By Matthew Ehret for the Saker Blog
The mythology of Canada’s National Policy is a multi-layered fallacy of composition which must be addressed from the standpoint of locating Canada’s struggle for nationhood as locked in the midst of a battle between two conceptions of man and law expressed in the British vs. American systems of political economy. Before entering into any proper analysis of this problem, it must be stated at the outset that the primary fallacy of the Canadian National Policy of 1878-1885 is simply that the policy neither had a national origin, nor was Canada ever permitted by the British Empire to become a truly sovereign nation.
The following paper will demonstrate how the Canadian National Policy is a concoction fabricated by the members of the Imperial Privy Council of the British Monarchy, and this policy merely held back the cultural and political substance of true nationalism in favor of the mere form.
Understanding the National Policy and the true agenda behind Canada’s origins are necessary to understand why it has been the curse of Canada to be endowed with the most bountiful resources and landmass on the one side and the most underdeveloped population with only thirty three million inhabitants, strung across a 8900 kilometer border on the other, while its cousin to the south has a population of over 320 million. The average density per square mile is a mere 3.75 people per sq. km for Canada compared with 34 people per sq. km for the United States. This low density of the Canadian population is in keeping with the deliberate policy of the financial oligarchy to reduce the population of the globe from the current 7.6 billion to 1 billion people.
Today, as the world is threatened by the two-pronged threat of a collapse of world population by the destruction of food and water availability on the one side and thermonuclear war on the other, it is of dire necessity that such large scale development projects as the Bering Strait tunnel rail corridor be commenced post haste in the context of the new multipolar system being led by Russia and China.
The Bering Strait tunnel involves a U.S.-Canada-Russia-China alliance for Arctic development that would extend China’s Polar Silk Road into the Americas and touches on a policy fight which stretches back over 150 years and which I’ve written on extensively here and here and here. For this project to move forward however, it is imperative that Canada let go of its British imperial traditions.
These traditions which must be abandoned have historically defined Canada’s interests around either its “right to be left alone”, or “right to export raw materials as a hewer of wood and drawer of water” and instead apply the superior form of sovereignty defined in the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia as “the Benefit of the other”.
Before this can be done, certain ghosts which now haunt the Canadian identity must be identified and then, promptly exorcised. These ghosts shape the cultural/political reflexes which prevent Canada from joining with its neighbours to the south and north in a common mission centering around large scale scientific and technological endeavours. This exorcism must begin with the true story of Canada’s origins and “National Policy” of 1878.
What is the Canadian National Policy?
Over the years, the Canadian “National Policy” has taken on various forms. At its origins, it received its name from the general policy applied by the Conservative Party platform beginning in 1878 under the administration of Sir John A. Macdonald. The policy again arose under significantly diluted forms with successive Conservative governments beginning with the 1911-1919 administration of Sir Robert Borden, followed by the 1930-1935 R.B. Bennett government. The policy ended once and for all after the fall of the 1957-1963 Diefenbaker government.
The National Policy was the protectionist counter-program to the typically free trade policy represented by Canada’s other major party, the Liberals.
From the time of Wilfrid Laurier, to the rise of the “Laurier Liberals” (led by C.D. Howe, O.D. Skelton, Ernest Lapointe, the confused Prime Minister King and St. Laurent), the liberals tended to move towards an economic union of the Americas.
This was a policy denounced by the likes of the Round Table leader Lord Milner and his Fabian ally Lord Halford Mackinder as a death sentence for the world hegemony of the British Empire which had to be stopped at all costs. Early Roundtable/Fabian Society operations resulted in the ouster of PM Laurier in 1911 who lamented during WWI that “Canada is now governed by a junta sitting at London, known as “The Round Table”, with ramifications in Toronto, in Winnipeg, in Victoria, with Tories and Grits receiving their ideas from London and insidiously forcing them on their respective parties.”
The great confusion caused by the dishonest application of the National Policy’s protectionist policies by the Imperial Privy Council and Foreign Office, is to be found in the fact that rather than being applied by a sovereign nation striving for defense against imperial looting as the American republic had adopted similar measures after the 1787 framing of its Constitution, the Canadian example witnessed an empire’s use of the powerful tariff and associated investment program in order to keep its valuable colony under its iron grip. By maintaining control of the vast territory above the United States, Britain could both subvert America’s institutions more easily, while ensuring that the unification of America with their historical allies in Russia could not occur.
Then, as today, the true value of a protectionist policy of America lay in the fact that, when combined with sovereign control over public credit and a commitment to internal improvements and the general welfare, it provided the best line of defence from rapacious imperial intentions on the one side, while providing a powerful instrument for nation building on the other.
The dishonest application of the protective system during Canada’s history have achieved none of these ends.
This Conservative National Policy was entirely scrapped after Prime Minister John Diefenbaker attempted to apply it to develop the productive powers of the nation under an honest, but naive vision for the first time in history. Diefenbaker’s policy, which threatened the Empire’s control of Canada was named the “Northern Vision”, or “New National Policy”, and was based on not merely a stroke of genius that called for the opening up of the great Arctic territories to scientific and industrial development but a new system of funding through the Bank of Canada. Diefenbaker’s failure to achieve his objective not only arose from the active nests of Rhodes Scholars within and without his own cabinet who strove to sabotage it, but from his own inability to reconcile his love of progress and creative pioneering change, with his love for his British traditions, which were derived from an intrinsic antagonism to progress and creative change. This has come to be known as the “Diefenbaker Paradox”.
Diefenbaker’s ‘New National Policy” announced in 1957 took its inspiration from a popular misunderstanding of the first “National Policy” of his idol, Sir John A. Macdonald. Although Macdonald’s policy involved the adoption of a protective tariff to favour local Canadian manufacturing and agriculture, and internal improvements vectored on the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway, this policy lacked substance as it was not applied against an Imperial intention, but was rather itself an Imperial policy which desired to preserve a strategic North American colony by a dying British Empire.
Although similar in outward form to the Hamiltonian American System adopted a century earlier by the founding fathers of the United States in order to achieve economic independence from the British Empire, the Canadian version lacked all of the substance. It was rather the case that Macdonald’s “progressive” policy was nothing more than an illusion designed to break Canada off from any unification of mission with an America then being shaped by Abraham Lincoln’s nation building dynamic.
The Shadows of a Fraud
The period of 1865-1871 remains one of the densest in terms of potential for the establishment of an evolutionary phase shift in human history that had begun with the success of the American Revolution and the Renaissance view of man over the bestial dark age view embodied in the British imperial traditions.
A quick overview of a timeline of the sweeping events following 1865 will provide the historian a valuable reference point in which to expose the principled drama shaping those dates and events.
April-May 1865: Lincoln’s victory over British sponsored Confederacy. Lincoln is assassinated by John Wilkes Booth via an operation run out of British Canada .
March 30, 1867: Alaska is purchased from the Russians by Secretary of State William Seward, a firm believer in Manifest Destiny. The Russians had earlier saved America in 1863 by Czar Alexander II’s deployment of the Russian fleet to the coasts of America in San Franciso and New York. Major allies from both nations recognized the vital extension of rail between the continents even during the Civil War.
March 1867: The first British Columbia annexation movement petition for leaving the British Empire and joining America is presented to Queen Victoria.
July 1, 1867: The British North America Act is established creating a federation of four Canadian provinces under a British-modeled constitution. B.C. resists joining due in large measure to the vast expanse of land separating it from the eastern confederated colonies.
July 18, 1868: Rupert’s Land (the vast private territory separating B.C from the eastern colonies) is purchased from the Hudson’s Bay Company by an Act of Parliament in British Canada establishing this territory as “crown land”.
May 10, 1869: The U.S. Trans-Continental Rail line is completed (begun by Lincoln in 1863) establishing the world’s first rail line crossing a continent and opening up both the middle of America to Manifest Destiny and providing a link to California from the Atlantic. The Colony of British Columbia benefits enormously from the increased access to trade.
June 10, 1869: B.C.’s anti-Confederation Governor Frederick Seymour dies under mysterious circumstances.
December 10, 1869: a 2nd Annexation petition from B.C. merchants and politicians is delivered to President Ulysses S. Grant. Grant and his colleagues make their interest known to the public.
July 20, 1871: Arrangements for B.C’s entry into Confederation are streamlined.
Penetrating Deeper into the Cause of Shadows
By the time of Lincoln’s 1865 victory over the British-financed Confederate South, events were moving at great speed. The continued application of Lincoln’s American System practices of protectionism, public credit and internal improvements was resulting in the greatest potential for growth in world history. British Canada’s failure to break free of the mother country almost 100 years earlier had resulted in a stagnant and underdeveloped economy which was both divided internally, and rift with annexation movements exploding from British Columbia to Nova Scotia in eastern Canada. Former leaders of the Rebellion of Lower Canada of 1837 such as Louis-Joseph Papineau became ardent leaders in the Annexation movement of Quebec that peaked with the Annexation manifesto of 1849 and whose currents were still strongly felt across Quebec… especially among the Eastern Townships largely settled by Americans.
