In the history of civilization, Politics has more often than not, been a matter reduceable to the question of “whose side are you on?”

Granted it is not an easy affair to discern what most-nearly approaches truth in the fog of “the present.” Hindsight is 20/20 they say, although that is also not entirely true, for the interpretation of history is just another battlefield, albeit in much slower motion.

In a world of increased division, where we are told there is only black or white, the best we mere “civilians” can hope for is to not get hit by the crossfire. However, that is becoming increasingly harder to do.

It is not a matter of holding “opinion” any longer, it is about upholding a “conviction,” not earned with your own personal scrutiny and research, but by your “faith” in such a conviction and the authorities who shape it.

Increasingly, it does not truly matter what the “facts” are, but the question of “whose side are you on?”

If that is what “reality” has been reduced to by those forces controlling the state, then any enemy to those forces controlling that state will be a villain, regardless of their actions, regardless of their ideology; and any ally to those forces controlling that state will be a hero, regardless of their actions, regardless of their ideology.

And thus, in our shaped reality of today, what makes a “Hero” or a “Villain” will be determined by the simple question “whose side are you on?”

If this is troubling to you, I suggest we do a little exercise together. Let us dare to discern the “facts” for ourselves. Only then, will we cease being mere cheerleaders for a team; only then, can we qualify ourselves to ask in all honest sincerity, “whose side are we truly on?”

Are Nazis Now the New “Good Guys”?

There is a bit of mixed messaging that has been going on, especially in the last few weeks. Are there significant numbers of Nazis in Ukraine and are these “bad” or “good” Nazis in the context that they are fighting the Russian “invaders”?

In one breath we hear the counter, how can there be Nazis in Ukraine when there is a Jewish President calling the shots? In another breath we hear Facebook is now allowing users to praise the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion while they are fighting Russians. In yet another breath we hear, well its complicated, Ukrainian Nationalism should be considered at the forefront of any debate, even if it overlaps with Nazi ideology.

On Feb. 27, 2022, Canadian Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland held a scarf bearing the slogan “Slava Ukraini,” meaning “Glory to Ukraine,” with the “Blood and Soil” colors of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) (who collaborated with the Nazis during WWII and massacred thousands of Jews and Poles).

She then proceeded to post this picture onto her Twitter account (replacing it hours later with a picture of her without the “Blood and Soil” scarf) and accused her detractors of “reeking of Russian disinformation”. This controversial picture of Freeland was reported by Canada’s National Post.

According to Freeland’s press secretary, this was just another case of a “classic KGB disinformation smear… accusing Ukrainians and Ukrainian-Canadians of being far right extremists or fascists or Nazis,” which is a confusing statement on multiple levels.

It is not clear how this is a case of “Russian disinformation,” since the picture is indeed authentic, Freeland does not deny this. And she is indeed holding a “Blood and Soil” emblem, which originated with the Nazis, clear for everyone to see. Lastly, it is confusing as to why the Canadian government seems to be unaware that the KGB no longer exists. Are they also under the impression that the Soviet Union still exists?

Not irrelevant in all of this is the fact that Freeland’s grandfather was the chief editor of a Nazi newspaper during WWII in Galacia and that she is indeed aware of this and apparently unapologetic. Whenever she is questioned about this, she does not deny anything, but simply blames such a focus of inquiry on Russian disinformation with the intent to “destabilize Western democracies.” That is, it is not a question of what is one’s historical or ideological background, but a question of “whose side are you on?”

Interestingly, it was the Canadian newspaper “The Globe and Mail” who reported this story, titled “Freeland knew her grandfather was editor of Nazi newspaper,” thus, not a Russian publication last time I checked. And upon whom did they base such information? None other than Freeland’s own uncle, John-Paul Himka, who is now professor emeritus at the University of Alberta.

According to the Globe and Mail, Freeland was aware for more than two decades that her grandfather Michael Chomiak, was the chief editor of a Nazi newspaper that vilified Jews and supported the Nazi cause.

Globe and Mail writes:

“Krakivski Visti [Krakow News] was set up in 1940 by the German army and supervised by German intelligence officer Emil Gassert. Its printing presses and offices were confiscated by the Germans from a Jewish publisher, who was later murdered at the Belzec concentration camp.

The article titled ‘Kravivski Visti and the Jews, 1943: A contribution of Ukrainian Jewish Relations during the Second World War’ was written by Ms. Freeland’s uncle, John-Paul Himka, now professor emeritus at the University of Alberta.

In the foreword to the article, Prof. Himka credits Ms. Freeland for ‘pointing out problems and clarifications.’ Ms. Freeland has never acknowledged that her grandfather was a Nazi collaborator and suggested on Monday that the allegation was part of a Russian disinformation campaign.

In 1996, Prof. Himka wrote about Mr. Chomiak’s work for Kravivski Visti, a Ukrainian-language newspaper based in Krakow that often published anti-Jewish diatribes including ‘certain passages in some of the articles that expressed approval of what the Nazis were doing to the Jews.’” [emphasis added]

Oddly, Freeland helped to edit and clarify Prof. Himka’s article discussing her grandfather as the chief editor of a Nazi newspaper, however, refused to acknowledge her grandfather’s role publicly and accused any reference to this as part of a “Russian disinformation campaign.” According to this topsy-turvy logic, Freeland’s uncle, Prof. Himka is part of this “Russian disinformation campaign,” and she is guilty of providing assistance to this “Russian disinformation campaign,” all to ruin her political career and “destabilize Western democracies.”

Freeland also told her uncle, Prof. Himka, which is included in his article, that according to her father, her grandfather Michael Chomiak was also working to some extent with the anti-Nazi resistance. However, Prof. Himka was unable to verify this information, which he described as “fragmentary and one-sided.”

Then there is the strange case of NATO tweeting in celebration of international women’s day, this past March 8, a picture of a female Ukrainian soldier wearing the Black Sun symbol which is tied to Nazi occultism, and Satanism. NATO wrote in their post “All women and girls must live free and equal,” sending a very mixed message. NATO also ended up taking down their picture of the Black Sun symbol.

The timing of Freeland and NATO’s twitter posts are most strange. It also begs the question, why post something at all if you are just going to delete it? Is this just a matter of not being aware of such things, or is it a matter of certain groupings getting increasingly bolder and unapologetic as to where their true allegiance lies? Has Chrystia Freeland or NATO undergone any real questioning or backlash for such public displays? Not really.

On Feb. 7, 2014, a leaked conversation between Victoria Nuland (then Assistant Secretary of State) and Geoffrey Pyatt (then U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine) spread like wildfire. It was exposed that after Yanukovych was ousted from government, it was the government of the United States that was caught selecting the membership of what would form the new government of Ukraine, as if they were building their own sport’s team.

This was not only controversial in of itself, it was especially controversial in context of Ukraine’s “Revolution of Dignity,” where many Ukrainians died tragically so that they could have a better future.

Here in the West, we are supposed to be most sympathetic to that cause. So why did hardly anybody call out the fact that the U.S. government very clearly formed a Ukrainian government of their own choosing without a thought for the future and well-being of the Ukrainian people?

In fact, it was the U.S. who largely encouraged and financially supported the Ukrainian revolution. According to the official Obama White House Archives:

“The United States stands with the Ukrainian people and their choice of democracy, reform, and European integration.

 In pursuit of these objectives, Vice President Joe Biden announced today in Kyiv, Ukraine that, pending approval from Congress, the White House will commit $20 million to support comprehensive reform in the Ukrainian law enforcement and justice sectors, including prosecutorial and anti-corruption reforms…the U.S. government has now committed nearly $320 million in assistance to Ukraine this year, in addition to the $1 billion sovereign loan guarantee issued in May 2014.”

Many U.S. politicians visited Ukraine during this time to support the Ukrainian cause for “dignity.”

John McCain visits Ukraine in December 2013 in support of a regime change.

The world should have been appalled and horrified at such an exposure of U.S. criminality and duplicity. That the U.S. had directly and loudly encouraged and financially supported a revolution that resulted in many tragic deaths, only to steal the Ukrainian people’s right to choose their own government democratically.

The Americans also encouraged the Ukrainian people to fight for the EU Deal. And the Ukrainian people received the EU Deal that they were literally dying for. Where are they today? The poorest country in all of Europe.

Ukraine used to be among the richest countries in Eastern Europe, known as “the breadbasket of Europe.” However, this economic fact is harder and harder to come by since Ukraine was a part of the USSR when their economy was at its peak. A most inconvenient truth. It is for this reason that you will be hard pressed to find any GDP graph of Ukraine that begins earlier than 1991, the date of their independence. From 1991 to 1997, Ukraine lost 60% of their GDP (1) and suffered five-digit inflation rates. (2) Who was Ukraine beholden to during this massive recession that has never really ended for Ukrainians? The International Monetary Fund (IMF). [More on this story in Part 2.]

However, certain individuals who have held and continue to hold political offices, have greatly benefited from the plight of Ukraine.

On January 23, 2018, Joe Biden was invited to speak at a Council on Foreign Relations platform about an article he co-authored with Michael Carpenter titled “How to Stand Up to the Kremlin: Defending Democracy Against Its Enemies.”

Incredibly, during this discussion on “defending democracy against its enemies,” Biden publicly bragged that in 2016 (while Vice-President of the United States) he would only deliver on the U.S. loan guarantees to Ukraine for economic aid on the condition that Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin was fired. Shokin was investigating corruption charges involving Burisma Holdings at the time. Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden was on the board of this natural gas company during this period and was allegedly the recipient of $3-$3.5 million from the company. An extraordinary amount that could not be justified, hence the investigation into corruption.

Joe Biden makes the following admission at this 2018 CFR platform:

“…and I went over I guess the 12^th, 13^th time to Kiev, and I was going supposed to announce that there was another billion dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko [then President of Ukraine] and from Yatsenyuk [then Prime Minister of Ukraine] that they would take action against the state prosecutor [Shokin] and they didn’t. So they said they had it [the loan] they were walking out to press and I said nah, I said I’m not going or we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said ‘you have no authority, you’re not the president, the president said,’ I said call him. [laughter in background] I said, I’m telling you’re not getting a billion dollars. I said you’re not getting a billion and I’m gonna be leaving here. I think it was about six hours. I looked I said I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Oh son of a b*tch. He got fired. [laughter in background] And they put in place, someone who was solid.”

Apparently, Joe Biden (the current President of the United States) is not concerned with true democracy but only about whether his team wins. Not the American people I might add. His team is much smaller and more “selective” than that.

