This is from a few years ago, but worth addressing again: the central banks are fully on board with the climate change agenda, and with the green bonds agenda.
The Bank for International Settlements in Switzerland is supposed to concern itself with fiscal policies. However, it has branched off into the climate change agenda and green bonds. This has nothing to do with its stated mandate, and is therefore, an important topic. Not a lot of evidence this even works, but who cares?
1. Green Bonds First Launched By World Bank
10 years ago, The World Bank issued the first-ever green bond then laid out the first blueprint for sustainable fixed income investing, transforming development finance and sparking a sustainability revolution in the capital markets. Green bonds have become a strategic priority for The World Bank as they support all Sustainable Development Goals. Watch this video to learn about the investors, evaluator, and Treasury behind the first green bond and how it turned into a $12 billion World Bank program 10 years later.
The green bonds industry was the first organized by the World Bank. It has expanded greatly over the last decade.
2. Green Bonds Potentially $100T Industry
In the Summer of 2019, the International Economic Forum of the Americas was held in Montreal. Several speakers discussed the rapid growth of the climate bonds, or green bonds industry. One predicted to be eventually become a $100 trillion industry.
3. BIS Mission Statement Excludes Green Agenda
BIS mission statement
Excellence in service to central banks and financial authorities
.
The BIS
.
-aims at promoting monetary and financial stability;
-acts as a forum for discussion and cooperation among central banks and the financial community; and
-acts as a bank to central banks and international organisations,
Strange, there seems to be no mention of using its power and influence to enact social change, and to facilitate the climate change agenda. Perhaps an oversight.
4. Green Bonds Already 3.5% Of Bond Market
Interest in green bonds and green finance – commonly defined as the financing of investments that provide environmental benefits (G20 GFSG (2016)) – has been increasing rapidly. Financial instruments that contribute to environmental sustainability have become a priority for many issuers, asset managers and governments alike. In particular, the market for green bonds has been growing fast. Global issuance surpassed $250 billion in 2019 – about 3.5% of total global bond issuance ($7.15 trillion).
Private institutions have developed green bond certifications and standards that grant issuers a green label if individual projects are deemed sufficiently in line with the Green Bond Principles (GBPs) of the International Capital Market Association (ICMA), and the use of proceeds can be ascertained.
A key issue for both policymakers and investors is whether existing certifications and standards result in the desired environmental impact (The Economist (2020)). While the GBPs define a broader range of environmental benefits, this special feature focuses on one particular aim: low and decreasing carbon emissions.
According to the Bank for International Settlements, so-called green bonds are exploding in popularity, and already make up over $250 billion of the total bond market, or about 3.5% overall. It’s unclear how any of this actually contributes to a cleaner environment, or combats climate change.
It’s disturbing how much money can be generated (or lost) on this industry. This 3.5% share is only expected to grow.
5. BIS: Climate Change Threatens Finances
Climate change poses new challenges to central banks, regulators and supervisors. This book reviews ways of addressing these new risks within central banks’ financial stability mandate. However, integrating climate-related risk analysis into financial stability monitoring is particularly challenging because of the radical uncertainty associated with a physical, social and economic phenomenon that is constantly changing and involves complex dynamics and chain reactions. Traditional backward-looking risk assessments and existing climate-economic models cannot anticipate accurately enough the form that climate-related risks will take. These include what we call “green swan” risks: potentially extremely financially disruptive events that could be behind the next systemic financial crisis. Central banks have a role to play in avoiding such an outcome, including by seeking to improve their understanding of climate-related risks through the development of forward-looking scenario-based analysis. But central banks alone cannot mitigate climate change. This complex collective action problem requires coordinating actions among many players including governments, the private sector, civil society and the international community. Central banks can therefore have an additional role to play in helping coordinate the measures to fight climate change. Those include climate mitigation policies such as carbon pricing, the integration of sustainability into financial practices and accounting frameworks, the search for appropriate policy mixes, and the development of new financial mechanisms at the international level. All these actions will be complex to coordinate and could have significant redistributive consequences that should be adequately handled, yet they are essential to preserve long-term financial (and price) stability in the age of climate change.
In a nutshell, this is BIS’ official reason for getting involved in the climate change industry, and into gree bonds: it threatens fiscal stability. But they have certainly found a profitable way to “stave off” this oncoming disaster. Very convenient.
6. Scaling Up: The Green/Banking Marriage
The four recommendations addressed to central banks and supervisors are:
.
(1) Integrating climate-related risks into financial stability monitoring and micro-supervision. This includes assessing climate-related risks in the financial system and integrating them into prudential supervision.
(2) Integrating sustainability factors into own portfolio management. The NGFS encourages central banks to lead by example in their own operations.
(3) Bridging data gaps. Public authorities are asked to share data relevant to Climate Risk Assessment and make these data publicly available.
(4) Building awareness and intellectual capacity and encouraging technical assistance and knowledge-sharing. The NGFS encourages all financial institutions to build in-house capacity and to collaborate to improve their understanding of how climate-related factors translate into financial risks and opportunities.
What is suggested here is nothing short of a full fledged marriage of the banking cartel and the climate cartel. Elements of the green agenda are to be embedded in every aspect of fiscal policies. This (shouldn’t) be what banks and bankers are involved with.
7. Bonds Are An “Investment” With No Real Product
It was interesting to see this “explanation” of climate bonds, which included vague references to “green industries”. No concrete examples were provided, nor was there any mention of the industries that would be lost as a result of this agenda.
This bonds scheme (like a Ponzi Scheme) only works as long as it is able to continuously get new funding. That won’t work, as eventually people realize this is a scam, and pulls their funds.
At 9:50, there is the not so subtle threat: change your business model, or go out of business. Former Bank of Canada Head Mark Carney (currently doing UN Climate Finance), said exactly the same thing. This isn’t opportunity, but the FORCED transition or shut down of many industries.
8. Green Bonds Already In Canada A While
If you thought this nonsense would never become a reality in Canada, you would be mistaken. Ontario has been issuing green bonds for several years, and it has continued under “populist” Doug Ford. It’s been happening Federally since at least 2014, when “conservative” Stephen Harper ran Canada. TD Canada appears to also have gotten in on the action.
Ontario and Canada aren’t doing anything revolutionary. They are just implementing what the World Bank started, and what the Bank for International Settlements is upscaling.
