Category: Globalism

Posted on

A Serious Proposal: Economic Warfare Against Businesses Forcing Vaccines

https://twitter.com/talkRADIO/status/1355245943826894850

We are told in the West that the free market and personal choice are what make some businesses thrive, all while others die off. It’s time to really test that theory.

1. Disclaimer Against Physical Violence

This should go without saying, but will be anyway: This is NOT a call for physical violence, or breaking the law. Rather it is using the power as consumers to cripple businesses who engage in practices the public finds abhorrent. And forcing employees to take an experimental, mRNA vaccine to combat something with a 99% recovery rate is about as bad is gets. So let these places die off.

2. Bankrupt Companies Who Do This

The above video went viral (no pun intended), on Twitter. The man argues that this policy will be necessary for all new employees. Interestingly, the virus is so smart that legacy or grandfathered employees are not at risk. That alone guts any real argument that it’s necessary

What he doesn’t seem to realize is that those same “safety” arguments can be turned around against him. He may claim that it’s required to protect the public. We could just as easily argue that bankrupting such businesses — and deterring others in the future — is in the public interest. These mRNA injections aren’t really even vaccines, but more of a gene replacement therapy.

Is this coercion? Absolutely not! Businesses fail all the time because they charge do much, offer poor products of services, or get squeezed out by better competitors. It’s the free market doing its thing. And by that logic, companies who DON’T pressure people into risking their lives are a superior alternative.

Yes, he (most likely) does have the right to stick that in an employment contract for new employees. And we, as consumers, have the right to cripple his business, and any other such business.

In the show “Game of Thrones”, heads were put on spikes as a warning to others. It’s possible to do the ECONOMIC equivalent here: ruin businesses who mandate these “vaccines” as a warning to others considering similar policies.

If imposing this requirement is personal choice, then so is the decision to shut down companies who are involved in it. In a way, this isn’t much different than what some vegans do, but it’s easier to rally people behind.

  • Refuse to shop there
  • Discourage friends and family to shop there
  • Publicize these companies
  • Prospective employees: file lawsuits, complaints
  • (To business owners), refuse to provide service to such people

Will companies facing bankruptcy feel that forcing poisonous injections is necessary? Probably not, as principles tend to fly by the wayside when money is involved.

3. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, obscuring the vile agenda called the GREAT RESET. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. The International Health Regulations are legally binding. The media is paid off. The virus was never isolated, PCR tests are a fraud, as are forced masks, social bubbles, and 2m distancing.

Posted on

CV #37(E): WHO Promoting Universal Masking Of Children As Young As 6

Yes, the World Health Organization has published its own recommendation for children wearing masks. It was released in August, just in time for school to return. There’s no way to describe this other than child abuse.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, obscuring the vile agenda called the GREAT RESET. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. The International Health Regulations are legally binding. The media is paid off. The virus was never isolated, PCR tests are a fraud, as are forced masks, social bubbles, and 2m distancing.

2. Important Links

https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/331693
April 6 WHO Guidance On Masks

https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks
June 5 WHO Guidance On Masks

WHO On Forcing Masks On Children
August 21 WHO Guidance For Masks On Children

WHO On Masks: December 1 Update
December 1 WHO Guidance On Masks

Note: for more context for this article, check Part 37A, and Part 37B. They refer to the April 6, June 5 and December 1 guidelines handed down by the World Health Organization. In short, they still aren’t checking for logical consistency.

January 17, 2020 Testing Guidelines For WHO
March 19, 2020 Testing Guidelines For WHO
September 11, 2020 Testing Guidelines For WHO
September 11, 2020 WHO-2019-nCoV-Antigen_Detection
WHO: January, March, September 2020 Guidelines
WHO’s January 13, 2021 Posting On Test Guidelines

January 31 Global Surveillance For Human Infection
March 20 Global Surveillance For Human Infection
May 10 Global Surveillance For Human Infection
August 7 Global Surveillance For Human Infection
December 16 Global Surveillance For Human Infection

https://www.who.int/classifications/icd/Guidelines_Cause_of_Death_COVID-19.pdf
WHO Guidelines Classification Of Death

WHO Case Definition Guidelines

BCCDC: No Idea Actual Error Rate Of PCR Tests
BC COVID19_SerologyTestingGuidelines (1)
BC COVID19_InterpretingTesting_Results_NAT_PCR

Tricity: Bonnie Henry – False Positives Overwhelming Hospitals
CBC: Bonnie Henry Warning About False Negatives

WHO’s Definition Of “Herd Immunity”
WHO Posting On Herd Immunity Definition
WHO’s Other Definition Of Herd Immunity

3. Outline Of WHO Recommendation

Overview
This guidance provides specific considerations for the use of non-medical masks, also known as fabric masks, by children as a means for source control in the context of the current COVID-19 pandemic. It also advises on the use of medical masks for children under certain conditions. The document is an annex to the Advice on the use of masks in the context of COVID-19, in which further details on fabric masks can be found.

4. Frequently Asked Questions

Based on this and other factors such as childrens’ psychosocial needs and developmental milestones, WHO and UNICEF advise the following:
.
Children aged 5 years and under should not be required to wear masks. This is based on the safety and overall interest of the child and the capacity to appropriately use a mask with minimal assistance.
.
WHO and UNICEF advise that the decision to use masks for children aged 6-11 should be based on the following factors:

WHO and UNICEF advise that children aged 12 and over should wear a mask under the same conditions as adults, in particular when they cannot guarantee at least a 1-metre distance from others and there is widespread transmission in the area.

In general, children aged 5 years and under should not be required to wear masks. This advice is based on the safety and overall interest of the child and the capacity to appropriately use a mask with minimal assistance. There may be local requirements for children aged 5 years and under to wear masks, or specific needs in some settings, such as being physically close to someone who is ill. In these circumstances, if the child wears a mask, a parent or other guardian should be within direct line of sight to supervise the safe use of the mask.

