By Matthew Ehret-Kump
Canada is being used as a chess piece in a dangerous process once called the “Great Game” by Winston Churchill. The danger is that Canadians who consider themselves patriots will continue to sleepwalk their way to a thermonuclear war by being misled by forces they do not understand within a process they do not see, and thereby giving their ignorant consent to an intention that will destroy not only themselves, but their children and grandchildren were it not stopped now.
In order to better understand the solutions to prevent this tragic march to thermonuclear war, we must first grasp: 1) the absurdity of the popular belief that Canada’s current “leader”, Stephen Harper, is his own man, making his own decisions in the interests of Canada as a sovereign country, 2) the strategic role that Canada has played in British geopolitics historically, and finally 3) why no single nominal “left” or “center” party official from either the NDP or Liberal Party oppose Harper on the fundamentals of economic policy and why they all make use of the same anti-Russian geopolitical “narrative”. Without an understanding of these parameters, then war were then all but unavoidable.
Harper’s Two Faces
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has made a name for himself as a provocateur of British geopolitical intrigues ever since his 2002 call for Canada’s engagement in the illegal bombing campaign of Iraq (against the better judgement of the Liberal Chretien government, then in power). Since that time, Harper has promoted the lying script that 1) Iran is the greatest threat to humanity, and 2) that the Syrian government must be punished due to Bashar al Assad’s use of chemical weapons on his own people. Of the latter two claims, neither has Iran ever been shown to have a nuclear weapons program nor has Syria been proven to have used chemical weapons (although it has been demonstrated that the Al Qaeda-riddled opposition has)… but that evidence didn’t stop Harper from cancelling all diplomatic ties to both countries in his shut down of the embassies of these two nations and the recalls of Canadian ambassadors within a matter of months of each other in 2012. Were it not for Putin’s bold interventions on multiple occasions since that time, a hellish war greater than anything yet seen in either Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya, would have been unleashed by NATO powers.
Although Harper speaks frequently on the importance of sovereignty as a norm of international law, he has been shown to be a man who doesn’t follow his own prescribed ideals very closely. The Responsibility-to-Protect (R2P) Protocol that was used to justify both the Libya attacks (which Canada contributed over 10% of the munitions and logistics to support), and the potential Syrian war still on the agenda, is a direct affront upon the very idea of the Westphalia System which serves as the basis for legal standards of sovereignty to this day [1]. Anyone who promotes an imperial military doctrine such as R2P cannot also promote sovereignty.
Harper’s ideological support for British monetarism and free trade also demonstrates that his concept of “nationalism” is nothing but empty words. Both monetarism and free trade have always been antithetical to the sovereign nation state system. One needs only ask: How could a nation’s general welfare and sovereign manufacturing be developed when borders are dismantled by international private monopolies and laws that demand ever lower prices, and undermine local skilled production are made hegemonic? A compatibility between sovereignty and free trade never occurred during the days of the British East India Company, and it doesn’t exist under today’s globalized world order.
Harper’s enthusiastic support for such measures as nation-destroying free trade treaties such as the TPP, CETA and NAFTA 2.0, now secretively being made law, are all indicators that he is actually lying to the Canadian people about what sovereignty means. It is in the nature of free-trade to go to war and even to provoke it, especially at the time when the British monetary system is bankrupt. In fact, it is that monetary bankruptcy which is the actual motive for war against Russia. Let’s not forget that “offensive war” is considered a crime against humanity according to the Nuremburg Tribunal. Is there no one willing to tell the truth like it is in Ottawa?
The Global Intention for Depopulation
If we do not allow ourselves to get side-tricked by a myopic focus upon particular crisis points (such as Ukraine, Syria, Iran, Thailand, etc…) then we must come to recognize that there is one inexorable direction guiding the system which Harper is a part of: Genocide! That direction is governed by an intention by the Anglo-Dutch oligarchy to 1) Eliminate nation states as Tony Blair laid out in his 1999 speech in Chicago [2] in order to 2) reduce the world population to within one billion or less souls and 3) to replace the current order with a system of global governance controlled by the Anglo-Dutch financial oligarchy.