Strangely, despite Biden’s admission being recorded at a very public and “prestigious” platform, fact-checkers have continued to deny any proof that Joe Biden was responsible for the firing of Shokin. Apparently, Biden’s own admission to this is irrelevant. Fact-checkers have also denied any hard proof that Hunter received such a lofty sum from Burisma. Well, it is pretty hard to come by hard proof when the investigation into such a thing was prematurely shutdown, don’t you think? That was the whole point.

This is extremely controversial for another reason. During the EU Deal dispute that was used to trigger the Ukrainian protests, it has since been discovered that part of the conditions of this “deal,” which was strong-armed by the IMF, was the demand that a significant rise in utility rates (first and foremost electricity and gas) be implemented while the income of Ukrainians stayed the same.

Who was Ukrainian President Yanukovych’s point person in the United States during the Ukrainian protests and EU Deal controversy? U.S. Vice President Joe Biden.

The Ukrainian people had no idea. The very deal they were fighting and dying for was to directly benefit corrupt gas companies such as Burisma Holdings and their foreign shareholders, to the economic detriment of the Ukrainian people. A similar situation to what most of Europe is facing today under a plethora of glorious “EU Deals” in the midst of an energy crisis.

In addition, the New York Times has just recently published an article confirming that the notorious Hunter Biden laptop that was claimed as “Russian disinformation” by our trustworthy fact-checkers, is in actual fact, AUTHENTIC. A very important piece of information that should have been made available to the American people before they chose who would be their next President. This important piece of information was denied to the American people by the very thing that is proclaimed to be defending “national security,” the unelected and anonymous but all powerful, “fact-checkers.”

So, we all know Joe Biden has been promoted, um “elected,” President. Where are Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt today? Nuland serves as the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs of the United States. Pyatt serves as the U.S. Ambassador to Greece.

Nuland, not one to shy away from unflattering spotlight, has again made headlines. This time on the American – starts with “bio” ends with “lab” – situation in Ukraine. On March 7, Nuland testified in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee where she did not deny that Ukraine possesses “chemical or biological weapons” and acknowledged on public record that “uh, Ukraine has, uh, biological research facilities.”

But don’t worry, this does not mean that the omnipotent god-like “fact-checkers” are actually the sources of disinformation (what Hunter Biden laptop?), but as Mrs. Nuland has patiently explained to us; the harbouring and experimentation on deadly organisms is called “biological research” when the U.S. Department of Defense is involved. Thus, they are not deemed as “bio labs,” but rather as “biological research facilities,” and anyone who calls them “bio labs” while under the possession of the United States is a propagator of Russian disinformation. And yes, the U.S. Department of Defense is most certainly involved as seen by the saved PDF files taken off of the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine website which shows the U.S. Department of Defense as the donor in all the cases listed. However, as Mrs. Nuland carefully explained, as soon as the Americans lose possession of these deadly organisms, it is only then that they transform into “bio labs” with “weapons of mass destruction.” It is very simple actually.

What did not make the headlines with equal vigour is what Nuland did after her failed diplomatic visit to Russia this past October, which was according to French journalist Thierry Meyssan, to “impose” Yarosh onto President Zelensky. On Nov. 2, 2021, President Zelensky appointed Dmytro Yarosh (leader of the Right Sector 2013-2015) as Adviser to the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Valerii Zaluzhnyi. Nuland is of Ukrainian Jewish descent, thus her ongoing support for neo-Nazis in the Ukrainian government and military since 2014 is disturbing on multiple levels.

Right Sector has close connections with Trident (Tryzub) and Patriot of Ukraine. All three groups are right-wing nationalist, neo-Nazi, paramilitary movements as well as political parties. Look it up for yourself, not even Wikipedia is denying this. Yarosh was the leader of Tryzub starting in 2005. Tryzub led to the formation of the Right Sector, to which Yarosh was also leader of between 2013-2015 and continues to have a great deal of influence on all these groupings.

Dmytro Yarosh has been on Interpol’s “wanted list” since 2014.

Recall that in 2014, the U.S. “influence” on the newly formed Ukrainian government was raising concern, specifically around members of Svoboda and Pravyi Sector (Right Sector) holding five senior roles in the new government, including the post of deputy prime minister. This story was reported by Reuters.

Right Sector “Blood and Soil” flag. What westerners are told is a Ukrainian nationalist party concerned with defending the liberty and freedom of the Ukrainian people.

Svoboda is also sold to the west as a romantic movement of benign Ukrainian nationalists, who happen to support Stephen Bandera and cannot deny that they support ethnic ultranationalist views.

Typical rally during the “Revolution for Dignity” in 2014, with flags from the Svoboda Ukrainian Nationalist Party.

On January 1st, 2022, hundreds of Ukrainian nationalists held a torchlight march in the capital of Kyiv, seen in the above picture, to mark the birthday of Stephen Bandera one of the leaders of the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and its paramilitary unit the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) who fought alongside the Nazis during WWII and massacred thousands of Jews and Poles. These Ukrainian nationalists are shown in the above picture holding the Svoboda and UPA “Blood and Soil” flag. The latter being the same emblem Chrystia Freeland held this past February. This event was reported by The Times of Israel. I wonder, will Freeland’s press secretary dare to call this another classic case of “KGB disinformation”?

A Moment to Reflect

So what is going on here? Are there real Nazis in Ukraine that are being selected, with U.S. and possibly NATO backing, to play a political and military role? And if so, why? What is happening to the Ukrainian people if this is in fact the case?

What even constitutes as “Ukrainian” under an increasingly ultra-nationalist movement? An ultra-nationalist movement which self-identifies as pure ethnic Ukrainians. Ukraine is an ethnically mixed population, with both ethnic Ukrainians and ethnic Russians living together.

In light of this situation, how are we to regard the people of Donbass asking to form their own republics of Donetsk and Lugansk, separate from the rest of Ukraine? Are we in the west going to deny the people of Donbass, with a large population of ethnic Russians, the right to separate themselves from an ultra-nationalist movement that self-identifies as a pure Ukrainian race?

How are we to regard Crimea’s own request to re-join Russia in 2014, a referendum that the West refuses to acknowledge actually happened, despite mainstream western reporters confirming that Crimeans have indeed chosen and are happy to have returned to Russia? (Crimeans mostly consist of ethnic Russians.)

What are we to think of the Ukrainian government withholding 85% of drinkable water to Crimea these past eight years? An action by the Ukrainian government that constitutes a humanitarian crisis against the Crimean people. Are these the actions of a friendly government that cares for the welfare of the Crimean people?

This humanitarian crisis was corrected by the Russians as soon as they entered Ukraine, as acknowledged by Reuters. However, most in the west will never hear anything about this.

We should have the courage to ask ourselves: Is there in fact a civil war that has been going on in Ukraine not just these past weeks, but these past eight years? A civil war that has not been reported to the western people for political reasons, where certain regions of Ukraine have been under attack by neo-Nazi paramilitary units who have been receiving political support and funding from the United States, and possibly NATO.

Why would the west support such a horrific initiative?

To answer these questions, we will have to have the courage to look at the historical root of Ukrainian Nationalism and its relationship to namely U.S. Intelligence and NATO post-WWII.

To follow shortly, “Part II of Fact Checking the Fact Checkers: The Truth Behind Ukraine’s Glorified ‘Nationalist Movement’”

The author can be reached at cynthiachung.substack.com

(1)  “Can Ukraine Avert a Financial Meltdown?“. World Bank. June 1998. Archived from the original on 12 July 2000.
(2)  Figliuoli, Lorenzo; Lissovolik, Bogdan (31 August 2002). “The IMF and Ukraine: What Really Happened“. International Monetary Fund.

In its foreign policy, the Justin Trudeau/Chrystia Freeland government has run roughshod over the sovereignty of citizens-first, freestanding governments in many regions of the world; in knee-jerk compliance to the diktats of its magnate handlers and in lock-step with the albatross on its southern border. Buttressed and commanded by its corporate captors and sustained by the sycophantic hysterics of the mass media, this avatar of some imaginary autonomous government has refused all overtures and calls from its citizens to take the true measure of the interests and values of Canadians as well as of the nefarious impacts of its own actions. The utter destructiveness and criminality of its foreign policy, in total disregard for the underpinnings of its true global obligations and of the preferences of its own citizens, is akin to a childlike series of tantrums setting off stink bombs against those countries who dare challenge its jaundiced, supremacist worldview.

Canada’s malfeasance in countless parts of the world has been well documented by an array of analysts and citizen advocates. Two questions arise: how can the dangerous and ultimately self-defeating policies and actions of the Trudeau government be? And how can conscientious objectors change the trajectory of Canadian international policy? The analytical lenses must be redirected from the behaviour of the Canadian government itself and trained on its intellectual authors and back-stage power brokers, on the one hand, and on the strategies and tactics required of Canadians of conscience to effect meaningful and lasting change, on the other.

Canadians committed to justice and equity are very busy in their own areas of solidarity/justice-aspiring work. They are educating themselves, informing people and taking action on a wide array of planes and forums. This organising, while vital, is not enough. Canadians must identify and zero in on specific nerve centers, pressure points and theatres of operation, that is to say the propaganda organs and the truly offensive, corrosive nodes of public policy dominance. These self-serving, morally bankrupt ventriloquists are most often out of public view and do not solely have access to the governmental decision-makers; they are the intellectual authors of the directives that the government leaders sheepishly execute in the interests of the few and to the damnation of the masses, overseas and in-country. However, one must not forget that they are actual human beings, not unfathomable alien creatures, who capture governments and drive them to act according to the whims of big finance, big mining and big oil to blanket the world with their reprehensible designs, backing these with coup d’états and hybrid warfare in all its forms, thereby throttling (or attempting to throttle) citizen-driven surges of economic and political emancipation. All this while sugar-coding their words and actions with progressive sounding names, “human rights” language and misleading euphemisms.

One such perverse entity is the Munk School of Global Affairs at the University of Toronto, a staging ground for all manner of domination discourse and fallacious, truncated justification of acts of aggression against imaginary foes, be they Venezuela, Palestine, China, Russia, Iran, Haiti or Nicaragua. This American style think-tank is the legacy of Peter Munk, the now deceased head of Barrick Gold, a leading merchant of death, hegemonic political control and environmental devastation across the globe. Amassing a motley crew of former and current corporate leaders, journalists and academics, indentured to the power brokers who dictate policy choices and command the courses of action for the government, the Munk School acts as a megaphone and sound-bite provider extraordinaire for the boy-scout mass-media. It is self-absorbed and self-promoting to the absurd extent that, during the 2019 federal Canadian election campaign, it got caught up in the web of its own delusions. The Munk punks had the gall to propose a nationally televised leadership debate, misrepresenting themselves as just another disinterested, enlightened and altruistic third party providing an essential service to voters. Happily, their gambit failed.