WHO and UNICEF recommend masks for children as young as 6 years old. But even that is a bit misleading, as there are conditions where it is still expected. Considering all of the lies that go around with this “pandemic”, forcing kids to do this is cruelty.

5. WHO’s Publication For Masking Kids

[Page 1]
Background
The World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) advise the use of masks according to a risk-based approach, as part of a comprehensive package of public health interventions that can prevent and control the transmission of certain viral respiratory diseases, including COVID-19. Compliance with other measures including physical distancing, hand hygiene, respiratory etiquette and adequate ventilation in indoor settings is essential for reducing the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.

This guidance provides specific considerations for the use of non-medical masks, also known as fabric masks, by children as a means for source control in the context of the current COVID-19 pandemic. The document is an annex to the WHO’s Advice on the use of masks in the context of COVID-191 in which further details on fabric masks can be found. This annex also advises the use of medical masks for children under certain conditions. For the purposes of this guidance, children are defined as anyone below the age of 18 years

Currently, the extent to which children contribute to transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is not completely understood. According to the WHO global surveillance database of laboratory-confirmed cases developed from case report forms provided to WHO by Member States and other studies, 1-7% of COVID-19 cases are reported to be among children, with relatively few deaths compared to other age groups 4-8. The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) has recently reported the age distribution of COVID-19 among children in the European Union (EU), European Economic Area (EEA) and the United Kingdom (UK); theyreported that as of 26 July 2020, 4% of all cases in the EU/EEA and the UK were among children.

Evidence on the benefits and harms of children wearing masks to mitigate transmission of COVID-19 and other coronaviruses is limited. However, some studies have evaluated the effectiveness of mask use in children for influenza and other respiratory viruses. A study of mask wearing during seasonal influenza outbreaks in Japan noted that the use of masks was more effective in higher school grades (9-12 year old children in grades 4-6) than lower grades (6-9 year old children, in grades 1-3). One study, conducted under laboratory conditions and using non-betacoronaviruses, suggested that children between five and 11 years old were significantly less protected by mask wearing compared to adults, possibly related to inferior fit of the mask. Other studies found evidence of some protective effect for influenza for both source control30 and protection in children, although overall compliance with consistent mask wearing, especially among children under the age of 15, was poor.

Some studies, including studies conducted in the context of influenza and air pollution, found the use and acceptability of mask wearing to be highly variable among children, ranging from very low to acceptable levels and decreasing over time while wearing masks. One study was carried out among primary school children during COVID-19 and reported 51.6% compliance.

Several studies found that factors such as warmth, irritation, breathing difficulties, discomfort, distraction, low social acceptability and poor mask fit were reported by children when using masks. So far, the effectiveness and impact of masks for children during play and physical activity have not been studied; however, a study in adults found that N95 respirator and surgical masks reduced cardiopulmonary capacity during heavy exertion

[Page 2]
The benefits of wearing masks in children for COVID-19 control should be weighed against potential harm associated with wearing masks, including feasibility and discomfort, as well as social and communication concerns. Factors to consider also include age groups, sociocultural and contextual considerations and availability of adult supervision and other resources to prevent transmission.

There is a need for data from high quality prospective studies in different settings on the role of children and adolescents in transmission of SARS-CoV-2, on ways to improve acceptance and compliance of mask use and on the effectiveness of masks use in children. These studies must be prioritized and include prospective studies of transmission within educational settings and households stratified by age groups (ideally <2, 2-4, 5-11 and > 12 years) and with different prevalence and transmission patterns. Particular emphasis must be placed on studies in schools in low- and middle-income settings.

[Page 6]
Monitoring and evaluation of the impact of the use of masks in children
If authorities decide to recommend mask-wearing for children, key information should be collected on a regular basis to accompany and monitor the intervention. Monitoring and evaluation should be established at the onset and should include indicators that measure the impact on the child’s health, including mental health; reduction in transmission of SARS-CoV-2; motivators and barriers to mask wearing; and secondary impacts on a child’s development learning, attendance in school, ability to express him/herself or access school; and impact on children with developmental delays, health conditions, disabilities or other vulnerabilities.

The WHO and UNICEF released their “guidelines” over the summer for how and when children should be forced to wear masks. Although the official cut-off is 5 years old, they make it clear that toddlers under that age might be required to as well.

This is barbaric, and amounts to child abuse. If adults want to play along with this psy-op, that is their decision. However, it should never be imposed on youths. What kind of a sicko comes up with things like that?

Posted on

CV #37(D): WHO Distortions On Positive Cases, Causes Of Death, Surveillance

Let’s take a look into how the World Health Organization defines cases, and causes of death.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, obscuring the vile agenda called the “Great Reset“. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. Also: there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing; they promote degenerate behaviour; the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work; the US CDC admits testing is heavily flawed; and The International Health Regulations are legally binding. See here, here, and here. The media is paid off, and our democracy compromised, shown: here, here, here, and here.

2. Important Links

January 17, 2020 Testing Guidelines For WHO
March 19, 2020 Testing Guidelines For WHO
September 11, 2020 Testing Guidelines For WHO
September 11, 2020 WHO-2019-nCoV-Antigen_Detection
WHO: January, March, September 2020 Guidelines
WHO’s January 13, 2021 Posting On Test Guidelines

January 31 Global Surveillance For Human Infection
March 20 Global Surveillance For Human Infection
May 10 Global Surveillance For Human Infection
August 7 Global Surveillance For Human Infection
December 16 Global Surveillance For Human Infection

https://www.who.int/classifications/icd/Guidelines_Cause_of_Death_COVID-19.pdf
WHO Guidelines Classification Of Death

WHO Case Definition Guidelines

BCCDC: No Idea Actual Error Rate Of PCR Tests
BC COVID19_SerologyTestingGuidelines (1)
BC COVID19_InterpretingTesting_Results_NAT_PCR

Tricity: Bonnie Henry – False Positives Overwhelming Hospitals
CBC: Bonnie Henry Warning About False Negatives

WHO’s Definition Of “Herd Immunity”
WHO Posting On Herd Immunity Definition
WHO’s Other Definition Of Herd Immunity

3. Case Definitions Are Quite Subjective

Given the way that the “probable” cases are defined, it’s entirely possible to classify many thousands of people without doing a single test to confirm. Perhaps this is why it’s so vague, in order to generate false positives when needed.