Now that Russia and China have expressed an adamant intention to reject these Malthusian programs and have chosen instead to defend the general welfare of their peoples against the collapsing trans-Atlantic monetarist order, they have become an “intolerable obstacle to global governance” that must be crushed in the eyes of the oligarchy, even at the risk of unleashing thermonuclear war itself. It is this intention to crush the wills of these two powers into submission under a genocidal one world government that is the driving force behind everything which Stephen Harper is being told to do as one of the Queen’s top Privy Councillors. One of Putin’s closest allies, the head of Russian Railways, Vladimir Yakunin said as much in a recent March 6 interview with the Financial Times:
“We are witnessing a huge geopolitical game of which the aim is the destruction of Russia as a geopolitical opponent of the U.S. or of this global financial oligarchy”
Mr. Yakunin is, of course, referring to the events now taking place in Ukraine, where Western powers led by the Anglo Dutch oligarchy have just initiated a neo-Nazi coup d’état bringing a racist anti-Russian government to power, run by the Right Sector and Svoboda. He is also referring to the NATO military encirclement of Russia’s perimeter where an anti-Russian missile shield is being built under Anglo-American direction [see figure 1].
While Ukraine is fortunately not yet a member of NATO, the new UN ambassador representing the fascist Ukrainian regime Yuriy Sergeyev has expressed the popular intention to streamline Ukraine’s entry into the supranational military alliance when he said: “If we were in NATO now, maybe Russia wouldn’t get so smart”. This same intention was expressed by Georgia’s ex-President Mikhail Saakishvili, who in 2008 attempted to provoke a war with Russia.
Had Georgia then been a part of NATO, then the conflict would have been global and nuclear. To this day, Georgia is still one among a variety of loose cannons ready to be unleashed on a weakened Russia.
While western media and political hacks alike promote the populist delusion that the recent overthrow of the democratically-elected Ukrainian government is somehow legitimate and that Russia is being an imperialist aggressor in need of western punishment, the reality shaping the situation is quite different. As former foreign relations head of the Russian Ministry of Defense and current President of the Academy of Geopolitical Studies, Leonid Ivashov warned in an interview on km.ru on February 11, 2014:
“What we are seeing in Ukraine and in Syria is a western project, a new kind of war: in both places you see a clear anti-Russian approach, and as is well known, wars today begin with psychological and information warfare operations… I assume that the Foreign Ministry understands that we are at war…” [3]
Now that we have established that the Russians understand that there is a coordinated strategy to go to war with them, the following question can rightfully be posed: What role is Harper playing in the buildup to thermonuclear war between NATO and Russia?
Harper Spits on Russia
Ever since the very beginning of Harper’s mandate as Prime Minister in 2006, one is easily struck by the confrontational stance that he has always made towards Russia, our Arctic neighbour. From the 2007 “crisis” which was fabricated by Harper’s government in response to Russian jets flying momentarily within Canadian airspace, to the attacks upon Russia for trying “to steal” Canada’s Arctic sovereignty after a harmless scientific expedition planted a Russian flag on the seabed floor of the disputed Lomonosov Ridge in 2008, Harper’s confrontational stance with Russia could only be understood as being a part of a systemic intention to disrupt normal diplomatic relations between Canada and Russia as a matter of policy. Now in the context of the flashpoint for potential war with Russia surrounding the Ukraine situation, we can see Harper’s true colours fully express themselves.
After listening to his Foreign Minister John Baird compare Putin to Hitler on March 3, the Prime Minister then gave his full support to the technocratic Ukrainian banker Arseniy Yatsenyuk now heading the neo-Nazi dominated government and calling himself the “Prime Minister” and accusing Russia of imperial invasion… even though the only legitimate government is the one which is in exile [4]. It was that government in exile which requested Russia intercede into the region of Crimea. But these are only pesky “facts”… why let such things get in the way of a good war?
Echoing the words of Obama, and the British Foreign Office on March 4, Harper went on to condemn Putin and promoted the notion of isolating Russia by kicking it out of the G8: “President Putin’s actions have put his country on a course of diplomatic and economic isolation that could see Russia exit the G8 entirely…We will also continue to work closely with our G7 partners and our allies.”
Harper continued by pointing to his recall of the Canadian ambassador to the Ukraine and cancelling Canada’s representation at the Paralympics: “Canada has suspended our engagement in preparations for the G8 summit planned in Sochi. We have also recalled our ambassador to Russia. [We] cancelled any government representation at the Paralympic Games and I’ve instructed officials to review all planned bilateral interaction with Russia.”
The next day, continuing his typically confrontational stance, Harper went on further to announce a cancellation of planned military exercises with the Russians “I have this morning directed that, effective immediately, all planned bilateral activities between the Canadian Armed Forces and the military of the Russian Federation be suspended”.
