The Canadian National Newspaper Exopolitics Headlines

Adapted from Dr. Michael Salla

There are many challenges that global humanity must face in responding to the possible intervention of Extraterrestrials (ETs) in human affairs if humanity is to maintain its sovereignty and independence. Foremost among these is identifying the difference between ET races which directly intervene in human affairs without explicit authorization or permission from humans on an individual and/or collective basis, and those races which adopt a non-interventionary role when such permission is not forthcoming. While ascribing moral categories solely on the interventionary policy of ET races is a not a sufficient condition for understanding the various agenda of ETs, it does serve as a necessary condition for helping distinguish between ET races who have a long term goal of promoting human sovereignty and independence, and those ET’s whose goal is undermining these fundamental principles.

As a general rule, ET races that directly intervene in human affairs, without explicit permission to do so from individuals and governments, do not serve humanity’s best interests in terms of human sovereignty and independence. Conversely, a second rule is that those alien races that only intervene in human affairs when explicit permission has been given, behave in a way that is more consistent with humanity’s best interest in terms of human sovereignty and independence

Keeping the above general rules in mind, it is possible to now understand the primary dangers that confront humanity in maintaining its sovereignty and independence in responding to the intervention of technologically advanced ET races. The first ‘danger’ is the perception fostered by those that believe that humanity’s best hope in maintaining sovereignty and independence is through a rapid technological revolution in the military sector. The second ‘danger’ is the belief that ET’s that intervene during a possible global environmental, economic and/or political disaster are the saviors of humanity and play a role that can be explained in Christian religious terminology as the “Second Coming”.

The crux of both of these dangers is that global humanity on an individual and collective basis ‘gives its sovereignty and independence’ away to those that control military technology used as the prime instrument of individual or collective defence; or to so-called “benevolent” ETs who intervene in time to save global humanity from some impending global crisis engineered by corrupt or militaristic human/ET groups.

The Danger Posed by a Military Response to ET Intervention

The first danger arises from the strength of the military industrial complex in countries such as the U.S. and the effect on the psychological disposition of Americans to accept the use of military force in resolving political problems. President Dwight Eisenhower who presided during the formation of many clandestine U.S. government organizations that were set up to respond to increasing incidents of ET intervention in human affairs, became alarmed at the growing power of these organizations and the symbiotic relationship between large US corporations and the military.

In his famous departing speech of 1961, he directly mentioned the power of the military industrial complex and the need to be wary of the intertwined relationships between corporations and the military in producing advanced military technology. The underlying idea here is that such organizations foster a militarized response to the ET presence and incidents of ET intervention through producing advanced weaponry based on ‘captured’ or ‘traded’ ET technology that can respond to the ET presence in a way that preserves humanity’s sovereignty and independence.

Leading policy makers in the various organizations that support a military response to ET intervention wish to avoid a repeat of the calamity that befell the indigenous civilization of the America’s which were destroyed by the technologically more advanced, though numerically small, Spanish invasion. Those supporting a military response to the ET presence generally and ET intervention in particular, have in mind a policy similar to the Meiji restoration of Japan where in a short few decades Japan responded to the presence of more technologically advanced European nations by rapidly industrializing its military, technological and political sectors to the extent that it transformed itself from a weak feudal state characterized by competing warlords to a centralized dynastic kingdom under the Meiji Emperors.

The Meiji Restoration led to the most remarkable industrialization effort ever witnessed and was so rapid and far reaching in scope that Japan was in a few short decades able to defeat a major European power, Russia, during the 1905 Russo-Japanese war. More stupendous was Japan’s military performance during the Second World War where it came very close to defeating the U.S. and its allied forces in the Pacific. What distinguished the Meiji Restoration as an example of a less developed civilization responding to the presence and intervention of a more ‘advanced’ civilization was the ability of the Japanese to quickly unify in response to the threat posed by colonial Europe and the U.S., as opposed to the disunity that characterized the indigenous kingdoms of the Americas that were easily picked off one at a time by the cunning Spanish Conquistadores.

The military industrial complex and the clandestine organizations in the US and Europe responding to the U.S. presence clearly have the Japanese model in mind as evidenced by the whistleblower testimonies of Colonel Corso and others who participated in clandestine reverse engineering programs not disclosed to the general public and elected public officials. Clandestine government organizations are going to great efforts to ‘modernize’ their weapon systems through trade, treaties and even military confrontation with ET races in the hope that global humanity through its strongest nations will be able to deal with the ET presence through a position of strength. At the global political level, there are efforts to centralize the use of military force through global multilateral institutions such as the UN (Iraq 1991) or NATO (Kosovo 1999); or a multilateral action led the US with the support of a ‘coalition of the willing’ (Iraq 2003).

At first sight, a global policy based on the Meiji restoration is very understandable and even praiseworthy in the means by which it sets out to preserve humanity’s sovereignty and independence by a rapid program of military modernization and global political unity. There are nevertheless dangers in following the Meiji model of transformation in responding to the interventionary activities of more technologically advanced ET races. One is the lesson provided by history itself where Japan was defeated in the Second World War as a result of an overconfidence possessed by its still immature political leaders who were captivated by the success of militarism in transforming Japan. Militarists grew in power and asserted Japanese power in a way that broke the tacit diplomatic boundaries essential for preserving regional peace.

This is currently being evidenced in the U.S. where recent military successes in Afghanistan and Iraq have elevated the influence of political leaders who espouse a doctrine of military intervention as a means of resolving U.S. foreign policy problems that is not that dissimilar to Japanese militarism early in the twentieth century. There is a likely hood that the clandestine government organizations representing global humanity — still relatively immature in dealing with interplanetary affairs between ET species — may similarly overstep tacit boundaries that exist which prevent an overt and large scale extraterrestrial intervention in human affairs.

The danger of clandestine government organizations taking global humanity down a path of militarism in responding to the ET presence is very real since non-disclosure of the ET presence to the general public and elected political leaders means that only a select few are privy to knowledge of all aspects of the ET presence and interventions, and only this privileged minority participate in the policy making process. There is the testimony of former participants in clandestine government activities such as Preston Nichols , Stewart Swerdlow, Al Bielak, Peter Moon, Stephen Schwartz, and others that secret interplanetary wars are already being conducted by Earth based clandestine organizations using advanced military technology.

This suggests that the policy making process concerning how to respond to the ET intervention and the use of ET technology is dominated by those in the military-intelligence sector of national governments who have a predisposition toward the utility of a military-technological response. The restricted policy making process that takes place in organizations embedded in elite military and security organizations conspires to exclude seasoned, and more accountable diplomats and elected representatives, that would be more cautious in their optimism over the utility of military technology in negotiating with and responding to technologically sophisticated, but lower dimensional ET races.

In summary, the continued non-disclosure of the ET presence, and the focus on an increasing militarized response to ET interventions, reflected in part by increased militarism in international affairs as evidenced most recently by U.S. intervention in Iraq, constitutes a great danger to human sovereignty and independence since it may lead to a kind of interplanetary war [that former Canadian Defence Minister Paul Hellyer has sought to warn humanity about] where defeat would totally erase humanity’s sovereignty and independence. As Japan might testify in response to its own loss of sovereignty and independence after rapid advances in military technology led to the growth of Japanese militarism and a disastrous confrontation with the U.S., a militarized response to a technologically advanced civilization carries many inherent perils.