4. Guidelines For Listing Causes Of Death

1. PURPOSE OF THE DOCUMENT
This document describes certification and classification (coding) of deaths related to COVID-19. The primary goal is to identify all deaths due to COVID-19.
.
A simplified section specifically addresses the persons that fill in the medical certificate of cause of death. It should be distributed to certifiers separate from the coding instructions.

2. DEFINITION FOR DEATHS DUE TO COVID-19
A death due to COVID-19 is defined for surveillance purposes as a death resulting from a clinically compatible illness, in a probable or confirmed COVID-19 case, unless there is a clear alternative cause of death that cannot be related to COVID disease (e.g. trauma). There should be no period of complete recovery from COVID-19 between illness and death.
.
A death due to COVID-19 may not be attributed to another disease (e.g. cancer) and should be counted independently of preexisting conditions that are suspected of triggering a severe course of COVID-19.

In fairness this may just be extremely poor wording. However, it appears that the default position is to count deaths in confirmed OR PROBABLE cases if the death is from an illness COMPATIBLE WITH Covid-19 symptoms, and we should downplay PREEXISTING CONDITIONS that may have contributed.

As with the diagnosing of cases, there is no requirement to have a positive test. Speaks volumes about how shady this method is.

Now there is the disclaimer that it should not be counted if there is a clear alternative, but this appears to be just an afterthought.

C- CHAIN OF EVENTS
Specification of the causal sequence leading to death in Part 1 of the certificate is important. For example, in cases when COVID-19 causes pneumonia and fatal respiratory distress, both pneumonia and respiratory distress should be included, along with COVID-19, in Part 1. Certifiers should include as much detail as possible based on their knowledge of the case, as from medical records, or about laboratory testing.

<

p style=”padding: 2px 6px 4px 6px; color: #555555; background-color: #eeeeee; border: #dddddd 2px solid;”>
D- COMORBIDITIES
There is increasing evidence that people with existing chronic conditions or compromised immune systems due to disability are at higher risk of death due to COVID-19. Chronic conditions may be non-communicable diseases such as coronary artery disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary diseas (COPD), and diabetes or disabilities. If the decedent had existing chronic conditions, such as these, they should be reported in Part 2 of the medical certificate of cause of death.

WHO openly admits that people with underlying health problems are at a greater risk of death. This isn’t exactly revolutionary. It does make one ask why it’s necessary to drive up fear like this.

5. Global Surveillance For Infection January 2020

Recommendations for laboratory testing
Any suspected case should be tested. However, depending on the intensity of the transmission, the number of cases and the laboratory capacity, only a randomly selected sample of the suspect cases may be tested.
.
If resources allow, testing may be done more broadly (for instance through sentinel surveillance) to better assess the full extent of the circulation of the virus.
.
Based on clinical judgment, clinicians may opt to order a test in a patient not strictly meeting the case definition, such as for a cluster of acute respiratory illness among healthcare workers.

This of course raises an interesting question: how many of these samples are actually tested? How many are collected and just sit on a shelf somewhere?

If initial testing is negative in a patient who is strongly suspected to have novel coronavirus infection, the patient should be resampled and specimens collected from multiple
respiratory tract sites (nose, sputum, endotracheal aspirate). Additional specimen may be collected such as blood, urine, and stool, to monitor the presence of virus of and shedding of virus from different body compartments.

Doesn’t speak too highly of the test, if the recommendation of a negative result is to retest, based on suspicions. Of course, “strongly suspected” is entirely subjective.

Detecting the presence of a virus being shed? Isn’t that consistent with the claim that viruses are really exosomes, excreted from the body?

6. Global Surveillance For Infection March 2020

Case definitions for surveillance
Case and contact definitions are based on the current available information and are regularly revised as new information accumulates. Countries may need to adapt case definitions depending on their local epidemiological situation and other factors. All countries are encouraged to publish definitions used online and in regular situation reports, and to document periodic updates to definitions which may affect the interpretation of surveillance data.

Probable case
A. A suspect case for whom testing for the COVID-19 virus is inconclusive.
OR
B. A suspect case for whom testing could not be performed for any reason.

The World Health Organization actually suggests that countries can make up their own definitions of what a case is. So much for consistency. Also, inconclusive tests, or cases where tests aren’t performed can be written up as “probable” cases.

7. Global Surveillance For Infection May 2020

Purpose of the document
This document provides an overview of surveillance strategies that Member States should consider as part of
comprehensive national surveillance for COVID-19. This document emphasises the need to adapt and reinforce existing national systems where appropriate and to scale-up surveillance capacities as needed.

Most countries will need to significantly strengthen surveillance capacities to rapidly identify cases of COVID‑19, follow-up their contacts, and to monitor disease trends over time. Comprehensive national surveillance for COVID-19 will require the adaptation and reinforcement of existing national systems where appropriate and the scale-up of additional surveillance capacities as needed. Digital technologies for rapid reporting, data management, and analysis will be helpful. Robust comprehensive surveillance once in place, should be maintained even in areas where there are few or no cases; it is critical that new cases and clusters of COVID-19 are detected rapidly and before widespread disease transmission occurs. Ongoing surveillance for COVID-19 is also important to understand longer-term trends in the disease and the evolution of the virus.

Individuals in the community
Individuals in the community can play an important role in the surveillance of COVID-19. Where possible, individuals who have signs and symptoms of COVID-19 should be able to access testing at the primary care level. Where testing at the primary level is not possible, community-based surveillance, whereby the community participates monitors and reports health events to local authorities, may be helpful for identifying clusters of COVID-19.

