Friday, February 9, 2007

Chapter Two

"The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banking was conceived in iniquity and born in sin. Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money and control credit, and with the flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again. Take this great power away from the bankers and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for this would be a better and happier world to live in. But if you want to continue the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money and to control credit."
- Sir Josiah Stamp, Director and President of the Bank of England during the 1920's




Over the last few centuries many good writers have attempted to show that The Private Money Debt System that controls the global economy in the world today must eventually lead to profit for the bankers and debt for everyone else. It is important to understand that “debt for everyone else” means just that and all countries, corporations, organizations, churches, as well as the “rich” and the poor alike will experience, or already are experiencing this debt. In most cases the rich are just those organizations and people who have created larger cash flows to service their larger debts. The world economy is all an illusion my friends. Its just smoke and mirrors, a house of cards built on a tightrope. Its end result is assured.

The aim of this current work has a major difference and that difference is in the focus. Most other writings have an “us” vs. “them” focus. This work looks at the situation in the light that says, “If we don’t all win, we all lose. This is not the old spiritual, we are one in the spirit thinking, but rather a new idea suggesting that there can be no lasting peace for anyone unless it can be experienced by everyone, and experienced forever. All of us, the rich and the poor have, due to our ignorance of the monitory system we follow, contributed to our current situation.”

The enemy is us. It may be that total peace is not an attainable possibility in this world. But it is the only possibility that offers any hope. Our history illustrates a constant lesson; that whenever one group of people become rulers, dictators, kings, emperors or controllers over others in a given society disparity arises. Then that disparity grows until finally revolution destroys everything and we start the same process all over again. This is obviously a simplified statement of a very complicated process, but show me a time when this was not the case.

The idea that we all lose if we don’t all win is difficult to accept if we just look at our own lives. But instead of just looking at our own lives we need to look at the entire thought system that has infiltrated every society and culture over the last few millennia. That thought system basically starts with the patriarchal premise that “might is right”. Sometimes that might is physical, sometimes religious, sometimes financial and sometimes intellectual, but wherever it starts it says that because of an implied power that someone appears to have, that someone has the right to make the rules that others are obliged to live by. And if the others do not wish to live by these rules fear is applied as leverage to force the issue.

The Private Debt Money System forces governments and their leaders to choose actions that would normally be considered underhanded, deceptive or dictatorial. Because of tremendous financial pressure the Canadian Government has implemented practices that at the very least are deceptive. If it was not for the pressure to raise additional money to cover the interest on our ever growing national debt the following, taken from, would have never needed to be implemented.






One of the ways governments and other regulators have “captured” the rights and freedoms of the human-being, is to create for themselves an “artificial-person / corporation” who is not you, but whom the Government has fooled you into thinking is you. But, so as not to violate your fundamental rights, they also recognize a natural-person, or human-being, and left all your fundamental rights intact.

This concept of an “artificial-person”, a legally obligated entity, that appears to be you, but in fact is not, is a little hard to grasp at first, but if you follow through this site, you will understand.

Once the Government creates an “artificial-person” that simulates you (i.e. appears to be the same as you from your point of view), but is actually a contrivance of the government laws and regulations—then they’ve got you, so to speak. And if you fill out paperwork and sign documents as if you were this artificial-person (create contracts), then they can make YOU totally subservient to all their rules and regulation:

1. Make you obliged to pay taxes,

2. Make you obtain a driver’s license,

3. Make you fill out census forms.

This site will explain to you the difference between your human-being, as you were born, your natural-person, and the legal entity that appears to be you (the corporation / artificial-person) from the Government’s perspective. Although all issues discussed here are fully applicable to the laws of Canada, and many of them are also applicable to U.S. laws, it is not suggested that all information in this site pertains verbatim to U.S. laws.

Armed with the information freely available in this site, all American visitors are challenged to search their own laws and see how much of the data provided here applies to them in their country—as well as all other western nations. Only by searching out the truth of the laws and your original rights and freedoms for yourselves, will you be empowered to protect your natural-person.


This is perhaps the most important page on this web site.

First Trick:

The first “trick” of the Government is the re-definition of certain critical words in each Statute (Act). They (the Government) want you to assume the ordinary meaning of the word so as to trick you into reading and interpreting the Statute in their favour. Two key words that are re-defined in almost every Statute are the words “person” and “individual”. There are at least two “person” in law:

A natural-person is a human being, created by God.