9. Bonds To Stabilize Financial System?
Although the idea of Green Bonds is not specifically mentioned in this BIS video, read between the lines. They talk about “alternative means” to stabilize economies after the 2008 collapse. BIS also refers to Green Bonds as necessary for fiscal stability. Two problems, one solution?
Cartel Marriage Shouldn’t Happen
The Bank for International Settlements offers the flimsiest of rationales for getting involved in the climate change and green bonds agendas.
While the idea that this aids fiscal stability, BIS never explains “how” exactly that is. It doesn’t delve into any of the many climate questions that need answered, nor does it explain how these bonds prevent climate change. BIS also won’t discuss how enriching a very few leads to overall equality.
It comes across as an attempt to (further) monetize the climate agenda, and to embed elements of it within national banking policies. As if national finances weren’t corrupt enough.
Canadians, and others, need to wake up to the collusion that continues to erode sovereignty. Do some research. The information presented above is just the tip of the iceberg.
Various central banks around the world — including the Bank of Canada — have fully embraced the climate change scam. They promote “green finance” as a way to enact larger social change.
The pandemic, central banks and climate change
• COVID-19 is a shock and an opportunity
• Pivot to a greener, smarter economy?
• Focus here on climate-related issues
• Our contributions to scenario analysis
• To start: how we view climate change risk
For those who are unfamiliar, the GREAT RESET is a plan hatched a long time ago, which involved using this “pandemic” as an excuse to bring about larger social change. Check out the previous piece on the World Economic Forum.
2. BoC Calls Climate Change A “Vulnerability”
Climate change creates important physical risks both in Canada and globally. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the average world temperature in 2017 was around 1°C higher than pre-industrial levels and is projected to rise by 0.2°C per decade. One consequence is an increase in extreme weather events such as flooding, hurricanes and severe droughts. Insured damage to property and infrastructure in Canada averaged about $1.7 billion per year from 2008 to 2017, up from $200 million per year from 1983 to 1992. Canada is particularly affected—it is estimated to be warming significantly faster than the rest of the world.27
The move to a low-carbon economy involves complex structural adjustments, creating new opportunities as well as transition risk. Investor and consumer preferences are shifting toward lower-carbon sources and production processes, suggesting that the move to a low-carbon economy is underway. Transition costs will be felt most in carbon-intensive sectors, such as the oil and gas sector. If some fossil fuel reserves remain unexploited, assets in this sector may become stranded, losing much of their value. At the same time, other sectors such as green technology and alternative energy will likely benefit.
Both physical and transition risks are likely to have broad impacts on the economy. Moving labour and capital toward less carbon-intensive sectors is costly and takes time. Global trade patterns may also shift as production costs and the value of resources change. The necessary adjustments are complex and pervasive and might lead to increased risk for the financial system. In addition to insurance companies, many other parts of the financial system are exposed to risks from climate change. Banks have loans to carbon-intensive sectors as well as to connected sectors—for example, those upstream or downstream in supply chains. Asset managers hold carbon-intensive assets in and outside Canada. The Government of Canada’s Expert Panel on Sustainable Finance is studying these issues.
(From part 5), the Bank of Canada has written off the oil & gas sector, and others, in favour of “transitioning to a low carbon economy”. It would be nice for those people in Alberta, BC and Saskatchewan to have been made aware of this. It’s not like their communities will be gutted.
3. BoC & “Greening Financial System”
In response, central banks are stepping up efforts to assess climate-related risks. The current suite of central bank economic models, however, do not incorporate climate-change effects. Uncertainty over future developments related to climate change also makes assessing these risks challenging. These developments include policy developments, technological developments and changes in the natural environment.
Some central banks and private financial institutions are developing tools to carry out climate-related scenario analysis. Scenario analysis examines different plausible future states of the world. It forecasts a set of situations that could happen rather than predicts what will happen. It can help users evaluate a range of hypothetical outcomes based on different assumptions of what may occur. Scenario analysis is particularly useful for climate change, where the evolution of key variables is uncertain. To be the most useful, these scenarios should be extreme yet plausible. This will give a sense of the full range of possible risks.
Rather than focusing on monetary policy, which is its mandate, the Bank of Canada has decided to wade into the climate change agenda. The BoC alleges that climate change is directly tied to the financial health of the country.
4. Initiative Launched December 2017
The Network of Central Banks and Supervisors for Greening the Financial System (NGFS), was launched on December 12, 2017. It started off with 8 central banks, but has grown exponentially since. Many more, including the Bank of Canada, are now part of this group.
Joint statement by the Founding Members of the Central Banks and Supervisors Network for Greening the Financial System
Financing the transition to a green and low carbon economy consistent with the ‘well below 2°celsius’ goal set out in the Paris agreement and promoting environmental sustainable growth are among the major challenges of our time. In the process of responding to environmental and climate challenges, there are both opportunities and vulnerabilities for financial institutions and the financial system as a whole.
Post Paris, official sector and private-led initiatives have accelerated the awareness of climate related financial risks and the scaling up of green financing. The G20 Green Finance Study Group and the FSB Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures also recommended steps towards encouraging financial institutions to conduct environmental risk analysis and to improve environment- and climate-related information disclosure. We are very pleased to announce today that eight central banks and supervisors decided to collectively commit to establish a Network of Central Banks and Supervisors for Greening the Financial System. The Network will help to strengthen the global response required to meet the goals of the Paris agreement and to enhance the role of the financial system to manage risks and to mobilize capital for green and low-carbon investments in the broader context of environmentally sustainable development.
This group was started by the central banks of 8 countries. It has since grown to encompass many more. People should be skeptical that organizations involved in the monetary system are getting involved in the climate change industry.
6. NGFS Scaling Up “Green Finance”
This section provides an overview of the workstream’s mandate.
The workstream on scaling up green finance is structured around 3 main topics:
1) Promoting the adoption of sustainable and responsible principles in central banks’ investment approaches
2) Understanding and monitoring the market dynamics of green finance
3) Providing a joint central banks’ view on the various challenges climate change raises for the conduct of monetary policy
7. Mark Carney, Former Bank Of Canada Head
Mark Carney used to be the Head of the Bank of Canada, and later headed the Bank of England. Anyway, this man is now in charge of “UN Climate Finance”, and openly threatens to bankrupt companies who don’t play ball with the climate change scam. It used to be that gangsters would burn down your business if you didn’t pay. Now, they just pass laws to make it impossible to operate.
You know all that hype about the Bank of Canada looking to push some form of digital currency to replace money? Well yes, they are actually looking into it.