Participation in contact tracing and cluster investigations are other important ways in which individuals and communities contribute to the surveillance of COVID-19. Contact tracing is the identification of all persons who may have had contact with an individual with COVID-19. By following such contacts daily for up to 14 days since they had contact with the source case, it is possible to identify individuals who are at high risk of being infectious and/or ill and to isolate them before they transmit the infection to others. Contact tracing can be combined with door-to-door case-finding or systematic testing in closed settings, such as residential facilities, or with routine testing for occupational groups. See Contact tracing guidelines for COVID-19.

This document gives plenty of advice on how to go about doing contact tracing, and these procedures are being used. But it has to be said that the means that they classify cases and deaths throws everything into doubt. A cynic may just wonder if this is just to set up a surveillance apparatus.

8. Global Surveillance For Infection August 2020

[Page 2]
Probable COVID-19 case:
A. A patient who meets clinical criteria above AND is a contact of a probable or confirmed case, or epidemiologically linked to a cluster of cases which has had at least one confirmed case identified within that cluster.
B. A suspected case (described above) with chest imaging showing findings suggestive of COVID-19 disease*
* Typical chest imaging findings suggestive of COVID-19 include the following (Manna 2020):
• chest radiography: hazy opacities, often rounded in morphology, with peripheral and lower lung distribution
• chest CT: multiple bilateral ground glass opacities, often rounded in morphology, with peripheral and lower lung
distribution
• lung ultrasound: thickened pleural lines, B lines (multifocal, discrete, or confluent), consolidative patterns with or without air bronchograms.
C. A person with recent onset of anosmia (loss of smell) or ageusia (loss of taste) in the absence of any other identified cause.
D. Death, not otherwise explained, in an adult with respiratory distress preceding death AND who was a contact of a probable or confirmed case or epidemiologically linked to a cluster which has had at least one confirmed case identified within that cluster.

[Page 3]
3. Definition of death due to COVID-19
A COVID-19 death is defined for surveillance purposes as a death resulting from a clinically compatible illness in a probable or confirmed COVID-19 case, unless there is a clear alternative cause of death that cannot be related to COVID-19 disease (e.g. trauma). There should be no period of complete recovery between the illness and death.

4. Recommendations for laboratory testing
Suspected and probable cases should be investigated for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 virus according to WHO guidance on Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2. While recommended response activities are largely the same for probable and confirmed cases, testing of probable cases, where resources allow, is still useful since it can exclude cases and reduce the burden required for isolation and contact tracing.
.
Depending on the intensity of the transmission in a specific location, the number of cases and the laboratory capacity, a subset of suspected or probable cases can be prioritized for testing. WHO has provided recommendations on how to prioritize persons to be tested during community transmission in Laboratory testing strategy recommendations for COVID-19.

So, no tests actually have to be performed in order to consider a person a “probable case”. And if a person who had contact with a “probable case” dies, that person can also be considered one, if there was some respiratory issue.

Death has to be “clinically compatible” with how they believe this illness works. As long as there are no obvious signs (like bullet wounds), a case can be written up as a Covid-19 death. Such a system seems ripe for abuse, especially considering the political agenda being played out here.

9. Global Surveillance For Infection Dec. 2020

[Page 2]
Probable COVID-19 case:
A. A patient who meets clinical criteria above AND is a contact of a probable or confirmed case, or epidemiologically linked to a cluster of cases which has had at least one confirmed case identified within that cluster.
B. A suspected case (described above) with chest imaging showing findings suggestive of COVID-19 disease*
* Typical chest imaging findings suggestive of COVID-19 include the following (Manna 2020):
• chest radiography: hazy opacities, often rounded in morphology, with peripheral and lower lung distribution
• chest CT: multiple bilateral ground glass opacities, often rounded in morphology, with peripheral and lower lung
distribution
• lung ultrasound: thickened pleural lines, B lines (multifocal, discrete, or confluent), consolidative patterns with or without air bronchograms.
C. A person with recent onset of anosmia (loss of smell) or ageusia (loss of taste) in the absence of any other identified cause.
D. Death, not otherwise explained, in an adult with respiratory distress preceding death AND who was a contact of a probable or confirmed case or epidemiologically linked to a cluster which has had at least one confirmed case identified within that cluster.

[Page 3]
3. Definition of death due to COVID-19
A COVID-19 death is defined for surveillance purposes as a death resulting from a clinically compatible illness in a probable or confirmed COVID-19 case, unless there is a clear alternative cause of death that cannot be related to COVID-19 disease (e.g. trauma). There should be no period of complete recovery between the illness and death.

4. Recommendations for laboratory testing
Suspected and probable cases should be investigated for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 virus according to WHO guidance on Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2. While recommended response activities are largely the same for probable and confirmed cases, testing of probable cases, where resources allow, is still useful since it can exclude cases and reduce the burden required for isolation and contact tracing.
.
Depending on the intensity of the transmission in a specific location, the number of cases and the laboratory capacity, a subset of suspected or probable cases can be prioritized for testing. WHO has provided recommendations on how to prioritize persons to be tested during community transmission in Laboratory testing strategy recommendations for COVID-19.

The definition of a “Death due to Covid-19” is still the same, and can include people where no test was performed, as long the illness is compatible with what is expected.

It’s interesting that despite all these samples being taken, it seems that the bulk aren’t being tested. By contrast, it seems to be random samples, unless a problem is detected.

10. Is This About Establishing Police State?

What is really going on here? Is all of this contact tracing just an underhanded method of establishing the structure of a surveillance state across the globe? This disease clearly can’t be as deadly as it’s made out to be, if Governments have to artificially inflate the numbers.

Virus likely has never been isolated
Modelling compromised: Imperial College London
Modelling compromised: London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine
Modelling compromised: Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium
No basis for the PCR tests that are used
No evidence that masks actually work as advertised
No evidence, still that masks do anything
No basis for 2 meter “social distancing”
Lobbying behind “non-essential” business determination
No science to what Bonnie Henry does

Politicians and media talking heads are always harping on about “following the science”. Guess what? There isn’t any pushing this so-called pandemic.

