Canadian Supreme Court Ruling on Métis & Non-Status Indians
Before Canada entered the NW part of Turtle Island (North America) the majority of the people living and residing in this region (known as the Northwest and Rupertsland) were Métis.
(Metis fur trader 19th Century, Rupertsland)
(Métis flag; one predating Canada)
Now we have a new ruling in this country.
One Métis living, in what became Canada, have waited on for many years.
RULING: Canada’s 450,000 estimated Métis and approximately 200,000 ‘non-status’ Indians are indeed “Indians” under the Constitution, the Supreme Court of Canada declared Thursday in a long-awaited landmark decision more than 15 years in the making.
“It is the federal government to whom they can turn,” the unanimous 9-0 ruling said.
The high court was also asked to rule on whether the federal government has the same responsibility to them as to status Indians and Inuit, and whether they have a right to be consulted by the government on their rights and needs.
No need, the court said.
“It was already well established in Canadian law that the federal government was in a fiduciary relationship with Canada’s Aboriginal Peoples and that the federal government had a duty to consult and negotiate with them when their rights were engaged,” said Justice Rosalie Abella, writing for the court.
“Restating this in declarations would be of no practical utility.”
SIGNIFICANCE: A 9-0 ruling is not a small thing psychologically. Usually, one does not see a unanimous decision at any level of court – let alone the Supreme Court of Canada.
What will the Supreme Court of Canada decision on the Daniels case likely mean in real terms for Métis and non-status Indians in Canada?
First, let us view establish some context to better understand the meaning of this April 2016 Supreme Court decision first.
The April 14, 2016 ruling which was a 9-0 unanimous decision from the highest court in Canada. It takes the discussion far beyond the earlier Federal Court of Canada ruling on the Métis and the non-status Indians.
Question: Who are the Métis anyways?
The Métis we should know already are not simply a mix between Indians and Europeans. No. The Métis existed as a distinct people and culture with their own identity, economy, lifestyle, flag and languages pre-dating Canada’s founding. Something which took place only – in 1867. ‘Only yesterday in the scheme of things.’
The non-status Indians have also found themselves a non man’s land for years as First Nations/Native Americans because of earlier bureaucratic decisions by the Federal Government of Canada. These non-staus Indians at present are not “recognized” by the Federal Government. As a result, these non-status indians ‘have laid on the side of the road’ for decades, much like their Métis cousins. Many members of the same household have situations wherein one sibling is Métis on the government paperwork. The other sibling is a Non-Status Indian on provincial or federal documents.
Both of these two groups have not lived but instead existed in a jurisdictional wasteland outside of the responsibility of the Federal Government since the Federal Government began to segment Aboriginal peoples in this land. This relationship has been one of ‘You guys go here; and you other guys go there’ attitude. The result limbo for the aboriginal groups in question.
“We are charting new waters now but have not yet reached land”, one might call this recent ruling.
In hard terms what might the recent Supreme Court ruling mean with concern to long discussed matters such as healthcare coverage and sharing profits from mineral rights?
Why might non-aboriginal Canadians want to view this recent Supreme Court decision? Are we talking special rights here? or a correction which should have occured towards these two aboriginal groups many years ago?
What does Federal obligation mean?
The Federal Government will need to take consultation more seriously than it has in the past. Also, the Feds will need to think twice when giving corporations access to natural resources and minerals which the Métis and non-status were not consulted on traditionally. The governed just decided unilaterally or with provinces and then gave away access to those resources to various companies.
Does the Federal Government need to live up to law in this country?
On this question let us first discuss the Parliament, which is the legislative branch of Canadian Government. The Judicial branch of Canadian government ruling now means that the legislative branch can no longer ignore Section 91.
Understand that the Parliament is not above the Canadian Constitution; the parliament cannot simple do its own thing; or act in a way that is against the law or spirit of the Charter. Instead, the parliament is to uphold the Charter.
