The Redemption of Chrystia Freeland?
Days after being labelled a criminal, she appears in parliament...
I know it's hard to watch, our country falling apart before our very eyes, so here's the play-by-play today, as our finance minister, and my MP, appears before the house mere moments, or rather days, after the court’s annuouncement that Chrystia Freeland violated Pierre’s charter of rights the day she froze our banking system: Valentine’s Day, 2022 — Never forget. Here’s what she had to say for herself today, amid other MPs in Question Period, our first session back since the landmark ruling:
TODAY IN QUESTION PERIOD
Today, the Parliament resumed; my representative, evil Ms Freeland, who has got to go, is the star of today's episode -- will she, won't she be the first female PM elected or will she go the way of warhawk Clinton?
They always told me Feminism and Atheism would save the world from war but is her feminism peaceful? Do her citizens get to give informed consent on an ongoing basis to her war? Of course not — she banned RT.
Open Letters is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Let's see what she WILL say when she opens her mouth in session today, the FIRST day back-to-school since principal Mosley said he knows what you did last Valetine's Day--I mean two Valentine's Days ago--(you fucked with the banking system, Chrystia--you had ONE job)--and Justice Mosley ISN'T happy with what you kids have been up to -- or so he told us over the break.
I'm watching on cpac as I write this, where the youtube comments are disabled -- abolish censorship -- abolish Freeland's Canada.
[But third-parties do post commentable versions, bless their pirating hearts:
Here we go, folks, EPISODE 1: The Redemption of Chrystia Freeland?
We open with INFLATION:
and whose fault is that? The wayward printing money printing is often pointed at, and also the claim that inflation is a global issue is often made -- but apparently the global issue in this segment is not WAR but keeping-up-with-the-Joneses: we are reassured, not that the spending is worth-the-cost or that the military spending that produces this cost-of-living-crisis as a consequence of a wartime economy will pave a path to peace, only that our inflation is comparable to the economic enemy: other first-world countries.
13 minutes in, The Conservatives finally bring it up, the Emergencies Act and the 'crisis of his own making' engineered by Trudeau for his father's theatrics to find a sequel using the successor act, which Brand today remaked has never been used in Canadian history but he got it wrong, psychoanalyticaly, for The Emergencies Act serves the same function pschoanalytically for Justin that, in his mind, the War Measures Act played for daddy, and not to upstaged by his father, which no one wants for themselves, this debacle which may lead to his resignation, and Chrystia's, was theatrically necessary as part of Trudeau's 'acting out' his childhood trauma, not legally necessary, as justice Mosley ruled.
And Chyrstia is no better, for Nazi or not, she thinks the ends will justify the means, because her perspective, somehow, is superior to ours, the collective of deplorables, who independently err towards the truth in a manner some group-think collective like The Liberals never will, in ideological purity.
18 minutes in, the Conservatives attack the plan to quadruple the carbon tax amid a cost-of-living crisis, but they don't propose an income or a wealth tax in its place -- I am reminded pf what The Majority Report quoted from one progressive author: "Don't Tax a Molecule, Tax The Rich" … but the Conservatives wont' tell you that.
20 minutes in, we are attacking the Liberal-NDP coalition -- from a Conservative standpoint this in an obvious move, but it was also Jagmeet's best response to Mosely's ruling: to blame the coalition, as a package deal, for the NDP's compliance with The Emergencies Act -- once again, more independence, not more accuracy, would be the solution to our disinformation age.
25 minutes in, we finally hear from Pollievre, he opens on the subject of recent hate-crimes against Muslims, saving human rights for later in the discussion. A moment of silence for victims ensues.
And then, Pierre begins in earnest: welcoming Justing back from his EXPENSIVE vacation. lol. I haven't had one in awhile either, Pierre, but I’m sure you have -- Pierre asks him to 'overturn inflationary policies', bu what does he mean, War, or CERB? (The latter was a drop-in-a-bucket, in comparison, in terms of 'inflationary spending'.)
