Strategic Cuckery: Why “Conservatives” Will Always Capitulate (My Take)

Note: this is going to be much more opinion based than what is normally presented. That being said, let’s dive into it.

Ever wonder why “conservative” politicians always cave in whenever things get difficult? Think it’s strange that they will never stand behind anything controversial?

Federally, Erin O’Toole comes across as a clown and an unserious person. His predecessor, Andrew Scheer, presents as spineless and standing for nothing. Before that, Stephen Harper had a professional presentation, but was a full blown liberal globalist. He was just better at concealing it. Now, what is the common thread?

The goal is not to stand up for important issues, but to “appear” to stand up for them. However, they will predictably back down at the slightest push back. True, conservatives will often say a lot of the right things in opposition. However, they will always have excuses to do nothing while in power. This includes:

  • People entering the country illegally en masse
  • Amnesty for illegals
  • Open borders immigration policies
  • Multiculturalism agenda replacing traditional societies
  • Allowing private interests to enslave Canada with debt
  • Endless treaties which erode sovereignty
  • Trade policies which outsource local industries
  • Playing along with the climate change scam
  • Weak defense of free speech rights
  • Weak defense of property rights
  • Actively promoting globohomo agenda
  • Celebrating infanticide as “empowerment”

Those are just a few of the issues in Canada that don’t receive anywhere near enough attention in the media. It’s funny though, that these are only problems when Liberals are in power.

And it’s not just Canadian “conservatives” who pull this stunt. It happens elsewhere as well.

How strange it is that Donald Trump, even when Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress, couldn’t get anything done. Odd that the Commander-in-Chief couldn’t send the military to protect the U.S. border. Perplexing that he never used his executive power (for example) to ban birthright tourism, or make e-verify the law nationwide.

This happens in the U.K. as well. Despite being in power for a decade, “Conservatives” can’t seem to fix the boatloads of illegals entering regularly from France. They are unable to deport them as well. Why can’t Home Secretary Priti Patel ever seem to get it done? And Brexit didn’t really need to take 4 years, unless attrition was the real goal.

There is, of course, a simple explanation for all of this: so-called conservatives across the West are simply putting on an act in order to placate the population. By pretending to fight for the interests for their constituents, it pacifies genuine resistance that would grow.

This is made worse by “conservative” media that does little more than prop of the left v.s. right narrative. Too many outlets are just extensions of political parties.

  • The Postmedia empire has many papers which mostly parrot back conservative talking points. This covers pretty much anything with “Sun” in the name.
  • Candice Malcolm (True North) worked as a staffer for Jason Kenney when he was a Cabinet Minister.
  • Jeff Ballingall (Post Millennial) worked on the campaigns of both Erin O’Toole and Doug Ford.
  • Spencer Fernando (National Citizens Coalition) works for Harper’s old organization.
  • Rebel Media — to their credit — does a lot of good reporting. However, their open political advocacy eliminates any claim to being neutral.

Even when there is criticism on the right, it tends to be fairly tepid. This is done to present to maintain the optics of monitoring all sides.

The proliferation of fake political parties doesn’t help the public. It does, however, channel money and energy into movements that are destined to go nowhere.

  • People’s Party of Canada (Bernier)
  • Republican Party of Canada (Carbone)
  • Maverick Party (Hill)
  • New Blue Ontario (Karahalios)

Why are these parties fake? Because it doesn’t look like there is any real effort being made to advance their stated goals. None of them have constitutions or other governing documents, so there is no structure. Nonetheless, all are willing to take your donations.

To summarize: mainstream conservatives do little more than present the illusion of fighting for their constituents. They are aided by friendly media who deflect real questions and criticism. And several “alternative” parties seem to be little more than money pits.

This is not genuine weakness, but strategic cucking.

Q-Anon, was designed to placate millions of decent Americans by convincing them that some secret group was fighting behind the scenes to remove the deep state. While some good research was done, Q-Anon was mainly a psy-op.

In the 1920s, there was “Operation Trust”. The goal of that was to prop up the Lenin Government by spreading rumours that a plot was already underway to remove him from power. Of course, this didn’t exist. But it was successful.

There are parallels with what’s happening now. Politicians and media working together to present the illusion of real opposition. Now, this could all be inane ramblings, or it could accurately describe the world we live in.

If this viewpoint offends people, oh well.

For an interesting critique, check out this video. All of this grandstanding is just putting on a show to distract the peons.