In the United States America, awareness of British-Canada’s pro-Confederacy policy of terrorist operations, hosting the Confederacy Secret Service and even the assassination of Lincoln from Montreal were much better understood than they are today.
The Annexation Bill of 1866 introduced into the U.S. House of Representatives stated: “from the date thereof, the States of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Canada East, and Canada West, and the Territories of Selkirk, Saskatchewan, and Columbia, with limits and rights as by the act defined, are constituted and admitted as States and Territories of the United States of America.”  The Bill also authorized $10 million dollars to be used to purchase the vast private territory of the Hudson’s Bay Company, known as Rupert’s Land and the North West Territories. Vast public improvement programs were also authorized in the bill centering around canal building, and rail through the Maritimes from New York.
The Hudson’s Bay Territory was a strange phenomenon in North America. From 1670 until 1869, the vast largely unexplored and undeveloped wilderness was the private property of the Hudson’s Bay Company, who, having received a Royal Charter under King Charles II, had the duty as a subsidiary of the British East India Company’s global operation, to maintain an operation of a vast corrupt fur trade on the one side while blocking American ventures into continental development on the other [see figure 1]. The Colonies still in the possession of Britain, north of the United States, had very little opportunity to develop into anything more than “hewers of wood and drawers of water” because of this fact.
The second important post-Civil War development took place on March 30, 1867 with the Alaska Purchase.
Lincoln’s Secretary of State William Seward and his close ally Senator Charles Sumner, Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, advanced a bill for the annexation of the Russian territory in North America for the fire sale price of $7 million dollars. It was after all, the Russian Navy under Czar Alexander II that had worked with Sumner and Seward to tip the balance of the Civil War in Lincoln’s favour, by extending their entire fleet to the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts of America as a warning to European powers not to aid the Confederacy in the conflict . This purchase (popularly called by modern fools as “Seward’s Folly”), suddenly made British Columbia very hot real estate. During this 1867 purchase, Lincoln’s Trans Continental Railway, begun in 1863 at the height of the Civil War was a mere two years from completion, linking the Pacific to Atlantic for the first time in history and thus destroying the British monopoly over maritime shipping routes.
With students of Lincoln’s program to be found among the intelligentsia of Russia, led by Count Sergei Witte and Dimitri Mendeleev, the American modeled (and largely American-built) Trans-Siberian Railway’s construction was not far away, and the linking of rail across the two continents was discussed as a real possibility by republican visionaries the world over.
Although the annexation bill of 1866 had the support of men such as William Seward and his ally Senator Charles Sumner, it never entered the Senate and was not voted upon. This Bill’s appearance, combined with the Alaskan purchase, and the growing independence and annexation movements across Canada, did however give Britain the sense of existential urgency to consolidate its territories under some form of imperial federation beholden to the British Crown at all costs. The Colonies of Canada, so close to Britain’s mortal enemy were far too geopolitically important for the Empire to lose at this moment in history.
The Fraud of the BNA Act
The first vital maneuver conducted by the British as a response to these developments, merely three months after the Alaska purchase, was the speedy completion of the confederation of the four easternmost colonies under the British North America Act of July 1, 1867 , renaming Upper and Lower Canada as “the provinces of Ontario and Quebec”. The BNA Act was the consolidation of 72 resolutions hammered out in two 1864 conferences which were designed to thwart the dynamic of American Annexationists on the one side and honest Canadian Nationalists such as the President of the Executive Council Isaac Buchanan (under the Macdonald-Cartier government) who worked valiantly not only to unite Canada with Lincoln’s America, but also fought to keep Canada out of any further wars with Great Britain . Buchanan had lost this powerful position by a coup inside of his party run by his nemesis George Brown and John A. Macdonald. While Brown and Macdonald appeared to public view as enemies, the reality was that they were both beholden to the City of London’s interests for the entirety of their lives, and chose to adapt themselves to a rigged game of free market “Grits” on the left (Brown) and “protectionist” Tories on the right (Macdonald). This is the root of the Liberal and Conservative parties of Canada.
The fraud of the BNA Act merits a greater analysis, but for the present purposes, it suffices to demonstrate that it did not establish a “sovereign nation of Canada” as is popularly held. Rather, the architecture merely maintained a framework of pure British Privy Council control of Canadian affairs, permitting only an illusory degree of democracy. By establishing its foundations not upon a Principle of the General Welfare, nor acknowledging the existence of unalienable rights as embodied in Canada’s southern cousin, the Canadian Constitution is a very different beast. Its preamble literally states:
“Whereas the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom: And Whereas such a Union would conduce to the Welfare of the Provinces and promote the interests of the British Empire”
According to this preamble, the “raison d’être” of Canada is not the defense of the general welfare of its people, but rather the promotion of interests of the British Empire!
The BNA Act used the old British trick of the “fur blanket” bribe used first in 1774 to keep Quebec from joining the rebellious 13 colonies under the “Quebec Act” . The Act gave the Dominion of Canada increased legislative control over its local affairs by forming for the first time, a federal structure around a Parliament, Judiciary and Senate which would have the appearance of power only, while the true power always remained in the powerful office of the Crown and its agents in the Privy Council Office and Governor General. This fact is laid out in several sections within the act:
“The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.”
Since the Monarch herself could not be in every Dominion at the same time, provisions were made to ensure that her absolute authority would be actively arranging the affairs of state modeled on the British Privy Council system:
“There shall be a Council to aid and advise in the Government of Canada, to be styled the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada; and the Persons who are to be Members of that Council shall be from Time to Time chosen and summoned by the Governor General and sworn in as Privy Councillors, and Members thereof may be from Time to Time removed by the Governor General.”
Peppered throughout the Act are ongoing references to the importance of the Queen’s Privy Council of Canada to “advise” the government under the absolute authority of the Governor General, who is still legally recognized as the only head of state and legal representative of the Crown. Responsibility to keep the individual provinces under coordinated control was left to the power of the Lieutenant Governors assigned to each province. The real seat of power ensuring optimal control of Canadian federal policy by its London masters, especially in the field of economic warfare has been from this time on, the Privy Council, of which every single Prime Minister of Canada has been a member . And just in case one might think that the Canadian military would be exempt from this control, the Act goes on to read:
The Command-in-Chief of the Land and Naval Militia, and of all Naval and Military Forces, of and in Canada, is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen 
In order to ensure that Canada was to remain as fragmented as possible and no strong federal structure of checks and balances modeled on the American System could occur, the Act also laid out in Section 92, a framework which gave the largest possible power to the provinces to control their own resources, taxation and internal policy outside of any federal structure.
Sir John A. Macdonald, the Aryan Anglophile
Sir John A. Macdonald, the primary father of Confederation, was appointed Canada’s 1st Prime Minister by the Governor General and knighted on the day of its passage for services rendered to the British Empire. In his last election campaign speech before his death in 1891, Macdonald, now celebrated as the great nationalist, stated “A British subject I was born; a British subject I will die”… strange words for the “founding father” of a supposedly “sovereign” nation.
On closer examination, it may come as no surprise to some that this Anglophobe “father of Confederation” was little more than a racist bigot who also advocated for an ‘Aryan Canada’, cleansed of the Asiatic races, then being used as slave labour to build the Canadian Pacific Rail into the west .
A paradox is here presented. If Britain has traditionally kept its Colonies consciously underdeveloped in order to maintain fixed, and thus easy-to-control systems of equilibrium, then under what intention did the British Crown and Privy Council mandate the construction of a rail system from the east coast of Canada all the way to the coastal limit of British Columbia in the west unleashing vast rates of increase in prosperity of the nation? The opening up of the Prairies to development had been something which the Empire, using its Hudson’s Bay Company had been working for over 200 years to prevent… so why did this policy change during the period of Macdonald?
A clue to this question can be found in Macdonald’s famous 1867 quote: “I would be quite willing, personally to leave the whole country a wilderness for the next half century, but I fear if Englishmen do not go there the Yankees will.”
The Historical Dynamic leading up to B.C. Bribe of 1870
Up until 1870, the fate of the new BNA Act was still highly questionable. The Nova Scotian annexation movement had risen to new levels of influence with the post 1867 collapse of their fisheries dominated economy. This collapse was shaped by 1) new binding free trade treaties with Britain which the new Confederacy was subject to and 2) the 1865 cancelling of the U.S.-Canada “Reciprocity Treaty of 1854” by the Americans in response to the British support for the southern rebels during the Civil War. No other path to survival could be seen by the republican Nova Scotians but changing its alliances and breaking out of the 1867 BNA Act. If they would do so, then it was all but guaranteed that New Brunswick would do the same. Meanwhile turmoil in the Red River Settlement (located in today’s Manitoba) had also imbued deep concerns in the British Empire.
Of far more strategic significance to the continuation of the British Empire’s interests than the Red River Settlement or east coast annexation movements, was the troubling developments occurring in the colony of British Columbia. After the 1867 American purchase of Alaska, British Columbia had become very hot real estate. Lincoln republicans in America led by William Seward and Senator Sumner, made their intention of annexation of B.C. well known.