Many onlookers might be quick to dismiss Canada’s importance in the ongoing British Empire World War III plans against Russia. Canada’s military is negligible, and it is merely a “middle power”. What damage could Canada possibly do?
The Geopolitics of Canada: The Historical Background of the Great Game.
It is to the person asking this question that we will address the following segments of our report. The first factor which such a person must recognize is the nature of the British Empire as an efficient power structure dominating the world even today. Under this imperial system, Canada is the second largest territory in the world with one of the lowest population densities. The British Empire has kept a tight grip on Canada over the years due to its strategic location positioned as it is between two great nations who have been inclined to unite their interests in opposition to the British Empire on several focal points in history [5].
Canada has been a driving force behind the formation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) when the leading Canadian internationalist of his time, the Oxford-trained Rhodes Scholar Escott Reid laid out the thesis for a supranational military body outside of the influence of the UN Security Council as early as August 1947. It was another two years before the design would materialize as an anti-Soviet military coalition based on the binding agreement that if one member enters a conflict, then all members enter. [see Appendix]
The name of the British Imperial game has always been “balance of power”. Manipulate society as a single closed system by monopolizing resources, and then manage the diminishing rates of return by creating conflict between potential allies. This process can be seen clearly today behind the conflicts manipulated in the South China Sea between China and Philippines, the Diaoyu-Senkaku Islands between China and Japan, wars for oil in the Middle East and the new tension being created in the Arctic. The opposing, typically American System method has always disobeyed this game of “balancing a fixed system” by introducing creative change.
The American System locates its point of emphasis primarily upon creating new resources, through inventions and discoveries, rather than simply looting, consuming, and distributing what already exists. This system formulated by Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt proved that more energy could always be produced than was consumed IF discoveries and inventions were cultivated in a creatively developing society, shaped by concrete national intentions and bold visionary goals to increase the energy-flux density of society. The American System is thus in conformity with the universal principle of anti-entropy, while the British System is based on the fraudulent notion of universal entropy. Since the British system implies that the world resources are limited, then the stronger will have to loot the weaker.
Throughout the Cold War, Canada’s role as a “middle power” was defined most succinctly by Fabian Society asset Pierre Elliot Trudeau, who, when asked what his foreign policy was, explained simply: “to create counterweights”. That is, when the “geopolitical center of gravity” moves towards “capitalist America”, then Canada must move towards befriending “socialist” Russia and its allies. When the center of gravity moves towards a Russian edge within the Great Game, then do the opposite. Although the Cold War “officially” ended in 1989, the imperial Great Game never did, and Canada’s role as a British chess piece continues unabated to the present.
The future battleground which Canada is being prepared to set up is to be found in the Arctic.
The Strategy of the Arctic in History
Today, the northern Arctic is among the last unexplored, and undeveloped frontiers on the earth. With an area over 14 million square kilometers, this area is rich in a variety of mineral and gas deposits containing approximately 90 billion barrels of oil and 1670 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. This abundance is complicated by the fact that its borders are highly undefined, overlapping eight major nations with Canada and Russia as the dominant claimants [6].
In recent history, American System methods were attempted in the opening up of the Arctic for mutual development and cooperation beginning with the sale of Alaska to America in 1867 by the “American system czar” Alexander II to the allies of Abraham Lincoln which manifested the Trans-Siberian railway and in the design for the Bering Strait Rail tunnel connecting the two great continents which arose by the turn of the century [7] [see Box 1].
Throughout the 20th Century, Russia has developed a far greater aptitude at creating corridors of permanent habitation in the Arctic relative to their North American counterparts in Alaska or Canada. Due to the Cold War dynamic of tension initiated by the British Empire after Franklin Roosevelt’s death in April 1945, much that could have been accomplished, had resources not been so badly drained by militarization, was not.
The beacon of light during this Cold Dark process was to be found in Canada’s 13th Prime Minister John Diefenbaker, whose NorthernVision, unveiled in 1958, hinged upon his $78 million allocation for funds to construct a permanent domed nuclear powered city in Frobisher Bay (now named Iqaluit, the capital of Nunavut), as a test case for a greater nation building program in the Arctic. When Diefenbaker was run out of office in 1963 through a British-steered operation, his vision was scrapped, and a new Arctic doctrine was artificially imposed upon Canada [8].
