Sep 132010





(4)    THE PROCESS IS DEAD, GEORGE MONBIOT,  September 20, 2010

(5)     RELATED:   2016-07-08 Rulers cannot rule unless we agree to let them rule. There are simply too many of us. Democracy overtaken by Corporatocracy = coup d’état. Citizens fight to regain democracy = Revolution (insurgency) . Corporatocracy fights to hold on = counter insurgency.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =


The RCMP have put the risk of a coup d’état on the list of four threats to Canada (item #2).

“Military historian Edward Luttwak says, “A coup consists of the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder”, thus, armed force (either military or paramilitary) is not a defining feature of a coup d’état.” (wikipedia)

I’d say that coup d’états happen when the powers-that-be want more power and control than they already have.  Or, they feel a threat to their power and agenda.

What would threaten them, in today’s world?  . . .  Why did the RCMP list coup état?  . . . Answer one of the questions, you’ve answered both.

Growing dissatisfaction among growing numbers of “peasants” would be a threat to the powers-that-be.   Sufficient dissatisfaction, large enough numbers, intention . . . but that would be called a “revolution”, not a coup d’état.

So let’s see.  The RCMP say the threat of a coup d’état exists.  Earlier,  I and others have said that we have corporatocracy, not democracy in Canada.   Which means that the coup d’état has ALREADY TAKEN PLACE   (“the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder”).

What does the RCMP statement mean then?  Does it mean that there is a threat of EVEN MORE coup d’état-ing?

To answer that, put yourself into the shoes of the powers-that-be (the ones doing the coups).  What do THEY see?  . . .   I see coup d’état . . .  they see revolution.   We are viewing the same world, but through a different set of eyes.   A power struggle between us and them.

I was astounded to hear “coup d’etat” used in the media, from the RCMP.  . . .  But why the surprise?  I have been saying that the success of the opposition to the tar sands, the success in protection of water,  etc., threatens the corporate agenda.  That “revolution” threatens the corporate agenda.  When I stop to think, as a population moves toward revolution, yes, that is when coup d’états happen.   The population wakes up to what has been happening, they stop being sheeple, the powers whose interests are threatened must resort to military/police (violence) to impose their will.

In this network we have documented the growing military/police state in Canada.   What is that other than the signs of a coup d’état?   But is that the coup d’état that the RCMP are thinking of?

So is there evidence of dissatisfaction and unrest,  IN LARGE ENOUGH NUMBERS to trigger pre-emptive (that’s what it would be), MORE coup état-ing by large corporations working with their quislings?

Another question:  if the RCMP see potential coup d’état, where does that leave THEM?

We’re all in this together.  I think we need to understand the situation and share it.  Otherwise we, as Canadians,  can’t solve it.

Back to Coup d’état / Revolution:
LARGE ENOUGH NUMBERS?   .. . .  don’t need to address that one.  “They” would see large enough numbers, enabled, empowered and connected by the ability to exchange information by email, the net, and cheap phone technology.

DISSATISFACTION?  . . . .  try George Monbiot’s September 20th article, “THE PROCESS IS DEAD” (item #4)

This is part of a short series of postings, one of which talks about the movie “Sounds like a Revolution” .  I recommend the movie.  It is very helpful to understanding today’s political affairs.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =


Ottawa Citizen, Montreal Gazette, etc.

RCMP identify coup d’etat as threat 

Considered operational priority. First time such language in planning report, signals emphasis on national security 

By IAN MACLEOD, Postmedia News; Ottawa Citizen September 13, 2010

RCMP officials have identified a new threat to national security: a coup d’etat.

The reference to a violent overthrow of the federal government is contained in the RCMP’s plans and priorities report to government for 2010-11. It lists national security as one of five operational priorities for the year.

The document then cites four specific security concerns:

– ¦Espionage and sabotage.

– ¦Foreign-influenced criminal activities detrimental to the interests of Canada.

– ¦Terrorism.

– ¦ “Activities aimed at over-throwing, by violence, the Government of Canada.”

RCMP officials were not immediately available Friday to explain the reference, but such language has not appeared in previous RCMP reports.

Over the past year, the Mounties have signalled a renewed emphasis on national security issues that have been pushed aside by law enforcement’s preoccupation with global terrorism since 9/11.

In a major speech last fall, for example, RCMP Commissioner William Elliott said while transnational terrorism and “homegrown” radicalization remain big threats, so too are economic espionage by foreign states, transnational organized crime, proliferation issues, illegal migration and other border-security issues.

While hyperbolic, the mention of a coup threat appears to reflect the force’s return to a broader operational approach to guarding national security.

It’s also not the first talk of a government overthrow.

