Shut Up & Pay Your UN Taxes, Uppity Peasants (Satire)

(Ways to raise money)

(This is the Paris Accord, and “Conservative” Garnett Genuis’ dishonest spin in supporting it in Parliament.)

(Shiva Ayyadurai, Republican and former Senate Candidate explains how the Carbon tax really works.)

(UN supports global tax to raise $400B)

(Details of proposed global tax scheme)

(Pensions are also being eyed as a funding source)

(UN Environment Programme)

(Green finance for developing countries)

(International Chamber of Commerce)

(Addis Ababa Action Agenda)

(Global tax avoidance measures)

(Why stop at just billions?)

New Development Financing Proposals

  • SDR (or special drawing rights), from IMF $150B-$270B
  • Carbon taxes, $240B
  • Leveraging SDR, $90B
  • Financial transaction tax, $10B-70B
  • Billionaire tax, $90B
  • Currency trading tax, $30B
  • EU emissions trading scheme, $5B
  • Air passenger levy, $10B
  • Certified emission reduction tax, $2B
  • Current ODA Flow, $120B

It is no secret that we at the United Nations (the U.N.), has a rather expensive set of global goals. These goals vary from setting up a world government, to mass migration to overrun individual nations, to new development schemes, to controlling education, the media, and society as a whole.

These goals are ambitious, but as stated, expensive. Hundreds of billions of dollars (if not trillions) will be needed to accomplish this. However, people in the Western World are tired of footing the bill. Moreover, this will not be a one time thing. These influxes of cash will be required on an ongoing basis.

Most reasonable people will tell us to f*** off if they were presented with the truth about these “fundraising” schemes. Therefore, some sleight of hand will be needed. Let’s get into some of the more outrageous ideas.

In 2012, the UN released a 178 page manual titled New Development Financing. This outlined a series of “revenue generating tools” (a.k.a. taxes) which could be leveraged in order to obtain a good chunk of this money. Not a parody, or satire, but serious proposals which aim to be implemented. Of course there is this minor problem: there is no global government — yet.

One has to admire the sheer gall of this proposal. Why stop at just one method for fleecing the public, then you can incorporate a dozen or more at a time?

Socialists never tire of proposing to tax the rich, especially if those people happen to be billionaires. And why not? No one really needs billions of dollars to provide for their families. Sure, many have worked hard for that money. And certainly there will be taxes paid at some point, but that is never enough. Of course, this would involve interfering with the sovereignty of individual nations. if only there was some sort of UN Parliament to set this in motion.

Banks typically charge a monthly fee, or a transaction fee. You pay for the convenience of someone else holding onto your money. While this makes sense for the banks or credit unions, why should we stop there? Certainly a 25 cent to $2 charge per transaction could be levied onto your account by say, the Government or the U.N. The structure for banks to do it is already in place, so let’s take advantage of it. Not only should you pay a fee for local transactions, but for international ones as well. See the next section.

There are amounts withheld when currency is traded, either for cross border shopping or travel. Agencies which convert your money keep a small part for themselves. This is another great idea. Considering the climate emergency we are facing, people should have to pay a small tax for the privilege of travelling. Think of all the greenhouse gases that planes, cars, buses and trucks emit. If you must pollute the air, then at least pay the taxes when you convert your Dollars into Pounds, Euros or Yen. You’re only getting 74 cents on the dollar anyway. It won’t hurt anyone if you were suddenly only getting 72 cents.

One of our more well known initiatives is the carbon tax, which was expanded at the Paris Agreement in France. No, it’s not misleading the public to refer to it as: (a) a price on pollution; (b) being socially responsible; or (c) cleaning the air. By putting a tax on everything, this will generate at least $250B a year. Article 9 of the Accord, in particular, outlines the various ways to “scale up” the Carbon tax. This money can then be used in the commodities market to generate huge profits for certain allied groups. The climate bond industry is expected to top $100T within a decade. Think of the wealth and the possibilities that can come of that.

If your nation cannot reduce your greenhouse gases, there are Carbon credits you can purchase. This is commonly referred to as cap-and-trade. The idea is that there is no way you can meet these absurd standards without crashing your economy. We figure that you won’t actually cause the total destruction of your nation, as politicians do need someone to pay their pensions. Instead, countries can buy these credits, which are effectively a licence to pollute. Sure, this won’t help the environment, but at least you can pollute with a clear conscience. These credits will be sold to you by people whom we deem to be worthy of dispensing them. The criteria? Nothing to see here, people. Just remember to be socially responsible. If you must pollute, at least pay the fee.

Critics will whine that this has nothing to do with a cleaner atmosphere. And sure, it is incredibly wasteful when we fly tens of thousands of people annually to climate change conferences. But consider the big picture. Our conferences and expert advice will ultimately lead to lower admissions — at some point. Furthermore, we can’t do video-conferencing because …. reasons.

People with knowledge of 8th grade science have questioned whether Carbon Dioxide is really pollution. They claim it is critical for plants in the stage of photosynthesis. These science deniers blame climate change on “solar activity” and even spout out a chemical equation for photosynthesis

6CO2 + 6H2O + light ==> C6H12O6 + 6O2

Still not convinced? Just remember that according to Catherine McKenna – “If you actually say it louder, we’ve learned in the House of Commons, if you repeat it, say it louder, if that is your talking point people will totally believe it”.

You shouldn’t be flying (again, we are in a climate emergency). However, it’s worth noting that there are airline fees & levies on every single flight. Security fees, luggage fees, administration fees, etc… While this is a great start, there should be a fee going towards the U.N. After all, we are trying to clean up the atmosphere that your selfishness is helping to pollute. These fees will help to rid the atmosphere of pollution.

We could ban flying altogether, but then, how would we get to our annual conferences on climate change? Moreover, who would be contributing to our climate funds if we weren’t able to levy these fees? Better to charge you selfish people for polluting the air.

If we don’t flying or driving completely (and it would kill us financially to do so), why not have a certified emissions reduction tax? Let’s decide how many emissions that a vehicle should be allowed to emit, and then impose taxes for manufacturers not being able to meet those targets? We could charge fees for the manufacturer directly, then impose extra fees on the drivers and owners. After all, why should the burden only come on some parties? Are they not all involved in polluting the air.

On a larger scale, let’s establish some Special Drawing Rights, or SDRs. Basically, this would be a global fund which all nations would contribute to. Then the enlightened ones would decide how this reserve is spent, on whom, and what the criteria will be. Of course, who says the money has to spent right away? We can always leverage the SDR in a fashion similar to the climate bonds industry. Imagine the wealth that be generated by “transferring” this fund to more profitable uses. Sure, some people won’t get clean water, but life isn’t perfect.

This is a start, but the U.N. will upscale from billions to trillions in due course. After all, if countries are willing to pay for certain things, then with some guilting they will be willing to pay some more. All that is needed is the right message.

Now, as for that minor question about where the money will be spent:

Ok, sure, there is this “minor” problem of the UN having a history of corruption. And sure, you will have absolutely no control over where your money is spent once it leaves the Government. But those worries shouldn’t stop the nations from acting responsibly.

A good chunk of this money will go towards killing children in the 3rd world (a.k.a. abortion, or reproductive care). After all, what 10 year old girl who was raped by her uncle wouldn’t want an abortion? It’s more common than you might suppose — but don’t you dare blame the culture. Just think, with less children in the world, the wealth we redistribute will be shared by less people, hence enlarging each person’s individual share.

In a similar vein, we will spent money getting more women into the workforce. After all, what woman “wouldn’t” want to remain childless while working in a mindless job? Workplaces will become more gender diverse. We may even start putting women in militaries.

Education will become more inclusive. SOGI (sexual orientation & gender identity) schooling will now be available in children as young as 4. Think about it, chopping off your privates will mean you never have children. Females getting involved with females (as opposed to men) is a 100% effective form of birth control. Homosexuality means never worrying about an unwanted pregnancy again. But don’t worry, “reproductive care” will always be available should circumstances arise.

We will also be promoting diversity and multiculturalism in society. After all, who wouldn’t want to see their culture, traditions, customs & heritage replaced by groups that are totally foreign. Our belief is that diversity is our strength. In other words: diversity is a product of our strength, and that strength is freedom. Forced multiculturalism — without a democratic mandate — is the best way to ensure a peaceful society.

Our new Ambassador of Global Relations: Richard Codenhove-Kalergi III, will oversee the transition to a raceless society. For too long, we have been divided by immutable characteristics. Time for a one-world vision. Don’t worry, his late Grandfather had a plan.

The UN is also committed to ensuring that migration becomes a human right. No matter where you want to go, or why, we will get you there, and the host nation will pay for it. Why be denied access to a country simply because you were born somewhere else?

Sure, there’s overhead, employee salaries, marketing, and paying for global conferences. And there are the legal fees for some staff members charged with sex crimes. But at least some of the money does go towards helping people in the 3rd world.

JUST REMEMBER

“If you actually say it louder, we’ve learned in the House of Commons, if you repeat it, say it louder, if that is your talking point people will totally believe it”.

Free Trade #7: Job Outsourcing As A Profession, Stagnant Wages, Mass Migration

(the Business Development Bank of Canada on outsourcing)

(Deloitte’s Global Outsourcing Survey)

(The Privacy Commissioner of Canada)

(the International Chamber of Commerce)

(Pew Research on wage stagnation)

(Conservative Party of Canada’s specific policies are to turn “temporary” workers into permanent residents wherever possible)

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for a previous review of CANZUK.
CLICK HERE, for Free Trade #1, thoughts on Canada-China free trade.
CLICK HERE, for Free Trade #2, intro to NAFTA, problems involved.
CLICK HERE, for Free Trade #3: more on NAFTA’s hidden costs.
CLICK HERE, for Free Trade #4: Bill C-79, Trans-Pacific Partnership
CLICK HERE, for Free Trade #5, why Donald Trump dumped the T.P.P.
CLICK HERE, for Free Trade #6, more “free” trade deals and CANZUK

CLICK HERE, for previous article on remittances and brain drain, the hidden costs of economic mass migration

CLICK HERE, for Deloitte’s Global Outsourcing Survey.
CLICK HERE, for Deloitte, pros and cons of outsourcing.
CLICK HERE, for large companies outsourcing jobs.
CLICK HERE, for reviews of outsourcing companies.
CLICK HERE, for the Business Development Bank of Canada on outsourcing.
CLICK HERE, for CBC article, CIBC workers to be laid off, first are forced to train job replacements in India.
CLICK HERE, for the Privacy Commissioner on confidentiality on outsourcing jobs.
CLICK HERE, for the International Chamber of Commerce’s guidelines on outsourcing jobs to other nations.
CLICK HERE, for chamberofcommerce.org on outsourcing.

CLICK HERE, for EPI study on wage stagnation in US over 30 years.
CLICK HERE, for Pew Research on wage stagnation.

2. Context For Anti-Free Trade Take

So-called “Conservatives” and “Libertarians” trumpet the values of free trade, or economic liberty. They claim that removing barriers to trade and employment will result in the enrichment of society as a whole.

Worth noting that these same groups support massive immigration from the 3rd world. The fraudulently titled “Temporary Foreign Worker Program” is a great example. It forces Canadians to compete for jobs against imported, foreign (often subsidized) competition. This hurts workers who struggle to find work which will pay a living wage. Now, we all know the vast majority of these “temps” will never leave, though that has been addressed in other articles.

Corporatists and business leaders support both: (a) free trade; and (b) mass economic migration. This allows companies to get people to work for less, and to outsource jobs much more easily. But while these are profitable, there is little to no societal benefit.

3. Stagnant, Even Declining Wages

A quote from the left leaning Economic Policy Institute. This covers the main causes of wage stagnation. Although written in the U.S, Canada is experiencing the same issues. We should take note of this:

This paper provides a brief overview of some of the causes of wage stagnation and inequality. Sources in the references section provide a more complete analysis. Excessive unemployment, not only during and after the Great Recession but over most years since 1979, has suppressed wage growth, adversely affecting low-wage workers more than middle-wage workers but having little impact on high-wage workers. Global integration with low-wage countries, accelerated by particular trade policies (e.g., admission of China to the World Trade Organization in the late 1990s) has adversely affected wages of non–college educated workers. The erosion of labor standards (beyond the decline in the real value of the minimum wage) and weak enforcement have also put downward pressure on wages. Extensive wage theft, worker misclassification, weakened prevailing wage laws and overtime protections, and the failure to modernize our labor standards to provide sick leave, family leave, or minimum vacation schedules all hurt wage growth. The increased presence of undocumented workers who are vulnerable to employer exploitation also undercuts not only the wages of these workers but also those in similar fields.

A lot of reasons wages in the U.S. are stagnant. Two big reasons are: increased (often illegal) immigration; and trade policies which outsource jobs to nations with a lower standard of living.

Take this message away: “More” people are now competing for “less” jobs. From a supply-and-demand perspective, it can’t help but push down wages. Pew Research has studied this trend, and concluded it to be a real issue.

4. Connecting: Outsourcing Jobs, Wages, Economic Migration

Mass (economic) migration and outsourcing jobs a.k.a. “free trade”, actually end up serving the same goal, which is to displace workers in their home countries.

How so? Outsourcing high-paying jobs to the third world drives down the SUPPLY of work that is available to Canadians (and to others in 1st World countries). Importing large numbers of cheap foreign workers has the effect of driving up the DEMAND for what jobs remain. The public gets screwed at both ends.

Far more workers available, competing for far fewer jobs. It becomes an employer’s market, where workers are forced to compete based off on who can live off of less. As a result, the real purchasing power of wages has declined over the years.

True, there are factors besides increased immigration and outsourcing jobs. However, they are two big ones, and the impacts cannot be ignored.

5. Lack Of Privacy Safeguards In Outsourcing

There is nothing in PIPEDA that prevents organizations from outsourcing the processing of data. However, regardless of where information is being processed—whether in Canada or in a foreign country—organizations subject to PIPEDA must take all reasonable steps to protect that information from unauthorized uses and disclosures while it is in the hands of the third-party processor.

Organizations must also be satisfied that the third party has policies and processes in place, including training for its staff and effective security measures, to ensure that the information in its care is properly safeguarded at all times.

Organizations need to make it plain to individuals that their information may be processed in a foreign country and that it may be accessible to law enforcement and national security authorities of that jurisdiction. They must do this in clear and understandable language. Ideally they should do it at the time the information is collected. Once an informed individual has chosen to do business with a particular company, they do not have an additional right to refuse to have their information transferred.