Indigenous People in Canada are protected by two different bodies of law:
1. The Constitution Act Canadian and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
2. Aboriginal Rights
Background:
Until 1982, section 91(24) was the only reference to the Aboriginal peoples of Canada in the Canadian Constitution. The enactment of section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 recognized and affirmed the Aboriginal and treaty rights of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada existing in 1982. The Supreme Court of Canada first addressed the relationship between section 91(24) and section 35(1) in the 1990 decision of R. v. Sparrow. Acknowledging that the exclusive federal power to legislate in relation to “Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians” continued after 1982, the Supreme Court of Canada held that this power “must, however, now be read together with s. 35(1).” This requirement led the Court to acknowledge that s. 35(1) mandates that the power of the federal government pursuant to section 91(24) be reconciled with the federal duty “to act in a fiduciary relationship with respect to aboriginal peoples” that is “trust-like, rather than adversarial.”
Prior to 1982, the Aboriginal and treaty rights of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada were vulnerable to governmental extinguishment by way of clear and plain legislative action. With the enactment of the Constitution Act, 1982, such rights received constitutional protection by virtue of section 35(1): 35. (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are here-by recognized and affirmed. Immediately following the enactment of section 35(1) as part of the Constitution Act, 1982, the import of the provision was unclear. A series of First Ministers’ Conferences during the 1980s failed to clarify the content of the provision. In 1990, the Supreme Court of Canada interpreted section 35(1) for the first time in R. v. Sparrow. Speaking to its content and the scope of its protection for Aboriginal and treaty rights, the Court also assessed the effect of section 35(1) on section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867:
Rights that are recognized and affirmed are not absolute. Federal legislative powers continue, including, of course, the right to legislate with respect to Indians pursuant to s. 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867. These powers must, however, now be read together with s. 35(1). In other words, federal power must be reconciled with federal duty and the best way to achieve that reconciliation is to demand the justification of any government regulation that infringes upon or denies aboriginal rights.
The Court in Sparrow held that section 35(1), at the very least, provides “a solid constitutional base upon which subsequent negotiations can take place” to determine and recognize the still unproven Aboriginal rights embedded within the provision. While the Court states that section 35(1) provides the constitutional base for Crown-Aboriginal negotiation, it does not go so far as to identify section 35(1) as the constitutional mechanism to see the processes of negotiation carried out. Indeed, the Court does not identify a constitutional source of governmental power that occupies this role. However, it appears that section 91(24) is that source. Negotiations consecrated to determine Aboriginal and treaty rights fall under the classes of subjects “Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians,” and therefore under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the federal government. Furthermore, reading section 91(24) together with section 35(1) illustrates that the former provision must also serve as the constitutional vehicle by which Crown-Aboriginal negotiations will transpire. One must recall that section 35(1) delivers the constitutional base for negotiation; it gives Aboriginal peoples a constitutional bargaining chip at the negotiating table, but not the negotiating table itself. As the provider for the welfare and protection of Aboriginal peoples and the level of government with the appropriate legislative jurisdiction, the federal Crown by virtue of section 91(24) is obligated to fulfill the promise of section 35(1) through honourable negotiation, so that the Aboriginal and treaty rights of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada are “recognized and affirmed” in both letter and reality.
What is Section 91 and Section 35 and why is it important?
How do the two relate to one another?
Section 91 (24) of the Constitution Act of 1867 provides that the federal government has the legislative jurisdiction over “Indians and lands reserved for the Indians.”
Section 35(1) illustrates that the former provision must also serve as the constitutional vehicle by which Crown-Aboriginal negotiations will transpire. One must recall that section 35(1) delivers the constitutional base for negotiation; it gives Aboriginal peoples a constitutional bargaining chip at the negotiating table, but not the negotiating table itself.
Daniels Decision
What is the consequence of this Daniels decision?
It is a is PSYCHOLOGICAL one.
YET for any MATERIAL benefits (healthcare coverage, access to mineral rights, a real voice in the Commons, etc…) to acrue to Métis and non-status Indians we are very likely going to wait for some time.
The Feds, and the Corporations which lobby them, and in well thought out strategized strength, will not easily hand over their long-privileged access and use of the hard resources of this land.
Who are Canada’s Métis ?
My own view:
For real provision my Metis brethren would look not to the Canadian government for sustenance from ANOTHER PLACE (Hebrew: ‘Ha Makom’ meaning the Omnipresent God) . This is the One who can bring lasting changes for you.