An artificial-person is a corporation, created by Man.

Here are the exact definitions from Barron’s Canadian Law Dictionary, Third edition.

· Natural person. A natural person is a human being that has the capacity for rights and duties.

· Artificial person. A legal entity, not a human being, recognized as a person in law to whom certain rights and duties may be attached – e.g. a body corporate.

You will observe that the natural-person has the “capacity” (i.e. ability) for rights and duties, but not necessarily the obligation. The artificial-person has rights and duties that may be attached (i.e. assigned) by laws.

Second Trick:

The second “trick” of the Government is to use the Interpretation Act to define words that apply to all Statutes, unless re-defined within a particular Statute. Without this knowledge, you could assume the ordinary meaning for the words you are reading, not realizing that they may have been defined in the Interpretation Act. Unless these words have been re-defined in another Statute, the underlying definitions for the two most important words still apply, either from the Interpretation Act, or the Canadian Law Dictionary. Basically they are defined as follows:

From the Canadian Law Dictionary we find that: individual means a natural-person,

From the Interpretation Tax Act we find the re-definition:

Person means an artificial person (amongst other things).

From the Income Tax Act we find that:

Individual means an artificial person.

Person means an artificial person (amongst other things).

Third Trick:

The third “trick” of the Government is to use the word “includes” in definitions instead of the word “means”. They do this in some critical definitions that they want you to mis-interpret. If they used “means” instead of “includes” then their deception would be exposed, but by using, “includes” they rely upon the reader to assume that “includes” expands the definition, whereas in reality it restricts the definition in the same manner that “means” restricts the definition.

Here is a means definition of the word “person” from the Bank Act:

Person means a natural person, an entity or a personal representative;

Here is an includes definition of the word “person” from the Interpretation Act:

Person, or any word or expression descriptive of a person, includes a corporation.

To expose their deception, substitute the word means and you have

Person, or any word or expression descriptive of a person, means a corporation (viz – Artificial Person)

Both “means” and “includes” are restrictive in scope because they only encompass part of the whole. Typically they are used in the following form:

Person means A or B or C (and nothing else)

Person includes A or B or C (and nothing else)

There is a Legal Maxim that supports the restriction of “includes”:

Inclusio unius est exclusioa alterius.

The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another.

The definition of the word include is key to understanding your potential loss of natural-person. This is the major trick used by the Government in an attempt to take away your natural-person rights. Unless you know this, you will voluntarily forfeit your rights.

Forth trick:

The fourth “trick” of the Government is to modify how the word “includes” is used in order to make an expansion in the definition when such expansion is required. This “trick” helps add confusion to the use of “includes” convincing most readers that “includes” should always be expansive rather than limiting. Here are some ways in which “includes” is modified to become expansive rather than restrictive:

Also includes

And includes

Includes, without limitation,


The expansive definitions usually take the following form:

Person means A or B or C and includes D.


Barron’s Canadian Law Dictionary does not provide definitions for “include” or “means” therefore we have to look in the next source for the definitions.

From Black’s Law Dictionary, fourth edition, here is the definition for the word “include”

Include. To confine within, hold as in an enclosure, take in, attain, shut up, contain, enclose, comprise, comprehend, embrace, involve. Including may, according to context, express an enlargement and have the meaning of and or in addition to, or merely specify a particular thing already included within general words theretofore used.

Enclose. To surround; to encompass; to bound; fence, or hem in, on all sides.

It is stated in the above definition that the verb include only has limited scope. On the other hand the participle, including (but not limited to) enlarges the scope.

When used in a definition, include does not expand the existing definition of the word. It is easy to be confused because we naturally assume the existing definition of the word, then assume include means to add this new interpretation to the existing assumed definition of the word. Our assumptions fail us in this case.

From now on when you see the word includes, mentally substitute the word means and you will not be “tricked” by this definition any more.


The Common Law rights and freedoms of Life, Liberty and Property, as enshrined by the Magna Charta of 1215 still remain intact for the natural-person, John Doe.

The corporation JOHN DOE only has rights as provided by its creator, the Government.

John Doe remains sovereign and free in the Common Law world.

JOHN DOE is a slave to the Statute Law world.