Using Artificial Scarcity, Product Placement, Market Manipulation, To Drive Up Demand

This article will get into some of the advertising and marketing techniques employed to get people to purchase products and services. There is quite a lot of science and research behind it.

1. Important Links

Alex Cattoni On Creating Scarcity Conditions
Justin Atlan On Scarcity To Create Sense Of Urgency
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_scarcity
Psychology Today: The Scarcity Mindset
Investopedia On Suggestive Selling
Product Placement Strategies, History
Marketing Plans Should Include Sponsorship
Psychology In Advertising: Common Methods
CTV: Culture Shift On Wearing Masks

2. Techniques To Create Scarcity Illusion

  1. Price Scarcity — the price will increase
  2. Quantity Scarcity — limited amount available
  3. Premium Scarcity — limited time bonuses
  4. Offer Scarcity — relaunching a temporary product

Now, these specific techniques can be used individually, or in some combination, depending on the circumstances. The point of this is to put pressure on people to act now, or else the offer will never be better. While the creator, Alex Cattoni, says to be honest, artificially creating scarcity can be very manipulative nature. This type of pressure can be applied almost universally, although the specific methods vary. Justin Atlan talks about using scarcity in order to drive up sales.

Of course, artificially creating scarcity can be done for many reasons, and several of them are quite valid and legitimate.

  • Cartels, monopolies and/or rentier capitalism
  • Competition regulation, where regulatory uncertainty and policy ambiguity deters investment.
  • Copyright, when used to disallow copying or disallow access to sources. Proprietary software is an example.
  • Copyleft software is a counterexample where copyleft advocates use copyright licenses to guarantee the right to copy, access, view, and change the source code, and allow others to do the same to derivatives of that code.
  • Patent
  • The Agricultural Adjustment Act
  • Hoarding, including cornering the market
  • Deliberate destruction
  • Paywalls
  • Torrent poisoning such as poisoning bittorrent with half broken copies of music and videos to drive up prices when instead streamed from places the author has deals with
  • Planned obsolescence
  • Decentralized digital currencies (e.g. Bitcoin)
  • This is from Wikipedia. There are perfectly valid reasons to engage in the creation of scarcity, such as intellectual property, and not undercutting your own prices. That said, there are unscrupulous ones as well.

    Economics is the study of how we use our limited resources (time, money, etc.) to achieve our goals. This definition refers to physical scarcity. In a recent book titled Scarcity, Mullainathan & Eldar (2013) broaden the concept of scarcity by asking the following questions: What happens to our minds when we feel we have too little? How does the context of scarcity shape our choices and our behaviors? They show that scarcity is not just a physical limitation. Scarcity affects our thinking and feeling. Scarcity orients the mind automatically and powerfully toward unfulfilled needs. For example, food grabs the focus of the hungry. For the lonely person, scarcity may come in poverty of social isolation and a lack of companionship.

    The scarcity mentality is well known by social psychologists. It forces being to think in finite terms, and to ask what they are missing out on. This can be good or bad, depending on the circumstances.

    3. Fear Of Missing Out On A Benefit

    FOMO, or the fear of missing out, is commonly used to pressure people into buying good and services now. Notice, it doesn’t have to be the product itself. It can just be having their life back to the way that it used to be. Perhaps something happened recently to change what was considered normal.

    4. Suggestive Selling/Upselling

    Understanding Suggestive Selling
    The idea behind the technique is that it takes marginal effort compared with the potential additional revenue. This is because getting the buyer to purchase (often seen as the most difficult part) has already been done. After the buyer is committed, an additional sale that is a fraction of the original purchase is much more likely.

    Typical examples of add-on sales are the extended warranties offered by sellers of household appliances such as refrigerators and washing machines, as well as electronics. A salesperson at an automobile dealership also generates significant add-on sales by suggesting or convincing a buyer sitting at their desk that the buyer would be much happier with the car with a few or several add-on options.

    Investopedia explains that upselling it often considered a better use of a person’s time that focusing solely on new customers. After all, the person is already buying something, so why not take the minimal amount of effort to see if they will purchase anything new?

    There is of course the idea of a volume discount. For example, take the BOGO (buy one, get one) free or greatly reduced. Often, people who may not have been willing to take multiple products now will, if it appears to reduce the price per unit.

    5. Product Placement As A Sales Strategy

    Product placement is a marketing strategy that has accidentally evolved a few decades ago. Nevertheless, the efficiency of the product placement has been spotted by professionals and since then various companies engage in product placement activities in various levels with varying efficiency. One of the main differences of product placement from other marketing strategies is the significance of factors contributing to it, such as context and environment within which the product is displayed or used.

