Markets by TradingView
TRENDS IN TECHNOCRACY by Joe Doran

O CANADA: GOVERNMENTS UNLEASH NEW REIGN OF ‘TERROR’

February 22, 2022September 24, 2024
0

“It’s easier to resist at the beginning than at the end.”

Quote attributed to Leonardo Da Vinci

The boundless technocratic will to power and control was on full display this past week in various events.
Justin Trudeau invoking Canada’s Emergencies Act to gain new powers to crush the Truckers Freedom Convoy in Canada, was the obvious example.
The spectacle of Canadian police trampling a protester, causing grievous injuries, became a “Tiananmen Square” visual of the dangerous demise of political protest rights in the West.
In the U.S., the move by the Biden administration to smear the Zerohedge news outlet as a Russian asset showed again the willingness of the government to abuse terror laws to neutralize opposition on virtually any front. 
Zerohedge, already a thorn in the government’s side for exposing CDC and Wuhan lab COVID intrigues, has been critical of Biden beating the war drum with Russia.
In the U.K., Foreign Secretary Liz Truss told The Daily Mail that the national government would be reviving a cold war era Government Information Cell (GIC), to fight Russian “false information.”
“At the end of the Cold War we disbanded our information unit,” Truss said, “but the Russians didn’t disband theirs, so we faced years and years of Russian disinformation.”
Like intelligence agencies in the U.S., the CIG will no doubt target as Russian stooges any significant domestic voices who question U.K. government policies.
Less noticed, but consequential nonetheless, were comments by YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki exhorting governments to enact more laws to outlaw “harmful speech.”
All these events shared a common thread: 20 years after 9/11, technocratic powers have fully weaponized anti-terror laws to crush domestic dissent and virtually any perceived threats to their rapacious rule.
Dooming Lives and Liberties: The Patriot Act
The Patriot Act introduced unprecedented intrusions on the rights and freedoms of Americans. In a global climate of fear and demonstrated deadly chaos of 9/11, citizens were told that new intelligence assets, surveillance measures and other powers were necessary to stop further foreign “terror atacks.”
In classic Orwellian fashion, the Patriot Act was sold as a needed measure to ensure the lives and liberties of Americans.
In fact, the Justice Department has a document defending the success of the Patriot Act titled “The USA PATRIOT Act: Preserving Life and Liberty” (“Life and Liberty” being a phrase lifted directly from the nation’s founding Declaration of Independence).
Already in 2004, a growing number were arguing against the law’s re-authorization.
The Washington Times in 2004 quoted Bob Barr, a former member of Congress who once headed the Judiciary Committee, expressing his concerns at the reauthorization of the law:
“The Fourth Amendment is a nuisance to the administration, but the amendment protects citizens and legal immigrants from the government’s monitoring them whenever it wants, without good cause—and if that happens, it’s the end of personal liberty.
Barr was so opposed to the Act that he helped form a coalition of conservatives to fight against it. The coalition included Americans for Tax Reform, the American Conservative Union, the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the American Policy Center, the Citizens’ Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, the Eagle Forum, and the Second Amendment Foundation.
In response to Attorney General John Ashcroft’s contention that anyone opposing the Patriot Act was “aiding and abetting” the terrorists, Barr told the Inter Press Service in 2005:
“Anyone who takes the position that Americans who stand up and fight to retain our civil liberties, including the right to privacy, and who believe that we as Americans do not need to sacrifice our liberty in order to fight terrorists, are aiding and abetting terrorists, is rendering a disservice to our Founding Fathers, and to Americans through the ages who cherish and fight for our God-given liberties.”
One of the catastrophic consequences of the Patriot Act was its use to comprehensively surveil not foreign terrorists, but average Americans.
That reality was definitively revealed by Edward Snowden, a former National Security Agency contractor, in 2013. 
The news, though it shocked and appalled many, did not lead to any long lasting reforms.
