Santa Cruz Indymedia : http://santacruz.indymedia.org
Home
Santa Cruz Indymedia

Commentary :: Government & Elections

Good-bye, Canada? --- USA Military Occupation

Why Harper is an American tool for turning Canada into US colonial enclave
http://zhurnal.lib.ru/g/gunin_l_m/adieu_canada.shtml

GOD SAVE CANADA

To my Canadian friends

Lev (Leon) GUNIN

...to be or not to be... - this is the issue of approaching elections.

If Stephen Harper's conservatives will form the next government: bye-bye, Canada . Of course, Harper is claiming the opposite. According to his point of view, his party is the only one that has means and will to save Canadian federation in case of Quebec's next eventual attempt to separate... He's concentrating on federalism because he has nothing else to add from his non-hidden agenda.

Signs of right-wing quiet "coup d'etat" and crusade against last values of democracy are everywhere. The very name of the post-progressive conservative party of Canada ("Alliance") had carried a hidden message. For "initiated" (pro-Zionists, big business, US lovers) it simply indicated the alliance with United States. They advocate not just political, economic, or cultural alliance with US, but a direct administrative alliance, giving away Canadian independence. Look, they argue, we have the same language, same British roots, same habits, and even "same continent". Only Quebec is a problem. But we'll not ask Quebecers, if they want to join United States, as we did not ask them in the past (remember - Canadian Federation), or as we did not ask people of Iraq... or Palestinians back in 1948...

As a rule, propagandists of the union with United States are admirers and supporters of Stephen Harper's party. They pictorially describe big economic and social advantages "for all Canadians" after entering US union, without mentioning astonishing homelessness; deprivation of medical, welfare and social services; Stalinist-size prison population, and grimaces of the capital punishment in United States. They also forget mentioning non-justified arrests, tortures, "Katrina"-like slaughters of "underprivileged" population, "extra-judicial" executions, and arbitrary "state of emergency" rules.

United States' support for Canadian conservative party is not a secret. Making an unusual speech "on the eve" of Canadian elections, United States' ambassador to Canada, David Wilkins, a famous Zionist figure, has made clear that if we, Canadians, will choose Paul Martin as our next federal Prime-minister, we will face US economic and trade sanctions. Of course, such a statement must be seen as a vicious intervention into Canadian internal affairs, or even an "invasion", but let's concentrates of its appeal and consequences. US ambassador was targeting primarily the rich citizens, who have experience, resources, and means to "format" the electorate, working against BQ, NDP, or liberals, in favor of conservative party.

Stephen Harper's all-round support of the United States is also not a secret. He backs up literary any Bush administration's 'initiative' - from invasion of Iraq, unlimited and unbalanced support for Israel, to American military and international policy. Harper's less delicate and beaters about the bush comrades (such as Mr. Day) openly associate themselves with the most tedious, thirsty for open domination, and aggressive Jewish Zionist ideas. But the crucial point of Harper's anti-Canadian plot is his readiness to join American "anti-missile" space program. This is not a question of "military escalation in space", threat to environment (etc.), as any Canadian "politcorrect" public figure has to state it, but a direct threat to Canadian formal independence from United States. Provisioning a "joint military command" for joint "can-am forces", and some other "joint" administrative tools, this program has a potential of bringing Canada under the scrutiny and administrative control of US military bureaucracy, and, in consequence, US political bureaucracy. This is why Jean Chrétien , Paul Martin, Jack Layton, and even progressive conservatives - all have rejected Canadian participation in this program, in spite of the warnings that this "will make" the White House administration "very angry".

Actually, Americans need conservatives' victory for formalizing and accelerating an already active process of their military occupation of Canada: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php

From American side lobbying Canada-US "anti-missile" treaty became an obsessive addiction to such a degree that it de-masks "uncle Sam's" plans far beyond any military build-ups.

Formally Mr. Harper, Mr. Day and other cons are still using the liberal vocabulary, speaking of the "democratic choice", "democratic values", etc., but the way they transformed (actually - kidnapped) former progressive conservative party into conservative party - an anti-Canadian tool in American-Israeli hands - speaks for itself.

Liberals and other Canadian politicians also call us to make our "democratic choice", which means to vote for them. Do we still have any "democratic choice"?

Having a democratic choice is first of all having a free press. Unfortunately, we do not have such a privilege any more in this country. Jewish Zionist families of Aspers and Blacks control 99 per cent of Canadian media. This is not just a question of control. Through owned by them TV and radio stations, newspapers and magazines they promote pro-Israeli, pro-American, pro-Zionist, anti-Liberal, anti-Canadian right-wing agenda. LP's, NDP's, BQ's / PQ's and other views have lost their tribune in Canadian private English media. Conservatives and their Jewish-Zionist ideological-economic engines became the only ones who enjoy "the freedom of press". Last fortresses, independent from conservatives, for some time were "Globe and Mail" and CTV. Not any more! CTV is now filtering news and political analysis, social and actual thematic, favoring right-wing extremists. CTV's surveys (like "are you in favor of capital punishment: yes - 60%, no - 40%"; "...ready to give away "some" of your freedoms in exchange for stricter security rules?" (near matches) reveal both company's present anti-Canadian and anti-liberal orientation, and the rapid shift of its audience to the right. Pro-democratic, liberal, centrist, or left-wing public is not watching CTV any more. "Globe and Mail" devote as many efforts to slam and smash liberals, as any right-orienting newspaper, and both CTV and "G. a' M." present analysis and organize surveys on US internal issues as if Canada was already part of the US. In spite of wide boycott of Aspers' and other dependent media by vast majority of Canadians, they continue to exist and make profits. How can it be possible? We should look closer into the flow of money from various Jewish Zionist groups, and from south of the border, weighting eventual violations of Canadian basic laws.