Justin – Restore us to the Canada of your Father
The infamous C-51 “Anti-Terrorism” bill was introduced by and put into law by the former Harper Conservative Federal Government in Canada. During the Federal parliamentary hearings on C-51, the Parliamentary Watchdog was not even permitted to review all the material before Peter McKay and Stephen Blaney rushed the hearing through to a quick end.
Here is Blaney distracting (bringing up the Holocaust???) from MP Randall Garrison’s questions on C-51 to justify pushing C-51 through with no proper answers given on this bill:
In this other earlier clip (May 5, 2015) NDP MP Nathan Cullin tells us why Bill C-51 is a serious problem with concern to a massive curtailing on democracy – for all Canadians:
Furthermore, Edward Snowdon speaks on C-51 and its lack of OVERSIGHT and real implications for Canadians:
In the Fall of 2015, Justin Trudeau’s Liberal’s won the Federal election with a majority government. They thus have the weight to change any inappropriate legislation introduced by the former Harper Government.
In this clip one month later (June 4, 2015) Justin Trudeau says he respects “democracy in action” :
Prime Minister Trudeau, now that you are in power please protect democracy with the earlier enthusiasm we all saw you communicate to all of us while campaigning among average Canadians.
Please remove C-51 . ‘It is not in any way birthed from the Canadian spirit.’
Your father introduced the Canadian Charter of Rights in 1982, which includes these fundamental freedoms:
conscience, religion, thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
peaceful assembly,
freedom of association
the freedom to enter and leave Canada
So if you would do anything with your time in office Mr. Trudeau – restore the Canada of your father’s time!
Be remembered for at least that!
The Light of 1848
“The further back you look, the further you ahead you can see”
(Winston Churchill)
“In beautiful May, when the buds sprang, love sprang up in my heart: in beautiful May, when the birds all sang, I told you my desire and longing.”
Join me now here in my salon. My gramophone is playing Im wunderschönen Monat Mai (Heine, Lyrical Intermezzo no 1). Touch this
As we listen to Shumann, let us read below …
The Early Risings of 1848
In January 1848, sixty-one people were killed in Milan protesting against a rise in taxes by their Austrian rulers. And that month in Palermo, Sicily, people rioted. There, people were interested in a liberal constitution and an end to the despotic rule of Ferdinand II, king of Naples-Sicily since 1830.
In January 1848 the Swiss were having a civil war. People in Switzerland were divided by language and religion. Cantons (subdivisions) that were predominately Catholic were more conservative and opposed to a politically unified Switzerland. They had joined a military alliance called the Sonderbund supported by Foreign Minister Metternich of Roman Catholic Austria and supported by other European conservatives. Their rivals in Switzerland were interested in national unity, more democracy and inspired by France and the United States.
The Uprising, by Daumier
In February, people demonstrated in Paris. Until the 1840s, France had enjoyed a so-called Golden Age under King Louis-Philippe, but hard times had returned. The king’s government feared radicals, and it declared political meetings illegal. A refusal to allow a “banquet” to discuss reforms brought workers and students into the streets. They clashed with police and built their barricades with roadway pavement blocks. A demonstrator shoved a burning torch into a soldier’s face and violence followed in which demonstrators were shot and around forty died. Rather than try to crush what became a more intense rebellion, Louis-Philippe abdicated in favor of his nine-year-old grandson and he headed for exile in Britain. Parisians invaded the Chamber of Deputies and demanded a republic. The Deputies created a provisional government that was mostly of moderates but with a few radicals, and they declared what became France’s Second Republic.
Uprisings in Germany
It took days for news of the rising in Paris to reach cities outside of France, and the news inspired copy-cat risings. Thirty-thousand peasants marched on the seat of the Duchy of Nassau, Wiesbaden, thirty miles west of Frankfurt. For sometime these peasants had been upset about others having been freed from serfdom but not them. They forced Duke Adolf of Nassau to abolish serfdom.