Irwin Cotler, former Liberal Canadian Justice Minister and self-designated hunter-in-chief, keeps popping up as if by magic in most of the regime change, hegemonic initiatives undertaken by the Canadian government. As Paul Martin’s Minister of Justice in 2004, he steered Canada away from its longstanding position of supporting or at the very least remaining neutral to UN resolutions calling for justice for Palestinians and imposed a dramatic shift to full-throated support for apartheid Israel. When this occurred, a Tier II Palestinian-Israeli civil society peace development process was getting under way. The political ground shifted under the feet of its key proponents immediately upon Cotler’s messianic game-changer. Irwin Cotler stands as one of Canada’s staunchest Zionists, a most effective purveyor of hate speech, including the demonization of anyone daring to criticize those who challenge Israel’s crimes against humanity, and central driver of Canadian political and media class’ actions against the legal and historical rights of the Palestinian people.

Who pops up in the very midst of the 21-year-long coup d’état efforts against Venezuela – our intrepid Irwin Cotler posing as the lawyer for key coup leader Leopoldo López! Cotler continues to be one of the important vectors of Canada’s efforts to annihilate Venezuela, as he organises putschist leader meetings with Trudeau et al, House of Commons and Senate committee meetings, anti-Venezuela motions and media misrepresentations and pressure. In early 2021, Cotler became one of the leading, knife-in-the-teeth haranguers for sanctions and military action over the fabricated “Uyghur crisis”; a kind of China-basher-in-chief. In the 2000s, he repeatedly interfered in the internal affairs of Russia, including in its elections. In 2017, Cotler orchestrated the adoption of the Magnitsky Act by the Chrystia Freeland driven House of Commons, a tool that is used as a criminalisation battering ram against any government leader who stands in the way of corporate greed and peoples’ oppression.

Ben Rowswell, president of the Canadian International Council (CIC) and former Ambassador to Venezuela, famously bragged of having converted tens of thousands of privileged youth into coup d’état social media operatives, using Canadian taxpayer funds no less. His CIC serves as the common watering-hole for the mining and oil executives and countless others hell-bent on fashioning the world by the force of economic sanctions and military arms, often via clandestine private paramilitary contractors, as means to fulfill their most vile domination and collective punishment fantasies. Beyond its chapters across Canada and its assorted propaganda spewing media organs, it has launched “its very own Young Professionals Network (YPN) to connect and engage Canada’s future foreign policy leaders”.

The world dominators are leaving nothing to chance. Rowswell cut his regime-change teeth in places where the big powers sought to stir up division as part of their efforts to impose their will under the guise of a medley of “humanitarian principles”, including in Afghanistan, Iraq and in regards to Iran. On the CIC website, he declares his determination to manufacture consent amongst Canadians: “Neither can we leave it to our elected leaders, or their public servants, to stand up for the rules-based international order alone. The storm now gathering in international politics will impose some painful choices on Canada. The Canadian public needs to contribute to the decisions our government will take, and the government needs the Canadian public on board as it navigates these turbulent waters. Luckily for Canada, we already have an organization (CIC) that was set up for this very purpose.” (The emphasis is ours.)

The CIC pool of inequity has verticalized its government capturing operations, starting with so-called research, policy definition, corrupting media messaging, bending-the-knee of prime ministers and premiers and the operationalisation and implementation of their policy and program fetishes, domestically and internationally. Today, no good media corporation can function without content, and most media have gutted their content production teams. CIC and the like fill that void, decide who the next target will be (China, anyone?) and launch the mind-bending, imaginary-offenses-media-missiles. They are merely only the government’s contractors (in the Blackwater sense of the word), but are in fact dictating the government’s policies, all the way down to the drafting of the contracts, of which by some divine intervention, they are the financial beneficiaries. It’s a nice gig when you can get it.

Can ways and means be put in place to hone in on these pilferers and separate them from the public policy development, financing and implementation arena? Morally steadfast, committed citizens are condemned to facing off against a broad, multi-tentacle, multi-nodal ligament of sorts, running from the US oil, arms and tech node, through the Pentagon/CIA node, via the Harvard/Lawrence Summers/George Soros node, through the Munk Institute/Canadian Mining node to the Chrystia Freeland/Ben Rowswell/Irwin Cotler policy apparatus. This powerful, transnational ligament flexes, transfigures and triggers all manner of events and human catastrophes that fit the frame of their classist, racist, world domination phantasm of North American corporate superiority and divine righteousness. The justice-seeking, world-reframing citizens must identify and zero in on the nerve centers (nodes) of this warmongering ligament and largely forget about the shiny objects bereft of all real power that are Joe Biden and Justin Trudeau. Theirs are ventriloquist-activated lips mouthing crowd pleasing banalities while the real, most often opposite action, is being spawned, resourced and executed.

These modern-day going-for-the-jugular crusaders, individually and in various pods and constellations, have vested interests and fear-induced vulnerabilities. Indeed, it is this very fear of being knocked off their pedestals of privilege and domination that governs much of their oppressive and illegal impulses and makes them vulnerable. Committed citizens must identify these people, properly dissect their strength(s) and weaknesses and unspool them. This of course, in the present reality of hugely disproportionate access-to-information, reach, resources and power, is much easier said than done.

Here are a few ideas. Two years ago, just before the February 4th 2019 Lima Group gabfest in Ottawa, a fellow traveler found out about a closed CIC meeting chaired by Ben Rowswell during which the well-healed mining and oil aficionados waxed delirious about how they were on the verge of overpowering Venezuela’s evil regime and on the wonderful opportunities for Canadian corporations and investors that the accession to power of Brazil’s “visionary” Jair Bolsonaro presented. During the Q&A, he took the mike, chided the CIC president Rowswell and the attendees for their disgusting intentions towards these two peoples and laughed at their incompetence for not having succeeded, for all their efforts, genius and wasted resources, in “taking care” of Venezuela over 20 years of political interference, sabotage and hybrid warfare. The chair called for his silence and the VP twice tried to physically wrestle the microphone from his two mike-gripping hands, but he persisted. One red-eyed participant yelled: “you’ll see, that Maduro is going to fall next week”, alluding of course to the upcoming meeting of the much-vaunted though impotent Lima Group. The president shushed this participant, saying they shouldn’t be revealing THE strategy. My friend’s intervention brought this scurrilous gathering to a sudden close. Six days later, Rowswell and other luminaries gifted the Lima Group officials with a seminar on “how to deal with Venezuela”. Hands off Venezuela Ottawa-Gatineau’s demonstration and the banner drop on the day of the Lima Group meeting drew cross-continental media attention and effectively neutered and made a mockery of the event, of Chrystia Freeland and of the Rowswell clan.

This was but one action among many undertaken by a host of committed citizens. For example, during the 2019 Canadian election, every time a government party candidate appeared on the campaign stage in Montreal, he or she was met by someone who had made their way on stage, interrupted the speech and asked pointed questions, thereby neutering the efforts of the candidate. During the fall of 2019 and the early winter of 2020, First Nations citizens brought rail traffic to a halt in much of Canada and hindered port activity in solidarity with Wet’sowet’en First Nation, thereby revealing the weaknesses of Canada’s robber barons and their political acolytes. Others have launched court cases that have proven powerful vectors of change.

Obviously, many more key government policy arm-twisters must be identified and sent packing. Just as evidently, Canadian activists have carried out countless thousands of initiatives aiming to correct the course of Canada’s policies, using innovative, targeted approaches. Still, too many of us, myself included, are inefficiently burning energy shouting out of windows at ultimately inconsequential people like Prime Minister Justin Trudeau or Foreign Affairs Minister Marc Garneau. We need to ferret out the self-anointed, pivotal wielders of power and sharpen our tools of engagement.

These tools should include the launching of more targeted media platforms and technological tracking and information dissemination instruments aimed directly at defanging these people-crushing political operatives and think tanks. They must include specific strategies designed to transform the public, media and political discourse from the present domination, right-to-profit-at-all-costs, progress-conceived-as-the-trampling-of-the-undeserving mantra to citizens and peoples’ right to choose, and to craft and implement, their own social, cultural, interracial, environmental, political and economic constructs and systems of collective wellbeing and thriving, including the governance structures and their leaders. Greatly increased coordination and intersectionality among the multiple actors and platforms for justice and equity stand necessary preconditions to the success of this endeavour.

orinocotribune.com

(In the peculiar form of British Parliamentary governments, parliaments can be shut down unilaterally by an order signed by the Monarch’s Governor General at any time a Prime Minister should request it).

The logic behind prorogation is that the government’s annual economic program announced last December did not take into account the emergence of COVID-19 and this reality demands we prepare for the “post-COVID world order”. Pesky democratic institutions like Parliament might only get in the way of the types of broad reforms needed for these changes.

The next several weeks will be decisive in planning out this transformation. and as he unveiled the news of prorogation, Trudeau stated: “we need to reset the approach of this government for a recovery to build back better. And those are big, important decisions and we need to present them to parliament and gain the confidence of Parliament to move forward on this ambitious plan.”

While commentators and opposition parties were abuzz with speculation about the Liberal government’s corruption (all committee hearings investigating the We Charity scandal have been shut down until September 24^th), the reality is not so superficial and has much more to do with the oncoming economic collapse and the false solutions being prepared to “solve” it.

The Strategic Reality of the Collapsing Trans Atlantic System

The uncomfortable fact which too many commentators tend to run away from out of fear, ignorance or intellectual dishonesty, is that the world financial system is sitting on the verge of a global financial meltdown of a $1.2 quadrillion derivatives time bomb which former Bank of England Governor Mervyn King stated in September 2019 is on the verge of “financial Armageddon”. This grim reality was known long before the COVID pandemic was launched during October 2019’s Event 201.

It is this oncoming financial meltdown that underlies the war drive against China which certain western geopoliticans fear will shape the new system which they sought to control. France’s Bruno Lemaire laid out this fear in the most candid way in July 2019 when he said “unless we are able to reinvent Bretton Woods, The New Silk Roads might become the new world order”. (1)

So what role does Canada play in this and how does this affect the shakeup in the current Canadian government? Why would Chrystia Freeland, a Rhodes Scholar more proficient in regime change than banking, be given the reigns of Canada’s economic order during these trying times?

To answer these questions, we must review the role of Mark Carney, UN Special Envoy on Climate Action, former head of the Bank of England, and leading organizer of the upcoming COP26 Summit to be held in the UK this coming November.

Carney the Eco-Warrior Takes the Helm Again

When Mark Carney stepped down from the position of Governor of the Bank of Canada in 2013 to become the first non-British Governor of the Bank of England since the private central bank was created in 1694, it was made clearly known that this Oxford-trained Canadian technocrat had been vetted by some very high level powers.