    Implementing an efficient marketing strategy is one of the essential conditions for a product to be successful in the marketplace. Companies may choose different marketing strategies including advertising, channel marketing, internet marketing, promotion, public relations, product placement and others. Each of one of these marketing tools has its advantages and disadvantages and the rationale behind the choice among these tools relates to the type of the product, type of the market and the marketing strategy of the company.

    Product placement is a long recognized trick for getting a product into another production, without directly admitting that it is a form of advertising. This may be a substitute for more blatant ads, or may work in conjunction with it.

    6. Keep Repeating Your Talking Points

    This comment was (supposedly) in the context of pushing the climate change agenda on Canadians, but the principle can be applied much more broadly. It’s a variation of “if you tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth”. Unfortunately, this is all too true.

    7. Including Sponsorship In Marketing Plan

    1. Shape consumer attitudes.
    2. Build brand awareness.
    3. Drive sales.
    4. Increase reach.
    5. Generate media exposure.
    6. Differentiate yourself from competitors.
    7. Take on a “corporate citizen” role.
    8. Generate new leads.
    9. Enhance business, consumer, and VIP relationships.

    Sponsoring a group or event can bring several benefits to your group, and those are outlined pretty well. Yes, the benefits are more intangible and difficult to measure, but it’s commonly believed to be an effective practice.

    8. Pay For Advertising, Sponsoring In Media

    (a) Subsidization Programs Available For Media Outlets (QCJO)
    (b) Political Operatives Behind Many “Fact-Checking” Groups
    (c) DisinfoWatch, MacDonald-Laurier, Journalists For Human Rights
    (d) Taxpayer Subsidies To Combat CV “Misinformation”
    (e) Postmedia Periodicals Getting Covid Subsidies
    (f) Aberdeen Publishing (BC, AB) Getting Grants To Operate
    (g) Other Periodicals Receiving Subsidies
    (h) Still More Media Subsidies Taxpayers Are Supporting
    (i) Media Outlets, Banks, Credit Unions, All Getting CEWS

    Paying for advertisements in newspapers, magazines, radio stations, and online, is a long accepted way of getting a message out. It’s an effective way to promote a product, service, or ideology. Of course, Governments can go the extra mile and just outright subsidize such outlets. It’s a way to create financial dependence, and ensure that they will be obedient to whatever is needed.

    9. Psychology Used In Selling To People

    1. Branding
    2. Give, Give, Give, Give, and Ask
    3. Power of Scarcity, FOMO
    4. Perceived Value & Pricing
    5. Power of Persuasion
    6. Power of Convenience
    7. Appeal To Morality
    8. Changing Language, Misusing Terms

    Advertising is much more complicated than simply being interesting and visually appealing. There are plenty of mental and psychological ways to do this. After this, it’s impossible to view ads in the same way ever again.

    10. Have Credible Actors Promote Message/Brand

    One of the keys to an effective marketing program is to have believable and realistic actors selling the message. Getting caught out like this doesn’t help at all. From a casting perspective, Ontario Deputy Medical Officer Barbara Yaffe was an extremely poor choice. Health Minister Christine Elliott wasn’t a great selection either.

    When the stakes are high, it’s essential to have actors and actresses who have read and understood their scripts. They will be better able to improvise when asked difficult questions. See here and here. Remember, even though the media questions are screened, sometimes they will accidently be curveballs.

    BC Provincial Health Officer Bonnie Henry is also a bizarre choice. While she seems likeable, and has the fake trembling nailed, she frequently jokes about the “no science” part. Perhaps she was never informed that this is serious.

    Alberta Premier Jason Kenney may have topped them all. He admits there could be 90% error — and hence, no pandemic — but then defers to the experts.

    Granted, these are difficult roles to play, given the scrutiny they are under. But still, the casting left a lot to be desired.

    11. Why Does This Marketing Info Matter?

    Even back in May 2020, the MSM in Canada was openly talking about “shifting the culture” to get everyone wearing masks for the foreseeable future. Of course, this sort of predictive programming is not limited to masks, but spread to other areas.

    Imagine a group of people not driven by money, but by ideology. They wanted to convince the general population to inject — en masse — an experimental mRNA vaccine, to cure a disease they don’t know exists.

    Such a task would be very difficult to accomplish, without using brute force. An alternative solution would be to apply some of the techniques outlined above, and get people to take it willingly.

    As for appealing to morality, does this sound familiar?
    “My mask protects you, and your mask protects me”.