9. Should Banks Push Climate Agenda?
Banks, like any institution, should stick to their assigned role and not meddle elsewhere. Why stray so far into unrelated areas? It’s because they have an agenda, and are just using the financial sector as a means and excuse of implementing that agenda.
Bank for International Settlements (Immunity) Act
S.C. 2007, c. 35, s. 140
.
Assented to 2007-12-14
.
An Act to provide immunity to the Bank for International Settlements from government measures and from civil judicial process
.
[Enacted by section 140 of chapter 35 of the Statutes of Canada, 2007, in force on assent December 14, 2007.]
.
Marginal note: Short title
.
1 This Act may be cited as the Bank for International Settlements (Immunity) Act.
.
Marginal note: Immunity — government measures
.
2 The Bank for International Settlements, its property and any property entrusted to it are exempt from the measures referred to in Article 1 of the Protocol regarding the immunities of the Bank for International Settlements that was ratified by Canada on January 20, 1938.
.
Marginal note: Immunity — judicial process
.
3 (1) The Bank is immune from the juris-diction of any court in respect of a civil proceeding.
.
Marginal note: Immunity — property
.
(2) The Bank’s property and any property entrusted to it are immune, in respect of any civil proceeding, from attachment and execution.
.
Marginal note: Binding on Her Majesty
.
(3) Subsections (1) and (2) are binding on Her Majesty in right of Canada.
.
Marginal note: Non-application of sections 2 and 3
.
4 For reasons of national security or for the purposes of the conduct of Canada’s international affairs or the implementation of Canada’s international obligations, the Governor in Council may determine that, to the extent specified by the Governor in Council,
.
(a) the Bank, its property and any property entrusted to it are not exempt under section 2;
.
(b) the Bank is not immune under subsection 3(1); and
.
(c) the Bank’s property and any property entrusted to it are not immune under subsection 3(2)
In short, the Bank for International Settlements is immune from any jurisdiction in Canada.
It’s true that there is a provision that allows the Governor in Council to waive some or all of that immunity. However, when politicians see no issue with turning control of Canadian finances over to foreign, private interests, one has to wonder what it would take to be in Canada’s national interests.
1. Budget & Econ Statement Impl Act, (2007)
For reference, the Bank of International Settlements Immunity Act was just one part, Part 6, of the Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007 (S.C. 2007, c. 35).
Throughout the 1930s, various nations signed on to ensure the Bank for International Settlements had legal immunity from legal restrictions or orders in member states. This was almost a century ago.
Article 1
Legal personality
The Swiss Federal Council acknowledges the international legal personality and the legal capacity within Switzerland of the Bank for International Settlements (hereinafter referred to as “the Bank”).
Article 2
Freedom of action of the Bank
.
1. The Swiss Federal Council shall guarantee to the Bank the autonomy and freedom of action to which it is entitled as an international organisation.
.
2. In particular, it shall grant to the Bank, as well as to its member institutions in their relations with the Bank, absolute freedom to hold meetings, including freedom of discussion and decision.
Article 3
Inviolability
. 1. The buildings or parts of buildings and surrounding land which, whoever may be the owner thereof, are used for the purposes of the Bank shall be inviolable. No agent of the Swiss public authorities may enter therein without the express consent Headquarters Agreement with Switzerland 37 of the Bank. Only the President, the General Manager of the Bank, or their duly authorised representative shall be competent to waive such inviolability.
.
2. The archives of the Bank and, in general, all documents and any data media belonging to the Bank or in its possession, shall be inviolable at all times and in all places.
.
3. The Bank shall exercise supervision of and police power over its premises.
Article 4
Immunity from jurisdiction and execution
1. The Bank shall enjoy immunity from jurisdiction, save:
.
(a) to the extent that such immunity is formally waived in individual cases by the President, the General Manager of the Bank, or their duly authorised representatives;
.
(b) in civil or commercial suits, arising from banking or financial transactions, initiated by contractual counterparties of the Bank, except in those cases in which provision for arbitration has been or shall have been made;
.
(c) in the case of any civil action against the Bank for damage caused by any vehicle belonging to or operated on behalf of the Bank.
.
2. Disputes arising in matters of employment relations between the Bank and its Officials or former Officials, or persons claiming through them, shall be settled by the Administrative Tribunal of the Bank. The Board of Directors of the Bank shall determine the constitution of the Administrative Tribunal, which shall have exclusive and final jurisdiction. Matters of employment relations shall be deemed to include in particular all questions relating to the interpretation or application of contracts between the Bank and its Officials concerning their employment, of the regulations to which the said contracts refer, including the provisions governing the Bank’s pension scheme and other welfare arrangements provided by the Bank.
.
3. The Bank shall enjoy, in respect of its property and assets, wherever located and by whomsoever held, immunity from any measure of execution (including seizure, attachment, freeze or any other measure of execution, enforcement or sequestration, and in particular of attachment within the meaning of Swiss law), except:
.
(a) in cases where execution is claimed on the basis of a final
judgment rendered by a court which has jurisdiction over
the Bank in accordance with paragraph 1(a), (b) or (c)above;
.
(b) in cases of execution of an award made by an arbitral tribunal pursuant to Article 27 of this Agreement.
.
4. All deposits entrusted to the Bank, all claims against the Bank and the shares issued by the Bank shall, without the express prior agreement of the Bank, wherever located and by whomsoever held, be immune from any measure of execution (including seizure, attachment, freeze or any other measure of execution, enforcement or sequestration, and in particular of attachment within the meaning of Swiss law).
The Swiss Government recognizes the Bank for International Settlements as an international organization, and gives it full immunities and powers over its land.
To be clear, the BIS already had very high levels and immunity long before Canada’s BIS Immunity Act in 2007. That just further cemented that immunity from Canadians or Canadian Officials.
It’s also worth pointing out that the property rights enshrined to this “international organization” far exceed the rights awarded to individuals in most nations.
The pandemic is therefore a stark reminder that preventing climate change from inflicting permanent harm on the global economy requires a fundamental structural change to our economy, inducing systematic changes in the way energy is generated and consumed.
With brutal clarity, the current crisis has exposed two major risks to the global economy: first, the farreaching damages imposed on our society by a lack of prevention and early action, fostered by disbelief in science, in the face of a global shock that threatens not only the economy but our lives.
And, second, the repercussions of a failure to act collectively in a globalised world where inaction in one part of the globe can lead to highly disruptive and long-lasting spillover effects in other parts, hitting the poorest and most vulnerable in our societies most severely.
