It was great to see so many of you at the recent Wooden Sticks gathering on Sunday, April 6th (mentioned last time): You might enjoy the Rebel News report on this (by invitation) event. And more of the town gathered for the Candidates Debate at the Uxbridge Arena on Monday, April 14th.
It was a packed house, though sadly, the Conservative candidate did not attend; as you will hear, below. If you'd like to listen to this debate, please visit the: Uxbridge Cosmos Federal Election - Candidates Forum
But let me cut to the chase here, with respect to the question above.
Theoretically at least, there should be no splitting of votes; if a particular party is able to sufficiently motivate its voter base. Voter turn out is often very low, as the graphic here (from the Independent Nova Scotia Initiative) illustrates. Plenty of potential voters exist, therefore, if they can be motivated.
Should our ‘participatory democracy’ function as designed — that is, with sufficient participation — many of the issues that need to be addressed today, would likely have been taken care of already. The moderator of Monday's event evoked this idea, and it’s a term I’ve used many times myself, in the hope of generating some additional help (in our various other campaigns).
But let me quickly remind everyone that we would have new parties in office already (and fresh voices), if Electoral Reform had been enacted ten years ago, as Trudeau promised in 2015. It wasn’t, and for a reason; but once this election is over (whichever party is in power), the people should insist on reform.
I shared a couple of videos previously, explaining these two systems. As the 21st Century Adam Smith, reminded me just recently:
‘I'm sure you know, if we had prop rep, the PPC would have had 5% of the seats in the last election?’
Yes, I think about this every day! The difference between our current ‘first past the post’ system, and the ‘proportional representation’ system, he explains in his animated video about the Near Winner Proportional System.
In a recent email update to my regular mailing list — ‘Wish You Were Here’ — I mentioned Nunavut, in connection with a picture from the previous day’s canvassing.
This wasn’t just a commentary on the slow demise of some neglected small towns, it was meant as an introduction to an idea that is taking root elsewhere in the world (including Canada’s far north), as you will see in the following: ‘No Political Parties - How Nunavut's Consensus Government Works.’ Most of the offshore world (something I'm familiar with and must elaborate on soon) run independents only.
But returning to the immediate question of vote splitting. If all of the Legacy parties are, in fact, under the influence of Globalists (constituting that ‘shadow government’ our forefathers warned us about) then people really have no choice but to vote for a political outsider — an independent even — on principle; because we have a much bigger problem if we continue to be herded, this way and that, out of fear. This may seem like a philosophical argument (now) and it won’t allay the fears of those concerned about diluting the Conservative vote in this election (between the CPC and the PPC) allowing the Liberals to again seize power. This is why direct, door to door, engagement with the community has never been more important.
Our canvassing teams have been out there everyday since the election was called, in an effort to reach as many of those disenchanted ‘non-voters’ as possible — and there are plenty of them. If we had a team of 20 or more canvassers — rather than our tireless (yet overworked) 7 to 8 regulars — I believe the PPC could win this riding hands-down (you’d be surprised how much ground we’ve covered already). Given the election results in some of these north communities previously, as much as 17% in some areas, we don’t have so far to go.
We have a new Riding, and this election should be a new beginning!
Some might argue, still, with my assertion that Globalist interests dictate the policies of all Legacy political parties, but this is not a radical new idea. People have been describing the Liberals and Conservatives as ‘two wings of the same bird’ for years; long before the term ‘uniparty’ was coined. I remain firmly convinced that both of the main establishment parties — along with the NDP and a hijacked Green Party — are all stage managed by the same shadowy interests; in which case, there really isn't any vote splitting — because the same Globalist agendas will continue, regardless of which establishment party people elect.
Different elements of the Globalist's plan will be prioritized, depending on who gets in; so it will seem as if the ‘parties’ are different, as each presses forward with it’s own preferred issues first. How many here have read the text of Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030? If you haven't read these documents, then you're making a decision based on the ‘CBC’s version of reality’ (as Senator Donald Plett might say).
I must add (so as to hopefully not upset 80 or 90% of the people who subscribe here): I too believe the Conservatives must win enough seats to take this election (overall). I also believe they will be allowed to win (but you’ve got to keep those theatre goers on the edge of their seats). This outcome is preferable (to the other Legacy party alternative), but only in so far as it will buy us just a little more time. A lot of those who saw Trump as their saviour, are now not so sure; it will be the same will Poilievre — guaranteed.
This election feels like a replay of that clown show south of our border, where Kamala and Walz were so unbelievably bad, that they couldn’t have been chosen by accident. No one in their right mind could possible vote for these people (surprisingly though, many still did). And it was just as alarming last time, as you’ll recall, when Trump ran against Hillary Clinton.
Here in Canada at least, we do have another choice, the PPC; and if the Liberals had followed through on the their promise of Electoral Reform, we would already have seats. Instead, we got more Trudeau (twice), and the same marketing buzz words that every other WEF puppet ‘Young Global Leader’ trotted out: The ‘New Normal,’ ‘Build Back Better,’ etc., etc. The world’s ‘leaders,’ in unison — as one great ‘Uniparty’ — gave up any pretense of representing the interests of sovereign nations, and submitted to Global control (as outlined in the Rockefeller Foundation’s ‘Lockstep’ document). And Mr. Trudeau, of course (because the majority of people are actually not stupid) became so unpopular that the Globalists had to install a new talking head.
Everyone is tired of career politicians, but now (in anticipation of the technocratic age) the Internationalists want Canadians to vote for a career Central Banker instead; Canada has long been a bankocracy so we shouldn't be surprised. Mark Carney, of course, has been groomed (and waiting in the wings) for many years.
