The Harper Government has ordered Canadian Media to Not report on the recent Federal Court of Canada ruling against Private Banks loaning operations.
To understand what this situation means…
You can continue reading below:
The Bank of Canada used to be a government lending institution, creating near interest free loans that built much of Canada’s infrastructure during the 50’s and 60’s.
In 1974 at the Bank of International Settlements in Basel Switzerland, Trudeau Sr. was convinced by fellow Bilderberg attendees to dismantle this crucial function of the Bank of Canada, and since then we’ve lost sovereign control of our monetary policies and money supply and government debt at all levels has risen dramatically.This court case challenges the disuse of the Bank of Canada to create money for the public good.
The Federal Court of Canada has ruled against private central banking. Meanwhile, the Harper GovernmentTM has ordered a media black out on this court case. Lets help spread the word!
- the Bank was set up in the 1930s as a vehicle to provide interest-free loans to federal and provincial governments for infrastructure and human capital expenditures, and for maintaining sovereign control over credit and currency with the purpose of asserting domestic and public control of monetary and economic policy;
- the Bank provided interest-free loans to federal, provincial and municipal governments in its “early and middle existence,” but stopped doing so in 1974 – after joining the Bank of International Settlements [BIS] – in favour of interest-bearing loans from foreign private banks;
- the BIS, which purports to facilitate co-operation and serve as a “bank for central banks,” in fact formulates and dictates policies to central banks;
- the BIS is not accountable to any government and its annual meetings are secret;
- policies such as interest rates are set by the Bank in consultation with, or at the direction of, the Financial Stability Board [FSB], established in 2009 after the “G-20” London Summit and linked to the BIS. The FSB also operates in a secretive and unaccountable fashion;
- the Bank is the only central bank among the G-8 countries that is a “public” bank created by statute and accountable to the legislative and executive branches of Government, with the others all being “private” banks not directly governed by legislation or directly accountable to the legislative or executive branches of their respective countries;
- the Bank was completely independent of international private interests before joining the BIS in 1974, but since then the Bank and Canada’s monetary and financial policy have gradually come to be largely dictated by private foreign financial interests;
- after Canada’s entry into the BIS, an agreement or directive was reached within that organization that the member central banks would not be used to create or lend interest-free money, but rather governments would obtain loans from and through the BIS;
- the ceding of control to foreign private interests is unconstitutional and the agreement or directive not to make interest-free loans to governments is contrary to the Bank Act; and
- these unlawful actions have had severe detrimental effects for Canadian citizens, including the development of a spiralling schism between the rich and the poor, the elimination of the middle class, and a corresponding rise in crime related to poverty.
We are in Winnipeg. The Year is 1919.
The newly passed Bill C-51 is going to create a repeat of history.
A government attempt to silence dissent in that is a difficult economy for many regular Canadians.
The declared threat back then was “Bolshevism”. Today it is “Terrorism.” The game is the same. Only the terminology is switched.
The Immigration Act was amended so British-born immigrants could be deported. The Criminal Code’s definition of sedition was also broadened.
On 17 June the government arrested 10 leaders of the Central Strike Committee and two propagandists from the newly formed One Big Union. Four days later, a charge by Royal North-West Mounted Police into a crowd of strikers resulted in 30 casualties, including one death. Known as “Bloody Saturday”, it ended with federal troops occupying the city’s streets.
It would take another three decades before Canadian workers secured union recognition and collective bargaining rights.
Starting out as an illegal document there was no proper, rational discussion on Bill C-51.
This bill is a clear violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights. The bill was designed to silence dissent.
In our rapid advance towards a North American Union, we have now witnessed the equivalent of the Emergency Act and Enabling Act of 1930s Nazi Germany become law in Canada.
This bill is also a violation of section 35:
The Government of Canada recognizes the inherent right of self-government as an existing Aboriginal right under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. It recognizes, as well, that the inherent right may find expression in treaties, and in the context of the Crown’s relationship with treaty First Nations. Recognition of the inherent right is based on the view that the Aboriginal peoples of Canada have the right to govern themselves in relation to matters that are internal to their communities, integral to their unique cultures, identities, traditions, languages and institutions, and with respect to their special relationship to their land and their resources
Note: You are more likely to be killed by a moose than a terrorist.
Abuse of power concerns are not limited to CSIS alone. The Canadian Border Security Agenda (CBSA) has been given unjustified powers; also with no proper oversight.
Why have we allowed this government to build East Germany on the soil of this land?
Some people say they could be prosecuted for “hate speech.” That was already put into place a decade ago by Chretien’s Liberal Government. At the time Chretien said in the House of Common’s that the bill would not be used against people’s religious liberties. They could not guarantee such a promise at that time. Since then many people have been charged as a result of that law.