The 1999 book Agent of Influence alleged the U.S. CIA plotted a de facto coup of Lester B. Pearson’s government in the early 1960s.

Canadian author Ian Adams claimed that after the 1963 assassination of U.S. president John F. Kennedy, CIA counter-intelligence branch head James Jesus Angleton became convinced Pearson was an agent for Russian intelligence and supposedly had information from a Soviet defector backing him up.

“The CIA took great personal offence at Pearson’s independent stands in foreign policy, his grain trades with the Soviet Union, his antiwar positions on Vietnam, and especially his friendly stance on Cuba,” wrote Adams.

To get at Pearson, the CIA set its sights first on Canadian diplomat James Watkins, Canada’s ambassador to Russia in the mid-1950s and a friend of the prime minister.

After 27 days of interrogation by the Mounties, the 62-year-old Watkins’s troubled heart gave out and he died, apparently without supplying the confession the spymasters hoped could bring down the government.

© Copyright (c) The Montreal Gazette
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 


Some politicians under foreign sway: CSIS

Last Updated: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 |

CBC News

Richard Fadden, director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, in an exclusive interview with the CBC. (CBC)

Canada’s spy agency suspects that cabinet ministers in two provinces are under the control of foreign governments, CBC News has learned.

Several members of B.C. municipal governments are also under suspicion, Richard Fadden, the director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, told CBC News in an exclusive interview.

“We’re in fact a bit worried in a couple of provinces that we have an indication that there’s some political figures who have developed quite an attachment to foreign countries,” Fadden said.

“The individual becomes in a position to make decisions that affect the country or the province or a municipality. All of a sudden, decisions aren’t taken on the basis of the public good but on the basis of another country’s preoccupations.”

He said the politicians and public servants see it as a long-standing relationship and have no idea they are being used.

“There are several municipal politicians in British Columbia and in at least two provinces there are ministers of the Crown who we think are under at least the general influence of a foreign government.”

Fadden said the agency is in the process of discussing with the Privy Council Office the best way to inform those provinces there may be a problem.

“We’ll do the same with the public servants. I’m making this comment because I think it’s a real danger that people be totally oblivious to this kind of issue.”

Fadden warned that foreign regimes — through universities and social clubs — will develop a relationship with people who have a connection to the homeland.

“You invite somebody back to the homeland. You pay [for] their trips and all of a sudden you discover that when an event is occurring that is of particular interest to country “X,” you call up and you ask the person to take a particular view,” Fadden said.

At least five countries are surreptitiously recruiting future political prospects in universities, he said. Middle East countries are also involved.

But China is the most aggressive, funding university clubs that are managed by people operating out of the embassy or consulates, Fadden said in a recent speech to Canadian police chiefs and security experts in Toronto.

Chinese authorities also organize demonstrations against the Canadian government in respect to some of Canada’s policies concerning China, Fadden said.

“A number of countries take the view that if they can develop influence with people relatively early in their careers, they’ll follow them through,” Fadden said. “Before you know it, a country is providing them with money, there’s some sort of covert guidance.”

Fadden said he is concerned that too much of the agency’s resources are focused on fighting terrorism and not counter-espionage. That concentration leaves more chances to steal Canada’s sensitive technology and trade secrets, worth billions of dollars a year.

“The difficulty I have, as does everybody, is you have to balance where you allocate resources, but it most definitely is as serious problem, and if I had to guess, I’d say it was going to get worse,” Fadden said.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =


Hi All

This just came in today from George Monbiot, the author of “Heat” and a person that I admire very much.

Sorry for the discouraging read, but we must face realities!


The Process Is Dead

Posted September 20, 2010

It’s already clear that the climate talks in December will go nowhere – so what do we do?

By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 21st September 2010.

The closer it comes, the worse it looks. The best outcome anyone now expects from December’s climate summit in Mexico is that some delegates might stay awake during the meetings. When talks fail once, as they did in Copenhagen, governments lose interest. They don’t want to be associated with failure, they don’t want to pour time and energy into a broken process. Nine years after the world trade negotiations moved to Mexico after failing in Qatar, they remain in diplomatic limbo. Nothing in the preparations for the climate talks suggests any other outcome.

A meeting in China at the beginning of October is supposed to clear the way for Cancun(1). The hosts have already made it clear that it’s going nowhere: there are, a top Chinese climate change official explains, still “huge differences between developed and developing countries”(2). Everyone blames everyone else for the failure at Copenhagen. Everyone insists that everyone else should move.

But no one cares enough to make a fight of it. The disagreements are simultaneously entrenched and muted. The doctor’s certificate has not been issued; perhaps, to save face, it never will be. But the harsh reality we have to grasp is that the process is dead.