Trudeau responds, off-topic, back to the moment of silence and today's ceremonial thing-of-the-day, on drama teacher autopilot, and Pierre brings us back to the topic: food banks and the cost of housing. Pierre asks Trudeau to remove red tape for developers...a change in which developer buddies will benefit.
Trudeau calls it a 'personal attack' with a skin so thin, it's fragile unless he moisturizes, but they covered that in Theatre, he just says 'we're working on it', more-or-less, and many of these quotations will be ‘paraphrases’, so we’re clear: I have to translate political English into ENGLISH.
Pierre lays in again, your personal vacation, Justin, he tells us, cost us $80,000 and it increased emissions.
Trudeau's response is just that "Pierre has no plan"—well I do: Tax The Rich Emitters—but you won't catch Jagmeet saying that.
Pierre retorts again with the question: how do you justify your trip in the era of Zoom? He asks if heating prices can be brought down by easing the carbon tax.
Trudeau complains about other bills the opposition opposed, which is their job, in a tit-for-tat digression from any topic, he can barely contain a schoolroom long enough to keep them on the reading, a desperate pivot comes after desperate pivot, never landing squarely on the issue and looking Canadians squarely between the eyes.
Trudeau complains that they have lots of projects that sounds good, he almost sounds hurt that he isn't getting credit for these developer-buddy programs and instead people are looking at the actual numbers on the ground!
35 mins in the bloc steps in to diffuse the tension, which is going nowhere fast -- he asks about immigration. Trudeau responds, basically "Immigration's great!" and moves on -- but great for what? It's great for getting re-elected as a Liberal which are the 'beautiful decades to come' he refers to dreaming of here: endless years of nepotism in Canada, and the end of true Democracy.
38 mins we finally hear from Singh, he means it, what he says: neither major party 'gets it' and takes the housing crisis seriously: but does he? His supply-and-confidence deal is why we have no diversity of thought in Parliament.
Tudeau fires briefly back, in controlled opposition, Singh retorts, the PM replies: Dude we're on it. Good show! He mentions a TFSA like the 10 percent of Torontonians going to the food bank have anything left to save! How out of touch!
Scheer has to jump in here: he makes the point I just typed here moments after I typed it -- a TFSA is irrelevant when you go to the food bank.
41 mins in, the moment everyone's waiting for, the witch who isn't dead, the evil ice-queen-of-the-north, the honorable(?) deputy Freeland speaks:
She says everyones 'understands' the cris which is why they are working 'agressively' to build housing, as if it's the emotion that counts, just as in her flimsy defense of violating human rights: it *felt right*. Well, it *felt good* for her, if you take my analysis from earlier as it happened:
And aggressive she seemed, eyebrows furrowed, harried, unslept, and on the defensive like a cornered animal who lashed out in false virtue, she cries: WHAT WILL YOU CUT? Well, if you can't thnk of anything, I'm sure Canadians can.
"We'll cut the waste and mismanagement" Scheer retorts and cites a few examples -- your mileage may vary, but he pivots us back to the issue-at-hand: the carbon tax's impact on the cost-of-living crisis, but even the tories won't point out that bleeding people dry until they have no margin is more of the same: a measure against an uprising, just like when they took our human rights away, against the law -- poor rebels are weaker rebels, so fund a poor person today! (In fact, you can write ndp.ca/contact and demand they run me as the NDP candidate against Freeland -- I will be running either way!)
"Crocodile Tears" Ms Freeland tells are what the tories cry, again, presuming that emotion trumps the policies and THE LAW; well think again, lady, this is a judge's world.