This new imperial Arctic doctrine was modeled around the two (anti-nation building) measures of “conservation” of fixed ecosystems and indigenous cultures on the one side, and rapacious mineral exploitation for the increasingly deregulated “global markets” on the other. It is no coincidence that such British-controlled mineral cartels as Peter Munk’s Barrick Gold, and Royal-Dutch Shell have played such a major role in the social engineering of indigenous native cultures for decades. Canadian 
examples of this operation can be seen in the Munk School of Global Affairs, the World Wildlife Fund of Canada, and their powerful affiliate, the Walter and Duncan Gordon Foundation, presided over by Pierre Trudeau’s former Principal Secretary
Axworthy is a major player in the Canada 2020 machine currently controlling the Obama-modelled Liberal Party of Justin Trudeau. The overlap of major banking institutions like the Royal Bank of Canada and Scotiabank with the mineral cartels, holding companies (such as Power Corporation) and environmental organizations in this structure produces a very real picture that the left and the right are merely two angles of the same imperial beast. When one considers that these are the same structures dominating the “left” and “center” parties of Canada [9], it is no wonder that not a peep of resistance towards Harper’s anti-Russia, pro-fascist coup stance can be heard from any of his nominal “opposition”.
The role of the above interests in creating the Arctic Council in 1996 (and the later Circumpolar Business Forum) was designed to trap nations into an intellectual cage of resource exploitation under free market doctrines of zero national planning on the one side, with eco-systems management and zero national planning on the other. Now that the post 1971 world financial order is dead, the new replacement system will allow for national planning, but only on condition that it be directed by Malthusian technocrats and aimed at the goal of lowering the energy-flux density of the system [10].
To re-emphasize: When observed from the top down, both the “left” eco-green movement and the “right” monetarist institutions are one single thing when observed from the top down. It is only by foolishly looking at this process from the “bottom up” that apparent differences are perceived. This is just an illusion for the credulous victims of an imperial education system who have been taught to believe their sense perceptions. The reality is that this is nothing more than British Malthusian geopolitics [11].
Harper and the Arctic Today
While British agents such as Axworthy stab Russia with the left hand, Harper leads with the right. On December 9, 2013 
Harper made a surprise announcement that Canada was attempting to claim the North Pole with John Baird exclaiming: “Our goal is to define our territory as the biggest territory in the world”. What made this announcement so surprising was that it had only been one year prior that Canada had made a submission to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to extend its territory in the Arctic by 1.75 million square kilometers of seabed (which would increase Canada’s territory by 20%).
With this recent 2013 announcement, occurring at a time when Russia is being isolated by the NATO powers, and Ukraine is being used as a fascist powder keg, Harper is not playing with Arctic ice but with nuclear fire. While mainstream press has tried to downplay this claim as a petty joke, asserting that “Harper wants to give Santa Claus a Canadian passport”, more intelligent observers have noticed something more grave. Professor Rob Huebert of the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute put the problem into succinct terms:
“What isn’t discussed in polite society is the fact that the core Russian strategic interest is part and parcel of the Arctic. For Russia, it’s about getting their submarine fleet up and running again. They are re-invigorating their nuclear deterrent. If we have good relations with the Russians, negotiations for any overlap in claims will go well. If relations deteriorate- say over Ukraine or who knows what- then all of a sudden negotiations become that much more difficult”.
Huebert was one of the few analysts paying close attention to the words and policies of Vladimir Putin who had made such clear warnings at a February 27, 2013 speech at a board meeting of the Ministry of Defense:
“Methodological attempts are made to rock the strategic balance in one way or another. The U.S. has practically started the 2nd stage of its plan to set up a global missile defense system and there are probes into the possibility of NATO’s further eastward expansion. The danger of militarization of the Arctic exists… all of these challenges affect our national interests and therefore determines the alignment of our priorities. Primarily, the development integration in Eurasia, strengthening the single economic space, the transition to the creation of the Eurasian Economic Union, the deepening of partnerships with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and the countries that are integrated into a system called BRICS”
Russia’s Minister of Defense Sergei Shoigu re-iterated Russia’s concern to avoid a NATO confrontation in the Arctic: “There are plans to create a group of troops and forces to ensure military security and protection of the Russian Federation’s national interests in the Arctic in 2014”.
The Russians rightfully look upon this situation as an existential threat. Not as a joke about Santa Claus.
Russia Responds to a Threat
While Harper’s 2007-2008 program to militarize the Arctic against “Russian aggression” went sour during the 2009 economic crisis, signs of the program are now beginning to re-emerge with the opening of a “Winter Warfare Center” in the summer of 2013 which includes a command post at Resolute Bay and a 100 soldier capacity. In August 2013, a little known military operation took place involving 1000 Canadian personnel who participated in Operation Nanook 2013 in four different Arctic locations as a counter measure to Moscow’s territorial claims to UNSOC to extend the “Exclusive Economic Zone” by 1.2 million square kilometers into the Arctic. The increasing integration of the Canadian and American military systems bound together under NATO treaties, should cause one to pause and think about the vast continental might that could be deployed to the Arctic under crisis conditions [12].