In 2012 the only global deal for limiting greenhouse gas emissions – the Kyoto Protocol – expires. There is no realistic prospect that it will be replaced before it elapses: the existing treaty took five years to negotiate and a further eight years to come into force. In terms of real hopes for global action on climate change, we are now far behind where we were in 1997, or even 1992. It’s not just that we have lost 18 precious years. Throughout the age of good intentions and grand announcements we spiralled backwards.

Nor do regional and national commitments offer more hope. An analysis published a few days ago by the campaigning group Sandbag estimates the amount of carbon that will have been saved by the end of the second phase of the EU’s emissions trading system, in 2012(3). After the hopeless failure of the scheme’s first phase we were promised that the real carbon cuts would start to bite between 2008 and 2012. So how much carbon will it save by then? Less than one third of one per cent.

Worse still, the reduction in industrial output caused by the recession has allowed big polluters to build up a bank of carbon permits which they can carry into the next phase of the trading scheme. If nothing is done to annul them or to crank down the proposed carbon cap (which, given the strength of industrial lobbies and the weakness of government resolve, is unlikely) these spare permits will vitiate phase three as well. Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, the EU’s emissions trading system will remain alive. It will also remain completely useless.

Plenty of nations – such as the United Kingdom – have produced what appear to be robust national plans for cutting greenhouse gases. With one exception (the Maldives), their targets fall far short of the reductions needed to prevent more than two degrees of global warming.

Even so, none of them are real. Missing from the proposed cuts are the net greenhouse gas emissions we have outsourced to other countries and now import in the form of manufactured goods. Were these included in the UK’s accounts, alongside the aviation, shipping and tourism gases excluded from official figures, the UK’s emissions would rise by 48%(4). Rather than cutting our contribution to global warming by 19% since 1990, as the government boasts, we have increased it by around 29%(5). It’s the same story in most developed nations. Our apparent success results entirely from failures elsewhere.

Hanging over everything is the growing recognition that the United States isn’t going to play. Not this year, perhaps not in any year. If Congress couldn’t pass a climate bill so feeble that it consisted of little but loopholes while Barack Obama was president and the Democrats had a majority in both houses, where does hope lie for action in other circumstances? Last Tuesday the Guardian reported that of 48 Republican contenders for the Senate elections in November only one accepted that manmade climate change is taking place(6). Who was he? Mike Castle of Delaware. The following day he was defeated by the Tea Party candidate Christine O’Donnell, producing a full house of science deniers. The Enlightenment? Fun while it lasted.
What all this means is that there is not a single effective instrument for containing manmade global warming anywhere on earth. The response to climate change, which was described by Lord Stern as “a result of the greatest market failure the world has seen”(7), is the greatest political failure the world has ever seen.

Nature won’t wait for us. The US government’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports that the first eight months of 2010 were as hot as the first 8 months of 1998 – the warmest ever recorded(8). But there’s a crucial difference. 1998 had a record El Nino – the warm phase of the natural Pacific temperature oscillation. The 2010 El Nino was smaller (an anomaly peaking at roughly 1.8, rather than 2.5C), and brief by comparison to those of recent years(9). Since May the oscillation has been in its cool phase (La Nina)(10): even so, June, July and August this year were the second warmest on record(11). The stronger the warnings, the less capable of action we become.

Where does this leave us? How should we respond to the reality we have tried not see: that in 18 years of promise and bluster nothing has happened? Environmentalists tend to blame themselves for these failures. Perhaps we should have made people feel better about their lives. Or worse. Perhaps we should have done more to foster hope. Or despair. Perhaps we were too fixated on grand visions. Or techno-fixes. Perhaps we got too close to business. Or not close enough. The truth is that there is not and never was a strategy certain of success, as the powers ranged against us have always been stronger than we are.

Greens are a puny force, by comparison to industrial lobby groups, the cowardice of governments and the natural human tendency to deny what we don’t want to see. To compensate for our weakness, we indulged a fantasy of benign paternalistic power, acting, though the political mechanisms were inscrutable, in the wider interests of humankind. We allowed ourselves to believe that, with a little prompting and protest, somewhere, in a distant institutional sphere, compromised but decent people would take care of us. They won’t. They weren’t ever going to do so. So what do we do now?

I don’t know. These failures have exposed not only familiar political problems, but deep-rooted human weakness. All I know is that we must stop dreaming about an institutional response that will never materialise and start facing a political reality we’ve sought to avoid. The conversation starts here.
5. The official accounts claim a cut of 144 million tonnes. Including the unaccounted emissions suggests a rise of 225Mt, CO2 equivalent.
9. Page 22,
10. Page 10,

 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>