"LET ME TELL YOU WHAT IS COMMON-SENSE" she tell us now, 44 minutes in, ramping up her signature brand of condescenion, warming up for a home-run she imagines in her mind -- what is it -- what will you tell us is common sense -- bodily autonomy? electoral reform? making hard drugs unprofitable? freedom of the press? NO! She tells us:
Cheap child care is good! It's good to have a child care benefit! It's good to provide dental care this year! Ignoring the subject completely, she merely pivots using what-aboutism as if out universities don't teach logic to the pubic: the tories drag us back to the issue -- carbon taxes and food prices, but still not to the topic of corporate emitters -- one group, the conservatives, wants the externalities unpriced so that the rich can rape the earth, and one group wants the externalities priced wrong, so the poor will fund the rape -- this is just neoliberalism at its finest and the controlled oposition of a pseudo-democracy we must repalce with a parliament of TRUE INDEPENDENTS.
A Liberal speaks up, "We have an environment plan!" Okay, but what about the question?
A Conservative tells us the Liberals are using "Ignorance as a political strategy"--could be, but it takes one to know one.
Freeland resumes the podium, proverbially, and leads with, wait for it, the topic of: HYPOCRISY. Now this should be good. I mean, this should be RICH -- after all, she’s rich!
[@ 46:49 she looks upset:
"You want to bleed the poor too!", she basically retorts—well girl, it doesn't work that way—you're every bit as 'populist' as the opposition, which is not-at-all: you pit one poor-bleeding mechanism against another, why?
Because, both parties work to prevent revolt, by keeping us poor -- too poor to resist, or so they hope, the neoliberal duopoly.
From her glass house, Chrystia throws a stone at Pollieve: "People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" -- the logic is impeccably daft -- she reasons: "HEY, well YOU get rich off the backs of Canadians, so *I* can do it too! That's MORAL CONSISTENCY!!"
The bloc steps in again, and gives the rhythm some breathing room.
The liberals respond politely, reminding us that mom and dad are fighting but our French uncle will keep the house together.
MELISSA LANTSMAN rears her head, the outspoken conservative Jew of the house, she's smart and hopes some room will open above her -- she attacks the liberals who respond as if the conservative's plan isn't a barganing position, their being out of power. Lantsman replies that the housing 'initiatives' the Liberals pat themselves on the back for are PHOTO OPS while construction is DOWN. "You cannot live in a photo op." Well said, but can she really live with herself in the conservative party? What would Moses say!
Libs and tories then continue to debate if the Liberals have a plan... not to debate a meaningful alternative -- controlled opposition at its finest, and the subject is changed back to HATE CRIMES.
Online hate, the NDP reminds us, needs activity -- but don't they see the irony? Hate against the Liberals is policed incredibly swiftly. C-11, the News Ban, you name it.
McPherson shows up suddenly, from the NDP, with a real topic: CANCELLING UNRA IS COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT AND IT IS ILLEGAL -- well, then, what is the response? The Liberals babble they are 'pausing' funding during the investigation -- so is it collective punishment or not? Pathetic, what an insult to every Canadian, as if they can't follow a simple argument long enough to notice a bald non sequitur. Moving on, the house barely registers the one real thought presented today...
Liberals mention another housing photo-op -- what a psy-op! We can see the building on TV! Can't you work like CERB on the housing crisis? You have a coalition for a reason! But, actively housing people, like actively employing people and ending the myth of the NAIRU, would mean the rich lose leverage: Trudeau's buddies wouldn't see the 2x in their real estate investments they were promised before he was installed -- this is all MARKET MANIPULATION:
1. Buy More Real Estate & Elect Trudeau
2. Trudeau doubles housing prices
3. 100% profit!
Profit at whose expense? The 10 percent of Torontonians accessing the food bank, and those who’ve died, whether from exposure, hunger, or the mental illness of poverty.
The conservatives mention that housing projects should have compensation tied, at least partially, to actually *completing* a housing project, well guess what, the Liberals call that an INSULT! Ha!