In this sense, the pandemic has been a warning shot with regard to the much greater challenge arising from climate change. In his famous speech, Mark Carney, then Governor of the Bank of England, has argued that “the catastrophic impacts of climate change will be felt beyond the traditional horizons of most actors – imposing a cost on future generations that the current generation has no direct incentive to fix”.[3] Moreover, studies have uncovered a significant lag in discerning the benefits of mitigation measures,[4] which makes it much harder to impose costs on society today if measurable results are available much later.
By making the costs of a major, truly global crisis more tangible, the pandemic may help to remove the “tragedy” from Mark Carney’s horizon: after COVID-19, the dramatic consequences of a global climate crisis may be much easier to imagine. And given the need for fundamental structural change after this crisis, the willingness to use this chance to take precautions against the even bigger risk of a climate crisis may have increased.
In order to achieve the European Union’s target of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, our response to the growing risks of climate change has to start with the way we rebuild our economies after the pandemic.
In my remarks this morning, I will argue that three complementary pillars are needed to accelerate the transition towards a low-carbon economy: an effective carbon price, a strong investment programme and a greener financial market.
I will also argue that central banks have a role to play in mitigating climate-related risks, even within their
traditional mandates, because global warming poses severe risks to price stability.
These comments come from the European Central Bank, on July 17, 2020. They argue for using this so-called crisis for other purposes.
What a coincidence, that this “pandemic” gives these people the opportunity to impose a larger social agenda that they would never otherwise have been able to get away with.
5. BIS, UN, Carney Pushing “Climate Finance”
This was addressed in Part 7. Mark Carney was head of both the Bank of Canada, and the Bank of England. Now he’s in charge of “climate finance” at the UN, and openly threatens to make companies go bankrupt if they don’t play along with the climate change scam.
6. BIS Arguing For Bigger Change
It should be alarming to people that an organization that is not accountable to the public, (in any country), is using its powers to argue for larger societal changes. However, our politicians are puppets who simply do as they are told.
The climate change industry isn’t merely hyped up or exaggerated. It is built entirely on fraud and deceit. Time to expose some major lies.
1. Debunking The Climate Change Scam
The entire climate change industry, (and yes, it is an industry) is a hoax perpetrated by the people in power. See the other articles on the scam, the propaganda machine in action, and some of the court documents in Canada. It’s a much bigger picture than what is presented by the mainstream media, or even the alternative media.
2. Nothing To Do With A Clean Environment
To make this clear, the carbon taxes and regulations Westerners are forced to endure have nothing to do with making a cleaner atmosphere, environment, or preventing climate change. These are lies that politicians and media figures tell in order to justify the massive wealth transfer. So where does the money actually go? Here are a few areas:
Climate bonds, self-enrichment
Predatory loans to the 3rd World
Funding immigration schemes
3. Carbon Dioxide Is Necessary For Life
(A Children’s Video Explaining Photosynthesis, Peekaboo Kidz, 2015)
Carbon Dioxide, CO2, is touted as a “greenhouse gas” which contributes to all kinds of environmental disasters
“Global warming” is a term not used as much anymore, since “climate change” is more vague, and can be more easily adapted.
However, carbon dioxide occurs naturally, just from breathing.
The human body converts carbohydrates, fatty acids, and proteins into smaller “waste products” such as water and carbon dioxide in order to extract energy from them.
Carbon dioxide is not a “waste product” to be eliminated. It is a necessary resource plants use for photosynthesis
While only plants engage in photosynthesis, both plants and animals respire
C6H1206 (sugar) + 6 02 (oxygen) ===> 6 CO2 (carbon dioxide) + 6 H20 (water) + usable energy
The photosynthesis and respiration cycles are not some big mystery. They have been taught in grade schools for many years. See here, see here, and see here
4. Paris Accord Is All About Money
The Paris Accord is all about taxation, and “financial flow” from the 1st World to the 3rd World. To say otherwise is disingenuous. Read article #9:
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.
To summarize Article #9
1/ Developed nations “will” support financially
2/ Other nations “encouraged” to support financially
3/ Developed nations shall be innovative in how they finance
4/ Small/island nations shall get more money
5/ Make public how much money is available
6/ This will be reviewed in 5 years time
7/ Guidelines to be adopted (mandatory?)
8/ Funding mechanism of convention to be used in agreement
9/ Cut the red tape for how/when to send money
5. Various Global Taxation Schemes
This is not limited to a simple carbon tax. Indeed, the United Nations and their allies have many ideas for raising money (with or without consent), from working people across the globe. Here are some of their recent ones. The one about global efforts to catch tax-evaders raised a few eyebrows, surely.
6. Our Contributions Are Debt Financed
(An old video circulating). Elizabeth May and Jack Layton knew full well about the private banking system since 1974, but have strategically chosen to remain silent when it mattered. All major parties are complicit in keeping the banking system out of public discussion.
In 1974, Pierre Trudeau decided that Canada shall be borrowing from private interests rather than using the Bank of Canada. Now, money is always artificially created. However, since we own the Bank of Canada, it means effectively paying interest to ourselves. Furthermore, the debt can simply be cancelled by a Prime Minister’s signature. That’s not the case with private loans.
The relevance here is that the payments that Canada hands out are debt financed. That is, we will be adding to our national debt, to hand out money to the 3rd World. Large parts of that money will be used for predatory lending to other nations (see Section #9).
7. Mark Carney & UN Climate Finance
Remember Mark Carney? He was in charge of the Bank of Canada, and then went to run the Bank of England. Anyway, he has a new position, being in charge on the UN’s climate finance agenda. His repeated threats about businesses going bankrupt if they don’t play ball comes across as extortion.
However, they are far from the only players on the scene. And Canadian politicians are completely on board with this new “industry”. Does this help make the air cleaner or prevent climate change? No, but then, that was never the goal.
(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”
It seems those “loans” weren’t really free after all. Debt is forgiven, but for a high price. Also, read further on, where it talks about forgiveness-for-health and some forgiveness-for-education options. This is usury by any other name.
10. Money Finances Immigration Schemes
Ever notice how it seems like immigration in Canada is much larger than what our leaders tell us? Ever wonder about those UN treaties that we keep signing? Canadians are subsidizing their own replacement with:
bringing large numbers of refugees year after year
grants which will be used to finance future students on visas
subsidizing temporary workers who will work for less than Canadians
enriching others who can use the money to immigrate to Canada
enriching others who can buy up parts of Canada
Of course, some of the money we send will just be kept by dictators who will do little to improve the lives of their citizens (think UN oil-for-food for a bad example). But again, none of this helps the environment in any way, which is what we are told was the purpose.