Snowden himself has noted that while his revelations changed the behaviors and precautions of some citizens, and led to some initiatives to strengthen data encryption, etc, there was hardly a groundswell of outrage for legal changes. (See “EDWARD SNOWDEN REFLECTED WITH THE EFF ON PRIVACY PROGRESS.” 15 Jun 2021.)
“Terror” Was Destined to Mean Anything Government Decided
Former House speaker Newt Gingrich also was among those who saw the abuses the Patriot Act made possible. In an 11 November 2003 article in The San Francisco Chronicle, Gingrich said:
“I strongly believe the Patriot Act was not created to be used in crimes unrelated to terrorism.”
“Recent reports, including one from the General Accounting Office, however indicate that the Patriot Act has been employed in investigations unconnected to terrorism or national security.
“In our battle against those that detest our free and prosperous society, we cannot sacrifice any of the pillars our nation stands upon, namely respect for the Constitution and the rule of law.”
One of the central flaws of the Patriot Act, that has led to its wholesale abuse, was its definition of “terrrorism.”
In light of recent abuses of government freezing bank accounts of dissident protest movements, the Blindspot finance blog provided a reminder of the dangerously vague definition of terrorsim as defined by the Act:
“Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. No. 107-52) expanded the definition of terrorism to cover “domestic,” as opposed to international, terrorism.  A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act “dangerous to human life” that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to:  (i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.  Additionally, the acts have to occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and if they do not, may be regarded as international terrorism.”
As the American Civil Liberties Union noted:
“The definition of domestic terrorism is broad enough to encompass the activities of several prominent activist campaigns and organizations. Greenpeace, Operation Rescue, Vieques Island and WTO protesters and the Environmental Liberation Front have all recently engaged in activities that could subject them to being investigated as engaging in domestic terrorism.”
In the age of Trump and the COVID War, technocratic authorities have increasingly used “anti-terrorism” to neutralize dissident voices questioning government narratives. 
Labels like “domestic terrorism,” “misinformation,” “Russian collusion” and “harmful” have been used under the rubric of anti-terrorism to invoke abusive and dangerous overreaches of authorities.
So it is that tragic and absurd abuses have ensued. This past year alone, parents complaining at school board meetings had the FBI mobilized against them. 
People protesting against vote fraud and against mega billionaires like Mark Zuckerberg and George Soros co-opting their democratic franchise, were hyperbolically termed “insurrectionists.”  New “anti-domestic terrorism” programs ensued, including using the Post Office to surveil citizens, and enlisting banks to freeze accounts of protesters.
Those opposed to mandatory COVID gene level treatments, masking, lockdowns, or who advocated for their medical “right to try” formerly uncontroversial, safe drugs like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, have been smeared and censored for promoting dangerous “health misinformation.”
At one point, the FBI accused someone who owned an unassembled LEGO Capitol Building set of conspiring to use it in a terrorist act.
Government Terror Wars Against Average Citizens Enters A New Phase
On the wings of The War On Terror, the COVID War, and “Russia Russia Russia!”, technocrat-controlled governments have siphoned the wealth of average citizens, while destroying their legal rights and practical abilities to resist the abuse.
With the Truckers Freedom Convoy protest in Canada, a state-of-the-art blueprint is being established to crush mass protest. 
Seized bank accounts and crowdfunding resources, tracking and tracing of crypto addresses, outing and castigating donors and supporters, and relentlessly propagandizing via government allied media, have all been employed to isolate and undercut protesters.
Even the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), an international body that advises governments on implementing greater financial tracking to combat terrorism, human trafficking, drug trade and other ills, recently noted that its own recommendations are being used against legitimate political dissent:
“[Our] analysis explores a number of ways in which misapplication of the FATF Standards may affect due process and procedural rights, including:

  • excessively broad or vague offences in legal counterterrorism financing frameworks, which can lead to wrongful application of preventative and disruptive measures including sanctions that are not proportionate;
  • issues relevant to investigation and prosecution of TF and ML offences, such as the presumption of innocence and a person’s right to effective protection by the courts;
  • and, incorrect implementation of UNSCRs and FATF Standards on due process and procedural issues for asset freezing, including rights to review, to challenge designations, and to basic expenses.”

The financial strangling of the Canadian Freedom Convoy protest shows again how “well-intended” anti-terrorism measures are being thoroughly abused by political megalomaniacs like Justin Trudeau.
At least some civil liberties groups are opposing Trudeau’s extraordinary abuse of legal authority.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association announced it was filing suit against its government over the misuse of the Emergencies Act.
Noa Mendelsohn Aviv, Executive Director of the Association, said in a press conference announcing the suit:
“Protest is how people in a democracy express and share their political messages. Many protests are disruptive. It’s possible for protests to be both disruptive and peaceful, and non violent. Disruptive protests, while often unlawful, can be the most effective way of raising awareness.”
The Canadian Constitutional Federation (CCF) has also filed suit against the Federal government, stating:
“Prime Minister Trudeau has set a dangerous precedent by invoking the never before used federal Emergencies Act to address the current situation. The high threshold for declaring a public order emergency in the Emergencies Act has not been met. The Act has been invoked to address a failure to use existing legal tools under the Criminal Code, which were used effectively on the Ambassador Bridge. The federal government has invoked the Emergencies Act as a matter of political convenience. This is illegal and violates the rule of law, and that’s why we are challenging the government in court.”
In the U.S., the cry of “anti-terrorism” is being used to unleash the FBI on journalistic outfits like Zerohedge.
And Constitutionally protected free speech rights continue to be eroded by powerful tech corporatists like YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki, who frame dissident viewpoints as terroristic “harmful content.”
In an interview this past week, Wojcicki asked governments to enact more laws to make it easier for platforms like YouTube to censor speech:
“We work around the globe, and you’re right, certainly there are many different laws and many different jurisdictions, and we…enforce the laws of the various jurisdictions around speech or what’s considered safe or not safe.
“What has been the controversial part is when there is content that would be deemed as harmful but yet is not illegal. An example of that, for example, would be COVID.
“I’m not aware of there being laws by governments saying around COVID in terms of not being able to debate the efficacy of masks or where the virus came from or the right treatment or proposal, but yet there was a lot of pressure and concern about us distributing misinformation that went against what was the standard and accepted medical knowledge.
“And so this category of harmful but…legal has been, I think, where most of the discussion has been.”
All Downhill From Here?
Where do things go from here? Over the weekend, the newly installed Ottawa police chief Steve Bell made clear Canada will spin up its own version of a “January 6th” hunt down and vilification of protesters:
“If you are involved in this protest, we will actively look to identify you and follow up with financial sanctions and criminal charges. Absolutely. This investigation will go on for months to come.”
Meanwhile, a Canadian member of Parliament who pointed out a connection between Klaus Schwab, head of the World Economic Forum, and Justin Trudeau, was censored for spreading “misinformation.”
The WEF, funded with billions by Schwab and other of the world’s wealthiest, acts as an unelected government influencing factory bent on merging corporate and government authority.
In the 2017 video, Schwab brags about his influence over Trudeau and others:
“I have to say, when I mention now names, like Mrs. (Angela) Merkel and even Vladimir Putin, and so on, they all have been Young Global Leaders of the World Economic Forum. But what we are very proud of now is the young generation like Prime Minister (Justin) Trudeau … We penetrate the cabinet. So yesterday I was at a reception for Prime Minister Trudeau and I know that half of his cabinet, or even more than half of his cabinet, are actually Young Global Leaders.” 
Globalist powers cannot let the Truckers protest succeed.
It’s possible truckers not imprisoned may opt to go on strike, or not to deliver to certain locations. Who knows? That too may become a crime, deemed an act of domestic terrorism.
American political commentator Jessie Kelly voiced his theory that governments may use protests as an opportunity to take over vital industries like the trucking industry.
So it is that the slouching of the West from citizen-centric democracy to technocratic elite dystopia continues.
For related and supporting Trends Journal articles, see:

Comments are closed.

Skip to content