O CANADA!


JUST SAY NO, CANADA


Watch this space for a tactical analysis of Canadian Rebellions

THE ONLY MEANINGFUL REAL CHANGE IN THE CANADIAN GOVERNING STRUCTURE HAS ALWAYS HAD TO BE FORCED BY ARMED REBELLION.

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that its people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take up arms!" Thomas Jefferson, 1788 The Canadian Populace is actually one of the most rebellious in the world. It has had more rebellions than any other country in the same period of time. (All politely an low-keyed of course.) Seems to be the only way you can get change in a Third-World Banana Republic. - And even they are having a better track record in dealing with corruption than is Canada. In the Banana Republics the leaders are either voluntarily of resigining, or being forced to. 1817 RED RIVER 1837 UPPER AND LOWER CANADA 1840's RED RIVER 1869 MANITOBA 1885 NORTHWEST REBELLION 1890's SOUP REBELLIONS 1890's SUNDANCE REBELLIONS 1913 EDMONTON REBELLION 1920'S PROVINCIAL REBELLIONS 1960'S QUEBEC REBELLION 1990 MOHAWK REBELLION
In ALL of these cases the Government of Canada refused to consider the complaints that led up to the rebellion - and then instituted the necessary changes AFTER the rebellion.
SUMMARY So now to summarize what worked and what didn't in Canadian Rebellions, in case you have a mind to try it yourself. Those of you who logged on earlier will note that I've removed the summations of the rebellions. Plain and simple, it's because of theft of material. If you've visited some of our other sites you will be now be aware that the Government of Alberta has given several $MILLION to an agency of the Alberta Museums Association to tray to duplicate the work we have on our history files, and to download whatever they can access from our sites - and attempt to break into our databank files. Stupid thing is, they could have bought the data cheaper and had it sooner simply by approaching us. Furthermore, we were putting more and more of the history on internet. But of course, no more. So, we've already had the summaries and analysis of the rebellions on too long. So here goes. What were the results of the Canadian Rebellions? 1. a. Rebellions in Ontario and Quebec get results. b. Rebellions in the west - no matter how well supported, do not. 2. a. The Government of Canada quickly makes accomodations with rebels in the east. b. Against any rebellion in the west they mobilize the entire resources of the government and military to crush the uprising. Co-incidentally, government cronies (and the military) seem to find ample opportunity for massive profiteering during the crushing of western rebellion. This can be seen as a direct result of the view that rebellion in the east is a credible threat to the leading politicians and their supporters. In the west it is only the unwashed masses who bear the burnt of injury. 3. a. The Government of Canada has never fired a shot against rebels in the east. b. In the west the Government undertook a policy of shooting women and children, and firing into camps of sleeping civilians. 4. a. In the east, rebel leaders received token punishment and in time became folk heroes. b. In the west the leaders were executed (hung or shot) or incarcerated until their health collapsed. Promises of amnisty to those who fled were reneged upon once they returned. 5. a. In the east rebellion led to positive social change to address the issues. b. In the west rebellion led to negative social change designed to deprive the populace of such rights and benefits as they already had. Indians - whether involved in the rebellion or not - were confined to reserves and it became illegal to leave. Metis, whether involved in the rebellion or not - were deprived of all legal rights, and became legally non-persons without protection in law. The only rights accrued were those given to settlers who moved in from the east, who had the right to settle on any and all properties previously occupied by westerners (excepting the reservation concentrarion camps). There you got it. 1. Rebellion in the east invariably is seen as social progress and results in real improvements. 2. Rebellin in the west is invariably seen as a civil war and is answered with the butality normally displayed by governments in such occasions. The only rebellion in the west that was at least partly successful was that of thw Wesley Band - and they were eventually burned out and had their livestock shot by the government to herd them back on the reserve. So while the Government of Canada panders to Quebec seperation tendencies, don't expect it to do the same for westernt seperatist tendencies. All indications are that if the west raises a strong seperatist sentiment, the government of Canada will take it as a call to war and send in to put the peasants in their place (not to mention securing Alberta's oil and a few other such strategic materials - diamonds, gold, uranium, etc.). So in closing, having endorsed seperation and almost advocated sedition and rebellion, I leave you with these closing thoughts. Ralph Klein: Emperor of Canada West ? Scary! Hell, that's worse than Paul Martin. Truth is , Ralph's World and the so-called Alberta Advantage have done absolutely nothing for the average, low-income and Senior Albertan. It has exclusively benefitted the Suits, Cronies and Corporates. The only ones who have spoken for the concerns, interests and welfare of the common, senior and low-income Albertans has been the Government of Canada. Only the Government of Canada, Liberals and (Heaven Protect us) N.D.P. speak for the little guy (while undoubtedly themselves filling up at the trough). Keep that in mind. In Alberta there may be a good reason for the little guy to back the Feds. Fat Ralph, the Provincial Conservatives and the Corporates sure as hell don't. Remember:

"Democracy is worth fighting for"

Previous Page Conspiracy ? As far as this gun confiscation goes: Speaking of Conspiracy Theories, consider that the registration and confiscation of the mass of legitimate firearms from legal owners is in keeping with expected future Civil Control actions - what some would call Oppressing of the People. This is consistent with the change in military tactics and deployment initiated by the Liberal Party. Deployment priorty for the Canadian military has been shifted from Combat against other military forces to "Peacekeeping", in the form of Combat in Built-Up Areas and Population Control. Back to Limits To Growth. The Liberal Party of Canada about a decade ago came to accept the tenets put forward by the Limits To Growth study, which projects increasing costs of raw materials to an unsustainable economic level. Their projections were that the net result would be that starting about 2010 this economic spiral hits a peak, at which point it goes into a downhill run resulting in economic collapse by 2050. The postulate that this will result in massive social chaos. There. Makes sense to get whatever weapons you can off the street. The fact that the only ones you get are those owned by law-abiding and upstanding citizens (who would probably be pro-law in the first place) and leaves those in unlawful hands in place is irrelevant in the cost-benefit equation. It removes the main potential source of weapons available to the public. The unlawful use of weapons will simply go on as normal anyhow. But look on the bright side. You won't have to store handguns anymore in lockups and with trigger locks.