The correct spelling for this Great Charter is Magna Charta, but the pronunciation is like “carta” (the H is silent). If you use the incorrect spelling, you will not be referring to the correct document. Here is the definition, and spelling, from Black’s Law Dictionary 4th edition:

Magna Charta. The Great Charter.

The name of a charter (or constitutional enactment) granted by King John of England to the barons, at Runnymede, on June 15, 1215, and afterwards, with some alterations, confirmed in parliament by Henry III, and Edward I. This charter is justly regarded as the foundation of English constitutional liberty. Among its thirty-eight chapters are found provisions for regulating the administration of justice, defining the temporal and ecclesiastical jurisdictions, securing the personal liberty of the subjects and his rights of property, and the limits of taxation, and for preserving the liberties and privileges of the church. Magna Charta is so called to distinguish it from the Charta de Foresta, which was granted about the same time, and partly by reasons of its own transcendent importance.

Authors Note: Although the above web site states that because of the Magna Charta our rights and freedoms have been enshrined and still remain intact there are two important reasons why we should not rely on this as fact:

First, the courts are beginning to recognize that King John was forced to sign the Magna Charta under duress; or at the point of a sword. The courts have ruled that contracts that have been signed under duress or threat are null and void. For this reason the Magna Charta could be ruled null and void.

Second, and ultimately more forceful, is the fact that King John had on May 15th 1213, signed a contract with the Pope in which he essentially relinquished any rights he had to make any decisions regarding England or Ireland. As shocking as it may sound King John gave all of England and Ireland to the pope.

He did this because for a few years previous King John and Pope Innocent III had had many disputes over control of land and, of course, money. These disputes basically ended when the pope excommunicated King John. King John must have felt this was a disastrous occurrence for him personally because in order to be absolved of excommunication he groveled before the pope and made the following concession to him.

We wish it to be known to all of you, through this out charter, furnished with our seal, that inasmuch as we had offended in many ways God and our mother the holy church, and in consequence are known to have very much needed the divine mercy, and can not offer anything worthy for making due satisfaction to God and the church unless we humiliate ourselves and our kingdoms: we, wishing to humiliate ourselves for Him who humiliated Himself unto death, the grace of the Holy Spirit inspiring, not induced by force or compelled by fear, but of our own good and spontaneous will and by the common counsel of our barons, do offer and freely concede to God and His holy apostles Peter and Paul and to our mother the holy Roman Church, and to our lord Pope Innocent and to his Catholic successors, the whole kingdom of England and the whole kingdom of Ireland, with all their rights and appurtenances, for the remission of our own sins and of those of our whole race as well, for the living as for the dead; and now receiving and holding them, as it were a vassal, from God and the Roman church, in the presence of that prudent man Pandulph, subdeacon and to the household of the lord pope, we perform and swear fealty for them to him our aforesaid lord Pope Innocent, and his Catholic successors and the Roman church, according to the form appended; and in the presence of the lord pope, if we shall be able to come before him, we shall do liege homage to him; binding our successors and our heirs by our wife forever, in similar manner to perform fealty and show homage to him who shall be chief pontiff at that time, and to the Roman church without demur. Concessions of May 15, 1213 to the pope.

What a document! One can almost see the smiles and hear the chuckles as the cardinals and the pope drafted this contract. Knowing that they had the king’s complete surrender they must have sent it to the king with one simple instruction; “Sign here.” The humiliation the king felt at having to sign it must have been much greater than the contract indicates.

The dispute that ultimately ended with this concession of King John started over two hundred years before when William the Conqueror defeated King Harold in 1066 and claimed all of the king’s land. He also claimed all the land then owned by the people. Previous to that the pope, as Vicar of Christ laid claim to the entire world. This argument brewed until the concession of King John in 1213. The final agreed outcome was that Jesus owned the world and that the Pope, as Vicar of Christ controlled everyone and everything in the world. And that is why, even to this day, if you are fortunate enough to “own” land the deed has you listed not as owner but as tenant!

The king’s contract with the pope predated the Magna Charta. Two years before the Magna Charta was signed the king had pledged to act as a vassal for the pope who now held title to the whole kingdom of England and the whole kingdom of Ireland. King John had no authority to act on his own and because of this the pope vetoed the Magna Charta. Pope Innocent III declared the Magna Charta to be; “…unlawful and unjust as it is base and shameful…whereby the Apostolic See is brought into contempt, the Royal Prerogative diminished, the English outraged, and the whole enterprise of the Crusade greatly imperiled.” Quoted from G.R.C. Davis: Magna Charta. Trustee of the British Museum. London 1965.