    Words and terms are redefined in false and misleading ways.
    It’s not “martial law”, it’s “sheltering in place”.

    Healthy people should not be viewed as normal.
    Instead, they are “potential asymptomatic spreaders”.

    The Federal and Provincial Governments are not buying off media outlets and businesses into compliance. Instead, they are handing out “emergency relief”. See the difference?

    FOMO, or fear of missing out is being applied as a hardball tactic to get more people into taking the vaccine. After all, who isn’t desperate for some return to a normal life? If there aren’t enough to go around, doesn’t that create artificial scarcity?

    Covid internment camps are a conspiracy theory. Those “mandatory isolation centres” are not at all the same thing, and people need to stop misrepresenting the truth.

    No one is trying to trick citizens into taking the vaccine. Instead, they are just conducting research into ways to overcome “hesitancy”. See Part #1, #2, #3, #4 and #5.

    Regarding hope for the future: an astute person will note that Canada has ANNOUNCED a program to compensate people for injury or death caused by vaccines. However, there have been no DETAILS of what it will look like. It could be the Government falling behind, or it could be tat they have no intention of implementing anything.

    A Response To Spencer Fernando On “Conservatives Should Embrace Decentralization”

    This review is in response to article written by Spencer Fernando. Not sure if that was written as a satire piece, but the content needs addressing.

    To point out the obvious: Spencer Fernando is part of the National Citizens Coalition, the organization that Stephen Harper used to run. So he’s not writing this as a journalist, but as a political operative looking to help out “his team”. Nonetheless, let’s see what unique and visionary ideas he brings to the table.

    It has the benefit of appealing to all aspects of the party, being a real alternative to what the Liberals and others are offering, and being an idea that is increasingly essential in a rapidly changing world.

    This is a summary of the argument: that a governing structure more decentralized would be a politically beneficial platform to advance. Okay, let’s look at the details he offers.

    These are tough times for the Conservative Party.
    .
    While the Liberals put forward real ideas (albeit the terrible ideas of excessive regulations and massive government intervention), the Conservatives find themselves constantly on the defensive, fighting internally, divided, and unable to define themselves in any consistent way.

    This is a common talking point that comes up: politicians being unable to “define themselves”. Here’s a tip:

    Getting into politics is (supposedly) about offering up new ideas. How people define themselves — or at least how they should — is on what they want to do. Conservatives have trouble “defining themselves” because they don’t really stand for anything. All they offer is vague slogans.

    The author seems to realize this. A good solution would be to replace them by people who “do” want to advance new ideas. Instead, he scrapes the bottom of the barrel looking for ideas. And this appears to be in the context of electioneering, not real intellectual conversation.

    Why the divisions? Mainly because many factions he calls “conservatives” want nothing to do with each other. More on that later.

    Previously, I had shared thoughts that a potential solution to this issue was an embrace of a more Canadian form of populism, based on being an inclusive party that was still willing to use the federal government to achieve big goals for the nation while pushing back against political correctness on certain issues like immigration, trade, and more.

    Fernando uses the term “pushing back against political correctness” for issues such as immigration and trade. He avoids saying that a hard discussion is needed, as these are 2 very destructive topics.

    Immigration causes significant and often irreversible changes to a country, including replacing its founding history, culture, language and people. This is especially true given the TRUE SCALE at which it happens in Canada. Moreover, as demographics change, and more left wing groups come in, it becomes mathematically impossible for “conservatives” to win politically.

    In fact, a major reason countries split up because they become too diverse, and they prefer to remain more homogenous. They wish to preserve their way of life, which is natural.

    So-called free trade, or globalization, or offshoring is another policy Conservatives support which is harmful. Whether it’s FIPA, CANZUK, NAFTA, TPP, or something else, these agreements have the effect of outsourcing Canadian industries to the 3rd World. This results in jobs disappearing, wages being driven down, economic security going away, and a race to the bottom that only benefits multinationals.

    We don’t need to combat political correctness. We need a frank discussion about what such policies — that Conservatives support — are actually doing to Canada. However, this commentator doesn’t appear to be much on giving in depth coverage.

    However, this past year has shown that even ‘conservative’ leaders cannot be trusted with massive centralized government power.
    .
    We have watched as ‘conservative’ premiers imposed draconian lockdowns and restrictions, picked which businesses would live and which would die, benefitted big box stores and global corporations, wiped out countless small businesses, threatened – and used – the police to enforce what was essentially marshal law, and proved no different from what ‘socialists’ were accused of.

