Chrystia Freeland is Evil

... I can prove it.

I just stepped out to buy a gram of weed and ran into neighbours, 2 friends of mine, and I asked them if they were tired of Chrystia Freeland yet, and we got talking: I told them that I had just decided two days ago to run against her and felt like I hadn't gone outside much since then, ironically, since one major subject of many of these meditations leading to this decision was one you all have ruminated on: LOCKDOWNS.

Now, they don't prove Chrystia's evil, but we started with an obvious agreement that there should be LEGAL LIMITS ON LOCKDOWNS -- circuit-breaker lockdowns ONLY should be allowed in human rights, and we should have regular referenda on the maximum duration of any legally imposed lockdown. If the public, it should be argued, is too stupid (what Chrystia thinks) to do this decision right in the event of a truly deadly pathogen, the reply is simple: the incentive to educate rather than control has always been life-or-death, you're only just seeing it now.

But no, that's not what *proves* that Chrystia is evil, it's the timing, as it is with so many things in politics. The timing, not of LOCKDOWNS OF PEOPLE but LOCKDOWNS OF CASH. Here's the proof my neighbours and I instantly agreed on:

1. If Freeland froze bank accounts on literally any day other than VALENTINE'S DAY the argument could be MADE that it wasn't evil, but this argument cannot be made if she chooses this one day out of 365 to freeze a family's money on, in which case, she is EVIL

2. Freeland froze bank accounts specifically on Valentines' Day

3. Therefore, CHRYSTIA FREELAND IS EVIL

It's really simple logic, folks, and they even gave in to the trucker's demands, what did they want? Oh, just BODILY AUTONOMY like feminism has always fought for.

Feeeland is anti-feminist.

It gets worse: In Australia they are already freezing cash withdrawals in many situations for everyone, and Trump has been forced to start campaigning that he will PREVENT A CENTRAL BANK DIGITAL CURRENCY (CBDC)

What's the big deal with this bag of words? Think back to Valentine's Day, imagine you are the wife of a trucker buying food for her children and the bank card doesn't work at the checkout lineup, out of nowhere -- This is Freeland's Canada, but CASH was still available, and cryptocurrency too -- without these two means at our disposal, global tyranny is imminent, and I'm not fucking kidding. The cost-of-living crisis comes from *wartime spending*, not from CERB, but it *does* come from money printing, which is what a CBDC imposes: all assets can be fucked with: money can be printed and your grocery bill goes up.

In the past, nations have confiscated ALL THE GOLD IN A COUNTRY for this sort of reason, and this is what your finance minister, and my personal MP, wants to do: she wants to control your purse strings from every angle, but if BITCOIN won the day could we print money for wars? NO

This is how it happened, how it's been since HIROSHIMA: When America dropped the bomb it effectively gained the power to change the rules of global banking, and FORCED ALL COUNTRIES ONTO FIAT CURRENCY, ENABLING ENDLESS WAR VIA ENDLESS MONEY PRINTING -- THIS IS WHY SATOSHI'S NAME IS JAPANESE, regardless of Satoshi's true identity, I submit: It is a response to Hiroshima which made USD the lingua franca, pushing BTC to compensate, and decentralize the world's military powers, for as Brand says so eloquently: "Wherever power concentrates, it forms a DICKHEAD". Bitcoin is a PEACE coin.

Sadly, it's no better with Pierre Pollievre's economic model. I was just asking someone who was 'definitely not conservative' whose economic model they support, and the implicit answer was neither, but while they could put their finger on the money printing as the issue with Ms. Freeland's approach, they didn't verbalize what's wrong with Pollievre, well here we go:

He may listen to Breedlove in his breeding chamber with his wife, but he doesn't have the kind of progressive vision for money outlined above. Moreover, he is in the grip of a pervasive conservative fallacy, the fallacy of "1=1".

What do I mean? Surely this is an analytic truth, or perhaps a synthetic truth, so how could it be a fallacy?

Well, if you had to borrow a dollar, would you borrow it from your rich friend, if you could, or would you borrow it from your poor friend? Well, you know the answer.

But why, in economic terms, does this make sense? The term, at least, is "The Diminishing Marginal Utility of Money" and Conservatives never mention it because their entire shell-game is a distraction from taxing and eating the rich -- they opposed the carbon tax, but also the income tax and regulations on corporate emitters that would really address climate change, instead of bleeding the poor and weakening the chances of a revolution being triggered in the cataclysm.

As I mentioned in this week's articles, a revolution is inevitable, but a peaceful revolution is possible, which must therefore be accelerated: Accelerate. Peaceful. Revolution. At all costs.

So, since 1 dollar in my pocket doesn't equal 1 dollar in yours, slicing the pie more evenly DOES INCREASE THE EFFECTIVE SIZE OF THE PIE. Think of it this way:

Everyone knows the first potato chip is the best, and the last one in the bag is the worst: by the time you get to the end of the bag the person you share the chip with is PROTECTING you from harm, and one of the chips you give them will be as good as the first time was for you when you had your first chip. Well, the more you share potato chips, the more first chips there are, so the chips actually go UP in value as you share them.

Money is just like this, except the health effects of too much are more subtle.

The conservative schtick is that they're good at math, but they're just thinking of arithmetic, not the philosophical foundations of probability, which they didn't study in school. Just look it up: Probability & Inductive Logic by Ian Hacking covers the Diminishing Marginal Utility of Money, and I submit to you that it provides a fatal knock-down of Pierre's economic model.

Another fatal knock-down is the 2019 proof that 'markets' are *FORMALLY INCOMPLETABLE*, which means that unpriced externalities will ALWAYS exist, and it's the job of socialist market regulations to 'price in' the most relevant information that CANNOT BE EXPRESSED IN THE PRICES. This is NOT about central planning, which I oppose, even in the form of urban zoning -- central planning has been tested and it failed. (But the cold war did NOT test Worker Cooperatives.)

Libertarians like Pollievre and Breedlove have this fantasy where they're hypnotized by the epistemic virtues of the market when it's 'freer' and worship it like a god, elevating it from Olympus to heaven, ascribing to it omniscience in an exaggerated-humility which they do not extend to the humility that should lead them to see a diversity of truth: the truths the market speaks and those it misses, which we've proven mathematically now ALWAYS EXIST, so if you're math guys, conservatives, you have to read, not just MMT, but "The Incompletability of Markets" (2019)

Chrystia, on the other hand, needs to get her head out of her ass and stop acting controlling -- the news ban is unconscionable and we know she doesn't support diversity of thought in the media, which brings me to our list of policy position we sorely need against Mrs. Freeland:

ABOLISH CENSORSHIP

END THE NEWS BAN

ABOLISH INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

DENY THE GLOBALIST AGENDA

LEGAL LIMITS ON LOCKDOWNS

PRINT HOUSES, NOT GUNS

CASH IS KING

YOUR MONEY, YOUR CHOICE

YOUR BODY, YOUR CHOICE

Write the NDP today and demand that they run me as the NDP candidate against Freeland — I’m running anyway: https://www.ndp.ca/contact
—
adamgolding.ca