When personal information is in the hands of a third-party service provider operating on foreign soil, it is subject to the laws of that country and no contract can override that. This could mean, for instance, that the organization may be obliged to respond to a subpoena or other mechanism that would give law enforcement officials access to personal information.

To be fair, it is acknowledged that the Privacy Act came into effect 30 years ago, and couldn’t possibly have taken this information age into account.

But think about this for a moment. If you are an employee, your information may still be shared and viewed on foreign lands by third parties. This can happen even if your job has not been outsourced. Potentially, this can happen if any major part of the business has been outsourced.

This is not limited to employees either. Customers or clients can have their personal information used in ways that would violate privacy in Canada, just as long as it takes place in another country. Seems to be an end run around real privacy.

6. Business Development Bank of Canada On Outsourcing

Here are some advantages of outsourcing
.
Financial benefits
-Clean up your balance sheet by eliminating assets, and have a more stable cash flow
-Strategic optimization—Think about your company’s core mission and whether it is relevant to continue certain operations
-Better management of the outsourced activity—In theory, you can choose a supplier that is a leader in the field
-Market discipline—You can align your costs with those of suppliers in the field
-Technology—In theory, you gain access to state-of-the-art technologies
Flexibility—The resources no longer used in one area can be redirected to the company’s core operations
.
Here are some risks of outsourcing
-Loss of expertise—You lose know-how and skills that may prove critical to your long-term competitiveness. –Information from suppliers helps in new product development.
-Dependence on the supplier—If you resume carrying out the outsourced activity yourself, it can take years to reach the level of performance you used to enjoy. But if the supplier’s service deteriorates, or if their price rises, you may want to take back the activity.
-Loss of control over costs—Improved production facilities may generate larger gains than outsourcing. Look at internal solutions before considering external solutions.
.
Here are some reasons not to outsource a production facility
-You have highly qualified employees
-You need contact with suppliers and customers
-Research and development is done in the plant
-Production operations are properly focused
-You have control over production costs
.
Here are some lessons on outsourcing
-Look for compatible goals
-Focus on the best solution, not the lowest price
-Use a very detailed contract and up-to-date legal experts
-Share risks
-Involve key players
-Document the transition phase
-Communicate clearly from the beginning

Notice the link never talks about the social costs of outsourcing jobs. People are hurt by mass layoffs. In no way does this advocate for communism or socialism, but there is a real impact to be taken into account when jobs are sent out of country. Not just the workers themselves, but families — especially children — are impacted by this.

There is no mention, or even implication that a company owes any sense of duty or loyalty to employees. This applies not only to newer employees, but to longer term ones. People who may have contributed greatly to an organization are clearly expendable in this mindset.

This is short sighted for another reason. If good paying jobs leave the community en masse, then who exactly is going to buy your products? You need a job, and an income, to buy things.

Furthermore, the same people pushing for outsourcing to lower costs are often the same ones who advocate for mass migration to fill jobs. Why the contradiction? Because it is about creating a larger pool of cheap labour.

7. Forbes: Outsourcing & Company Culture

3. Lower Labor Cost
Did you know there are approximately 300,000 jobs outsourced by the United States each year?
Every company has its own reason for doing this, with many chasing lower labor costs
. You don’t want to trade quality for price, but outsourcing often allows you to get the best of both worlds. By searching a global talent pool, it’s easier to find the right talent at the right price.

This Forbes article from 2016, is more balanced in its approach that the last one. This author is blunt about it: outsourcing is mainly done in order to cut production costs.

A positive work culture leads to a higher level of productivity, so you don’t want to do anything to jeopardize this. Some of the ways outsourcing can negatively affect company culture include:
• Upset employees as they may feel they are being replaced

Here, a major downside is admitted: employees may feel like they’re being replaced. However, we don’t need the words “may feel”, because they are being replaced by outsourcing. There’s nothing ambiguous about it.

8. CBC And Outsourcing At Banks

As part of the transition, staff losing their positions must train other local CIBC employees. Those employees then train the workers in India who will be taking over the jobs.

Although they aren’t directly training their replacements, the situation isn’t sitting well with some affected staff who spoke with CBC News. They asked that their identity be protected because they fear repercussion from CIBC — one of Canada’s largest banks.

“It’s very, well, depressing,” said one employee about having to pass on his work knowledge so that someone in another country can replace him.

“A lot of people would have rather just been let go immediately than to sort of, if you will, suffer [through this].”

“It feels like no one cares for us,” said another employee. “The environment is really bad. People are bitter.”

A surprisingly good article from the CBC outlines outsourcing at CIBC. To add insult to injury, the workers being let go are forced to train their replacements as a last act. In fairness, RBC pulled a similar stunt, and was also publicly ridiculed.

While these banks outsourcing jobs caught a lot of public attention, there are many such actions that do not. As such, the public likely has no idea of how prevalent this issue is, or how many industries it threatens to hit.

9. There Is Always A Cost

Globalist Conservatives and Libertarians love to trumpet the free market, and the potential for economic growth. Yet they never discuss the downsides of these ideals.

They never talk about economic immigration drives up the number of workers in a country, forcing competition against actual citizens. Two such programs are the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, and the International Mobility Program. Students can also work up to 20 hours/week while in school. With more workers, wages don’t rise to keep up with inflation, as there are now more workers to help depress them.

All of these “temps” can usually apply to become permanent residents. This not only solidifies the imbalance, but imports other cultures into Canada. However, this has been addressed elsewhere.

They never talk about how “free trade” policies lead to the outsourcing of jobs, eliminating work opportunities in the host countries. Examples are NAFTA, the Tran-Pacific Partnership, and the proposed CANZUK. Sure, there will be some jobs coming back, though they are likely lower paid, and for less hours.

Who exactly is going to be buying your manufactured goods, if people are losing jobs? Or how will they afford them if the jobs don’t pay enough? How do communities benefit from exporting their employment opportunities?

There is always something else to consider.

Free Trade #6: Let’s Outsource Canada’s Industries & C.F.M.O. a.k.a. “CANZUK”

(Bev Collins & NAFTA)

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for a previous review of CANZUK.
CLICK HERE, for Free Trade #1, thoughts on Canada-China free trade.
CLICK HERE, for Free Trade #2, intro to NAFTA, problems involved.
CLICK HERE, for Free Trade #3: more on NAFTA’s hidden costs.
CLICK HERE, for Free Trade #4: Bill C-79, Trans-Pacific Partnership
CLICK HERE, for Free Trade #5, why Donald Trump dumped the T.P.P.

CLICK HERE, for the World Trade Organization (WTO), on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)
CLICK HERE, for Canadian Gov’t trade deal listings.

CLICK HERE, for the modified version of T.P.P.
CLICK HERE, for Canada/Colombia FTA.
CLICK HERE, for Canada/Honduras FTA.
CLICK HERE, for Canada/Panama FTA.
CLICK HERE, for Canada/Korea FTA.
CLICK HERE, for CANZUK International.

2. Who’s Involved In Various Deals

(A) NAFTA includes: Mexico and the U.S.
(B) The Trans-Pacific Partnership includes: Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam
(C) Canada-Colombia FTA includes: Colombia
(D) Canada-Honduras FTA includes: Honduras
(E) Canada-Panama FTA includes: Panama
(F) Canada-Korea FTA includes: S. Korea
(G) Commonwealth Free Movement (a.k.a “CANZUK”) includes:
-Anguilla
-Antigua
-The Bahamas
-Bangladesh
-Barbados
-Barbuda
-Belize
-Christmas Island
-the Cook Islands
-Guernsey
-India
-the Isle of Man
-Jamaica
-Jersey
-Nevis
-Nigeria
-Pakistan
-Papua New Guinea
-Saint Kitts

3. “National Treatment”, Chapter 11, NAFTA

The so-called “national treatment” provisions were a very harmful part of NAFTA, which was signed in 1995. It allowed governments and companies to sue other governments if their business plans or environmental laws were considered unprofitable. From Chapter 11 of NAFTA.

Article 1102: National Treatment
1. Each Party shall accord to investors of another Party treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments.
2. Each Party shall accord to investments of investors of another Party treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to investments of its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments.
3. The treatment accorded by a Party under paragraphs 1 and 2 means, with respect to a state or province, treatment no less favorable than the most favorable treatment accorded, in like circumstances, by that state or province to investors, and to investments of investors, of the Party of which it forms a part.
4. For greater certainty, no Party may:
(a) impose on an investor of another Party a requirement that a minimum level of equity in an enterprise in the territory of the Party be held by its nationals, other than nominal qualifying shares for directors or incorporators of corporations; or
(b) require an investor of another Party, by reason of its nationality, to sell or otherwise dispose of an investment in the territory of the Party.

This clause has caused all sorts of headaches in the name of “free trade”. (See Free Trade #2 for more details). No longer are there countries, but merely “economic zones”. In the case of NAFTA

4. “National Treatment”, Article 9, T.P.P.

Now take a look at the Trans-Pacific Partnership. This was addressed in parts 4 and 5. The U.S., quite sensibly dumped this agreement, but Canada has signed on.

Article 9.4: National Treatment
1. Each Party shall accord to investors of another Party treatment no less favourable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments in its territory.
2. Each Party shall accord to covered investments treatment no less favourable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to investments in its territory of its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments.
3. For greater certainty, the treatment to be accorded by a Party under paragraphs 1 and 2 means, with respect to a regional level of government, treatment no less favourable than the most favourable treatment accorded, in like circumstances, by that regional level of government to investors, and to investments of investors, of the Party of which it forms a part.

Look familiar? It should. It is virtually the identical language that formed the basis of lawsuits (many successful), in Canada. This can lead to the same issues that still happen in NAFTA, just on a bigger scale.

5. Chapter 2 of Canada/Colombia FTA

Section A – National Treatment
Article 202: National Treatment
1. Each Party shall accord national treatment to the goods of the other Party in accordance with Article III of the GATT 1994, and to this end Article III of the GATT 1994 is incorporated into and made part of this Agreement, mutatis mutandis.
2. The treatment to be accorded by a Party under paragraph 1 means, with respect to a sub-national government, treatment no less favorable than the most favorable treatment that sub-national government accords to any like, directly competitive or substitutable goods, as the case may be, of the Party of which it forms a part.
3. Paragraph 1 does not apply to the measures set out in Annex 202.

The agreement was signed in November 2008, and been in effect since August 2011.

6. Chapter 3 of Canada/Honduras FTA

Section B – National Treatment
Article 3.3: National Treatment
1. Each Party shall accord national treatment to the goods of the other Party in accordance with Article III of the GATT 1994, and to this end Article III of the GATT 1994 is incorporated into and made part of this Agreement.
2. The treatment to be accorded by a Party under paragraph 1 means, with respect to a sub-national government, treatment no less favourable than the most favourable treatment accorded by that sub-national government to a like, directly competitive, or substitutable good of the Party of which it forms a part. For the purposes of this paragraph, “goods of a Party” includes goods produced in the territory of the sub-national government of that Party.
3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 do not apply to a measure set out in Annex 3.3.

7. Chapter 2 of Canada/Panama FTA

Section I – National treatment
Article 2.03: National treatment
Each Party shall accord national treatment to the goods of the other Party in accordance with Article III of the GATT 1994, and to this end Article III of the GATT 1994 is incorporated into and made part of this Agreement.
The treatment to be accorded by a Party under paragraph 1 means, with respect to a sub-national government, treatment no less favourable than the most favourable treatment accorded by that sub-national government to a like, directly competitive or substitutable good, as the case may be, of the Party of which it forms a part.
Paragraphs 1 and 2 do not apply to a measure set out in Annex 2.03 (Exceptions to Articles 2.03 and 2.08).

8. Chapter 2 of Canada/S. Korea FTA

Section A – National Treatment
Article 2.2: National Treatment
1. Each Party shall accord national treatment to the goods of the other Party in accordance with Article III of the GATT 1994 and, for greater certainty, its interpretative notes, and to this end Article III of the GATT 1994 and, for greater certainty, its interpretative notes, or an equivalent provision of a successor agreement to which both Parties are party, are incorporated into and made part of this Agreement.
2. The treatment to be accorded by a Party pursuant to paragraph 1 means, with respect to a sub-national government, treatment no less favourable than the most favourable treatment that sub-national government accords to like, directly competitive or substitutable goods of the Party of which it forms a part.
3. Paragraph 1 does not apply to the measures set out in Annex 2-A.

Yes, the wordings here are identical. National treatment is a clause that prevents another country from taking any protectionist measures in order to protect its people.

Why should we care? Because many of these countries Canada has signed agreements with are able to produce goods at a much lower cost. As such, Canadian manufacturers are forced to compete with the third world. This has the effect of outsourcing jobs, and driving down the wages of jobs that remain.

These agreements are just a few. Please go through the more of the index.

9. Commonwealth Freedom of Movement Organisation (Now “CANZUK”)

Note: This initiative is for both free trade, and free movement — a.k.a. erasing borders.

Originally the group was known as the Commonwealth Freedom of Movement Organisation, and were working towards open borders between nations of the British Commonwealth. It was later renamed CANZUK International (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom), most likely as it would be an easier sell.

It should be said that a new Commonwealth union would be welcoming of any potential members – with each being considered on a case-by-case basis – and that the CANZUK project is very much a work in progress; always receptive of fresh ideas and potential avenues to explore.

A useful way to begin is by taking a look at the CANZUK countries’ dependent territories, such as Christmas Island, the Cook Islands and Anguilla, for example, which are dependencies of Australia, New Zealand, and the UK, respectively, as well as the UK’s Crown dependencies (Guernsey, Jersey, and the Isle of Man).

Each area would naturally become full members of the new group along with the nations to which they are related. Some advocates claim that these small islands, and their generally sparse populations, are currently under-utilised, and that a CANZUK alliance would offer a tremendous opportunity for their communities to acquire a far more extensive set of rights by becoming equal partners in a union, while shaking off their somewhat colonial tint.

Widening our scope, we arrive at the Commonwealth realms. These realms are sovereign states who are members of the Commonwealth and who currently share Queen Elizabeth II as their monarch, of which, there are 16 including the CANZUK countries.

Although the rest of the realms are far less developed than their CANZUK counterparts, and while the new partnership wouldn’t act as a sort of transfer union, they would still enjoy a huge range of economic benefits. Unrestricted work and travel, as well as increased investment in transport and communications infrastructure, would make these tropical environments rather more attractive to potential tourists and retirees.