After training for years as a Goldman Sachs investment banker where his activities helped fuel the bubble that nearly brought down the world economy in 2008, Carney was brought into the Governorship of the Bank of Canada to take on the role as the clean, conservative-minded Canadian central banker navigating through the chaos which his former employer helped create. It was at this time that Carney became a member of the Rockefeller Foundation’s Group of 30, Foundation board member of the World Economic Forum and leading participant at Bilderberg and Davos events. While still Bank of Canada governor, Carney was handed the keys to the BIS’s Financial Stability Board (FSB) by fellow Goldman Sachs man Mario Draghi in 2011 where he managed global derivates regulation (aka: fuse of the international weapon of mass financial destruction now bursting at the seams).

After serving seven years as Governor of the Bank of England (2013- March 2020) the world economic system has been stretched to its limits and the oncoming collapse has been accelerated by a global pandemic.

Now, after 7 years in the City of London, Carney is returning back to his home country.

On August 10^th, it was first announced that Mark Carney (aka: the eco warrior of bankers) will be running a task force to restart the economy (titled the “Canadian Pandemic Recovery Plan”) which will attempt to aggressively put into motion those Green New Deal reforms laid out during the World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset” summit of July 14, 2020.

The Great Reset Fraud

As I laid out in my recent paper The Great Reset Fraud, this program is little more than a cover for global depopulation and world government run by the same arsonists who have lit the world economy on fire in the first place.

Echoing the Great Green Reset program, Freeland pointed out on August 18, the collapse of jobs, irreversible shutdown of businesses, the unmanageable growth of a $343 billion deficit, and phase out of Emergency Response Benefits will need to be green and driven by the goal of decarbonization. When asked about decarbonization specifically, Freeland stated “of course, it has to be part of it. I think all Canadians understand that a restart of our economy needs to be green.” She then smiled and stated that this crisis is actually a wonderful opportunity.

Calling for a new hierarchy of values which will shape the new system which Carney and Freeland (both Oxford trained technocrats) believe will come online in short order, in an April 2020 interview on the Post-Covid19 economy, Carney stated “the great test whether this new hierarchy of values will prevail is climate change.”

For anyone sick of the immoral, monetarist religion of free markets that have run roughshod over the world for the past forty years of post-industrial decay, war and speculation, the proposition to change our “hierarchy of values” may seem like a breath of fresh air. The problem is that the drive of a green economy of green bonds, green grids, carbon taxes, cap and trades, and green banking will tend to cause humanity as a whole to suffer immensely and will strip nation states of the productive industrial potential needed to resist the will of a transnational oligarchy.

Like all nations, Canada’s economy is extremely reliant on fossil fuels, and every attempt made to create green infrastructure grids has resulted in massive energy price spikes for consumers, unreliable electricity prone to blackouts, and massive tax-payer subsidies to keep green industries financially viable. These problems have required the emergence of green reset task forces using a pandemic to force through changes which would never be democratically accepted under “normal” circumstances.

The Carney/Freeland Great Reset Task Force

For the past several years, both Carney and Freeland have been laying the groundwork for a new system of measuring “value” aimed at reducing both national sovereignty and nations’ physical capabilities to sustain human life while simultaneously (and quite ironically) doing grave damage to the environment.

For starters, Carney’s Task Force on Climate Related Financial Disclosures co-run by New York billionaire Michael Bloomberg aims to force all companies in the world to disclose all activities that either create carbon dioxide or disrupt supposed states of natural equilibrium which mathematical ivory tower ecologists presume govern all natural states.

On February 26, 2020, Carney joined Sir David Attenborough in launching the “COP26 Green Private Finance Initiative to ensure that “every professional financial decision to take climate change into account. The right framework for reporting, risk management and returns will embed these considerations and help finance a whole economy transition. To achieve net zero, every company, bank, insurer and investor will need to adjust their business models for a low carbon world.”

Sir Attenborough has been a lifelong friend of Prince Philip and a neo-Malthusian guru who has attempted to teach the world that all of our woes stem not from systems of empire (to which his career is vitally beholden), but rather to over population. A recent call to leaders to correct this problem using the cover of COVID19 is one of countless testimonies to this misanthropic philosophy.

The Green bankers Climate Compact which Carney pioneered would ensure that companies which are considered “dirty” would never receive loans from banks and any insurance they received would come at impossibly high premiums as punishment for their climate offending ways. As a shining role model for “good green behaviour” Carney has cited his former employer Goldman Sachs has already ruled out any future financing for oil drilling, thermal coal projects or Arctic development.

In his paper “Fifty Shades of Green”, Carney stated that all dirty (brown) companies with poor climate grades will either not receive loans or receive loans at such high levels of interest that they will be artificially bankrupted (taxing polluters to death).

As Carney said in September 2019, “the firms that anticipate these developments will be rewarded handsomely. Those that don’t will cease to exist”.

This means that every company working along China’s Belt and Road Initiative in Eurasia, the Middle East and Africa would not exist in Carney’s world while any western company which could actually participate positively in the multipolar dynamic would be cut off of all credit and die.

After companies have proven their greenness, simply being approved for bank loans will not be enough to carry out their business. Here Carney and his colleagues at Canada’s Infrastructure Investment Bank plan to issue green bonds which today amount to only 5% of all global bond issuances but which Carney hopes will soon attain the “$3.5 trillion in energy sector investments [needed] every year for decades” which are required to “keep warming below 1.5 degrees”.

By re-wiring the Canadian economic system to this new system of values in time for the November 2020 COP26 summit in the UK where he will act as British Climate Advisor and key organizer, Carney hopes that the Canadian model will be internationalized so that climate change “will affect the value of virtually every financial asset.”

A New System of Economic Value

The problem with Carney’s post-COVID vision is that “value” is tied not to the rising of living standards, human creative reason or national productive powers of labour that characterized the creative growth of human civilization for the past several centuries but rather upon the TOTAL INVERSE. By placing values on reducing human activity, reducing carbon footprints, reducing traces of human activity upon the earth- the potential to sustain life will not only be consciously reduced but financially incentivized. Under a Green New Deal, humanity will effectively be imposing forms of energy, and practices onto ourselves which will ensure that we never participate in any large scale projects characteristic of the New Silk Road, Polar Silk Road, Asteroid Defense etc… and will never become capable of freeing themselves from a Malthusian class of supranational bankers managing a post-nation state world order from above.

If the world is truly as closed, finite and entropic as the misanthropic minds of an Oxford-trained technocrat like Mark Carney, Chrystia Freeland or David Attenborough, then this sort of post-COVID world order would admittedly be the way to go.

If on the other hand, we happen to live in an open system, creative, anti-entropic universe and express a species characteristic of transcending our “limits to growth” by making new discoveries and translating those discoveries into new scientific and technological progress, then not only should Freeland, Carney and other Green New Dealers be removed from all positions of high office, but nations should join the multipolar alliance which puts value on increasing humanity’s potential rather than killing off our species under a 21^st century blood letting.

The author can be reached at matt.ehret@tutamail.com

(1) Even though President Trump has authorized the most foolish anti-Chinese rhetoric, sanctions and military maneuvers amidst, it is this very collapse that compels those British-run deep state operatives enmeshed in Washington (including Rhodes Scholar Strobe Talbott) to attempt a coup and civil war in America itself. With all of his problems, Trump does after all believe in national sovereignty- supports protectionism, genuinely wants to re-industrialize and despises Malthusian depopulation, making him all too intolerable for a technocratic globalist.

“Consortium News has sent libel notices to the Communications Security Establishment (CSE), Canada’s version of the US National Security Agency, and to a major Canadian television network, Global News, for a report that said Consortium News was “part of a cyber-influence campaign directed by Russia.”

To the knowledge of this Canadian-based writer, no analogous instance of such a lawsuit has ever occurred and the subject of this lawsuit will undoubtedly bring to light some of the ugliest skeletons in the Canadian establishment’s closet that many powerful forces would prefer remain obscured and forgotten.

The Gist of the Fight

On December 10, 2019, Global News ran a widely circulated story citing a classified CSE report which claimed that the Russian Government had used proxies to spread anti-Christia Freeland slander in order to “undermine western democracies”. The CSE report cited by Global News asserted without any evidence that a leading protagonist used by the Russian Government in this endeavor was Consortium News which had run a story on February 27, 2017 entitled the ‘A Nazi Skeleton in the Family Closet’ which explained how Freeland had knowingly covered up the fact that her grandfather Mykhailo Chomiak was a high level Nazi collaborator during WWII.

Since the publication of this 2017 article and the work published even earlier by John Helmer, an fuller picture of Freeland’s Nazi family history and broader post-WWII use of Nazi-affiliated Ukrainian nationalists has become a thoroughly documented embarrassment for Freeland and the broader deep state/Five Eyes Intelligence conglomerate trying to run the world. This history is even more awkward since the use of hives of second and third generation descendants of these Nazi collaborators both in Canada and Ukraine resulted in the toppling of the pro-Eurasian Yanukovych government in 2014.

After decades of myth-making and spin-doctoring, the Canadian spy agencies managing mass perceptions of the population have developed more than a little hubris as their lies have too often passed unchallenged by their victims, making this situation a nice slap of reality.

Since so much has already been written on the issue of Canada’s Nazi problem (namely here, and here and here and here), I would like to do something a bit different and address the deeper question: What is the Canadian Communication Security Establishment exactly, and from where did the Five Eyes arise over the course of the previous century?”

Getting at the Heart of the Five Eyes

To properly answer this with a full appreciation into the historic forces at play, it is vital to jump back in time to the founder of the Rhodes Scholar program that birthed the Freeland phenomenon in our modern age (Freeland after all a leading Rhodes Scholar and it would do us well to fully understand what that means). This exercise will take us to Cecil Rhodes, Governor of Rhodesia, father of systemic colonial rape of Africa and all around degenerate.

Here we shall find ourselves looking at this degenerate’s 1877 will and testament. It was here that the self-described “race patriot” and “priest of the Church of the British Empire” called for a re-organization of the decaying empire when he said:

“Why should we not form a secret society with but one object the furtherance of the British Empire and the bringing of the whole uncivilised world under British rule, for the recovery of the United States, and for the making the Anglo-Saxon race but one Empire…”

Upon Rhodes’ 1902 death, his will served as a manifesto or “guiding spirit” underlying the formation of the deep state and later Five Eyes throughout the 20^th century. Rhodes’ followers and upper level financiers of London like Lord Nathaniel Rothschild and Lord Milner established a scholarship in his name to indoctrinate talented youth from around the world in the halls of Oxford in order to be redeployed back into their home countries in order to infiltrate all branches of influence public and private with a focus upon departments of Foreign Affairs. As the late Georgetown Professor Carrol Quigley documented in his Anglo-American Establishment, an international group was created by Rhodes’ disciples named The Round Table led by Milner, Lord Lothian, Leo Amery, and Lionel Curtis who created branches in all Anglo-Saxon nations to coordinate this new British Empire under the banner of “Round Table Movements”.