Posted on

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?

Posted on

“Healthcare Worker Refugee” Program Is Backdoor Amnesty For Illegals

Canada will be giving refugee claimants, (even those who entered illegally), a pathway to permanent residence, for essential health care work. This comes in spite of layoffs at hospitals for not having enough work. Remember, “non-essential” care has been cancelled or delayed.

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

Serious issues like smuggling or trafficking are routinely avoided in public discourse. Also important are the links between open borders and human smuggling; between ideology and exploitation; between tolerance and exploitation; between abortion and organ trafficking; or between censorship and complicity. Mainstream media will also never get into the organizations who are pushing these agendas, nor the complicit politicians. These topics don’t exist in isolation, and are interconnected.

2. Mass LEGAL Immigration In Canada

Despite what many think, LEGAL immigration into Canada is actually a much larger threat than illegal aliens, given the true scale of the replacement that is happening. What was founded as a European (British) colony is becoming unrecognizable due to forced demographic changes. There are also social, economic, environmental and voting changes to consider. See this Canadian series, and the UN programs for more detail. Politicians, the media, and so-called “experts” have no interest in coming clean on this.

CLICK HERE, for UN Genocide Prevention/Punishment Convention.
CLICK HERE, for Barcelona Declaration & Kalergi Plan.
CLICK HERE, for UN Kalergi Plan (population replacement).
CLICK HERE, for UN replacement efforts since 1974.
CLICK HERE, for tracing steps of UN replacement agenda.

Note: If there are errors in calculating the totals, please speak up. Information is of no use to the public if it isn’t accurate.

3. Important Links

Ottawa, PR Pathway For “Refugee Claimants” In Health Care
Hospital Layoffs Because Of No Work
Quebec Specific Program For PR Pathyway
2020 Canada Annual Immigration Report To Parliament
Conditions For Eligibility For Program
https://archive.is/aMHri
Designated Country Of Origin (Struck in 2019)
https://archive.is/dShJ9
Employers And Social Insurance Obligations
https://archive.is/gSqeJ
Seasonal Agricultural Work Program
https://archive.is/zMOeQ

4. PR-Pathway A Backdoor Amnesty Program

Both failed and pending refugee claimants face uncertainty regarding their future status in Canada. This public policy enables the Government of Canada to recognize their significant contribution and risk to their health during the pandemic by providing them with a more secure future in Canada. In recognition that there may be refugee claimants who contracted COVID-19 and subsequently passed away, spouses and common-law partners of these individuals, who are in Canada, may also be granted permanent residence under this public policy.

As such, I hereby establish that, pursuant to my authority under section 25.2 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the Act), there are sufficient public policy considerations that justify the granting of permanent residence to foreign nationals who meet the eligibility criteria and conditions listed below.

Based on the public policy considerations, delegated officers may grant permanent residence to foreign nationals who meet the following conditions:
.
A) The foreign national:
.
[1] Is a pending refugee claimant or a failed refugee claimant, who made a refugee claim in Canada prior to March 13, 2020 and continued to reside in Canada when their application for permanent residence was made;

[5] Is not inadmissible other than for any of the following reasons: having failed to comply with conditions related to their temporary stay including having overstayed a visa, visitor record, work permit or student permit or having worked or studied without being authorized to do so under the Act (as long as it was solely as a result of losing their work authorization when a removal order against them became enforceable as specified under Condition A)2 described above); having entered Canada without the required visa or other document required under the Regulations; having entered Canada without a valid passport or travel document. However for the purpose of the granting of the permanent residence pursuant to this public policy, the foreign nationals and their family members are required by subparagraph 72(1)(e)(ii) of the Regulations to provide the Department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada any of the documents enumerated under subsection 50(1) of the Regulations. If the foreign national and their family members in Canada are unable to obtain any of the documents, enumerated under subsection 50(1) of the Regulations (e.g., valid passport or travel document), as required by subparagraph 72(1)(e)(ii) of the Regulations,an exemption from this requirement can be granted if these foreign nationals can provide any of the documents described in subsection 178(1) of the Regulations where such alternative document complies with the requirement of subsection 178(2) of the Regulations(specific wording of these provisions is provided in Annex B of this public policy).

[6] Is a pending refugee claimant or claimant who has received a final negative decision from the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) and, if they have commenced an application for leave and judicial review of the negative IRB decision in Federal Court, or an appeal in relation to the underlying IRB decision at the Federal Court of Appeal, and who has complied with all other eligibility and admissibility conditions of this public policy, is required, in terms of the final condition of this public policy, to withdraw their refugee claim at the IRB or their appeal of the negative decision by the IRB at the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD), Federal Court application or appeal at the Federal Court of Appeal of the underlying decision of the IRB, in order to be granted permanent residence through the public policy. Should the individual decide not to withdraw their refugee claim at the IRB, their appeal at the RAD, their application at the Federal Court or their appeal at the Federal Court of Appeal, those processes will continue to proceed but their application for permanent residence under this public policy will be refused.

What a huge bait-and-switch. While this program is sold as refugee claimants seeking protection, it’s open to people who came for a variety of reasons. In theory, you can come to Canada as a student or TFW, spend your time here, then turn around and claim asylum.

So, who’s eligible under this program for a pathway to permanent residence? Just from the information provided on this one page:

  • Pending refugee claimants
  • Failed refugee claimants
  • People who’ve exhausted all refugee pathways
  • People who’ve entered without a passport
  • People who’ve entered without an appropriate visa
  • People who’ve stayed after their visiting time had expired
  • People working without a visa
  • People working after a visa has expired
  • People studying without a visa
  • People studying after a visa has expired
  • Spouses/Common-law partners of the above
  • No mention of children, but probably

In short, pretty much anyone who is in Canada — illegally — would have some option to remain and get PR status if they were working (or provide evidence of working) in health care. Just apply for asylum.