What they don’t tell us in History class!

But this is fodder for another book with a different author. Now back to:


...In order to implement Slavery of its citizens and control them according to its whim, the Government had to invent a system that would not violate a human-being’s fundamental rights, but would allow the Government to “own” everything produced or gained by its citizens.

The technique used by the Government was to create a CORPORATION for every citizen in Canada. As creator of a CORPORATION, the Government can demand anything it wants from the CORPORATION. As A legal entity, a corporation does not have feelings and cannot be hurt. It can be subject to slavery and complete domination by its creator and the corporation must obey its creator.

So for every John Doe citizen in Canada, the Government created a JOHN DOE corporation. Capital letters are used to represent CORPORATIONS and Companies. Lower case letters are used to represent the name of the natural-person. See Capitalization.

As a CORPORATION needs a business number, in order to do business, the Government assigns a unique business number to each JOHN DOE it creates. Such a business number is called the S.I.N. (Social Insurance Number)

Finally the Government needs to appoint an officer of the CORPORATION to run the day-to-day activities. Such a position requires a contract since the officer will be held accountable for the actions of the CORPORATION. So, the Government tricks John Doe to become the officer for the JOHN DOE Corporation by signing such contracts as Driver’s License, bank accounts, citizenship cards, passports, etc. In the Income Tax Act, the government just decrees that John Doe is the Legal Representative for the Officer of the JOHN DOE Corporation and the only contract involved is the annual Income Tax Return (yes it is a contract for one year) wherein John Doe gives his agreement as Officer of JOHN DOE for the previous year.

Unfortunately John Doe does not know that he is an officer for the JOHN DOE Corporation and must therefore follow the rules imposed upon JOHN DOE. Hence the confusion sets in because John Doe believes that he is JOHN DOE and therefore has to forfeit his rights and duties upon demand by the Government and its officials.


There are five different levels of capitalization in names of “persons”

Human-being: john doe

Natural-person: John Doe

Quasi natural / artificial person: John DOE

Corporation / artificial person: JOHN DOE

Nomme de Guerre: DOE, JOHN

The human-being has all the inalienable rights and freedoms as provided by God.

[Authors note: These rights and freedom are inalienable and belong to the human-being whether or not God exists.]

The natural-person has the rights and freedoms as provided by man with the Magna Charta and Canadian Bill of Rights.

The quasi natural / artificial person has lost some rights, but not all rights. At this time it is not evident how to quantify which rights have been lost.

The corporation / artificial-person has limited rights and freedoms as provided by the creator of the Corporation.

The Nomme de Guerre has no rights and freedoms and is a complete slave to the Admiral.

A book has been prepared in co-operation with the Canadian Government to define the writing “styles” to be used in Canadian English, as well as by lawyers. The book is entitled The Canadian Style (ISBN 1-55002-276-8). According to chapter 4 in this book, and specifically Section 4.03, Personal Names are to have the first letter capitalized only, such as John Doe. In Section 4-13 that discusses Military Terms it reads, “In Department of National Defense documents, the specific part of an exercise name is written entirely in upper case, e.g. Exercise SILENT DEFENDER”.

This is the only reference in the entire book to the use of ALL CAPITAL letters. Therefore by inference, if Personal Names are to have only the first letter capitalized, which we have known since birth, then why do ALL CAPITAL names in our Government, associated documents? Could it be the military connection? After all, most court cases are conducted in Admiralty unless you demand otherwise.

Assuming the Government uses this book in its own documentation, a good assumption since the Government was involved in the preparation of the book, the conclusion is that the Government has an un-documented ‘system of Nomenclature’ that requires ALL CAPITALS for corporations / artificial-persons so they can distinguish them from natural-persons.


The Canadian Income Tax Act requires that “every person resident in Canada is liable to pay tax”. It further defines person as being the corporation JOHN DOE or anybody who acts as a “receiver” for JOHN DOE. Therefore if the natural-person John Doe receives money for the corporation JOHN DOE, he must declare that money as taxable income for JOHN DOE.