A rising against serfdom came also in Baden and Wuerttemburg, where ruling families had been ignoring the growing resentment of their serfs. The serfs there were violent in a way that had not been seen in Germany since the 1500s. The Grand Duke of Baden fled, and in Baden a revolutionary government was founded.
In the eastern part of Prussia’s Westphalia, violence erupted among free peasants and the landless. They were angry about the economy, which seemed to them to favor the well-to-do. The violence spread to Saxony and to neighboring Thuringia and Silesia to the west and east, where more castle burnings took place. Disturbances erupted also in the cities of Hamburg, Cologne, Brunswick, Munich, and Mannheim, to name a few. There were demands for constitutional government – and some admiration for the United States Constitution. There were demands for a people’s army (national guard), trial by jury, freedom of assembly, freedom of worship and equitable taxation. In Bavaria, King Ludwig decreed freedom of the press. Tens days later, to appease his subjects, who were angry over his affair with Lola Montez, Ludwig (not quite sixty-two) abdicated in favor of his son Maximilian.
In Prussia’s capital city, Berlin, soldiers and demonstrators clashed, and the emperor, William IV, withdrew his soldiers to avoid more bloodshed. A great crowd gathered at William’s palace and demanded that he join them in paying respect to the 303 who lay dead at the barricades. William went, and the crowd shouted hat’s off, and William removed his hat. The crowd then sang an old German hymn, “Jesus is my refuge,” after which William withdrew. Pressure from the Berliners continued and William was compelled to order the release of all of the political prisoners in Berlin jails and to greet each of those leaving the prison.
One of the hopes among German liberals was a united Germany as opposed to a lot of states run by dukes or petty kings, and a few days later William proclaimed himself head of the whole of the German fatherland. By the end of March the desire for unity among Germans was expressed by 600 delegates from across Germany gathering in Frankfurt for the purpose of creating a constitution for a united Germany.
Germany’s few industrialists tended to have mixed feelings about the risings. They distrusted the passions of poor people, but they had also been unhappy working under a government bureaucracy that to them seemed out of touch with modern times. They wanted reforms that worked in their favor, while some landowning aristocrats, Otto von Bismarck among them, with their traditional rural values, looked down upon the industrialists. Capitalism, complained Bismarck, was enriching individuals but creating a lot of poorly nourished proletarians. Bismarck joined other conservatives around Emperor William in urging a counter revolution.
German intellectuals were also attacking capitalism, complaining that machines should be freeing men from animal servitude rather than fashioning workers “to a terrible bondage.” They advocated government enforced reductions in work hours, the banning of child labor, subsidizing decent housing for workers, sickness and disability programs and public education.
Rising in Vienna, Austria
In Vienna,10,000 factory workers had recently been laid off. Students there favored democracy and civil liberties, and they joined forces with the unemployed. On March 12, 1848, a crowd of demonstrating workers and students was fired upon, and this unleashed a popular rising. Barricades went up, and the municipal guard went over to the side of the rebellion. Austria had been ruled largely by a State Council consisting of Metternich and four others. It was against Metternich, the State Council and the police that the rising voiced its wrath – not the Habsburg-Lorraine king, Ferdinand I.
A terrified and scornful Metternich, not quite seventy-five, went into exile in England. King Ferdinand accommodated the rebels. On March 15, his proclamation read:
We, Ferdinand the First, by the grace of God, Emperor of Austria, king of Hungary and Bohemia … have adopted such measures as we have recognized as necessary to fulfill the wishes of our loyal people.
Ferdinand promised to provide his subjects with a constitution, and people spoke of the coming constitution with joy. People were delighted by the thought of an end to police intimidation and censorship. Professors were enthusiastic about an end to restrictions and police spying. For a few days people danced, sang, wined and paraded in the streets. It was as if the Viennese were one happy family, including the city’s Jews.
Some conservatives saw it as the wanton masses exercising their lack of discipline. Princess Sophia was outraged at the weakness of her father-in-law the king, and she was outraged at what she called the “liberal stupidities” of King William in Berlin.
Then, a week after the rising, Vienna calmed down. Ferdinand abolished serfdom and promised more reforms. Talk of liberalism and reform remained. But, with the economy damaged accompanied by the spirit of cooperation, word passed through the city that for the sake of everybody it was necessary to get back to work.