Of course, this raises the interesting question of why health care facilities are hiring people who have no legal right to work or remain in the country anyway. It would be interesting to see what kind of proof of health care work is used in these cases.

5. People Entering Illegally Are Eligible

The Canadian Government doesn’t care about its people, and hence, has no real interest in enforcing existing border controls. Fake refugees from the U.S. are still allowed to enter, the S3CA, the Safe Third Country Agreement was struck down, and the concept of a safe country no longer exists.

To summarize, people can apply for asylum in Canada from anywhere, and it doesn’t matter if (or how many), intermediate countries they crossed through. Entering illegally from the U.S. is not important.

6. Family Members Are Eligible As Well

Conditions (eligibility requirements) applicable to Family Members
Family members of the principal applicant eligible for immigration to Canada under this public policy will be granted permanent residence, if they are also residing in Canada, are persons who meet the definition of a “family member” in subsection 1(3) of the Regulations as assessed by a delegated officer, and are not inadmissible on other grounds then those from which they are exempted via this public policy under condition 5 and if they are pending refugee claimants or claimants who have received a negative decision from the IRB, they meet condition 6 above.

It would be nice to see how many people (in total), this would cover, but that information doesn’t seem to be available.

7. Employers And Worker SIN Obligations

Ensure that any employees that have a SIN beginning with a “9” are authorized to work in Canada and that their immigration document has not expired.
-SINs beginning with a “9” are issued to temporary workers who are neither Canadian citizens nor permanent residents. These SINs are valid only until the expiry date indicated on the Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) document authorizing the person to work in Canada.
–Employers must continue to see the employee’s existing immigration document authorizing them to work in Canada (e.g. work permit, study permit) and verify that the immigration document is not expired.

Employers are required not only to see that the prospective employee is legally allowed to work, but to follow up if not a Canadian or Permanent Resident. How exactly are these “refugee claimants” working in a legitimate field without this paperwork, which is obligated under the law?

If employers are willing to cover for this, would they also lie about the kind of work experience a person has been getting?

8. Open Borders For Agriculture Workers

While not directly related to the issue of PR for “refugees”, this is worth an honourable mention. At a time when we have record unemployment in Canada, one would think that a “hire Canadian” policy would be a good idea. Nope. Outsourcing of jobs continues on. Officially, the program is capped, but we’ll have to see if it’s enforced.

9. Theory: Making Amnesty More Tolerable

Just a theory, but perhaps this “health care” approach is about making a mass amnesty easier to pitch to the Canadian public. While being honest about it would cause all kinds of backlash, this can be promoted as an act of necessity.

Do we really need to be importing large numbers of healthcare workers, at a time when job cuts are going on in Canada? Does it really benefit the public to put Canadians at the back of the line? It might, if there was another agenda being pushed.

One has to wonder if these layoffs were done in order to create an artificial shortage, in order to justify this policy.

Posted on

Guest Post: Michael Comeau On “Buy Canadian”, Protectionist Policies

https://www.strategic-enterprise.ca
Contact: contact(at)strategic-enterprise.ca

Economic Leadership eh! Great fantastic! Maybe ask for a moment, ‘Who on earth are you waiting for?” A visionary, a leader, an inventor, an entrepreneurial free enterprise genius, an industrialist, a down to earth character with real Canadian values, a technological prodigy? A nationalist visionnaire extraordinaire? Who you are looking for is Michael Comeau, the founder and CEO of the most awesome advanced technological manufacturing development program and projects of the century. You just don’t know it yet.

Are you looking for someone capable of stealth business, national security rated, someone with a secret identity that you would never guess or suspect his true identity and profession? Are you looking for someone working on the most awesome Made in Canada portfolio in the history of Canada.

Made in Canada? Can you name anyone in government, an MP or MPP who actually talks or writes about Made in Canada? Eh? What about your friends and the people you know? Is there really someone known as the coffeeshop billionaire? They mystery man who claims he drinks coffee to do stupid things faster? Like how fast? How about CF-105Arrow.ca? Is that a little more up to speed?

Is Comeau Aerospace Inc. more up to speed, pure awesomeness, the ultimate flying machine, with a magnitude of design engineering genius and individual creative imagination, the genie out of Aladdin’s lamp. Zero unions, working share owners, asset protection, everyday advantage and more of what you never get in the news, as it makes everything else obsolete and backwards by comparison.

Do you want to talk about space programs, strategic airlifters, conventional and advanced design and technology? A few hundred billion in aerospace development programs, talk about go big or go home, what about that saying that the 21st century belongs to Canada? Imagine, zero government money, zero publicity, only people doing stuff because they want to, in fact, the less publicity the better, now how is that for a business model? Eh Who cares about all the negative defeatist anti Canadian editorial opinions, design, build, fly.

Stealth, UFOs, advanced weapons systems? Advanced materials and manufacturing? Is that more interesting? As-Garde Aerospace and Electrodynamics Inc. integrates creative imagination and inventive genius with a futuristic vision in their own portfolio of projects and also works to further refine and develop the next generation of the Comeau Aerospace Inc. – Ultimate Flying Machine series in addition to the core research and development vision. The transition from conventional aircraft design, production and propulsion is kind of like comparing the Avro Arrow Interceptor to a propeller driven aircraft, something from a futuristic outer space civilization or the CBC movie – Arrow.

What about the nationalist? Economic leadership includes a technological, enterprise and industrial continuum, with a nationalist foundation and national security rated people, with real Canadians with true values. Imagine an individual with a private life working incessantly on the greatest adventure of all time. Classified defence technology, advanced aerospace, marine and transportation technology, something with challenge and reward, the thrill of building something awesome, the proverbial censored white nationalist super achiever that mainstream news never talks about in a good way, and doesn’t want any other white nationalist to know about, because if you did, you would feel different, alive, confident, optimistic, purposeful, awesome, energized and excited.