Frustrating matters for the British was the reality that the deep economic depression in B.C. , combined with the colony’s vast geographical separation from of its confederated sister colonies on the east coast had resulted in a massive yearning in its inhabitants for annexation into the United States, some on principle and some simply for survival.
Out of sheer desperation, leading merchants and politicians of the colony sent the first Annexation Petition to Queen Victoria on July 2, 1867 which laid out a politely worded ultimatum:
“Either, that Your Majesty’s Government may be pleased to relieve us immediately of the expense of our excessive staff of officials, assist the establishment of a British steam-line with the Panamas, so that immigration from England may more easily reach us, and also assume the debts of the colonies, Or that your Majesty will graciously permit the colony to become a portion of the United States” 
In response to this petition, no formal response was given beyond an appeal for the colony to join the confederation. Knowing this was impossible, Governor of the Colony of B.C., Frederick Seymour, who was also a powerful opponent of Confederation, wrote to the Duke of Buckingham later that month describing the situation:
“There is a systemic agitation going on in this town in favour of annexation to the United States. It is believed that money for its maintenance is provided from San Francisco. As yet, however, nothing else has reached me officially on the subject, and should any petition on the subject, I will know how to answer it before I transmit it to your Grace. On the mainland, the question of annexation is not moot.” 
As the subsequent year passed, with still no traction on either side, the tension grew more feverish with greater quantities of British loyalists defecting to the annexation camp out of sheer despair. An April 20, 1869 Letter to the Editor of the British Columbian expresses this sentiment well:
“With a depleted treasury, revenue falling off, and the Colony suffering from a depression beyond all precedent, with no prospect, either present, or remote, of immigration, what are we to do? … Were the inhabitants of British Columbia a thriving community, the question of annexation would not be popular; for the people are loyal and patriotic. The force of circumstances alone compels them to advocate a change in nationality… I am a loyal Briton, and would prefer living under institutions of my own country, were it practicable. But I, like the rest of the world of which we are each an atom, would prefer the flag and institutions of the United States with prosperity, to remaining as we are, with no prospect of succeeding as a British Colony”. 
Such sentiment, resulted in a second, more powerfully worded petition signed by 100 influential leading citizens, now directed both to the Queen as well as the President of the United States. It read:
“We are constrained by the duty we owe to ourselves and families, in view of the contemplated severance of the political ties which unite this Colony to the “Mother country”, to seek for such political and commercial affinity and connection, as will insure the immediate and continued prosperity and wellbeing of this our adopted home…
That we view with feelings of alarm the avowed intention of Her Majesty’s Government to confederate this Colony with the Dominion of Canada, as we believe such a measure can only tend to still further depression and ultimate injury for the following reasons, viz:
That Confederation cannot give us protection against internal enemies or foreign foes, owing to the distance of this Colony from Ottawa,
That it cannot open to us a market for the produce of our lands, our forests, our mines or our waters.
That it cannot bring us population, (our greatest need) as the Dominion itself is suffering from a lack of it.
That our connection with the Dominion can satisfy no sentiment of loyalty or devotion.
That her commercial and industrial interests are opposed to ours.
That the tariff of the Dominion will be the ruin of our farmers and the commerce of our chief cities.
… The only remedy for the evils which beset us, we believe to be in a close union with the adjoining States and Territories, we are already bound to them by a unity of object and interest; nearly all our commercial relations are with them; They furnish the Chief Markets we have for the products of our mines, lands and waters; They supply the Colony with most of the necessities of life; They furnish us the only means of communication with the outer world;…
For these reasons we earnestly desire the ACQUISITION of this Colony by the United States.” 
A copy of the petition was given to Vincent Collyer, the great American painter and Indian Commissioner of Alaska which he personally delivered to President Ulysses S. Grant. The press dispatch from the office of the President printed in the British Colonist of January 11, 1870 read:
“Washington D.C. December 30, Vincent Collyer yesterday handed to the President [Grant] a memorial signed by a number of property holders and businessmen in Victoria to be followed by another which will contain the names of all the British merchants and others at Victoria, Nanaimo and other places, in favor of the transfer of British Columbia to the United States. The President today returned Collyer a verbal reply that he had received it with great interest and sent it to the Secretary of State. Collyer also showed a memorial to Senator Sumner, Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, who, after reading it, said the movement was important and could have but one termination. Meanwhile, the government waits to movement of England which is fast seeing the uselessness and impracticability of European Empire on this hemisphere. Both the President and Sumner desired their replies to be made known to the memorialists” 
By now, it was a race against time. The colonists knew that Britain was preparing vigorously to regain control of their colony. In July of 1868, the Crown mandated that an Act of British Canada’s parliament allocate funds to purchase Rupert’s Land and the Northwest Territories from the Hudson’s Bay Company, which occurred that same month erasing one major obstacle to British negotiations. On the other hand, by May 10, 1869, the American Transcontinental Railway was completed, linking for the first time an entire continent by rail from coast. A ferry system already existed from B.C. to California, bringing a boom of prosperity to the poor colony and making the feasibility of a rail extension from America into the colony that much more realistic.
The deadly mistake made by the author of the press dispatch, including President Grant was their assumption that England’s intention could be accessed by the loud voices of some of its members of parliament calling for a release of British Columbia. It was and still is the case that the true seat of power of Britain is located far above the parliament in the form of the Queen’s Privy Council and Foreign Office which then had no intention whatsoever of losing this vital possession. Although Sumner and Seward were far less naïve on this matter, the majority of leading Americans, the President included, didn’t fully “get it”. The British Minister in Washington writing to his London associates is useful in providing insight into the British oligarchy’s perception of events:
“The circumstance, the existing disturbance in the Hudson’s Bay Settlement [Red River Colony –ed], and the asserted disaffection in Nova Scotia, are much commented upon by the newspapers of this country, and are looked upon as the beginning of a separation of the British provinces from the mother country, and of their early annexation to the United States. This view of the matter is put in connection with the settlement of the differences with us arising out of the “Alabama Affair”, and senators are evidently indulging in the illusive hope that England has it in her power, and might not be unwilling to come to an amicable settlement of those differences on the basis of the cessation of our territory on this continent to the United States” .
The greatest tragedy of patriots everywhere in dealing with the British have been their tendency not to look upon the true nature of its evil soul. This letter demonstrates clearly the disdain that British imperialists have felt towards the naïve idealism of the victims whom they intend to destroy. An evil intention animated by a passionate desire to destroy the good will go to any ends of deceit in order to turn any obstacle against their power into a weapon against their naïve enemies. A case in point can be found in the reference made by the British ambassador to the “Alabama Affair”.
The Alabama Affair
By the end of the Civil War, Sumner and Seward led American patriots to go on the offensive against the true instigator of the war… not the southern confederacy, but the British Empire. The powerful flank which they chose to use as their weapon was the open fact that Confederate Warships used against Lincoln’s forces were built and supplied by the British under direct orders of Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell. The most famous and destructive of the British-made war ships was the “C.S.S. Alabama”.
These American patriots began an international fight over Britain’s obligation to pay reparations for damages incurred during the war known as the “Alabama Claims”. Upon Seward’s purchase of Alaska, Senator Sumner began mobilizing for the demand of $2 billion from Britain or the annexation of its North American territories. Although Seward was highly favorable to the plan, British stalling tactics kept the Alabama Claims fight on hold for years. During these important years, America had lost much of its powerful bargaining chips and British control of its territories had advanced too far. By March of 1871, Grant’s appointed Secretary of State Hamilton Fish worked out an agreement with Britain on the Alabama Claims resulting in a mere $15.5 million dollars and an end to all similar disputes regarding Britain’s role in sponsoring the Southern Confederacy during the Civil War. This became known as “the Washington Treaty”. Much of the potential that was alive two years earlier had by then been sabotaged. It is of interest that one of the key arbitrators of the Alabama Claims was also Canada’s very active Prime Minister Sir John A. Macdonald.
The Elimination of Governor Seymour
During the months preceding the 2nd B.C. Annexation petition, a major tragedy befell the republican cause with the untimely death of Governor Frederick Seymour, who had been a long-time enemy of Confederation. In the short months before Seymour’s death on June 10, 1869, he had enraged the highest echelons of the Empire’s civil servants such as Sir Frederick Rogers, Undersecretary of State for the Colonies who, upon discovering that Seymour had suppressed information for months from the Colonial Office that a vote in favour of Confederation had occurred in the B.C. Legislature wrote “it appears that on March 28 last, the Council passed a Resolution in favour of admission which however Governor Seymour only now [November 4] sends through in his March telegram he said he would write.” 
What Sir Rogers is also revealing is that the British had two confederacy plans for the Continent of North America: one in the South of the United States and one in the North of the United States.
When the next opportunity to vote on Confederation occurred in February 17, 1869, Governor Seymour again sabotaged the pro-confederacy supporters and the British Crown, as he now convinced the legislature to postpone as no details were worked out on the settling of the Hudson’s Bay Company land purchase.
John A. Macdonald wrote in anger on May 15 to the Governor General of Canada saying “the first thing to be done will be to recall Governor Seymour if his time is not run out” , and on the same day he wrote to the pro-confederation Premier of New Brunswick, Sir Anthony Musgrave informing him that Seymour would be recalled: “as being perfectly unfit for his present position, under present circumstances. From all I hear, he was never fit for it” .
