Wednesday, October 22, 2014

Oct. 22: You probably won't agree with me.

I've been watching TV this Wednesday with a sinking heart. First, there's the killing of two Canadian soldiers. Some official made the idiotic statement that what was terrible about this was that they were killed on Canadian soil. That was a pitch to Canadian patriotism, of course - and it implies what I'm going to talk about. (It's an idiotic statement because it's terrible when Canadians, soldiers or civilians, get killed on any soil, not just here.)

It's terrible because now, I'm quite sure, this will be used to create a turning point in history, a turning point I hoped we would never reach.

The idiot who made the statement a soldier being killed in Canada is also the one said that the killers (and we all know who they were - wink, wink, nudge, nudge) did it because of their ideology. It may be true. All people have ideologies. And all includes westerners and Christians and Jews.

So, the killings were done because of an (evil) ideology. So how do you deal with that? Well, you show those people that they can't kill Canadians. We'll kill a whole bunch of them. Nobody actually said we should do some killing back but, oh, it was the whole tone of the news coverage. The clear assumption by reporters and commentators was that in both cases the killers were Muslims. This was before they even knew their names. And the killer in St. Jean was a Muslim - but he was also mentally unhinged, a not unknown condition among. Christians and Jews.

But, oh, a Canadian would never kill people like that ---uh---wasn't it just this week crowds gathered to applaud six Canadian jets going to kill people in Iraq? Wasn't that Canadians killing Muslims in Afghanistan and Libya?

Look. You shoot at people; they shoot back. Get used to it. We have allied ourselves with the US and other western powers that have killed millions of Muslims, starved hundreds of thousands  of their children to death, forced many millions out of their homes and onto the roads as refugees. For over a century, we have been slaughtering Muslims, looting their resources, destroying their countries.

So why do they shoot us (If they are the ones who killed those two soldiers)?  Gee. It must be their ideology. When Israelis indiscriminately killed men, women and children in Palestine, Harper breezily said it was all the fault of the Palestinians.

We are guilty of sharing in that western killing of Muslims through the wars that we fought - Afghanistan, Libya and now Iraq - wars that had nothing whatever to do with Canada. They were wars whose only purpose was to nail down American big business' stranglehold on the resources and trade policies of those countries. That's why we just sent aircraft to bomb Iraq. That's why the US sent soldiers to "fight ebola". Our news media did not mention that they have exactly four hours training in dealing with ebola. They aren't there to fight ebola. They're there to make Liberia a part of the American empire -and to protect their biological warfare laboratories in western Africa. (But that's another story.)

Oh, I know Canadians will have orders not to harm civilians.Right.  In fact, though,you cannot engage in modern warfare without killing civilians - and, usually, without killing mostly civilians. That's been true at least since 1914.

Americans, of course, are on record as being outraged by the attacks on Canada. And I wonder. Has it ever occurred to them that Vietnamese, Libyans, Afghanis, Iraqis, Syrians must have been outraged when Americans (and us) bombed them out of their homes, poisoned their land, killed their children, ruined their nations and their lives to make profits for American billionaires?

What will Harper do? For a start, just as Bush and Obama used hysteria to destroy the American constitution to create a police state, Harper will do the same. It's all in the name of homeland security. And its really to solidify the control of big business over our lives.

He also might feel it electorally helpful to get tough, and send more of our military to fight the wars in the middle east for billionaires. That will suck us what will probably be a long, expensive and bloody war - and one almost certain to draw other nuclear powers into it. If so, a great many Canadians will get killed in it. And if it goes nuclear, then it is quite possible that most Canadians will be killed.

American foreign policy has been a disaster ever since American billionaires got control of the government. It is now possibly the most corrupt government in the world; trillions of dollars have been spent on war and weapons - and all of them wars that have made the world worse, not better. Within the US, it has created massive poverty, made access to medical care unaffordable, cut off aid to those made poor by the wars and corruption.

It has also created a strong possibility of violence in the US, and possibly in Canada.

The killing of two Canadian soldiers is of great interest to Obama. It fills an old dream to integrate Canada with the US. And Canadian big business will help him to do it.

Will Canadians support this? Probably. For a start, the news media will enthusiastically peddle the idea. Any opposition will be muted as our gestapo does its good work spying on us.

Will the war stop Muslims from hating us? Not bloody likely. We got into this in the first place by allying ourselves with brutal empires like Britain and the US. We got here by helping them to make their very rich very, very rich by killing and looting all over the world. Meanwhile, as we patriotically sing 'O Canada' the very, very rich will go on picking our pockets, steadily making themselves richer, and the rest of us poorer.

Our governments are controlled oligarchs, families of the very, very rich who are our new aristocacy, rich by birth, arrogant by ego, utterly ruthless and uncaring for people of any nationality, and oh so stupid.

This is probably a turning point in history. And I regret I have lived to see it.


  1. Sorry dude, I didn't read ALL that, because I suspect we pretty much agree, although I'd add that its a tragedy when ANYONE gets killed anywhere, whether canadian or not.

    I know I badmouth conspiracy theorists, but boy, we have a conservative PM, unpopular, deep in their mandate which was based on questionable authority (legitimate, but still questionable in that most canadians never voted for the guy). Now, Harper isn't a stupid guy, so I can't help but think when he agreed to send war planes to bomb people, he must have at least suspected that they'd fight back.

    As for the guy in Quebec, I had to laugh at an 'expert' on the CBC, a phd and former spy, who said that he was 'sane' because on his facebook page and twitter account he didn't 'ramble'. I do volunteer work with seniors, and if he thinks rambling denotes insanity, then they better lock up every 80 plus year old in the country.

    We don't yet know about the guy in Ottawa, but the guy in Quebec was canadian, just a recent convert. However, the whole 'insane' thing is up in the air, I haven't seen the evidence to judge one way or another. To my mind anybody willing to pick up a gun and shoot anybody, even if they are a soldier, is crazy. And I've known a few of them (not that they can't be nice people).

    But here in our town everything is going on as usual. Heck, the other year in Toronto there was more carnage on the streats thanks to gang wars, but I guess when its soldiers and not civilians then its different (although I thought it was supposed to be the reverse of that).

    But yeah, on TVO, a more 'moderate' media source, they have a blog caption saying in what way this murder of ONE person is and isn't like 911. When there is that kind of jingoism out of the gate, it doesn't bode well. And I can see Harper riding this to the election and everybody being told to shut up and support our PM, even though he's the guy who got us into this.

  2. hey! Easy on the comments about 80 plus year olds.

    I think all the federal parties are going to buy into this game.

  3. CSIS can tighten their version of the patriot act another notch now. Conspiracy theorist or not, the timing of this event was impeccable.

  4. Arlington Road (1999)

    "The work of one man"

  5. Sadly, I don't think they have a choice. Canada is probably enough like the states that 'soft on crime' doesn't sell well to the, sorry dude, but mostly aging population that still votes.

    I disagree that the timing was impeccable, thats why I don't think there is any more to the conspiracy than that Harper should have known, and if he thought about it, figured it would be good for him even if it did. Next spring or summer, or closer to the election would have been preferable, before anybody really has time to take it in and make sense of it. Canada, thankfully, is not THAT similar to the US, but we'll see.

  6. This is 1 of 2 parts as there are too many characters for the comment box.

    I apologize for the length of this comment, but I felt it necessary.

    If we remember back to Obama's 2008 Hope and Change campaign, it did seem too good to be true. The campaign was nominated as the Marketer of the Year media promotion from the Association of National Advertisers.

    Many at the time didn't realize Obama's marketing team was simply using a feel-good, package of Hope and Change to gain Obama the presidency. Many at the time could not fathom how civil liberties in the US and abroad would soon be further destroyed. Even today, there are many who steadfastly refuse to admit Obama is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

    Remember the non-existent WMD's from the Bush Administration? Or, how about this one? Are there enough people out there who even know, or care to understand NIST's mishandling, and it's own elementary flaws with the physics of the destruction of the third tower? How many are aware of what NIST is without googling it?

    A long time ago, I use to wonder how other societies had fallen? How did all those people living in those countries at the time allow their own nations to be destroyed?

    The German people, we are told, were not to question Hitler's ideology for a new Germany unless you wanted to be browbeaten by many of your own peers, or paid a visit by the brownshirts or later, the gestapo.

    Mao-Tse-Tung was able to enforce the life-long control of hundreds of millions of his fellow countryman through psychological force along with physical violence.

    Russia's great communist purges of intelligentsia and anyone else who dared voice their opinion resulted in a very long dark age for that nation. But, it was a great opportunity for the military industrial complex in the west. Outgoing president Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us even before JFK took office.

    If nothing else, the few, recent, historical examples above should have instilled fundamental, and important lessons to be learned and remembered in our own western societies today.

  7. Part 2 of 2 continued.

    Instead, we have learned nothing, and are now doomed to repeat it.

    To be aware as a society, or to be cognizant of questions regarding the nature of internal subterfuge is the mark of a sophisticated, and advanced society that understands how to truly safeguard its freedoms.

    But, our failure to be aware, or to be cognizant of questions regarding the nature of internal subterfuge will instead be our undoing, just as it was in Germany, China, and in Russia.

    Once allowed to gain a foothold, the politics of internal subterfuge will spread like a cancer, and will be used against its own citizens, by its own citizens for the corrupt political agendas of a few.

    The hallmarks of a truly healthy democracy embraces the reality that non-violent dissent, peaceful protests, and the voicing of a differing of opinions are necessary to the true health of political debate. These are characteristics to be enshrined and protected. Not to be punished, or ostracized to the margins.

    For simply asking the tough questions that need asking at a crucial moment as this in Canada's history should be seen as a necessary act to protect our democracy. But, it's a crucial question none of the network media in Canada dare to ask including Canada's own national broadcaster.

    Instead our media jump to blame ISIS within the 1st hour of the the Parliament building shooting even though we understand ISIS is ultimately funded, armed, and trained by western intelligence agencies, think-tanks, and the Saudis, and Qatar, et-al.

    Could we not find it within ourselves to do ourselves a large favor by simply asking:

    How do we know the alleged shooter was not radicalized by members of our own intelligence services?

    How do we know if it was not done in conjunction with outside agencies in order to create a false impression?

    Is this what we wish? To have a few corrupt members of our society to also clamp down on our civil liberties here in Canada?

    This is happening in Australia. It's happening in the UK. Look at Cameron's recent, and treasonous speech regarding the right to freedom of expression at the UN.

    And of course, our big brother immediately to the south of us is paving the way with one deception after the next.

    The hour is growing late, and in order to protect any freedoms we have left, we must no longer act as cowards, but be willing to be brave and ask the necessary and tough questions.

    If the Parliament shooting does turn out to be a random act of violence, then we have not harmed anyone by asking simple questions. But if this is of a darker nature, then it must be brought to light or we shall surely all of us pay the price for our cowardice.

  8. Most of that is true enough, except that "to be cognizant of questions regarding the nature of internal subterfuge is the mark of a sophisticated, and advanced society that understands how to truly safeguard its freedoms", is not accurate. People in Russia, China, and everyplace where totalitarian force imposed ideologies were fully aware that it was being 'forced' on them.

    Its absolutely true about the media though, even at TVO and on CBC you could almost hear the terrified glee of the journalists who finally have something interesting to talk about (in their eyes).

    However, there was a fair bit of prejudice in some of those questions. First of all, even if they are linked to ISIS, what does that tell us that we don't know? But another question for right now is why the canadian media had to find out from AMERICAN media about the identity of the shooter. Clearly Harpers anti journalistic ethos goes farther down than his own personal views about journalists in Canada.

  9. Right you are Mikel.

    Once everyone is actually being forced to serve a totalitarian regime do they finally come to realize what has happened.

    The only problem of course, is by the time they finally put on their thinking caps, history has shown it's been too late to undo the damage without much pain.

    Here in Canada, we are ironically on the same path. Most of the public's eyes are closed at the moment.

    Our national anthem played time and again at hockey rinks across the country asks us to remain on guard for thee, so that we can be strong and free.

    Brave sentiments that fall on so many deaf ears. Especially the cowards in our media that as you intone would gleefully see the rest of our freedoms disappear.

    I would like to think differently than I do at the moment, believe me. I would like to think many more are beginning to wake up, and are beginning to make use of critical reasoning skills to read between the lines of network media propaganda.

    Although, I grew up with CBC radio and attach certain nostalgic listening memories to it, today in my household, we simply refer to CBC radio in its current form, as the Canadian Brainwashing Corporation.

  10. CBC is certainly better than the alternatives, as the new blog plainly shows. I shudder to think of what The Toronto Sun is saying, again, its ironic that in one case we have a born and bred Quebecer as a terrorist, in another we have a well known mentally ill fellow. So this is about racism how?

    However, hate to tell you, but you are wrong in your thinking, whether you like it or not. Totalitarianism takes a lot of forms. Some places like China and Russia they don't like you saying bad things about their government publicly, but this is the definition of this vague word: "the state holds total authority over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life wherever possible."

    What you have to remember is what this blogger frequently says-that its the Irvings of this world who run government. Thats private industry, and they very clearly DO, and HAVE run Canada ever since it was born (and even before).

    Everything you are writing on this website is owned and stored by Bell. They can kick you off anytime they want, they can censor your comments. Of course they probably won't, because the fact is that business in Canada has found out that you don't need an expensive government bureaucracy to shut people up, because what you say largely doesn't matter.

    So Totalitarianism doesn't always look oppressive. Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing, but when it was formulated it was considered that that free speech was ABOUT something.

    So again, don't worry about what you think other people may be thinking. If you think they are buying the government line about anything then first, I think you are kidding yourself, and second, if you think you are that singular, then you need to get out more. Believe me, there are a lot more people (unfortunately) getting their opinion from "The Natural News" than get it from mainstream media. Worry about your own sources of propaganda before you worry about whether other people are falling for theirs.