The Danger of a staged Second Coming orchestrated though clerical elites

The second danger is the pervasive belief by hundreds of millions if not billions of people around the planet that there is to be an “End Times’”where there will be a ‘Second Coming’ involving the return of a spiritually advanced being such as Christ for Christians; Messiah for Jews, Isa for Muslims; Kalki for the Hindus; Maitreya for Buddhists, etc. Such a being would presumably save humanity from an impending global catastrophe engineered by corrupt individuals/institutions, or a disastrous military conflict with hostile ET races, and usher in a golden age of peace and harmony.

The belief in a ‘Second Coming’ is so deeply embedded in the collective psyche of humanity that it could be well described as an archetype of the ‘collective unconscious’. It can be predicted that such an archetype would be exploited by ET races wishing to remove humanity’s sovereignty and independence in a much more covert way than overt ET intervention. This indeed would parallel the Spanish Conquest of the Americas where conquistadores such as Hernando Cortes exploited the religious belief system of the native Americans and persuaded them that the Spaniards were the ‘returning gods’ [John Lash in metahistory.org documents that the ancient Gnostics viewed specifically Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as the "Doctrine of the Aliens" (Manipulative/Regressive)].

A number of controversial book authors such as Al Bielak, Preston Nichols, Stewart Swerdlow, Peter Moon and others claim to have been part of a clandestine military project dubbed the ‘Montauk Project’ which used advanced technology such as genetic cloning, holographic projection and time-travel. Such technology was said to have been given to clandestine government organizations by various ET races. If such reports are accurate, then it would be possible and even likely that the pervasive belief in a ‘Second Coming’ could be exploited by ET groups that freely intervene in human affairs and who allegedly enter into agreements with clandestine government organizations.

Using time travel technology, such ET races could use DNA samples from the ‘historic Jesus’ or religious relics such as the Shroud of Turin, to clone a hybrid ET/human being that could be passed off as the returning Christ. Using holographic projection around key areas of the globe, such a figure could appear in the miraculous manner expected by religious adherents. As the result of DNA testing and a host of miracles manufactured either by ET holographic technology or by the ET/human hybrid himself, such a being and his supporters could persuade a sufficient number of believers from the different religious traditions that he was the returning Christ/Messiah/Isa/Kalki/Maitreya.

It could be expected that such a being could bring about peace in perennial conflicts such as Israel/Palestine, Kashmir, and elsewhere, by the force of his charismatic personality, miraculous deeds, and overt support by ET groups. If such a ‘Second Coming’ were to happen, this new ‘Christ’ would gain enormous global authority. The religious authority of such a hybrid being and the associated ET races supporting such a ‘returned Christ’ would pose a direct threat to the sovereignty and independence of global humanity.

Traditional religious institutions such as the Catholic Church would receive a huge boost in authority and relevance as they would predictably form a close relationship with this returned ‘Christ’ and the ET races supporting him. There is evidence already that the Catholic Church is undergoing a significant doctrinal change where senior clerics including the Pope himself now support the ‘possible “benevolence” of ET races and their abilities to faithfully express the message of Christ. The final result would be a new religious dispensation where humanity is indoctrinated with the authority of a new global religion that integrates the ‘Second Coming’ with overt ET intervention. The release to the general public of advanced ET technology that resolves global environmental problems, and the co-opting of amenable religious authorities would be powerful markers of the ‘new dispensation’.

The ‘opponents’ of this new religious dispensation and the global authority of an ET manufactured Christ/Messiah would be those that deny the authority of such a being and the global institutions and processes that are created in the wake of his authority and charisma. There would be many from traditional religious belief systems that would deny such a new dispensation as has been historically the pattern when widespread religious reform has occurred. Historically, however, such opposition weakens as religious adherents slowly convert to the new dispensation. The strongest opposition to a staged Second Coming heralding a new religious dispensation would be those in the ‘New Age’ and ‘New Thought’ movements who typically champion more autonomous or sovereign individual decision making without appeal to external religious authority.

Popular New Age channels/leaders such as Lee Carroll, Geoffrey Hope, Drunvalo Melchizedek, Jasmuheen, Barbara Marciniak and leaders in the New Thought movements found in churches such as Unity, Universal Unitarian, Christian Science, and others, all focus on the sovereignty and independence of each individual as they are able to give full expression to their own inner divinity and authority. Adherents of these New Age and New Thought ideals are very dismissive of universal claims of religious authority, and while a staged Second Coming may hold some initial appeal with its connection to various ET races and the “historic Jesus”, the religious dimension associated with it would be eventually opposed.

A growing religious/spiritual conflict between the believers in the so-called “Returned Christ”, and ‘unbelievers’ in the ‘New Age’ and ‘New Thought’ movements and dissenting religious groups would therefore emerge. A wave of political repression could be launched in democratic nations where adherents in the New Dispensation confront and violate the rights of those opposed. Adherents of New Age/New Thought would be either repressed or marginalized ensuring the rapid spread of a new ET inspired global religion which places at the pinnacle of global authority an ET hybrid claiming to be the “returned Christ” whose DNA would match the “historical Jesus”.

Conclusion: Preserving Human Sovereignty and Independence

Global humanity has a rapid learning curve ahead of it, if humanity is to navigate the challenges posed by ET intervention to human sovereignty and independence. Thankfully, there are genuinely< benevolent ET races assisting humanity in its evolution into a race of sovereign and independent beings capable of stewardship of planet Earth and her rich resources. These ET races, however, follow a policy of non-intervention in human affairs which distinguishes them from less or non-spiritually evolved ET races who have other priorities than the evolution of global humanity.

The key for global humanity navigating these present and future dangers is to be alert to belief systems that allow the possibility of interventionist ET’s subverting human sovereignty and independence. Put in its simplest terms, the prescription for responding adequately to ET intervention in human affairs is that individuals should not give their power away to others claiming to hold the means to save humanity either through technological means or a new religious belief system proclaiming a new saviour.

Each individual needs to develop in a fashion suitable to their own temperament and spiritual sensibility, that leads to a reconnection to a part of themselves, their ‘higher self’, ‘soul’, ‘spirit’, etc., toward Human Development. Given the present focus of much of global humanity in dealing with the challenging material conditions that confront individuals in terms of shrinking labour markets, erosion of state welfare, and threats posed by global terrorism, this will be a great challenge to many who have been forced into mental slavery in associated with the pursuit of greed that is associated with global capitalism.

The preservation of human sovereignty and independence lies in humanity affirming its free will as sentient beings in the universe, that are connected with each other socially, and spiritually, in relation to a context of Human Development, and with Nature.