It shall be the same with Bill C-51 passing.
The brand name (party name) is not important. It is the behaviour and track record of the party you must examine.
Caveat: Whichever the brand name is (Tory, Liberal, whatever) if they can take away the civil liberties of another person or group they can take it from you!
Constitutional Lawyer Rocco Gelati, has stated:
“C-51 creates “a modern-day Gestapo,”
“No exaggeration, that’s what it creates. It chills, censors, and criminalizes free speech, free association, and constitutional rights of assembly.”
“German and Italian versions” of C-51 were passed in the 1930s.
Gelati “urged Canadians not to vote for any MP or political party supporting the controversial Tory bill.”
The English claimed that they had a God-given responsibility to “inhabit and reform “so barbarous a nation” . No they were not talking about Aboriginal peoples living on Turtle Island.
It was the ‘Irish’ the Crown was referring to.
The Crown would teach them to obey English laws and to stop “robbing and stealing and killing” one another. They would uplift this “most filthy people, utterly enveloped in vices, most untutored of all peoples in the rudiments of faith.”
The English colonizers established a two-tiered social structure. According to sixteenth-century English law, “every Irishman shall be forbidden to wear English apparel or weapon upon pain of death. That no Irishman, born of Irish race and brought up Irish, shall purchase land, bear office, be chosen of any jury or admitted witness in any real or personal action.” To reinforce this social separation, British laws prohibited marriages between the Irish and the colonizers. The new world order was to be one of English over Irish.(
The Statutes of Kilkenny
The Statutes of Kilkenney ultimately helped to create the complete estrangement of the two “races” in Ireland for almost three centuries.
Other statutes required that the English in Ireland be governed by English common law, instead of the Irish March law or Brehon law and ensured the separation of the Irish and English churches by requiring that “no Irishman of the nations of the Irish be admitted into any cathedral or collegiate church … amongst the English of the land”.
It also forbade the settlers using the Irish language and adopting Irish modes of dress or other customs. Sound familiar?
The Crown was keeping everyone compartmentalized so that people wouldn’t get to close, mix, and forget who they owed their loyalties too. The authorities did not want them to learn from one another.
Nature vs. Nurture Argument
Thus, although they saw the Irish as savages and although they sometimes described this savagery as “natural” and “innate,” the English believed that the Irish could be civilized, improved through what Shakespeare called “nurture.” In short, the difference between the Irish and the English was a matter of culture.
The phrase nature and nurture relates to the relative importance of an individual’s innate qualities (“nature” in the sense of nativism or innatism) as compared to an individual’s personal experiences (“nurture” in the sense of empiricism or behaviourism) in causing individual differences, especially in behavioral traits.
The alliterative expression “nature and nurture” in English has been in use since at least the Elizabethan period.
This nature/nurture thinking is demonstrated in Shakespeare’s play ‘The Tempest.”
Origins in Plato
Teaching on social determinism and the need and usefulness of applying “nurture” to “correct” nature were also drawn from Plato. These approaches are found in his work “Protagoras.”
Zoology & The Tree of Life
We are talking about man who has become long distanced from the light of the Tree of Life trying. Out of this light he begins to apply his systems of categorization (a form of ‘zoology’ in effect) on himself and on other people .
In plain English colonization of Turtle Island was not about an instruction from Jesus Christ; yet Christianese was hired to serve a purpose in the conquest.
Instead it is about “man trying to be god over other men in place of God.” It is about God replacement. Said differently, ignoring that people are made in the image of God . Denying the image of God is to be in the gravity of the spirit of anti-christ.
Model for Indian Act
The model for the Indian Act and Treaty System used on Indigenous peoples in the United States and Canada had its more immediate origins with Crown policy on the Emerald Isle (Ireland).
In short there was a Department of Indian Affairs and an Indian Act at work long before Europeans were using these bureaus for drawing up treaties with Aboriginal peoples on Turtle Island.
From Ireland to America
As their frontier advanced from Ireland to America, the Crown began making comparisons between the Irish and the Indian “savages” and wondering whether there might be different kinds of “savagery.”
“The Statutes of Kilkenny”, p.792
David B. Quinn, The Elizabethans and the Irish (Ithaca, 1966), 161;
Francis Jennings, The Invasion of America: Indians, Colonialism, and the Cant of Conquest (New York, 1976)
James Muldoon, “The Indian as Irishman,” Essex Institute Historical Collections, 111 (Oct. 1975), 269; Quinn, Elizabethans and the Irish, 76.
5 Muldoon, “Indian as Irishman,” 284; Quinn, Elizabethans and the Irish, 108.
6 Canny, “Ideology of English Colonization,” 593, 582; Jennings, Invasion of America, 153; Frederickson, White Supremacy, 15; Quinn, Elizabethans and the Irish, 132-33.