Hungarians
The peasants of Hungary were still largely serfs – almost slaves. And Hungary had a small middleclass. It had intellectuals from families of the nobility and from families of men in the civil service and the professions. Affected by travel and reading, they were interested in liberalism, in human rights and emancipations, including nationhood similar to that possessed by the French and the United States. The sons of these intellectuals were students in the city of Budapest. They had rioted in February – before the rising in Vienna. They wanted more liberty and the removal of Habsburg authority.
Already the Hungarians had a degree of autonomy. The Habsburg Francis in Austria recognized that power to tax in Hungary lay with Hungary’s Diet (parliament). For revenue regarding Hungary, Francis was dependent on the goodwill of Hungary’s Diet. He had been allowing local government for the Hungarians within an overall rule from Vienna.
Perhaps inspired by the rising in Vienna on March 13, people rallied in Budapest on March 15. For the occasion, the words of a twenty-five year-old poet, Sandor Petofi, were read: “Arise Hungarians, the Fatherland is calling. The time is here, now or never.” The crowd responded. The Hungarians and their leaders were inspired to a new fervor for independence, and March 15 was to be their equivalent to America’s Fourth of July. On March 17 the stunned and overwhelmed monarchy in Vienna granted Hungary’s demand for independence, offering it a completely voluntary association within the Habsburg empire and their own constitution. In Hungary, freedom of the press was proclaimed, and a move to abolish serfdom was begun by the Diet.
The Italians, Poles and Ukrainians
In February – before Metternich’s move into exile – Pope Pius IX, had published an allocution beginning with the words “God Bless Italy.” Metternich had questioned it, worried about dislike by Italians for Austrian rule. Italy, he complained, was only a geographical expression.
In March, the Pope granted a constitution for his papal states – where he was a secular prince. This permitted an elected legislature while leaving authority with himself and the College of Cardinals. Already, when becoming Pope in 1846 he had granted amnesty to thousands of political prisoners and exiles, and in 1847 he had relaxed press censorship.
In 1848, following news of the rising in Vienna, the Austrian ruled Italian cities of Venice and Milan erupted in rebellion. Fighting in Milan raged for five days (from March 18 to 23). On March 22, Venice declared independence. Austria’s troops felt forced to withdraw from Milan, and Milan called upon the liberal king of nearby Piedmont-Savoy (and Sardinia), Charles Albert, to put Milan under his protection. And Charles Albert did so by declaring war on Austria.
In March, Polish nationalists in Posen also rose in opposition to foreign rule – rule from Berlin. They were encouraged by the rising in Berlin, and they declared home rule. And following the rising in Vienna, riots occurred again in the Polish city of Krakow – under Habsburg rule since 1846. Also, in the Polish areas of Galicia, people demanded civil liberties, use of the Polish language in schools, freedom of the press and amnesty for political prisoners. And people rebelled in the Austrian ruled city of Lemberg (Lviv). That city created a people’s army (national guard), and Ukrainians there demanded a Ukrainian nation that extended into eastern Galicia.
The Romanians
With other Europeans in the great rising against authoritarianism, Romanians in the city of Czernowitz (Cernauti), on February 20 that year, drew up a petition demanding autonomy within the Habsburg Empire, and they set up a local “national guard.” Romanians were encouraged by the turn of events in Vienna in March. Romanian students had taken part in the March rising in Paris and then returned to their Romanian homes. Meanwhile, Romanians in Transylvania, were discussing issues. There, under Habsburg rule, they were upset over a lack of recognition of their religion (Eastern Orthodoxy), their language and culture and an increased domination by Hungarian nobility. In March and April the Romanians of Transylvania organized and launched manifestos, culminating in a meeting on April 30 in the city of Blaj, attended by approximately 4000 people, including peasants. They called for Romanian nationhood, ancient rights, an end to serfdom and for the avoidance of violence in achieving their goals.