Placing faith in military technology as a response to ET intervention, and/or a new religious authority/dispensation will play into the hands of ET races which desire to undermine human sovereignty and independence. ET intervention in human affairs has been occurring for at least the last 50 years according to numerous testimonies from former government/military officials in various clandestine organizations. There is evidence from archeological, historical and religious sources that cycles from overt to covert ET intervention have occurred for many thousands of years. What distinguishes our modern era is that ET intervention has largely been covert as a result of clandestine government suppression of the ET presence. However, it is very likely that this will soon change in a dramatic fashion either in the form of an overt conflict with ET’s by militarized clandestine government organizations who unwittingly overstep tacit boundaries that limit overt ET intervention, and/or an engineered ‘Second Coming’.

These likely events require some forethought into how individuals and global humanity can best respond to such events/announcements while preserving human sovereignty and independence. While the… [CONTINUED.. see comment below]

[BECOME A MEMBER, and get the rest of this article emailed to you.  E-mail editorial@agoracosmopolitan.com to find out how you can become a member of The Canadian.]

Get this article “unlocked”.  Be this first reader to make a member pledge in order to see rest of this article. LINK

The Canadian is volunteer-driven, socially progressive, and not-for-profit oriented.  You are invited to become a member.

Become a member.  Make a member pledge, to help us publish similar articles, and cover expenses associated the maintaining The Canadian.  LINK

Click HERE to become a Member  Get on our VIP list.

You also become eligble to receive complimentary gifts in the mail from books to Canadian Maple Syrup to CDs to stereo systems to high definition televisions.  We can email you thank you gift options.

OR, drop us a line for more information about membership.

E-mail: editorial@agoracosmopolitan.com

Make a Donation. Support more articles like this one.

<!–

–>

MACLEANS – There used to be a time when taking on the Royal Navy was a bad idea. The force that policed the high seas through two world wars and protected the largest empire ever seen was for years the emblem of British national pride and pugnacity. Which is why it was particularly humiliating for many Britons to witness the spectacle of the navy’s finest peddling stories about their capture a couple of months ago by the Iranian Republican Guard to the newspapers. The British had already watched televised “confessions” by servicemen, in which they criticized national foreign policy and admitted to crimes and trespasses they had not committed.

But it was the paid interviews given once safely home that left the nation wondering what has happened to traditional British reserve and the notion of the stiff upper lip. Leading Seaman Faye Turney told the nation of the sheer hell of being reduced to counting carpet tiles in solitary confinement while waiting to learn of her fate(Iranian prisons, one is led to believe, are carpeted). And the diminutive Operator Mechanic Arthur Batchelor complained to the media that the Republican Guard had taken away his iPod and called him Mr. Bean.

It was not long before commentators drew parallels between the behaviour of our fighting personnel and the collapse of traditional British values. The venerable right of centre newsmagazine The Spectator, in its editorial, said the episode “demonstrated just how deeply British society has been corrupted by the twin cults of celebrity and victimhood.” These sentiments were echoed by the social commentator Theodore Dalrymple, who said the affair showed Britain “to be a country of very slight account, with a population increasingly unable to distinguish the trivial from the important and the virtual from the real, led by a man of the most frivolous earnestness who for many years has been given to gushes of cheap moral enthusiasm.”

The Shatt al-Arab affair was, he contended, a sign of a desire by British leadership to be both “policeman and lady almoner, General Patton and Gandhi, Rambo and [prison reformer] Elizabeth Fry.” Our servicemen are potential killers, and yet make good subjects for the chat-show couch. In striving to be both, they end up being neither.

This dichotomy runs through the country these servicemen are paid to defend: Britain is, for instance, a champion of free markets, but also administers some of the greatest and most unproductive state bureaucracies in the world. Britain believes in multiculturalism, but dislikes its Muslims wearing the veil. The country believes in freedom of choice by individuals and parents, but prohibits selection in schools and enacts streams of legislation restricting freedom of speech and protest.

Every year since Labour’s landslide 1997 victory, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and now prime minister, Gordon Brown had delivered budget speeches in the House of Commons trumpeting Britain’s sustained growth and its record of low unemployment and inflation. We are told of a miraculous melding of socialist philanthropism with market-force-driven capitalism. We are reminded of Labour’s war on child poverty, of its solicitude for the elderly, of its sustained investment in health care and education, but also of the positioning of Britain as the economic powerhouse of Europe, churning out dynamic, well-educated graduates who are more than capable of taking on the Asian Tiger economies.

Britain is, apparently, awash with disposable wealth, laden with opportunity, bursting with economic and social optimism. CEOs and union bosses can live happily together, either side of an agreed minimum wage. The social safety net, which guarantees world class public services for everybody, free at the point of need, have been sealed off from market forces, offering care for those unfortunates who find themselves unable, through no fault of their own, to benefit from Britain’s economic miracle.

And we don’t just care about the poor at home. Gordon Brown and now departed Prime Minister Tony Blair have been fully paid up members of the Bono / Bob Geldof African anti-poverty movement, unashamed to divert G8 agendas and overseas aid programs to issues of Third World debt relief and the scourge of AIDS and underdevelopment.

The government trumpets unique and long-standing “British values,” but has done away with some of the constitutional “anachronisms” of the past; Wales has a devolved assembly, Scotland its own parliament, and Northern Ireland took up the reins of self-government weeks ago. All members of the “union” still have full access to subsidies generated in England, however. The House of Lords is well on its way to becoming either an elected, or an appointed chamber, or a hybrid of the two.

The House of Commons is increasingly marginalized and many developments in government policy are revealed to friendly newspapers before they are announced in Parliament. Republicanism is on the rise among the ruling elites, though not yet among the masses. The Queen was forced to give up her beloved royal yacht Britannia and will soon be ferried around on a jet dubbed “Blair Force One,” to be shared with Gordon Brown.

Brown mistrusts European integration, has shunned the euro, and all are invited to shake their heads despairingly at the sclerotic economies and social models of the Continent, bound by stifling employment laws and mired in protectionism and economic nationalism. Instead, we are led to believe that Britain and the United States are natural economic bedfellows, chasing ever lower levels of regulation and ever higher levels of productivity.

To echo Dalrymple above, we are tough, but caring. We are competitive, but solicitous for the weak and the poor. We are modern, but in tune with precedent. We have, if the rhetoric is to be believed, established a utopia where the full spectrum of human endeavour and aspiration can find a home.

But consider the following statistics which, most will agree, point instead to a fractured society, to impending economic decay and the total collapse of the postwar values system:

• UNICEF this year ranked Britain bottom in the league of industrialized nations in terms of the well-being of children. This is a startling fact, given that child welfare has been one of Gordon Brown’s chief preoccupations throughout his 10 years at the Treasury.
• Labour has also failed to meet its own targets on the reduction of child poverty, and this despite the extra billions in welfare targeted at parents and carers.
• Britain also has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in Europe, the highest proportion of single mothers, and one of the highest divorce rates.
• Britain ranks top, with France, in western Europe in terms of sexually transmitted disease. It has the highest obesity rate in Europe, with nearly a quarter of inhabitants classified as obese.
• Britain has one of the highest rates of alcohol abuse in Europe, with a quarter of Britons indulging in the sort of binge drinking that every weekend transforms cities and market towns into Hogarthian hellholes.
• Britain also heads Europe in terms of drug abuse. Cocaine use is highest in the United Kingdom, and use among secondary school pupils has doubled in the last year.
• Along with Ireland and Holland, Britain has the highest crime rate in Europe. London has a higher violent crime rate than any other city in the European Union, higher than in Istanbul and New York City.