Within two weeks of Macdonald’s writing these two telegrams, Governor Seymour was dead. The official story holds that Seymour was sent to the harsh northern tip of B.C. to mediate a conflict between two warring native tribes. Upon his success, Seymour was struck with dysentery and died within days. Seymour was immediately replaced with Macdonald’s ally, Sir Anthony Musgrave, and the annexation movement lost its secret defender. Musgrave immediately set to work preparing for B.C.’s entry into Confederation with the March 1870 “Great Confederation Debates” begun in the legislature and culminated on April 6 with 16 clauses and Resolutions voted upon. Delegates were sent to Ottawa to negotiate these Resolutions while the republican movement in B.C. could only watch helplessly. Final appeals were made during this dark hour by leading citizens to the American Government, evidenced by the following letter of August 17, 1870 written by H.F. Heisterman  a leading merchant of the annexation movement, :
“Understanding that you are likely to have his Excellency President Grant among you some time this month and that you will likely have an opportunity, I herewith hand you a further list of names to the memorial presented in December 1869 by Vincent Collyer. It would have been sent then, but owing to the hostility shown to it by the Canadian newspaper here it was not sent. I therefore transmit it to you, to make whatever use of it you see fit in the premises. It is exasperating to me and my fellow citizens, to see a country aggregating 405 000 square miles, of which 11 000 square miles comes upon Vancouver Island and 6000 upon Queen Charlotte Island and the balance 388 000 sq. miles upon the mainland of British Columbia, shut out as it were from the prosperity around it. The people of the colony are too few to make an armed resistance to confederation which seems on all accounts intended to be forced on us unless some countenance were given to parties who desire annexation to the United States by the government of President Grant, in a proposal to settle the Alabama Claim by the transfer of this colony, I don’t see how we can move in the matter.” 
The B.C. Bribe is Finalized
Musgrave’s agents advanced negotiations at breakneck speed. Ottawa negotiations began on June 7, 1870 and within weeks nearly all resolutions and clauses were agreed upon. The two biggest impediments to B.C.’s entry into the Confederacy were dealt with by the payment of all of the colony’s debts by Ottawa and the promise made by Macdonald to construct a rail line linking the new province with Montreal and Quebec “within ten years”. This promised rail line was necessary in order to sabotage the intention of the American Manifest Destiny policy.
Sir Alexander Galt, a fellow father of Confederation and proponent of Canadian expansion, speaking to a crowd on May 22, 1867 in Lennoxville Quebec described his views on the need to extend confederation and rail to the Pacific:
“We cannot close our eyes to what is happening in the West… I for one look upon the acquisition of Russian America by the United States as their answer to the arrangements we have been making to unite among ourselves… If the United States desire to outflank us on the west, we must accept the situation and lay our hand on British Columbia and the Pacific Ocean. This country cannot be surrounded by the Unites States- We are gone if we allow it… “From the Atlantic to the Pacific” must be the cry in British America as much as it has ever been in the United States”
Another Father of Confederation George Brown, who ran the influential Toronto Globe and heavily promoted Canada’s trans-continental railway, wrote on July 10, 1867 that “Seward’s attempt to coerce Canada by the purchase of Walrussia has brought down upon him the laughter of mankind and has not altered one white the determination of the people of British America from Prince Edward Island to Cancouver to stand by the old flag to the last man and the last cartridge”
Sir George Etienne Cartier stated in 1865 dreaded the immanent annexation of Canada by saying “We must either have a Confederation of British North America or else be absorbed by the American Confederation.”
With these arrangements agreed upon (paralleling similar arrangements in the former Red River Settlement), British Columbia was admitted into Confederation as the 6th Canadian Province . Within the coming decades, as Canada was increasingly turned into a wedge blocking US-Russian collaboration and arctic development. Saskatchewan and Alberta were formed as provinces where there had formerly been Hudson’s Bay land.
After eight years, still no progress had been made on the construction of the promised rail linking the Dominion and again, British Columbia continued to feel the painful grip and despair of isolation and economic depression. This pain was made that much worse, as the republican neighbour to the south was witnessing unheard of prosperity under the effects of Lincoln’s Trans continental Railroad and vigorous pioneering of the west. The American System’s continuation of John Quincy Adams’ Manifest Destiny policy, led by Lincoln’s economic advisor Henry C. Carey had resulted in the greatest explosion of wealth in the United States, and become a model for the whole civilized world with the 1876 Centennial Celebration in Philadelphia.
The superiority of the American System to the failure of the wicked British System of Free Trade resulted in America becoming the world’s leading productive power.
Converts to the American System were made by all lovers of progress from around the world who came to the Convention. Germany under Chancellor Otto von Bismarck vigorously applied American System practices of high protective tariffs and vast internal improvements. Czar Alexander II and his close circle of Russian advisors applied the American model for the vast modernization of Russia vectored around the Trans-Siberian Rail with the great scientist Dimitri Mendeleev chairing the Committee on Protectionism . Even Japan under the Meiji Restoration applied the American model to escape feudalism and enter the modern age.
In light of this dynamic, leading voices for progress in Canada again began to clamour for real independence from the trap of the British System that they had fallen into. Even some among the greatest enemies of the late Governor Seymour were gripped by this frustration of progress, exemplified by Amor De Cosmos, then a Liberal MP for Victory, who in May 1878 arose in parliament and warned that if rail development did not begin immediately, then British Columbia would annex into the United States!
An Clone is Born without a Soul
The threat of losing Canada to the United States having once again resurfaced, Sir John A. Macdonald was brought back into power after a five year role in opposition under a dysfunctional Liberal Government. The new platform which the Privy Council used to steamroll him back into office was called “The National Policy”. This program was based on a perverse copy of the American Policy of high tariffs, the speedy construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway, the creation of new agricultural zones, open immigration and other internal improvements, yet with one caveat… it’s governing intention was aimed not at building a sovereign nation of Canada, but rather the ultimate destruction of America and a reconstruction of global British imperial hegemony.
The National Policy featured a sweet deal with the Canadian Pacific Railway which was incorporated in 1881 and was granted a generous $25 million subsidy from Ottawa along with 10 million hectares of rich land. The CPR was also exempted from paying taxes for the next 20 years. Five years later, on June 28, 1886, the first CPR train left Montreal and, like a slap on the face to all republicans in Canada, and at the same time demonstrating its true anti-American intention, was timed to arrive on July 4, 1886 at Port Moody in British Columbia.
Due to the inability of American System patriots to continue the trajectory of progress unleashed by Lincoln’s victory, the unification of intention of Russia and America was never finalized, the material division which fed a spiritual disease later capitalized upon by the British Foreign Office architects of the wars of the 20th century (including the Cold War which was only unleashed over the dead body of FDR).
Similarly, Berlin to Baghdad rail developments as well as similar rail programs planned between Germany and France and both to Russia had resulted in a dynamic of division which the British capitalized upon to instigate the irrational meat grinders known as World Wars I and II. Due to similar frauds, the birth of a sovereign Canada was derailed, and a population, occupying one of the richest and largest territories in the world, was subject to a dynamic which has left it vastly underdeveloped, with the lowest population density in the world of 34 million for a land area of almost 10 million square kilometers. A single state of California alone sustains over 38 million inhabitants while most of that is desert!
The Conclusion of a Fallacy. Let the Truth Begin Again.
The paradox of “Canadian Nationalism” can only be efficiently addressed by first recognizing the power of progress as a universal phenomenon, expressed both in biological evolution of species, and human evolution of civilization which Lincoln’s advisor Henry Carey referred to as the “increasing powers of association of labor, producer, and consumer”. This power towards increasing self-conscious creative thought actively with an intention to perfect the universe, is so powerful that even those regressive policies expressed by the oligarchical principle must submit and adapt to it.
The power of this anti-entropic capacity of human creativity to leap outside of closed systems of material/intellectual limits in order to discover a higher organizing principle and willfully act in conformity with it, is expressed most clearly in recent history by the American Constitutional System and its affiliated view of man as a creature made in the image of its Creator.
The adoption of momentary progress in order to annihilate a greater good was considered a necessary evil on the part of the leading strategists of the British Empire’s Privy Council, then centered around Lord John Russell, Lord Palmerston of the powerful British Foreign Office. The influential pro-American System faction of Canadian patriots operating under the leadership of Isaac Buchanan was removed from power with the full adoption of the “National Policy” which followed the British North America Act of 1867. These policies stymied the birth of a true sovereign nation.
To the horror of the British Empire in 1958, John Diefenbaker and his collaborators were inspired by the progress achieved during this period of rapid Canadian development, and attempted to reproduce this process once again except with an important ingredient lacking in Sir John A. Macdonald… a devout love of unbounded progress without ulterior motive for destroying America. This approach of an active “nationalism” whose aim was to effect an increase of national power, was about to clash directly with the passive “New Nationalism” then being artificially crafted by the nest of Rhodes scholars working for the British Foreign Office’s Canadian Institute of International Affairs (CIIA) under the likes of Vincent Massey, Georges Henri Levesque, and Walter Gordon.