But, whether founded or not, the notion that free immigration was causing problems for the UK was undoubtedly a primary motivation for its departure from the European Union. A CANZUK union would seek to avoid such issues by moving slowly and steadily with the original four members, providing economic assistance to the realms before allowing their eventual membership.

A further concern, and no doubt the most pressing, is that a union involving most or all of the current Commonwealth would be a political impossibility, with almost every country having broken off colonial ties with the British in order to achieve their independence, which says nothing for the relationships between some of the nations (India and Pakistan or Bangladesh and Pakistan, for example). Of course, it would be entirely possible for individual Commonwealth countries to make a solo membership claim.

When weighing up the potential barriers to entry that many of these Commonwealth countries have, we’re often confronted with the challenge that this new alliance is concerned only with nations that are populated by white folk. Such criticism is fairly lazy and can be easily dealt with. Firstly, as we’ve just seen, there’s absolutely no reason why these countries couldn’t join in the future, so long as efforts were directed at bringing them up to par in the ways just discussed.

All in all, while some of the future membership candidates do carry some weight, it should be pretty clear that the original CANZUK coalition is by far the most practical place to begin. The innumerable similarities between these four countries is really where the magic of this movement will happen.

At first, the project will be challenging enough, and caution will be required. Having said that, and as previously mentioned, CANZUK’s immense potential truly knows no bounds, and, down the line, further options can always be explored.

Let’s be clear: the 4 members (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom) are just the starting point. This group has every intention of opening it up to other nations.

Even if there is only the free trade agreement (no replacement migration), it would still be a killer for Canadian jobs. We can’t possibly compete against nations which are able to produce so cheaply.

10. How Does This Help Our People?

As outlined in previous articles, so-called “free trade” agreements end up outsourcing jobs to the 3rd world, which can produce goods much more cheaply.

Jobs that remain are often lower wage, as employers are now forced to compete with far cheaper foreign players. It creates an incentive for even more employers to outsource, further eliminating jobs.

While touted as economic liberty and economy growing, such deals cause havoc to communities. It’s no comfort to people who suddenly find themselves unemployed.

Remittances & Brain Drain: The Hidden Costs Of Economic Immigration

(Statistics Canada actually estimates this stuff)

(Who says the Government isn’t good for anything?)

(Pew Research estimates $150B left U.S. in 2017)

(UN encourages remittances for economic development)

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for StatsCan data on remittances.
CLICK HERE, for advice from the Government of Canada on how to send your money out of the country. No, not joking.
CLICK HERE, for some estimates by Pew Research, 2019.
CLICK HERE, for the UN encouraging remittances in 2012, while noting the “brain drain” economic immigration causes.

CLICK HERE, for a 2014 article from Toronto Star.
CLICK HERE, for a Vancouver Sun Article, $24B in 2012.
CLICK HERE, for CNBC arguing U.S. needs immigration to prevent “brain drain” in Silicon Valley, CA.
CLICK HERE, for ACORN wanting lower fees.

2. Context For The Article

Why should we care? Aren’t people working for their money, and isn’t it theirs to keep? And aside from fake refugees and welfare cases, this is a valid point.

However, it stands the argument for economic immigration on its head. How so? We are told repeatedly that we need increasing levels of economic immigration every year. GDP will rise, and their will be more economic activity. That money will then keep circulating through our society, creating even more wealth and jobs.

However, remittances do the opposite. This is sending money OUTSIDE of the country, typically to family members. That money is then used to stimulate OTHER economies. True, this is not the worker’s entire wage, but often amounts to a substantial portion of it.

If we had hired Canadian workers instead (or citizens of whatever host country), then this would not a nearly as much of a problem. That spending would still happen, but the money would stay here.

And while individuals and their families may benefit from economic immigration, what happens to the communities they leave behind? If all their talent is scooped up, how do those countries benefit? Instead of improving things themselves, all that is left is aid.

3. The American Situation: $150B in 2017

Pew Research, among many other things, tracks and estimates remittances sent back. The numbers are staggering, particularly in the U.S. An estimated $150 billion was sent outside the country in the year 2017.

Just think. All that money could have funded Donald Trump’s border wall. In fact, it would fund it several times over. Let’s take a look

Rank Nation Est. ($ Billions)
1 Mexico 30.019
2 China 16.141
3 India 11.714
4 Philippines 11.099
5 Vietnam 7.735
6 Guatemala 7.725
7 Nigeria 6.191
8 El Salvador 4.611
9 Dominican Republic 4.594
10 Honduras 3.769

This table only covers the top destinations for the remittances out of the U.S., but the point should be obvious. It doesn’t really stimulate the “American” economy when so much money is being sent overseas. It disproves (to a large degree) that there is any real economic benefit to this immigration system.

Also worth noting is that large amounts of foreign “temporary” labour has the added effect of driving down wages, as more people will be competing for the same job. This creates an employer’s market. And as we all know, these aren’t really “temporary” workers. Most will try to stay.

True, this focuses on the U.S. situation, but it’s worth covering, as Canada faces the same issues that our Southern neighbours do.

4. Toronto Star Article On Topic

$24 billion goes a long way.
According to the World Bank , that’s how much ordinary people living and working here sent to their home countries in 2012: The money may go to a grandmother in Beijing, a niece in Kingston or a cousin in Jaipur.

Canada sends more money, per capita, overseas than other developed countries. (The U.S. is the largest remitter by far, sending nearly a quarter of that global $500 billion: Mexico is their top recipient country, with $22.8 billion, followed by China, which receives about half that.)

For Canada — where, according to Statistics Canada, nearly seven million people living here were born elsewhere — most of the countries that receive remittances aren’t surprising: China. India. The Philippines, where Jacosalem and her sisters send money and packages. But millions of dollars also flow from Canada to European countries, like the United Kingdom, Germany, France and Italy.

For some nations, remittances help keep the country afloat. A 2012 United Nations report says that over the last decade, remittances have “steadily surpassed” foreign direct investment in the world’s least developed countries.

It’s nice to see Toronto Star, of all newspapers, covering this issue. Enormous sums of money are sent out of the country annually. This money is used to support relatives, and it also has the effect of stimulating economics elsewhere (basically everywhere except the host country).

What stops the article from being great, however, it the platitudes towards diversity and multiculturalism near the end. Still, it is an interesting read.

5. Vancouver Sun Article On Remittances

Another interesting article on the subject of remittances came from the Vancouver Sun. It echoed the World Bank’s estimate of $24 billion leaving Canada in 2012, but covered other relevant points as well.

ABUSE AND DUBIOUS MOTIVATIONS
Since the migration of one person to another country is often a family decision, many migrants feel guilty and pressured to send money to people, some of whom they fear may misuse it.
.
Most migrants remit in the belief the money will go to food, housing, health care and education. But reports frequently arise about how hard-earned remittance money is misspent, going to big-screen TVs or even drinking binges.
.
In addition, Canadian economist John Hoddinot says many migrants send remittances to their parents, uncles and aunts to “ensure hereditary rights,” meaning they have to do so for the long haul and have no guarantees their goal will be realized.
.
In worst-case scenarios the pressure on migrants can be abusive. SFU’s researchers discovered some Sri Lankan refugees to Canada were “intimidated and coerced” into sending remittances to a violent terrorist organization, the Tamil Tigers.

Some valid points here. This is a form of socialism, as one or a few people will be working and then sharing it with the entire family, and possibly extended family. It can be difficult for many to control their spending when it was earned by someone else. As well, who is to say the money is even going to the people who it is earmarked for?

Also, the morbid issue of inheritance is touched on. Is the person feeling pressured to remit money to ensure they aren’t left out of their parent’s or grandparent’s will?

HOW DO REMITTANCES AFFECT THE HOST COUNTRY?
Remittances cause billions of dollars a year to leave countries that host foreign-born workers. But that does not overly concern Dilip Ratha, the World Bank economist on remittances. People who remit only do so after they have paid taxes, says Ratha.
.
Emphasizing free-trade philosophy, Ratha says, “After you work and get paid, it is up to you whether you use the money in Canada, or send money to the Philippines, or buy a house, or blow it in a casino.” The $23 billion that leaves Canada each year in remittances represents about 1.3 per cent of the country’s GDP, which is $1.8 trillion.

Yes, it may seem relatively small, but it is exporting a portion of the overall wealth and being used to finance activity elsewhere. This isn’t what the public is told when we hear “economic migration”.

CAN REMITTANCES WEAKEN THE OLD COUNTRY?
UBC planning professor emeritus Prod Laquian laments how his home country’s politicians, in the Philippines, have relied for decades on more than 10 per cent of the country’s 90 million citizens working abroad.
Remittance dependence has broken up millions of Filipino families and allowed the country’s often-corrupt leaders, Laquian says, to hang on to power.
.
It would be preferable, says Laquian, if countries could retain their own industrious workers by creating more stable economies.
.
One “bad side” of remittances, says Henry Lagas, husband of Fatima, “is the people at home don’t try to help themselves. They think, if you live here in Canada, you have big bucks. They don’t know how hard we work to send them money.”
.
Economists believe remittances can be a positive private form of foreign aid to poor countries. But some also calculate in many cases it would be equally financially beneficial for extended families if loved ones could work at even low-paying jobs in their countries of origin — and didn’t feel they had to leave for foreign shores in hopes of sending money back home.

Spot on. It is a form of foreign aid.

Furthermore, it is a brain drain. While the developed country (arguably) receives some benefit from the immigration, what about the nations that are left behind? When their talent and skilled labour leaves for better opportunities, who picks up the slack?

6. U.N. And Resulting Brain Drain

The U.N. fully and freely admits that the money sent back as remittances is used to stimulate other economies. However, it has an interesting critique as to a downside of economic migration: brain drain.

While money flows from LDC migrants are crucial to the advancement of the world’s poorest nations, it is the migrants’ very departure which often contributes to the further debilitation of an LDC’s chances of development.

According to the UNCTAD report, the impact of “brain drain” on LDC countries appears to reinforce international inequalities in the availability of qualified personnel, and to damage LDCs’ prospects for long-term economic growth.

“Brain drain causes great damage to impoverished countries by removing the very people who could most help in stimulating economic growth,” the report states, adding that skilled, highly educated citizens are needed in the poorest countries to help them cope not only with development challenges but also the rising threat of climate change and its after-effects.

In an effort to counter the negative effects of “brain drain,” the UN agency has proposed a knowledge-transfer scheme – known as the investing in diaspora knowledge transfer – aimed at enabling highly skilled members of the LDC diaspora, including an estimated two million university-educated migrants, to drive learning and investment in home countries. The initiative would provide diaspora members with preferential access to the seed capital required to initiate investment back home at preferential interest rates.

This is surprising to see the U.N. of all places write this critique. To be fair, it was 2012. It’s true though. Creating economic incentives to leave a developing nation results in having their talent “poached” by wealthier nations. This leads to them falling even further behind.

Does it help a nation when most with medical or scientific training leave for better opportunities? On a societal level, no. It means less educated and qualified people needed there, and it’s the people who have contributed to that education in the form of taxes.

What is going on here? The Toronto Star, and now U.N. say things that are perfectly reasonable. That same U.N. now advocates for mass migration as a human right, and an entitlement to have social services provided for. Interesting how philosophies change. Don’t worry. I haven’t gone soft of the U.N. But valid arguments are to be commended, regardless of who they come from.

7. Economic Migration As Argument To Prevent Brain Drain In Developed World

This CNBC article argued some of the same points, but came to a different conclusion: continued immigration is necessary to prevent a brain drain from developed countries such as the U.S.

Rangnekar, a cloud computing developer and former Techcrunch50 winner, was working in Silicon Valley on an H-1B visa. Since H-1B visas are tied to jobs, his options were limited: Get a job at another company or try to get a visa on his own and start a company. Both came with one huge drawback: Any change to his job would reset the clock on his green card application. Green cards are allotted by country; the backlog for citizens from populous countries such as India or China is now more than 10 years.

There is a huge backlog in Canada as well, but that is to hide the full scale of mass migration going on. Perhaps the U.S. is in the same dilemma.

“We decided the indefinite wait was not for us, and we started thinking about our next play,” he said.
That next play turned out to be Toronto. “The permanent-resident process (Canada’s green card equivalent) is easy, and if you have all the points, it takes less than six months. The government is working hard to help and improve the start-up scene,” he said.

True, and that outlines a huge problem: getting permanent resident status in Canada is far too easy, and far too quick. We hand it out to people who are still strangers, and whose interest here is at best unclear.

Of course there is no mention of the countless U.S. citizens who are college educated, but struggle to find meaningful work. No mention in the glut of graduates or young people who vastly outnumber the available positions for them. Citizens should come first. There was a time when they did.

Are there not plenty of Americans who could fill those American jobs? Are there not plenty of Canadians who could fill those Canadian jobs? There are, but having a surplus of labour allows wages to be pushed down. It becomes an employer’s market.

8. Statistics Canada And Remittance Estimates

Even StatsCancan taken quite an interest in the remittance issue. It fully admits that it’s a huge industry, and will not slow down soon — if ever. StatsCan tries to get a grasp on the scale of it. Here is a 2018 posting from the Canadian Government.

Many people living in Canada—often immigrants—send international money transfers, also known as remittances, to relatives or friends living in other countries. In 2016, an estimated 1.6 million Canadian households sent at least $500 to their relatives or friends living outside Canada, with transfer amounts averaging $1,823 per household in that year.

In fairness to StatsCan, this is probably a huge underestimate. People aren’t likely to declare anywhere near the full amount if they are worried about taxes, fees, or government clampdown.

The money sent from Canada helps people pay for anything from food and education to medical expenses and crisis relief. Sometimes people are even able to use money from international transfers to improve their economic situation by investing in higher learning or entrepreneurial activities.

Interesting. So by sending this money back, is it in fact helping to finance the next wave of students and “temporary” workers?

The impact can be large, both for people receiving the remittances and the overall economy in the recipient country. According to the World Bank, remittances can amount to as much as 20% to 30% of a country’s gross domestic product (Report on the Remittance Agenda of the G20, 2014).

Nice to hear it being said so bluntly. The remittances are propping up many economies.

However, the cost of sending money―costs such as exchange rate fees and service charges―has long been a source of concern. In Canada, the cost averages 9% of total transfers (World Bank 2014). Given the role that remittances play in international development and poverty reduction, the G20 community, including Canada, has committed to exploring ways to reduce the global average fees for international transfers from 10% to 5%.

Yes, ignore the issue of money leaving the host countries in huge amounts. Let’s just make it cheaper to do so.

9. Thoughts On The Issue

Both Canada and the U.S. are discussed in this article as they face the same issues here. And there are interesting facts about both.