    Although not named, presumably these leaders include:
    -Blaine Higgs (NB)
    -Francois Legault (QC)
    -Doug Ford (ON)
    -Brian Pallister (MB)
    -Scott Moe (SK)
    -Jason Kenney (AB)

    The sentence should read: “Even ‘conservative’ leaders cannot be trusted.” The rest is an unnecessary qualification.

    While it’s certainly true, ‘conservatives’ have imposed martial law, centralized power is not the issue. Instead, the problem is that these ‘conservatives’ collectively have no problem wiping their butts with the Constitution. The structure of Government is actually irrelevant.

    Some valid suggestions could include: (a) implementing recall legislation; (b) term limits; (c) stronger free speech and civil rights protections; (d) police oversight measures; (e) exposing the corrupt media; (f) removing Sections 1 and 33 from the Constitution; or some other measure to ensure this doesn’t happen again.

    And this is a bit confusing. When he argues for decentralization, is he saying that Ottawa shouldn’t have the powers it does, or the Premiers shouldn’t have the power they do? Or both?

    Haven’t Mayors and City Councils in many Municipalities been implementing some of these measures too? Is it centralization, or just tyrants in all levels of Government?

    The author seems unaware that most of these draconian measures actually came from the World Health Organization. Read Articles 21(A) and 22 of the WHO Constitution, or the legally binding IHR, International Health Regulations, or the 2005 Quarantine Act — which the WHO wrote.

    People like Erin O’Toole and Michelle Rempel-Garner simply parrot the big pharma narrative that this is a pandemic, restrictions are necessary, and that everyone needs to be vaccinated. O’Toole has publicly criticized Trudeau for not being authoritarian enough.

    This necessitates a real rethinking of things.
    .
    It is tempting to try and get that one big ‘win’ so you can control the government and impose your ideas, but at some point, you lose power, and then your opponents use that power to impose their agenda.

    The real problem is all the power being so centralized in the first place, and it’s time for the Conservatives to offer something that is truly different.

    The author (accurately) mentioned various ‘conservatives’ imposing martial law, so props for that.

    However, the problem behind it wasn’t the central structure of Canadian Government. Instead, it’s that so many ‘conservative’ leaders have decided that things like free speech, free association, peaceful assembly, freedom of religion, free enterprise, and medical autonomy no longer matter.

    When he says it’s time for conservatives to offer something that is truly different, it’s a tacit admission that they offer nothing to the public, and stand for nothing.

    Real Decentralization
    Every party needs a core idea. Even when that idea is bad, it gives people something to support, and grounds a party in a way that lets them define themselves. The Liberals’ core idea has become ‘spend as much as is necessary.’ The NDP’s core idea is ‘spend as much as possible.’ And the Greens idea is to reshape our entire society to fight climate change.
    .
    Those ideas may not be reasonable, and they may not be effective in the long-run, but they are real ideas, and they give people something to either support or oppose.

    To a point, this is valid criticism. A party does need a core idea. However, “conservative” parties function as little more than controlled opposition, so they won’t offer visionary ideas.

    The Liberal/NDP core idea is to spend as much as possible? Concerning finance, it would be great for “conservatives” to openly address the Bank for International Settlements, and the topic of private central banking. Instead, parties avoid such things. They focus on symptoms (spending and debt), and not the disease (the banking system). This writer is no different.

    Regarding the climate change hoax: “conservatives” will never fully address what is going on. They’ll never discuss the climate bonds industry, the debt-for-land swaps, the use of pension funds, or the court challenges are designed to fail.

    “Conservatives” have many opportunities to offer something different. Instead, they are reduced to simple talking points, and token opposition.

    By contrast, can you tell me what the core Conservative Party idea is?
    .
    Right now, their core message is that (after campaigning as ‘True Blue’), they are now a ‘moderate centrist party.’
    .
    Of course, that’s how the Liberals describe themselves.

    The core idea of the Conservative Party is to offer the “illusion” of something different. Not to offer something different, but to appear to.

    So, the Conservatives need an actual big idea, and decentralization should be that idea.
    .
    First, it appeals to various aspects of the party.
    .
    Libertarians like it because it reduces federal power and moves power towards a more local, individual level.
    .
    Fiscal conservatives like it because it means the federal government won’t be going crazy spending trying to fix every ‘problem’ with a ‘national program.’
    .
    Social conservatives can like it because it lets more decisions be made locally, letting some communities be more conservative if they chose, while other communities can be more progressive, rather than imposing a one-size-fits-all ideology across the country. And social issues can be left to provinces.
    .
    And populists can like it because a key goal of populism is to move power closer to the people, rather than being in the hands of politicians, and decentralizing power does exactly that.