The Income Tax Act also re-defines an “individual” to be the artificial-person and officer of the Corporation for the purpose of operating the corporation’s finances and returning the income to the creator of the corporation (the Government).

The Income Tax Return is called a RETURN because it returns to the creator (Government aka Master) that which belongs to the Master (income earned by the slave). In fact, the Government owns everything belonging to the slave, but allows the slave to keep a portion of his earnings (like 50%) so the slave may keep making more money for the Master.

When the corporation JOHN DOE fails to remit the required amount of money on its Income Tax Return, the Government may take action against the CORPORATTION and subsequently the Officer of the CORPORATION. Therefore, the Officer becomes subject to the penalties levied against the CORPORATION.

When reading the Income Tax Act, you will find that there are four similar-sounding words that are used but have entirely different meanings.

The word person is the artificial-person or corporation.

The word individual is the artificial-person.

The word taxpayer is an artificial-person whether or not liable to pay tax.

The word corporation is an incorporated company. Note that the word corporation has been re-defined for the purposes of the Income Tax Act.

Before reading any Act, such as the Income Tax Act, you must read and understand the Interpretation Act; otherwise you are just wasting your time because you have no idea what you are reading.

End of quotes from

The above are just a few of the many topics covered on this web site. I encourage all to visit it and learn more.

A good question to ask about now is why. Why would a government elected to represent the people deceive them as the above indicates?

The answer may be because it found itself so deep in debt because of The Private Debt Money System that it could see no other way to raise the necessary funds than to deceptively bind the citizenry to this method of paying off the debt. It may be that the banks, through scare tactics or financial reward convinced the government that it was a good thing to do.

And it may be, like The United States in 1933, Canada entered bankruptcy and the banks now dictated all future government activities. And, it may be that we will never know. We can safely assume that it was not because the government thought it would be the best for all Canadians. It does not take very much intelligence to realize that the above would bring only additional hardship, which it has, and it does not take very much intelligence to realize that hardship will only increase if these deceptive tactics are allowed to continue.

The Following may be viewed by some as part of the cause. I place it amongst the effects because I limit the cause to the idea expressed by The Private Debt Money System. It is the idea that enables bankers to establish banks and set in place all the rules mandated by them that influence or control the lives of all who live in the world today. The rich and the poor are the effect of the idea expressed in the concept of The Private Debt Money System.

By viewing the following as an effect we can begin to see that there is no struggle or fight that should arise between the people and the bankers, or the people and government officials, or any people against any other people. The aim is to change one thought system for another thought system. There is a whole line of effects that automatically flows from The Private Debt Money System. There is a different line of effects that automatically will flow from some form of The Public Credit Money System. To have one effect struggle with another is to assure no change in the cause.


Condensed from an interview by Greg Palast

As a member of Bill Clinton’s cabinet as chairperson of the President’s council of economic advisors and the former chief economist for the World Bank, Joe Stiglitz had access to information, which was not available to outsiders. The World Bank fired Joe Stiglitz in 1999 for his apparent dissent of the bank’s economic policies on globalization. He had come to realize that the political ideology of his employer had gone rotten and he was now ready to “spill the beans” regarding some of the bank’s dubious activities.

The word is that he was not allowed to go quietly into the night as US Treasury Secretary, Larry Summers, was demanding a public excommunication of Mr. Stiglitz for having made his views known to the public. In a recent interview in The London Observer and the BBC TV’s Newsnight, some of the real, often hidden workings of the IMF, World Bank, and the bank’s 51% owner, the US Treasury were revealed. Also, documents marked “confidential” “restricted”, and “not otherwise (to be) disclosed without World Bank authorization” were brought to light.

One such document entitled “Country Assistance Strategy” outlined the assistance strategy for every poor nation, designed, says the World Bank, after a careful, in-country investigation. But, according to insider Stiglitz, The bank’s staff “investigation” consisted of a close inspection of each nation’s five-star hotels. It ended with the bank’s staff meeting some begging, pleading finance minister who is handed a “restructuring agreement” pre-drafted for his “voluntary” signature. Each nation’s economy is individually analyzed, then, says Stiglitz, the bank hands every minister the same, exact four-step program.