11. Green New Deal, Great Reset
Many of these manufactured “crises” are just pretexts to bring about larger social change. The coronavirus hoax is one, to launch the GREAT RESET. Another was the Green New Deal, designed to bring about larger changes. It was never really about the climate.
12. Climate Propaganda In Academia
There is a growing body of work in Academia, which is little more than climate propaganda. See here and here, for a few examples.
13. Climate Huckster Joel Wood (Fraser Inst)
Joel Wood, of the Koch-funded Fraser Institute, is also an economics professor at Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops, BC. In 2019, he gave a talk on various “pricing options”. Attached is the audio.
14. Controlled Opposition Court Challenges
Most people are aware that several “conservative” Premiers filed a variety of court challenges against the Federal Carbon tax. However, things are not as they appear. These Premiers fully endorse the climate change scam, and only object to Trudeau imposing a FEDERAL Carbon tax. There is nothing stopping them from later adding a PROVINCIAL tax.
From paragraph 4 in the Saskatchewan COA ruling:
[4] The factual record presented to the Court confirms that climate change caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas [GHG] emissions is one of the great existential issues of our time. The pressing importance of limiting such emissions is accepted by all of the participants in these proceedings.
From paragraph 25 in Alberta COA ruling:
[25] Alberta contended that the Act was wholly unconstitutional and does not fall within the national concern branch of Parliament’s POGG power. Ontario, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, Saskatchewan Power Corporation and SaskEnergy Incorporated all intervened in support of Alberta’s position. In short, in their view, the “matter” of the Act, what is often called its “pith and substance”, is the “regulation of GHG emissions” and to give the federal government exclusive authority over such a matter under the national concern doctrine would unduly intrude into the provinces’ jurisdiction to regulate their own natural resources. Alberta stressed, however, that the result would be the same even if the Act were characterized more narrowly.
From paragraph 6 in Ontario’s ONCA submissions:
6. Ontario agrees with Canada that climate change is real and that human activities are a major cause. Ontario also acknowledges that climate change is already having a disruptive effect across Canada, and that, left unchecked, its potential impact will be even more severe. Ontario agrees that proactive action to address climate change is required. That is why Ontario has put forward for consultation a made-in-Ontario plan to protect the environment, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and fight climate change.
From paragraph 1 in New Brunswick’s ONCA submissions:
1. The Intervenor, Attorney General of New Brunswick (“New Brunswick”) agrees with the factum of the Attorney General of Ontario (“Ontario”) regarding the nature of this reference and agrees with Ontario’s conclusions in every respect. New Brunswick also agrees with the climate data submitted by the Attorney General of Canada (“Canada”). This reference should not be a forum for those who deny climate change; nor should it be a showcase about the risks posed by greenhouse gas emissions (“GHG emissions”). The supporting data is relevant only to the extent that it is meaningfully connected to the constitutional question at issue.
Does any of this look like these so-called conservatives actually oppose the climate change scam? Or are they just going through the motions. The Supreme Court submissions are no better:
1. This case is not about whether action needs to be taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or the relative effectiveness of particular policy alternatives. It is about (1) whether the federal Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (the “Act”) can be supported under the national concern branch of the POGG power; and (2) whether the “charges” imposed by the Act are valid as regulatory charges or as taxes. The answer to both questions should be no.
.
2. The provinces are fully capable of regulating greenhouse gas emissions themselves, have already done so, and continue to do so. Ontario has already decreased its greenhouse gas emissions by 22% below 2005 levels and has committed to a 30% reduction below 2005 levels by 2030 – the same target to which Canada has committed itself in the Paris Agreement.
12. Saskatchewan has adopted its own industrial emission standards under The Management and Reduction of Greenhouse Gases Act, which is more stringent than Part 2 of the GGPPA. However, the provincial regime does not apply to Crown corporations engaged in the businesses of electricity generation (SaskPower) and the distribution of natural gas (SaskEnergy). Instead, under Saskatchewan’s strategy, these Crown corporations have plans to reduce emissions, including expanding renewable sources to provide up to 50% of Saskatchewan’s electrical generating capacity by 2030. Saskatchewan previously made significant investment in GHG emissions reduction by retrofitting one of SaskPower’s coal-fired electrical generation units with post-combustion carbon capture use and storage. This technology allows emissions from Boundary Dam Unit 3 to be permanently sequestered underground.
Once more, the Provinces are not arguing that climate change is a hoax. Instead, they are only complaining about Ottawa imposing a Federal tax.
Many “conservative” supporters claim the party didn’t really support the Paris Accord in 2016/2017, and only voted for it out of being pressured. A few problems with that.
(a) First, Stephen Harper signed Agenda 2030 in September 2015. It also implemented Agenda 21, which had been signed by Brian Mulroney in 1992. Had he been re-elected, he almost certainly would have signed this as well.
(b) Second, given the bogus court challenges (see previous section), it’s clear conservatives don’t really oppose the hoax. They just want to be SEEN as opposing it.
(c) Third, peer pressure is not a valid excuse to justify doing the wrong thing.
16. Giant Wealth Transfer Scheme
Don’t be deceived by what is being said in the media. These carbon taxes, and other “fees” have nothing to do with global warming, climate change, or clean air. These are just false pretenses to go about a wealth transfer scheme that is worth trillions of dollars. There is nothing altruistic about this, although many are duped into believing that it is.
That’s the reaction I got from watching the CPC debate. Real issues were shoved aside in favour of extremely superficial discussion. Granted, political debates are rarely meant to be engaging and in depth, and this was no exception.
This could be easily forgiven if official platforms and discussions were in depth on the important matters. However, that doesn’t appear to be the case.
If this group represents the future of the Conservative Party of Canada, then it’s probably best to just let the party collapse, and focus on other alternatives. It is every bit as globalist as the Liberal Party, and meaningful differences are few and far between.
2. Border Security & Enforcement
While Conservatives used to brag about how they would close the loophole in the Safe Third Country Agreement, that talking point seems to have dropped from their agendas. True, the agreement was modified, but many of the same issues still exist.
Of course they don’t mentioned that they never implemented a proper entry/exit system either, despite a recent decade in power. They never brought up that S3CA was drafted in such a way that the United Nations was a party to it, and consultations were required. They didn’t ever address the NGOs (many Jewish) who have been fighting in court for decades to keep the Canada/U.S. border open. Conservatives also downplayed the expediting of work permits to illegals, and amnesty for illegals.