Perhaps most worrying is the alienation of large sections of the country’s young people. These are people detached from society, floating free of family, jobs, education and training. NEETs, or young people “not in education, employment or training,” now comprise one-fifth(1.2 million)of British 16- to 24-year-olds. In the 16 to 19 age bracket, 11 per cent are classed as NEETS, double the proportion in Germany and France — and this despite massive spending on “welfare to work” initiatives by Gordon Brown since he declared, on taking up the reins of power in 1997, that “staying home is not an option.” 

Commentators scratch their heads at how so many young people are able to get away with, literally, doing nothing, when there is apparently enough work for the hundreds of thousands of eastern Europeans who have entered the country since enlargement of the European Union a couple of years ago. One of the most watched shows on television employs police closed-circuit television-camera footage of drunken brawls each weekend in British towns and cities. It is normally the NEETS who are throwing the punches.

And with the challenges of globalization becoming every day more apparent, Britain’s record on education declines steadily, despite a doubling of spending from £29 billion($62 billion, using current exchange rates)in 1997 to £64 billion($138 billion)projected for 2008. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development last year claimed a quarter of the British population aged between 25 and 34 are “low skilled” in terms of educational attainment, five times the numbers in Japan.

An OECD report also said that Britain lags behind in literacy rates among developed nations, and the U.S. Institute for Education Sciences says 14-year-olds in Britain are outperformed by 17 other countries in the developed world in terms of mathematical ability. Recent statistics showed that fully one-half of state secondary schools are failing to provide pupils with a good standard of education, and 40 per cent of 11-year-olds are leaving primary school without having reached an appropriate level in reading, writing and math. Grade inflation, through which the government stands accused of covering up low achievement, is endemic. In 1989, for instance, a grade of 48 per cent was needed to get a C in GCSE math. By the year 2000 it was 18 per cent.

The government remains hostile to selection in education, and teachers remain hostile to any academic streaming within state schools. This means that in any given classroom, a Somali refugee who does not speak English can sit alongside the pupil with learning difficulties who in turn sits next to one with chronic behavioural problems who “learns” alongside the gifted pupil who would benefit from a greater challenge.

And, as part of its policy of ensuring “equal access” to higher education, universities have been told that, in future, funding will be partly dependent on the ethnic, economic and social background of undergraduates they select. It will now also be incumbent on universities to consider the education and social background of an applicant’s parents, as well as the suitability of the applicant himself, in allocating places.

The pressure on universities to accept, and then pass, undergraduates who have little aptitude for further education has the inevitable effect of devaluing Britain’s knowledge base and competitiveness. Employer and business organizations are already bemoaning the low literacy and numeric skills of graduates, and the drawbacks of government manipulation of education standards will become increasingly manifest as Britain is thrown into closer competition with the developing economies of India and China.

After the Prime Minister steps down on June 27, Gordon Brown will finally gain the keys to Number 10 and Blair will wander off, like his old friend Bill Clinton before him, into a world of multi-million-dollar book deals and lecture tours. Blair’s fury at Brown’s grip on domestic affairs has always been obvious. The latter used his support on the left of the party to block real reform of health care and education, and stifled at birth the Prime Minister’s more progressive(and market-driven)domestic plans through ruthless, centralized control of the nation’s purse strings. Blair leaves without the domestic legacy he craves.

But it is probably just as well for Blair that he is leaving. For Brown’s policies are beginning to turn sour, and Blair will be better off writing speeches on the beach at Robin Gibb’s Florida hideaway when the full scale of Brown’s legacy becomes apparent.

Interest rates in March reached a 10-year high of 3.1 per cent, one of the fastest among developed nations. House prices — one of the most inflation-sensitive factors in British household finances — are excluded from the official method of inflation measurement. If included, the real rate would be close to five per cent.

In a country where the average home costs nearly £200,000($430,000), property owning remains a pipe dream for the poor and an enormous burden for blue-collar families and the middle classes.

The homeowner is faced with a precarious financial predicament: new homebuyers are facing an average mortgage of £150,000($323,000). This means that anyone on the average wage of £23,000($49,500)would be spending 70 per cent of take-home pay on the mortgage. And this is before factors such as unsecured debt, spiralling domestic costs including a 70 per cent hike in property taxes over the last 10 years, and over 100 indirect tax increases since 1997 take their share.

If interest rates continue to remain high, increased mortgage repayments on all those highly leveraged families referred to above could mean severe hardship and, some are predicting, the bursting of the U.K. property bubble and subsequent movement by large parts of the property-owning classes into negative equity.

The International Monetary Fund is warning that public spending is too high and that public sector wage demands threaten Britain’s stability. But both show every chance of rising under a Brown premiership. The state now employs a quarter of workers in Britain, and the 900,000 hired since 1997 almost equals the fall in unemployment in the same period.

All seven million public sector workers are furnished with index-linked pensions, leaving the country with a current public sector pensions liability of, some studies contend, £700 billion($1.5 trillion)– twice the national debt. Brown’s decision upon taking power to remove tax concessions on private pension funds has, conversely, devastated their value and channelled an extra £5 billion($10.8 billion)a year to the Treasury. This has done huge damage to Britain’s savings culture and left the person holding a devalued private sector pension paying increased sums in taxation to ensure his neighbour’s public sector pension maintains its integrity.

The welfare bill is becoming unmanageable. In 1971, only eight per cent of the working population was on benefits. Today the figure is 18 per cent, and some economic think tanks estimate that one-third of British households rely on benefits for at least half their income. Catering for the demands of such a massive welfare operation and for the demands of the gigantic state workforce and public services(the National Health Service is one of the largest employers in the world)is the single biggest threat to competitiveness and, the IMF warns, will lead to rising inflation.

Gordon Brown has taken advantage of 10 years of growth to pump billions into public services, but with negligible results. In 1997, for instance, spending on the National Health Service was £33 billion($71 billion), rising to £90 billion($194 billion)last year. Although critics of the NHS would argue for negative productivity, the most generous estimates point to a productivity increase of just 9.9 per cent between 1998 and 2004 — a period during which spending doubled.

And by the end of last year, a service that has seen a funding increase of nearly 200 per cent since Labour came to power found itself, amazingly, facing a deficit of over £500 million($1.1 billion). The urge to meet government targets resulted in regional managers over-hiring and over-remunerating staff rather than relying on increasing efficiency or improving standards. General practitioners in Britain can now earn over £150,000($323,000)a year, and no longer have to make house calls. And tens of thousands of managers were hired to administer centralized targets and implement reforms.

Perhaps the greatest indictment of the NHS is the fact that thousands each year die from hospital-acquired diseases and infections. Officially, death rates stand at around 5,000 a year, but some experts, pointing to misreporting of suspicious deaths by hospitals, suggest a figure four times as high.

The answer to the problem is simple cleanliness. All those extra billions, all those extra targets and managers and doctors and nurses, and thousands are still dying each year for the lack of properly mopped floors and cleaned toilets.

And ordinary health outcomes, measured in deaths before 70 that were potentially avoidable through good medical care, put Britain near the bottom of the league among developed nations in terms of cancer, heart disease and stroke. In 2005, 41 per cent of patients waited four months or longer for elective surgery, compared with 33 per cent in Canada, 19 per cent in Australia and less than 10 per cent in Germany and America.

Taxation has risen to a 20-year high to cope with funding the state and the public services. Since 1997, the amount raised through personal taxes has risen from £175 billion($376 billion)to nearly £370 billion($796 billion). The OECD says that over the past four years, taxation of working families has risen in Britain, but fallen across Europe.

In the lead-up to the French elections, French politicians and businessmen were singing the praises of Britain — its lower tax rates, its free-market competitiveness. A BBC documentary focused on young French graduates pouring across the Channel to take up jobs in the British financial sector. But although personal taxation is higher in France, total taxation(taking into account Brown’s so-called indirect “stealth taxes”)is almost on a par, and the French public services, unlike Britain’s, are world class. London may well be a tempting place for the young French graduate, but France is a far better place if he or she gets married, seeks a good education for the children, falls ill or grows old.

And London itself, frequently mistaken by outsiders as representing Britain as a whole, has become, in the words of the British conservative commentator Charles Moore, a “city state … with a fairly unimportant country attached.” London’s role as a financial centre on its way to eclipsing New York City has provided a vision of prosperity which, it is assumed, trickles down to the population at large. But it is a city in which increasingly only those on welfare, or the super-rich, can afford to live. It has become a playground for non-domiciled billionaires and financial wizards who receive multi-million-pound bonuses to artificially inflate property prices and average earnings levels.

The IMF recently ranked Britain alongside the likes of Bermuda and the Caymans as a tax haven. Last year, accountants from Grant Thornton calculated that the U.K.’s 54 billionaires paid income tax totalling £14.7 million($32 million)on their combined £126 billion($271 billion)fortunes. There is an argument to be made for some of this wealth trickling down — perhaps to the catering and entertainment and other service industries, but the main burden of supporting Britain’s gargantuan state machinery lies with the working and middle classes — many of them unable to afford a house in London.

The central government’s policies, extending to the ballooning public sector and expanding welfare provision, have rendered large parts of the populace reliant on redistributionist state largesse. Added to this is the government’s fondness for legislation and intervention in many aspects of its citizens’ affairs.

For instance, the Home Office, which handles crime, immigration and security, has put no less than 3,000 new offences on the statute book since 1997 — on issues from detention without trial to the correct use of cellphones in cars. Myriads of new laws affecting personal liberty have been introduced, from religious hatred legislation to a national identity card scheme. Bible tracts are seized as evidence of hate literature at homosexual rights rallies, Catholic childrens’ agencies are required to place foster children with gay couples, and protests are banned in the vicinity of Parliament.

But it is Dalrymple’s identification, noted above, of a “population increasingly unable to distinguish the trivial from the important,” that is causing commentators, politicians and swaths of Middle England concern.

A few weeks ago, for instance, a mother, a grandmother and two aunts of a pair of toddlers were spared jail for filming a fight between the children in which they were goaded to viciously assault each other. On the same day, a man was sent to jail for four months for dogfighting. Similar inconsistencies are everywhere increasingly apparent. Tony Blair recently announced a plan to provide pregnant problem mothers with state “super-nannies” to teach them good child-rearing practices. At the same time, local government authorities employ nurses to provide underage girls with morning-after contraception services — the most notorious example of this was when a nurse met a girl at a McDonald’s and administered the dose in the restroom. Another girl of 14 had an abortion after counselling from school health workers. In both cases, parents were not informed because of the child’s right to privacy.

And it is young people who are causing the most concern. Recent statistics showed, for instance, that at least one child aged five and under is expelled from school every week and many more excluded for offences ranging from fighting to sexual assault to drug dealing. Increasingly, but belatedly, politicians are beginning to identify the decline of marriage and the family as the major cause of this and other social dysfunctions including ill health, crime, rampant promiscuity and welfare dependency. David Cameron, the leader of a resurgent Conservative party, finds himself able to mention this publicly without being crushed by the forces of political correctness. He points out that every government statistic garnered over the past 20 years shows that families bound together by marriage are happier, healthier and wealthier, and he is promising to alter the tax system to provide incentives for marriage, fidelity within marriage, and child nurture.

A few weeks ago, Cameron railed at the increasing lack of civility in British society. Citing the case of the women forcing their children to fight for the camera, he said “all these are signs of a culture that is becoming de-civilized — and the terrible thing is, we are getting used to it.” Government’s interventions in the realm of personal responsibility had stripped people, particularly parents, of the need to take responsibility for themselves: “My worry is that after a decade of a Labour government that said, ‘the state is always the answer, more government is the answer,’ they actually created the irresponsible society.”

Increasing numbers attribute Britain’s lapse into incivility to the misapplication of welfare and the disincentives to taking responsibility that this causes. Despite overwhelming evidence of the benefits, social and economic, of marriage to society, Gordon Brown in one of his first acts as chancellor abolished the married couples allowance, which gave tax breaks to a husband and wife who stayed together.

A Conservative party policy paper last year revealed that three-quarters of family breakdowns affecting young children now involve unmarried parents, and that cohabiting parents were more than twice as likely to break up than married couples. Government figures show that by 2031 there will be four million cohabiting couples. Over the past 20 years the proportion of children born outside marriage has risen from 12 per cent to 42 per cent.

Labour’s highly complicated tax credit system, born partly from a need to reduce child poverty, made welfare benefits for lone parents far more generous and, perversely, rendered a poor family headed by a single parent better off than a poor family headed by a couple. An out-of-work couple with children would thus be better off by between 27 and 35 per cent if they broke up, and a couple earning minimum wage with children would see their income rise by 12 per cent if the father moved out.

Britain leads Europe — and most of the world — in terms of single-mother households. Commentators and politicians are increasingly linking this to the fact that the country offers the most generous benefits in Europe to those same households. They recall former president Clinton’s success in reducing teenage pregnancy rates and lone parent households by changing welfare entitlements.

In Sweden, a single parent begins to lose state support if he or she is not in employment by the time the first child is three. In Britain, the government is only now taking soundings on the possibility of doing the same thing when a child reaches 12.

Whatever the case, those couples who do take responsibility to provide for themselves are forced to work to meet the bills, and many children rarely see their parents. Government has plowed millions into child care facilities without considering the benefits of manipulating the tax system to allow one carer to remain at home. There are now plans to keep state schools open for 50 hours a week, so educators who went into the profession to teach find themselves transformed into social workers and surrogate parents.

As a means of targeting the poor and encouraging the low-paid into employment, Gordon Brown shuns tax allowances, whereby the individual is allowed to retain more of his earnings at source, in favour of tax credits where income is taxed and returned after means testing. The message is clear: wealth cannot stay with the earner, who, arguably, is better able to make decisions about their personal financial circumstances. Wealth instead belongs first to the state, which sets itself up as the sole axis and arbiter of redistribution.