Russia’s response to these provocations involved re-instating a military base at Novosibirsk Archipelago, reviving Russian northern airfields and docks in New Siberian Islands, permanently sending ten warships and four nuclear powered icebreakers along the Northern Sea Route, new submarine felt bases on the Barents Sea coast. In response to the danger of NATO’s expansion eastward and potential Arctic militarization, Russia responded with the biggest ‘snap drill’ in the eastern Arctic since the end of the Soviet Union in 1991 160 000+ servicemen, 1000 tanks, 130 planes and 70 ships.
On October 3, 2013 Xinhua News reported that Putin himself responded to calls to ‘internationalize’ the arctic as ‘stupid’ stating that “The (Russian) Arctic is an integral part of the Russian Federation and it has been under our sovereignty for a few centuries. And so it will be forever.” Noting the 16 minute timeframe it would take U.S. missiles launched from submarines stationed in Norway to reach Moscow, Putin said “it is utter nonsense to say amid such conditions that the 
area should be given to somebody else’s management.”
On February 3, 2014 Russian Arctic Council Ambassador Anton Vasiliev attempted to relieve this tension built up by western aggression by pointing out that Russia’s militarization had nothing to do with Arctic threats and that such programs were merely a response to the “arctic ice melt, border control, illegal immigration and terrorism”. Even though it is certainly true that Russia’s policy has been one of war avoidance and cooperation, evidenced by Putin’s multiple offers to jointly construct the Bering Strait rail tunnel with America and Canada, as well as the joint Asteroid Defensive Strategy proposed by his Deputy Prime Minister Dimitry Rogozin [13], one needs recognize the greater geopolitical strategy being played right now by the British Empire and its puppets, to recognize the real end game picture for what it is.
Breaking Out of the Great Game
The fact is that while the Atlantic economies have currently submitted to the City of London- Wall Street and Troika demands for policies of depopulation, austerity through bail-outs and now bail-ins, Russia is committed to development under the model laid out by Vladimir Putin in the February 2013 quote above. Russia is intent on creating a unified block of cooperation based upon the SCO and BRIC countries and that intention is based on anti-Malthusian scientific and technological progress. The financial system of the trans-Atlantic is collapsing and Putin knows it. Other Eurasian leaders know this. These leaders know that this is why a military bombardment of Syria must be stopped and this is why Putin risked so much to expose the fraudulent claims that Syria had used chemical weapons and vetoed the war hawks in the U.N. Security Council along with China.
The current Eurasian economic block led by the SCO expresses a unique commitment to scientific and technological progress anywhere on the planet today, and if western societies should wish to have any claim to being morally fit to survive, then this is an optimistic power that we must re-awaken in ourselves fast. For it is only by acting on principles of scientific discovery and progress that a proper perspective can be discovered to overcome the current obstacles to our survival. That is, the discovery of what the future can and must become IF a creative change is introduced into the system.
The only pathway to avoiding the collapse of the financial system and a thermonuclear war with Russia and China is to be found in imposing Natural Law vigorously upon the claimed “debts” which Wall Street, Bay Street and their European counterparts want bailed out (and soon bailed-in). The expression of this Natural Law takes the form of the restoration of Glass-Steagall laws across the trans-Atlantic economies and returning to the principles of national banking for all countries. Under such a reform and by joining in common interest with other nations in the Eurasian zone, a committed to progress and security can be realized, and such poisonous cocktails as the TPP, CETA and NAFTA can be dumped forever.
Escaping the British two-sided trap of monetarism and ecologism means going now, swiftly towards a re-commitment to increasing the energy-flux density of society by going to fusion energy, space exploration, and mining the moon for Helium-3. The applications of a forward-looking space age society using fusion power, involves not only rendering imperial wars for oil and water obsolete (as energy and water will be made both incommensurably cheap and abundant relative to the fossil fuel based system now defining society’s limits), but gives mankind the tools to green deserts, build great projects such as the North American Water and Power Alliance (NAWAPA), work with the Russians on Asteroid Defense and construct the long-overdue Bering Strait Tunnel, a key link in the World Land Bridge powered based on magnetically levitated rail.