This group found an early opponent in the form of a Lincoln-admiring Canadian Prime Minister named Wilfred Laurier who had then been striving for deeper cooperation with a USA and independence from Britain (the USA at this time still had a very strong anti-imperial political culture). Sadly in 1911, Laurier’s government was taken down by a Roundtable-steered coup resulting in the defeated Prime Minister famously stating:

“Canada is now governed by a junta sitting at London, known as ‘The Round Table’, with ramifications in Toronto, in Winnipeg, in Victoria, with Tories and Grits receiving their ideas from London and insidiously forcing them on their respective parties.”

That comment was made in 1915.

By 1916, the Group, under Milner’s leadership initiated a soft coup in Britain unseating the Labour Party’s Herbert Asquith in order to shape the terms of the post WWI order.

The CFR and Death of the League of Nations

During the Versailles Process of 1919, the Round Table Group then firmly in charge of the British Government and Foreign Policy infrastructure created a powerful new think tank called the Royal Institute for International Affairs (aka: Chatham House) which set up sister branches in Australia, Canada and New Zealand. The American branch of the RIIA took the name Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in 1921 and was fully staffed with indoctrinated Rhodes Scholars and Fabians all loyal to Rhodes’ vision. This was the group that attempted to impose world government under the League of Nations throughout the 1920s-1930s until it was finally killed by American (and Canadian) nationalists who preferred not to sacrifice their sovereignty to a bankers’ dictatorship.

If you want to know what caused the Five Eyes to come into being and how the USA lost its core anti-imperial character during the 20^th century, you would have no satisfying answer if you avoided this fact as too many are in the habit of doing.

In spite of resistance from Laurier’s leading anti-Round Table allies who took back power in 1921 and anti-imperial forces in American who resisted Round Table control over the U.S. State Department under President Harding, the British/CFR problem only became more pronounced by the end of WWII as FDR stated to his son in a moment of frustration in 1943:

“You know, any number of times the men in the State Department have tried to conceal messages to me, delay them, hold them up somehow, just because some of those career diplomats over there aren’t in accord with what they know I think. They should be working for Winston. As a matter of fact, a lot of the time, they are [working for Churchill]. Stop to think of ’em: any number of ’em are convinced that the way for America to conduct its foreign policy is to find out what the British are doing and then copy that! I was told six years ago, to clean out that State Department. It’s like the British Foreign Office….”

FDR’s son ominously recorded his father saying: “I’ll take care of these matters myself’ was Roosevelt’s now usual response on matters of crucial policy. ‘I am the only person I can trust’.”[Elliot Roosevelt, As He Saw It (1946)]

The Five Eyes grows over FDR’s dead body

Even though American-British coded signal sharing began in 1943, no institutional takeover of American intelligence had yet occurred and Office of Strategic Services (OSS) was still firmly under control of American nationalists loyal to FDR’s anti-colonial philosophy.

All of that changed with FDR’s April 1945 death and the Round Table groups embedded throughout America’s bureaucracy quickly took over as an Anglophile puppet named Harry Truman became president. Under Truman, the OSS was disbanded, and a new order was installed with the Anglo-American Special Relationship, the UKUSA Signal Intelligence Agreement of March 5, 1946 and the September 8, 1947 formation of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Patriots loyal to FDR’s post-war vision like Henry Wallace, Harry Dexter White, and Paul Robeson were torn down under the FBI dictatorship known as McCarthyism.

The policy of cultivating useful Ukrainian intelligence agents who had been loyal to Hitler’s agenda and could again be useful in the new war against the Soviet Union in the newly emerging Cold War was hatched in the dirty basement of this post-OSS intelligence complex.

This new order of integrated intelligence saw the birth of the NSA in America, the Communications Security Establishment in Canada and sister organizations in Australia and New Zealand- all coordinating closely with the Royal Institutes/Round Table groups located in each Anglo Saxon nation. This was the fulfilment of Rhodes’ vision and the origins of the Five Eyes. Approaching modern history from this standpoint allows the mind to see clearly that while the American NSA/CIA hand certainly played a dirty role in the post-WWII order, the true guiding mind has always been found an ocean away from America.

The Cat is Stuffed Back into the Bag

Throughout the first three decades of the Cold War, the Five Eyes remained a total secret even to elected politicians. Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam was so shocked to discover the existence of covert intelligence connections between the Australian Security Intelligence Organization (ASIO) alongside its American and British counterparts that he fired its director in 1975. In response to the Prime Minister’s defiance of imperial policy, Sir John Kerr (Australia’s Governor General and actual Head of State) sacked Whitlam in 1975, proving that contrary to popular belief, the Crown’s powers are much more than the symbolic image which today’s perception managers wish us to believe.

In America, a decade of assassinations as well as blatant CIA-run coups abroad resulted in a popular indignation and demand for justice resulting in the famous Church Committee hearings on CIA abuses. In response to this exposure, upper level Deep State assets like Sir Henry Kissinger, Cyrus Vance and Zbigniew Brzezinski conducted two purges of the CIA (1970 and 1978), abolished what little remained of the Board of National Estimates in 1973 and moved many of the CIA’s international covert operations to a new organization which came to be known as the National Endowment for Democracy as outlined in my previous article on the subject.

In Canada a documentary aired on the Fifth Estate entitled ‘The Espionage Establishment’ in 1974 exposing the public to the Five Eyes and shed light for the first time to the Communications Security Establishment of Canada resulting in hearings in the House of Commons and Senate and a modest restructuring of the organization. While nothing systemic was ultimately addressed, lipstick was put onto the pig as the newly renamed Communications Security Establishment absorbed into the Department of Defense. When CSIS was created in 1984 (after the RCMP’s Intelligence branch was caught red handed organizing the FLQ terrorist cells one too many times), the CSE and new spy agency began coordinating closely with each other and today occupy adjacent buildings from each other in Ottawa.

The natural righteous indignation felt by the masses petered away under a culture of consumerism, cynicism and conformism resulting in a slide into decay which no patriot of FDR’s generation could have imagined possible. Occasional bursts of angst and rage in the popular zeitgeist were absorbed and redirected by Hollywood films like Soylent Green (1973), The Network (1976) and 1984 (1984) (to name a few). Rather than empower the population such films were designed to amplify impotent cynicism, defeatism and misdirect anger towards un-nameable shadowy corporate forces (Soylent Green), Saudi oil barons (the Network), or human nature itself (1984).

With the belief that the causes of injustices could either not be understood, or were supposed to be intrinsic to the human species, the population went to sleep and dream walked into the New World Order.

Those core moral principles which leaders like John Kennedy or Martin Luther King fought to awaken in the nation were rejected by the majority of baby boomers as mere naïve fantasy with no connection to “reality” as they were told it to be. But sadly, without core principles, post-truth liberalism found fertile soil to spread its roots. It is this post-truth order which serves as foundation of today’s liberal order which Freeland has chosen to champion on behalf of those forces and heirs of Rhodes’ vision who wish to become the lords of a uni-polar world.

At this point, you might be asking me: what was the point of writing all this? Wasn’t this article supposed to be about Consortium News’ legal suite against the Communications Security Establishment? Wasn’t it just about exposing Freeland’s Nazi pedigree?

While that is true, as I also said at the beginning, this article is also about David vs. Goliath.

David could not defeat Goliath physically under any circumstance that muscle ruled the fight, but David understood his opponent even better than his opponent understood himself. The fact is by tacking on the Canadian branch of the Five Eyes’ protection and use of bonafide Nazis past and present, Consortium News has potentially opened up an infected wound which has nearly brought our civilization to gangrenous levels of decay.

By really understanding the nature of today’s enemy in the same manner as David understood Goliath, and then recognizing a few tiny weaknesses visible in its armor, even a small stone can accomplish miracles.

The author can be contacted at matt.ehret@tutamail.com

Previously, this anti-China agenda was reserved for Canada’s prize regime change fanatic Chrystia Freeland, who as Foreign Minister successfully alienated nearly every nationalist government on earth, to the point that China’s foreign ministry cancelled its Ambassador’s role in Ottawa and even ceased picking up Freeland’s phone calls.

Since Freeland’s ouster as Foreign Minister on November 20, a new effort to rebuild trust and business relations coincided with Francois-Philippe Champagne’s appointment to head Global Affairs, promising a fresh wave of dialogue and cooperation on private and security matters- not excluding Freeland’s commitment to extradite Huawei’s Meng Wangzhou to the USA. Other obstacles which this shift in power may finally resolve include China’s sanctions on Canada’s Soybean purchases now crippling Prairie economies, and the recently announced trial date of two Canadians (Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor) held in Chinese prisons on the accusation of spying and stealing state secrets.

No sooner had dialogue begun with a new Canadian Ambassador deployed to Beijing on September 4^th and a new Chinese Ambassador in Ottawa on September 22, followed in short measure by the most important energy contract between Canada and China in years that insanity showed its ugly face in full force. This insanity first struck in the USA where extreme pressure bent the hand of President Trump who signed off on the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act- essentially accusing China of all wrongs underlying the western-backed chaos spread across Hong Kong.

China responded in short order by banning U.S. military ships from Hong Kong waters, U.S. military aircraft from Chinese airports, and sanctioning Soros/NED-funded NGOs operating in Hong Kong with China’s foreign Ministry stating: “a large amount of facts and evidence have shown that these NGOs have supported anti-China plotters who messed up Hong Kong throughout various means”. China’s new Ambassador to Ottawa, Cong Peiwu immediately warned “if anything happens like this we will certainly have very bad damage in our bilateral relationship and that is not in the interest of Canada”.

As if to spite the ambassador (and common sense more generally), two initiatives are being implemented which threaten to tear apart the potential wounds between Canada-China relations which have only now begun to heal.

The first initiative took the form of a Conservative-led Senate Bill called for the Sanctioning of Chinese officials in Beijing and Hong Kong for destroying the freedom of Hong Kongers, Muslims and Tibetans. The bill’s champion, Sinophobe Sen. Leo Housakos said: “Over the last six months we have seen on an ongoing basis, a situation where the Chinese administration in Hong Kong fights freedom of speech and freedom of expression with tear gas and batons… if anything appeasement and kowtowing to them has shown, they take advantage of weakness. We have leverage. We are an important economic player in the world and we need to send a statement”.