Well I guess they're right, the conservatives here: the theft is over time as every photo op promises homes, but never with a deadline, and the developer's hand is out on day one. No response available, they, The Liberals, caught, red-handed, pivot to emotion: HOW INSULTING, HOW COULD YOU INSINUATE THAT DEVELOPERS WOULD BUILD FASTER GIVEN A FINANCIAL INCENTIVE -- WE ALL KNOW DEVELOPERS BUILD OUT OF THE GOODNESS OF THEIR HEARTS, FOR THE PURE SPIRIT AND FUN OF IT -- VOTE FOR US
The conservatives mention rent as having doubled under Trudeau, and encampments, which have probably grown faster than that: the reply from the Liberals? "Instead of insulting people, I would like to spend time complaining about people insulting people!" This takes up several minutes of our collective time in the house. I kid you not. Not a single substantive argumetn is advanced during this time.
A few moments later, another issue has come up: small business are getting gouged and controlled by emergency government loans -- well here's another way they have us by the balls -- we're all at the foodbanks, and, the businesses owe the government money, unless they're mega-corporations -- why are they using loans insead of grants? It's just like Chomsky explained about STUDENT DEBT: It's a disciplinary measure. An advance measure for the pre-crime of independent thought, which is the basis of all democracy, more than 'accuracy' is. (See Condocrcet's Jury Theorem for more on this.)
57 minutes in, Freeland makes her FINAL APPEARANCE today: She tries to make a thematic link, as if she practiced this -- the laughable “HYPOCRISY” theme she brings up from before is linked, in some kind of literay composition, rather than human communication now, with the them of “ALARMISM”.
Okay got it, the conservatives are RUDE ALARMIST HYPOCRITES which makes the Liberals what, polite underreacting ideologues? Got it.
Then she mentions, out of nowhere, Canada's 'triple-A credit rating', a report card written, surely, by the globalists she simps for, and it’s cited like a thought-terminatng cliche: "It doesn't get better than that" she tells us. Well! There you have it folks, straight from the mouth of smooth-talking Candide of Canada: this is the best of all possible Canadas, Freeland's Canada, in which money is a fiction, especially if you spend it on Love, or plan to: this Valetine's Day, have crash withdrawn in advance, because there's no knowing what limits exist to the financial #RelationaAggression of a woman such as nosy, meddling, EVIL Chystia Freeland -- hide the chocolates, hide the wife!
Health Care, we are told, is where the tories will cut first, and the retort is they'll cut Liberal seats faster -- ha ha ha but what about the biggest cut of all the Liberals made to health care: the cut to life itself by expanding MAID?
Did you know that COVID deaths EQUALLED suicide in numbers during Freeland's first lockdown but the numbers have been HIDDEN by expanding MAID? I kid you not -- the government's own numbers are all you need, just add them up -- look up the number of deaths by MAID, not by the butler, and the number labelled SUICIDE, and add them up -- compare your work to how many died from COVID, or even 'with' COVID. I'll wait.
The conservatives propose various other cuts -- and so could you -- and do you know what the response is? This is where the rubber hits the road, and she tells us: "We know that they would cut shamefully our support for Ukraine, they would not send weapons to Ukraine" but how much military spending is too much according to Freeland? The sky, or at least the printer, is the limit. (Although the actual number is how much they can gouge us before we revolt.)
The speaker reminds Ms Freeland not to associate the tories with the Russians before she speaks, and she retreats to French, and pivots back to our bloody credit rating, and when I say bloody, I mean bloody: printing money doesn't only FINANCE endless war, it also REQUIRES it, for FIAT currency, what they call it, has no value without a FIAT military, but, having been born after the gold stadndard, Ms Freeland wouldn't consinder the long game for world peace: the end of fiat currency.
No, decentralization, both of the media AND of money, is the enemy for Ms Freeland. Diversity isn't strength, in her world, if it happens to be diversity of thought—no, a central bank must fund which war to wage, and never mind the real, largest, source of climate emissions: military spending.
Without fiat currency, which the US forced us all onto after hiroshima, printing money for endless war just wouldn't work unless a government managed to confiscate all the gold in a country, as they have in the past, to wage authority on the people. So fight her back: resist a central bank digital currency, resist endless war.
So, was she redeemed? Nope. Not a fat chance. Those were her last remarks of today's session. See you tomorrow.
Open Letters is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.