This perverted “Nationalism” was merely a conduit selected to promote cultural irrationalism, and the acceptance of fascism masquerading as “zero-technological growth”, otherwise known as the “New Cult of Eugenics” or “environmentalism” aimed at destroying the whole continent of North America.
 This historic economic identity has been re-embodied in recent years with the nation-killing North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
 The Treaty of Westphalia of 1648 not only ended the 30 Years War that ravaged Europe, but also established the basis for the modern form of sovereign nation state defining international law for the subsequent 350+ years. The pre-amble of the Treaty read in part: “That this Peace and Amity be observ’d and cultivated with such a Sincerity and Zeal, that each Party shall endeavour to procure the Benefit, Honour and Advantage of the other; that thus on all sides they may see this Peace and Friendship in the Roman Empire, and the Kingdom of France flourish, by entertaining a good and faithful Neighbourhood.” And can be read as a whole here: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/westphal.asp
 Anton Chaitkin, Why the British Kill American Presidents, Executive Intelligence Review, December 12, 2008, http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2008/2008_50-52/2008_50-52/2008-50/pdf/26-35_3548.pdf
 The full text of the bill can be viewed on http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Annexation_Bill_of_1866
 Known as “the Great Liberator”, Czar Alexander II was so inspired by Lincoln’s vision that he followed the American program of emancipation when he liberated the serfs in 1861. His life was cut short by an assassins’ bomb in 1881.
 The belief that the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms replaced the 1867 BNA Act is nothing more than a mythology. As section 60 of the Charter clearly lays out: “This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1982, and the Constitution Acts 1867 to 1975 (No. 2) and this Act may be cited together as the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982”… meaning the 1867 Act is still in full force to this day.
 Buchanan’s famous December 1863 speech provides a clear insight into his principles: “The adoption by England for herself of this transcendental principle [Free Trade] has all but lost the Colonies, and her madly attempting to make it the principle of the British Empire would entirely alienate the Colonies. Though pretending to unusual intelligence, the Manchester Schools are, as a class, as void of knowledge of the world as of patriotic principle… As a necessary con-sequence of the legislation of England, Canada will require England to assent to the establishment of two things: 1st, an American Zollverein [aka: Customs Union]. 2nd: Canada to be made neutral territory in time of any war between Eng-land and the United States”. Cited in Isaac Buchanan’s Relations of the Industry of Canada with the Mother Country and the United States, 1864, p. 9-22
 This is especially ironical since the United Kingdom does not have a written constitution. Such a document does not exist. See Professor Helmut Weber’s 1999 paper “Who Guards the Constitution?”, Center for British Studies of Humboldt University, Berlin http://www.gbz.hu-berlin.de/publications/working-papers/downloads/pdf/WPS_Weber_Constitution.pdf
 Pierre Beaudry, The Tragic Consequences of the Quebec Act of 1774, The Canadian Patriot Special Edition, 2012, www.committeerepubliccanada.ca
Today the oath of office which every single Prime Minister has taken upon entering office reads: “ I, __________, do solemnly and sincerely swear (declare) that I shall be a true and faithful servant to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, as a member of Her Majesty’s Privy Council for Canada. I will in all things to be treated, debated and resolved in Privy Council, faithfully, honestly and truly declare my mind and my opinion. I shall keep secret all matters committed and revealed to me in this capacity, or that shall be secretly treated of in Council. Generally, in all things I shall do as a faithful and true servant ought to do for Her Majesty. So help me God.” http://www.gg.ca/document.aspx?id=316
 This 1867 mandate was re-affirmed in Section 14 of the National Defence Act of 1985 with the words: “The Canadian Forces are the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and consist of one Service called the Canadian Armed Forces.”
 During the 1885 Commons debates on the Electoral Fran-chise Act, Sir John is quoted with the following racist state-ment: “The Aryan races will not wholesomely amalgamate with the Africans or the Asiatics… the cross of those races, like the cross of the dog and the fox, is not successful. It cannot be and never will be.” He also went on to say that “if the Chinese were given voting rights then “the Aryan character of the future of British America should be destroyed”. [citation from Tim Stanley’s Ottawa Citizen article: “John A. Macdonald wanted an ‘Aryan’ Canada”, August 2012]  The depression then being suffered by B.C. was caused by the collapse of the speculative bubble of the 1857-58 gold rush wherein over 30 000 settlers stormed into town alongside 20 000 prospectors. Entire towns sprung up over night, and land speculation soared. The bubble popped in the mid 1860s leading to the deepest recession in the colony’s history.
 Annexation Petition, July 1867, enclosed in Allen Francis to F.H. Seward, July 2, 1867, Consular letters from Victoria to Vancouver Island, Dept. of State, archives, Washington D.C., vol. 1
 Letter of Seymour to Buckingham, July 26, 1867 cited in William Ireland, The Annexation Petition of 1869”, British History Quarterly, vol. 4 1940, p. 268
 Letter cited in William Ireland, Annexation Petition of 1869.
 Ibid. p.270
 The British Colonist, Jan. 11, 1870. Cited in William Ireland, Annexation Petition of 1869, p.271
 Minister Thornton to Clarendon, January 3, 1870, cited in Ireland’s Annexation Petition of 1869, p.285
 Sir John A. Macdonald to Sir John Young, May 25, 1869, PAC., Macdonald Papers, Letterbrook 12 972, cited in Frederick Seymour: The Forgotten Governor, Margaret Ormsby, B.C. Studies no. 22, Summer 1974, p. 20
 Ibid p. 21
 Heistermann was also the Grand Secretary of the Provincial Grand Lodge of British Columbia
 F.H. Heisterman to W.H. Oliver, Aug. 17, 1870, cited in William Ireland, The Annexation Petition of 1869, p. 274
 The Red River Colony became the Province of Manitoba on May 12, 1870 with the Manitoba Act.
 Both Saskatchewan and Alberta joined confederation as provinces in 1905
 This is the same Mendeleev who had recently discovered the ordering principle, now called the “Periodic Table of Ele-ments”. While Chairing the Commission on Protectionism, Mendeleyev astutely annihilated the argument for free trade ending with the following remarks in an 1891 Tariff paper: “Belonging to the small circle of Russians who have given their entire lives to science, who own neither factories nor plants, and knowing that contemporary science has uncovered crude untruths and omissions in the “classical” and “orthodox” teachings of the free trade school, and, finally, seeing that the historical and experimental–that is the real–path of study of political economy leads to different conclusions than those of the free traders, which are taken on faith as “the last word in science”–I consider it my duty, partly in defense of truly con-temporary, progressing science, to say openly and loudly that I stand for rational protectionism. Free trad-ism as a doctrine is very shaky; the free trade form of activity suits only countries that have already consolidated their manufacturing industry; protectionism as an absolute doctrine is the same sort of non-sense as free trade absolutism; and the protectionist mode of activity is perfectly appropriate now for Russia, as it was for England in its time….” cited in Barbara Frazier, Scientist-Statesman Fought British Free Trade in Russia, Executive Intelligence Review, Jan. 1992 http://members.tripod.com/american_almanac/mendel1.htm
Matthew Ehret is the Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Patriot Review , a BRI Expert on Tactical talk, and has authored 3 volumes of ‘Untold History of Canada’ book series. In 2019 he co-founded the Montreal-based Rising Tide Foundation
Canada is quite an attractive place really, while the USA is descending into chaos and possible civil war. Keep the border closed! No truck nor trade with the Yankees! Vive le Canada !
Frenchmen with a British Queen. How quaintly pathetic! LOL
Who is actually German (Saxe Gotha)…… which surely enriches the bountiful irony and tragi-comedy of it all……..
Saxon-Coburg & Gotha is such a nice family branch. Just ask Boris de Pfeffel!
Yes, British monarchs basically German going way back to before Queen Victoria and Albert.
The only place on Earth where Francophonces and Anglophones manage to live under the same union without war? I can see how that would seem quaintly pathetic to some. It’s actually a founding characteristic of Canada Part of what makes this country unique.
It may be attractive to visit once in a while, but living here is similar to being in an ugly, colder than Siberia (for most of the year) gulag.
I’ve sent a few years here (due to family reason) and I cannot wait to leave. Definitely the most boring, passive aggressive, virtue-signalling with no virtue place I have ever seen (I live in Ontario – BC is far worse from what I remember living there).
Nobody I know here is happy to be here, everyone would like to leave. Especially foreigners who were tricked to come here (good marketing, beautiful photos of Whistler, Jasper etc in every Canadistani embassy completely misrepresenting what this Chernobyl-like country looks like etc)…
I was just talking to a Colombian doctor friend this morning who wants to move back to Colombia. His wife is sick of Canada too and his kids who were brave and happy in Colombia have become fearful of everything, ants, storms etc…
This is a very toxic place full of ugly, sick, fat, pale people. One in ten paramedics reports attempted suicide. ER departments in hospitals are filled with teenagers commuting suicide (I’ve seen it myself during my hospital placement).