Economists and think tanks contend that it is hardly surprising that so many at the bottom end of the income scale opt for welfare instead of employment. Because Brown has increased National Insurance contributions(a levy designed to help fund the NHS)and allowed the personal income tax allowance to shrink as earnings rise, it is the poor who now pay the largest share of their income in direct taxation. A minimum wage earner in the U.K., after the first 26 hours’ work per week, pays over 30 pence in every extra pound he earns direct to the taxman.

The fiscal dynamics of marriage, home and family at the lowest end of the earning scale are thus not governed by the principle of self-betterment, experts say. “The bravest and most admirable person in Britain today is the working-class man with children who clings to self-provision when it would be far easier to get on the state teat,” said David Smith of the Institute of Economic Affairs. “If you look after your children and stay with your partner, you are poor and the kids are debits. If you leave home the state takes over your family and you, alone again, are richer.”

In France and other European nations, child-rearing is rewarded by a reduction in the tax burden. In Britain, poor families crumble, male role models are encouraged to depart, and children of broken unions soon lapse into delinquency and social ostracization.

Government is doing everything it can to keep growing numbers of Britain’s youth from becoming feckless. It has plans to force young people not in training to stay in school until they are 18, but for many, this is shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. The Conservatives say it is the decline of the family unit, the fiscal and practical challenges to good parenting, poor education and the nanny state, that is the root of so many of Britain’s social and cultural problems. It remains to be seen whether the Conservatives, when in power, will make the difficult decisions they accuse the current government of ignoring.

W.F. Deedes, at 94 a national icon who still pens a column for the London Daily Telegraph, has participated in public life for over 70 years. Said to be the inspiration behind the fictional and hapless Boot in Evelyn Waugh’s Scoop, Lord Deedes has been an MP, a minister, a newspaper editor, a soldier and privy counsellor to the Queen.

“I have never known a time when government exercised more control over every aspect of our lives,” he says, pointing to the sheer size of the state and the inroads it has made into “personal liberty, fiscal responsibility and personal responsibility.”

“We are, dear boy, on the verge of a permanent change in the national character. It is very sad.”

internet site reference: LINK

Make a Donation. Support more articles like this one.

Digg this Stumble It!   Post to del.icio.us Seed Newsvine    Share on Facebook Technorati links

Get this article “unlocked”.  Be this first reader to make a member pledge in order to see rest of this article. LINK

The Canadian is volunteer-driven, socially progressive, and not-for-profit oriented.  You are invited to become a member.

Become a member.  Make a member pledge, to help us publish similar articles, and cover expenses associated the maintaining The Canadian.  LINK

Click HERE to become a Member  Get on our VIP list.

You also become eligble to receive complimentary gifts in the mail from books to Canadian Maple Syrup to CDs to stereo systems to high definition televisions.  We can email you thank you gift options.

OR, drop us a line for more information about membership.

E-mail: editorial@agoracosmopolitan.com

We need your support. We are volunteer-driven. Make a pledge, if you can.

Make a Donation. Support more articles like this one.

by David Stein

The Civil Assistance Plan (CAP) is another example of the subversion of the national independence, and participatory democracy in Canada, to U.S. military expansionist objectives.

“U.S. Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, commander of North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command, and Canadian Air Force Lt.-Gen. Marc Dumais, commander of Canada Command, have signed a Civil Assistance Plan that allows the military from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a civil emergency.

Canwest News Service elaborates:

“Canada and the U.S. have signed an agreement that paves the way for the militaries from either nation to send troops across each other’s borders during an emergency, but some are questioning why the Harper government has kept silent on the deal. Neither the Canadian government nor the Canadian Forces announced the new agreement, which was signed Feb. 14 in Texas.”

Russian Colonel Gen Vladimir Bulgakov, Commander of Russia’s Far East Military District, points out that it is ‘no wonder’ that neither the U.S. or Canadian War Leaders want the masses of their citizens to know about these ‘unprecedented’ events as ‘soldiers by their inherent training are for use in war, not peace’.

CAP actually creates an incentive for U.S. to use the pretext of an “emergency” to fulfill longstanding U.S. military objectives of Manifest Destiny against Canada, that had precipitated the War of 1812. CAP is a clear violation of Canada’s independence, and the constitutional responsibility of government in Canada to obtain the endorsement of the people, in the pursuit of such international agreements.

CAP is a further step of the U.S. military establishing full control of the Canadian Armed Forces. CAP also further locks the Canadian Armed Forces to be used to carry out military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other parts of the world, against the democratic will of the Canadian people, in relation to “USNORTHCOM“ (U.S. Northern Command). CAP represents just another way in which the “War against Freedom and Democracy” under the U.S. Bush administration is being used to consolidate a neo-fascistic globalist control.

The so-called “War on Terrorism” is clearly a fight for the spread of neo-fascism under greed driven corporate and military cliques, and not about the defence and advancement of fundamental principles of democracy. [Make Member Pledge and help support our not-for-profit media organization] LINK

Make a Donation. Support more articles like this one.

by Allison Wells

As some of you may know, Canada is in the process of aligning its policies with those of the USA. Very quietly. Without public debate. It is all part of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP-NAU) signed in Waco, Texas, 2005. This is not a left-right issue — Martin signed the accord, Harper is ardently continuing it. This seems to be a corporate-driven venture.

What does SPP mean for Canadians?

We are in the process of adopting U.S. immigration, security and foreign policy. SPP also commits Canada to supporting U.S.-lead wars on terror and increased military spending. Our military is now led by USA’s NORTHCOM. We now have no-fly lists. We are likely to have to accept fingerprinting and other biometrics. We will be required to treat immigrants and refugees differently.

Our resources will be proportionally shared. Huge areas of the U.S. are short of water. Our government is currently moving toward bulk exporting of water. Oil export will increase (now 63%) due to ‘proportional sharing’.

Lowered environmental and health protection. NAFTA already allows corporations to sue our federal governments when their regulations stand in the way of profit. SPP allows corporations to sue provincial and municipal governments — which is where many safety standards rest.

Loss of democracy — it is intended that Canada, USA and Mexico will merge into a North American Union (NAU), having one currency, the Amero. The Union will be overseen by 10 non-elected corporate CEOs from each country.

Accelerating privatisation of health care and other public services.

We need to consider diverse implications of the SPP-NAU agenda, and their effects for future generations.

If this is new to you, you might consider educating yourself — and your friends and family. Canadians have a right to know what has been is planned for them.

About the writer:

Allison Wells is a writer with downtown Toronto’s The Bulletin.

The Bulletin is an independent community newspaper to inform residents, visitors and businesses in Downtown Toronto. LINK.

Make a Donation. Support more articles like this one.

Make a Donation. Support more articles like this one.

by Derek Skinner

The path to a full understanding of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) is guarded by gatekeepers.

“What is a Gatekeeper?” you ask.

Think of it in a physical sense ? someone who stops you going through a gate. If the gate is in a field of knowledge it is someone who stops you learning what is at the next level of understanding and when you are dealing with progress it is someone who prevents you from taking the next step.

“How is that done?” you say.

It is done by — giving you false information — denying you access to the information you need to be able to understand what is going on, – diverting your attention — making you think you have taken the necessary step while actually standing still.

“Who are the gatekeepers?”