Democratically elected political parties in Canada are loosing the battle...

It looks as a right-wing militant coup directed against the legitimate Canadian government is gathering its strength. The government is still ruling the country, but lost the media tribune, economic levers, authority over police and RCMP, and essential power and rights.

Having a democratic choice is having a free economy. Do we have economy, independent from United States and Israel-linked Jewish extremists? We'll not go into this shaky domain, just try to answer this question sincerely...

Having a democratic choice is to be sure that the votes have been counted fairly, and there were no illegal manipulations during and prior to elections. In last couple of years we see the opposite.

Before last provincial elections Charest and his conservative enclave (just formally called "Liberal Party of Quebec") have literally disappeared from the political scene. They began their election campaign non-prepared, having almost no debates with PQ over key issues, and no support among Quebec's population. And still they won... Accompanied by the muffled rumors and the cannonade of police raids against PQ's sponsors, supporters and activists, Charest's victory did not convince anyone. Regarding Charest's tremendous unpopularity and permanent spontaneous acts of civil disobedience immediately after the polls, we can see a grizzly precedent.

And, regarding an international "epidemic" of the smallest electoral gap between political parties (US, Germany, etc.), especially when country's political future is decided not by the voters, but by Federal Court, where brother of one of the candidates plays a key role, we can consider this epidemic as non-coincidental. The mechanism of bringing down legitimate governments, putting on their place puppet regimes is very well known since Biblical times. Recently, in spite of having a reputation of the most corrupted public figure, lack of support among the majority of population, and his enormous alliance with Jewish Zionists (his main allies) mayor Gerald Trembley was re-elected. His rival, Pierre Bourque, immediately denounced wide-spread trickery and dismissal of the most of pro-Burke ballots by Trembley-"invented" electronic machines.

To save Canada THIS time we must vote unanimously AGAINST conservatives, because a gap in 10 or 15 per cents may well become -15 down the counting process. We also may see police and RCMP raids against prominent Liberal party members and sponsors, as we saw it in last Quebec provincial elections, when Jean Charest was elected. Mr. Charest is an intruder within the Liberal party, former conservative, closest friend of Harper and Day, and many Liberal's troubles, including multiple leaks of information, may lead to him. Recent Conservative appeal (directed to the supporters of this party) to vote in Quebec for the liberal candidates shows, up to what degree this branch of LP is a "filial" of the conservative movement. So called "sponsorship scandal" is bearing dubious Liberals' guilt. Afraid of Quebec's separation, Jean Chrétien used a smart strategy instead of tanks and guns. Of course, his and his lieutenants' actions raise harsh ethical questions, but definitely not totally about corruption. If Harper's conservatives would face this dilemma, they would probably employ such a dark force as "Meir Kohane number 2" Garry Galganov, in the end (inevitably) sending troops. Both liberals and non-liberals were wrong about PQ' true intentions. By then province's full separation was a suicide. Quebec might be immediately consumed by United States, and turned not into an American state, but an abjected colony. However, if neo-cons win the elections, the only alternative for Quebecers for saving their ethnic and cultural identity becomes separation.

Stephen Harper and his Sancho Panza Peter McKay may be suitable for American-Israeli needs only while aggressively trying to become rulers of Canada. They don't want the end of Canada as a country, and will not sell so easily everything in what they believe. For the forces that have all reasons to support them right now both are completely useless in the future. They might soon be "replaced". Why not by... Jean Charest?

I have objections against Lenin-Style recipe of "what to do". And will not tell people for whom to vote to prevent neo-cons' "coup d'etat". I can only share one of my life experiences. Noam Chomsky, Shakhak, and others critics of the ongoing neo-feudal reaction are using the term "double loyalty". By this term they show that the Jewish politicians, media moguls, and bureaucrats have a "conflict of loyalties" (conflict of interests?): between their loyalty to United States, and their loyalty to Israel. MY experience tells me that there is no even such a thing as "double loyalty" in Chomsky's sense. Judaism and its offsprings like Zionism demand full, complete and only one unshared loyalty. "True Jewishness" is not a religious or ethnic background. It is always a choice, especially for 40-50-plus-y.olds, who play political games. Heinrich Heine, Mandelstam or Einstein made one choice. G. Stein, J. Brodsky, or Arthur Miller made another one. This is why I am not going to give my voice for a specific political party, but rather against candidates who can not be loyal to Canada by definition. And this is why I am not going to vote for conservatives: as they are fully and unconditionally committed to those who can not be loyal to Canada by definition. I still think that there is only one political bloc and only one party (in Quebec) that can guarantee social rights and democratic stability. But if in my area they will nominate a candidate with "double loyalty" I am not going to vote for this person.

What else? Don't be mistaken by the "Green Party". It has nothing to do with European Green movement. It is just another Stephen Harper's secret enclave.

Montreal, Quebec
December 27
2005
 
 


New Comments are disabled, please visit Indybay.org/SantaCruz

Calendar

No events for this day.

view calendar week
add an event

Views

Media Centers

Syndication feeds

Account Login

This site made manifest by dadaIMC software