It would be nice for conservatives to address abominations like Sanctuary Cities, which encourage and reward people for being in the country illegally. However, few seem to care.
In fact, conservatives have been, and remain, complicit, in ensuring that there isn’t any real border security in Canada. Closing the Safe 3rd Country Agreement is just a tiny piece of it. There is silence on so much else.
3. True Scale Of Immigration Into Canada
This has been brought up repeatedly on this site, but the “official” immigration numbers in no way reflect the number of people actually entering Canada with some pathway to stay longer. Each year, hundreds of thousands of students and “temporary” workers enter Canada. But this is noticeably absent from the discussion. Remittances drain our national coffers, pilot programs are varied and numerous, immigration is pushed even during times of high unemployment, and rich people can simply purchase a pathway to permanent residence. These are just a few examples of the mess that is the Canadian immigration system.
This also should be noted: every year thousands of “inadmissibles” are denied entry originally, but then allowed in LEGALLY anyway. What’s even the point?
This also ties back to the last section. Since Canada doesn’t actually have a proper entry/exit system in place, how can he ensure that students and temporary workers, (and the inadmissibles) are actually leaving the country afterwards?
Sloan (to his credit), made a few vague references to reducing immigration, but has never addressed the true size of the problem.
4. Lack Of Transparency On CANZUK
O’Toole repeatedly brought up CANZUK as a free trade agreement between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. What he left out was that CANZUK also has a free movement provision, which allows citizens to freely move between countries. O’Toole deliberately omits as well that he fully intends to expand CANZUK to other nations as well. Watch 2:00 in the video.
5. Continued Population Replacement
(Page 18 of the 2004 Annual Report to Parliament)
(Page 24 of the 2005 Annual Report to Parliament)
(Page 18, 19 of the 2006 Annual Report to Parliament)
(Page 19, 20 of the 2007 Annual Report to Parliament)
(Page 21, 22 of the 2008 Annual Report to Parliament)
(Page 16 of the 2009 Annual Report to Parliament)
(Page 14 of the 2010 Annual Report to Parliament)
(Page 18 of the 2011 Annual Report to Parliament)
(Page 15 of the 2012 Annual Report to Parliament)
(Page 19 of the 2013 Annual Report to Parliament)
(Page 16 of the 2014 Annual Report to Parliament)
(Page 16 of the 2015 Annual Report to Parliament)
(Page 10 of the 2016 Annual Report to Parliament)
(Page 14 of the 2017 Annual Report to Parliament)
(Page 28 of the 2018 Annual Report to Parliament)
(Page 36 of the 2019 Annual Report to Parliament)
This is by no means everyone entering Canada, but does demonstrate a point. In recent decades, immigration to Canada has overwhelmingly been from the 3rd world. This has resulted in irreversible demographic changes, to balkanization, and to a society where many feel no need to integrate.
Instead of addressing this, the candidates all cucked hard at the issue of “systemic racism. Instead of calling out the farce being played out live, they all submitted. Candidates all, to various degrees, played along with the horrors that people of colour experience on a daily basis.
Never mind that the only group that it’s legal to discriminate against is whites. In particular this means white men. This display was truly revolting to watch.
6. Silence On “Gladue Rights” Hypocrisy
If conservatives really wanted to address inequality in the criminal justice system, they could have brought up “Gladue rights”, which entrench special rights and considerations for Aboriginals and blacks. This abomination has been upheld as legal by the Supreme Court of Canada, and is now commonplace in criminal courts. Yes, we actually have race-based-discounts in criminal courts, even in sentencing. If this isn’t systematic racism, then what is?
Critics have claimed this is necessary, given the overrepresentation in prisons. While there is overrepresentation, these same critics try to avoid the key issue: CRIME RATES. They will look to any other reason to explain this disparity, other than actual criminal behaviour.
It was Gladue rights that allowed Terri McClintic to go to a healing lodge, for a brief period at least. This has been the law since the 1990s, but yet no one in power talks about that systemic racism.
7. International Banking Cartel
While Conservatives do whine about the debt, they deliberately avoid discussing WHY the situation is so bad. Specifically, since 1974, Canada has been borrowing primarily from private sources. Money is always artificially created, but when it’s owed to – say the Bank of Canada – the debt stays in Canadian hands. It can be paid off or cancelled at any time. Not the case when it is private institutions doing this.
In fact, over 90% of Canada’s national debt has been from accumulated interest. Liberals and Conservatives alike play along with this fraud, ensuring the balance grows.
Canada currently owes about 30% to foreign interests, which give them great leverage over us. Despite vague talking points, supporters have never been able to explain how private loans reduce inflation, and even if true, why this is better than simply using the Bank of Canada. Worse, Conservatives were in power when this was challenged in court by COMER, so they can’t claim ignorance on the issue.
Fiscal conservatives will always focus on a symptom (the debt), and not on the disease (the international banking cartel). They are complicit in helping this scheme along.
8. Silence On Climate Change Scam
I can’t even be happy about the approach here, and this is why. It’s another case of the Conservatives focusing on symptoms (Paris Accord, Carbon tax), while ignoring the underlying disease (the climate change industry). The candidates repeatedly say that the Carbon tax is an ineffective means for implementing a climate plan. The point to Provincial court challenges, while omitting that they are really just a form of controlled opposition.
The problem is that the entire climate change industry is built on lies and deception. Carbon Dioxide is plant food, and playing along with this hoax does not serve Canadians’ interests in the slightest. Broadly speaking, money which Western nations provide (with debt of course), are used for climate bonds, and predatory loans to the 3rd world.
None of this benefits Canadians, nor helps the environment in any way. Yet conservatives are quite willing to play along with the agenda, even if they claim to oppose the Carbon tax.
9. Support For Internationalist Agenda
Throughout the “debate”, candidates were criticizing Trudeau for how he handles affairs internationally.
Problem is, they criticize his handing of it only. They have no problem with the agendas themselves. Conservatives have no issue with being in bed with the U.N., or groups like the Trilateral Commission, the Bank for International Settlements, the World Trade Organization, CANZUK, or supporting agreements like the USMCA or the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
To reiterate: conservatives are only being critical for how Trudeau handles the globalism agenda. They have no problem with the agenda itself.