They are those who — lie to you — pretend there is nothing happening, – and lead you off down diversionary paths of inconsequential endeavours so that you never get around to dealing with the real problem.

The first two strategies were amply demonstrated by Messrs. Harper and Bush at Montebello, making out that the harmonizing of regulations for jellybeans would not threaten Canadian sovereignty and denying the existence of the NAFTA superhighway corridors that will join Mexico to Canada. The strategy would be a fair description of the Liberal and Conservative governments we have had for the last 30 years together with their corporate controlled national print, radio and TV media cartels.

The third strategy alone refers to the media emphasis on blood and sex, and that is ably supported by the American film industry which has a stranglehold on cinema outlets and movie distribution.

It is assumed that if you have read this far you know that there is a substantial part of civil society that is aware of the deceitful way that both Liberal and Conservative governments have been working for some thirty years to bring about the integration of Canada, the USA and Mexico into a North American Union (the NAU).

The dismantling of Canadian sovereignty, began with Canada’s acceptance of, and membership in, the globalization agenda of the then G7 in the mid 1970s. The first item on the agenda was to transfer control of Canadian Government’s money supply to the private banks. Canada is one of the few countries left in the world with a publicly owned central bank, which can provide for the infrastructure and social programme needs of Canadians at near zero interest, which it did from 1938 to 1974. The result of this transfer is that the Federal debt of $18 billion (since Confederation to 1974) has exploded into a debt of $500 + billion, most of which is compound interest. Each year we pay in excess of $30 billion in compound interest to the private money lenders for a debt that will never be repaid. Add in provincial and municipal debt and that amount is doubled! All of this we pay through various levels of taxation.

As Prime Minister Mackenzie King said in 1935 prior to nationalization of the Bank of Canada:

“Once a nation parts with control of its currency and credit, it matters not who makes the nation’s laws. Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation. Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most sacred responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of parliament and of democracy is idle and futile”

The NAU has been developed through the Free Trade agenda of the FTA (1988) and then NAFTA (1993), followed by the secretive agreement of the SPP (2005) and a host of other side agreements including unification of armed forces in NORTHCOM (2002), that have never been discussed outside of a cabal of senior government officials and military and corporate leaders; and not in Parliament. The secrecy has been facilitated by a fog of denial, distortion and deception in the corporate controlled media intended to keep most of the public in ignorance.

The NAU will be a corporate controlled body, ruled by an elite elected from the corporations, that will direct policy through tribunals that are mandated to protect corporate interests and profits. Civil society will be the ant colony in a fake Hollywood-style democracy, controlled through fear of an unending supply of contrived/phoney external enemies. The NAU plan is due for completion in 2010.

The last category of gatekeepers, is reserved for those who articulate the problem but stop short of taking that next vital step.

These are some of the lesser political parties and civil society NGOs.

Why on earth would a supposedly progressive party or NGO lead its supporters through the morass of ethical, legal, political elements of the “Stop the SPP” campaign, and then stop short of implementing the one action that will produce the stoppage results?

Several possibilities are listed below, in no particular order. Maybe you can think of some better alternatives. For brevity let’s call the co-operating party or NGO the “entity”. 1. The entity believes that, if the negative aspects of the SPP are understood by enough people, a groundswell of public opinion will induce the government to peacefully change its policies.

(The entity does not understand that political policy driven by ideology can only be changed through political action at the ballot box. The other alternative is revolution.)

2. The entity enjoys the ego boost of being treated as an “insider” and is not interested in seeing a solution.

3. The entity sees no hope of change, and is simply warning the people as to what is coming. 4. The entity has been sidetracked, or bought, or threatened, by an inner group that aims to sabotage any attempt to derail the in place corporate plan.

With this in mind consider the 4 possibilities listed above for the NGOs.

1. No experienced observer could be that naïve. There is no way the Liberals or Conservatives will peacefully give up a corporate plan that they have been implementing for years. If we rule out persuasion and revolution you would hope that the entity leaders are not so dimwitted that they cannot see that political action is the only viable option at this time — but yes, maybe some of them cannot see it.

2. This is an ugly thought. I prefer to give all entities the benefit of the doubt.

3. This is an unfortunate possibility. It means that the entity is weak and has given up the fight for what generations of patriots have fought for, and have devoted their lives to handing down to future generations. Nationalism is not a dirty word unless it is used to promote aggression. Canada has a tradition of moderation. Our political system is derived from the old Family Compacts and we are not perfect by a long way, but “Peace, Order and Good Government” is a fine motto to try and live up to, in a democratic rather than fascist manner.

4. This has a number of aspects, on which is pivotally that the entity was established by the corporate planners of the NAU in order to provide a vent for public dissatisfaction so that people of good intent will be lulled into thinking that something concrete is being achieved on their behalf.

This latter proposition is not farfetched, given the resources of the corporate sector and the skill of the long term planning that has gone into bringing the NAU, and the sell-out of Canada’s sovereignty to near fruition. The accumulation of all forms of the media (except the internet) into the hands of 3 or 4 families; the adoption and promotion of the policies of unfettered capitalism; and the subversion of our Bank of Canada into the control of international banking syndicates all speak to a very well thought out plan. It is not likely that such planners will have omitted the provision of a safety valve.

Hence it was never intended that such entities which are vocalizing resistance would effect political action.

This was forcibly brought to my attention when one senior official of an NGO told me that the one political party (Canadian Action Party) that has fought for 10 years to cancel FTA and NAFTA, to halt the progression of the SPP, and to regain control of our monetary sovereignty through the Bank of Canada and has many thousands of members across the country, “was too insignificant to be included” in the group that was appearing to protesting the SPP.

As a subset of the above, it is possible that some entities while being sincere in their objectives, have been infiltrated by subgroups, such as financial supporters or by persons that have attained some measure of internal control, and which wound ensure that actions are watered down or diverted.

The subgroups, would have their own support network either internal or external in the form of partisan supporters of NAFTA and the SPP, or maybe supporters of the Liberal or Conservative parties. A very real case comes to mind, wherein some union supporters of the NDP will support the SPP in order to protect their jobs in the auto industry — which they will allegedly lose if the SPP is defeated; and the American owned auto makers shut down Canadian plants in retaliation.

This reveals a sad case of protecting personal gain before defending national integrity. Maybe that is the rationale that Prime Minister Vidkun Quisling had sold out Norway to Hitler’s Nazi Germany

Reluctantly, unless someone can provide a better analysis or reason for inaction, I am forced to conclude that the reason for civil society gatekeeper inaction lies somewhere in Option 4.

If you are willing to help protect Canadian sovereignty, spread the word about the SPP as far and wide as you can and stand as a candidate and/or vote for the Canadian Action Party that will petition for a referendum on the SPP and make “STOP THE NAU” its central policy plank in the coming general election. Unless we regain control of our money supply and maintain control of our identity and policies, all else will remain out of reach.

Make a Donation. Support more articles like this one.

by Peter Tremblay

Many Americans who have organized against Security and Prosperity Partnership North American Union agenda (SPP-NAU) are probably wondering why they have not been finding a lot of organized opposition in Canada.