Bessarabia was also a homeland for Romanians, but there was little resistance to foreign rule. Tsar Nicholas in 1837 had taken control of Bessarabia, abrogating its autonomous status, and he had begun appointing Russians to administrative positions and colonizing the area with Germans and others, while Romanian peasants were running to Moldavia to escape what they feared would be a descent into Russian-style serfdom. The Romanians of Moldavia were within the Ottoman Empire with aristocrats (boyars) ruling locally. Moldavia was poor, without little that was industrial and without much of a middleclass. There, in March, following the arrival of news of revolution in the West, posters went up. In April, a thousand Romanians assembled in Moldavia’s capital, Jassy, followed by a petition for civil liberties and a new national assembly. The ruling aristocracy responded by sending out its militia, which arrested 300 and sent others fleeing Moldavia.
The biggest move for establishing an independent Romanian nation came in the region of Walachia (Wallachia) – today a southern part of Romania. Walachia was overwhelmingly Romanian, recently under Russian military rule, Ottoman suzerainty, with a Habsburg intrusion and domination by a local prince. A Romanian nationalist movement had been founded, and it had become more militant as it moved from a religious to a more secular and liberal orientation. The younger generation in Walachia’s major city, Bucharest, was interested in liberalism, and, on June 9, 1848, the city erupted. There were calls for civil liberties, social and economic reforms, including the emancipation of Jews, a call for a constituent assembly and for the independence of Walachia from foreign rule.
The generation of ’48 thirsted for liberty. Liberty was not a trivial thing for them. ‘They died seeking it.’
The Present Day
In the West, humanism & self-love are our communal and personal gods and idols. The worship of these have brought gross mental darkness.
The consequences of worshiping ‘man’ and ‘me’ means we are going into – a dark night.
“Yet at twilight there shall be light.”
Climate Activists in Paris under House Arrest under emergency laws
What did the French authorities do with the new terrorism laws? Go after the terrorists?
What else?
Twenty-Four climate activists have been put under house arrest. Yes its Paris Climate Summit time.
Yes, the French Government is banning public demonstrations. Warrants were issued under the same emergency laws enacted after recent terror events in Paris. How convenient.
Canadian author Naomi Klein calls the arrests “a gross abuse of power” saying that these arrests make it hard for us to take serious this Agenda 21 summit.
Agenda 21 is simply ‘Eminent Domain’ mixed with ‘Green Food Colouring.’
Eminent Domain is the taking over of private property for public use.
‘Sounds good to me. What do you think’?
‘More news soon’
Paris Attacks for a G20 Jump Forward
‘Nos pensées vont à nos cousins français dans leur douleur’
(‘Our hearts go out to our French cousins in their pain’)
We stand beholding the horror of these grievous and disturbing attack at several locations in Paris (Nov 14, 2015)
Yes this is drawing the attention of the world.
Over to other yet related: Our world leaders are all over television at the G20 Summit. Their seats are warmed; and their speeches all ready to read.
G20 2015 Turkey:
Who and what that is we see hinted at with the G20 summits these public servants both host and attend.
These world leaders are well synchronized. There is a annual script rehearsal. This is to made sure everyone knows their roles properly in advance.
Sadly, we have willing prime ministers and presidents, brought on to carry out these respective changes, and in each of their countries. We vote for them at home expecting them to serve and listen to us; yet their direction is the opposite. Instead, these public servants serve others.
The next G20 is on Antalya, Turkey right now (15-16 November, 2015) .
So why all these G20 meetings anyways? What are they about? Why the secrecy?
From Paris to the Wide View:
For many years already a ‘Red – Green Show‘ has been underway. The intent of this show is to scare people in the Western World into willingly accepting the surrender of their civil liberties.
How does this work?
Piecemeal Functionalism:
This red – green show proceeds through what political scientists have long termed ‘Piecemeal Functionalism’ (meaning a ‘stage by stage takeover’)
‘Surrender your liberty, to be more secure.’
‘Wait. Does that make sense’?
This strategy involved the implementing of an Emergency Management (Red) regime while at the same time using Environmental /Climate Change (Green) concern to bring people into a desired mindset.
Technique: The regime rolls the same question over and over – until it gets the right answer from you the people.
Note: The regime does not ‘ask’ it – ‘tells.’
ISIS, ISIL, Origins, Acronyms…
Yes, I’ve seen it talked about on tv here, there and everywhere (‘Re: Somali Pirates’). So where did this entity come from anyways?
ISIS, ISIL, etc… rose, armed itself, took over large parts of Iraq, swept significant parts of the Levant, and all so quickly, all by itself – ‘right’?
Just one question … do we use acronyms in Arabic?
Do we have acronyms in Arabic …? Answer ? The opposite of yes.
Yet we do have acronyms in Western languages. Hmm…
So let’s help ourselves and pay more attention to language use; language rules; language mentality … for they are indicators of word and structure and thus source origin.
‘Oh well, it looks good on a map’
‘… and it looks good for television’
Yet … let’s try to investigate deeper.
I would like to hear more about this above reality. Yet our mainstream news media won’t cover it. They don’t even try to cover some of it. Hmmm…
The Euro – Mediterranean Union. They will ask you in – or they will make you come in. ‘Yet you are going to join.’
Will you wait until it comes to you to try to figure it out?
Wait until it is at your doorstep …?
Agenda 21: Eminent Domain + Green Food Colouring?
What is Agenda 21?
Nazi Blitzkrieg Powered on Pervitin (‘Crystal Meth’)
‘The war in the East is underway. Yet how are all the troops kept active, alert and engaging’??
Many today are unaware that the Nazi war machine was not powered on ideology alone, no it was powered on pervitin (known today as ‘crystal Meth’)
“After it was first introduced into the market in 1938, Pervitin, a methamphetamine drug newly developed by the Berlin-based Temmler pharmaceutical company, quickly became a top seller among the German civilian population. According to a report in the Klinische Wochenschrift (“Clinical Weekly”), the supposed wonder drug was brought to the attention of Otto Ranke, a military doctor and director of the Institute for General and Defense Physiology at Berlin’s Academy of Military Medicine. The effects of amphetamines are similar to those of the adrenaline produced by the body, triggering a heightened state of alert. In most people, the substance increases self-confidence, concentration and the willingness to take risks, while at the same time reducing sensitivity to pain, hunger and thirst, as well as reducing the need for sleep. In September 1939, Ranke tested the drug on 90 university students, and concluded that Pervitin could help the Wehrmacht win the war. At first Pervitin was tested on military drivers who participated in the invasion of Poland. Then, according to criminologist Wolf Kemper, it was “unscrupulously distributed to troops fighting at the front.”
Source and Credit:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/the-nazi-death-machine-hitler-s-drugged-soldiers-a-354606.html
Background
It is not a new thing to use drugs to compel people to go out and kill. For Arab and Turk rulers ‘hashish’ was their choice of control to get their people to go out and kill the enemy; or to agree to lay siege to the city of another people.
Present Day
As we consider realities in the United States in the present day, we should remind ourselves that the problem of violence once again is not sourced the ‘ownership of firearms’ by law abiding persons but instead is sourced primarily in the control and effect of mind altering drugs on the handler of a weapon.
Yes, ask who is selling the weapons. Ask who is selling the pharmaceuticals?
What is in vaccines that many jurisdictions wants to make mandatory on parents for their kids?
We were Warned in Advance
It is interesting that in the Bible, written ‘millenia ago, that it is written, that the condition of world at the end of times shall be one where ‘people everywhere shall be addicted to and under the control of drugs.’
The word used to describe this seduced and seducing condition was ‘pharmakeia‘
‘The Night of the Pencils’
Imagine right now you are a student at your local high school. It is 4 a.m. You are sleeping in bed. Then the door of your home is kicked open. There is loud shouting. Not shouting -‘orders’! Orders for all to come downstairs and depart immediately…
On 16 and 17 September 1976, masked men raided homes under cover of darkness, taking students away to clandestine detention centres in what became known as the “Night of the Pencils”.[8] It concluded five days later when Camps’ henchmen kidnapped the student Pablo Diaz. He was taken to a detention center, joining his fellow high school activists, where they were tortured and some were killed or reported missing and presumed dead.
Cover of film ‘La Noche Los Lapices (The Night of the Pencils)
by Hector Olivera
istormnews 