How exactly Sen. Housakos believes Canada is either an important player or has leverage is beyond the understanding of this author, as Canada’s unproductive economy is rotting under decades of consumerism, drug addiction, suicide and unemployment with fragmented provinces pushing for separation.

The bill’s other sponsor Sen. Thanh Hai Ngo continued this surreal line of delusional self-righteousness stating: “we have not hesitated in invoking Magnitsky sanctions against Russia, Venezuela, Myanmar, South Sudan and others. Why should China be any different?”

(The Magnitsky Act derives its name from a Russian accountant Sergei Magnitsky, who had been reputedly killed for having proven government money laundering. The acts created in this martyr’s name have passed in various NATO-member parliaments with Freeland pushing its passage in Canada in 2017. As Strategic Culture’s 2017 interview with Alex Krainer (author of The Killing of William Bowder) prove, the entire story of Magnitsky’s martyrdom is a total fabrication cooked up in the bowels of the CIA.)

The second anti-China initiative has taken the form of a new special committee designed “to re-evaluate all aspects of Canada-China relations” which was passed by a vote of 171 to 148 on December 10 with all opposition parties aligning against the Liberal minority government for its creation. This Committee, which will feature six liberals, 4 conservatives, one Bloc, and one NDP is tasked with creating a new bureaucratic wall outside of the control of the minority government. As Conservative Financial Affairs Critic Erin O’Toole said in defense of the Committee “Today the house is debating the most challenging Foreign policy relationship Canada has at present- China. The government has made serious mis-steps on security and trade issues with the Chinese government and is avoiding tough decisions when it comes to Huawei and other issues, so will the Prime Minister agree to a specialized all-party committee to review all aspects of the Canada-China relationship?”

It is wonderful that Canada’s federal government has begun to show some signs of life with the re-emergence of the Jean Chretien Old Guard Liberals who have had enough of Freeland’s absurd antics, however, as we have seen with this lemming-like leap into obsolescence across ALL major parties, Canada’s problems go much deeper than Freeland.

In her book and article series, she described the “practical populist politician” which has tended to be adherent to business interests and personal gain during past decades vs the new breed of “technocrat” which has an enlightened non-practical (ie: Malthusian) worldview, willing to make monetary sacrifices for the “greater good”.

She further defined the “good Plutocrats” vs “bad Plutocrats”. Good Plutocrats included the likes of George Soros, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos who made their billions under the free-for-all epoch of globalization, but who were willing to adapt to the new rules of the post-globalization game. This was a game which she defined in an absurd 2013 TED Talk as a “green New Deal” of global regulation under a de-carbonized (and depopulated) green economy. For those “bad plutocrats” unwilling to play by the new rules (ie: the Trumps, Putins or any industrialist who refused to commit seppuku on the altar of Gaia), they would simply go extinct. This threat was re-packaged by Canada’s “other” globalist puppet Mark Carney, who recently said “If some companies and industries fail to adjust to this new world, they will fail to exist.”

Of course, when Freeland formulated these threats in 2011, China’s Belt and Road had not yet existed, nor had the Russia-China alliance which together are now challenging the regime-change driven world order in remarkably successful strides. The thought that nationalism could possibly make a comeback in the west was as unthinkable as the failure of free trade deals like NAFTA or the TPP.

As of November 18, 2019, Freeland has found herself cut down a notch by the “plutocrats” that she has worked so assiduously to destroy since becoming Canada’s Foreign Minister in 2017 when she ousted a Foreign Minister (Stephane Dion) who had called for a renewed cooperation with Russia on space, counter-terrorism and arctic development with Sergei Lavrov. Freeland’s unrepentant support for Ukrainian Nazis and NATO encirclement of Russia resulted in a total alienation of Russia. Her alienation of China was so successful that the Chinese government removed their ambassador in the summer of 2019. Freeland’s work in organizing the failed coup in Venezuela and supporting the MI6-Soros White Helmets in Syria became so well known that she became known as the Canadian queen of regime change.

Other pro-Chinese “bad plutocratic” companies which have been targeted for destruction under Freeland’s watch have included the beleaguered construction giant Aecon Inc. who’s board voted in favor of being sold to China in March 2018 in order to play a role in Belt and Road Projects (a decision vetoed by the Federal Government in May 2018), as well as Quebec-based SNC Lavalin which has had major deals with both Russia and China on nuclear power and major infrastructure projects and which now faces being shut down in Canada for having bribed politicians in Libya when it built Qadaffi’s Great Manmade River (destroyed by NATO in 2011).

Former Liberal Minister of Infrastructure from Shawinigan Quebec, Francois-Philippe Champagne has taken over Freeland’s portfolio and with him it appears a new pro-Eurasian policy may be emerging in Canada much more conducive to the long term survival (and strategic relevance) of Canada. This shift has already been noted by China which has responded by sending a new Ambassador to Ottawa, while a new Canadian Ambassador with a long history of working towards positive Chinese relations in the private sector (Dominic Barton) has just begun working in Beijing. Barton was the first Ambassador to China since “old guard” politician John McCallum was fired in January 2019 for defending Huawei’s Meng Wanzhou to a group of Chinese journalists.

In opposition to the cacophonic voice of Freeland, Champagne had spoken positively of China in 2017 saying “In a world of uncertainty, of unpredictability, of questioning about the rules that have been established to govern our trading relationship, Canada, and I would say China, stand out as [a] beacon of stability, predictability, a rule-based system, a very inclusive society.”

Champagne is a long-standing protégé of former Prime Minister Jean Chretien and world travelled businessman who has worked in the European nuclear sector and has promoted industrial development with China for years. Jean Chretien, who campaigned for Champagne’s recent re-election, represents everything Freeland hates: A “practical” old school politician who recognizes that World War III and alienating Eurasian nations who are shaping the future is bad for business. In 2014, Chretien was given the “Friend of Russia” award and has played a major role in the private sector working with Quebec-based Power Corporation which runs the Canada-China Business Council (CCBC) and has brokered major contracts throughout China since ending his term as PM in 2003. Chretien is also the father in-law of current CCBC chair Paul Desmarais Jr. who is the heir to the PowerCorp dynasty. While these are not groups that in any way exemplify morality, they are practical industrialists who know depopulation and world war are bad for business and would prefer to adapt to a China-led BRI system over a “green technocratic dictatorship”.

Since December 2018, Chretien has attacked Freeland’s decision to support Meng Wanzhou’s extradiction to the USA, and has volunteered to lead a delegation to China in order to smooth tensions.

So while the “bad plutocrats” appear to have taken an important step forward though the debris of the recent near failure of the Liberal Party which narrowly kept a minority government after the October 21 Federal Elections, the ideologically driven technocrats led by Queen Freeland shouldn’t be discounted, as her new position as Deputy Prime Minister puts her in a position to possibly take control of Canada as 2^nd in command of a highly fragmented nation which is now hearing renewed calls for separation in Alberta, and Quebec.

The author can be reached at matt.ehret@tutamail.com

Already the Canadian press machine on all sides of the isle are raising the prospect of Freeland’s takeover of the Liberal Party as it “positions her as one of the top candidates to take over the liberal party after Trudeau” as one Globe and Mail reporter stated.

The Strange Case of Deputy Prime Ministers

The very role of Deputy Prime Minister is a strange one which has had many pundits scratching their heads, since the Privy Council position is highly under-defined, and was only created by Justin’s father Pierre in 1977 as part of his “cybernetics revolution”  which empowered the Privy Council Office and Prime Minister’s Office under “scientific management” of a technocratic elite. Although it is technically the position of 2nd in Command, it is not like the position of Vice-President whose function has much greater constitutional clarity.

In some cases, the position has been ceremonial, and in others, like the case of Brian Mulroney’s Dep. PM Don Mazankowski (1986-1993) who chaired the Government Operations Committee and led in imposing the nation-stripping NAFTA, the position was very powerful indeed. Some Prime Ministers have chosen not even to have a Deputy PM, and the last one (Anne McLellan) ended with the downfall of Paul Martin in 2006. McLellan and another former Deputy Prime Minister John Manley were both leading figures behind the creation of the think tank Canada2020 in 2003 that soon brought Justin and Obamaton behaviorists into a re-structuring of the Liberal Party of Canada during the Harper years, shedding it of its pro-China, pro-Russia, anti-NATO influences that had been represented by less technocratically-minded statesmen like Jean Chretien years earlier.

Personally, as a Canadian-based journalist who has done a fair bit of homework on Canadian history, and the structures of Canada’s government, I honestly don’t think the question of Freeland’s becoming Prime Minister matters nearly as much as many believe for the simple reason that Justin is a well-known cardboard cut-out who simply doesn’t know how to do anything terribly important without a teleprompter and experienced handlers. This is not a secret to other world leaders, and anyone familiar with the mountains of video footage taken from G7 events featuring the pathetic scene of little Justin chronically ignored by his peers goes far enough to demonstrate the point.

Freeland’s role in Canada has never had much to do with Canada, as much as it has with Canada’s role as a geopolitical chess piece in a turbulent and changing world and her current role as Deputy Prime Minister as well as Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs can only be understood in those global terms.

Unity for the Sake of Greater Division

For Canada to play a useful role in obstructing the Eurasian-led New Silk Road paradigm sweeping across the globe in recent years, it requires the fragmenting American monarchy be kept in line.

The problem for the British Empire in this regard, is that the recent elections have demonstrated how divided Canada is with the Liberal Party suffering total losses across the Provinces of Albert, Saskatchewan and Quebec due to the technocratic adherence to the Green New Deal agenda and resistance to actual industrial development initiatives. The collapse of living standards, and the lack of any policies for rebuilding the industrial base that 30 years of NAFTA have destroyed, has resulted not only in the rejection of the Liberal Party but has also awoken a renewed demand for separation in all three provinces.

Referring implicitly to the crisis of such “authoritarian regimes” as China, Russia, Iran and Trump’s USA, as well as the need to decarbonize the world, Freeland put the problem she is assigned to fix in the following terms: “All liberal democracies in the world today are facing huge challenges, and for me the conclusion that pushed me to is; there are only 37 million Canadians. Hugely challenging world threats posed to the rules-based international order, greater threats since the 2nd World War. We have to be united in how we confront those challenges.”

To put it simply, if centralized control were to break down at a time when the Belt and Road Initiative (and its Polar Silk Road extension) is redefining the world system OUTSIDE of the control of the western oligarchy, then it is clearly understood that the Green Agenda will fail, but the dynamics of the BRI will become hegemonic as Canada realizes (like the Greeks and Italians currently) that the only viable policies for growing the real economy is coming from China.

