challenging anybody? Like you say yourself, your whole AIM is to 'not be a team player'. Powerful institutions LOVE guys like you because you WON"T be a team player, and one person on their own can't accomplish squat.

    At least a person who is living in a fantasy world sometimes also joins the real world through work, social interaction, and through elections.

    As for your view of the world stated in the last two paragraphs, you are simply creating straw men articles. You are right about what is a person's responsibility. But YOU are NOT 'other people'. You have no idea what they are doing most of the time or what they are thinking. As far as I can glean, your big requirement seems to be that people believe your 911 conspiracies. Even if everybody in the world did that, it changes nothing, it doesn't address the powerful institutions.

    But again some history is useful. Go take a look at pictures from the seventies. We had no recycling, the government was still spraying agent orange on the forests, the waterways were diluted with mercury from acid rain, and on and on.

    I'm not disputing that powerful institutions control the world, I don't think ANYBODY is. But I do know this, the ONLY way that can be challenged is through democratic means, which means being a 'team player'. My advice is to stop worrying about 911, you can't do anything about that anyway. An election is coming up in just over a month, there are independants who are challenging the status quo. Get involved and BE a 'team player'. You shouldn't be telling people to NOT be a team player, you should just be telling them which team to join-and being part of that team. Just keep in mind that for most in New Brunswick that 'team' is more concerned about stopping fracking, environmental degradation, and a bad forestry plan than it is about debating 911 or things that are going on in other countries.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Graeme won't be arrested for "seditious libel" as he is not attempting to overthrough the goverment through riots.

    In Canadian Common Law:

    A statement is seditious if it "brings into hatred or contempt" either the Queen or her heirs, the government and constitution, either House of Parliament, the administration of justice, if it incites people to attempt to change any matter of Church or State established by law (except by lawful means), or if it promotes discontent among or hostility between British subjects

    ReplyDelete
  14. Mikel - As said before, events such as the Ludlow Massacre by Rockefeller interests are a prime example of the history we already know.

    And, some of the comments you include above are the point of a coming police state reality. There may come a time soon as all evidence points towards it, when an individual will be arrested and imprisoned for seditious libel. Was this a commonplace practice in the early part of the 20th Century? Already it is too late for people like Micheal Hastings for instance.

    The point is, we have not learned from our past history, but we should have.

    In any other field of expertise such as engineering, medicine, and other sciences we continue making strides in our collective understanding of metallurgy, physics, nano-particles, etc.

    But, the only area we apparently cannot, is a collective progression towards understanding our own psychology, and how a very subtle manipulation of our psychology can be used against us.

    Human understanding appears to be locked into same rhythms of the tides washing upon our shores.

    It ebbs and flows.

    Today, for many people, they are in the regression phase of that movement, while for others, thanks to the incredible amount of info being shared worldwide, we are in a truly progressive phase and are only attempting to wake up our fellow brothers and sisters to the crimes of state-sanctioned false flag events, shooting hoaxes, and war propaganda in which it serves to blame an enemy on false pretexts.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The Winnipeg riots most certainly were not attempting to 'overthrow the government', and JS Woodworth did not espouse hatred for ANYBODY, he was METHODIST MINISTER, you don't get any more non violent than that, heck, GANDHI was more militaristic than methodists are!

    He was no more guilty of seditious libel than Mr. Decarie. He was also charged with 'inciting an unlawful assembly' because virtually EVERY 'assembly' was unlawful in those days.

    If anybody made similar proclamations today, they'd have the charter of rights to fall back on. In Woodsworth day they had no charter, and no rights.

    The ludlow massacre was committed by the National Guard, again, thats GOVERNMENT, thats the police state. They worked for private interests back then even MORE than they work for private interests now, because like I said, we at least have some rights now.

    There was an interview with the Victoria police force talking about how at demonstrations their MAIN priority was that protestors were allowed to protest peacefully. Its certainly true that not all, or even most, police forces have that priority, but a hundred years ago such an idea would be considered idiotic.