    On the surface, this sounds reasonable. However, the thinking falls apart when one realizes that these factions have nothing in common with each other. While there is some generalization in the following, these statements are mostly true.

    Social conservatism and libertarianism are completely incompatible. Soc-Cons, as the name implies, are interested in preserving their culture, way of life, history, and traditions. These are things that libertarians are unconcerned with.

    Nationalists want strong borders, very restricted immigration, preservation of the culture, and the Government to focus on the well being of its people. Libertarians want the exact opposite: open borders, open movement and travel, multiculturalism, just with no access to the welfare state. There isn’t any compromise here.

    Fiscal conservatism is a fine position to take, and there are good policy arguments for it. However, “conservative” politicians will never address the international banking cartel which bankrupts nations.

    Milquetoast conservatism is despised by other groups, and that’s what exists today. Nationalists (correctly) view it as open borders globalism. Libertarians and fiscal conservatives (correctly) view it as big government. Social conservatives (correctly) view it as tolerant of degeneracy.

    To be fair, there is overlap between social conservatives and nationalists, but that’s about it. It’s laughable to think that these groups can work together beyond any sort of temporary political expediency.

    How is it realistic to hold a country together when it’s just a loose collection of regions that have nothing in common? If this is an argument for separation, fine, but just be transparent about it.

    This will also appeal to people who currently don’t support the Conservatives in large numbers. For example, Indigenous People have suffered dramatically under the power of centralized government authority, and many new Canadians came here from countries where dictators centralized power and destroyed individual freedoms.

    Interestingly, this helps make a strong argument AGAINST immigration. Various groups come to Canada and form their own enclaves. The G.T.A. is a great example of balkanization caused by immigration. As they grow in size, they start demanding more and more preferential treatment from Ottawa. That dilutes the voting power of the old-stock, as they are forced to compete with groups that want nothing to do with them.

    It was Brian Mulroney who brought in the 1988 Multiculturalism Act. This actually encourages people to retain their old identities and discourages assimilation.

    The typical conservative will now interject “But, we don’t play identity politics”. That’s nice. Everyone else does. Large numbers of individualists are often defeated by much smaller numbers of collectivists who vote and act in their own group interest.

    The only way to hold very diverse and multicultural states together is by force. Groups who want very different things don’t naturally co-exist.

    Decentralization is also an idea that ensures we can adapt to a rapidly changing world. It lets local jurisdictions try different things, some of which work, and some of which don’t. It gives people the ability to find like-minded communities, reducing political divisions by reducing the feeling that a distant unaccountable authority is imposing its will on you.

    To a large degree, that has already happened. Or rather, balkanization took place. Go to any decent sized town, and it is carved up along ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic lines. Putting down borders would just be a formality in many cases.

    Right now, the provinces are in charge of healthcare and education, yet much of their money for those programs comes from the federal government. It’s a foolish middle-man game, and the feds should instead simply stop taxing for those programs and give provinces direct control. Let provinces raise the taxes for the programs they are already running.

    Not sure why the term EQUALIZATION PROGRAM isn’t specifically stated, since that’s clearly what’s being referenced. If you want to discuss reforming or abolishing the program, fine, but the idea isn’t new.

    Also, it’s fair to mention that in the 2007 and 2014 budgets, the “Conservative” Government of Stephen Harper made changes in equalization to further screw over the West. It was done in the hopes of luring Quebec voters.

    On immigration, an issue that is often divisive, every province could be given what Quebec already has: Control over their immigration levels. Let each province decide how many people they want to bring in, which would create a true competition of ideas and policies, and reduce the politically divisive nature of it.

    That already exists, and has for a long time. Ottawa has agreements with the Provinces and Territories, and is required to consult with them. Also, those agreements don’t last forever, and frequently have to be renewed.

    But as the demographics change, laws will be significantly rewritten to accommodate the new people. See the next section.

    And on law and order, besides a few basic rules, let the provinces chose their laws. If one province wants super harsh punishments to deal with crime, let them try that. If another province wants to decriminalize everything, let them try that as well. The competition of ideas created in a decentralized system gives people the freedom to move where they feel policies fit them best, and that means each jurisdiction has an incentive to truly listen to people, and adapt when circumstances change.

