Canadian, I am

THE TRANSMOUNTAIN PIPELINE, ENGLISH FRENCH TRANSLATION.

2018-06-03T08:03:00.000-07:00

ENGLISH FRENCH TRANSLATION

I know that at present 99% of

Canadian Crude goes to the

The United States. I also know that

we PAY them a 25% discount to take it. Je suis

I also know that we pay a 25% PREMIUM,

In order to buy the finished (refined)

product back. Je suis stupide

I understand that as a taxpaying Canadian

Citizen, I just spent $4.5 B on a pipeline that

All CANADIANS taxpaying or otherwise, other

than GOVERNMENT and the POLITICAL MACHINES

WILL OWN, the sole purpose of which

is to further

Facilitate the above two items. Je suis stupide

And I’ll also be helping,

along with other Canadian Citizens,

to fund the additional $ 5.78 required

to finish it so that the GOVERNMENT,

politicians, UNITED STATES BASED

OIL CORPORATIONS, and Parkland can

Continue to rob ALL Canadians blind. Je suis stupide

Then as a taxpaying resident of B.C.

I’m paying a legal team to STOP construction

Of the pipeline I just most foolishly bought. Je suis stupide

I STILL BELIEVE IN THIS TYPE OF CAPITALIST.

CORPORATE, FASCIST SHEEP DIP; FURTHER,

I ACTUALLY ACCEPT THAT GOVERNMENT **OF**

THE PEOPLE IS A ^^^NECESSARY EVIL^^^ OF

MODERN ECONOMICS. Je suis stupide

I am stupid Je suis stupide

Wake up Alberta, British Columbia; Face Reality, why do you Think the Cruise Ships are Coming to Vancouver?

2018-04-10T07:56:00.000-07:00

Hint: it is not to see a Kinder Morgan Crude Petroleum Shipping Terminal

http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/by-the-numbers-vancouver-gears-up-for-2018-season-of-cruise-ship-crowds

Canada oil sands Asia export dream faces port bottleneck - Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/.../us...ports.../canada-oil-sands-asia-export-dream-faces-port-...

Nov 20, 2016 - Vancouver is the only west coast port where it can be sold on to Asia. “If Canada can't get their oil to another market besides the U.S. (market), you'll always be a price taker, not a price maker,” said Sandy Fielden, director of ... In October, a vessel carrying around 150,000 barrels of crude left to South Korea.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/blogs/hold-on-tight-canada-s-crude-oil-discount-is-likely-to-get-worse

THE ULTIMATE EVOLUTION OF CAPITALISM INTO COMMUNIST SOCIALISM

2018-04-07T21:23:00.000-07:00

In the terminology of Marx and Engels, the words communism and socialism are synonymous. They are alternately applied without any distinction between them. The same was true for the practice of all Marxian groups and sects until 1917. The political parties of Marxism which considered the Communist Manifesto as the unalterable gospel of their doctrine called themselves socialist parties. The most influential and most numerous of these parties, the German party, adopted the name Social Democratic Party. In Italy, in France and in all other countries in which Marxian parties already played a role in political life before 1917, the term socialist likewise superseded the term communist. No Marxian ever ventured, before 1917, to distinguish between communism and socialism.

In 1875, in his Criticism of the Gotha Programme of the German Social Democratic Party, Marx distinguished between a lower (earlier) and a higher (later) phase of the future communist society. But he did not reserve the name of communism to the higher phase and did not call the lower phase socialism as differentiated from communism.

Marx did NOT believe in the Political Party System Machine; so of course, he could not be a Bolshevik and also of course, unlike Lenin he was not a Fascist.

In order to understand the mentality of Lenin’s FASCIST Bolshevists, we must again refer to the dogmas of Karl Marx. Marx was fully convinced that capitalism is a stage of economic history which is not limited to a few advanced countries only. Capitalism has the tendency to convert all parts of the world into capitalist countries. The bourgeoisie forces all nations to become capitalist nations. When the final hour of capitalism sounds, the whole world will be uniformly in the stage of mature capitalism, ripe for the transition to socialism. Socialism will emerge at the same time in all parts of the world.

Marx erred on this point. Today even the Marxian’s cannot and do not deny that there still prevail enormous differences in the development of capitalism in various countries. They realise that there are many countries which, from the point of view of the Marxian interpretation of history, must be described as precapitalistic. In these countries, the bourgeoisie (Capitalist Fascist Elite) has not yet attained a Total Global IMPERIAL Dictatorship position and has not yet set the historical stage of capitalism which is the necessary prerequisite of the appearance of socialism. These countries, therefore, must first accomplish their “bourgeois revolution” and must go through all phases of capitalism before there can be any question of transforming them into socialist countries. But, there remains hope; perhaps one day the working PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY OF OURS will at least be able to truly say THEY at least OWN THE GROUND IN WHICH THEY ARE BURIED. Al (Alex-Alexander) D Girvan.

United States Exceptionalism, White supremacy or White Supremacism (Superman Comics) is a racist ideology based upon the belief that white people are superior in many ways to people of other races and that therefore white people should be dominant over other races.

2018-04-04T09:47:00.000-07:00

United States (Exceptionalism) White Supremacy Has Roots In Scientific United States White Supremacists Typically Oppose Members Of Other Races And Or Religions As Well As Jews.

The term is also typically used to describe a political ideology that perpetuates and maintains the social, political, historical or institutional domination by white people (as evidenced by historical and contemporary socio-political structures such as gender inequities, Atlantic slave trade, Jim Crow laws in the United States, and apartheid in South Africa. Different forms of white supremacism put forth different conceptions of who is considered white, and different forms of white supremacists identify various religious, racial and cultural groups as their primary enemy.

In academic usage, particularly in usage which draws on the critical race theory, the term "white supremacy" can also refer to a political or socio-economic system where white people enjoy a structural advantage (privilege) over other ethnic groups, both as a collective and an individual level.

The master race (German: die Herrenrasse)) is a concept in United States Exceptionalist, Nazi and Neo-Nazi ideology in which the Nordic or Aryan races, predominant among Germans and other northern European peoples, are deemed the highest in the racial hierarchy.

The Nazi official Alfred Rosenberg believed that the Nordic race was descended from Proto-Aryans who he believed had prehistorically dwelt on the North German Plain and who had ultimately originated from the lost continent of Atlantis. The Nazis declared that the Nordics (now referred to as the Germanic peoples), or Aryan as they sometimes called them, were superior to all other races. The Nazis like United States Exceptionalist-White supremacy or white supremacism is a racist ideology based upon the belief that white people are superior in many ways to people of other races and that therefore white people should be dominant over other races. White supremacy has roots in scientific racism and it often relies on pseudoscientific arguments. Like most similar movements such as neo-Nazism, white supremacists typically oppose members of other races as well as Jews.

The Term Is Also Typically Used To Describe A Political Ideology That Perpetuates And Maintains The Social, Political, Historical Or Institutional Domination By White People (As Evidenced By Historical And Contemporary Sociopolitical Structures Such As Gender Inequities, Atlantic Slave Trade, Jim Crow Laws In The United States, And Apartheid In South Africa). Different forms of white supremacism put forth different conceptions of who is considered white, and different forms of white supremacists identify various racial and cultural groups as their primary enemy.

This same basic concept is also known as Nordicism. The actual policy that was implemented by the Nazis resulted in the Aryan certificate, the one form of the official document that was required by the law for all citizens of the Reich was the "Lesser Aryan certificate" (Kleiner Ariernachweis) which could be obtained through an Ahnenpass which required the owner to trace his or her lineage through baptism, birth certificates or certified proof thereof that all grandparents were of "Aryan descent". Al (Alex-Alexander)D Girvan.

By the People, Of the People, For the People= Taxpaying Canadian Families; not Blood Sucking Capitalist Fascist CORPORATIONS

2018-04-02T12:12:00.001-07:00

Can You, Do You, WILL You Believe; It's time for Canada/Canadians to bring back the Canada my Great Great Grand Parents, Grandparents, Uncles Fathe Mother fought for? It's also time to Boot a few Road Apples Bison Chips, Eradicate a Few Utterly Useless Bloodsuckers(I'm not taking Mosquitos or even Bed Bugs)-before it's too late to even survive??

The Effects of the “True” American Dream; Which is, of Course, Total Global Dictatorship, Global Fascism=American Exceptionalism/White Supremacy

2018-04-02T09:40:00.000-07:00

American exceptionalism is also the concept that America (wherever in HELL that is) has a purpose on this OUR earth that is set apart from other nations. This concept has been around since the mid-1800’s and is the accepted norm of today’s Canadian and United States society. The danger lies in the fact that through the guise of exceptionalism we have masked the true Dictatorial Identities of Fanatical Fascist imperialism, supremacy, and racism.

The people who ascribe to this ideology have tricked themselves into believing that they hold no racial bias. They do not believe that they are superior to another based on their race but rather based on their country of origin. This logic is somehow more acceptable. If one were to change the words “American Exceptionalism” to “American Supremacy” would the same concept still hold true? Would people still be fooled into believing that they are not biased against another race?

The reason that this is so important is that this concept can lead us into a state of apathy towards injustices committed by our own government. The United States kills civilians and non-combatants every day in Afghanistan and around the world. American exceptionalism has allowed people who care genuinely about protecting life the option to not care about these lives because they do not live on the same land mass that they do. Recently the U.S. attacked a town on the border of Afghanistan. This air strike killed 11 children and is alleged to have killed two Taliban operatives.

Let us Not Forget the twit-HITLER Trump-ettes Mother Fxxxer of all BOOMS.

Due to American exceptionalism, the citizenry of the U.S. has been led to believe that this is a fair trade. They have been led to believe that innocent children are just collateral damage. In many ways,. It is an idea that whitewashes the minds of millions of people into believing that we must protect the lives of our children by killing other children.

the modern American citizen has been told that these children do not exist. Many people do not want to hear about this **News** or to delve into the details of the most recent wars that shows this sort of operation happens far too often.

Al (Alex-Alexander)D. Girvan.

Definitions and Examples-Democracy, Republic, Marx Socialist/Communism

2018-04-01T11:02:00.000-07:00

Miriam Webster’s AMERICAN definition of Republic

(1) a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president

(2) a political unit (such as a nation) having such a form of government

(3) a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law

(4)a political unit (such as a nation) having such a form of government

(5) a usually specified republican government of a political unit the French Fourth Republic

Definition of Republic in English: Oxford: NOUN

1A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

1.1archaic A group with a certain equality between its members.

Origin: Late 16th century: from French république, from Latin respublica, from res ‘entity, concern’ + publicus ‘of the people, public’.

The key difference between a democracy and a republic lies in the limits placed on government by the law, which has implications for minority rights. Both forms of government tend to use a representational system — i.e., citizens vote to elect politicians to represent their interests and form the government. In a republic, a constitution or charter of rights protects certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government, even if it has been elected by a majority of voters. In a "pure democracy," the majority is not restrained in this way and can impose its will on the minority.

Most modern nations are democratic republics with a constitution, which can be amended by a popularly elected government. This comparison, therefore, contrasts the form of government in most countries today with a theoretical construct of a "pure democracy", mainly to highlight the Differences as well as the Similarities

Comparison Chart

Differences — Similarities —

Democracy versus Republic comparison chart
	Democracy	Republic
Definition	Rule by the omnipotent majority. In a democracy, an individual, and any group of individuals composing any minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of the majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.	A republic is similar to a representative democracy except it has a written constitution of basic rights that protect the minority from being completely unrepresented or overridden by the majority.
Social Structure	Class distinctions can become pronounced due to capitalist society. Varies from state to state.	Class distinctions can become pronounced due to capitalist society. Varies from state to state.
Constraints on the government	No; the majority can impose its will on the minority.	Yes; the majority cannot take away certain inalienable rights.
Religion	Generally, freedom of religion is permitted, although a majority faction may limit religious freedom for a minority faction.	Generally, freedom of religion is permitted, especially insofar as there is a constitutional prohibition on interfering with freedom of religion.
Political System	Democratic. [Note: this is not meant as a reference to a Democratic Party.]	Republican. [Note: this is not meant as a reference to a Republican Party.]
Philosophy	All eligible citizens get an equal say in decisions.	All eligible citizens get an equal say in decisions with the protection of unalienable rights to individuals.
Economic System	Elected by the voters or their elected representatives.	Elected by the voters or their elected representatives.
Famous Examples	Classical Greece, Rome	Rome, France, United States Of America
Sovereignty is held by	the whole population (as a group)	the people (individuals)
Key Elements	Free elections.	Free elections, constitution.
A common confusion in the USA	People commonly confuse direct democracy with representative democracy. The US officially has a representative style, though many have suggested the US is closer to an oligarchy or plutocracy.	The US is actually a Republic. It is governed by rule of law. The elected are bound by oath to the written governing limits (ie constitution) yet vote "together" and create laws to address concerns of the represented in a democratic way
Discrimination	In theory, all citizens have an equal say and so are treated equally. However, often allows for the tyranny of the majority over the minority.	In theory, all citizens have an equal say and so are treated equally by the government, especially insofar as there is a constitutional prohibition on government discrimination.
Modern Examples	More than half of the world, including the US, Canada, Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, etc.	The United States of America is a republic.
Free Choice	Individuals may make decisions for themselves except insofar as a majority faction has limited individuals.	Individuals may make decisions for themselves, especially insofar as there is a constitutional prohibition on interfering with freedom of choice.
Private Property	Generally, private property is permitted, although a majority faction may place limits on property rights.	Generally, private property is permitted, especially insofar as there is a constitutional prohibition on interfering with property rights.
Variations	Direct democracy, parliamentary democracy, representative democracy, presidential democracy.	Democratic republics, Constitutional republics.
Way of Change	Voting.	Voting.
Observation in practice	People commonly confuse direct democracy with representative democracy. The US has a representative style. But the will of the people shouldn’t easily decide to change the rules that limit power to the government.	The U.S.A.'s Constitution clearly shows the U.S. as a Republic, Article 4, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution

Today, citizens Of The United States, for example, often Assume have a REPUBLIC, but what, exactly, does a republic, and the philosophy that defines it—republicanism—mean?

Definition of Republicanism

In general, republicanism refers to the ideology embraced by members of a republic, which is a form of representational government in which leaders are elected for a specific period by the preponderance of the citizenry, the PEOPLE and laws are passed by the same PEOPLE for the benefit of the entire republic, rather than select members of a ruling class, or aristocracy.

In an ideal SOCIAL COMMUNITY MINDED REPUBLIC, leaders are elected From Among The Working Citizenry, Serve The Republic For A Defined Period, Then Return To Their Work, Never To Serve Again. Unlike a direct or "pure" Capitalist Fascist democracy, in which the majority vote rules, a republic guarantees a certain set of basic civil rights to every citizen, codified in a charter or constitution, which cannot be overridden by majority rule.

Key Concepts

Republicanism stresses several key concepts, notably, the importance of civic virtue, the benefits of universal political participation, the dangers of corruption, the need for separate powers within government, and a healthy reverence for the rule of law.

From These Concepts, One Paramount Value Stands Apart: Political Liberty.

Political liberty, in this case, refers not only to freedom from government interference in private affairs but FREEDOM FROM A POLITICAL PARTY OR “HEAD OF STATE”.

It also places great emphasis on self-DISCIPLINE and self- RELIANCE-GET OFF OF YOUR ASS build YOUR Community, Country, Family, Heritage Nation, Realm, Social Society.

Marxist Communism/Socialism Definition, Features, If Ever Practiced=Read Features/Practice of Republicanism They are Exactly the Same.

Al (Alex-Alexander) D Girvan.

AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM

2018-03-31T14:39:00.001-07:00

Every time a public figure uses the term "American exceptionalism," ordinary people ask themselves “What the Hell: have we Really Become Puppet Slaves. Followers of Fascist Racial Supremacists; of Hitler. Mein Kampf (German: [maɪ̯n kampf)[, My Struggle) is a 1925 autobiographical book by Nazi Party leader Adolf Hitler. The work describes the process by which Hitler became antisemitic and outlines his political ideology and future plans for Germany. and the Third Reich.]

Definition of Third Reich. Third Reich: Meaning "third regime or empire," the Nazi designation of Germany and its regime from 1933-45. Historically, the First Reich was the medieval Holy Roman Empire, which lasted until 1806. The Second Reich included the German Empire from 1871-1918. Another name that was popular during this period was the term Tausendjähriges Reich ("Thousand-Year Reich"), the millennial connotations of which suggested that Nazi Germany would last for a thousand years.

American exceptionalism is an ideology holding the United States as unique among nations in positive or negative connotations, with respect to its ideas.

Though the concept has no formal definition, there are many themes common to various conceptions of Hitler’s Third Reich.

1. One is the history of the United States is different from other nations. In this view, American exceptionalism stems from the American Revolution, becoming what political scientist Seymour Martin Lipset called "the first new nation" developing the American ideology of "Americanism", based on liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, republicanism, democracy, and laissez-faire economics. This ideology itself is often referred to as "American exceptionalism."

2. ANOTHER THEME IS THE IDEA THE U.S. HAS A UNIQUE MISSION TO TRANSFORM THE WORLD. Abraham Lincoln Stated In The Gettysburg Address (1863), Americans Have A Duty To Ensure "Government By The People, Of The People, For The People, Shall Not Perish From The Earth." Abraham Lincoln

4. “Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the United States as our fathers made it inviolate.”

5. Like All forms of Dictatorial Fascist Totalitarianism Leninism, Imperialism, Monarchies Stalinism the theory of the exceptionalism of the U.S. has developed over time and can be traced to many sources. French political scientist and historian Alexi de Tocqueville was the first writer to describe the country as "exceptional" in 1831 and 1840.] The actual phrase "American Exceptionalism" is purported to have originated in the Soviet regime of Joseph Stalin.

6. No one did more than Ronald Reagan to amplify and popularize the U.S. as exceptional. Refusing to accept the doldrums of the Jimmy Carter presidency or the transgressions of Richard Nixon as the best that Americans could do, Reagan promoted the image of the U.S. as a shining "city upon a hill, "wherein sit the Capitalist FASCIST TOTALITARIAN ELITE

WHICH WOULD YOU PREFER, “the EXCEPTIONAL-and PRESUMABLY THAT WOULD MEAN CANADIAN, and not the UNITED STATES of someplace or other-possibly of central north central north Americas. Possibly Mars or even another Universe, OR an honest to goodness REPUBLIC??

The Founding Fathers of the United States of somewhere or other may have declared independence from Britain in 1776, but the real work of putting together the new government got underway at the Constitutional Convention, which took place from May 25 to September 17, 1787, in the Pennsylvania State House (Independence Hall) in Philadelphia. After the deliberations ended and the delegates were leaving the hall, a member of the crowd that had gathered outside, Mrs Elizabeth Powell, asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?”

Franklin responded, “A republic, madam, if you can keep it.”

Abraham Lincoln “Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the United States as our fathers made it inviolate.”

Today, Citizens Of The United States Assume They Have Kept It, but what, exactly, does a republic, and the philosophy that defines it—republicanism—mean?

Definition of Republicanism

In an ideal

SOCIALIST COMMUNITY MINDED REPUBLIC, leaders are elected From Among The Working Citizenry, Serve The Republic For A Defined Period, Then Return To Their Work, Never To Serve Again. Unlike a direct or "pure" Capitalist Fascist democracy, in which the majority vote rules, a republic guarantees a certain set of basic civil rights to every citizen, codified in a charter or constitution, which cannot be overridden by majority rule.

Key Concepts

From These Concepts, One Paramount Value Stands Apart: Political Liberty.

Political liberty, in this case, refers not only to freedom from government interference in private affairs, but FREEDOM FROM A POLITICAL PARTY OR “HEAD OF STATE”.

It also places great emphasis on self-DISCIPLINE and self- RELIANCE-GET OFF OF YOUR ASS build YOUR Community, Country, Family, Heritage Nation, Realm, Social Society. Al (Alex-Alexander) D Girvan.

IT’S MY RIGHT to Bear Arms, and we must PROTECT MY RIGHTS, TO HELL WITH YOURS

2018-03-26T19:52:00.000-07:00

Well, for sure, somebody said something; so, for sure, for sure someone just HAS to be right. The problem, for sure, for sure, for sure is figuring out just which some one’s body it might have come from.

In the United States, we just saw three school shootings in a week (two of them on the same day) and one of them was a mass shooting. So far this year, there have been 294 mass shootings in the U.S. according to the Washington Post. In and around Surrey British Columbia and throughout the Frazer Valley there is generally at least one shooting EVERY DAY.

But, guns don't kill people, abortions do.

So, let's make them harder for women to get.

Guns are an American right so let's not limit access to them —

But education and healthcare aren't.

So, we should limit access to both of those things as much as possible.

My argument isn't to ban guns but to at least address the very obvious, very deadly, issues, in order to address the inefficient laws already on the books. MY GUT FEELING IS THAT IF GAYS, IMMIGRANTS AND WOMEN WERE LOBBYING TO HAVE MORE ACCESS TO GUNS THERE WOULD ALREADY BE A LAW BANNING FIREARMS.

For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The courts had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.

Enter the modern National Rifle Association. Before the nineteen-seventies, the N.R.A. had been devoted mostly to non-political issues, like gun safety. But a coup d’état at the group’s annual convention in 1977 brought a group of committed political conservatives to power—as part of the leading edge of the new, more rightward-leaning Republican Party.

The new group pushed for a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment, one that gave individuals, not just militias, the right to bear arms. It was an uphill struggle. At first, their views were widely scorned. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who was no liberal, mocked the individual-rights theory of the amendment as “a fraud.”

But the N.R.A. kept pushing—and there’s a lesson here. Conservatives often embrace “originalism,” the idea that the meaning of the Constitution was fixed when it was ratified, in 1787. They mock the so-called liberal idea of a “living” constitution, whose meaning changes with the values of the country at large. But there is no better example of the living Constitution than the conservative re-casting of the Second Amendment in the last few decades of the twentieth century. (Reva Siegel, of Yale Law School, elaborates on this point in a brilliant article.)

The re-interpretation of the Second Amendment was an elaborate and brilliantly executed political operation, inside and outside of government. Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980 brought a gun-rights enthusiast to the White House. At the same time, Orrin Hatch, the Utah Republican, became chairman of an important subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and he commissioned a report that claimed to find “clear—and long lost—proof that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms.” The N.R.A. began commissioning academic studies aimed at proving the same conclusion. An outré constitutional theory, rejected even by the establishment of the Republican Party, evolved, through brute political force, into the conservative conventional wisdom.

And so, naturally, this theory became the law of the land. In District of Columbia v. Heller, decided in 2008, the Supreme Court embraced the individual-rights view of the Second Amendment. It was a triumph above all for Justice Antonin Scalia, the author of the opinion, but it required him to craft a thoroughly political compromise. In the eighteenth century, militias were proto-military operations, and their members had to obtain the best military hardware of the day. But Scalia could not create, in the twenty-first century, an individual right to contemporary military weapons—like tanks and Stinger missiles. In light of this, Scalia conjured a rule that said D.C. could not ban handguns because “handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defence in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.”

So, the United States of some place or other government cannot ban handguns, but it can ban other weapons—like, say, an assault rifle—or so it appears. The full meaning of the court’s Heller opinion is still up for grabs. But it is clear that the scope of the Second Amendment will be determined as much by politics as by the law.

The courts WILL respond to public pressure—as they did by moving to the Fascist/Conservative Right on gun control in the last thirty years. And if legislators, responding to their constituents, since a mandate for new restrictions on guns, the courts will find a way to uphold them. The battle over gun control is not just one of the individual votes in Congress, but of a continuing clash of ideas, backed by political power. In other words, the law of the Second Amendment is not settled; no law, not even the Constitution, ever is.

OF COURSE, WE ALL ALSO REALISE THAT ACCORDING TO THE "INDIVIDUAL" THEORY AND OR THE " COLLECTIVE THEORY" for that matter (both were trained) JOHN WILKS BOOTH (ASSASSINATED ABRAHAM LINCOLN and JOHN HARVEY OSWALD or whoever assassinated John F Kennedy acted STRICTLY WITHIN THEIR RIGHTS, according to United States Law, so could not **LEGALLY** BE CHARGED WITH ANY CRIME

Maybe we could employ some sort of qualifications in order to buy a gun, just like being 18, 19, or 21 old to purchase alcohol, Pot, or tobacco. HOW ABOUT IF A GUY IS AN ANTI-SOCIAL, HOMOCIDALLY INCLINED PARANOIC, CHRONICALLY INFERIORITY COMPLEXED, SEXUALLY FRUSTRATED WHITE MALE; THEY SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BUY A GUN, FOR STARTERS ANYWAY??—Al (Alex-Alexander) D Girvan.

Indigenous; What is the English Language Definition of the Word?

2018-02-22T14:41:00.000-08:00

Answer: Definition-adjective, originating, or occurring naturally, in a particular place; native.

Examples: "the indigenous peoples of Siberia, the indigenous peoples of southern Africa”. 2. Innate; inherent; natural (usually followed by to): Feelings; “Indigenous *To* Human Beings.”

synonyms: native, original, aboriginal, autochthonous; local, domestic, homegrown;

SO, WHAT THEN IS THE DEFINITION OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES?

As it stands, There is no Generally Accepted Definition of Indigenous Peoples; in a Global Context. Some countries refer to Indigenous Peoples as the people who were there first at contact. Others refer to Indigenous Peoples as the nomadic peoples within their borders.

In Canada, you know, this country in which WE live; we seem to be using a definition of Indigenous Peoples that mirrors Pierre Trudeau’s Illegal (French-never accepted by Montreal and although the politicians calling themselves provincial Governments did mostly agree among themselves; Western Canadian peoples were never given a choice through referendum)constitutional terminology of Aboriginal Peoples as stated in Section 35 that includes the Indian, Inuit, and Metis- AKA in the United States of North Central, Central North America Peoples as “Half Breeds/ Mixed Bloods, Hybrid Mongrel Peoples. So when it comes to these two terms what’s the best terminology? As always, my favourite answer is “it depends.” It really depends on the hat that people are wearing; at a particular time and why.

The federal government did send a strong signal that they prefer to “reconciliation” of Indigenous, in the victory speech, and in the changing of the name of the department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada to Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada. So, except that no form of segregation whether self, government imposed through common Knowledge/belief works now, has ever worked or ever can/will work; or if you are in the federal system, I think you would be okay to go with Indigenous… Peoples??.

Nazi Fascism and the Modern Totalitarian State

2018-02-21T09:52:00.000-08:00

The Government of Nazi Germany was a Fascist, Totalitarian State.

Totalitarian regimes, in contrast to a dictatorship, establish complete political, social, and cultural control over their subjects, and are usually headed by a charismatic leader. Fascism is a form of right-wing totalitarianism which emphasizes the subordination of the individual to advance the interests of the state. Nazi fascism’s ideology included a racial theory which denigrated “non-Aryans,” extreme nationalism which called for the unification of all German-speaking peoples, the use of private paramilitary organizations to stifle dissent and terrorize opposition, and the centralization of decision-making by, and loyalty to, a single leader.

WRITTEN BY: The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica

LAST UPDATED: 1-23-2018: Nazism, also spelled Naziism, in full National Socialism, German Nationalsozialismus, totalitarian movement led by Adolf Hitler as head of the Nazi Party in Germany. In its intense nationalism, mass appeal, and dictatorial rule, Nazism shared many elements with Italian fascism. However, Nazism was far more extreme both in its ideas and in its practice. In almost every respect it was an anti-intellectual and atheoretical movement, emphasizing the will of the charismatic dictator as the sole source of inspiration of a people and a nation, as well as a vision of annihilation of all enemies of the Aryan Volk as the one and only goal of Nazi policy.

The Roots Of Nazism

Nazism had peculiarly German roots. It can be partly traced to the Prussian tradition as developed under Frederick William I (1688–1740), Frederick the Great (1712–68), and Otto von Bismarck (1815–98), which regarded the militant spirit and the discipline of the Prussian army as the model for all individual and civic life. To it was added the tradition of political romanticism, with its sharp hostility to rationalism and to the principles underlying the French Revolution, its emphasis on instinct and the past, and its proclamation of the rights of Friedrich Nietzsche’s exceptional individual (the Übermensch [“Superman”]) over all universal law and rules. These two traditions were later reinforced by the 19th-century adoration of science and of the laws of nature, which seemed to operate independently of all concepts of good and evil. Further reinforcements came from such 19th-century intellectual figures as the comte de Gobineau (1816–82), Richard Wagner (1813–83), and Houston Stewart Chamberlain (1855–1927), all of whom greatly influenced early National Socialism with their claims of the racial and cultural superiority of the “Nordic” (Germanic) peoples over all other Europeans and all other races.

Hitler’s intellectual viewpoint was influenced during his youth not only by these currents in the German tradition but also by specific Austrian movements that professed various political sentiments, notably those of pan-Germanic expansionism and anti-Semitism. Hitler’s ferocious nationalism, his contempt of the Slavs, and his hatred of the Jews can largely be explained by his bitter experiences as an unsuccessful artist living a threadbare existence on the streets of Vienna, the capital of the multiethnic Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Adolf Hitler (third from right) participating in a Nazi parade in Munich, c. 1930s.

Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

This intellectual preparation would probably not have been sufficient for the growth of Nazism in Germany but for that country’s defeat in World War I. The defeat and the resulting disillusionment, pauperization, and frustration—particularly among the lower middle classes—paved the way for the success of the propaganda of Hitler and the Nazis. The Treaty of Versailles (1919), the formal settlement of World War I drafted without German participation, alienated many Germans with its imposition of harsh monetary and territorial reparations. The significant resentment expressed toward the peace treaty gave Hitler a starting point. Because German representatives (branded the “November criminals” by National Socialists) agreed to cease hostilities and did not unconditionally surrender in the armistice of November 11, 1918, there was a widespread feeling—particularly in the military—that Germany’s defeat had been orchestrated by diplomats at the Versailles meetings. From the beginning, Hitler’s propaganda of revenge for this “traitorous” act, through which the German people had been “stabbed in the back,” and his call for rearmament had strong appeal within military circles, which regarded the peace only as a temporary setback in Germany’s expansionist program. The ruinous inflation of the German currency in 1923 wiped out the savings of many middle-class households and led to further public alienation and dissatisfaction.

Hitler added to Pan-Germanic aspirations the almost mystical fanaticism of a faith in the mission of the German race and the fervour of a social revolutionary gospel. This gospel was most fully expressed in Hitler’s personal testament Mein Kampf (1925–27; “My Struggle”), in which he outlined both his practical aims and his theories of race and propaganda.

Posing as a bulwark against communism, Hitler exploited the fears aroused in Germany and worldwide by the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and the consolidation of communist power in the Soviet Union. Thus, he was able to secure the support of many conservative elements that misunderstood the totalitarian character of his movement.

Hitler’s most important individual contribution to the theory and practice of Nazism was his deep understanding of mass psychology and mass propaganda. He stressed the fact that all propaganda must hold its intellectual level at the capacity of the least intelligent of those at whom it is directed and that its truthfulness is much less important than its success. According to Hitler:

It is part of a great leader’s genius to make even widely separated adversaries appear as if they belonged to but one category, because among weakly and undecided characters the recognition of various enemies all too easily marks the beginning of doubt of one’s own rightness.

Hitler found this common denominator in the Jews, whom he identified with both Bolshevism and a kind of cosmic evil. The Jews were to be discriminated against not according to their religion but according to their “race.” Nazism declared the Jews—whatever their educational and social development—to be forever fundamentally different from and inimical to Germans.

Nazism attempted to reconcile conservative, nationalist ideology with a socially radical doctrine. In so doing, it became a profoundly revolutionary movement—albeit a largely negative one. Rejecting rationalism, liberalism, democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and all movements of international cooperation and peace, it stressed instinct, the subordination of the individual to the state, and the necessity of blind and unswerving obedience to leaders appointed from above. It also emphasized the inequality of men and races and the right of the strong to rule the weak; sought to purge or suppress competing political, religious, and social institutions; advanced an ethic of hardness and ferocity; and partly destroyed class distinctions by drawing into the movement misfits and failures from all social classes. Although socialism was traditionally an internationalist creed, the radical wing of Nazism knew that a mass base existed for policies that were simultaneously anticapitalist and nationalist. However, after Hitler secured power, this radical strain was eliminated.

Totalitarianism And Expansionism

Working from these principles, Hitler carried his party from its inauspicious beginnings in a beer cellar in Munich to a dominant position in world politics 20 years later. The Nazi Party originated in 1919 and was led by Hitler from 1920. Through both successful electioneering and intimidation, the party came to power in Germany in 1933 and governed through totalitarian methods until 1945, when Hitler committed suicide and Germany was defeated and occupied by the Allies at the close of World War II.

The history of Nazism after 1934 can be divided into two periods of about equal length. Between 1934 and 1939 the party established full control of all phases of life in Germany. With many Germans weary of party conflicts, economic and political instability, and the disorderly freedom that characterized the last years of the Weimar Republic (1919–33), Hitler and his movement gained the support and even the enthusiasm of a majority of the German population. In particular, the public welcomed the strong, decisive, and apparently effective government provided by the Nazis. Germany’s endless ranks of unemployed rapidly dwindled as the jobless were put to work in extensive public-works projects and in rapidly multiplying armaments factories. Germans were swept up in this orderly, intensely purposeful mass movement bent on restoring their country to its dignity, pride, and grandeur, as well as to dominance on the European stage. Economic recovery from the effects of the Great Depression and the forceful assertion of German nationalism were key factors in Nazism’s appeal to the German population. Further, Hitler’s continuous string of diplomatic successes and foreign conquests from 1934 through the early years of World War II secured the unqualified support of most Germans, including many who had previously opposed him.

Despite its economic and political success, Nazism maintained its power by coercion and mass manipulation. The Nazi regime disseminated a continual outpouring of propaganda through all cultural and informational media. Its rallies—especially its elaborately staged Nürnberg rallies—its insignia, and its uniformed cadres were designed to impart an aura of omnipotence. The underside of its propaganda machine was its apparatus of terror, with its ubiquitous secret police and concentration camps. It fanned and focused German anti-Semitism to make the Jews a symbol of all that was hated and feared. By means of deceptive rhetoric, the party portrayed the Jews as the enemy of all classes of society.

Nazism’s principal instrument of control was the unification, under Heinrich Himmler and his chief lieutenant, Reinhard Heydrich, of the SS (the uniformed police force of the Nazi Party) and all other police and security organizations. Opposition to the regime was destroyed either by outright terror or, more frequently, by the all-pervading fear of possible repression. Opponents of the regime were branded enemies of the state and of the people, and an elaborate web of informers—often members of the family or intimate friends—imposed utmost caution on all expressions and activities. Justice was no longer recognized as objective but was completely subordinated to the alleged needs and interests of the Volk. In addition to the now-debased methods of the normal judicial process, special detention camps were erected. In these camps the SS exercised supreme authority and introduced a system of sadistic brutality unrivaled in modern times.

Between 1938 and 1945 Hitler’s regime attempted to expand and apply the Nazi system to territories outside the German Reich. This endeavour was confined, in 1938, to lands inhabited by German-speaking populations, but in 1939 Germany began to subjugate non-German-speaking nationalities as well. Germany’s invasion of Poland on September 1, which initiated World War II, was the logical outcome of Hitler’s plans. His first years were spent in preparing the Germans for the approaching struggle for world control and in forging the military and industrial superiority that Germany would require to fulfill its ambitions. With mounting diplomatic and military successes, his aims grew in quick progression. The first was to unite all people of German descent within their historical homeland on the basis of “self-determination.” His next step foresaw the creation, through the military conquest of Poland and other Slavic nations to the east, of a Grosswirtschaftsraum (“large economic unified space”) or a Lebensraum (“living space”), which thereby would allow Germany to acquire sufficient territory to become economically self-sufficient and militarily impregnable. There the German master race, or Herrenvolk, would rule over a hierarchy of subordinate peoples and organize and exploit them with ruthlessness and efficiency. With the initial successes of the military campaigns of 1939–41, his plan was expanded into a vision of a hemispheric order that would embrace all of Europe, western Asia, and Africa and eventually the entire world.

German troops and armoured vehicles parading through Vienna during the German occupation of Austria, 1938.

The extravagant hopes of Nazism came to an end with Germany’s defeat in 1945, after nearly six years of war. To a certain extent World War II had repeated the pattern of World War I: great initial German military successes, the forging of a large-scale coalition against Germany as the result of German ambitions and behaviour, and the eventual loss of the war because of German overreaching. Nazism as a mass movement effectively ended on April 30, 1945, when Hitler supposedly committed suicide to avoid falling into the hands of Soviet troops completing the occupation of Berlin. Out of the ruins of Nazism arose a Germany that was divided until 1990. Remnants of National Socialist ideology remained in Germany after Hitler’s suicide, and a small number of Nazi-oriented political parties and other groups were formed in West Germany from the late 1940s, though some were later banned.

IN THE 1990S GANGS OF NEO-NAZI YOUTHS IN EASTERN GERMANY STAGED ATTACKS AGAINST IMMIGRANTS, DESECRATED JEWISH CEMETERIES, AND ENGAGED IN VIOLENT CONFRONTATIONS WITH LEFTISTS AND POLICE.

Like Father, Like Son. Big Chief Tear in Eye Trudeau

2018-02-15T09:07:00.000-08:00

GATINEAU, Que. — Justin Trudeau says it’s time Canadians acknowledged that racism and unconscious bias against black people exist in this country.

And the prime minister says it’s time to take action to ensure equal opportunity and treatment of the more than one million black Canadians, including doing more to recruit and elect black members of Parliament.

Trudeau made the comments in a short speech at a reception marking Black History.

Month.

Wed., Feb. 14, 2018, Big Chief Tear in Eye Trudeau made the comments in a short speech at a reception marking Black History Month. Tear in Eye, Justin Trudeau apologises yet once again; then promises new focus on rights of Indigenous Peoples

“Going forward, recognition of rights will guide all government relations with Indigenous Peoples,” Prime Minister says in speech to House of Commons in wake of controversial acquittal of Saskatchewan farmer in the 2016 shooting death of Indigenous man Colten Boushie which was, obviously, a Criminal Courts/Justice System Matter which should not have been or be in in way affected by or in any way related to any of the following horse pocky and sheep dip. Unless that is the whole Canadian System is totalled, beyond repair and in need of total “RECYCLING”.

OTTAWA—Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is committing his government to implement a new legal framework to advance the rights of Indigenous peoples, billed as a critical step to tackling chronic problems.

In a speech to the House of Commons Tuesday, the prime minister laid out a new vision for the federal government’s relations with Canada’s Indigenous peoples.

“We need a government-wide shift in how we do things,” Trudeau said.

“We need to both recognize and implement Indigenous rights because the truth is . . . until we get this part right, we won’t have lasting success on the concrete outcomes that we know mean so much to people,” Trudeau said.

At the heart of his pledge is a vow to create a “recognition and implementation of (an) Indigenous rights framework” that will include new ways to recognize and implement such rights.

“Going forward, recognition of rights will guide all government relations with Indigenous peoples,” he said. The exact make-up of this framework has yet to be determined. It will be developed over the coming months through national consultations, led by Carolyn Bennett, the minister of crown-Indigenous relations and northern affairs, and Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould.

Trudeau painted the framework as a critical way to empower Indigenous communities and find lasting solutions to chronic problems such as overcrowding, unsafe water and youth suicides.

“All of these things demand real, positive action — action that must include the full recognition and implementation of Indigenous rights. We need to get to a place where Indigenous peoples in Canada are in control of their own destiny, making their own decisions about their future,” the prime minister said.

NDP MP Romeo Saganash cautioned Trudeau must “go from words to action” as he took aim at the government’s record to date on the file.

“The denial of Indigenous people’s rights continued under this government despite their promise for real change,” said Saganash, the party’s critic for reconciliation and himself a Cree from northern Quebec.

Section 35 of the Pierre Trudeau French Constitution for Canada sets out that “existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognised and affirmed.”

That section was not originally part of the Constitution but came only when the government of the day – led by his father Pierre Trudeau — was persuaded by the “outspoken advocacy” of Indigenous peoples.

In the years since none of those issues have been dealt by got with by any so-called

“Governments”, thereby

further dividing the country and forcing, Fascist style government/politically defined, Indigenous peoples including metis and Metis into costly, drawn-out court battles, or so Trudeau said.

“While there has been some success, progress has not been sustained, or carried out . . . And, so, over time, it too often fell to the courts to pick up the pieces and fill in the gaps,” Trudeau said.

As a result, he said that too many feel the country and its institutions “will never deliver on fairness, and/or justice all Canadians deserve.

Although the speech had been planned for some time, it comes in the wake of the controversial acquittal of a Saskatchewan farmer in the death of Colten Boushie, a 22-year-old Indigenous man fatally shot in 2016.

In the wake of that decision, questions have been raised about the fairness of the justice system.

The Liberal government is expected to propose Criminal Code changes next month to reform jury-selection rules, bail processes and other justice measures.

The Boushie family has been on Parliament Hill this week and Trudeau highlighted their presence in his remarks.

“Through all their grief and anger and frustration, their focus was not on themselves and the tragedy they have endured, but on how we must work together to make the system and our institutions better,” not True- dough sobbed

Not True-dough then told MPs that the justice system is an area where reforms are “urgently” needed.

“That is why we will bring forward broad-based, concrete reforms to the criminal justice system, including changes to how juries are selected,” again he wept. Al (Alex-Alexander) D Girvan

Very few of the ‘’Big Believers” Ever had an “AMERICAN DREAM.

2018-02-15T03:10:00.000-08:00

Very few of the ‘’Big Believers” Ever had an “AMERICAN DREAM.

Depending on exactly how far back you wish to go in world evolution; the first peoples to come to that part of the world now known as the "AMERICAS" came from some part of Asia or Mongolia. Of course, if you believe in the BIBLE, then the first had to come from AFRICA. Eventually, as most everyone knows, born were the religions of the world, including the relatively new, JUDAISM, ISLAM, and CHRISTIANITY. Islam and Christianity came into existence about the time the Roman Empire, the birthplace of modern day Capitalist Fascism reach full Power and Control in the then known world.

After that the first people know to have visited the area were the Chinese and then the Ancient Norsemen (it is from a first Norse and then eventually English settlement, located in what is now Newfoundland the name AMERICA or very similar was first heard.

The Norse peoples travelled to Iceland for a variety of reasons including a search for more land and resources to satisfy a growing population and to escape raiders and harsh rulers. One force behind the movement to Iceland in the ninth century was the ruthlessness of Harald Fairhair, a Norwegian King.

Nearly 75 percent

of the world's population practices one of the five most influential religions of the world: Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism.

Christianity and Islam are the two religions most widely spread across the world. These two religions together cover the religious affiliation of more than half of the world's population. If all non-religious people formed a single religion, it would be the world's third largest.

One of the most widely-held myths among those in English-speaking countries is that Islamic believers are Arabs. In fact, most Islamic people do not live in the Arabic nations of the Middle East.

The world's 20 largest religions and their number of believers are:

1. Christianity (2.1 billion)

2. Islam (1.3 billion)

3. Nonreligious (Secular/Agnostic/Atheist) (1.1 billion)

4. Hinduism (900 million)

5. Chinese traditional religion (394 million)

6. Buddhism 376 million

7. Aboriginal/Primal/indigenous (300 million)

8. African traditional and Diasporic (100 million)

9. Sikhism (23 million)

10. Juche (19 million)

11. SPIRITISM (15 million)

12. JUDAISM (14 million)

13. Bahai (7 million)

14. Jainism (4.2 million)

15. Shinto (4 million)

16. Cao Dai (4 million)

17. Zoroastrianism (2.6 million)

18. Tenrikyo (2 million)

19. Neo-Paganism (1 million)

20. Unitarian-Universalism (800,000)

THERE ARE SOME 4,300 RELIGIONS OF THE WORLD COMPARED WITH 6,800 LIVING LANGUAGES SPOKEN SOMEWHERE IN THE WORLD. Al (Alex-Alexander)D Girvan.

That Administrative Mamagement of the Country, by the People, for the People and the Welfare of Their Country, Shall not Perish From the Earth."

2018-01-20T10:11:00.000-08:00

On November 19, 1863, on the battlefield near Gettysburg, Pennsylvania then U.S. president Abraham Lincoln delivered the 272-word Gettysburg Address. "Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, on this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure….. this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

Ever since that date, in OUR “Modern World” scheme of things, as opposed to Old World Medieval Feudal Imperialism, we are now given a “Choice” of just how much to what degree- dictatorship or Total Dictatorial Fascism We wish to “ELECT” as the Capitalist Elite Appointed “Government-of the people for the Capitalist Fascist Regimes, by the Capitalist Fascist Regimes.

Capitalist Fascism is an economic system that promotes strong PATRIOTISM, a POWERHOUSE head of state government and wherein government endorsed private entities claim to own the Country and factors of production. The factors are CAPITAL GOODS, natural resources, and Wage Slave Labour. The Self-Proclaimed owners of CAPITAL GOODS, natural resources, and Wage Slave Labour then exercise Totalitarian control through International Monopolised Corporate Companies

Characteristics of Capitalism

Fascist Capitalistic claimed ownership means two things to the “private entities” and Aristocratic/Celebrity/Playboy Elite. First, they control the factors of production. Second, they derive their income from their claimed ownership. That gives them the ability to operate their companies effectively. It also gives them the incentive to maximize exploitation of “Working Class-Surf/Pawn citizens of the county or countries. In corporations, the shareholders SUPPOSEDLY are the owners. But, since there so many, each one has little or no say/control. So, the Capitalist Fascist elite appoints a highly overcompensated CEO and a board of directors that manages the company through too many Chief Executives.

Capitalism requires a MONOPOLISED “free” market economy to succeed. Which is why it just does not at least not for long.

The market sets the prices of the components of supply. It also distributes them according to the laws of supply and demand. The owners of supply look for the highest profit. They sell their goods at the highest possible price while keeping their costs as low as possible. Consequently 0.1% of the Western World population, the Capitalist Fascist Elite; hold the rest as WAGE SLAVES selling their lives an hour at a time. Al (Alex-Alexander) D Girvan.

What is Leninism and how Does it Differ From Marxism?

2018-01-19T18:48:00.000-08:00

Originally and for a long time, the concept of a socialist society was regarded as equal to that of a communist society.

It was Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, better known by the alias Lenin who defined the difference between "socialism" and "communism", explaining that they are similar to what Marx described with the lower and upper stages of communist society as defined by Marx and the Communist Manifesto.

Leninism is actually a form of Fascism as formulated by Vladimir Lenin. It advocates for the use of a “vanguard Political Party” supposedly to establish a “workers’ state” which will (in theory) establish the conditions for socialism, at which point the state will (Marist theory) dissolve itself to create a perfect communist society. However, Leninism is heavily influenced by Blanquism a non-Marxism form of Fascism which Marx very strongly opposed. [Blanquism: In Right Wing-Fascist discourse, Blanquism refers to a conception of revolution generally attributed to Louis Auguste Blanqui which holds that revolution should be carried out by a relatively small group of highly organised and secretive conspirators. Having seized power, the revolutionaries would then use the power of the state to introduce the Fascist State, Blanqui did not believe in the predominant role of the working class.

Classical Marxism, on the other hand, advocates for the direct action of the workers (SELF-ORGANIZED, NOT WITH A VANGUARD PARTY). Marx would not have supported the Soviet Union and Red China; North Korea or Cuba; rather, Marx used the Paris Commune as his example of a prototype Socialist/Communist society.

Pros and Cons of Marxism

Here Are the Pros of Marxism

1. It creates a system of true equality.

Although the system of government is what would be considered communism, there is an emphasis placed on human rights. Marxism has equal gender roles, education access, and health care as part of its foundation.

2. It protects the rights of unions.

Instead of being exploited by their managers, Marxism encourages the formation of unions to stand up for personal rights. This creates a system of checks and balances so that a maximum level of production can be achieved.

3. There are opportunities for entrepreneurs.

If you are in the business world under Marxism, you would -there was no Government party. You were given equal opportunity to be an entrepreneur, a freelancer, or be able to open your own dinner.

4, Debt is a rarity.

5. Under Marxism, communities are working together in order to achieve their success. Farmer's farm. Doctors heal. Manufacturers created needed goods. Everyone comes together to provide for each other with the government distributing resources as needed. It abolishes religion.

Here Are the Cons of Marxism

1. You are free to have your own faith in Marxism, but you are not free to practice it in an organized way. Religion ultimately places one group of people in a superior role over others and this goes against the ideas of equality that Marx had.

The Political Spectrum: Understanding the Grossly Misunderstood, Especially by Citizens or Followers of the United States of North Central, Central, North America.

2018-01-14T11:10:00.000-08:00

"Withering away of the state" is THE Prime concept of Marxism, POSSIBLY coined by Friedrich Engels, and referring to the idea that, with realisation of the ideals of Communism/Socialism, the social institution of a state will eventually become obsolete and disappear, as the society will be able to govern itself without the state and its coercive enforcement of the law.

Although Engels is credited as co-writer, the final draft of the **Communist/Socialist Manifesto** was penned exclusively by Marx. In all, the **Socialist/Communist Manifesto** was written over 6–7 weeks.

Unfortunately, it is true; if the so-called Anarchist allows themselves to become complacent the circle CAN become complete taking us right back to Feudalism/Fascism, and Capitalist/Corporate Totalitarianism.

NOTE: Not only was Lenin not a disciple of Marx/Communism/Socialism; he was the extreme opposite. Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, better known by the alias Lenin, was an extreme Russian Fascist Totalitarian; revolutionary, politician and political theorist. He served as Head of Government/Political State of Soviet Russia from 1917 to 1924 and would be dictator of the Soviet Union from 1922 to 1924.

Two of the things I find most frustrating are misinformation combined with misunderstanding. Today, I am turning my attention once more to politics and to what is probably the most misunderstood area regarding politics–The Political Spectrum.

Meaningful political discourse, if indeed there exists or can exist any such thing; begins with a correct understanding of one’s own political positions as well as that of your audience on any variety of topics or issues. The coin of the political realm is language. Therefore, if we are not beginning the discussion with an accurate view of the landscape, including the correct vocabulary of concepts and ideology and where those ideologies line up on the political spectrum, then the exchange will not be genuinely meaningful. Before we examine people’s misnomered misconceptions of politics, it is critical to understand the general difference between “Left” or “Left Wing” and “Right” or “Right Wing.” The terms “Left” and “Right” actually originate in the 18th century French Legislature where those loyal to the King and to religion sat on the right while those opposed to the King and were in favour of revolution sat on the left.

“Left Wing” and “Right Wing” today denotes a spacial placement along the political spectrum. The “Left”, if correctly displayed, will be on the left-hand side of the spectrum, while the “Right” should be represented on the right side of the spectrum. The spectrum runs from left to right based on the ideology’s and or party’s concept of the scope of government which serves as the foundation.

Generally speaking, common but grossly incorrect thinking is that the left believes that the government is the solution to our problems and the larger and more intrusive the government, the better. It is often, again very incorrectly that representative of this side of the spectrum are large dictatorial totalitarian governments, Monarchism, Communism and Communism’s Marxist stepbrother, Socialism in all its varied forms including Lenin’s Bolsheviks, originally also Bolshevists or Bolshevik Île and or Mousseline style Fascism and their more racially motivated arm–Nazism.

Supposedly, or according to common American thinking; “The Right”, typically are thought to believe that, in the words of Ronaldus Magnus, “The Government is not the solution to our problems, the Government is the problem.” This, of course, is fundamental Marxist/Communist/ Socialist belief and ideology.

Now, let’s take a look at our example (top of the page) of educated truth. For starters, and what should be patently obvious to someone who has a modicum of political savvy, is that they have the “A” symbol which represents Anarchy or no government at all, as the farthest left position possible on the spectrum! In other words, this is teaching that Marxism/Communism/Socialism, THE LEFT taken to the nth degree will result in no government at all. Which is absolutely//irrefutably undeniably completely correct.

Take note: Monarchism, Nazism and Fascism are all placed to the right of Conservatism which is also completely correct. Con-serve it to yah-it is as verified so far in the Twit-Hitler Trump-ette regime is utter complete fanatical, irrational, psychopathic/sociopathic. TOTALITARIAN DICTATORSHIP. Al (Alex-Alexander)D. Girvan.

Capitalism, Communism/Socialism and Fascism

2018-01-09T20:16:00.000-08:00

If or when asked, most people would likely declare that they know fairly well what the terms in the title mean; and how they came into being. Often in the heat of election-year political debates, these terms are often used without much thought about their meaning or origin. It might be claimed that some-many- people see all the evils in one of these three political concepts, and every time when they disagree with some political view, they label it as capitalistic, socialistic or communist - depending on their bias.

The Factual Historic View

Fascism and Capitalism are government/political systems that gradually has grown up in Europe during Feudal/Medieval times. However, it was about the middle of the 19th century when many people realised that, despite all of the technological progress, they could not accept the injustices of the social order still associated with it.

Hence the term “capitalism” was adapted as a natural for naming a system where capital and the Entitled Few were enriched by it, while the general populous-The People-the Surfs were considered a fully exploitable commodity/resource- capitalists - flourished.

Then Marx and Friedrich Engels published the “The Communist Manifesto,” in 1848, which is considered the pivotal moment in people starting to use the terms “capitalism,” “socialism” and “communism” as descriptions of diverse political concepts. One should note that from the start, capitalism, as the existing political system, had a bad reputation, and socialism and communism as ideas of a better future were perceived as noble.

Later on, Capitalism found its ideological defenders. On the economic side it would be the Austrian School of economic thought; on the philosophical end it would be the writings of Ayn Rand; and the followers of each. Correspondingly, in the 20th century, Dictatorial Capitalistic Fascist concepts-very often disguised as the “noble” Communism/Socialism were implemented in many countries, always, of course with disappointing results. However, the original attitude that Capitalism is bad and Socialism is good still lingered around.

All shortcomings of the “Capitalistic” system are often interpreted as the evidence of its inalienable and deplorable faults, but all shortcomings and dictatorial aspects of the conjoined Fascist system are interpreted as imperfections in implementations.

Communism/Socialism

Most people have only a vague understanding of communism and socialism and, incorrectly, these two terms are often used to convey separate ideologies.

Marx and Engels in their critique of capitalism pointed out that ruthless competition and the heartless pursuit of money are immoral as they create exploitation of the masses-the taxpaying citizens the general populous, the Feudal/Medieval SURFS by the very few privileged “Elite” ones.

As an alternative, they envisioned a classless society, without hierarchy, possibly without currency, without government ownership, management or administration of resources; where people would work in harmony, resolve their problems in friendly discussions, produce enough goods and services, and where each would contribute according to his abilities and receive according to his needs. This Community-Populous-Socially -Family centred form of order they called/Labelled Communist/Socialism

In the classic view of communism, a communist society was the ultimate goal and destination for humankind. Followers of classic communism realised that it would be impossible to switch to communism directly from a Capitalistic Feudal Fascist system they deemed immoral. They believed that society needed time for transition. During that transition, the representatives of people should be in charge of the means of production and guide society.

Surprising to many but none the less true; Fascism was the very essence of existence of the Leninism, Stalinism, of The Union of Soviet Socialist Republic and of many other Dictator regimes incorrectly labelled as Communist/Socialist. Sure, they had their, so-called, Communist Party- of the Soviet Union, but the longer they were in power, the less they talked about the transition to Communist/Socialism. In China, their “communist political party” ended up leading the transition to Fascist Capitalism.

Communism/Socialism as a political system never was implemented anywhere. Cuba was flirting with it within the first few years after the revolution. China tried to move in that direction during the Cultural Revolution. North Korea might make some claims, too. But, in reality, all of these countries always have been socialistic Fascist Dictatorships. Communism/Socialism as a political reality existed mostly in the minds of educated Free Thinkers that preferred Marching to a Different Drum.

It has a tricky legal consequence, as the question 83 on the United States naturalization test is: During the “Cold War”, what was the main concern of the United States? The answer claimed as correct by the U.S. government bureaucrats is “Communism.”

With Communism/Socialism being a lofty idea, which one day might come to fruition but most likely never will - presently, Extreme Dictatorial; or Slightly More Moderate Corporate Fascism are the two only practical economic/political concepts competing for the hearts and minds of people in the U.S. or the REST of the universe. —Al (Alex-Alexander) D. Girvan

A Caps System Won't Lower Auto Insurance Rates in British Columbia. Less Corporate Government Political Corruption-Elite Entitlement Would.

2018-01-09T20:03:00.000-08:00

FACTS: The most expensive insurance rates out of all publicly run insurance providers in Canada.

BRITISH COLUMBIA supposedly runs a break-even profit system, although CEO Salary and “Perk” costs; paid to Municipal and Provincial Government???Leaders??? often outdo revenues. Alberta has introduced injury caps, yet Albertans pay 24% more for auto insurance than the national average.

Saskatchewan, Manitoba and British Columbia rely on TAXPAYER FUNDED AND OWNED CROWN CORPORATIONS, for provincially run coverage.

Due to very Corrupt; Capitalistic Corporate Government Provincial run coverage; generally, private insurance coverage has proven to be the most affordable option. This is also of course, at least on the surface thanks to competition in the market, driving prices lower. Although this is not always the case in all provinces, it has proven to be the most effective method as a whole.

Below is a breakdown of the least expensive, to most expensive insurance rates within Canada and some facts about the auto insurance climate within each province.

Who Would Have Ever Guessed; in Just-in-and out not True-dough’s government for French Canadian/Other than English Canada that Quebec-Ha Ha HoHoHo- would ever have the lowest rates for anything?

10. Quebec - $642 average annual premium

Least expensive insurance premiums in all of Canada

Combination of private and public insurance within the province allows for additional coverage on top of basic insurance packages

No fault system for accidents, limiting liability and reducing insurance costs as a whole

9. Prince Edward Island - $695 average annual premium

Considered one of the most efficient privatised car insurance systems in Canada

Rates Appear to be declining thanks to competition & a decrease in auto insurance claims each year.

8. New Brunswick - $728 average annual premium

New Brunswick auto insurance accounts for 2.8% of after-tax disposable income, which is one of the lowest percentages within the nation, after Alberta

7. Nova Scotia - $735 average annual premium

Much like Prince Edward Island, Insurance rates are staying affordable, and even decreasing on a yearly basis

Low number of accident claims per year in comparison to the rest Canada

6. Newfoundland & Labrador - $749 average annual premium

Insurance rates appear to be increasing in Newfoundland & Labrador, as they were considered one of the most affordable provinces in 2007, with rates averaging around $700 yearly.

This rise in average annual premiums is a result of an increase in available money in the province, plus an increase of accident claims and vehicle-related lawsuits over the past 5 years.

5. Alberta – $1,004 average annual premium

Alberta is considered to have the second most affordable insurance rates in the country when considering the fact that insurance expense ONLY accounts for 2.7% of disposable income.

When looking at costs in this point of view, Alberta’s auto insurance rates can be seen as the second most affordable in the country.

4. Manitoba – $1,027 average annual premium

The cost has fluctuated drastically over the past 5 years, with some year averages reaching as high as $1,468.

Manitoba’s auto insurance system is PRIVATISED, STILL TAXPAYER FUNDED and LEGALLY OWNED CROWN CORPORATION run by the provincial government, much like those of Saskatchewan and British Columbia.

Over the past few years, rates have been sitting around the $1,027 average, making the province the 4th most expensive in Canada.

3. Saskatchewan – $1,049 average annual premium

One of the more expensive provinces in the country

Rates tend to fluctuate each year as result of changes in the public insurance system

2. British Columbia – $1,112 average annual premium

The most expensive insurance rates out of all publicly run insurance providers in Canada.

BC supposedly runs a break-even profit system, although CEO Salary and “Perk” costs; paid to Municipal and Provincial Government???Leaders??? often outdo revenues.

1. Ontario – $1,281 average annual premium

The most expensive province to insure a car in Canada

High frequency of claims, lawsuits, and injuries

High level of fraud and organized crime affecting private insurance companies

Expense accounts for 4.5% of disposable income. Al (Alex-Alexander) D Girvan.

The Basics of Communism/Socialism=Marxism

2018-01-09T11:53:00.000-08:00

Marx, communism would give people a chance to develop into their very best. He concluded that communism/socialism was a natural progression from Strict Capitalism and would occur in two stages. First, the working class would gain control of society and push the ownership class out. Second, society would evolve into a classless one without government. According to Britannica.com, Marx and Friedrich Engels defined communists in their "Communist Manifesto" as, "The most advanced and resolute section of the working class which parties every country, that section which pushes forward all others."

Marxism, Socialism and Communism Throughout the World

Originally and for a long time, the concept of a socialist society was regarded as equal to that of a communist society. However, Lenin; who was an extreme Right-Wing Fascist; never Communist, never Socialist; defined A difference between "the two", explaining that they are Only similar to what Marx Defined and Described with the lower and upper stages of communist society.

However, in political circles and polite conversation, people still use the terms ''Marxism,'' ''socialism,'' and ''communism'' interchangeably, as if the three philosophies are the same. Each philosophy builds upon the other. Marxism is the theoretical framework which lays the foundation for the economic and political philosophies of socialism and communism.

The Basics of Communism/Socialism=Marxism

Karl Marx, writing with Friedrich Engels, developed a theory of social and economic principles and a sharp critique of the capitalist form of government in the mid-1800s.

Marx believed that workers, under the capitalist system of government, sold their labour and that this labour became a commodity. This commodity, or "labour power" translated into surplus value for the capitalist, but not for the worker.

Marx concluded that this created an inherent conflict between the working class (proletariat) and the ownership class (the bourgeoisie). Because capitalism has this "built-in" inequality, Marx argued that the working class would eventually take power over the ruling class, reconstructing society. This reconstruction would take place in stages. The next stage after capitalism, according to Marx, would be a socialist form of government.

The Economics of Communism/Socialism, defined by Marx

Socialism claims that no political party government or head of State owns the country or the resources therein so advocates public ownership of**Major** properties and natural resources rather than private ownership.

· Yes, the socialist system of property and resource management values cooperation over the Only Supposed Competitiveness of a Global Free Market Economy= look after you and yours first.

· Socialists believe that all people in the Commune-ity, Neighbour-hood, Social-iety All contribute to the building of infrastructure, and the production of goods and services; that those goods should be shared equally. Of course, this differs from the “American” Capitalist system in which individual efforts trump the collective and the free market determines the distribution of monetary gain into the coffers of the Capitalist/Corporate Elite.

· Examples of socialist policies include a living wage, free higher education and universal health care. Advocates of socialism believe that capitalism creates vast inequality and that it ultimately leads to imperialism, a hyper-form of capitalism.

Communism:/Socialism, The Last Stage

The Communist/Socialist doctrine calls not only for public ownership of property and natural resources but also for most-not all means of production of goods and services. Karl Marx argued that capitalism, with its strict adherence to free-market principles, divided people because of competition. He believed communism was the solution. According to Marx, communism would give people a chance to develop into their very best. He concluded that communism/socialism was a natural progression from Strict Capitalism and would occur in two stages. First, the working class would gain control of society and push the ownership class out. Second, society would evolve into a classless one without government. According to Britannica.com, Marx and Friedrich Engels defined communists in their "Communist Manifesto" as, "The most advanced and resolute section of the working class which parties every country, that section which pushes forward all others."

Marxism, Socialism and Communism Throughout the World.
By very definitions, none of the men pictured below was, are, ever could be Communist/Socialist. All are and shall forever remain Prime examples of extremist Fascism.

Many countries have adopted various forms of Lenin’s Fascist Party Style Government, lasting from 1922 to 1991. The People's Republic of China has a Fascist government, although, China has developed a more mixed market economy with private ownership and state ownership of entities such as media.

European countries like France, Italy and England have mixed economies with the free market and a precious few socialist policies such as universal healthcare and free collegiate education.

Even the Present Capital of Fascism, the United States of North America; with its Capitalist driven mixed?? economy has examples of Communist/Socialist policies such as public schools, libraries, healthcare support in the form of Medicaid and Medicare for low-income people and senior citizens, public roads, and transportation.

Marxism/True Socialism/Communism has never even been tried.--Al (Alex-Alexander) D. Girvan

These men Really Have Only one Thing in Common; They are all Extreme Fascists.

2017-12-17T23:04:00.000-08:00

Technically, in the Americanised world of today, there is no way whatever to be a Marxist Communist/Socialist Country. Marxism is NOT Leninism, and Leninism Is not Communism/Socialism.

So, First, Let's Look at What Marxism is, or Isn't.

· It is a criticism of Capitalism and free market economies.

· It is an argument for social and economic equality.

· It is a direct response to the treatment of the workers or proletariat, by the rich and powerful, or bourgeoisie.

· It is not a specific set of instructions on how to run a government.

There never has been and never will be a Marxist government, anywhere in this Universe; because Marxism is not Government. It is The People; doing for and of; themselves.There is no "Head of State" or political party. Therefore there can be NO DICTATOR.Therein lies the difference between Communism/Socialism Marx used the two words interchangeably and Lenin style Fascism. OBVIOUSLY, LENIN WAS NOT; COULD NEVER HAVE BEEN; COMMUNIST OR SOCIALIST.
Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, better known by the alias Lenin, was a Russian He was revolutionary, politician and political theorist. He served as head of government of Soviet Russia from 1917 to 1924 and of the Soviet Union from 1922 to 192He was not Communist/Socialist as defined by Marx (the man who first coined both words and philosophies) although it is very often claimed that he was.

This is evident in the number of different styles of Communist governments in the last century: Russia, China, Romania, Poland, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea. Each one has claimed Marxism, but each is really just a very slightly different form of Dictatorial Fascism.

If All Countries in the World Followed Marxist Communism/Socialism, What Would the World Look Like Today?

1. Firstly, there wouldn't be any "countries" anymore. A communist society would ideally be classless, moneyless, and stateless. So, all artificially drawn international borders would perhaps be erased and that would make it easier to travel from one place to another.

2. There would be a limit or some kind of cap on private property but it would never be abolished.

3. Crown Corporations could never be “Privatised (Stolen).

4. Inheritance might be abolished or amended in some way.

5. There would be large-scale attempts at redistribution of private wealth in order to bring down inequality. Land, etch. would be redistributed more equitably.

6. There would be no large privately-owned corporations anymore.

7. Industries would be run as cooperatives, which by their nature would tend to be small-scale in most cases.

8. Unorganized labour might be a thing of the past.

9. Working hours would probably be drastically reduced.

10. Food, healthcare, education, and other basic necessities would be available for free. (Ideally, everything should be free but that's improbable as long there is a scarcity of resources.).

11. There would be fewer "Intellectual Property" limitations anymore, i.e. no Corporate copyright and no patents.

12. Communism is quite antithetical to the idea of religion so the influence of religious institutions and organizations (like the church), at least when it comes to making policies, would be quite diminished. Blasphemy laws and religious restrictions on clothing etc. would be abolished. There would also be no religious content in the school curriculum.

13. Given the fact that there won't be any corporate or religious bodies directly influencing decisions anymore, environmental, human rights, and social justice groups will naturally have a greater say while debating policies. China, for example, has maintained Leninist Fascism as its central tenet but has modified it to include a moderate amount of Capitalism. Several countries with a purer version of Leninist Fascism have since abandoned it, and the ones that remain unchanged are true Fascist dictatorships ruled by a single personality, like Cuba and North Korea.

14. It's no stretch to say that Marxism in its purest has to be a success if there were ever to be a Marxist country. This is because of human nature. People want to trade, to make a living for themselves and their children, and for their efforts to allow them to gain better circumstances in life. Communism forces everyone to remain on an even playing field and takes away many of the incentives inherent in Capitalism.

How would the entire world become Marxist?

This is a complicated question. Most Fascist countries became so because of some very common factors. Political and economic pressures from other countries, the apathy of the central government to the struggles and concerns of its lower classes and a wide gap between the rich and poor all contribute. On the rare occasion, it has been instituted by invasion by another Fascist country, but usually supported by the lower classes at the time. Since Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels inspired the idea of Communism in the mid-19th century, many of the world's governments were already well established. Britain itself has had over 900 years of nearly consistent governing, while the U.S. and France had almost 75 years at that time. Several European countries were still essentially monarchies but modified enough to be content with their systems.

Asian countries were generally ruled by monarchy also, and the populace was generally content until European colonial interests began placing pressures on those governments, in some case forcing policies on them and enforcing them with military action, such as the opium wars Britain waged against China. Japan moved relatively peacefully from a feudal society to a more democratic one and averted a possible revolution. But Vietnam and Cambodia moved through a series of wars involving multiple interests and ended up with very oppressive forms of Leninist Fascism. Korea, engaging in its own war, came to a stalemate that leaves the country divided to this day.

To make the world Marxist, the majority of the world's population would have to be completely unhappy with their circumstances. We are seeing this to a small degree, with the economic downturn forcing countries like Greece and Spain to consider strict austerity measures, employment down in the U.S., Britain and Canada. Central and South American countries have long been oppressed economically and politically, giving rise to immigration and smuggling issues, along with perpetual unrest in some locations.

There never has been and never will be a Marxist government, anywhere in this Universe; because Marxism is not Government. It is The People Doing for and of Themselves.

Did You Know??

2017-12-11T14:30:00.000-08:00

That this man; Al Capone Accomplished Much More Because He Attempted to do More to Make “AMERICA”, Whatever, Wherever that is; GREAT than anyone/anything else thing in World History. Nationwide Prohibition did not begin in the United States until January 1920, when the Eighteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution went into effect. The 18th amendment was ratified in 1919 and was repealed in December 1933, with the ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment.

Despite all the MYTH and SLANDER; the ONLY thing he was ever convicted of was tax evasion. Arguably, Alcohol is the VERY BASIS OF ABOUT THREE-QUARTERS OF THE US ECONOMY. Prohibition ended with the ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment, which repealed the Eighteenth Amendment on December 5, 1933.

“It is not always the same thing to be a good man and a good citizen.”

― Aristotle, Selected Writings from The Nicomachean Ethics and Politics.

Purported, Tomas Jefferson Quote= "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine of government, let it go, let it go: perchance it will wear smooth--certainly, the machine will wear out… but if it is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then I say, break the law. Let your life be a counter-friction to stop the machine. What I have to do is to see, at any rate, that I do not lend myself to the wrong which I condemn.”

― Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience and Other Essays

This quotation has not been found in Thomas Jefferson's papers. It has been suggested that it is a paraphrase of Jefferson's statement in the Declaration of Independence, "...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...," “An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is, in reality, expressing the highest respect for the law”

― Martin Luther King Jr.

Q. Why MUST Large Magazine Capacity, Rifles and Long Guns, Semi and Fully Automatic Hand Guns, Bumper Stocks and Grips be Fully Restricted (BANNED)

2017-12-11T03:32:00.000-08:00

to Other Than PROFESSIONAL, CERTIFIED CONSTANTLY, until it Drives Everyone ALMOST CRAZY First Responders-Police and Security.

Knowing the Statists Shown Below; as a Professional First Responder/Security Officer; what would you do if shots are known to have been fired; YOU SEE ANY OF THE SCENARIOS PICTURED BELOW THE STATS??

1. Mon., Nov. 6, 2 017-Police officer shot to death in Abbotsford, British Columbia.

2. Chief Bob Rich of the Abbotsford Police Department said the officer who died was a hero who was protecting the community.

3. Between 1961 and 2009, 133 police officers were murdered in the line of duty–including eight doubles, one triple, and one quadruple-slaying. Most of these deaths (65%) occurred in the first half of this time period, between 1961 and 1984.

OF COURSE, BEFORE THIS GUY FIRES VERY N=MANY ROUNDS, HE WILL HAVE A FRACTURED WRIST; THAT IS A MUCH DIFFERENT MATTER.

4. Homicides against police officers have occurred in every province and territory with the exception of Prince Edward Island and Yukon.

WE HAVE THE ANSWER

THE COMMUNICATIONS, ENERGY AND PAPER WORKER’S UNION ESTIMATES THAT 18,000 CANADIAN JOBS ARE LOST FOR EVERY 400,000 BARRELS OF BITUMEN THAT ARE EXPORTED.

2017-11-25T11:03:00.000-08:00

Whether or not you ride the bus is not the point; Canada's and the rest of the World's dependency is going to last for at the very minimum another fifty years, half a century. However it seems to ME AND MOST ANYONE ELSE THAT ACTUALLY GIVES PAUSE TO THINK; that the PRO-oil and gas, PRO-pipeline movement IS ROOTED IN A LACK OF LITERACY ABOUT OUR REFINED PETROLEUM SOURCES and how they affect our daily lives.
With the Canadian dollar still hovering around $ 0.75 and $ 0.80 US; ANY; Kinder Morgan,any, Trans Mountain, West to East, North to South, any pipe line running directly; or indirectly, as the case may be, into the USA; any MARKETING to the USA automatically means; never mind additional profit gouging by the Capitalist Elite in that country, MEANS A LOSS OF $0.50 on the dollar-we give away in Canadian dollars; then because we only refine 25% of what we use in this country; we buy back the finished, REFINED product in US dollars.
PIPELINE EXPANSION THAT WILL SHIP MORE ALBERTA OIL SANDS CRUDE TO U.S. GULF COAST REFINERIES.
ENBRIDGE'S NORTHERN GATEWAY PIPELINE WOULD MOVE ALBERTA OIL TO COASTAL B.C.--- FOR SHIPMENT TO ASIA.
THE COMMUNICATIONS, ENERGY AND PAPER WORKER’S UNION ESTIMATES THAT 18,000 CANADIAN JOBS ARE LOST FOR EVERY 400,000 BARRELS OF BITUMEN THAT ARE EXPORTED.
Go Figure???

From the Canadian Pound to the Canadian Dollar; and the Canadian Citizen; Kissing the United States of North Americas Ass.Tell me why, we Can't Raise Minimum Wage--Again

2017-11-24T12:11:00.000-08:00

With the Canadian dollar; due to International Capitalist and Also Local Canadian Government Policy Already Approaching Record LOW Value; Raising the MINIMUM WAGE JUST CREATES, EVEN MORE, INFLATION, IS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE, IS WHY.

The early 1600s: Beaver pelts are the one universally accepted medium of exchange, though wheat and ELK (not wapiti) skins are also legal tenders.

The mid-1600s: Wampum, or strings and belts made from shell beads, becomes legal tender in colonial New England. Eight white beads or four purple beads buy one penny.

June 8, 1685: The first issue of “card money” (printed on playing cards) occurs. The practice is criticised because it's easy to counterfeit.

1722: Copper coins introduced though merchants didn't like them; they continued to let people buy goods based on their own CREDIT standing-- Lead To High Inflation.

Eighteenth century: The lack of a standard Canadian currency and the differences in ratings given to the many coins in circulation in the colonies, "undoubtedly hindered trade and was a major source of economic inefficiency"—and contributed greatly to inflation and unaffordability for the AVERAGE working Canadian.

1817: The Montreal Bank (subsequently the Bank of Montreal) issued the first banknotes in Canada after its establishment in 1817. Other banks soon followed suit. The notes were well received and became the main means of payment in BRITISH North America.

1854 - 1914: The Dominion of Canada, Under The Gold Standard. The value of the Canadian dollar fixed in terms of gold and valued at par with the United States of North America’s currency; both United States of North America and British gold coins legal tender in Canada.

July 11, 1864: The “greenback” (United States of North America’s Dollar) sinks to less than 36 cents (Canadian), An All-Time Peak For The Canadian Dollar, from close to parity in early 1862. The United States of The America’s subsequently (artificially) recovers through the decade and the currencies trade around par Until the Outbreak of the First World War.

Mid-1950: Canadian dollar depreciates. The Federal Government Cancels Fixed Parity, Putting the Canadian Dollar At Odds With The International Monetary Fund, But The Canadian Currency Appreciates—TUSK-TUSK.

May 2, 1962: The Government???establishes a new par for the Canadian dollar, fixing it at 92.50 cents (United States of North America’s dollar.) with a fluctuation band of 1 percent.

May 31, 1970: The government “FLOATS” the Canadian dollar amid a growing budget surplus and Rising Inflation.

April 25, 1974: The dollar hits a high of $1.04 against the United States of North America’s “greenback” as Global Demand Boosts The Price Of Raw Materials. The strength sparked fear??? about Canada's export industries at a time when the unemployment Rate Was Already High.

Nov. 15, 1976: The Parti Québécois Is Elected, causing markets to "make a major reassessment of the Canadian dollar's prospects." At the same time, commodity prices start to soften, inflation picks up. By 1979, the currency slides to 84 cents (U.S.).

August 1981: The Bank of Canada's key rate hits 21.2 percent. By 1982, the dollar traded below 77 cents (United States of North America’s dollars)

Feb. 4, 1986: The Canadian dollar hits a record low of 69.13 cents (The United States of the America’s dollars) as “falling commodity prices hurt the economy”.

1988-1989: The currency rebounds somewhat to close the decade at 86 cents (United States of North America’s dollar).

the 1990s: The currency weakens again, closing the decade at 69.29 cents (United States of North America’s.). Inflation and Interest Rates Fall And Commodity Prices Soften.

1998: The international crisis in Emerging Markets Such As RUSSIA and Latin America “Causes” ???-so much for the VALUE of FREE TRADE--the dollar to slide as low as 63.11 cents (United States of North Americas).

2002: The currency hits a record low of 61.98 cents (U.S.) on Jan. 18, 2002.

British Columbia’s, Vancouver's Future: A Seaside Shangri-La Resort; for the Filthy Rich?

2017-11-24T08:36:00.000-08:00

British Columbia’s, Vancouver's Future: A Seaside Shangri-La Resort; for the Filthy Rich?

A lot has been said about the high price of housing in Vancouver, but what about our “lifestyle” bubble?

It’s a term used in a recent update to Port Metro Vancouver’s long-range plan, which attempts to set out a vision for the Lower Mainland through the year 2050.

One of the more extreme; also one of the most probable; scenarios is a region without any significant industry other than those that service tourists and wealthy residents.

Vancouver is having an existential moment, as big businesses wonder where they fit into a city becoming a ‘lifestyle bubble’ for tourists and the 1% FILTHY rich.

ECONOMY-What’s the point of Vancouver?

Supposedly, at least some Canadian, Vancouver residents are proud of their “most liveable city” accolades, but at least one of the region’s most important employers warns of an emerging “lifestyle bubble” that threatens to squeeze out not only big business; but working Canadians as well.

A recent update to the Port Metro Vancouver’s long-range planning document, which attempts to set out a vision for the region through 2050 lists TWO contemplated scenarios:

1. A future in which Vancouver’s only significant industries are those that service tourists and the wealthy people who move to the rain-slicked B.C. city to retire, relax and enjoy the pristine ocean and mountain views from their Pricey Condos. Needless to say, there isn’t much room in this Privatised Seaside Shangri-La Resort for a busy commercial port and its towering cranes, piles of rusty containers, fleets of exhaust-spewing trucks, Or Hard Working Canadians. Robin Silvester, the port authority’s CEO, can already feel the window walls closing in. While booming trade with China resulted in the port handling nearly 140 million tons of cargo last year, up three percent from 2013, the 16 municipalities surrounding the port’s 27 bustling regional terminals are increasingly wary of living next door to heavy industry. The drawn-out fight over Kinder Morgan’s pipeline expansion project in neighbouring Burnaby, which would pump Alberta crude to tankers at the port, is just one high profile example of the emerging schism. The local handwringing that followed the spill of 2,700 litres of bunker fuel from a grain-carrying ship in English Bay last April is another. For the port authority, a key issue is the dwindling supply of industrial space near marine terminals. Municipalities in the Lower Mainland have responded to soaring demand for real-estate by re-zoning commercial land for condos and retail. The trend will soon begin to choke off the port’s operations if big companies like, say, Canadian Tire can no longer find adjacent land to build or expand their distribution centres. “We’re at a risk of hitting an economic brick wall. it’s not just a local issue since One Out Of Every Five Dollars Of Trade With Canada Moves Through Vancouver. There’s less than a 10-year supply of industrial land left in the Lower Mainland. It is hardly the first time someone has suggested Vancouver is at risk of becoming a “resort city.” Nevertheless, it’s jarring to hear the words come from the lips of an organization that, by its own count, supports nearly 100,000 Canadian jobs and contributes nearly $10 billion a year to Canada’s economy. It also raises the question of whether Vancouver could function with a primarily service-oriented economy—a city of millionaire homeowners (and would-be ones) and their support staff. Admittedly, it’s an extreme scenario. But, it’s hardly far-fetched. The port authority’s study, written by consulting firm Deloitte in consultation with dozens of stakeholders, sketched out a vision that, with few exceptions, sounds remarkably like 2015, never mind 2050. It foresees: more foreign investment further driving up local housing prices; a flight of middle class families to cheaper suburbs; growing local environmental opposition to big energy projects like pipelines, prompting their owners to relocate them to other ports in northern B.C. or south of the border; and a gradual transformation of Burrard Inlet’s industrial waterfront into a playground for foreign INVESTMENT??? condo OWNERS. David Ley, a professor of geography at the University of British Columbia, says rising property prices could indeed one day prompt the city to convert low-density waterfront lands in East Vancouver over to residential use (although not the lands directly MANAGED by the port authority, which are OWNED??? by the federal government). It’s happened already in other neighbourhoods. “Much industrial land has been lost in central Vancouver since 1970 when all of False Creek was still industrial,” Ley says of the finger of water that stretches inland from English Bay and is now ringed by condos. He adds that a key issue for the city going forward will be the tenacity with which it preserves industrial real-estate—hardly the sort of issue that’s likely to light a fire under local politicians or the voters they represent.

2. Beyond the port, other Vancouver Businesses Are Expressing Concern About The Impact Of Soaring Property Values—And The Mainland Chinese Money Believed To Be Driving It—On The Health Of The Local Economy. Earlier this year, VanCity credit union released a study that warned rising housing costs could push young professionals out of the city within 10 years, potentially sparking a labour crisis. Meanwhile, a poll by Angus Reid found that as many as 150,000 families in the region were considering moving away from Vancouver, sparking questions about who will fill all those service-oriented jobs. Even Vancouver’s burgeoning tech sector, anchored by fast-growing firms like Hootsuite, has complained about the challenge of luring management talent. “The big question for the future of Canada is [HOW] to make the lifestyle amenities here a magnet for footloose businesses,” Ley says. “But for that to happen there also has to be more affordable housing or new transportation links to the cheaper land.”

Canada’s predicament is somewhat unique in that-- I would have to presume--we are located directly ABOVE the self-proclaimed “One and Only Super Power of the World; many Canadians forget that we are not a part of that group of states, and Canada is not a WAREHOUSE. Some, rather foolish residents take comfort in knowing other cities around the world face similar challenges.

In London, where sky-high home prices are also the norm, commercial property owners warn that efforts to transform vast swaths of office space into residential homes could have a serious economic impact down the road. In Westminster, a neighbourhood in central London, it’s estimated that 4.4 million square feet of commercial space has been lost over the years, according to the Financial Times. “We need to look carefully at the balance of homes and workplaces and the full range of housing needs,” the newspaper quoted the Westminster Property Association as saying. “To completely replace offices with housing would be to replace one problem with another.”

Back in B.C., the Vancouver port authority hopes the city won’t ever face such a stark choice. Hence, the federal agency and its stakeholders have embraced a future vision where shipping and trade become much greener and is therefore allowed to thrive alongside Vancouver’s increasingly wealthy and environmentally-minded residents.

The port’s steps in this direction by being among the first to employ a dedicated environmental staff and a recent decision to deploy hydrophones in the Georgia Strait to monitor underwater shipping noise, which is believed to have an adverse impact on whales. “We’ve got this triangle of land between the mountains, the [United States of the Americas/ Canada] border and the sea,” Silvester says, noting that the Lower Mainland’s population is expected to grow from 2.5 million now to 3.5 million within the next three decades. “All these different things need to be accommodated for it to continue to be a vibrant and sustainable region. If we don’t get that balance right, we’re going to have a problem.

I say, we already have a--HUGE problem. ~~Al (Alex- Alexander) D Girvan.

Canadian, I am

THE TRANSMOUNTAIN PIPELINE, ENGLISH FRENCH TRANSLATION.

Wake up Alberta, British Columbia; Face Reality, why do you Think the Cruise Ships are Coming to Vancouver?

THE ULTIMATE EVOLUTION OF CAPITALISM INTO COMMUNIST SOCIALISM

United States Exceptionalism, White supremacy or White Supremacism (Superman Comics) is a racist ideology based upon the belief that white people are superior in many ways to people of other races and that therefore white people should be dominant over other races.

By the People, Of the People, For the People= Taxpaying Canadian Families; not Blood Sucking Capitalist Fascist CORPORATIONS

The Effects of the “True” American Dream; Which is, of Course, Total Global Dictatorship, Global Fascism=American Exceptionalism/White Supremacy

Definitions and Examples-Democracy, Republic, Marx Socialist/Communism

Comparison Chart

AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM

IT’S MY RIGHT to Bear Arms, and we must PROTECT MY RIGHTS, TO HELL WITH YOURS

Indigenous; What is the *English Language* Definition of the Word?

Nazi Fascism and the Modern Totalitarian State

Like Father, Like Son. Big Chief Tear in Eye Trudeau

Very few of the ‘’Big Believers” Ever had an “AMERICAN DREAM.

That Administrative Mamagement of the Country, by the People, for the People and the Welfare of Their Country, Shall not Perish From the Earth."

What is Leninism and how Does it Differ From Marxism?

The Political Spectrum: Understanding the Grossly Misunderstood, Especially by Citizens or Followers of the United States of North Central, Central, North America.

Capitalism, Communism/Socialism and Fascism

A Caps System Won't Lower Auto Insurance Rates in British Columbia. Less Corporate Government Political Corruption-Elite Entitlement Would.

The Basics of Communism/Socialism=Marxism

These men Really Have Only one Thing in Common; They are all Extreme Fascists.

Did You Know??

Q. Why MUST Large Magazine Capacity, Rifles and Long Guns, Semi and Fully Automatic Hand Guns, Bumper Stocks and Grips be Fully Restricted (BANNED)

THE COMMUNICATIONS, ENERGY AND PAPER WORKER’S UNION ESTIMATES THAT 18,000 CANADIAN JOBS ARE LOST FOR EVERY 400,000 BARRELS OF BITUMEN THAT ARE EXPORTED.

From the Canadian Pound to the Canadian Dollar; and the Canadian Citizen; Kissing the United States of North Americas Ass.Tell me why, we Can't Raise Minimum Wage--Again

British Columbia’s, Vancouver's Future: A Seaside Shangri-La Resort; for the Filthy Rich?

Indigenous; What is the English Language Definition of the Word?