Some final words on Freeland, Neo-liberal High Priestess

Ever since her appointment to the role of Cabinet Minister in 2015, Freeland played the role assigned to her as a high level Rhodes Scholar and priestess of neo-liberalism. Springing from a Nazi-connected Ukrainian family based out of Alberta, Freeland made her mark working as lead editor in British Intelligence-controlled news agencies the London Economist, Thompson-Reuters, Financial Times and later Canada’s Globe and Mail. Through these positions as “perception manager” of the super elite, she became friends with some of the most vicious Russian, Ukrainian and other eastern European oligarchs who rose to power under Perestroika and the liberalization of the east-bloc. She also became close friends with such golems as George Soros, Larry Summers and Al Gore embedding their institutions ever more deeply into Canada since she was brought into Canada2020 (her move to politics was facilitated by fellow Rhodes Scholar/Canada2020 leader Bob Rae abdicating his position as MP for Ontario in 2013).

When Foreign Minister Stephane Dion committed the crime of attempting to heal relations with China and called for a Russia-Canada Summit to deal mutually with Arctic development, counter-terrorism and space cooperation, he had to go. After an abrupt firing, Freeland was given his portfolio and immediately went to work in turning China and Russia into public enemies #1 and #2, passing the Magnintsky Act in 2017 allowing for the sanctioning of nations for human rights (easily falsified when Soros’ White Helmets and other CIA/MI6-affiliated NGOs are seen as “on-the-ground” authorities documenting said abuse).

Her role as champion of NAFTA which Trump rightly threatened to scrap in order to re-introduce protective tariffs elevated her to a technocratic David fighting some orange Goliath, and her advocacy of the Green New Deal has been behind some of the most extreme energy/arctic anti-development legislation passed in Canada’s history.

Whether it is though individual provinces claiming their rights to form independent treaties with Eurasian powers around cooperation on the BRI, or whether a fight can somehow break out on the federal level to return Canada to a pro-nation state orientation, the current future of Canada is as under-defined as the role of “deputy minister”. Either way the nation chooses navigate through the storm, it is certain that any commitment to staying on board the deck of the Titanic known as the “western neoliberal order” has only one cold and tragic outcome which Freeland and her ilk will drown before admitting to. 

The author can be reached at matt.ehret@tutamail.com

Bolivia has recently had a presidential election that without foreign interference would have passed without notice outside Latin America. President Evo Morales was re-elected democratically to a forth term without the need of a run-off election with incumbent Carlos Mesa, which shows his strength as the chosen candidate. However, nine days after the elections the Foreign Ministry of the Canadian government issues a statement expressing “concern” about “reports of serious election irregularities.”

We are used to expecting that kind of political position towards a popular left-leaning government from the US, which in fact has not recognised the Morales elections yet. But why is Canada so adamant in questioning the Bolivian election in the face of weak evidence of so-called irregularities?

To start, it is important to establish that US and Canada’s involvement in the region is very well coordinated. In 2017 Ottawa and Washington formed an association that “called on [the two governments] to take economic measures against Venezuela.” The focus on Venezuela should not hide the reality of the mandate, which is to produce a regime change wherever leftist governments are present, albeit Venezuela is at the top of the list. This is an association based on common ideology to be carried out with a division of tactical labour: Canada uses its “soft power” while the US hits with its brute financial force.

For instance, while the US government is punishing Venezuela with a severe economic and financial blockade, Canada’s “job” has been instrumental in subverting the progressive support base in the region to the extent of even breaking the strong Cuba-Venezuela friendship. Canada has become the self-appointed “leader” within the OAS, an organisation that gathers mostly Latin American and Caribbean countries; only Canada and the US are not from those geographical areas.

Under the direction of Minister of Foreign Affairs Chrystia Freeland from 2017, Canadian foreign policy seems to have taken an overt pro-corporation approach with a strong pro-neoliberal ideology. She came to that office from being Minister of International Trade where she would have heard many “complains” of lost business in Venezuela from Canadian mining corporations, which are nevertheless questioned in some cases.

With that background and reputation she helped create the so-called Lima Group of a dozen mostly Latin American rightwing governments some of which have appalling records of human rights violations and of breaking the institutional order (Brazil, Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras and Paraguay among others).

Therefore Canada is a willing partner of US sponsored Color Revolutions that are taking place in Latin America by omission or by commission.

While the ongoing recent unrest that we observe in Ecuador, Chile and Bolivia manifest the same sentiments of rebellion and indeed desire for regime change, not all Revolutions are created equal. Ecuador and Chile have rightwing conservative neoliberal governments, the kind that are supported by the Canadian regime, unlike Bolivia.

It is imperative to pay attention to the political alignment and interests of the major geopolitical players to be able to discern, more that the methods, the goal of the intended change. Canada, which has been called The Empire’s Shadowy Cousin, has decidedly engaged in delegitimising the Nicolas Maduro government in Venezuela because as we previously reported Canada is bound to gain a large “prize” in mining resources if it manages to oust Maduro.

In the case of Bolivia the main trade interest also seems to be in mining. In 2017 Canadian imports totaled $274.35 million (mainly in mineral ores, metals and precious stones and vegetables). But this has to be weighed vis-a-vis Bolivia’s claim on “Sovereignty over natural resources” as one of its pillars established in the Economic and Social Development Plan 2016-2020, which states, “The strategic sectors of hydrocarbons and mining are the cornerstones of the Plurinational State of Bolivia economy as a result of the nationalization process and because of the role of the State in the administration of these strategic resources owned by the Bolivian people.” To the ears of neoliberal politicians this must sound like outright socialism.

In conclusion, the claim of election “irregularities” may just be Canada’s public (readily unverifiable) excuse for more political interests. In fact, at the time of writing the OAS has accepted an invitation by the Morales government to audit the election results. If there should be any proven irregularity a second round of vote is proposed. The findings should be binding by both sides. However the political damage has already been done because the opposition has declared that will only accept a new election.

What has been a crass irregularity and interference is the public statement by the OAS Mission of election observers that overstepped its mandate by issuing “preliminary conclusions” calling for a second round before the vote count was completed.

It is important to recognise that Canadian involvement in the region has a dangerous and questionable implication as suggested by its actions in Bolivia’s elections.

The application of sanctions or public statements, propagating unwarranted false or misleading information with the sole intention of countering the resurgence of countries’ chosen socialist governments that are opposed to neoliberal austerity policies in Latin America, is a provocation against the sovereignty of those countries and their established social order. This is clearly the case towards Venezuela, and Canada is now attempting to include Bolivia by using similar language in casting “doubt over the legitimacy of the [electoral] results.”

counterpunch.org

The paradox created is fairly straight forward: The Euromaidan was always wired to promote the integration of Ukraine into the Euro-Atlantic neo liberal order. When Yanukovych announced his plans to reject that euro integration in favour of joining the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union, some thought there could be no other way but violent regime change. Sounds simple and the plan worked. Within months, Yanukovych was out and a pro-NATO/EU regime was in power.

Here’s the rub: The only way to activate a violent overthrow required the unleashing of vast networks of third generation neo Nazis to carry out the sort of dirty work which no one else had the stomachs to handle.

While anti-Russian sentiment wasn’t difficult to come by in western Ukraine, finding people with the shameless bloodlust to kill and be killed could only be rallied from among such networks that had been led to believe that the real villain of WWII was Stalin, and not Hitler. Today these networks have come to dominate the military, police and bureaucracy of Kiev under such names as the Azov Battalion, Svoboda (Socialists/Nationalist Party), Right Sector, and National Corps. With the rise in influence of such fascist networks, laws were passed resulting in Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera becoming a national hero, nazi-styled book banning of authors who don’t acquiesce to the state’s official narrative of history, and state support for fascist training camps for children.

Hence the uncomfortable paradox: fascist droves of neo Nazis have gained international notoriety with the World Jewish Congress, US Holocaust Memorial Museum and human rights organizations writing letters of condemnation of the countless violent attacks on the LGBT community, feminists, and Jews which have multiplied since 2014– often with the complicity of the state police and military.

But of course that cannot be admitted or else the entire game is up, and so by maintaining the lie, ever greater mountains of uncomfortable fallacies build upon each other creating a castle on sand whose collapse is now beginning to be felt.

Calling out this castle on sand in the clearest terms, President Vladimir Putin gave an interview prior to the G20 in Osaka exclaiming that the problems and paradoxes facing today’s world are traceable to a singular root cause: the breakdown of the paradigm of liberalism.

A Clash Between Paradigms

Speaking to the Financial Times in the Kremlin, Putin said:

“The liberal idea has become obsolete. It has come into conflict with the interests of the overwhelming majority of the population… I am not trying to insult anyone, because we have been condemned for our alleged homophobia as it is. But we have no problems with LGBT persons. God forbid, let them live as they wish. But some things do appear excessive to us. They claim now that children can play five or six gender roles. I cannot even say exactly what genders these are, I have no notion. Let everyone be happy, we have no problem with that. But this must not be allowed to overshadow the culture, traditions and traditional family values of millions of people making up the core population.”

Defending the principle of morality against the collapsing liberal order which denies truthfulness in favor of mass opinion, Putin said: “Deep inside, there must be some fundamental human rules and moral values. In this sense, traditional values are more stable and more important for millions of people than this liberal idea, which, in my opinion, is really ceasing to exist.”

As much as some took these words as a breath of fresh air, certain political figures treated those words as poison.

Canada’s Ukrainian-Nationalist Rhodes Scholar Chrystia Freeland was among those who took the most visceral offense to Putin’s message when she spoke to a crowd of confused technocrats during the third Ukraine Reform Congress in Toronto Canada (July 2-4^th) stating: “Putin is not hiding what he’s up to. He thinks that the liberal idea, the whole way that we live, the whole notion of how we built our society- THAT’S what he’s opposed to! The reason why Canada takes the positions we do is because we do not agree that the liberal idea is dead.”

Freeland’s Global Affairs website stated the purpose of the conference and Canada’s relationship to Ukraine in the following terms: “Following the Revolution of Dignity in early 2014, Ukraine’s government committed to implementing democratic and economic reforms in line with its European aspirations. Russian aggression, which started in 2014 with the illegal invasion and occupation of Crimea, has drawn Ukraine into a bloody conflict in the east of the country. This conflict has placed significant pressure on the Ukrainian government’s ability to carry out its reforms.”

During the conference, agreements were made to provide money for gender reforms, anti-corruption legislation, integration of the private sector in the government and Canada’s refusal to recognize Russian-issued passports to Eastern Ukrainians. Forty five million dollars in aid was added to the $785 million already spent on Ukraine’s plastic surgery with a focus on “stopping Russian aggression” and “ensuring the irreversibility of reforms” (whatever that means).