    That’s an idea worth discussing. It would require a Constitutional Amendment, as Section 91(27) clearly puts it in Federal jurisdiction. Perhaps a U.S. style system which has laws for Federal crimes, but allows States to set their own law for other crimes.

    Of course, if a region supports animal torture (halal or kosher slaughter), or treating women as second class citizens, or killing people of different religions, should that be accepted? Perhaps a group decides that religious or cultural law supercedes Canadian law. After sufficient population shifts happen, such measures could be democratically implemented. Is that okay?

    But beyond criminal law, it’s unclear which laws the author wants removed from the Feds. Provinces are in charge of: health care, education, housing, transportation, roads, civil rights, many Government Agencies, Municipalities, and much more. From that perspective, things are already quite decentralized.

    Centralized authority is losing credibility and influence, and is lashing out in one last big effort to try and crush dissent and dissuade alternatives. Money printing is out of control, and individual freedom is under attack like never before.

    Yes, money printing is a serious issue, but once again, “conservatives” will never address the problem of private central banking.

    Individual freedoms are NOT under attack by centralized authority. In the scheme of things, Ottawa has done very little. It’s the Provinces and Municipalities who have been acting like tyrants, so this argument is invalid.

    Political divisions are rising, not due to any one party, but due to the nature of centralized power itself, as humans almost instinctually resent being controlled by people who are far away.

    The left-right paradigm seems designed to not get any problems solved, and this applies to all levels of Government. People resent the dog-and-pony show that is politics, regardless of how far away the politicians are.

    We cannot continue down this path, and the Conservatives have an opportunity to embrace decentralization and embrace trust in individuals and local government, rather than embracing the danger of centralized authoritarianism.

    What about local authoritarianism? Is it any less tyrannical when a Mayor imposes a mask mandate, as opposed to a Premier or PM?

    A fair question to ask of the author: what is it exactly that will hold Canada together? Or is that even the goal? He rejects ethno-nationalism, which unity around a common identity. He rejects civic nationalism, which is unity around common values. He supports regions making their own laws as well. How would this Canada exist, except on paper?

    Finally, is decentralization being promoted as a genuine policy option, or just a talking point for the next Federal election?

    Heritage #4: In 2005, Conservatives, 30% Liberals, Voted To “Conserve” Marriage

    In 2005, almost the entire Conservative Party Caucus, and over 1/4 of the Liberal Party Caucus voted to conserve marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman. Taking such a stand would be completely unthinkable in today’s climate.

    1. Understanding Our Real History

    CLICK HERE, for #1: UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
    CLICK HERE, for #2: Indian Act of Canada, wards of the Crown.
    CLICK HERE, for #3: UNESCO’s land grabs as “heritage sites”.

    2. Why Cover This Particular Topic?

    If anything, this marks a point where the globohomo movement really took off in Canada. Instead of being a small group out on its own, this was the beginning of lawfare in order to force itself on the public at large. Certainly there had been lobbying and court challenges before, but this seems to be a turning point.

    The court challenges started in 2003, and it ended with Bill C-38 in 2005. For the full text of Bill C-38.

    To accept this (and other “changes”) as part of our heritage to rewrite history. These changes — always done incrementally — are done to subvert and undermine what the country is.

    3. Preceding Challenges In Provincial Courts

  • June 10, 2003: Ontario
  • July 8, 2003: British Columbia
  • March 19, 2004: Quebec
  • July 14, 2004: Yukon
  • September 16, 2004: Manitoba
  • September 24, 2004: Nova Scotia
  • November 5, 2004: Saskatchewan
  • December 21, 2004: Newfoundland and Labrador
  • June 23, 2005: New Brunswick
  • Source: Wikipedia

    There is more to the story than just Bill C-38. Starting in 2003, there were a series of Provincial Court challenges (each successful). In some sense, this made the Federal Bill a mere formality.

    4. Harper Made No Real Effort To Reverse

    After winning power in 2006, the Harper Government made a very half hearted attempt to pass a motion to reopen the debate on marriage. But it was obvious that it was just going through the motions to appease supporters.

    5. Modern Conservatism In Canada

    There is a vast difference between accepting a group, and openly promoting their agenda. Difficult to imagine these cucks standing up to “conserve” anything now. At this point, modern conservative parties need to be allowed to die so new options can come forward.

    If a bill was introduced to restore the traditional definition of marriage, there is not a liberal politician in Canada who would support it. Very few conservatives would, and they would receive backlash for doing so.

    P.S. It’s not just “conservatives” in Canada who pander to the gay mafia. It’s happening elsewhere as well.