7 Canny, “Ideology of English Colonization,” 582; Jennings, Invasion of America, 168; Quinn, Elizabethans and the Irish, 44.
8 Canny, “Ideology of English Colonization,” 588; Jennings, Invasion of America, 46, 49; Quinn, Elizabethans and the Irish, 76; Shakespeare, Tempest, ed. Wright and Lamar, 70.
9 Quinn, Elizabethans and the Irish, 121; William Christie MacLeod, “Celt and Indian: Britain’s Old World Frontier in Relation to the New,” in Beyond the Frontier: Social Process and Cultural Change, ed. Paul Bohannan and Fred Plog (Garden City, 1967), 38-39
8 Canny, “Ideology of English Colonization,” 588; Jennings, Invasion of America, 46, 49; Quinn, Elizabethans and the Irish, 76; Shakespeare, Tempest, ed. Wright and Lamar, 70.
Many who returned after their long hitch were pathetic figures stripped of all memory of things Jewish, coarse, more like Russian peasants than Jews, they were at home neither among Jews nor Russians. To avoid the fate of these “Cantonists,” as they were called, Jews often took desperate measures.
The Story of an Archangelsk Cantonist Soldier
In 1853 when Israel Itzkovich was seven years old, his family moved to the city of Polotzk in the Vitebsk District. They somehow managed to support themselves. Israel’s mother sent his twelve year old brother to live somewhere safe from the draft. Israel and his nine-year-old sister remained at home with their mother.
One October morning, three Chappers burst into their apartment, tied Israel up and carried him off. His mother’s cries and screams fell upon deaf ears. Itzkovich was taken to a house holding several dozen captive children. The Chappers kept them there for a couple of weeks. Itzkovich’s mother and relatives visited him often.
About a few weeks later, on October 23, 1853, the children were hauled to the receiving station where they were inducted and handed over to an army commander. They were housed temporarily in military barracks and issued military garments: underwear, overcoats, sheepskin coats, and boots-none of it the right size-and a cloth knapsack in which t store their belongings.
On November 6, Itzkovich, with a detachment of boys, was sent off to the battalion. Six or more boys were placed in each of a long line of carts. Most of the Cantonists said goodbye to their families-forever-that day. The entire town also came to bid them farewell. The children and the adults frantically screamed and wept. The crescendo of voices shook the ground. Even after traveling several miles, Itzkovich and his companions still heard their relatives’ cries. The wagons traveled until evening when the boys arrived at a village and were assigned to quarters in cold houses with dirt floors. The children were frozen and their hands and feet were stiff with cold. A boy could not remove his knapsack because he could not unfasten the cloth buttons. If the boys cried, they were beaten. Many became ill and died before they arrived at their next destination, Petersburg.
From Petersburg, Itzkovich and his detachment were forcibly marched to the Siberian city of Archangelsk. The march lasted from November 1853 to June 1854. En route, the children were beaten and harassed and many perished. The road was littered with their corpses. Finally, they entered the “Promised Land,” Archangelsk. The officers took the boys to a building occupied by other Cantonists.
For Itzkovich and his unit, it was one of extreme hardship, full of torture and suffering. Beatings and pressure to accept baptism occurred throughout the day. Even after Itzkovitch contracted an eye disease, a non-commissioned officer beat him with his fists.
A non-commissioned officer was in charge of Itzkovich and his detachment. He was a converted Jew named Yevgraf Vasilyevich Gulevich, who was the godson of the battalion commander, Dyakonov. At the first inspection of the detachment, Dyakonov declared to the battalion that as long as he lived, no one would leave his battalion as a Jew. Gulevich endeavored to fulfill the wish of his godfather.
Every evening at about nine o’clock, when it was time for bed, Gulevich would lie down on his bed, call a few boys over and order them to kneel down beside the bed. Then he would attempt to persuade the boys with quotations from the Bible, implying that the Jews were in error. Finally, he would demand in a threatening tone that the boys give their consent to be converted to Christianity or else face punishment. Gulevich allowed those boys who agreed to go to sleep. The next day they were given uniforms and an extra piece of bread. The obstinate ones, however, were kept on their knees by his bed all night, and the next day they went to bed without bread and were harassed and whipped on any pretext.
The older Cantonists, between the ages of twelve and fifteen, were tortured for longer durations. They were beaten and whipped so severely that many of them died of their wounds. Under these conditions, most of the boys, understandably, did not resist for long. They finally consented, albeit against their wishes, to accept conversion.
One boy resisted. Every morning he was placed on a bench and given at least one hundred strokes of a birch leaving him bleeding and reeling in agony. After each birching, he was sent to the infirmary where he was treated and then soon beaten again. He absorbed the abuse, did not cry out and did not relent.