Many Americans who are passionate about defending their country’s independence may interpret that as an indication that those Canadians north of the border mostly support the SPP-NAU. Many Americans might also be wondering as a result of not been able to find a variety of corresponding anti-NAU organizations in Canada that they can network with whether Canadians have less national pride that Americans.

Indeed, if there were such a network of corresponding grassroots organizations, both Americans and Canadians grassroots organizations could network as cross-boundary allies, to preserve respectfully, both their great countries.

Undoubtedly, there are probably many American anti-NAU activists who have done many ‘Google’ searches for Canadian organizations, and probably found the Canadian Action Party (CAP) and Vive le Canada to be among the few anti-NAU organizations in Canada. We won’t bother refer to the Council of Canadians so-called anti-NAU position, which appears to be as politically hypocritical as that of Jack Layton, the leader of the Canada’s NDP (New Democratic Party). Meanwhile, if you check out the NDP’s website, you will find out that they have a token statement against the SPP, while confederates like the NDP Premier Gary Doer of Manitoba, support the SPP’s so-called NAFTA Superhighway.

American anti-NAU activists need to appreciate much more about Canadian culture, in order to appreciate the why there is not a well organized network of ant-NAU organizations. The reason for this difference has critically to do to with the difference in attitudes the Americans have had to government relative to Canadians.

Americans have developed an attitude from the Revolutionary foundations of its culture, that is inherently suspicious of government in general, and politicians specifically. So, when an American hears about some plot that is being executed by political conspirators in government, it is relatively easier for Americans to readily accept that such communicated information tells of the possible that may well be probable.

As a result, many more American do not need to hear a conspiracy officially legitimated by CNN or the New York Times to believe it.

Out of their political instincts, Americans are also used to fending for themselves, and are used to spontaneously spreading massive petitions by large grassroots organizations who seek to always keep a check on government and politicians that they don’t trust.

Rest assured that if “rumours” are officially confirmed in “official elite” sources, Canadians would be far more fired up against the NAU, than Americans. Canadians have a high sense of latent nationalism. However, completely the opposite of Americans, Canadians view government as only sometimes acting irresponsibly. As a result, they instinctively trust in government and their political leadership, no matter who they are. This is because Canada was not founded from a Revolution like the United States. Canada was created through a compact of elites who had pledged to defend Canada from assimilation into the United States. This passionate pro-Canadian/nationalist inspired attitude had continued until the retirement of former Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau.

Today, when a typical Canadian hears about the NAU, they scoff at the idea as then unthinkable. Then their next response is likely to be something like, “Then why have I hot heard about in on CBC Radio, or from a Member of Parliament, a political opposition leader, and why have I not read about it in the Toronto Star, the Globe and Mail or Le Devoir? Canadians have not adjusted to the fact that the elites who pledged to defend Canada, have been replaced by a bunch of corporate crypto-right wing traitors.

Traitors among Us is a book for further reading on this subject.

The NAU agents in Canada are aware of the amount of trust that Canadians have in receiving their information from government, and in being also guided by “official sources”, and have exploited that trust. The apparent traitors which include the leaders of so-called progressive groups, from the NDP and labour unions, know, that Canadians will only be guided by what they say, like shepherds to sheep.

If the leader of the NDP, a labour union, or of a newspaper like the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail published what American anti-NAU organizations already know about the NAU, rest assured, Canadians would be instantaneously demonstrating against the NAU. The current Stephen Harper government would then likely have to resign in weeks. Americans, all the way in Miami, Florida, would be able to hear the outrage. However, the leader the NDP, labour unions, and other similar organizations, have been apparently been bought out by Big Business interests.

Americans, who seek to save their country from the NAU will vitally need to obtain the cross-boundary support from Canadians. Grassroots anti-NAU American organizations seeking vitally needed Canadian allies would need to be able to penetrate a wall of silence, that a new generation of mis-information dispensing and information hiding traitorous elites have tried to use. A new generation of traitorous elites who also support the North American Free Trade (NAFTA), have sought to exploit the faith that Canadians have entrusted in government. If grassroots ant-NAU organizations can help break a wall of silence only, American anti-NAU organizations can expect to find very strong allies indeed, in Canada.

The Coalition Against the North American Union made a first step when they had travelled to Ottawa, Canada, to present a very detailed Press Conference late August 2007, in response the SPP-NAU Summit that was held in Montebello, Quebec. Pro SPP-NAU interests in the U.S. have sought to travel to Canada, in order to gain support among Canadian elites. How will American anti-NAU grassroots organizers respond to its critical need for Canadian allies in order to mutually defend two great nations?

Don’t let the Harper government and elite friends, make us surrender the affirmation of our national identity, as Canadians

Edited by Peter Tremblay

The objective of the Stephen Harper minority government, is to continue to the “salami slicing” tactics started by Brian Mulroney, to of a public policy agenda, that will result in the step-by-step break down of our national soul as Canadians. The elite friends of the Harper government include apparent collaborators, like Michael Ignatieff, Jack Layton, and  Gilles Duceppe in other parts of the Political Establishment, and corporate elites who together, support Mr Harper’s pursuit of the North American Union (NAU) agenda of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP).

The genesis of Canada as an identifiable place, was in the 1530′s. Canada as a nation, would be further inspired by aboriginal peoples and settler immigrant groups who came together as ‘Canadiens’ along the St. Lawrence River.

Subsequent immigration from loyalists fleeing the American Revolution would support the genesis of a Canadian nationhood in the late eighteenth century, that sought to embrace a national ideal of “Peace, Order and Good Government”, that distinguished ourselves from the culture of violence in the United States. A culture of violence associated with the American constitutional “right to bear arms”, remains a prominent part of the American cultural milieu.

In contrast, Canadians also sought to develop an alternative national community in which Peace, Order and Good Government manifested in the creation of a mutualistic socially progressive society.

Canadians, sought the wisdom of government intervention in redressing conditions of economic disparity in our cities through innovative social policy, and also sought to create a universal public healthcare system, that would reflect the expression of a higher communitarian civic consciousness.

As a society which sought to spread corresponding messages of peace throughout the world, Canadians also sought peacekeeping responsibilities over militarism. Canadians sought to affirm greater independence from the United Kingdom, and then the United States, in a matter which would allow us as a nation to make a vital independent contribution in a community of independent and free nations.

The Harper government and friends through its NAU, SPP agenda, seek to deny us our very national self-determination. The Harper government, has in fact been pursuing an active U.S. assimilation agenda, through the NAU and SPP agenda that will totally destroy our national institutions, like the Canadian Wheat Board, and absorption into a American Big Business-friendly “cultural template”.

The result will be that the “errors” of American society that have led to the destruction of America’s cities, and to a general predatory “survival of the fittest society” will be imported into Canada. Indeed, homelessness and other worsening social despair in Canada, is the result of the dismantling of innovative Canadian social policy, which once included rent control and other programs.

The Harper government also seeks to use the pretext of a jingoistic “War of Terrorism”… [CONTINUED.. see comment below]

[BECOME A MEMBER, and get the rest of this article emailed to you.  E-mail editorial@agoracosmopolitan.com to find out how you can become a member of The Canadian.]