10. Two-Faced On Trade Protectionism
This was amusing to see the mental gymnastics at play. The Conservatives support the globalized trade agenda: NAFTA; (it’s successor USMCA); CANZUK; Trans-Pacific Partnership; FIPA, and countless more deals.
Problem is, as long as a part supports the offshoring agenda, they will never believe in protectionist policies. While all candidates gave lip service to wanting to be self sufficient, the reality is that they don’t. Keeping control over the production of essential goods necessitates protectionist policies — and an anti-free trade mentality. Conservative policies over the years have directly contributed to the dependence on foreign powers that are hostile to us.
11. Social Conservatives Thrown Under Bus
There was some talk from all candidates about the need for a “bigger tent”, and for bringing social conservatives in.
The problem is: there’s no sincerity behind this movement. Social conservatives are nothing more than a voting base to be tapped into. This party supports diversity, multiculturalism, gay “marriage”, the gender agenda, widespread abortion, and other non-traditional beliefs. In fact, the more diverse a country becomes, the less there is to conserve socially.
Read between the lines here. Soc-Cons are to be used as a vote supplement, nothing more.
12. Shift From Identity To “Values”
A major problem with conservatives is that they don’t believe that national identity is worth protecting. Whether it be demographics, culture, language, heritage, customs, traditions, religion, etc… As such, they don’t make any effort (other than platitudes), to preserve the makeup of the country.
Instead, they go with the much more vague and malleable notion of “values”. These are simply ideas that can be changed or watered down to suit political purposes.
13. Miscellaneous Points To Add
(Peter Mackay pledges – in writing – no merger with Alliance if he wins)
(Peter MacKay sticking the knife in again?)
MacKay has been around for a long time, and was involved in Harper’s globalist agenda all along. He and Maxime Bernier helped with the 2007 endorsement of the UN Parliamentary Assembly vote. There’s also his history of stabbing his colleagues in the back, from David Orchard to Andrew Scheer. MacKay is also connected to the Desmarais family, having previously dated Paul Desmarais Jr.’s daughter.
Aside from pandering constantly, O’Toole has tweeted out that he is a shill for foreign interests, or one in particular. Makes ones reasonably question his loyalty and commitment to Canada. Also noteworthy is that he spent a few years at the (now defunct) law firm of Heenan Blaikie. This is the same firm Jean Chretien and Pierre Trudeau worked at. It had also been infiltrated heavily by the Desmarais Family.
Dr. Lewis graduated magna cum laude from the University of Toronto (Trinity College). Thereafter, she obtained a Juris Doctorate from Osgoode Hall Law School, a Masters in Environmental Studies from York University, with a Concentration in Business and the Environment from the Schulich School of Business, and completed a PhD from Osgoode Hall Law School, York University. Dr. Lewis is the Managing Partner of Lewis Law Professional Corporation and has developed a specialized commercial litigation and international contract trade practice which focuses on energy policy. She has two decades of strong litigation experience beginning with some of the strongest Bay Street law firms, prior to starting this firm. She has published numerous articles in peer reviewed journals on international law, contracts, climate change and the feed-in-tariff system in renewable energy projects. Her local practice focuses on corporate commercial, real estate and estates, while her international practice is concentrated in the area of cross-border services including immigration, energy law.
While career politicians are distasteful as a rule, Leslyn seems to have come out of nowhere. She finished her PhD dissertation in 2019, at the age of 48. She seems professionally invested in the climate change scam and to have a globalist/internationalist mindset. Not sure this is the best choice for a party that desperately needs to ditch its globalist ties.
14. Forced VS Optional Vaccines
It was nice to hear the candidates say that no vaccines would ever be forced on Canadians — an obvious reference to the CV planned-emic. However, a point has to be made about that.
WHY are they so okay with vaccines in the first place? Given the deception and lies behind the reporting and the overblown nature, why aren’t they questioning the vaxx agenda itself? Why aren’t they questioning the rampant lobbying and conflict of interest here? Instead, the “opposition” seems limited as to whether vaccines should be made mandatory.
15. Just Let It Implode
This is some random tweet referring to the Republican Party in the United States. However, the exact same reasoning applies to “conservative” parties in Canada. They co-opt and corrupt nationalist and populist movements in order to incorporate (or appear to incorporate) them into their platform.
The result is that an extremely watered down — or non-existent — version of populist sentiment gets put into the mainstream. This is where puppet journalists obediently parrot the talking points and deceive the public.
The Conservative Party of Canada is not worth saving, or reforming, or overhauling. It needs to die. With it out of the way, more nationalist leaning alternatives can flourish and grow.
Justin Trudeau’s election in 2015 was due to a few things: nepotism, foreign money, a cooing media, and decent looks. By any objective measure, he has been a disaster.
To be fair, having a “conservative” in office would have led to most of the same harmful and destructive policies. Trudeau, to his credit, is openly a globalist, while conservatives are more stealthy about it. Nonetheless, we need people asking the right questions before they vote.
1. Previous Solutions Offered
A response that frequently comes up is for people to ask what to do about it. Instead of just constantly pointing out what is wrong, some constructive suggestions should be offered. This section contains a list of proposals that, if implemented, would benefit society. While the details may be difficult to implement, at least they are a starting point.
2. Views/Bias Of The Author
Everyone has their own political slant. To get this out of the way: the views of the author more generally reflect the views and content that are addressed on the site. The site is nationalist leaning, and rejects conservatism and libertarianism, which are really just globalism.
Modern “leftism” (if that if even a proper term) is a globalist ideology. Although not a complete list, here are some of the things they support
Population replacement of Europeans
Erasure of traditional culture and heritage
Languages other than English and French
Identity politics for certain groups
Foreigners in the government
Foreigners in the military
Forced multiculturalism
Replacement of Christianity in the West
Globohomo agenda world wide
Mutilation of trans-children
Abortion becoming normalised and mainstream
Destruction of families
Pro climate change scam, carbon tax
UN and other “multilateral” institutions
Islamification of the West
Foreign aid handed out everywhere
Foreign interventions (but somehow not war)
Won’t discuss cause of foreign debt (Banking Cartel)
Government control over all major aspects of business
Limiting ability to send jobs overseas
Restricting free speech rights
Strong gun control, seizures
Modern conservatism (or “Conservative Inc.”) supports many of the same globalist ideologies and principles as the left, or liberals. Although the tone and rhetoric vary, a lot of the content is the same.