While the World Bank estimate is a starting point, it could be easily far less than the reality. The $24B estimate was from 2012. The Toronto Star and Vancouver Sun articles came in 2014. But it’s now 2019. Assuming that estimate was remotely accurate, how much is it now? $25 billion? $30 billion? $40 billion? This is money that is taken out of Canada, and the U.S. situation is much worse.

It is entirely correct to point out that remittances are a form of foreign aid and they are used to prop up national economies. It’s also fair to wonder where exactly the money goes afterwards, and if families are really the ones benefitting.

The point was raised that economic immigration causes a sort of brain-drain. This is true, as we are giving financial incentives for the most accomplished to leave their homelands instead of helping to improve them. We take only the best (theoretically), when their presence is really needed at home. Nations should be putting their own people to work — meaningful work — before importing foreign labour.

Of course this doesn’t even account for the vast cultural differences and tensions that are created by mass migration to other nations. But that topic has been covered elsewhere.

While remittances do make an argument in favour of economic immigration (helping out families), they also make some compelling arguments against it. Immigration should be about more than just money.

The Case For Leaving The U.N.

(U.N. decided that replacing the populations of certain nations is more important than promoting higher birth rates.)

(Declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples)

(Replacement migration schemes violate Convention On Genocide)

(The outlines of a variety of globalist wealth schemes)

(Agenda 2030, global socialism)

(Plans for the global regulation of the internet)

(Global Citizenship Education. Post nation-state?)

(The ultimate goal is a world government)

While there are an almost endless number of reasons to leave the United Nations, this essay focuses on some of the more obvious ones.

Any true patriot, or nationalist, should be alarmed at the increasing loss of our sovereignty to the U.N. It is done incrementally, which makes it even more dangerous. Previous articles, along with the corresponding links and citations are available on the website. In no particular order, here are the arguments in favour of exiting the UN permanently, and completely.

In December 2018, Canada signed the UN Global Migration Compact in Morocco. This “non-binding” agreement was to set new guidelines in managing mass migration, including some 258 million people now. The prelude to this was the New York Declaration, signed in 2016. These agreements were to confer new rights upon migrants, even those coming illegally. They were also to establish the UN as the global manager of migration.

Note: Canada signs many “non-binding” agreements. Many have been domestically implemented by Governments in Canada, meaning they are not so “non-binding” after all.

However, the Global Migration Compact is a soft target, and obscures the ongoing problem. the push by the UN for almost unending immigration from the 3rd world to the 1st predates that by far. As early back as the 1970s (and likely much longer), the UN has hosted conferences on “replacement migration” in the West. Their solution is never to boost the birth rates of the West. Rather, the solution is always more immigration, regardless of cultural compatibility.

This flies in the face of the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People. That 2008 agreement “Recogniz[ed] the urgent need to respect and promote the inherent rights of indigenous peoples which derive from their political, economic and social structures and from their cultures, spiritual traditions, histories and philosophies, especially their rights to their lands, territories and resources.” Few, if any, Indigenous groups have supported the mass importation of peoples and cultures which are very different from their own.

While the text of the agreement seems fine on the surface, there is a conflict with other UN goals. How exactly are these Indigenous Peoples going to have those rights preserved in the face of mass migration? Consider that many nations govern by majority. By importing large numbers of immigrants with different goals and interests than the Indigenous ones, how will that help? How will diluting their numbers, political and voting power (via mass migration), aid Indigenous Peoples?

UNDRIP raises 2 other questions: (I) Is it only those Indigenous Peoples who have the right to a unique culture and identity, or do others get one as well? (II) Will any industrial or developmental projects be subject to veto power under the agreement? Unfortunately, it answers neither.

While claiming to respect border security and national sovereignty, the actions of the UN speak differently. This includes efforts to facilitate efforts of illegal aliens to enter countries, such as financing and organizing. This is done KNOWING that the host countries do not want illegal entry. In short, the UN aids in invasions of sovereign nations. Furthermore, little to no efforts are made to prevent smuggling or trafficking of people.

3 examples of this include: (a) crossing into Canada via a loophole in the Canada/US Safe Third Country Agreement; (b) caravans trying to enter the US via the border with Mexico; and (c) entering Southern Europe, typically through Greece, Italy, France or Spain.

Interestingly, the UN violates its own Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Article II prohibits acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. It specifically lists:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The UN encourages people in Western nations to have less children, and gives reasons such as preventing climate change. This leads to a lower birth rate. The UN also facilitates mass migration from the 3rd World to the 1st, effectively bringing about rapid demographic change. The UN directly and indirectly attempts to circumvent borders and valid immigration restrictions. Naturally, the UN promotes multiculturalism and tolerance, instead of respecting the host nations.

It can also be plausibly argued that UN efforts to censor criticism of Islam (and the dangers it poses) amount to aiding and abetting with the destruction of religious groups.

And no, this is not sarcasm. Mass migration and replacement migration efforts by the UN bring about the same demographic changes that its Convention on Genocide specifically prohibits. It isn’t necessary to go out and execute a group of people to partake in genocide.

Speaking of criticizing Islam, one alarming initiative is the push to ban so-called religious defamation. Officially, it is to prevent discrimination and harm based on religious affiliation. Despite its harmless sounding name, this is an initiative to ban criticism of Islam on a global scale. Non-binding motions have passed, but have never been implemented, primarily due to free speech concerns. The truth behind the facade is that Islam is an extremely political religion, if it even is a religion. Banning legitimate concerns from being addressed helps those political goals. Much easier to advance an agenda if critics are forcibly silenced.

Canada signed Paris Agreement (a.k.a Paris Accord), again touted as “non-binding”. This agreement would restrict the levels of so-called greenhouse gases a nation is allowed to emit. The developed and developing world would be held to different standards, making the agreement inherently unfair. Note: Carbon Dioxide is plant food, not pollution. Conservative Premiers in Canada have challenged the jurisdiction of the Carbon taxes, while going along with the scam in principle.

While touted as a way to prevent a global catastrophe, the Paris Agreement is really just a revenue generating tool for the UN. Article 9 goes into depth about the “financial mechanisms” and the “financial flow”. The money generated would then be funnelled to the UN, and used to generate trillions more in the commodities market, via Green Bonds. In short, these taxes are used to create a slush fund for the UN IPCC and their allies to generate more wealth.

Aside from the Paris Accord, the UN has many schemes in mind for raising revenue. From the 2012 guide on New Development Financing, here is an estimate of their plans. This chapter would go through these plans, as well as where the money is intended to be spent.

  • SDR (or special drawing rights), from IMF $150B-$270B
  • Carbon taxes, $240B
  • Leveraging SDR, $90B
  • Financial transaction tax, $10B-70B
  • Billionaire tax, $90B
  • Currency trading tax, $30B
  • EU emissions trading scheme, $5B
  • Air passenger levy, $10B
  • Certified emission reduction tax, $2B
  • Current ODA Flow, $120B

These are just some of the schemes which are being dreamed up, but the list is hardly exhaustive.

Of course, why should your pension be any different? The UN Principles for Responsible Investing were wholeheartedly adopted by the Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board. This means that the ESG factors, (Environmental, Social, Governance) must be considered in every transaction, in every investment the Board makes. One would think that the Canadian Government would want to invest the funds into Canadian industries. Or at least most of them. After all, why not promote and encourage local development? Instead, 85% of the money CPPIB invests is done in foreign companies and projects. While this may lead to higher returns in some cases, it does little to boost Canadian development.

The Canadian Pension Plan is hardly the only one that is being used to finance UN agendas abroad. And it is done without the consent (and knowledge, in most cases) of the pension holders themselves. While this comes across as virtuous, the Government is risking the pensions of its people in those foreign ventures.

Canada signed Agenda 2030 in September 2015. It was basically an expanded version of Agenda 21, which had been ratified in June 1992. Agenda 2030 aimed to put the “Sustainable Development Agenda” into every aspect of modern life. Furthermore, it would not be restricted to being a UN project. Nations, and even cities are encouraged to draw up their UN-compliant plans. The 17 SDA goals are to be implemented in all aspects of life.

It would not be restricted to the environment either. Irrelevant issues like gender, youth, people with disabilities, racial justice and abortion were to considered in every project. There is much more of a social justice focus being pushed.

The UN has an odd position on the right to abortion. They have a philosophy about the right to life. There are many noble goals such as: humane treatment of prisoners, due process in court proceedings, trying to prevent suicide, and banning torture. Those are all fine. What is strange is that abortion is considered a human right. Article 6 of the “Right To Life” outlines many beliefs, but promotes the idea that abortion is a human right, not the child that is killed in the process.

Paragraph 9 of Article 6 goes through what steps should be taken to ensure that getting abortions are not too difficult, or too dangerous. Furthermore, States should take steps to ensure that abortion is readily available to prevent women from undertaking abortions in a dangerous manner. These guidelines also apply to adolescent girls.

Interestingly, there is no mention of trying to discourage abortions, or promoting adoption services. Nor does the UN call a spade a spade: abortion is killing a baby. However, it is cloaked as “reproductive care”. The mother has the right to abortions, but the unborn babies have no rights themselves.

Perhaps this attitude is a population control measure.

They say that whoever controls the education system controls the youth, and hence, the future. That is what UNESCO, the UN Educational, Scientific & Cultural Organization seeks to do. It proclaims education to be a human right, as goal #4 of the Sustainable Development Agenda. The group wants to provide universal education to everyone. This encompasses pre-school, to higher education and beyond.

This sounds great, except that UNESCO wants to push “its” version of education on everyone else. It is a global citizenship focus, where people are part of a world community. The UN has its agenda for world domination (as outlined elsewhere in the essay). Much of the education focus will be promoting this narrative.

This is not to say there aren’t societal benefits to increasing the literacy rate, and providing basic education in math and science. There certainly are. It would be naïve, though, to think that this is entirely altruistic. A UN focused curriculum would certainly reinforce the dangers of climate change, the divisiveness of borders, and promote the benefits of mass migration, multiculturalism, sustainable development, speech and internet regulation.

The global citizen education agenda has already leaked into schools in Canada. Not only are the ideas creeping in, but some places, such as Manitoba, openly teach from UNESCO principles. The one-world vision is being promoted to our students.

Beyond formal education, the youth movement is becoming and increasingly important part of the UN agenda. Why? Because children are more impressionable. It is far easier to convince a young person of the dangers of climate change and the need for drastic action. Furthermore, few people would bluntly call them out openly on it. Most older people have been exposed to many hoaxes in their lives, and hence are wise to the scams.

It also explains (at least partly) the drive to drastically lower the voting age form 18 to 16, or 14, or even 8. Young children are viewed not as wise people, but as a voting block to be manipulated. If youth are convinced that the UN is the only hope humanity has, they can vote as a group to prevent this. Certainly, this can alter elections, or at least change the outcome in close ridings or districts.

Finally, there is a push for a UN Parliamentary Assembly. This is a movement to establish an actual world government, able to making binding legislation. In essence, it would be a scaled up version of the European Union, where member states would send representatives to the global body. This is still in the theoretical stages, as it is unclear how this would properly represent national rights. One need only look at the problems of the EU to be turned off to a UNPA.

Although informal talks have been ongoing for a long time, the UN Parliament campaign officially launched in June 2007. That year, Canada’s Foreign Affairs Committee approved the idea in principle. Canada’s current Federal Government claims it has the power to sign “this treaty”, if it ever came to pass.

These issues are hardly exhaustive, but should provide a good outline of what is wrong with being part of the UN. National sovereignty is compromised with every agreement that gets signed. It is not just Canadian autonomy that is eroded, but all nations.

The UN promotes mass migration, and gives little thought to borders or sovereignty. Forced migration leads to cultural tension, and breaks down social cohesion. The UN has many schemes to enrich itself, with the Paris Accord being just one of them. Our pensions are not safe either. Free speech is in danger if a global body were to regulate internet usage, and the ability to criticize ideas such as Islam. Sustainable Development Agendas, such as Agenda 2030 are designed to regulate nearly every type of activity in society. The right to life is enshrined, unless it means life of unborn children — in which case killing him/her is a human right. Children are being brainwashed by global citizen education, and ever worse, they become “useful idiots” for their causes. And the ultimate goal is a world government.

You think your interests aren’t being represented now? Will that improve if your nation became just one of 195 voices? Probably not.

Of course, there is one final insult to add: some of the great human rights abusers sit on the UN Human Rights Council. Some of the nations in which women have no rights are on the UN Women’s Council. This would be a parody if it wasn’t serious.

There is only one sensible solution: leave the UN completely.

Replacement Migration In Canada Since 2004

(From 2018 Report to Parliament)

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for the 2004 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2005 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2006 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2007 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2008 report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2009 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2010 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2011 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2012 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2013 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2014 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2015 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2016 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2017 Report to Parliament.
CLICK HERE, for the 2018 Report to Parliament.

CLICK HERE, for archived listings.

CLICK HERE, for earlier piece on immigration rates in 2017.
CLICK HERE, for CDN immigration at 1M/year.
CLICK HERE, for more detail on replacement migration.

2. Quote From 2007 Report (Page 3)

Canada has one of the largest and best-known permanent immigration programs in the world, with approximately 250,000 new immigrants coming to this country each year. In addition to these newcomers, a further 200,000 temporary foreign workers and international students come to Canada to help respond to labour-market needs, support Canadian businesses and influence our culturally diverse communities.

Balancing the economic, family-reunification and refugee components of our immigration program, Canada welcomed over 251,000 newcomers in 2006. In 2008, we expect to welcome somewhere in the range of 240,000 to 265,000 newcomers.

This is important for a very simple reason: disclosure. We are told that the rate during this time has been about 250,000 people. But it’s not. The majority of so-called “temporary” worker and student positions want to remain in Canada. This results in a doubling of the actual immigration rate, if not more.

Live-in Caregiver Program The Live-in Caregiver Program allows Canadian families to hire temporary workers from abroad to provide live-in home care to a child, an elderly person or individuals with disabilities when there is a demonstrated shortage of workers already in Canada who are able to fill available positions. In 2013, 4,671 TFWs were admitted under this program. Caregivers first come to Canada on a temporary basis and become eligible to apply for permanent residence in Canada after working for two years as a live-in caregiver. In 2013, CIC admitted 8,797 live-in caregivers for permanent residence.

Also worth noting in the 2014, live-in caregiver is a pathway to PR program.

3. Information On “Diversity” Rates

The diversity in data recording systems and legislation makes international migration statistics difficult to compare. However, if immigration is expressed in terms of a foreign-born population, Canada can be compared to the United States and Australia. In 2001, Australia’s foreign-born population was 4,482,000, or 23 percent of its total population. Canada’s was 5,448,485, or 18.4 percent of its total population. The United States had a foreign-born population of 31,811,000, but this high number represented only 11 percent of its total population

The 2004 report claims that 18.4% of Canada’s population had been born outside of Canada.

4. Countries Of Origin For PR

So, where are people coming from? Let’s get a better grasp of the situation.

(Below: PR, top 10 countries of origin in 2004 Report)

Rank Country Percent (%)
#1 China 16.3
#2 India 11.1
#3 Pakistan 5.6
#4 Philippines 5.4
#5 S. Korea 3.2
#6 U.S. 2.7
#7 Iran 2.6
#8 Romania 2.5
#9 U.K. & Colonies 2.4
#10 Sri Lanka 2.0

(Below: PR, top 10 countries of origin in 2007 Report)

Rank Country Percent (%)
#1 China 13.2
#2 India 12.2
#3 Philippines 7.0
#4 Pakistan 4.9
#5 U.S.A. 4.3
#6 Iran 2.8
#7 U.K. 2.6
#8 S. Korea 2.5
#9 Colombia 2.3
#10 France 2.0

(Below: PR, top 10 countries of origin in 2010 Report)

Rank Country Percent (%)
#1 China 12
#2 Philippines 11
#3 India 10
#4 U.S.A 4
#5 U.K. & Colonies 4
#6 France 3
#7 Pakistan 2
#8 Iran 2
#9 S. Korea 2
#10 Morocco 2

(Below: PR, top 10 countries of origin in 2013 Report)

Rank Country Percent (%)
#1 China 12.8
#2 Philippines 12.7
#3 India 11.2
#4 Pakistan 3.9
#5 U.S.A 3.7
#6 France 3.2
#7 Iran 2.5
#8 U.K. & Colonies 2.5
#9 Haiti 2.2
#10 S. Korea 2.1

(Below: PR, top 10 countries of origin in 2016 Report)

Rank Country Percent (%)
#1 Philippines 18.7
#2 India 14.5
#3 China 7.2
#4 Iran 4.3
#5 Pakistan 4.2
#6 Syria 3.6
#7 U.S.A. 3.0
#8 France 2.0
#9 U.K. & Colonies 2.0
#10 Nigeria 2.0

Note: Just to clarify, the report year actually references the total entries made in the year prior. Example, 2015 report actually covers 2014 totals.

5. “Official” Government Numbers

Report Year Numbers
2004 221,352
2005 235,824
2006 262,236
2007 251,649
2008 236,758
2009 247,243
2010 252,179
2011 280,681
2012 248,748
2013 257,887
2014 258,953
2015 260,404
2016 271,845
2017 296,346
2018 331,226

Note: Just to clarify, the report year actually references the total entries made in the year prior. Example, 2015 report actually covers 2014 totals.

6. “Temporary” Foreign Workers

Report Year Numbers
2004 82,151
2005 90,668
2006 99,146
2007 112,658
2008 165,198
2009 192,519
2010 178,478
2011 182,276
2012 190,842
2013 213,573
2014 221,310
2015 95,086
2016 73,016
2017 78,402
2018 78,788

Note: Just to clarify, the report year actually references the total entries made in the year prior. Example, 2015 report actually covers 2014 totals.

Note: For 2016-2018 there is a discrepancy between the reports and the 2018 charts. The 2018 chart is used as it is the latest, and likely most accurate.

Temporary Foreign Workers spiked under the Conservatives. They sure seem to love their cheap foreign labour.

7. Student Visas Issued

Report Year Numbers
2004 61,293
2005 56,536
2006 57,476
2007 61,703
2008 64,636
2009 79,509
2010 85,140
2011 96,157
2012 98,383
2013 104,810
2014 111,865
2015 127,698
2016 219,143
2017 265,111
2018 317,328

Note: Just to clarify, the report year actually references the total entries made in the year prior. Example, 2015 report actually covers 2014 totals.

8. International Mobility Program

Report Year Numbers
2004 100,000
2005 100,000
2006 100,000
2007 100,000
2008 100,000
2009 100,000
2010 100,000
2011 100,000
2012 100,000
2013 100,000
2014 100,000
2015 197,924
2016 175,967
2017 207,829
2018 224,033

Note: Just to clarify, the report year actually references the total entries made in the year prior. Example, 2015 report actually covers 2014 totals.

In 2014, 95,086 individuals were admitted to Canada under the TFW Program and 197,924 under the International Mobility Program. In addition, 46,520 TFW Program and International Mobility Program work permit holders transitioned to permanent residence under an Economic Class program.

In case anyone has any doubts, International Mobility Program “does” have a pathway to permanent residence.

SIMPLIFYING ASSUMPTION: Since the reports do not list every year of the I.M.P., a flat amount of 100,000 will be added for other years. Yes, this is likely lowballing it, but have to do something. There is no way the programs weren’t running. At least the Trudeau Liberals were honest enough to post the numbers

9. Total “Temporary” Categories

Report Year Numbers
2004 243,444
2005 247,204
2006 256,622
2007 274,361
2008 329,834
2009 372,028
2010 363,618
2011 378,433
2012 389,225
2013 418,383
2014 433,175
2015 420,708
2016 468,126
2017 551,342
2018 620,149

DISCLAIMER: It is true that not all TFW, students and International Mobility Program participants will stay. Many will leave. But a lot will either transition into permanent resident, or find another way to stay in Canada.

10. Stated V.S. Actual Intake

Report Year Stated Imm Temporary Actual Imm
2004 221,352 243,444 464,796
2005 235,824 247,204 483,028
2006 262,236 256,622 518,858
2007 251,649 274,361 526,010
2008 236,758 329,834 566,592
2009 247,243 372,028 619,271
2010 252,179 363,618 615,797
2011 280,681 378,433 659,114
2012 248,748 389,225 637,973
2013 257,887 418,383 676,270
2014 258,953 433,175 692,128
2015 260,404 420,708 681,112
2016 271,845 468,126 739,971
2017 296,346 551,342 847,688
2018 331,226 620,149 951,375

Note: Just to clarify, the report year actually references the total entries made in the year prior. Example, 2015 report actually covers 2014 totals.

11. CPC Supports Temps Becoming PR

Official policy of the Conservative Party of Canada is to transition “temporary” workers into permanent residents wherever possible. Furthermore, party policy is to endorse CANZUK, the globalist free-movement agreement which will erase borders between as many as 50 nations.

Currently, there are no specific policies to address immigration rates in 2019.

12. PPC Doesn’t Address This

Thing is: immigration was NEVER ~250,000/year when Harper was PM. With all of the “temporary” groups which lead to permanent resident status, it has always been double that. After 3 years of campaigning on Harper-level immigration, Bernier has decided to “reduce from 350K to 100-150K. But again, immigration levels aren’t 250-350K, so this pledge must be taken with an ounce of salt.

13. Some Do Address True Rates

(Stephen Garvey, of National Citizens Alliance, is willing to address the full scale of mass migration into Canada)

Honourable mention to Rants Derek, Immigration Watch Canada, and Spencer Fernando. Faith Goldy, did address it, but the video has since been taken down.

14. Final Thoughts

This is an unpleasant subject to cover, but it has to be done. People need to know the full truth about the replacement agenda going on in Canada.

Worth noting, that each of these reports to parliament includes a lengthy preamble about multiculturalism and diversity. However, it never talks about cohesiveness and a common culture. It is a common IDENTITY that bonds people (race, culture, ethnicity, language, religion, customs, heritage, etc….). Civic nationalism, or VALUES based societies, are doomed to crumble.

While TFW were much higher under the CPC, the Liberals have decided to crank up the student visas and begin issuing more International Mobility Visas. Guess globalists have their preferences.

Conservatism and Libertarianism are globalist ideologies. So arguing over who is the “real” conservative or libertarian serves no real purpose.

It’s difficult to swallow that the aim of these policies is to break up the country along ethnic and cultural lines. But it’s the most logical explanation.

The real immigration rates need to be discussed openly. It’s not 250,000 under Harper, and it’s not 350,000 under Trudeau. You are being lied to.

Free Trade #5: Why Trump Left The Trans-Pacific Partnership

(Straight from the source)

(Trump: T.P.P. is “rape” of our country)

(Trump says T.P.P. would have to be much better)

(Video from Brookings Creative Lab, omits key details)

(Government link for TPP, now referred to as CPTPP)

(Canada’s Bill C-79, October 2018)

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Free Trade #1, thoughts on Canada-China free trade.
CLICK HERE, for Free Trade #2, intro to NAFTA, problems involved.
CLICK HERE, for Free Trade #3: more on NAFTA’s hidden costs.
CLICK HERE, for Free Trade #4: Bill C-79, Trans-Pacific Partnership

CLICK HERE, for Bill C-79.
CLICK HERE, for the Government website on CPTPP

CLICK HERE, for a Forbes article on the subject.
CLICK HERE, for Brookings Institute take on events.
CLICK HERE, for an NBC News commentary on T.P.P.
CLICK HERE, for a Business Insider article on T.P.P.
CLICK HERE, for a Reuters article on T.P.P. withdrawal.

2. Media Reviews On T.P.P. Withdrawal

President Trump believes otherwise. Throughout his election campaign, he referred to the TPP as a “horrible deal”, and would withdraw the U.S. from it when elected. When he became president, getting the U.S. out of the TPP was one Trump’s first acts, since he believed that it steals American jobs while benefiting large corporations.

Trump wasn’t entirely wrong. Companies from developed countries that signed up to the deal, such as Japan and the United States, would have outsourced to developing countries that have low-cost labor and fewer labor laws, such as Vietnam. In which case, unemployment in developed countries could have risen.

The Forbes article very bluntly points out that Donald Trump viewed TPP not as an opportunity, but as a threat to American jobs and American prosperity. While corporate heads would have gained from the treaty, those gains would not be shared with the U.S. public. The following NBC article, goes on to explain further.

As divisive as that language sounds, whoever got into the White House was likely to ditch the TPP. Hillary Clinton, adopting a progressive issue from Bernie Sanders, also came out against the deal during her run, saying in August, “I will stop any trade deal that kills jobs or holds down wages, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I oppose it now, I’ll oppose it after the election and I’ll oppose it as president.”

The idea was that if everyone brought down taxes on exported goods, U.S. companies would pay less for imports — while benefiting from cheaper labor overseas.

“Companies love free trade,” said Velshi. “Companies get to share profits with shareholders, the government gets the taxes, but workers don’t get their fair share.”

The article is extremely critical of free trade agreements, such as T.P.P. In short, jobs can and are outsourced to the 3rd world because it is so much cheaper. In turn, workers on the developed world are forced to accept much lower standards of living in order to compete.

Other media reports much the same content. Overall, Donald Trump believes that T.P.P. would be incredibly harmful to America as a whole.

In a Reuters article, Trump laid it out very plainly what he thinks of exploitive trade agreements:

“A company that wants to fire all of its people in the United States, and build some factory someplace else, and then thinks that that product is going to just flow across the border into the United States – that’s not going to happen,” he said.

Is this an attack on international trade as a whole? No. It is a rejection of lopsided treaties which one side benefits greatly at the expense of another. It is not a rejection of trade agreements which are MUTUALLY beneficial.

3. “National Treatment” Clause Returns

The so-called “national treatment” provisions were a very harmful part of NAFTA, which was signed in 1995. It allowed governments and companies to sue other governments if their business plans or environmental laws were considered unprofitable. From Chapter 11 of NAFTA.

Article 1102: National Treatment
1. Each Party shall accord to investors of another Party treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments.
2. Each Party shall accord to investments of investors of another Party treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to investments of its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments.
3. The treatment accorded by a Party under paragraphs 1 and 2 means, with respect to a state or province, treatment no less favorable than the most favorable treatment accorded, in like circumstances, by that state or province to investors, and to investments of investors, of the Party of which it forms a part.
4. For greater certainty, no Party may:
(a) impose on an investor of another Party a requirement that a minimum level of equity in an enterprise in the territory of the Party be held by its nationals, other than nominal qualifying shares for directors or incorporators of corporations; or
(b) require an investor of another Party, by reason of its nationality, to sell or otherwise dispose of an investment in the territory of the Party.

This clause has caused all sorts of headaches in the name of “free trade”. (See Free Trade #2 for more details). No longer are there countries, but merely “economic zones”.

Now take a look at the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Article 9.4: National Treatment
1. Each Party shall accord to investors of another Party treatment no less favourable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments in its territory.
2. Each Party shall accord to covered investments treatment no less favourable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to investments in its territory of its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments.
3. For greater certainty, the treatment to be accorded by a Party under paragraphs 1 and 2 means, with respect to a regional level of government, treatment no less favourable than the most favourable treatment accorded, in like circumstances, by that regional level of government to investors, and to investments of investors, of the Party of which it forms a part.

Look familiar? It should. It is virtually the identical language that formed the basis of lawsuits (many successful), in Canada. Being a part of this agreement means signing away a good deal of your sovereignty.

4. Impact Of Previous “Free Trade” Deals

The Economic Policy Institute, a think-tank in Washington, releases reports and findings related to trade and commerce. Here are some of the their more interesting reports.

This one claims that trade with China has grown the bilateral trade deficit between 2001 and 2017 cost 3.4 million U.S. jobs, with losses in every state and congressional district. Keep in mind this wasn’t really free trade, but liberal trade.

This one claimed in 2003 that NAFTA had led to a net loss of 879,000 jobs in the United States, with most of them going to Mexico, where wages are much lower.

This one outlines the growing trade deficit with Canada and Mexico under NAFTA. While some deficit or surplus is to be expected in trade, it should never be one sided.

This one is another report about the mounting job losses as work continues to be outsourced, hurting American families.

This one outlined many harmful effects of free trade policies. One particularly rough one was forcing workers to accept much lower pay in order to keep their jobs. These trade policies bring cheap foreign labour into the equation as new competitors, and have the effect of driving down wages.

There are many other articles on these topics, but the 5 provided here should be enlightening on the dark side of putting profit over societies.

5. Currency Manipulation In “Free Trade”

Donald Trump has repeatedly called out the practice of currency manipulation, particularly with China. By manipulating the currency, nations can sell goods at what amounts to a much lower price.

First, a bit of background. The Chinese currency, called the renminbi, is what’s known as a policy currency. That means that unlike the U.S. dollar, which rises and falls in value in free market trading, the currency’s value against the dollar is set by the People’s Bank of China, an arm of the Chinese government.

While the PBOC has gradually tried to make the value of the renminbi more reflective of market forces, setting trading bands in which the renminbi is allowed to fluctuate every day, in the last analysis it is still under government control. Put another way, the value of the renminbi is manipulated by the government and always has been. It’s just that when Beijing was manipulating the value so that the renminbi appreciated against the dollar in the last few years, nobody in Washington complained.

When the Chinese Government manipulates its currency, it does so in order to artificially cheapen the costs of its products, and to gain an advantage over competitors.

In a “free market” world, this sort of thing should never be allowed.

It’s not free trade if all the nations involved aren’t playing by the same rules. It causes resentment and reduces goodwill.

6. Populism Is Protecting Your People

Leaders should protect the employment prospects of their citizens. The livelihood of the nation depends on there being opportunities for people to work and create lives for themselves. Countries should not be signing one-sided agreements which benefits others exclusively to the detriment of themselves.

So-called economic libertarianism promotes free trade throughout the world. This is sold as economic freedom, but it glosses over the hard truths involved. Outsourcing the employment of your nation is just corporate globalism. There is nothing populist or nationalist about throwing your people out of work en masse.

Perhaps Tucker Carlson lays it out the best. He uses the example of automated truck driving putting millions of drivers out of work.

Donald Trump’s pledge to pull the U.S. out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership was the right decision for the American public. He promised to bring jobs back to the country and create opportunities at home, and that was extremely popular.

In fairness, he has dangled the possibility of rejoining at some point, though the terms would have to be much better.

Central Banking, Part 4: Response From Finance Department Questions On National Debt

(30% of Canada’s debt held by foreigners)

(Archived debt information is available)

(If data hard to see, written information in Section #4)

(Will Abram explains the issues here)

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Part I, To Restore 1934 Bank of Canada Act
CLICK HERE, for Part II, the COMER Case.
CLICK HERE, for Part III, US Federal Reserve (End The Fed)

CLICK HERE, for StatsCan data on National debt.
CLICK HERE, for the Bank for International Settlements.
CLICK HERE, for BIS mainpage.
CLICK HERE, for the 60 banks which own BIS.
CLICK HERE, for the Basil Committee.

CLICK HERE, for link to archived debt reports.
CLICK HERE, for archived documents going back to 1995.
CLICK HERE, for reference tables.

CLICK HERE, for response from Elections Canada

2. First Email Back

Hello ****,

1) Budget documents going back to 1995, they are available here: https://www.budget.gc.ca/pdfarch/index-eng.html
2) The Debt Management Reports and Fiscal Reference Tables may be useful. I am still looking to see if I can find more. You may want to try reaching out to the Bank of Canada for more information.

Regards,

3. Second Email Back

Hello again ****,

After asking around, here is what I was told regarding your second question:

Government of Canada marketable debt, which includes treasury bills and marketable bonds, is distributed cost-effectively through competitive auctions to Government Securities Distributors, a group of banks and investment dealers in the domestic market. These Government Securities Distributors then resell securities bought at auctions to their wholesale and retail clients in the secondary market.

Ultimately, the majority of Government of Canada debt is held by Canadian households, institutions and governments. The participation of international investors in Government of Canada securities markets is of benefit to Canadians, as they serve to increase competition, increase the diversity of the Government’s investor base, and ultimately reduce borrowing costs for Canadian taxpayers.

For more information, you may also wish to review the Debt Management Report 2017-2018 (e.g., Chart 9) at https://www.fin.gc.ca/pub/dmr-rgd/index-eng.asp.

Hope this helps.

Regards,

4. Information On Debt Summary

This chart, and the information from it is provided by the sources which the Ministry of Finance has provided here.

Chart 1
Snapshot of the Federal Balance Sheet, as at March 31, 2018
Unmatured debt
.
Market debt
$704.3 billion
.
(marketable bonds, treasury bills, retail debt, and foreign currency debt)
Market debt value adjustments and capital lease obligations
$16.9 billion
.
Other liabilities
.
Pensions and other liabilities
$281.4 billion
.
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities
$154.8 billion
.
Total Liabilities $1,157.4 billion
.
Less financial assets
$398.6 billion (cash, reserves, loans)
.
Net debt
$758.8 billion
.
Less non-financial assets
$87.5 billion (capital assets)
.
Federal debt
$671.3 billion (accumulated deficit)

5. Looking At The Debt Tables

Recent report is here. See page 9.

The staff was helpful enough to direct me to this table, and hence, the data within it. Now, let’s see how much interest or “Public Debt Charges” we have been paying off since 1966.

Year Interest ($Mil) Cum. Since 1966
1966-67 1,162 1,162
1967-68 1,286 2,448
1968-69 1,464 3,912
1969-70 1,694 5,606
1970-71 1,887 7,493
1971-72 2,110 9,603
1972-73 2,110 11,703
1973-74 2,565 14,278
1974-75 3,238 17,516
1975-76 3,970 21,486
1976-77 4,708 26,194
1977-78 5,531 31,725
1978-79 7,024 38,749
1979-80 8,494 47,243
1980-81 10,658 57,901
1981-82 15,114 73,015
1982-83 16,903 89,918
1983-84 20,430 110,348
1984-85 20,430 110,348
1985-86 27,657 138,005
1986-87 28,718 166,723
1987-88 31,233 197,956
1988-89 35,532 233,488
1989-90 41,246 274,734
1990-91 45,034 319,768
1991-92 43,861 363,629
1992-93 41,332 404,961
1993-94 40,099 445,060
1994-95 44,185 489,245
1995-96 49,407 538,652
1996-97 47,281 585,933
1997-98 43,120 629,053
1998-99 43,303 672,356
1999-00 43,384 715,740
2000-01 43,384 715,740
2001-02 39,651 755,391
2002-03 37,270 792,661
2003-04 35,769 828,430
2004-05 43,384 871,814
2005-06 33,772 905,586
2006-07 33,945 939,531
2007-08 33,325 972,856
2008-09 28,269 1,001,125
2009-10 26,652 1,027,687
2010-11 28,610 1,056,297
2011-12 29,038 1,085,335
2012-13 25,533 1,110,868
2013-14 24,729 1,135,597
2014-15 24,207 1,159,804
2015-16 21,837 1,181,641
2016-17 21,232 1,202,873
2017-18 21,889 1,224,762

Note: This only applies to interest payments on the NATIONAL debt. The Provinces, particularly Ontario and Quebec, have been piling on their own debt.

To be fair, we can largely exclude the payments before 1974, which is when Trudeau Sr. forced fiat banking on Canada. That would remove $14,278M. leaving Canada with $1,210,484 in interest paid as of 2018. $1.21 trillion, just in interest (or public debt charges).

Although I didn’t get names of specific bond holders, it was not a total loss. Our debt is bought an sold, just like a collections agent would do, and about 30% is sold to foreign buyers.

6. No Political Will To End Debt

Although political parties pay lip service to the idea of balancing a budget, they tap-dance around the idea of paying it off.

Why though? If merely “balancing the budget” means paying interest payments forever, why is that all that is talked about? Why is this open-ended drain on the public purse not discussed?

Anyone who has ever held a credit card knows that it is senseless to let the charges keep accumulating. Eventually, the interest and fees will exceed the cost of the initial charge.

So why DON’T politicians want to get rid of our debt? Are these “interest” payments really a form of money laundering? Are they being told (or paid off) not to get rid of the debt?

7. Reason Behind The Debt: Fiat Banking

The idea of dumping central (fiat banking) is never brought up. Even so called “deficit hawks” never address the reason of why this exists is the first place. They never talk about the Bank for International Settlements, nor do they discuss the Basel Committee.

In 1974, Pierre Trudeau changed Canada’s monetary system, and did so without a democratic mandate. Since the 1934 Bank of Canada Act, the Federal Government had effectively been borrowing money from itself. This meant that interest payments amounted to the Canadian public being paid. See PART 1 of the series for more information.

However, since 1974, Canada has been borrowing from private lenders. Quite simply, we now have to pay other parties, instead of ourselves.

The reason for doing this has never been made clear. Vague claims have been made about stability of currency and inflation control. But a cause-and-effect has never actually been demonstrated. Nor has any benefit been shown that would counter the endless repayments, and ever growing debt.

And while this article is aimed at the Federal Government, the Provinces do not get a pass. More on them in another article.

8. Who’s Pushing For Continuation Of Fiat?

Remember this quote from the Ministry of Finance. Though specific people, institutions and parties were not named, it is reasonable to assume that this is a profitable business. After all, it is buying and selling — and reselling — national debt on the open market.

Government of Canada marketable debt, which includes treasury bills and marketable bonds, is distributed cost-effectively through competitive auctions to Government Securities Distributors, a group of banks and investment dealers in the domestic market. These Government Securities Distributors then resell securities bought at auctions to their wholesale and retail clients in the secondary market.

Ultimately, the majority of Government of Canada debt is held by Canadian households, institutions and governments. The participation of international investors in Government of Canada securities markets is of benefit to Canadians, as they serve to increase competition, increase the diversity of the Government’s investor base, and ultimately reduce borrowing costs for Canadian taxpayers.

The Ministry has been contacted again asking for specific names. If they won’t release any, then perhaps a freedom of information request will be needed. However, it’s unwise to drop names without any proof.

It’s reasonable to believe that the people profiting the most from this scheme are the ones pushing to keep fiat going. If any specifics are provided, they will be added as an update.

Max Boykoff’s Revenge On Science: Creative Climate Communications, Part I

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for the Climate Change Scam Part I.
CLICK HERE, for Part II, the Paris Accord.
CLICK HERE, for Part III, Saskatchewan Appeals Court Reference.
CLICK HERE, for Part IV, Controlled Opposition to Carbon Tax.
CLICK HERE, for Part V, UN New Development Funding.
CLICK HERE, for Part VI, Disruptive Innovation Framework.
CLICK HERE, for Part VII, Blaming Arson On Climate Change.
CLICK HERE, for Part VIII, Review Of Green New Deal.
CLICK HERE, for Part VIII(II), Sunrise Movement & Green New Deal.
CLICK HERE, for Part IX, Propaganda Techniques, Max Boykoff.
CLICK HERE, for Part X, GG Pollution Pricing Act & Bill C-97.
CLICK HERE, for part XI, Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai Explains Paris Accord

2. US & Canadian Copyright Laws

Disclaimer #1: The Canadian Copyright Act has a “fair dealing” provision, which allows for copyrighted material to at times be used for specific purposes: research, private study, education, parody, satire, criticism, review and news reporting. Click Here and also Click Here for more information.

Disclaimer #2: The U.S. Copyright Act has a “fair use” provision, which states that the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. Click Here to read the text.

This should be obvious, but just to clarify, this article is about criticizing, commenting on, teaching and researching purposes.

3. About The Author, Maxwell Boykoff

His professional biography is available here.

Max’s research and creative work has developed primarily in two arenas:
(1) cultural politics of science, climate change and environmental issues = this refers to ways that attitudes, intentions, beliefs and behaviors of individuals and groups shape (and are shaped by) the perceived spectrum of possible action in the context of science-policy, climate change and environmental issues.
.
(2) transformations of carbon-based economies and societies (with emphasis on the interface of science and practical action) = this refers to decarbonization politics, policies and decision-making, with particular interest in how these activities find meaning in people’s everyday lives, as well as how they, in turn, feed back into science-policy decision-making.

Feel free to check into his other works.
Now for the book itself.

4. Table Of Contents

(1) Here And Now
(2) How We Know What We Know
(3) Do The Right Thing
(4) Ways Of Learning, Ways Of Knowing
(5) It’s Not You, It’s Me…. Actually It’s Us
(6) Academic Climate Advocacy & Activism
(7) Silver Buckshot
(8) Search For Meaning

5. Quoting Creative Climate Communications

(From back cover) Conversations about climate change at the science-policy interface and in our lives have been stuck for some time. This handbook integrates lessons from the social sciences and humanities to more effectively make connections through issues, people and things that everyday citizens care about. Readers will come away with an enhanced understanding that there is no “silver bullet” to communications about climate change; instead a “silver buckshot” approach is needed where strategies effectively reach different audiences in different contexts.

One thing that will be clear right away: this is not about using scientific methods to PROVE that climate change is a serious threat. Rather, it is about using scientific methods to CONVINCE people that climate change is a serious threat. Very different things.

We live in remarkable times. Amidst high-quality and well-funded research into the causes and consequences of climate change, conversations in our lives — and climate communications — are stuck. Consciously or unconsciously, a feeling of complacency has often weighed on our collective and our individual selves.

Another point made early on, Boykoff expresses no doubt whatsoever in the “scientific findings” of the climate change movement. The entire focus of the book is about using social science and humanities research to persuade people this is a problem.

(Page 2) Responding to these emergent needs, in recent years has been a blossoming of valuable research in the peer-review literature addressing various elements of this larger challenge. More research groups, organizations, institutions and practitioners around the world have increasingly explored creative spaces of climate communication to better understand what works where, with whom (what audiences), when and why.

Boykoff makes an important note here. He is not by any means a revolutionary here. “Climate communications” is a growing field, with people all over the world trying to determine better methods for “selling” the climate change claims. In short, this is research about marketing. Not science.

(Page 2) Creative approaches involve the deployment of multimodal communications. A mode is a system of choices used to communicate meaning. What might count as a mode is an open-ended set, ranging cross a number of systems, including but not limited to language, image, color, typography, music, voice, quality, dress, posture, gestures, special resources, perfume and cuisine.

What superficial points are listed?

  • language
  • image
  • colour
  • typography
  • music
  • voice
  • quality
  • dress
  • posture
  • gestures
  • special resources
  • perfume
  • cuisine

We are still just on the second page, and already getting an introduction into the very superficial traits which can subtly be used to convince people of our arguments.

Forget facts, research, data, and logic. This is all about presenting a good sales pitch.

(Page 3) Among many elements seeping into the environments, I consider the dynamics that shape creative and potentially effective messages as well as messengers of those climate change communications. Over time, broad references to communications through media platforms have generally pointed to television, films, books, fliers, magazines, radio and internet for pathways for largescale communications.

Additional modes and manifestations of communications also include (analyses of) documentary films about dystopian futures, stand-up comedy about climate and cultures, podcasts about climate science and policy interactions.

Boykoff notes the traditional forms of media, but laments that they are not enough by themselves to do the job. The job of course, is “pitching” the climate change agenda.

(Page 4) Meeting people where they are takes carefully planned and methodical work. It does not mean “dumbing things down” for different audiences. Through this process of assessment of research and practice in these areas, conversations can more capably seek answers to a provocative question Mike Hulme posted in 2009, “How does the idea of climate change the way we arrive at and achieve our personal aspirations and our collective social goals?”

(Page 5) KNOW THY AUDIENCE
These creative (climate) communication endeavors must start with consideration of the audience. These may be imagined, (un)intended or actual audiences. Researchers and practitioners have increasingly paid attention to differentiated audiences as key components to deliberate development of effective communication.

Knowing who your audience is actually a useful piece of advice, regardless of circumstances. However, in context of this book, it comes across as manipulation.

(Page 6) Audience segmentation and consequent message alteration has been a part of marketing and associated communications strategies since the 1950s (Smith 1956, Slater 1996). Audience segmentation endeavours as they relate to climate change communications, have proliferated over the last decade (Leal Finho 2019).

This book is about marketing strategies of climate change “communications”. Nothing more. It is about manipulative techniques designed to persuade by non-factual means.

6. Where Things Go From Here

The book is 300 pages, the last 60 of which are references. No doubt that an awful lot of work has gone into this. Yes, the intro article is relatively short, but it is setting the stage for later. Sequels will be longer and quote much more.

As alluded to earlier, this is really a book about marketing. It’s not about research done to prove that humans are causing climate change, but rather research to CONVINCE people that they are.

Rather than going into environmental research, the book delves in sociological and social psychological research methods. It looks at work previously done in the fields of persuasion, and applies those principles to “climate communications”.

Boykoff appears to have no doubts about humans causing climate change. Nor does he seem to have any reservations about using these social studies techniques to pursue what is essentially a political goal. He straightforwardly admits that it’s a growing field, and many have contributed to this area of research.

Boykoff admits that this area is “selling” or “pitching” the climate change narrative. While acknowledging it is a start, he has no problems with it. Seems the scientists have given up on the research area of climate science, and are throwing their resources into the marketing aspect.

It’s both nefarious and creepy.

UN Global Taxation Efforts & Schemes

(Ways to raise money)

(This is the Paris Accord, and “Conservative” Garnett Genuis’ dishonest spin in supporting it in Parliament.)

(Shiva Ayyadurai, Republican and former Senate Candidate explains how the Carbon tax really works.)

(UN supports global tax to raise $400B)

(Details of proposed global tax scheme)

(Pensions are also being eyed as a funding source)

(UN Environment Programme)

(Green finance for developing countries)

(International Chamber of Commerce)

(Addis Ababa Action Agenda)

(Global tax avoidance measures)

(Why stop at just billions?)

These are not the only examples, but should serve as an illustration for the “taxation” efforts the UN is undertaking in order to finance its various agendas. Of course its ultimate goal is world domination.

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for New Development Financing: Carbon Tax $250B/year
CLICK HERE, for UN “Int’l Tax” To Raise $400B.
CLICK HERE, for Paris Accord “Financial Flows”.
CLICK HERE, for Addis Ababa, Financing Devel’t.
CLICK HERE, for Int’l Chamber of Commerce, Tax, SDA Goals.
CLICK HERE, for ICC Position on Tax, SDA Goals.
CLICK HERE, for Green Financing, Sustainable Development.
CLICK HERE, for Development Financing, “Cooperation” To Combat Tax Avoidance.
CLICK HERE, for Leveraging African Pension Plans.
CLICK HERE, for Finance 2030 SDG, $5-7T Needed.
CLICK HERE, for UN Tax Treaties Changes.
CLICK HERE, for: From Billions To Trillions
CLICK HERE, for Sustainable Financing Report.
CLICK HERE, for UN Enviro Program, Finance Initiative.
CLICK HERE, for Capital Development Finance.
CLICK HERE, for UN Join Staff Pension Fund.
CLICK HERE, for the UN Credit Union

CLICK HERE, for earlier review of Paris Accord.
CLICK HERE, for previous article debunking Paris Accord
CLICK HERE, for review New Development Financing.
CLICK HERE, for New Development Financing, the bait-and-switch.

CLICK HERE, for a recent article by Uppity Peasants on the UN Environment Programme. Also, go check out the site.
CLICK HERE, for a guest post by: BOLD Like a Leopard. This covered the “Green New Deal”, the US proposal.

2. Paris Accord Is All About Taxation

This is not an exaggeration, or hyperbole. The entire point of the agreement is to generate an enormous slush fund. The UN IPCC and select partners can then put that money into the commodities market and make trillions from it.

If you have any doubts about that, read Article 9 from the Paris Agreement. It spells out the “financial flow” in no uncertain terms.

1. Developed country Parties shall provide financial resources to assist developing country Parties with respect to both mitigation and adaptation in continuation of their existing obligations under the Convention.

2. Other Parties are encouraged to provide or continue to provide such support voluntarily.

3. As part of a global effort, developed country Parties should continue to take the lead in mobilizing climate finance from a wide variety of sources, instruments and channels, noting the significant role of public funds, through a variety of actions, including supporting country-driven strategies, and taking into account the needs and priorities of developing country Parties. Such mobilization of climate finance should represent a progression beyond previous efforts.

4. The provision of scaled-up financial resources should aim to achieve a balance between adaptation and mitigation, taking into account country-driven strategies, and the priorities and needs of developing country Parties, especially those that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change and have significant capacity constraints, such as the least developed countries and small island developing States, considering the need for public and grant-based resources for adaptation.

5. Developed country Parties shall biennially communicate indicative quantitative and qualitative information related to paragraphs 1 and 3 of this Article, as applicable, including, as available, projected levels of public financial resources to be provided to developing country Parties. Other Parties providing resources are encouraged to communicate biennially such information on a voluntary basis.

6. The global stock take referred to in Article 14 shall take into account the relevant information provided by developed country Parties and/or Agreement bodies on efforts related to climate finance.

7. Developed country Parties shall provide transparent and consistent information on support for developing country Parties provided and mobilized through public interventions biennially in accordance with the modalities, procedures and guidelines to be adopted by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Agreement, at its first session, as stipulated in Article 13, paragraph 13. Other Parties are encouraged to do so.

8. The Financial Mechanism of the Convention, including its operating entities, shall serve as the financial mechanism of this Agreement.

9. The institutions serving this Agreement, including the operating entities of the Financial Mechanism of the Convention, shall aim to ensure efficient access to financial resources through simplified approval procedures and enhanced readiness support for developing country Parties, in particular for the least developed countries and small island developing States, in the context of their national climate strategies and plans.

These are quotes directly from the Paris Accord. In particular, Article 9 makes it abundantly clear that this is all about “financial flow” and a transfer of wealth from the developed world to the developing world.

Actual environmental changes seem almost to be an afterthought. This is a giant wealth transfer scheme.

3. New Development Finance, Bait-and-Switch

Okay, what are these “revenue sources”?

  • SDR (or special drawing rights), from IMF $150B-$270B
  • Carbon taxes, $240B
  • Leveraging SDR, $90B
  • Financial transaction tax, $10B-70B
  • Billionaire tax, $90B
  • Currency trading tax, $30B
  • EU emissions trading scheme, $5B
  • Air passenger levy, $10B
  • Certified emission reduction tax, $2B
  • Current ODA Flow, $120B

If these numbers are accurate, then the US is viewed as a cash cow somewhere to the tune of $627 billion to $807 billion. Yes, this only refers to revenue potential from the United States. I believe this is annually.

What does the report say about SDAs?

These include taxes on financial and currency transactions and on greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the creation of new international liquidity through issuance of special drawing rights (SDRs) by the International Monetary Fund IMF), to be allocated with a bias favouring developing countries or leveraged as development financing. Though their potential may be high, these proposals are subject to political controversy. For instance, many countries are not willing to support international forms of taxation, as these are said to undermine national sovereignty.

No kidding. There is a lot of political opposition to taxes which are deemed to undermine national sovereignty. Could that be because these taxes AREN’T being used to support the well being of the citizenry? Instead the money is being funnelled out of the country in the name of some global good project.

This is how bait-and-switch works:
(1) Raise money using cause A.
(2) Actually spend the money on cause B.

An array of other options with large fundraising potential have been proposed (see figure O.1 and table O.1), but have not been agreed upon internationally thus far. These include taxes on financial and currency transactions and on greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the creation of new international liquidity through issuance of special drawing rights (SDRs) by the International Monetary Fund IMF), to be allocated with a bias favouring developing countries or leveraged as development financing. Though their potential may be high, these proposals are subject to political controversy. For instance, many countries are not willing to support international forms of taxation, as these are said to undermine national sovereignty.

(Page 86) Debt-conversion mechanisms
Debt conversion entails the cancellation by one or more creditors of part of a country’s debt in order to enable the release of funds which would otherwise have been used for debt-servicing, for use instead in social or environmental projects. Where debt is converted at a discount with respect to its face value, only part of the proceeds fund the projects, the remainder reducing the external debt burden, typically as part of a broader debt restructuring.

Debt to developing nations can be “forgiven”, at least partly, if certain conditions are met. However, the obvious question must be asked:

Can nations be loaned money they could never realistically pay back, in order to ensure their compliance in UN or other global agenda, by agreeing to “forgive” part of it?

(Page 86) Debt conversion first emerged, in the guise of debt-for-nature swaps, during the 1980s debt crisis, following an opinion article by Thomas Lovejoy, then Executive Vice-President of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), in the New York Times in 1984. Lovejoy argued that a developing country’s external debt could be reduced (also providing tax relief to participating creditor banks) in exchange for the country’s taking measures to address environmental challenges. Estimates based on Sheikh (2010) and Buckley, ed. (2011) suggest that between $1.1 billion and $1.5 billion of debt has been exchanged through debt-for-nature swaps since the mid–1980s, although it is not possible to assess how much of this constitutes IDF, for the reasons discussed in box III.1.

If debt can be forgiven in return for environmental measures, then why not simply fund these environmental measures from the beginning? Is it to pressure or coerce otherwise unwilling nations into agreeing with such measures?

(Page 88)
There have been two basic forms of debt-for-nature exchanges (Buckley and Freeland, 2011). In the first, part of a country’s external debt is purchased by an environmental non-governmental organization and offered to the debtor for cancellation in exchange for a commitment to protect a particular area of land. Such transactions occurred mainly in the late 1980s and 1990s and were generally relatively small-scale. An early example was a 1987 deal under which Conservation International, a Washington, D.C.-based environmental non-governmental organization, bought $650,000 of the commercial bank debt of Bolivia (now Plurinational State of Bolivia) in the secondary market for $100,000, and exchanged this for shares in a company established to preserve 3.7 million acres of forest and grassland surrounding the Beni Biosphere Reserve in the north-east part of the country.
In the second form, debt is exchanged for local currency (often at a discount), which is then used by local conservation groups or government agencies to fund projects in the debtor country. Swaps of this kind are generally much larger, and have predominated since the 1990s. The largest such swap came in 1991, when a group of bilateral creditors agreed to channel principal and interest payments of $473 million (in local currency) into Poland’s Ecofund set up to finance projects designed to counter environmental deterioration. The EcoFund financed 1,500 programmes between 1992 and 2007, providing grants for conservation projects relating to cross-border air pollution, climate change, biological diversity and the clean-up of the Baltic Sea (Buckley and Freeland, 2011).

We will “forgive” your debt if:
(1) A portion of your land is off limits; or
(2) Debt converted to currency to fund “projects”

The entire document is 178 pages. While a tedious read, it’s worthwhile.

4. UN Wants $400B In Global Taxation

New York, 5 July 2012 –The United Nations is proposing an international tax, combined with other innovative financing  mechanisms, to raise more than $400 billion annually for development and global challenges such as fighting climate  change.    In its annual report on global development, World Economic and Social Survey 2012: In Search of New Development  Finance, (WESS 2012) launched today, the UN says, in the midst of difficult financial times, many donor countries have cut  back on development assistance. In 2011, for the first time in many years, aid flows declined in real terms

The survey finds that the financial needs of developing countries have long outstripped the willingness and ability of donors to provide aid. And finding the necessary resources to achieve the Millennium Development Goals and meet other global challenges, such as addressing climate change, will be tough, especially for least developed countries. 

The need for additional and more predictable financing has led to a search for new sources not as a substitute for aid, but as a complement to it. A number of innovative initiatives have been launched during the past decade, mainly to fund global health programmes aimed at providing immunizations, AIDS and tuberculosis treatments to millions of people in the  developing  world.  The  UN  survey  finds  that  while  these  initiatives  have  successfully  used  new  methods  to  channel  development  financing to combat diseases, they have hardly yielded any additional funding on top of traditional development assistance. 

This source explains it straight from the horse’s mouth. The UN is not taking in enough money for its various schemes. In fact, real contributions are shrinking. Therefore it is necessary to come up with new and innovative ways to tax developed nations.

Of course one of the most common ways is with the “climate change” scam. But it is hardly the only one. The UN views many forms of wealth simply as money to tap into.

5. UN Eyeing Up African Pensions

(Page 10) III. PENSION FUNDS DIRECT INVESTMENT IN INFRASTRUCTURE
International experience At 36.6 percent of GDP, assets of the pension funds in OECD countries are relatively large. As of end-2013, pension-fund assets were even in excess of 100 percent in countries such as the Netherlands, Iceland, Switzerland, Australia, and the United Kingdom (Figure 1). In absolute terms, pension funds in OECD countries held $10.4 trillion of assets. While large pension funds (LPFs) held about $3.9 trillion of assets, assets in public and private sector and public pension reserves (PPRFs) stood at $6.5 trillion.

(Page 30) C. Policy framework for investment in infrastructure Pension funds—just like other investors, domestic and foreign—need a fair, transparent, clear, and predictable policy framework to invest in infrastructure and other assets. This is important as infrastructure assets have a number of characteristics that increase investors’ perception of risk. First, infrastructure projects typically involve economies of scale and often lead to natural monopolies with high social benefits and, at times, lower private returns. As a result, infrastructure projects may require heavy government involvement. Second, infrastructure projects are often large and long-lived with a significant initial investment but with cash flows that accrue over a long horizon.

In this regard, improving the policy framework for investment can be useful to countries seeking to develop the investor base for infrastructure. For instance, the OECD’s Policy Framework for Investment (PFI) uses self-assessments and/or an external assessment by the OECD to help a country elaborate policies for capacity building and private sector development strategies, and inform the regional dialogue (OECD, 2015b). The PFI’s investment policy refers not only to domestic laws, regulations, and policies relating to investment but also goals and expectations concerning the contribution of investment to sustainable development, such as infrastructure

(Page 31) D. Infrastructure financing instruments available to pension funds Even in well-performing pension systems where the governance, regulation, and supervision of pension funds are conducive to investment in infrastructure and there is a sound policy framework for investment, there is still a need for adequate instruments to channel pension fund assets into the infrastructure sector. Pension funds can use a number of channels to invest in infrastructure. Direct exposure is gained mainly through the unlisted equity instruments (direct investment in projects and infrastructure funds) and project bonds, while indirect exposure is normally associated with listed equity and corporate debt. More specifically, pension funds can rely on a number of options such as

The paper itself is quite long, but here is the gist of it. The UN wants to take African pension funds and use them to “invest” it UN type of schemes.

While this seems harmless enough, remember the Paris Accord. The UN thinks nothing of taxing the developed world hundreds of billions of dollars under false pretenses in order to invest in the commodities market. Nor does the UN object to giving “infrastructure loans” to nations that will likely never be able to pay it back.

It should alarm people that an organization with no inherent loyalty to the region would want to use African pension funds to finance its own agenda.

6. UN Environment Programme (UNEP)

United Nations Environment Programme – Finance Initiative (UNEP FI) is a partnership between United Nations Environment and the global financial sector created in the wake of the 1992 Earth Summit with a mission to promote sustainable finance. More than 250 financial institutions, including banks, insurers, and investors, work with UN Environment to understand today’s environmental, social and governance challenges, why they matter to finance, and how to actively participate in addressing them.

UNEP FI’s work also includes a strong focus on policy – by facilitating country-level dialogues between finance practitioners, supervisors, regulators and policy-makers, and, at the international level, by promoting financial sector involvement in processes such as the global climate negotiations.

Here are the members of the Global Steering Committee. In short, this is a partnership between the UN and banking sector.

Keep in mind the “New Development Financing” agenda discussed earlier. Money is taken and used to “invest” in 3rd World Development Programs. Countries that are unable to pay back are forced either to give up sovereignty, or comply with other arrangements.

Banks are in the business of making money. Alternatively, they are in the business of acquiring assets which can be converted into money, or otherwise make them money. What if this banking alliance has no altruistic roots, and is meant to be predatory?

Uppity Peasants has an interesting take on the UNEP.

Make no mistake, this is exactly what happens to these people, by the way. One cross-country comparison between microloan recipients in Bangladesh and payday loan recipients in Canada found that both ‘products’ tend to attract the same kinds of people to them from very similar backgrounds, for largely the same reasons — i.e., neither group tends to use these loans for re-investment, such as starting a business; rather, they use them to cover day-to-day expenses at exorbitant interest rates, thus entrapping themselves in a cycle of never ending debt (Islam & Simpson, 2018). If you know how bad the consequences of payday lending can be for people in the first world, imagine how bad it is for someone who’s already living in third world-levels of poverty.

Now, part of the reason why the UNEP, of all possible agencies, is so heavily invested (emotionally and literally) into fintech and other start-up technologies is because many of the “incumbent banks” — the top-players of our current system — don’t think that completely up-ending the global financial system to move the focus away from profits and toward complying with heavy-handed, UN-decided environmental regulations is a particularly attractive road to go down. In the next excerpt, the UNEP openly admit that start-ups in this area are better to invest in for the pursuit of ‘change’, specifically because their owners tend to be new to the world of business and, as such, don’t know enough about what they’re doing to avoid being manipulated — and that’s where the UNEP comes in.

Uppity Peasants argues that the UNEP is driven much more on a business model than on any kind altruistic path. Further, the circumstances which the aid recipients require the resources to cover essential expenses means they are unable to invest anything. This is similar to a payday loan type of system.

7. Green Finance For 3rd World $5-7 Trillion

(Page 13)In 2015, governments adopted three major agreements that set out their vision for the coming decades: a new set of 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs), the Paris Agreement on climate change and the ‘financing for development’ package. Finance is central to realizing all three agreements – and these now need to be translated into practical steps suited to each country’s circumstances.

Sustainable Energy for All estimates that annual global investments in energy will need to scale up from roughly US$400 billion at present to US $1-1.25 trillion. Of that, US$40-100 billion annually is needed to achieve universal access to electricity. Overall, US $5-7 trillion a year is needed to implement the SDGs globally. Developing countries are estimated to face an annual investment gap of US$2.5 trillion in areas such as infrastructure, clean energy, water and sanitation, and agriculture.

(Page 14) The challenge for financial systems is twofold: to mobilize finance for specific sustainable development priorities and to mainstream sustainable development factors across financial decision-making.

Capital needs to be mobilized for inclusion of underserved groups (e.g. small and medium enterprises), raising capital for sustainable infrastructure (e.g. energy, housing, transport, urban design) and financing critical areas of innovation (e.g. agriculture, mobility, power).

Sustainability needs to become mainstream for financial institutions. This starts with ensuring market integrity (e.g. tax, corruption, human rights) and extends to integrating environmental and social (E&S) factors into risk management (e.g. climate disruption, water stress). Sustainability also needs to be incorporated into the responsibilities and reporting of market actors to guide their decision-making. Momentum is building to align financial systems with the financing needs of an inclusive, sustainable economy. This is complementary to ‘real economy’ actions such as environmental regulations, reform of perverse subsidies and changes to resource pricing. However, while these are critical, it is increasingly recognized that changes are also needed in the financial system to ensure that it is both more stable and more connected to the real economy.

Some interesting points here:

  • $5 to $7 trillion (yes trillion) needed annually fulfill these goals. The billions stated before was lowballed.
  • The “sustainability” agenda needs mass marketing.
  • Finance needed for:
    1. 17 goals of Agenda 2030
    2. Paris Climate Accord
    3. Finance for development
  • 3 above items to be integral part of national agendas.
  • Most of this has nothing to do with the environment

In fact, it reads like a global version of the US Green New Deal, proposed by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. In fact, her Chief of Staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, admitted it was about changing the economy, not the environment.

8. International Chamber Of Commerce

THE INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ICC is the world’s largest business organization with a network of over 6 million members in more than 130 countries. We work to promote international trade, responsible business conduct and a global approach to regulation through a unique mix of advocacy and standard setting activities—together with market-leading dispute resolution services. Our members include many of the world’s largest companies, SMEs, business associations and local chambers of commerce.
.
We are the world business organization.

That quote came from their policy guide. Pretty straightforward. They want to run business on a global level. Now, let’s get to the meat and potatoes, the tax proposals:

Interplay between tax policy making and economic growth The world’s population is predicted to increase by 2 billion people by 2050, and the population of the world’s least developed countries is projected to double by 2053, in some countries even tripling. By 2025 half of the world’s population will be living in water-stressed areas. Under such circumstances, the need for large-scale investment in economic growth and development becomes evident.

Whilst there is no panacea, it is evident that greater alignment of investment and tax policies would be essential in promoting investment, job creation and economic growth. International commerce remains a powerful mechanism to help lift people out of poverty. Tax is intrinsically linked to development as taxation provides the revenue that states need to mobilize resources and reinforce a country’s infrastructure. Taxation “provides a predictable and stable flow of revenue to finance public spending, and shapes the environment in which investment, employment and trade takes place.”

Further, it is important to have a fair, efficient, and effective revenue collection infrastructure to promote economic and social development. Domestic resource mobilization (DRM) has been proposed as a way to meet the SDGs with the development finance already available. However, DRM can be impeded by unclear and confusing tax systems. It is imperative that companies are able to move products and services into areas where they are most needed without unnecessary administrative impediments.

Having a reliable and consistent taxation policy seems reasonable enough. However, the ICC is not being clear on the reason behind the push. They want better taxation methods in order to INCREASE the amount of revenue available.

Governments often side with these groups, even when it is not in the best interests of the citizens themselves. “Investment” dollars are then shovelled into infrastructure projects.

Tax the people, so that the money can be “properly” spent, as the UN and their partners see fit.

9. Addis Ababa Action Agenda

(Page 10) DOMESTIC PUBLIC RESOURCE
For all countries, public policies and the mobilization and effective use of domestic resources, underscored by the principle of national ownership, are central to our common pursuit of sustainable development, including achieving the sustainable development goals. Building on the considerable achievements in many countries since Monterrey, we remain committed to further strengthening the mobilization and effective use of domestic resources

(Page 10) 22. We recognize that significant additional domestic public resources, supplemented by international assistance as appropriate, will be critical to realizing sustainable development and achieving the sustainable development goals. We commit to enhancing revenue administration through modernized, progressive tax systems, improved tax policy and more efficient tax collection. We will work to improve the fairness, transparency, efficiency and effectiveness of our tax systems, including by broadening the tax base and continuing efforts to integrate the informal sector into the formal economy in line with country circumstances.

23. We will redouble efforts to substantially reduce illicit financial flows by 2030, with a view to eventually eliminating them, including by combating tax evasion and corruption through strengthened national regulation and increased international cooperation. We will also reduce opportunities for tax avoidance, and consider inserting anti-abuse clauses in all tax treaties. We will enhance disclosure practices and transparency in both source and destination countries, including by seeking to ensure transparency in all financial transactions between Governments and companies to relevant tax authorities. We will make sure that all companies, including multinationals, pay taxes to the Governments of countries where economic activity occurs and value is created, in accordance with national and international laws and policies

(Page 13) 27. We commit to scaling up international tax cooperation. We encourage countries, in accordance with their national capacities and circumstances, to work together to strengthen transparency and adopt appropriate policies, including multinational enterprises reporting country-by-country to tax authorities where they operate; access to beneficial ownership information for competent authorities; and progressively advancing towards automatic exchange of tax information among tax authorities as appropriate, with assistance to developing countries, especially the least developed, as needed. Tax incentives can be an appropriate policy tool. However, to end harmful tax practices, countries can engage in voluntary discussions on tax incentives in regional and international forums.

(Page 45) 98. We affirm the importance of debt restructurings being timely, orderly, effective, fair and negotiated in good faith. We believe that a workout from a sovereign debt crisis should aim to restore public debt sustainability, while preserving access to financing resources under favourable conditions. We further acknowledge that successful debt restructurings enhance the ability of countries to achieve sustainable development and the sustainable development goals. We continue to be concerned with non-cooperative creditors who have demonstrated their ability to disrupt timely completion of the debt restructurings.

In no way does this cover the entire document. However, there are 3 themes which get repeated over and over again.

  1. Efficient tax collection
  2. Global tax regulations and data sharing
  3. “Sustainable” debt and borrowing

There is very little in this document, about actually improving lives, improving infrastructure, or improving the environment. Instead, it is all about implementing a global taxation system, while eliminating “off the books”, or illicit cash.

10. Global Tax Avoidance Measures

Exchange of information for tax purposes
Exchange of information has long been included as a feature of tax treaty models. By agreeing to exchange information with respect to taxpayers, countries can become more aware of the global activities taxpayers are engaging in and impose tax that should be due.

The upcoming 2017 revision of the United Nations Model Double Taxation Convention between Developed and Developing countries is expected to bring a new revised version of the exchange of information provision, following the approval of the new United Nations Code of Conduct. The Committee agreed in 2016 to a proposal for a United Nations Code of Conduct on Cooperation in Combating International Tax Evasion. This Code supports the automatic exchange of information for tax purposes as the way forward for countries generally, but recognizes that it is vital for developing countries to exchange information, even if they are not ready for automatic exchange. The Code of Conduct has been approved by the Committee of Experts in 2016, and set automatic exchange of information as the new universal standard after ECOSOC adopted the Code of Conduct in a Resolution in 2017, during the ECOSOC Special Meeting on International Cooperation on Tax Matters. .Furthermore, the OECD model convention and commentaries is expected to broaden the scope of the exchange of information article to allow triangular, or multi-party exchange of information requests.

While this certainly sounds like some well meaning way to prevent money laundering and tax fraud, there is another angle to look at.

Having a global (or at least more centralized) database of people and their taxable income will allow for more efficient and effective tax collection. This is especially true whenever a new “development project” needs funding.

Furthermore, if there is such a global system, it will be easier to determine who isn’t paying “their fair share” when it comes to contributions. Those national governments can then act accordingly. Also, who doesn’t view this as becoming a global version of Revenue Canada, or the American IRS?

11. From Billions To Trillions (SF 2.0)

Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) will require an enormous increase in external financing flows to developing countries. Development Finance Institutions (DFIs) have gradually started to shift their business model towards de-risking services to crowd in long-term, low-risk private capital. However, the targeted scaling up of private investment from billions to trillions to realise the SDGs contains massive risks for stability. And good macro-policies are needed, in turn, to address such underlying risks. Countries that need the greatest amount of development finance are often those that have domestic financial resource constraints and underdeveloped markets. Financing their growth and investment opportunities makes the management of exchange rate risks, which are inherent in development finance, a critical challenge.

Merely supplying development finance is not enough. It needs to be done in socially and economically sustainable ways, where risks are allocated to those who can best manage and sustain them. Efficient use of limited public resources, through improved policies and regulatory processes, is required to achieve the SDGs and related efforts. Governments around the world must work together to offer feasible business opportunities to the private sector that are in line with domestic and international development objectives. Only with such coordinated action will we succeed in moving from billions to trillions to realise sustainable progress for all.

This article should serve as a warning to anyone who thinks that this global development system is going to be steady. Wrong. Once considered “fully operational”, the next step is to upscale it, and make it far bigger.

It is not governments who will be paying for these globalist schemes. It is the working class tax-payers who will see more and more of their wealth transferred to these projects.

Of course, once your money leaves Canadian soil, there is little to no accountability or control over what happens to it. But that it routinely downplayed.

12. What To Make From All This?

To state the obvious: these agendas and agreements are bringing nations towards a global taxation model. Countries (presumably under UN control) will be expected to share data on tax paying citizens and other people earning money. While this is touted as an anti-tax avoidance measure, the real goal is making sure the global order accounts for all money and where it goes.

Going towards a “cashless society” also helps in that regard. Hence the push for more and more electronic options, while making cash payments more difficult.

Beyond enforcement, knowing which nations have money and how much will make it easier to determine who shall pay how much as their “fair share” of future projects. We won’t have nations in the traditional sense, just shareholders.

International agreements like the Paris Accord have nothing to do with the environment. That is just the sales pitch. Instead, it an excuse to funnel huge sums of money to the UN to finance their business model. It is taking advantage of an altruistic goal.

This is about having a globalist, centralized economy and taxation. The environmental and humanitarian claims are just talking points.