What about National Turbo-machinery & Propulsion Incorporated, redeveloping engines for the ultimate Arrow, the CF-105, jet engines, rocket engines and the most advanced fuel systems in the world, which can’t be sold to just anyone, more of what you never hear or read about in mainstream media and government. Super Atomized Fuel Systems Inc., VapourInduction Fuel Systems Inc., Super Carburetor Inc. and Icosahedron Hydrogen GeneratorFuel Systems Inc.

With all the focus on “green technology” and “green investment” and the war on fossil fuels, and banks and investment portfolios “divesting” aka dumping those securities, because that is evil white man technology and the cause of global warming, you might think that they would be well invested, like an insider would be, invested into something useful, practical and real, something that could transform the world, with technological and economic leadership, right?

Saving money is like making money, that is economic leadership, right? Sometimes, massive investment in money, resources, time, infrastructure and people are all essential to make that possible, that takes confidence, technological and economic leadership, which can involve capital structure, enterprise and secure supply line development. This brings everything around in a circle of reality, as it is amazing, that with government legislation can make 4 different fuel system companies be worth billions of dollars, poof! With zero publicity! Of course those companies don’t believe in the carbon tax, or shutting down the fossil fuel industry in Canada, they like to burn fuel. Wouldn’t you at mach 3 or 200 miles per gallon?

What’s it going to be, a gas guzzler, or something a lot more awesome? How is that for leadership, eh? Many hands make light work – how is that for personal economic leadership? Mainstream news, aka liberal fascist news, with the cultural marxist anti nation state agenda will never have anything good to say about things like the Avro Arrow, or free enterprise about that don’t conform to their editorial opinion…all the more to ignore them, censor them, make them obsolete and irrelevant, like they are, useless.

Economic Leadership? How about Strategic Enterprise Development Inc. or IntergalacticSecurities & Management Corporation, the leading edge in private investment, private enterprise, defence technology, Made in Canada. If you want an education maybe check that out, you will make your investment advisor look and feel not very smart, with all their exports of money and stock market gambling on things that don’t matter, that are on par with the Canada Pension Plan, yes, lots of money for foreign companies and governments to put us out of business faster, since you refuse to exercise powerful freedom of choice and invest in private Canadian companies that actually do practice intelligent thoughtful patriotism, that only whitey qualifies for, a nationalist, Made in Canada? Is that so bad, is that racist to you, Made in Canada?

Go to the store, 95% made in china, is that racist and discriminatory? Now is that any way to exercise economic nationalism? Do you have a problem with self sufficiency or self government, or God helps those who help themselves? What about God eh? Don’t talk about religion? How about “I will command a blessing on you and all that you set your hands to do…” sounds economic to me, Is that the health and wealth gospel, here and now, we cannot deny our shared history, we can embrace our mutual future, right? Can we build great things together to the honour and glory of the great God? We can do it because we want to, we don’t need anyone’s approval, especially in mainstream media.

Create a more Canadian media industry, that would be economic leadership, our companies, inventions, products, jobs and careers, new enterprise opportunities, that would be economic leadership to promote, not censor, to empower, not suppress, to encourage, not to neutralize and defeat and ruin, to be proud, not bitter, resentful, hostile and negative like the mainstream news media, something more Canadian, real Canadian, eh! Optimism, awesome news eh!

We like our shared history, our national identity as real Canadians, the future too, step back in time, people had faith, people built things, inventions, buildings, infrastructure, technology, families, we of all countries in the world can be supremely self sufficient. We do not need imbeciles, traitors, saboteurs in Ottawa or anywhere else for that matter. We need people that can do the math, geometry, engineering, metallurgy, fabrication, production, logistics, pure creative imagination without limits. Real Canadians and nationalists capable of economic leadership, empowering technological and manufacturing leadership in government, not foreigners, or traitors and people that can’t do math, basic economics, money management and basic nation building, like Made in Canada, it does not even have to be advanced, but it does need to be Made in Canada Eh!

Go forward eh! What kind of economic leadership are we looking for? What does it look like? It looks like debt free money, not treasury bond debt creation and endless electronic debt created money. We need real M1 money, sticking to the point about economic leadership, when nobody else in the world is doing it, only to obsolete, debt, slave system, a defrauded future, failure from looking at history, such as, what did Graham Towers do? The government and the Bank of Canada with the cultural Marxist agenda is incompetent by comparison, endless debt, compound interest, exporting billions of dollars, massive tax, industrial economic and industrial genocide super imposed on the founding people, war. Sell of gold reserves, we don’t need that eh, destroy the industrial technological base, we don’t need jobs and careers, do we? Destroy the military and better yet buy someone else’s garbage, that is what we are dealing with, imbeciles and traitors with zero economic leadership for nation building, planes, trains, automobiles, heavy machinery, marine and defence technology, virtually all gone. Four hundred billion for welfare based on a bogus virus, but nothing for Made in Canada. All the more reason to align with Strategic Enterprise Development Inc.

Protectionism? Is that racist? As if that is the only standard and reflex tool to censor whitey. Made in Canada versus who? Our we supposed to honestly compete when someone else is making something 5 cents to the dollar?? How is that competitive, when we have all the regulations and they don’t have any? Currency warfare, is that really ok? How do we exercise economic leadership in currency warfare scenarios, since that is going on right now? Easy debt free money, low taxes, greater investment, conditional sales contracts, invest and acquire, research and development, identify and get rid of people selling out the country to foreigners. Don’t worry only white people are racist, and you will like it, Made in Canada. Why is it ok for foreign companies, governments and sovereign funds to buy us up and out? Logging, mining, agriculture, natural resources. The only political party defending Canada is the National Citizens Alliance, anti globalist, pro Canadian, everyone else is selling out the country and their souls, if they have one.