This is the anti-entropic future that we can still unleash at this most opportune time of world crisis. Will you be a part of making that future a reality?
End Notes
[1] The Treaty of Westphalia of 1648 not only put an end to the religious wars that had swept Europe for over 30 years prior, but established a standard of natural law based not upon the will of the stronger, but upon the “Benefit of the Other”. This system led directly into the argument over a century later of the founding fathers of America who scientifically proved the invalidity of all contractual (Roman) law based upon arbitrary might and divine rights of nobility. See Pierre Beaudry’s reports on The Peace of Westphalia on http://www.amatterofmind.us
[2] It was at this 1999 conference that Blair laid out what would be known as the post-nation state “Blair Doctrine”, advising the American government that NATO interventions into sovereign nations were justified even if the intervening nations were not threatened. Blair said: “for me, before Sept. 11, I was already reaching for a different philosophy in international relations from a traditional one that has held sway since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648; namely, that a country’s internal affairs are for it, and you don’t interfere unless it threatens you, or breaches a treaty, or triggers an obligation of alliance. I did not consider Iraq fitted into this philosophy”. For more see Jeff Steinberg’s London’s Blair Pushes Post-Westphalia Chaos, Executive Intelligence Review, January 18, 2008.
[3] http://larouchepac.com/node/29791
[4] Beyond the fact that evidence has been presented which proves that foreign powers led by Obama and Britain coordinated the coup d’état, evidenced by the leaked phone conversation between the U.S. State Department’s Victoria Nuland and the U.S. Ambassador to the Ukraine, additional facts have shown that the impeachment vote against Prime Minister Yanukovytch was actually illegal, as the Ukrainian Constitution mandates that three quarters of the parliament vote for impeachment. The actual vote was short by almost 20 votes.
[5] During the 1776 League of Armed Neutrality, Russia’s Catherine the Great ensured that funds and arms would be made available to the American cause. The process of the revolution which was then supposed to overtake Europe on the example of America was thwarted during the French Revolution of 1789-1792. Again, Russia’s Alexander II intervened into the Civil War as a block to European imperialists who were inclined to back the Confederate south militarily. Finally, Roosevelt’s pact with Stalin included a “Grand post-imperial design” based upon scientific and technological progress. Although JFK made inroads towards an alliance for a joint Soviet-American space program, his life was cut short before it could begin to take hold.
[6] The others being Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and the United States America
[7] Funds totaling six million dollars were raised privately, concluding the project could be done for $300 million. An editorial in the New York Times of October 24th, 1905, observed that “the Bering Strait Tunnel is a project which at some time in the future is likely to command a great deal of very purposeful consideration.”
[8] see John Diefenbaker and the Sabotage of the Northern Vision, by this author, in Canadian Patriot 4, January 2013
[9] New Democratic Party (NDP) is the party of the “left” headed by Thomas Mulcair, who sits alongside Stephen Harper on the Queen’s Privy Council, and Justin Trudeau who is the “leader” of the “center” Liberal Party awaits to be sworn in to the elite club shortly.
[10] This is now known as decreasing carbon footprints towards those genocidal constraints which mathematical computer models have determined absolute “carrying capacity” of mother earth. The recent conversion of such free market liberalizers as Larry Summers and Chrystia Freeland towards technocratic “Keynesian” models of political control are evidence of this new Malthusian logic.
[11] A good example of the opposite of British geopolitics is John F. Kennedy’s North American Water and Power Alliance (NAWAPA) which aimed at re-organizing wasteful continental water systems in order to create an abundance of water and energy for the continent. British geopolitics seeks to avoid such programs in order to maintain atmospheres of scarcity more conducive to creating tension and wars under typical “divide to conquer” methods. The 21st century design upgrades to NAWAPA now promoted by the Lyndon LaRouche and his associates involves incorporating nuclear fusion as another feature which will increase the abundance and efficiency of the biosphere and economy as a single system.
[12] The December 2012 US-Canada signing of the Tri-Command Framework for Arctic Cooperation which was designed to merge USNORTHCOM, Canadian Joint Operations Command (CJOC) and NORAD in order to “promote enhanced military cooperation in the Arctic and identify specific areas of potential Tri-Command cooperation in the preparation for and conduct of safety, security and defense operations’. For more on this matter see Dana Gabriel’s U.S. Arctic Ambitions and the Militarization of the High North, July 24, 2013 http://www.globalresearch.ca
[13] For more on the Strategic Defense of the earth, see http://larouchepac.com/thesde