Cities are generally the ugliest big cities I have ever seen, very expensive (because gvt promotes Chinese money laundering etc) – most people I know cannot afford to buy a place (even though this is 2 nd biggest country by area with lots of wood, bricks etc). Generally the ugliest architecture – badly designed and cheaply made buildings sold for as much money as possible.
I am trying to move to Spain or even Serbia where people are much healthier, nicer and more intelligent than Canadiastanis. And far happier. This is really a shithole – and everyone I know (apart from a couple of friends who have not been anywhere) agrees with me and they all want to leave. Even my nephews and nieces tell me all their friends are foreigners and how annoying Canadians are, how jealous and backstabbing and how unhappy they are. They also look pretty pale and inbred. I would not recommend this gulag to my enemies
PS Canadistan is probably the most corrupt country I have ever seen.
Everything is done through contacts and connections
It’s definitely more corrupt than Serbia.
Incompetent, fearful, greedy sheeple looking for similar sheeple to work with (to help cover up their incompetence).
I don’t think they like foreigners, even though they imported 800 000 Arabs last year.
And they pretend to be proud about the fact that they have so many people from so many countries living here. They don’t tell you that these groups don’t mix. That’s why living here feels like living in a huge, boring refugee camp. There is no character or culture here whatsoever.
And about a third of Canadistanis have some kind of personality disorder
Last Canada day I saw an African man living in a building across the road who was probably a schizophrenic shouting from top of his lungs in his native language (probably Libya or some other country Canada helped bomb into Stone Age). I thought what a perfect metaphor for the whole country (there was a Canadian flag on the balcony close to his).
I now understand why they have so many made in China plastic Canadian flags all over the place: so that tourists don’t get confused thinking they must be in Pakistan etc
Another weird thing here is fences in unusual places. In no other place you are forced to walk around and around things, buildings and parking lots as here in Toronto. Like the communities from all the countries NATO and Canada bomb who remain separated from everyone else, so do these fences separate each building etc. So many people have to waste so much time walking around these fences that are erected everywhere. In any other country I’ve lived in USA. UK , Serbia, Slovenia etc – these fences would not be erected and it would be much faster for everyone to walk to school, shop etc…Just one of many such strange things I only ever see in Canada.
Unfortunately, I must agree, your description is generally correct. Majority of the Canadians will disagree. Majority of the Canadians especially Ontarians will refuse to see the truth even when it is poking into their eyes. I think Young wrote something about Canadians.
tomo, I can’t go back to my country, the Brits fubared it beyond recognition. Last time there, it was a more depressing hole than where I currently live. But everything you write, I, after 45 years of living here, could not agree more with.
the fences are safety measures, to stop people from running out into traffic, same with 30k speed zones around schools, the Canadian education system and poor parental direction are incapable of teaching adults and children alike to ‘look right, look left, then look right again’, before one crossing the street.
So move already …
I am working on it (as are most foreigners I know here) and would move today if I could. Unfortunately it takes time and preparation.
I think you mean most foreigners whose immigration was sponsored by the CIA are looking to move from Canada. To greener pastures? All the best to all of you.
It really is a beautiful Country
You’re correct in saying that there is indeed a huge difference between
Canada and the US , it’s quite calm, however, I’m truly baffled
how quickly my fellow Canadians have bought in to the deceptions
Happening on a hourly basis. People everywhere wearing masks outside walking alone in the sun with the faces covered it’s a scene out of a horror movie(they live) other than that it is relatively a peaceful Country
For how much longer God only knows.
Cape Blomidon is one of the most beautiful spots I have seen.
Great piece! More of a backstory of British treachery than one of “Canadian National Policy.” (Irony quotes added to match “Canadian Nationalism” above, both terms definitely ironic.) Gotta hand it to the Brits (and their enablers of a certain persuasion); they were definitely playing the long game way back when, all of which is still bearing poisonous fruits today.
poisonous fruit indeed..by the ton.
just look at Canada locking down itself currently…the whole country becoming masked. and everywhere I look it is being conceived of, organized, enacted and enforced by white anglo saxon derived men and women..save where the french derived are also involved.
The CV19 myth continues to perplex. Out west here in dusty NM USA, it continues to be indeed mythical. No signs whatsoever of the alleged “killer pandemic,” other than a few isolated outbreaks on the reservations, areas known for alcohol and drug related health problems, and I’m highly skeptical about the statistics we’ve been fed from those areas as well.
Everywhere else, everyone now cowering behind the illusory safety of whatever cloth thingamajig they can strap to their face, enrapt in the throes of virtue signaling ecstasy. [The Director of the local enterprise went so far as to make a video wearing a blue mask with white stars, while wearing a red and white vertical striped shirt, warning us all to be safe and mask up. I about split a gut laughing. Where do they get these guys?] I make it a proud point to go mask-less everywhere I go, only strapping one on at the last second before entering a store and stopping again to pull it back off just as soon as I leave. I call it performance art for the rubes, who I now even see out running and biking in the summer heat behind the “safety” of a mask.
I never thought I’d live to see such epic stupidity on display in my lifetime, but here we are. 2020, the year the authorities put their final dictatorial stamp on the world, and the rubes begged them for even more! We now inhabit a world too stupid for human life as we once knew it to exist. Were that CV19 actually were deadly! Most of those currently living would be better off that way, as their brains are already long gone.
I was as depressed from Monday, the first day of mandatory masking, and hand sanitizing of Ontario. I refuse to wear a mask..I simply wont.
I have a health problem that wont let me either but I don’t quote that in my refusal..only if I have to ultimately. not that I put myself in position of confrontation over masking. I don’t! I stay away.
and I am confident that all chemicals used to hand sanitize have long lost their effectiveness against all targeted bacteria
but this morning in the region of Ontario where I live I saw young people out..about 10 of them at 3 tables all mask-less.. outside under the awning of a very decent area restaurant , open-sided..enjoying themselves and their meals..also not socially distanced at all.
I have begun to sense that all the people may not be completely sanguine when it comes to masking and are prepared to ignore masking along the way
a light has appeared in the masking gloom
Well, as far as all that goes, whether subverted by the British or not, the US elites have done a darn good job trashing the environment, not just genocide of the Natives but also of whole populations of animals. Plus the massive toxic waste dumps, nuclear sacrifice zones, Cancer Alley in Louisiana…..and still for all its faults, Canada at least has a rational health care system.
Had it joined the US, it wouldn’t have even that.
As for the British Empire, I wonder if the Queen had some role in the Mexican War, the Indian Wars, the Spanish American War.
On the other hand, it’s fair to say that the death of FDR was not natural, and the role of the Democrats in shoving aside Henry Wallace in favor of the puppet Truman all have British fingerprints.
Perfidious Albion indeed.
Canada died the day the Brits hung Louis Riel, the founding father of Canada…………the Country.
The artical is a very long read, on a country with a very short history, from what I see, with no mention of Riel and the Red River Rebellion, it’s a piece of fluff.
I would not go so far but missing Riel in a presentation like this is sinful for a Canadian historian.
I enjoyed reading the piece however and came away with some learning myself.
I have to dig now..in research of my own.. to corroborate or correct, or both, as well as to expand on some points
I think Ehret does mention the Red River Rebellion.
But he doesn’t give details. Was this an attempt to join the USA?
He mentions Red River Settlement and says nothing of how the Brits killed Riel, while on a “peace mission” (shades of Solumaini) to a Brit Fort, scumbag English are no better that scumbag USer’s, a pox on them all!
Riel was attempting to set up Canada ‘the country’, not The Dominion Of Canada a Brit colony, under Brit rule, Riel wanted a free country not beholden to any Imperial State.
Riel was Metis.
The Royal Navy had to keep control of international commerce. Everything else is consequence of this imperative. Imperial Russia and the USA could not be allowed to be joined by a railway.
A similar scenario is going on at present. The USA and its allies are desperate to sabotage China’s Belt and Road Initiative. The same applies to Russia’s pipeline to Germany.
Declining empires try to prevent the inevitable.
Joining US and Russia by railway was a pipedream. The break of gauge was an insurmountable obstacle then, and would be a major inconvenience even today.
What is the gauge in the Russian Federation and what is the North American gauge?
Russia has 5 ft gauge, US 4 ft 8-1/2 in.
Was this to link to European railroads?
Same with Russian guage and Ukranian guage. It’s been solved. The coaches are lifted and put on a different rake. Happens every day.
Canada is full of Russia hating Ukraines who spend lots of cash on subverting Canadian democracy (whatever that is) I wouldn’t mind if the fat slobs just got on a plane and went back to the ‘motherland’ and grabbed a Kalashnikov and fought but there’s no chance of that, they love living in Le ‘Petit America’ and spouting their Nazi bile. They’ll never go home because there isn’t a home to go back to and the only time there will be is when the Ukraines vote to ask mother Russia to take her in her arms once again. Yes that will happen and all the fat slobs in Canada will piss and moan and do nothing about it.
Yes. A similar article could be written about Australia and New Zealand.
There has been a deliberate attempt to control and limit CA’s, AU’s & NZ’s technological and manufacturing capacity, and their population size & mix, to suit the aims of London.
In Australia’s case the Rhodes Scholars are Fraser, Hawke, Beazley, Abbott with outside recruits of Keating Howard & Whitlam just to name a few.
All who did little and performed poorly.
Canada’s leaders from Mulroney have been so pathetic because they are mere stooges.
“There has been a deliberate attempt to control and limit CA’s, AU’s & NZ’s technological and manufacturing capacity, and their population size & mix, to suit the aims of London. ”
Wow. Exactly like the aims of the British East India Co in India. Deindustrialization, I mean.
Also, degradation of the society to produce opium in order to degrade and destroy China.
Katherine, thanks for chiming in. I’d have to say, though, as someone who’s lived here through the 90’s and NAFTA, that the primary source of suppression of Canada’s native technological and manufacturing capacity has been, without question, Bill Gates and the tech entrepreneurs to the south of us. Americans are relentless in their demand for monopolies, and I believe both Putin and Lavrov have remarked on this.
I call it “license bondage.”
what is the term for when a certain technology takes over by default and cannot be changed?
Like what happened with the QWERTY keyboard? Everyone know it is no good and illogical, but it cannot be dialed back or replaced.
That “integration” or whatever is also how NATO rules Europe and other countries: by “integration” of all of the weapons systems, so no one can go rogue.
Makes me wonder what kind of operating system the Russian military uses.
Not to mention, the Israelis. I can’t really imagine the Zionists making themselves subservient to the Gates money maw.
Very interesting essay!
Thank you, Mathew Ehret.
All of this history is new territory for me.
But confirms the little bit I knew about the British connivance in the Southern Rebellion.
First I read about this aspect of the Civil War was in Colin Woodard’s American Nations.
I would love to know more details of the relationship between the East India Company and the Hudson’s Bay Company. I had no idea there was any connection.
Now it appears that British policy toward Canada was an extension of the Great GAme in Central Asia, in which Britain pitted itself against Russia. I guess, everywhere it could. Just as Britain and France were pitted against each other throughout the globe in the 18th century.
Dumb question: Why does Britain do this? I mean, the Great Game game?
What does Britain have against Russia?? They are in completely different spheres, Russia being basiclly landlocked and Britain being a maritime power. I guess because development of the great continental powers would puncture Britain’s hegemony over trade.
As Americans should we take on board that Britain still works against our interests?
Should we try to annex Canada? Or parts of Canada?
Say, if in the likely fast approaching chaos the US Northwest decides to break off from the west of the USA, should residents of CA, OR, and WA encourage BC to join them? That would provide plenty of space for population expansion to the north. It might make a lot of sense.
Where would Alaska fit in?
Just want to say, furthermore, that I appreciate your (Mathew I am talking to you) piece at Strategic-Culture.org on The Great Reset.
I am at a loss to understand why more non-mainstream analysts seem to be ignoring this disaster quickly approaching from Death Star Davos.
Also the function of the COVID madness as a cover and pretext for these maniacs.
BTW, in his most recent podcast, Dr. Michael Osterholm of CIDRAP pretty much demolishes the mask wearing policies as based on no science. He also blasts MASKS4ALL and the NYT for conducting a misinformation campaign. I recommend all those despairing of ever seeing an end to the nappy-wearing madness to read this transcript in its entirety and possible print out a copy or selected grafs to hand to those who would seek to impose a mask on one:
BTW just read the first challenge to the theory of CO2-driven climate change that seems to make sense.
Are there any scientists out there who could comment?
(This webpage title looks a bit flighty, but there is a lot of info here.)
The connection to The Great Reset is that the Green New Deal or whatever it is called is a central piece of the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset plan, whereby these unelected “leaders” take control of the world economy. They plan to enforce the Green New Deal on everyone. Among a lot of other things that are likely to cull and then zombify humans.
Dumb answer: The English King (zioanglo) was a cousin of the Tzar. The Tzar asked for some kind of protection from said King but was rebuffed. Instead, the Brit king facilitated the assasination of the Tzar and his family, thinking to plunder Russia’s wealth no doubt (I’d imagine the Russian Zionists promised the Brit King he’d get the lions share, lots of Russian expats in The City Of London, to this very day), but we now know how that turned out. The Brits are still pissed 100 years later, they lost, and if you know any Brits, losing fairly ain’t on thier radar (Hong Kong). That’s the cribbed version, no shortage of info out there on it.
If you find this material useful, you might enjoy the three part series I wrote called Origins of the Deep State in North America which sort of picks up from where this article leaves off and traces the growth and policies of the Rhodes Trust Hives and Fabians throughout the 20th century. You can find them all here:
As for the question of annexation today: I think America would have to rehabilitate its soul over many years before such an act would be considered Just. It’s like learning to drive. When someone is sober minded and in control of themselves driving is a good thing and very justifiable. If that person falls into drug abuse and alcoholism and wants to drive then the same act (driving) is no longer good or justifiable. The America of Lincoln or Grant is very different from the America of the post JFK world and even though I like President Trump, the rot has gone deep. For a seccession movement of the west coast, I think that would not work out. For one, there are no wise leaders who I can see who would lead it anywhere good.
Canadian secession of Alberta or BC from Ottawa is a bit more reasonable considering its a different structure of government entirely from the USA’s republican form. Here in Canada, our entire government is enshrined with Deep State/Privy Council principles and democratic modes of government are secondary. In the USA on the other hand, the organization of government are constitutional with Deep State controls as a secondary feature. It may not seem like a big deal from our perspective, but consider the fact that 8 American presidents were shot/poisoned while in office vs zero Canadian statesmen and consider the total absence of any independence rebellions beyond a poor effort in 1837 that was always doomed to fail and also consider the massive under-development of Canada which was designed to be a wedge between Russia and the USA (while running operations against the USA itself for 200 years- see Montreal’s Permindex murder of JFK), and then you get my drift.
If Canada’s BC or Allberta (which have large controls of their natural resources and can even make foreign treaties) chose to go for a pro-New Silk Road pro-Multipolar development orientation, then it is certain that the technocrats in Ottawa will resist and sabotage. In such a possible scenario, a seperation would be legit (or as the Chinese say “would follow the mandate of heaven”)
Matt, seriously, you think Canada, or parts thereof, can ‘independantly’ go for pro silk road multipolar developement? Canada isn’t even a soverign nation, who’s going to take control and lead us from the Imperial darkness? Perry Bellegarde?
In 2016, the BC gov’t signed an MOU with the Guangdong prov and Chinese fed reps to cooperate on the Belt and Road initiative entirely outside of the controls of Ottawa. There are currently certain private and public interests that have flexibility and means to promote northern development, arctic rail, roads etc which ties into the pro-industrial policy alive in Eurasia- especially with the Polar Silk Road’s growth.
An interesting private group pushing the Alaska-Canada Rail connection is here: https://www.globalconstructionreview.com/news/groups-align-push-13bn-canada-alaska-railway/
Some historic precedents exist on this issue of provinces going renegade to initiate their own development outside fo the influence of Ottawa technocrats as in the case of Premier WAC Bennett’s BC and Premier Daniel Johnson/Lesage’s Quebec.
It’s a potentially, though not statistically likely.. It’s necessity though overrides considerations of statistical masturbation in my mind which is really just something for impotent voyeurs and subjects who only know how to yap away commenting about how impossible every solution is while other people work to organize.
Sorry. But I count people who dont understand the CO2 and Clima hoax to have a complete lack of basic math and physics.
They, mostly liberals, were focused on “soft values” and didnt liked the hard work to understand the logic of math and physics.
The clima hoax is simple to explain in only 5 minutes. A math equation consist of fixed parameters and variables.
As Science still dont know a bunch of these variables; sun spots and storms, interrelations sun, moon and planets, the material of space, the suns influence through the spheres, and many other misteries who have influence on the weather, the equation simply cant be made.
Even the known variables; volcanos, tectonic movements, permafrost, etc. do have such big variants to the tolerances simply get too big for any calculation of values for the ridiculous stated 1-2C increase.
What we do in Engineering practise is taking known variations. Rain have appeared in an area for 100 years to be between low 600mm to 900mm high/year/m2. In a year it rained 4 weeks in the harvest period as the most extreme.
We then use these figures to calculate the size of our pipes, culverts, ditches, etc.
We now go form this conclusion from math out in physical reality and prove it. You take an interactive weather map from the last 100 years of Australia. You will see there is absolutely no pattern at all in the weather variations of the years. One year they have drought, next year flood, third average.
Out of all the variations to influence the weather, CO2 is only one parameter and notwithstanding any influence it can only be very small in compareson to the other influencers.
Then we look at history, litterature, museums, and realize the weather always have been uncontrollable with the medicine man dancing around to make the weather fit the tribes purposes, and storms and floods have been common all time.
We have now proved out math conclusion.
So why are MSM and “Science” everybody claiming human made weather changes? We then go to the root of who invented the concept, Al Goore, CEO/Goldmann Sachs.
Goldmann Sachs is only known for one thing, fraud, market manipulations, fraud, economical hitman schemes, pump and dump, looting countries and cities and companies to bankruptcy and misery.
The idea behind CO2 and Clima fear is thus only an abstract financial scheme. The idea is control and allocation of energy. The CO2 quotes are for allowance of energy, less to industrialised nations and more to third nations, sold by International Bankers as wealth transfer.
As liberals, women and school children mostly dont know math and physics, these groups are exploited to sell the idea into group thinking of the public.
Everybody are paid by these Financiers to make selective graphs, statistics, articles, movies about plastic, clima changes, disasters, whatsoever, and when people see money, we get what we call psychological willful ignorance of any real scientific argument against this propaganda scheme.
The end game of this Clima hoax and Green Deal scheme is even more dark, but Matthis is better to take on this part than me.
Thanks very much for responding to my query.
Glad I came back today to check whether there were any responses.
Bill McKibben is definitely one who comes from a liberal arts background.
As do I, so I am not able to assess the validity of the science presented in the webpage that I linked.
(Although in my defense as not being a total math ditz, in the GRE (Graduate Record Exams, needed to attend graduate school in the USA) exams I got a higher math score than the average student who is accepted at MIT. And I did manage to surprise my physics teacher in high school by getting a B+ on the PSSC physics course that I had been advised to take for my science requirement because “at least you will get some credit for failing it.” Ha ha.)
Anyhow, did you have a chance to look over the webpage and the arguments made there?
Do you think this is solid info?
Can you recommend a source of solid argument and evidence that refutes and pushes back against the Climate Change/Green New Deal agenda ? A book? A website? I thought the info in the webpage was convincing. But the presentation is a little bit comic-book-like. (Speaking of which, this would be a great additions to the “Biginners . . .” series (first volume, back in the late sixties: Cuba for Beginners). Climate Science for Beginners. ))
To what extent do you think the climate change narrative is being used as a digression from truly concerning issues such as destruction of habitat, ocean acidification, disappearing species, etc.?
A book that I highly recommend on climate change is Climate Change the Work of God by Gerry Fox.
One caveat however, is there is nothing in it about the green new deal agenda or any other political bulldog being fed us by the ignorant. What I do promise one however, is truth real verifiable truth that climate change has a biblical component to it. The book in fact, proves the truth of what was written thousands of years ago!!!!
“See, the storm of the Lord will burst out in wrath, a whirlwind swirling down on the heads of the wicked. The anger of the Lord will not turn back until he fully accomplishes the purposes of his heart. In days to come you will fully understand it clearly.” (Jeremiah 23:19–20)
Further to this you can also go here and read the apology by a climate activist:
Thank you. I’ll look at it.
As I stated previously, I am always entertained when reading Matthew Ehret and his parallel universe.
I can divide people into two classes: those who never took/passed Calculus and University Physics with Calculus and those who did. Matthew Ehret in my opinion, didn’t. If you did take that physics course, you probably remember the rock being dropped from a tower located on the Earth and also a parachute and a feather being dropped as well. The rock dropped quickly due to the force of gravity, while the parachute and the feather floated down. Although in all three cases gravity acted in causing a downward motion, in the case of the parachute and the feather, we needed to take into account a second force, drag or air resistance, which we need to measure empirically. In the case of a feather, it is proportional to the velocity, while, for a larger object shaped like a parachute, it is proportional to the square of the velocity. Basically for the rock, the air resistance is negligible, it is a second-order effect, while gravity is a first-order effect, yet for the feather or parachute, it is not.
In politics, too, in my opinion, the concepts of first-order and second-order effects are also present. For me, the fact that Putin rules like an autocrat and that the Chinese Communist Party has introduced social credit scoring that allows or denies rights and privileges to the population, are second-order effects that can be neglected for someone like me who lives outside the country. The first=order effect for me is that both oppose the imperialist US empire.
When it comes to Canada, in my opinion, the undoubtedly evil British Empire is a second-order effect, while the near neighbour to the South with its designs on Canada, think about Canada’s defeat of the US in the War of 1812, is a first-order effect. For instance, he complains about the confederal nature of Canada, while this allowed Canada to develop and keep its publicly funded health care system, which the Federal government promised initially to fund 50% of the costs, but never has. A more centralized Canadian government with a medicare system would never have been able to resist US pressures to abandon medicare. Also, a confederal arrangement has allowed Quebec, with its Francophone majority, to enjoy a virtual, mental independence while benefitting from being part of Canada.
Also, a US-style republic leads ultimately to political leaders, who are never called upon to defend their actions the way a Canadian Prime Minister and his ministers do in question period. It is more common in Canada for new party leaders to be selected while their party is in opposition and for them to prove themselves during question period. So, it is difficult for leaders like Eisenhower, G.W. Bush, Biden and Trump, who are all incoherent people to arise as leaders in Canada.
When I argue with my US friends, they always say they could invade Canada, but, for the US armed forces, the dilemma is that, while the bulk of the Canadian population resides in easily conquered cities, the wealth of Canada, its natural resources, lies in isolated rural environments, whose inhabitants are quite adept at resisting invaders.
what invaders have ‘Canadians’ resisted………….? Cut off thier food supply in October, pick up thier frozen bodies in April, who can resist the cold? The is no home steader/settler spirit left in Canada, a few here and there……..but the rest of Canada…to busy exercizing thier thumbs on digital exercise devices.
It is quite clear you have never been to an isolated rural Canadian community. A lot of these folks live by their wits in fishing and hunting. In any case, if the US deigned to invade, they would be quite capable of mounting a resistance similar to what the Iraqis did. Think of Canada Rangers, who would quite quickly turn into a guerilla force. The Cree would also make life uncomfortable for the US invaders. Also, living next door to the US we know what symbols they cherish: blowing up the various memorials and museums in Washington, DC, theme parks in Florida and California and key buildings in NYC and Chjicage would do wonders for US morale.
I’ve worked with Canadian Rangers………….which does not answer my question? And Canadians are not Iraqis by any streach of the imagination. Canadians know war and hardship like the Iraqis? Explain, expand, please, I need the education.
Isolated rural Canadian community? Like a reserve, or a Hutterite colony, that’s not Canada. The yanks have little problem holding Iraqi/Syrian oil fields, how would Canada be different? We only have long guns and flint lock black powder rifles.
I can’t see any meaningful resistance from an invasion in Canada. I only need look at the instant reaction of what clearly seems to be a majority during this scamdemic. And this applies equally to rural areas such as I live in. Everyone fell in line immediately without any critical thought whatsoever. I have discovered that even middle aged and older adults are also virtue signalers! The younger crowd are a bunch of feminized, confused, social justice warriors who are already completely conquered.
As a side note, I walked into an LCBO yesterday in the nearest small town to buy some beer. I didn’t wear a mask. I walked in, grabbed what I wanted, paid for it and left and nobody said boo.
It is easy to talk about ‘progress’ which began and what could have been. The progress in the U.S. with the push west was for some but not for all. They stomped all over the native inhabitants and slaughtered them. Is this progress or conquest? It seems to me America is not so different from their largely British ancestors. It is even by volumes worse and more threatening now as they try to force their ‘progress’ on the rest of the world one way or another.
I was having difficulty putting my finger on why articles like this make me uncomfortable. I have already suggested what this term ‘progress’ entails. My suspicions are confirmed in this recent synopsis of the period from Paul Craig Roberts.
The historical figures we are supposed to warm up to as open and progressive thinkers who will bring great prosperity are in fact, cold-hearted butchers!! One quote from a book Mr. Roberts is reviewing:
“This,” DiLorenzo writes, “is what makes someone a Lincoln ‘scholar’—dictatorship is democracy, tyranny is freedom, destroying the Constitution is constitutional, imprisoning political dissenters is benevolent, dictatorship in the right hands is good and noble—and on it goes.”
It looks to me that either the British Empire still exists and has at least some control of the U.S., like a parent and child or else we have twins. And all the other commonwealth countries are guilty to some degree of cooperation in butchery. To somehow think to work together with this evil can somehow create a better world is fantasy at best.
PCR’s anti-Lincoln diatribe misses alot of elementary facts. Can I suggest you read this piece I wrote a month ago Craig?
Also my attached Youtube class may interest you
Great thanks to you, Matthew.
It is high time facts be exposed, and alternatives discussed.
Since the time of the so-called “Canadian Confederacy”, of course, we have seen much, including these dark days of apparent in-progress collapse of the nationstate/empire of the United States of America, at the same time co-incidentally of a renewed Anglo-American international alignment, (under who/what influence an interesting question?)
Nonetheless, during this time of roiling civilizational challenges, there is inherent prospects of significant change to address the emerging stark apparentness of the gross inequity of human existence.
Always the same story, but different affiliative labels assigned, enabling a serial facade of novelty, again and again.
While in reality, it is the same 0.1% minority of psychopathic cancerous socio-economic elites, whose perspective on reality is as different from the 99% (aka “humanity“) as it is from an orca pod, manipulates and games the systems put in place specifically for that purpose, negative-sum-gaining the entire ecosphere in vane attempts to satiate their extreme obsessive narcissism.
Of course the opportunity comes with high risk, but, as the saying goes, “you can’t make an omelette…“
Excellent article. Many thanks