The globalists are salivating over Canada's land and resources, despite their fake Green agenda. Canada has always been a privileged Third World nation (so privileged that we've always fully believed we lived in the First World). The private banks have plundered this country for years; the Crown too, through it's Privy Council and other means; and now Trump wants to take over (or so he says). But why not? The unification of this part of the world into one giant block — the North American Union (NAU)— is one the Globalists most cheerished objectives; just like the EU. Trump may have seemed like a Regionalist, but suddenly, once in power, a lot of Globalist ideas emerged.
Canada is a sovereign nation, but Canadians will continue in this role of ‘Hewers of wood and drawers of water,’ for the benefit of others (and under much less ‘generous’ terms), if the people of this nation do not stand up soon and get engaged. And I’m sorry, but that Oh-so Canadian ‘Elbows Up’ sign we see on lawns all over now, won’t change a thing!
My hope is, that in two or three enlightened Ridings (like York-Durham perhaps), the PPC will prevail. As I mentioned before, I don't think we have to worry about the polling numbers (with respect to the Liberals — just for a laugh), and a concerted effort in a handful of select Ridings, may well win the PPC two or three seats. This would serve all Canadians by holding Conservatives to account; by reminding them of their values, should they drift to the left again or continue to ignore programs that undermine Canadian sovereignty — such as the WHO’s ‘One Health’ and IHR amendments, etc.
It’s odd that Liberals get all up in arms over ‘Canadian Sovereignty’ when Trump says something tactless, but “nobody seems to notice, and nobody seems to care” as the United Nations, the WHO, the WEF (and other Globalist organizations) collaborate with Trudeau (and now Carney), reducing Canada to a border-line Third World, “post-national [corporate] state.”
As Patricia Conlin has said many times, “we have to stop voting out of fear, and start voting for our principals again.” I hope you’ll have time watch both of the debates linked in this post. But when criticizing the Liberals (as most of us do), please remember it was the actions of Conservatives that enabled the Liberals in almost everything they have done (since the dawn of neoliberalism). This is ‘tag team’ ‘Uniparty’ politics. And also, never forget, neoliberalism isn't Liberal; it a Conservative construct, funded by the super wealthy elite and implemented by the CIA. Again, please refer to my series on the history of neoliberalism.
Brian (they made me do this to you) Mulroney:
As Prime Minister, from September 17th 1984 to June 25th 1993, not only did he introduce neoliberalism to Canada, he began the erosion of our nation’s sovereignty by signing on to the United Nation’s Agenda 21.
Canada's Financial Commitment to Agenda 21
In his address at the Earth Summit on 12 June 1992, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney pledged Canada's full support for the funding of international action to fulfil the environmental Conventions agreed to in Rio.
Stephen (I'm feeling pretty comfortable now) Harper:
Prime Minister from February 6th 2006 to November 4th 2015 (Bonfire Night Eve) Stephen Harper handed the reigns over to his Uniparty colleague, Justin Trudeau, when he signed us on to Agenda 2030:
Introduction: Towards Canada’s 2030 Agenda National Strategy
‘In September 2015, Canada and all United Nations Member States adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’
When the Conservatives were no longer a minority (because the Liberals must pretend they're against everything the Conservatives do, in order to maintain the illusion) the Globalist's agenda was moved forward again, and the stage set for the Liberals. The Globalist baton was passed.
This is all just food for thought, of course. I'm careful to included official government of Canada sources (and a few bought and paid for media opinions, surprisingly unbiased in this case), but I know all of you here can connect dots (unlike those who — bless their innocent hearts — still believe everything they hear on the television).
What would Peter Gzowski have made of all this?
I’ll be honest, I miss the old CBC. It should be easy enough though, to have a complete house cleaning there, and to make sure our ‘national broadcaster’ always presents both sides of a story (from our unique Canadian perspective); rather thank privatizing it (in the neoliberal fashion) so that the corporation with the deepest pockets can tell us what it is to be Canadian. This observation not ‘Brought to you by Pfizer.’
I’d hoped to finish this post on Tuesday night, but ran out of time (and I was busy all day Wednesday). Happily, this meant a could include a little from the next candidates debate, April 16th, in Sutton — sponsored by the Georgina Chamber of Commerce.
You can watch the whole of this televised meeting on the Rogers TV Youtube channel: Federal Election All-Candidates Debate
On this subject, of the CBC, the following segment may be of interest (starting with Matt Pearce - Green Party): Defund CBC?
On Small Business (starting with Patricia Conlin - PPC): No more lockdowns, and. . .
You'll notice that Patricia repeatedly touches on subjects the others don't (can't or won't) – those ‘elephants in the room.’ Just like the time (very recently) Trump introduced Alfred Bourla at the White House, and the crowd literally booed him: Pfizer CEO Booed at White House.
The people know there is something wrong, and yet most politicians are forced to maintain the illusion — was Trump Gaslighting the American Public here, or shaming Bourla, with some future plan in mind?
There are two realities now: one the media-brainwashed masses never see or question, and one most people are now fully aware of. The people are tired of being lied to and gaslit by their representatives. And on this note:
On crime (another comment from Rob Grossi - Liberal): “If you do the crime, you do the time, and I think the Liberals have been very clear on this.”
It was an ‘entertaining’ (as well as informative) evening, but let me leave off here. I’ll follow up at some point (probably after the election) with a piece on Electoral Reform. Something all candidates should be committing to do now, before they are elected. . . because this may be our only chance to change things in the future.
Thank you again for your continuing interest and support.
David