Step one is privatization – which Stiglitz says could be more accurately labeled “briberization”. National leaders, using the World Bank’s demands to silence the local critics – happily flogged their electricity and water companies for a 10% commission to be paid into a Swiss bank account for simply shaving a few billion off the sale price of their national assets. (Control ends up in the hands of a few and, ultimately, the monopolization of these essential assets leads to higher costs for consumers.

Step two of the “rescue” plan is “Capital Market Liberalization”. In theory, Capital market deregulation allows investment capital to flow in and out. Unfortunately, as in Indonesia and Brazil, the money simply flowed out and out. Stiglitz calls this the “Hot Money” cycle as cash comes in for speculation in real estate and currency, and then flees at the first sign of trouble. A nation’s reserves can drain in days or hours and when that happens, to seduce speculators into returning a nation’s own capital funds, the IMF demands these nations raise interest rates to 30%, 50% or more. The results are predictable, demolished property values, crippled industrial production and empty national treasuries.

At this point, the IMF drags the gasping nation to Step Three; market based pricing, a fancy term for raising prices on food, water and other essentials. This leads, predictably, to Step Three and a Half, what Stiglitz calls the IMF riot.

When a nation is “down and out the IMF takes advantage and squeezes the last pound of flesh out of them. They turn up the heat until the whole cauldron blows up,” as when the IMF eliminated food and fuel subsidies for the poor in Indonesia in 1998. The people rioted, but there were other examples – the Bolivian riots over water prices in 2000 and this February (2001), the riots in Ecuador over this rise in cooking gas prices imposed by the World Bank. (It is as though the riots were part of the plan)

One such “plan”, the “Interim Country Assistance Strategy” for Ecuador stated with cold accuracy that “social unrest” was expected. The secret report notes that the plan to make the US dollar Ecuador’s national currency has pushed 51% of the population below the poverty line. The World Bank “Assistance” plan simply calls for facing down civil strife and suffering with “political resolve” – and still higher prices.

The IMF riots cause more panic and the flight of capital out of the countries and the ultimate bankruptcy of governments. (Look at recent events in Argentina). Foreign corporations also take advantage of these situations by buying up remaining assets at fire sale prices.

A pattern soon emerges. There are lots of losers and one clear winner, the Western banks and the US Treasury making big bucks off this crafty international scam. Stiglitz told a story of his early days at the World Bank. He met with Ethiopia’s newly elected president and the World Bank and the IMF had ordered Ethiopia to divert aid money to its reserve account at the US Treasury which, pays a pitiful 4% return, while the nation borrow US dollars at 12% to feed its population. The new president begged Stiglitz to let him use the aid money to rebuild the nation, but no, the loot went straight off to the US treasury’s vault in Washington.

Now Step Four of what the IMF and the World Bank calls their “poverty reduction strategy”, Free Trade as designed by the WTO and the World Bank. Europeans and Americans are kicking down the barriers to sales in Asia, Latin America and Africa, while barricading their own markets against Third World Agriculture. In the past, the West used military blockades to force open markets. Today, the World Bank can order a financial blockade, which is just as effective – and sometimes just as deadly.

Stiglitz is particularly annoyed over the WTO’s intellectual property rights treaty, which, he says, condemns the people to death by imposing impossible tariffs and tributes to pay pharmaceutical companies for branded medicines. “They don’t care if the people live or die.

The IMF, World Bank and the WTO are interchangeable masks of a single governance system. They have locked themselves together by what are called “triggers.” Taking a World Bank loan for a school “triggers” a requirement to accept every “conditionality” – they average 111 per nation – laid down by both the World Bank and the IMF. In fact, Stiglitz says the IMF requires nations to accept trade policies more punitive than the official WTO rules.

Stiglitz says that the Word Bank plans are devised in secrecy and driven by an absolutist ideology and are never open for discourse or dissent. Despite the West’s push for elections throughout the developing world, the so-called “Poverty Reductions Programs” undermine democracy. These programs simply don’t work. Black Africa’s productivity under the guiding hand of the IMF “structural assistance” has gone to hell in a handbag. Only one nation has managed to avoid a similar fate. Botswana told the IMF to “take a hike”.

According to Dr. John Coleman, former MI 6 agent in Britain, the international bankers met in Williamsburg, Va. in 1983 to work out a strategy to prepare the United States for a total disintegration of its banking system. This planned event, The Ditchley plan, was to stampede the U.S. Senate into accepting control of the monetary and fiscal policies of the IMF and World Bank. The plan called for IMF and the World Bank influence to be broadened so that it could influence Central Banks of all nations including to U.S. and Canada and guide them into the hands of a One World Government Bank.