Even after their forced conversion to Christianity, Itzkovich and his fellow Cantonists suffered from continued abuse. A converted Jew while in an argument with a Christian comrade would still hear the epithet, “Parkhatyy Yevri!” (disgusting Jew). Sometimes they would add, “A Jew who has been baptized is like a wolf that has been fed!” These insults though served a good purpose for Itzkovich. By continually reminding him of his Jewish identity, they strengthened his inner resolve to remain a Jew. He pledged to himself that he would seek justice and, without allowing fear of the penalties to dissuade him, would win back the right to live as a Jew.
Every year in May, the order came from Petersburg to send the Cantonists who had turned eighteen to join the regular field troops. In 1854, the boys who had reached that age, including those among Itzkovich’s detachment, were dispatched to Petersburg and there, assigned to various units.
When Itzkovich’s detachment arrived, it participated in an imperial review in the presence of the Tsar. During the course of the usual questioning about claims, many of the Cantonists complained about their forced conversion to Christianity. That took immense courage, as it put their lives at risk. As a result, the entire unit was placed under arrest, and they were all sentenced to a harsh punishment: to run the gauntlet past three thousand men. However, what would have been a virtual death sentence was suspended after the death of Tsar Nicholas I on February 19, 1855. Nicholas’s successor Alexander, cancelled the punishment for the rest of the detachment, and only those who had themselves complained were assigned to garrison battalions in Siberia.
Soon after, Colonel Dyakonov, died suddenly. When the sergeant major came to announce the death of Commander Dyakonov, he ordered that the icon lamps be lighted. Everyone in the room joyfully rushed to light the icon lamps. Dyakonov’s burial in a hard December frost kept the boys outside for over two hours; they grew stiff with cold, but it was a joyous holiday for them.
The manifesto of Tsar Alexander II on August 26, 1856 forbade the taking of underage Jewish children to be Cantonists, and it was soon ordered that all the boys in Cantonist battalions be released and returned to their original status. However, Jewish children, were not eligible for return to their previous status as Jews. The directive that concerned them ordered that the older Cantonists who had reached the age of eighteen were to be assigned to serve in the regular forces, while the younger ones were enrolled in the War Department academies.
A new commander, Captain Okulov was appointed to command the First Company when Dyakonov died. Life changed for the better. The food improved and the brutal beatings stopped. The members of the company, by now adults, were dispatched to central Russia for assignment to troop units. The Second Company of younger boys was assigned to the academy.
Itzkovich became a Cantonist in 1853. He continually attempted to restore his official status as a Jew. Finally in 1872, he was released on indefinite leave.
Following his release, Itzkovich was motivated by two wishes. One was to be granted retirement status and the benefits that entailed. The other was to change his official listing back from Christian to Jew.
Itzkovich reported to the authorities that he was a soldier on indefinite leave and requested retirement status. He was informed that to receive this status he would either have to serve another ten months or maintain his status of indefinite leave for an additional three years. He chose the former and enlisted in the Tomsk Province for the purpose of serving out his remaining time.
Soon he officially declared that he did not wish to be listed as a Christian, since he had been forced to convert. His new commanders threatened Itzkovich with a trial that would deprive him of his retirement rights. Despite this, he stubbornly submitted a memorandum which set forth in detail the barbarous treatment he had received as a seven-year-old child, and how he, nevertheless, had served the Tsar honestly and conscientiously for twenty years and had received several commendations. Though his earlier commander had tortured him and given him a new Christian name, Itzkovich claimed that his current commanders could not prohibit him from petitioning for the return of what had been taken from him by force. He asked to be put on trial so as to end his torment.
The army commander appealed to Itzkovich to drop his request, but Itzkovich stated categorically that he would no longer betray God or His people and that he would no longer attend Church or go to confession. Itkovich’s memorandum was forwarded up the chain of command. Six weeks later, he received orders from the Commander of the Forces of Western Siberia. “Non-commissioned Officer Itzkovich, who had strayed from Russian Orthodoxy, is to be presented for exhortation by a priest. If he remains unrepentant, he is to be transferred to another troop unit.”
The priest tried his best but could do nothing to way Itzkovich. In response to his exhortation, Itzkovich just smiled and said that he was no longer seven years old, but twenty-six. Nor was he transferred to another unit, since his term of service had, by the time ended.
Itkovich retired on October 23, 1873 after serving exactly twenty years.
The Russian Tsar is long gone, so is the Soviet Union. But today many descendants of the Cantonists outlived all their antagonists and continue to keep the traditions of their forefathers.
Larry Domnitch is the author of “The Cantonists: The Jewish Children’s Army of the Tsar.”