Canada also announced that its programs to train Ukrainian police and military would be extended until 2021 and 2022 respectively. This once again puts Canadian armed forces directly into a situation where they are collaborating with neo-nazi forces such as Vadym Troyan, Serhiy Knyazev, Andry Biletsky and Dmytro Yarosh.

Nazis and Banderites Exposed

Vadym Troyan acted as Chief of Police of Kiev region from November 16, 2016- February 8, 2017 where he was responsible for the purge of all forces loyal to former President Yanukovych. Troyan was replaced with current Chief of Police Knyazev who is collaborating closely with the Canadian officials in the creation of Ukraine’s national police academy. After being replaced by Knyazev in 2017, Troyan became the head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs for Kiev where he currently oversees the Azov-affiliated National Corps who define themselves as the reserves of the Ukrainian armed forces, yet whose stylized swastikas embedded in their logos betray their true allegiances. It should be noted that Troyan is an unrepentant Banderite who made his name as a leader of Azov and the Patriot of Ukraine (founded in 2005 to create a national socialist state of Ukraine which was incorporated into Azov in 2014.) For those who believed Knyazev was any better, those beliefs were put to rest when he exclaimed on television “I apologize. I am a Banderite too! Glory to Ukraine!”

Dmytro Yarosh (former Right Sektor leader) is now a leader of the National Corps Party, and is the current commander of the Ukraine Volunteer Army being trained by Canadian military personnel.

Andriy Biletsky is the leader of National Corps (the political party created by Azov in 2016), former commander of Azov and co-founder of Svoboda. Azov has introduced over 10 000 members to the “national militia” which is tightly integrated with the Ukrainian army. Biletsky has stated that his mission is to “lead the white races of the world in a final crusade against the semite-led untermenschen.”

One of the key Nazis leading this process is Andriy Parubiy, Chairman of the Rada (parliament) who has interfaced closely with Freeland for years. Parubiy is a co-founder of the National Socialist Party (Svoboda) and a leading figure behind the deployment and protection of right wing storm troopers around the nation.

Although Canadian officials have made efforts to play dumb around these inconvenient facts, Colonel Brian Irwin (Canada’s military attaché in Kiev) was caught meeting with officers from the Azov Battalion.

So when Canada proudly announces that it will extend operation UNIFIER to train Ukraine “security forces” until March 31 2022, or announces that Freeland successfully changed Canada’s laws to permit providing “lethal aid” to Ukraine in 2017, we should really think about who is actually benefiting. What should come as a particularly disturbing shock is that the “lethal aid” provided to Ukraine by private Canadian arms manufacturers has never been made public with Global Affairs responding with the evasive answer “for reasons of commercial confidentiality , the department does not comment on any application of permits [to sell weapons to Ukraine].” The closest thing to an answer from a government official has been Trudeau’s statement at the Toronto conference “we already see the investments from Canadian companies in the production of ammunition in Ukraine”.

Zelinsky and Trudeau: Two Actors in Over their Heads

Both Justin Trudeau and Volodymyr Zelensky presented a spectacle at the Toronto event, as both statesmen have gained well-earned reputations for having compensated for their lack of political credentials by having been actors. In the case of Zelensky, he played a president on television before getting elected, while Trudeau served as a 2^nd rate high school acting teacher before Liberal Party controllers decided to use him as their play thing to sweep into power in 2015.

As Trudeau pledged continued support for the NATO Contact Point Embassy of Kiev which it co-controls with Britain, Zelensky stated “I hope that Canada will continue to be a conductor of Ukraine on the way to full membership in the alliance”. Proving his comedic reputation well earned, Zelensky ended his Toronto speech saying “it is a great honour for Ukraine that such a powerful state like Canada supports Ukraine with such devotion.”

Canada as Posterchild of Liberalism

Even though an ugly picture has been presented, one question was not addressed which should be on your mind: Why Canada?

Why has Canada played such a prominent role in Ukraine’s post-Soviet existence and especially since the launching of the Nazi-led Euromaidan? Why is this relatively unpopulated monarchy so actively making enemies with nations like China, Russia and even America?

To answer that question, it is useful to revisit the statement on liberalism eloquently given by Putin. “Liberalism”, by its very essence denies truthfulness in favor of “popular opinion”. Under a “liberal” geopolitical order, whomever controls “popular opinion” controls the forces defining humanity’s existence. What liberals cannot admit is that mankind is the only species whose existence is not merely bounded by genetic instincts or environmental conditions alone.

Of course, technocrats, behaviorists and oligarchs wish to believe that is all we are, but the reality as Putin so clearly stated, is something more. We are a species defined by qualities that transcend matter and are tied to principles of conscience, reason and aesthetics.

As a nation founded upon British Aristocratic principles of hereditary power (Canada is a monarchy after all), the role selected for this northern nation in the wake of WWII, was to become a “Middle Power” who would act as counterweight to the shifting centers of gravity during the Cold War as it slid from communist Russia, Cuba or China towards Capitalist America or Europe, at one time befriending Nixon or Carter and another time befriending Castro or Mao.

Trudeau’s total lack of principle made him the perfect puppet in a time when keeping British Canada close to all sides of the Great Game was most useful for the British. Above, Pierre Trudeau gets chumy with Castro, Chairman Mao, Thatcher and Reagan

In the years since Freeland and Justin Trudeau’s ascendancy to the throne, Canada’s use in a geopolitical “great game” has been one of corralling flocks of sheep towards emotionally-driven policies such as de-industrializing to fight global warming, promoting self-enslaving free trade acts, “democratic” regime change and in some cases, risking outright nuclear war.

This has taken the form of Canada’s guiding role in the Lima Group of Latin American nations against Venezuela, the “Alliance for Multilateralism”, the defense of WTO-run order or rallying the nations to fight man-made climate change. The common denominator amongst all of these Canadian-led initiatives is a total lack of substance and religious belief that nations can be bent by the “force” of popular opinion. Liberalism.

The Father of Modern Liberalism Revisited

I’d like to end this report with a bone chilling quote from a leading architect of the currently collapsing liberal world order named Lord Bertrand Russell. This celebrated “logician, and architect of the Cold War wrote a very ugly yet influential book called The Impact of Science on Society in 1952 where he stated:

“I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology. Mass psychology is, scientifically speaking, not a very advanced study, and so far its professors have not been in universities: they have been advertisers, politicians, and, above all, dictators. This study is immensely useful to practical men, whether they wish to become rich or to acquire the government. Its importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda. Of these the most influential is what is called “education.” Religion plays a part, though a diminishing one; the press, the cinema, and the radio play an increasing part…

This subject will make great strides when it is taken up by scientists under a scientific dictatorship…The social psychologists of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black. Various results will soon be arrived at. First, that the influence of home is obstructive. Second, that not much can be done unless indoctrination begins before the age of ten. Third, that verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective. Fourth, that the opinion that snow is white must be held to show a morbid taste for eccentricity. But I anticipate. It is for future scientists to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black, and how much less it would cost to make them believe it is dark gray. Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen.”

Although it took some decades for Russell’s blueprint to “make its great strides”, the very fact that its success has led to society’s self-destruction should be a sufficient proof that this philosophy (merely a repackaged paganism for the modern age) is not only obsolete as Putin says, but constructed in defiance of the true nature of mankind as a species of reason, morality and free will destined for something much greater than liberals can ever imagine.

This has left the already beleaguered government of Justin Trudeau (and Chrystia Freeland… let’s not kid ourselves here) in an embarrassing situation as Trudeau’s requests to meet with Xi Jinping at the upcoming G20 have gone ignored for the past several days. Freeland has announced that her many requests to speak with China’s Foreign Minister have similarly gone unheeded.

Since attaining power in 2015, the Liberal Government has demonstrated nothing but constant belligerence to China. Many then watching the Canadian political scene had hoped that Trudeau would continue the pro-China traditions which his father initiated in 1970 and which paved the way to China’s opening up under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping a few years later.

This did not occur.

Rather than adapt to the shifting current of the times which calls for nations to reject “each against all” geopolitics and instead join a new win-win framework driven by the Belt and Road Initiative model of development, Canada has only dug its heels ever deeper into the ground in defense of the sinking Titanic of Globalization. This was seen by Canada’s unrelenting support for the COP21 depopulation agenda, the anti-China Trans Pacific Partnership, the anti-Russia/China NATO missile shield, and anti-everybody WTO system.

Once the Chinese government made their disapproval of Canada’s behavior known with the December 2017 rejection of the Canada-China special relationship, Trudeau and Freeland were assigned to take on a more aggressive tone against China, first by blocking the sale of Canada’s Aecon to China due to “security risks” in May 2018, arresting Huawei’s Meng Wanzhou in December 2018, firing a pro-Chinese ambassador in January 2019 and mobilizing international support against China’s human rights abuses due to China’s arrest of two Canadians on espionage charges and the death penalty given to a Canadian drug smuggler.

How a low level “middle power” like Canada ever gained the hubris to believe that it could intimidate a country like China is a mystery, but it happened.

Now Xi Jinping has sent a clear message that it will no longer tolerate a mosquito who thinks it is a dragon trying to bully China any longer. China’s ambassador Lu Shaye has done everything for 3 years to offer Canada the opportunity to join the Belt and Road Initiative and open up to a new system of cooperation with China’s investment into decayed North American infrastructure. In a recent Ottawa event Ambassador Lu said:

“China and Canada could engage in third-party market cooperation, create a kind of synergy and achieve triple-win by combining the needs of developing countries, China’s production capacity, and Canada’s advantages in capital and technology. Canada is one of the members of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), which provides favourable conditions for the country to participate in the Belt and Road facility connection.”

With the total rejection of these peace offerings, Lu Shaye has induced Canada to demonstrate where its true allegiance lay. Once Canada’s true colors were exposed, Ambassador Lu himself, breaking with the typical protocols of subtle and polite diplomatic conduct for which the Chinese are well known, called out the “racist, Five Eyes Intelligence network” which is really trying to run the world. In January 2019 Ambassador Lu described the hypocrisy of the western technocratic elite who attack China saying:

“the reason why some people are used to arrogantly adopting double standards is due to Western egotism and white supremacy – in such a context, the rule of law is nothing but a tool for their political ends and a fig leaf for their practising hegemony in the international arena”

Now with Canadian elections fast approaching and finding only anti-Chinese vitriol even among the Conservative Party of Andrew Sheer (the only contender against Trudeau), China has decided that Ambassador Lu can be more productive if re-deployed to France where greater opportunities for BRI-cooperation can be found. Of course, China’s wish that Canada take part in the BRI and its new Arctic extension remains firmly on the table awaiting only a sane political leadership to arise and accept this ticket to the future.