    Thoughts On The “Conservative Inc.” National Debate

    1. Overall Impression

    Just let it implode.

    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.


    Leslyn.Lewis.PhD.dissertation

    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.

    Ending (Political) Corporate Welfare

    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. Important Links

    (1) https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/taxes/income-taxes/corporate/credits/political-contribution
    (2) https://www.leg.bc.ca/parliamentary-business/legislation-debates-proceedings/41st-parliament/2nd-session/bills/third-reading/gov03-3
    (3) https://www.elections.ab.ca/parties-and-candidates/forms-and-guides/tax-credits/
    (4) https://www.elections.sk.ca/candidates-political-parties/electoral-finance/contributions/
    (5) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/winnipeg-election-donation-rebate-1.4587966
    (6) https://ipolitics.ca/2018/02/16/loss-per-vote-subsidy-still-hurting-ndps-pockets/

    3. Context For The Article

    It has been in the news a lot lately: the idea of scrapping corporate welfare. This notion is based on the simple concept that taxpayers shouldn’t have to subsidize businesses which privatize the profits.

    While this is certainly valid, let’s expand that idea. Why are taxpayers forced to subsidize the voting preferences of people who donate to political candidates or parties? If a person wishes to support their local candidates, that is their choice. But how come the public has to provide tax breaks?

    Whatever happened to personal responsibility?
    Your donation should come from your wallet.
    Practice what you preach.

    And no, this article is not directed at any one party or politician. “ALL” parties and candidates should be forced to be self-sufficient. Stop reaching into the public purse to finance your campaigns.

    4. Proposal In Winnipeg

    Mayor Brian Bowman wants to end the practice of rebating Winnipeg election-campaign donations in a move one critic describes as a means of providing another advantage to incumbent candidates.

    Bowman said in a notice of motion the city could save $700,000 by eliminating the rebates, stating “it is undesirable to fund election campaign expenses” and candidates should “solicit financial support from donors based on the strength of their platform rather than relying on taxpayer funds.

    To be fair, there is some valid criticism that this will favour incumbents who are effectively able to campaign while under the pretext of doing their jobs.

    However, taxpayers shouldn’t be forced help finance voting preferences. People who wish to make donations are free to do, but should use their own money. If a party platform is so unappealing that it needs taxpayer money to encourage donations, then it probably isn’t a very good one.

    5. Ending The Per-Vote Subsidy

    The NDP still hasn’t adapted to losing access to the per-vote party subsidy cancelled by the Harper government, the party’s treasurer said at the NDP convention in Ottawa Friday.

    The federal Conservatives had phased out the per-vote subsidy by 2015, which was a party financing policy brought about in the Chretien-era that paid out public funds to parties based on their share of the popular vote.

    Party Treasurer Tania Jarzebiak said the party plans to step up its fundraising with a “big push” on monthly giving and will invest more into its fundraising capacity, and has “ambitious plans” to reach an annual revenue target of $10.5 million.

    Stephen Harper was criticized for this move, claiming it was designed to bankrupt smaller parties. It’s probably true, that the move ultimately benefitted the Conservative Party.

    However, he should have ended all subsidies and tax breaks, not just pick and choose. If he truly cared about public money then those tax rebates would have been scrapped as well.

    6. British Columbia

    The credit is calculated as the lesser of:
    1) The total of:
    -75% of contributions up to $100
    -50% of contributions between $100 and $550
    -33 1/3% of contributions in excess of $550
    2) $500

    In B.C. taxpayers are on the hook for up to $500 for each person who contributes to B.C. political parties in a given year.

    7. Alberta

    According to Elections Alberta, the public has to pay up to $1000 in tax refunds to subsidize the voting preferences of people contributing to Provincial Candidates.

    8. Saskatchewan

    Taxpayers in Saskatchewan may be stuck with having to subsidize up to $650 for a resident’s political preferences. Seems that money could be better spent elsewhere.

    9. Some Conclusions

    The above listings are just a few examples of laws which force the public to help fund the donation choices of politically active people.

    To be clear, I do not care whom you support, or what ideology the party or candidate is running on. The concern is that this subsidy amounts to corporate welfare, which we should not be paying. If the only way a person or party is able to finance a campaign is by bailouts with public money, then it probably isn’t very strong to begin with.

    One final note: the common practice of “advertising” using taxpayer money is also abhorrent. True, incumbents do have an advantage in their ability to make announcements and fund plans to boost their image. That is not to be condoned either.