LEGAL population replacement of Europeans
LEGAL erasure of traditional culture and heritage
Languages other than English and French
Identity politics for certain groups
Foreigners in the government
Foreigners in the military
Globohomo agenda world wide
Mutilation of trans-ADULTS
LEGAL forced multiculturalism
Abortion becoming normalised and mainstream
Destruction of families
Pro climate change scam, but against carbon tax
UN, while claiming it won’t erode sovereignty
Islamification of the West (just not radicals)
Foreign aid for some places (like Israel)
Foreign wars that aren’t in Canadians’ interests
Won’t discuss cause of foreign debt (Banking Cartel)
Business interests topping interests of people
Offshoring/Outsourcing jobs overseas
“Monitoring” the situation of free speech violations
Sometimes stand on the side of gun owners
From the listings, it doesn’t seem like Liberalism or Conservative Inc. are all that different. Now that the views and biases are disclosed, let’s look at ways you can help make informed choices about who to vote for
3. Candidates Asking The Right Questions?
To be an effective representative, candidates must be addressing the right topics, and asking the right questions. However, far too many deflect. Here are some examples of topics that serious candidates should discuss if they really represent the interests of Canadians.
(a) Illegal border crossings into Canada: This should be a no-brainer to be against illegal aliens entering the country, but it’s not for many. Even those who call for closing the loophole in the Safe Third Country Agreement are in favour of work permits for illegals. There is tepid opposition to using taxpayer funded social services. If a candidate is serious about stopping illegal crossings, why wouldn’t they support stripping away the financial benefits for doing so? And why aren’t they talking about the people fighting in court to rewrite laws, and those facilitating the illegal entries into Canada?
(b) True scale of immigration into Canada: Politicians typically mislead about the true scale of people entering the country LEGALLY. They mention the number of permanent residencies handed out (if that is even accurate), but deflect from the true scale of people entering. They don’t discuss the problems that multiculturalism and population replacement bring, nor the balkanization of communities.
(c) Outsourcing/offshoring Canadian industries: There is a lot of talk about the benefits of free trade (also called globalization or offshoring), but little about the harmful effects. Who cares about corporate profits when entire communities are gutted, when it becomes cheaper to ship their jobs and industries overseas? Sure, it lowers prices at Walmart, but there are larger social costs. These costs involve: trade deficits; job losses; outsourcing; wage stagnation; wage depression; increased foreign competition; higher unemployment; loss of control for critical industries, and more. Immigration and free trade (think CANZUK), are linked, in that it creates an INCREASED demand for work, but with a REDUCED supply of jobs available. Candidates who care about their people should address this openly and honestly
(d) International Banking Cartel: Politicians often play a sleight-of-hand with deficit/debt. They will talk about “eliminating the deficit”, without mentioning that it still doesn’t deal with the already accumulated debt. Even worse, if that they won’t address the banking cartel, which Canada has been part of since 1974. Yes, money is artificially created, but instead of borrowing from the Bank of Canada (borrowing from ourselves), subsequent governments borrow artificially created money from private banks, meaning we have to pay for it. Even left-wing politicians act as controlled opposition in avoiding the topic.
(e) Corruption behind corporate welfare: While some politicians lament the fact that Provincially and Federally, we still hand out tax-payer subsidies (corporate welfare), few will address the fraud, corruption, and cronyism that is essential to these handouts. The focus is on a symptom, not the disease. Theft is a crime, and it shouldn’t be considered less of one just because one of the thieves is an elected official.
(f) Climate Change Scam: Talk among major politicians seems to be over whether a carbon tax is needed, or what type or pricing is needed. What’s missing from the discussion is that the Paris Accord is a total hoax, a fraud meant to enrich a few. Talk about controlled opposition. No one mentions the climate bonds industry, or the predatory loans which carbon taxes finance. In relation to point “D”, we are going into debt — to private companies — to borrow money which we then give away, yet this isn’t addressed. And how does paying taxes improve the weather anyway?
This is by no means a complete list, just a few major points that potential voters need to think about when asking their candidates for information.
4. Arguing Over Trivial Matters
People running for various offices will disagree on many things. Often they will argue over DIFFERENT POLICIES. However, when one argues over different ways to implement the SAME POLICIES, it becomes a fair question as to how different they really are. Fierce debate over essentially the same positions is a dog-and-pony show, which doesn’t offer a real alternative to voters.
5. Opposition By Scandal
Don’t get the wrong idea. Governments in power do often have scandals, such as corruption, gross incompetence. While holding a government to account is important, it should not be the MAIN SOURCE of opposition. If someone seeks office, and their main points all have to do with pointing out current administration incompetence, then they likely have little to offer as a platform.
6. Check Who Really Funds Candidates
There are several ways to do this. Check them out to see if they have rich relatives. Check work history to see if there is a particular company or industry they will be pushing. See who lobbies them or donates to their campaign accounts. Effectively, do a background check on your candidates. At times, the candidate will shove it in your face. Take note.
To be fair however, Canadian politicians are influenced by a variety of foreign interests. The Prime Minister is (allegedly) the bastard son of the late Cuban dictator, Fidel Castro. The Deputy Prime Minister is the granddaughter of a Nazi collaborator. The Defence Minister is an Indian National, so is our Industry Minister. The former Immigration Minister is a Somali refugee who funnels tax payer money there. The Status-Of-Women Minister is a fake refugee and illegal alien from Iran. M103 was passed by a Pakistani Muslim who hates free speech. The Conservative Leader and (just departed) Green Party Leader are both Americans. The Bloc is a party that opposes Canada, and the People’s Party is headed by a former Quebec separatist. The NDP leader is a Khalistani separatist banned from entering India. There are plenty more.
Beyond national and ethnic loyalties, it’s also worth inquiring who finances their campaigns, and who is donating gifts. It will tell you far more than any brochure of platform.
7. Deflect With Personal Attacks
A person serious about running for office should be able to defend their ideas from criticism. However, when the person resorts to name calling, or continuously brings up the record of others — instead of answering direct questions — ask yourself if the person really believes in what they say. Also be aware of strawman arguments
8. Take The Time To Self-Educate
Unfortunately, it is true that the bulk of successful politicians are working for someone other than their constituents. It’s not fair, and it’s not something to be condoned. It’s quite understandable, the sentiment that voting is a waste.
There are a host of serious issues that either get downplayed, or ignored altogether. The media is complicit in helping this happen, and the public gets screwed.
However, this is (for now) the system of government we have. Learning more about the people who want to rule over you gives power. It creates awareness.
