News Article

Security and Prosperity Partnership and its Gatekeepers: An Explanation

By Derek Skinner, The Canadian

Read the complete article

Excerpts:

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

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

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

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

"Who are the gatekeepers?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the complete article.

Fair Use: This site contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues related to national sovereignty of the United States. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, see: www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html.
In order to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.