Reading this revealing testimony and looking at what is happening in Canada, one has to wonder if the same fate awaits us. The pressure is on to privatize, our social programs are in a mess, our dollar is being purposely driven into the tank and our economy is hanging on a thread. The so-called free trade agreements are showing themselves to be anything but free or fair and the nation’s debt continues to grow as more and more of our citizen’s slip under the poverty line. Canada is falling prey to this monster and we better take notice before it is too late, otherwise, we will experience what many of these other third world countries are going through at present. Since the first free trade agreement in 1988, over 15,000 Canadian businesses have fallen under foreign ownership.

Companies like Bauer Sports, Cooper Sports, MacMillen Bloedel, West Kootenay Power, Shopper’s Drug Mart, Tim Horton’s, Gulf Canada Resources Ltd, Laura Secord, Anderson Exploration, Hunter Exploration, Club Monaco Inc., and many, many others. Even CN Rail is majority owned by Americans. Could CP Rail be next?? Over one half of our oil and gas industry is under foreign ownership and control. We are losing our country and we are letting it happen under our very noses. One day we will all wake up and discover we have nothing but a shell of a country, virtually worthless and meaningless.

Taken from:

Canada has an estimated wealth of over 2,500 trillion dollars! I think we have a long way to go before we are left with a shell of a country. But we are inching toward that. As stated in chapter one, in 1992 Canada’s national debt was $423 billion dollars. Today, (February 7, 2005) just thirteen years later it stands at $802 billion dollars and climbing. That’s over $25,000 per Canadian or over $50,000 per working Canadian.

This helps illustrate one of the many problems with The Private Debt Money System. With this system a debt of $802 billion dollars assigned to a population of just over 36 million appears overwhelming. With The Public Credit Money System we would start from the standpoint that a debt of $802 billion is small compared to an asset of $2,500 trillion dollars and a future of unlimited years. Under The Public Credit Money System and with assets totaling over 2,500 trillion dollars, Canada could write a check tomorrow and completely pay off its debt. (And no more interest!)

For the American reader, the United States national debt is presently $7.6 trillion and growing at $30,000 per second or $1.88 billion a year. With President Bush’s new budget it will be much more. And American’s will never be able to pay it off! The usury fees will eventually drive America into the status of a third world country. It is my hope that both Americans and Canadians pressure their respective government to find the courage to take back control of their money. With full cooperation these two great countries could together rid this bountiful world of poverty and hunger. And at the same time become wealthy beyond compare.

It is precisely these massive debt figures that lead to another problem experienced by the individual human being in these countries. When a government faces a large debt it is easy for large corporations to step forward and offer to the government in question what might seem a large amount of money to be allowed to do a certain thing.

This certain thing may be permission to establish a mine in a specific location and the easing of the laws around the operation of the mine. It may be a large corporation establishing a large box store where the local people are objecting to it. It may be a developer wanting to build a large office tower or a sprawling subdivision where existing by-laws are amended to facilitate a higher population density than was allowed. It may be a large corporation merely asking for a law to be amended so that their product [a drug or a genetically modified seed or plant, etc.] will have free access to a specific market. It may even be some large pharmaceutical corporation asking for some cooking spices or herbs to be designated as drugs so that it becomes illegal for certain businesses to sell them.

All of these activities assist large, usually multi-national, corporation and restrict the options of the human being. They are justified by Federal, Provincial and Municipal Governments as necessary to help pay down their debt, to stimulate the economy or to increase employment. All the decisions made in these matters are based on the benefit of economics never on the benefit of the people. There is no longer [if there ever was] in any country a government of the people, for the people and by the people. There now exists a government of the bank, for the bank and by the bank.

This process is no more evident than in third world countries where the debt has risen so high that corporations and banks no longer ask to be allowed to do certain activities but simple inform the country what they are going to do. Do you want this for our country? Our inaction will ensure that we will one-day wake up to this. We need to consider very carefully what action we will take and how we will implement them. Mahatma Gandhi may be an excellent teacher to look to for advice in this matter. [He knew his enemy.]

Please visit:

No comments: