Socialism, World's Oldest Pyramid Scam

                 

                KEY TAKEAWAYS   

 

·       Socialist pyramid scams (Schemes) are a utopian fraud on voters promising easy money, forgiving loans, by less work or no work

          

·       Socialist pyramid schemes (Scams) depend on other people’s money and then taxation, more taxation and plus more taxation

          

·       Socialist pyramid schemes (SPS) represent a structure of price, labour, property, and corporate controls on society

        

·       SPS offers easy money and income through the redistribution of wealth and nationalization of industry and corporations

          

·        SPS funnels earnings, profits and property from the richest nonparticipants and corporations on the upper levels of society to governments to be transferred and distributed to the lower and lowest levels of participants and society.

          

·        It is a felony in the U.S. to recruit participants into pyramid schemes, yet academia throughout the world preaches the theory of the socialist pyramid schemes (Scams) yet never the failures and disaster results of socialism are preached.

          

·       Yet, SPS requires the buy-in and support through voter participation and propagandized by media, academia and the courts that remain unchallenged by politicians and their legal system

          

·       All SPS rely on individuals' and corporations’ income for redistribution of wealth, property and profits from participants and nonparticipants alike.

          

·        Like all socialist pyramid scams (SPS) once all corporations and industry have been confiscated and nationalized by the government the scams death by ecocide has been accomplished as detailed throughout history

History, it seems, once passed remains forgotten by the voters, that is until once again we are fooled by the liberal socialist progressive's rebranding of the socialist pyramid scams for political power purposes

The conception of many was that socialism in North America had been “vanquished” after the collapse of Soviet Communism 32 years ago in 1991.

We all must be reminded of the words of T. S. Eliot who stated, “There is no such thing as a Lost Cause because there is no such thing as a Gained Cause.”

Socialism in whatever name or form that academia, politicians, and the media continue to support and propagandize for the masses and their comrades by such rebranding we all must continually be reminded that “There is no sense in which socialism can be made compatible with democracy anywhere in the world as socialism eat democracy and is swiftly transmuted into tyranny.”

At best, socialism “stamps out individualism, places civil society into a straitjacket of uniform size and turns representative government into an illusion.” 

Throughout Canada; North and South America and indeed the world; after more than 6,000 years of civilization the rights to free speech, the rights to free conscience, and the rights to freedom of religion along with the right to bear arms and the right to a jury trial are continually under attack by liberal socialist progressive politicians 

Divide, Diversify and Conquer

“The quickest way to control a population is to turn it against itself. Divide, Diversify and Conquer.” That’s how the British ruled India. 

If you want to run a City or Country for the benefit of all the people who live in it, by contrast, you’d do the opposite of this. 

 

You’d deemphasize racial and gender differences along with wokeness, and NOT highlight them for political purposes.

 

You’d understand that in a society and community of many different ethnic groups, tribalism (Neotribalism) is the greatest threat to unity and order. And you would resist using the existence of racism and gender as an excuse for failure.

You would never allow anyone gender or race to blame an entire racial group or one gender for the sins of its ancestors. As this would serve only to embitter and divide the population. It might make a politician's job easier in the short term, yet over time it would wreck the City; community and indeed the country itself.

Politicians and businesses once understood this.

 

Politicians, today no longer oppose segregation. They no longer insist on treating all genders and races equally. They now consider gender and race the centre of human identity.

They demand that individuals be exalted or punished because of their gender or skin colour. Human citizens must be judged on what they do, not on how they look, who their parents were, or what their ancestors did or did not do. 

Our elected politicians and political parties once stood for and said they did not believe in collective punishment or reward. They stood for and believed in the Individual, which is why they opposed segregation.

 

Today activist protestors from numerous high schools, universities and colleges are demanding spaces entirely off-limits to WHITE people. They are demanding segregated meeting areas within these publicly funded institutions of learning, for Blacks ONLY.

 

And that is NOT what the honourable Reverend Martin Luther King stood for during his short life. And NO media, politicians, professors etc. have acknowledged the irony of banning people, WHITE people, or others based on skin colour.

 

Tell me, in the USA for example, when the Brown versus Board ruled that school segregation was ILLEGAL, then how are any of these today's efforts to divide people by race, colour, and gender legal???

 

For generations, it was an article of common sense and faith among politicians and businesses that integration was the key to racial and gender harmony. Bigotry grows from ignorance, was the assumption. The more personal exposure we all have to different groups, the more we’ll come to see that everyone’s basically the same. And that understanding is far less divisive than what we are now seeing today.

 

It’s sad that we no longer hear much from our so-called political leaders, academia, or business executives about the importance of racial and gender harmony. As the emphasis now is on our differences which is the essence of the diversity agenda, #IMHOPEOPLE.

 

And not surprisingly, this has led to an explosion of racial and gender hostility in North American life. It was once considered the greatest possible sin to criticize someone for his/her skin colour or gender. Yet today and now it is regarded as a sign of enlightenment. And it's everywhere, in academia, politics and business, but especially on campuses throughout Canada and the USA. and within the administration of cities, municipalities and towns.

 

The identity politics and policies of today may make a City, State, Province, or Country easier to govern, and it also makes them all much harder and unsafe to live in. Identity politics is based on the premise that everyone is a member of a subgroup, usually a racial or gender category.

The point of achieving political power is to divert resources to your group. Which is another word for tribalism!

 

And this my friends is the most divisive possible way to run a Country, City, Province, Municipality, State or Business. Because they are not about ideas, they are based on inborn characteristics, tribalism, wokeness and identity politics which are inherently unreasonable.

As there are no winning arguments of different opinions, or even having them. There is only victory or defeat for the groups. And this is NOT democracy its fascism at its worst.

 

In North America, virtually every non-white and or gender groups reap advantages from being racially and or gender-conscious and politically organized. So how long before someone asks the simple rational question: Why should the whites in North America not be allowed to think of themselves as a group and thus organize and agitate along racial and gender lines, too?

 

And when this happens and at this rate of identity politics it will, and when White people become another interest group politically fighting for the spoils, Democracy throughout North America as we’ve known it shall be over. In the sense that we’re all in this together, united by citizenship in a common endeavour of some kind, as Citizens of a Country, City, State or Province, that shall end forever along with democracy, free speech, diversity, and integration.

 

All thanks to politicians, bureaucrats, technocrats, special interest groups and lobbyists have developed a whole series of institutional problems and the lack of political legitimacy because of how politicians, academia, judges, and businesses fail to behave morally; ethically and transparently in matters that are central to the lives of most people and treated such obligations as unimportant.

 

They ALL equally are responsible for encouraging today's permissiveness in the bedrooms that have found their way into the halls of Justice, Boardrooms, Political Parties and Governments. Diversity through wokeness is a new failure of society that is putting us all back into tribalism of Divide, Diversify and Conquer.

So-called self-proclaimed leaders, thanks to the media, in business, education and politics through their actions or non-actions have continued doing their utmost, NOT to create environments where people of all backgrounds, regardless of colour etc., can maximize their own potential.

Therefore, we need to work together democratically, to take power back from political parties, businesses, and academia, in my view.

 

 

PS Seeking wisdom based on facts then read Ship of Fools by Tucker Carlson (Author, Narrator)

 

The Motives of Scientists

Science and technology provide the most important examples of surrogate activities. Science is a surrogate activity because scientists work mainly for the fulfillment, they get out of the work itself. 

Yet, of course, it’s not that simple. Other motives do play a role for many scientists. Some scientists claim that they are motivated by “curiosity” or by a desire to “benefit humanity.” But it is easy to see that neither of these can be the principal motive of most scientists.

As for “curiosity,” that notion is simply absurd. Most scientists work on highly specialized problems that are not the object of any normal curiosity. For example, is an astronomer, a mathematician, or an entomologist curious about the properties of isopropyl trimethyl methane? Of course not. 

Only a chemist is curious about such a thing, and he/she is curious about it only because chemistry is his surrogate activity. Is the chemist curious about the appropriate classification of a new species of beetle? No. That question is of interest only to the entomologist, and he is interested in it only because entomology is his surrogate activity. 

If the chemist and the entomologist had to exert themselves seriously to obtain the physical necessities, and if that effort exercised their abilities in an interesting way but in some non-scientific pursuit, then they wouldn’t care about isopropyl trimethyl methane or the classification of beetles. 

Suppose that lack of funds for postgraduate education had led the chemist to become an insurance broker instead of a chemist. In that case, he would have been very interested in insurance matters but would have cared nothing about isopropyl trimethyl methane. 

In any case, it is not normal to put into the satisfaction of mere curiosity the amount of time and effort that scientists put into their work. 

The “curiosity” explanation for the scientists’ motive just doesn’t stand up. 

The “benefit of humanity” explanation doesn’t work any better. Some scientific work has no conceivable relation to the welfare of humanity most archaeology or comparative linguistics for example. Some other areas of science present obviously dangerous possibilities. 

Yet scientists in these areas are just as enthusiastic about their work as those who develop vaccines or study air pollution. Science and technology constitute a power mass movement, and many scientists gratify their need for power through identification with this mass movement. 

In my view then, conceivably, science marches on blindly, without regard to the real welfare of humanity or to any other standard, obedient only to the psychological needs of the scientists and of the government officials and corporation executives who provide the funds for research and then profits from said research.

Security and Individualism

What makes us FEEL secure is not so much the objective security of a Constitution, or even the justice system but rather a sense of confidence in our ability to take care of ourselves.

Today, families and individuals are threatened by many things against which we are helpless: nuclear accidents, inflation, carcinogens in food, environmental pollution, war, increasing taxes, invasion of one's privacy by large organizations, and nationwide social or economic phenomena that may disrupt our desired way of life.

It is true that society is powerless against some of the things that threaten us like disease for example. But we can accept the risk of disease stoically. It is part of the nature of things, it is no one’s fault unless it is the fault of some imaginary, impersonal demon. But threats to individuals and society or corporations by government tend to be MAN-MADE and to hell with the constitution or laws.

For example, in Canada, as per the actions of Justin Trudeau and his liberal party animated by the NDP, and propagandized by the mainstream media, protesting, or becoming angry against the government’s policies cannot be permitted unless such protesting is in support of and NOT contrary to government policies.

If voters do, then, of course, the government shall freeze your bank accounts, and arrest you and if you are not vaccinated the government then makes sure through their supporters in Big Teck, Banks, and other Corporations that one loses her/his job in many instances, as we all have witnessed these past few years.

Voters and thus citizens of Canada have become strapped down by the government’s mandated restrictions and regulations that have finally come to the surface within society and frustrated many of one’s family; personal choices and impulses that have interfered dramatically with our lives within a free and democratic so-called country.

These are not the results of chance but are IMPOSED on us by other persons whose decisions society as an individual, is unable to influence. Consequently, we feel frustrated, humiliated, and angry especially when we realize that governments enact legislation or laws that are Ultra Virus and no one in government or in Corporations is held accountable.

WHY? And that question WHY is NO LONGER taught in Universities or high schools let alone at grade level or group discussions?

Perhaps that is why today's so-called elected representatives of the public at all levels of government are in fact elected on average by FEWER than 10% of ALL ELIGIBLE VOTERS.

And this does NOT represent democracy, in my view.

 

Quebec's Language Bill 96 is Unconstitutional and Spits in the Face of 90 percent of Canadians

Quebec's language Bill 96 is unconstitutional and the PM must evoke the disallowance power which remains part and parcel of the Consolidation of Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982.

When if ever shall the electorate have a political party and its leaders with enough sense and fortitude to stand up for Canada and its citizens by using the disallowance power under the existing Canadian Constitution i.e. Constitution Act, 1867 – the disallowance power which remains part and parcel of the Consolidation of Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982? It remains part of the Canadian constitution as protection for minority rights and from discriminatory laws passed by provincial governments i.e., Quebec’s Bill 96 and others.

Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that what is written in the Constitution remains in force, NO matter if such powers written within the Constitution are often used or not. They remain part of the Constitution until the Constitution is amended by the Canadian Constitution amendment procedures and NOT by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Academics can debate until the end of Global warming about whether the powers within the Constitution remain legitimate constitutional tools if they are not used from time to time or for many years as this is simply an academic theory and NOT a law or power as written within the Constitution.

Further, as the disallowance power remains in the written text of the Constitution Act, of 1867, to be of no force, it would need to have lapsed through a convention. For a convention to arise, all parties affected must consider the convention to be binding on them.

Since no Prime Minister has declared the disallowance power to be obsolete, legally it is still a legitimate part of Canada’s Constitution and can or could and should be used to ensure that all provinces respect and adhere to the Canadian Consolidation of Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982 in my view.

Further, some debates, mainly by academics, have taken place on whether a constitutional convention can invalidate a written law. It is legally difficult to see how a lack of exercise can or could vitiate a written and legal constitutional power. Especially, since the courts upheld the appointment of eight additional senators in 1990, although the pertinent section of the Canada Act 1867, had never been previously used and was considered, by some, to be archaic.

Background: 

1. https://lop.parl.ca/content/lop/TeachersInstitute/ConstitutionalConventions.pdf

2. https://www.constitutionalstudies.ca/ccs-term/reservation-and-disallowance/?print=print-search

3.  https://nationalpost.com/opinion/conrad-black-bill-96

4.  https://nationalpost.com/opinion/quebecs-latest-assault-on-the-english-language-must-not-stand

Callaghan J. Ontario High Court of Justice Decision in Favour of Peter Clarke 1981

 In 1981, Peter Clarke, through his lawyer, W. Ross Hitch, sued the Clarkson Co. Ltd and the government of Ontario (HER MAJESTY, and the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario), for illegally enacting and passing the following legislation that “was frustrating the laws of the Dominion and the provincial Legislature has no mandate to supplement federal legislation.”

“An Act respecting Certain Potential Assets of Co-operative Health Services of Ontario”

Callaghan J. Ontario High Court of Justice Decision in Favour of Clarke

The Act in assuming to protect potential estate assets and thereby directly frustrating a compromise arrangement negotiated by the liquidator under the Winding-up Act is, in my view, legislation in relation to matters falling directly within the subject of insolvency and is, accordingly, ultra vires. The declaration sought will be granted and the question of law propounded will be answered in accordance with these reasons. [27] Application granted.

 

Source:

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/1981/1981canlii1741/1981canlii1741.html

PS Conceivably, if there had been internet crowdfunding availability at the time, one could have continued a lawsuit against all members of the legislature, their respective political parties and leaders, for Breach of Trust, Deralection of Duty, and neglect of official duty for an improper and ultra vires purpose under criminal and civil laws. As citizens, we all unfortunately over the years continue to witness that our elected officials and their political party leaders and others in government seem never to be accountable for such actions! 

 

Toronto's Upcoming Election for Councillors

 

Who, other than the propagandists in the mainstream media, like yourselves in the Toronto Star etc., who constantly write telling the electorate what they want or why they need a progressive council at City Hall?

 Especially since that is what Toronto has been stuck with for far too long now!

 Progressive, in today’s Ontario and world politics, means progressivism that is considered part of the left-liberalism tradition. A political movement that identifies as progressive is "a social or political movement, through big government actions at the expense of the free-market system and individual rights and freedoms.  

 For example, A progressive candidate’s philosophy is to ask, “what am I owed, “and “what must my city or country do for me” or “what has offended me today”.

 While a true Conservative candidate on the other hand has a philosophy that asks, “what can I do for myself, my family, my community and my fellow citizens”.

 Further for your political progressives, a variety of opinions and ideas are not welcomed, unless they are totally in line with the liberal socialist leftism political philosophies of big government from cradle to grave entitlements. And when it comes to choices, well, your progressive’s they attack free speech, and they also do not want “choices” to apply to any decisions on education, health care or even how and where we live out ones’ religious faith along with what one eats or drinks for that matter.

 Progressive political candidates also stipulate that one political solution (“theirs”) fits all and Conservative candidates believe that the electorate and the citizens should have” choices” made and decided by them, not governments.

 In summary, Conservative philosophy, NOT Progressive philosophy, is what Toronto City council urgently requires so that our conservative elected representatives of the electorate believe in individual rights, NOT special rights for this group or that group at the expense of the other groups, and allowing Scarborough to be Scarborough, and North York to be North York. 

As Conservative candidates strongly believe that the electorate can vote with our feet about where one wants and what laws one wants to live under as opposed to being mandated for all by your progressive government types.  

 

Cheers, 

Peter Clarke