Economic Leadership in defence, is that possible? Ask Battlegroup 301 Incorporated, they pioneered advanced program and project development with private investment to enable technology demonstration and super prototypes of advanced vehicles and weapons platform and secure supply line, and all kinds of other things, all to be available in case we might
actually have a real nationalist vision, a more patriot character, not a bunch of traitors. As some people know, there are plenty of people in government and media that stop any degree of Canadian national pride, a competent military, like most allies, stepped on, suppressed and neutralized, all those awesome products and technology that never see the light of day, censoring and disqualifying pure awesomeness is standard operating procedure, which is a what they do to neutralize economic leadership and technological industrial and defence leadership also, which could have a rather exciting, inspiring, encouraging effect on everyday Canadians. Like wow, we built that!

Most people don’t know, but to get in on government contracts, due to the control freaks who don’t want competition from smarter, faster, cheaper, more advanced, more Canadian Nationalist type of people, enterprise and products, only certain companies are entitled to bid. Like the naval ship program, no honest request for proposals are made, and the complex requirements to even get to the point of making a request for a certain vehicle or weapon system or otherwise is a big deal. Corruption and collusion, fixed and rigged, approved and disqualified or exempt, that is no way to have defence technology and economic leadership, at the expense of national security. So knowing how reality bites and the treason of traitors selling out to globalists and other people who do not want anyone to have nation state sovereignty or an independent integrated defence advanced technology and manufacturing base, and knowing that lead times are essential in addition to a product, vehicle and weapons platform and technology continuum require considerable resources and project management, it is pure genius from Battlegroup 301 Incorporated, who has accepted personal responsibility for, in their words, “National, industrial, economic, enterprise and civil defence.” How is that for economic leadership? What does the banks, investment advisors and wealth management say about that? Nothing, they are ignorant or censoring it, they don’t appear to care about
small town, rural industry, Made in Canada or strategic advantage, only, inclusion and diversity, which somehow does not include Made in Canada, private enterprise, and certainly not white nationalists who take pride in their country and love Canada.

The typical investment advisor or wealth manager is totally unaware or censoring one of the most incredible and innovative enterprise technology development endeavours in Canada, Battlegroup 301 Incorporated, all about Made in Canada. Censored and ignored, yes, but what about you, what will you do? Apply for a job, start a new career, do something awesome, I hope so. A guns & ammo co-op? While you are at it, check out the Railway industry development program, new locomotives, rail car (with no business with foreign countries we don’t need to mention that only counterfeit technology, product inferior goods and sabotage Canadian companies) Imagine, when we had a whole lot more of railroads going throughout Canada, there was vitality, a robust energy, a sense of identity, unity and purpose filled excitement. Why did we let people in government destroy it? Trains & the railway, isn’t that what made Canada? The auto industry association, what did they have to do with it? Collusion with government to tear up railway tracks. Now we are forced to drive plastic and electronic junk with rotten metal and fix it with more rotten junk imported from somewhere else, with next to nothing made in Canada, eh! Yes, let us compare economic leadership, shall we, nation building or industrial economic genocide, you can choose with powerful freedom of choice, right? What stops you, what are you waiting for? Eh?!

The Avro Arrow, torched, railways torn up, is that anyway to build a future, nation wreckers in charge, people that never built anything, most never ran a business, yet they make decisions with little or no math and financial competence, no real genius in economics except selling out the country. As we found out someone with a degree in economics did great things like selling out the country and trade deals that ruined us, talk about the wasteland in the search for the holy grail, the industrial landscape is a wasteland. Like unions who own nothing, invest in
nothing, contract nothing, yet want all the power, to extort and practice terrorism, which is the use of force or the threat of the use of force, to shut down company after company, strike to smash the enterprise, jobs and production, right out of the country. Now is that any way to have enterprise productivity ad prosperity that would generate economic leadership?

So Yeah, amazing, talking about the Avro Arrow and Economic Leadership, amazing how we can tie all that together flying 3 times or more faster than the speed of sound. Since we have common interests and beliefs and values, let us work to build great things together, knowing our history, that what was done before can be done again, and if we learn from the past, we can do certain things to enable, augment and amplify the success of the future. Let us recruit smart people with perception, perspective, awareness, understanding, wisdom, ideas and imagination. Let us express the best of who we are, not making excuses, but make effort, pro active pro Canadian. A spirit of co-operation is essential, building a team, where everything has something valuable to contribute, where nobody gets jealous, but everyone jumps in with both feet, hit the ground running, on fire, living everyday with purpose…and think about it, if this was a secret military operation, how will you respond, what kind of mission tasking will you have, your personal initiative, response ability, personal empowerment by exercising powerful freedom of choice, what will you do? What are you waiting for, Eh? Everything to be perfect? Do not let the infinite perfect be the enemy of the good, as it is written. The individual can contribute to make it perfect, at least infinitely better than to succeed at doing nothing.

You might wonder, how is it possible someone with individual creative imagination can start companies with a vision of such magnitude, that goes way beyond anything in government right now is doing, and in our history as a country, has ever done?

If you look at the idea of self government, this is actually law, one’s own code, the acceptance of personal responsibility, the power to exercise freedom of choice, which is for the most part censored, along with whitey, now, a new law, the one that creates the future, the law of one individual that decides to do something about it, make effort not excuses, to be part of the solution, build something awesome, or build anything at all. In our law, we agree to treat others in a civilized manner…this is not the case in Canada right now. There is a real difference, between the patriots and nationalists and old fashioned Canadians and those who are not. There is a difference in thinking, capabilities, aptitudes and interests, as well as intelligence, reasoning power and loyalty. I see it everyday. What is important, is that people do something, not waiting for everything to be perfect. Align your values and priorities with what you do, your actions. Do something, go forward, make decisions, keep making decisions with a pro-active life of adventure and achievement, even super-achievement, hold nothing back, express the best of who you are, encourage others, make friends and allies, build great things together, redevelop and rebuild the national dream. Someone has already made it a lot easier to do that, so what are you waiting for? Who are you waiting for? Wait no more, you have the answer you are looking for, you have the solution and power, all you need to do is exercise it.

It is time for all good men to come to the aid of their country, right? Wait no more!

Peace, Order and Good Government, right?

Cheers, have an awesome and pro-active day in Canada!
Michael Comeau