    There is an ebb and flow, but it is of rights, not human understanding. Go read up on neuroscience and you will see that understanding of human psychology is progressing just as quickly as anything else. It is our political and economic institutions which are lagging behind.

    And again, your talk is no different than a person who has undergone a religious conversion and thinks they have 'the truth', complete with the realization that other people are 'unbelievers'. Virtually every cult in the world has preached that, complete with an emphasis on things that have little to do with everyday interest. You go right on thinking that all the shootings in the US are 'hoaxes', personally I think such a belief is insane and insulting to the people who have lost loved ones, but knock yourself out. If you think the way to challenge a world economic order is to try to convince people that gun violence in the US is a myth, good luck to you. That makes me wonder just where you live, as this is a blog about New Brunswick, CANADA. Even if every crazy word you said was true, its a different country and has zero to do with the problems in New Brunswick Canada.

    But I take back my point about saying to get involved in a political movement, the last thing the Green Party in New Brunswick needs is some guy showing and saying "no, no, no, the forestry deal doesn't matter, we need to be telling people about gun hoaxes!"

    ReplyDelete
  16. What on earth are you babbling about? I never said all shootings in the US were hoaxes.
    And how can you suggest that anything going on next door is of no interest to New Brunswickers. Hitler's rise was, I suppose, of no interest to New Brunswickers - but, if you check the monument in Victoria Park, it had considerable effect on them.
    And isolated incidents do NOT indicate a police state. When they are sustained, when they involve a radical restructuring and change of the police function, when they are coupled with intrusive civil espionage and the elimination of rights, then you have a police state.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Dude, I don't think ANY of my last comments were directed to you. Its Mr. Ackerson who keeps talking about 'shooting hoaxes' next door.

    I didn't say it was of NO interest, but Mr. Ackerson spends more time talking about gun hoaxes and 911 than ANYTHING in New Brunswick. And no kidding about Hitler!

    These are NOT isolated incidents. Like I said, YOU and I have a charter of rights. In 1919 they had no such thing, government could arrest people at ANY assembly and could call ANYTHING 'seditious libel'. That is 'structural', that is how the system operated. I'm obviously not going to go through all the historical record and find out every case where that occurred, but I can guarantee you that it occurred a hell of a lot more than it does today.

    A police state doesn't need a 'radical restructing', that makes no sense, thats like saying that because it was the same on thursday, it can't be a police state because it hadn't changed from wednesday.

    Until the charter of rights came along, we HAD no rights. That is a police state. You are arguing that we are regressing back into that, that's fine, but that doesn't change the fact that the police state was there before. It then got better, now you are saying its getting worse. My point is that it was worse before, the police state was there before. It may be worse now than it was, say, in the 80's or 90's, thats another debatable point, but to say that its more a police state NOW than it was in 1919 when we had NO rights, is just absurd.

    Yeah, its bad when they 'eliminate your rights', its also bad when you don't have any rights to begin with. Imagine telling those native people who lost their kids, or those people who were arrested on trumped on charges "yeah, its too bad, but since you never actually had those rights to begin with, we don't really call it a police state....maybe someday you will get some rights, and then some of them will be taken away, THEN we'll call it a police state". Run with that if you want to, but anybody can make up their own definitions.

    Here's a quick wikipedia definition: "a totalitarian state controlled by a political police force that secretly supervises the citizens' activities"

    So technically NEITHER of our accounts are very accurate. That a 'political police force' would 'control' FOR the 'totalitarian state' doesn't seem to have occurred to them.

    However, back in 1919 the police force had FAR more power because we had no rights at all. The government was FAR more totalitarian for the same reason. You may think its a big deal that there is civilian espionage, but back in the day it wouldn't have even been an issue-they simply didn't have the technology.

    However, to my mind the important aspect is the agreement that civil espionage, the elimination of rights (which is a bit more of a stretch, what rights have been 'eliminated'?), or police which are unaccountable and transparant are all bad things. In many ways they are improving, but I agree, the policing during peaceful protest is very clearly designed to intimidate, and in large measure explains why so few people attend political demonstrations.

    ReplyDelete