“E quindi uscimmo a riveder le stelle.”

~Dante’s Inferno

Both Hans Krampe and Robin Mathews were two of my most prized contributing writers during the period when The Radical was being published in hard copy on a monthly basis. These were the years 1998 to 2002.

The truth be known both myself and Hans Krampe were quite ignorant of the ideology known as Political Zionism when we undertook the publishing of an alternative newspaper in June of 1998. Like the vast majority of people who had grown up in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, we were basically products of a cultural milieu that for all intents of purposes was Zionist Jewish in essence. We were, like most folks, truth seekers who for different reasons found the status quo wanting in terms of answers to the big questions of the day. Why the endless wars, corruption, poverty, pollution, environmental degradation and so on? Who was responsible for these perennial crops of evil and injustice? How were we to address the questions and more importantly still, how were we to deal with problems when answers were forthcoming? These were the driving forces that kept us motivated and willing to undergo the assorted challenges that researchers and writers experience when they undertake to explore the hidden dimensions behind what the world perceives as historic truth.

During those early years of publishing we had yet to learn about who the real movers and shakers were that controlled the levers of power and along with our innocence we also were ignorant of the facts behind the causes of the two major wars of the 20th Century. Steeped, as we were, in the Zionist literature of the day that portrayed itself as mainstream, western history, we grew up believing that Adolf Hitler and the National Socialists who ruled Germany from 1933 until 1945, represented the supreme zenith of earthly evil and terror. That, combined with the “Jewish Holocaust” myth that eventually took form in the mid-1950s and continued to grow with the furor of a unchecked cancer thanks to the Jewish controlled media we were still under the spell cast upon us when we decided to “dig to the root of the issues” in search of answers to lingering questions.

With respect to Robin Mathews’ views therefore I was more or less in synch on all the major issues even though early in our relationship I detected a bias in his work that leaned toward a Marxist perspective on global issues and was reflected in Robin’s essays that inevitably aligned themselves with the political left.

It wasn’t until around 2005 that I seriously began to question the historical perspective of the west and its basis and only in earnest after a friend was kind enough to lend me a copy of Douglas Reed’s classic work on Political Zionism known as The Controversy of Zion. Upon completion of Reed’s opus an epiphany of sorts occurred in my soul/mind and I could no longer view the world through the rose-coloured, Zionist-tinted lenses that had hitherto been my standard mode of perception and upon laying them down and fashioning a new perspective I eventually came to the realization that what I and millions of other westerners had taken as political and historic truth throughout our lives was, tragically, one big lie, so monumental in scope and depth that it was for many people beyond comprehension.

It was at that point or juncture when Robin Mathews’ perspective and my perspective on world history began to diverge. It was also then that I sensed his gentle, yet grave disapproval of my new-found perspective on political issues and his cautionary words to not attempt to introduce the term “Jew” into anything political for fear of being tarnished with accusations of “anti-Semitism” and so on and thus losing any credibility that I may have gained over previous years.

I tried my best to persuade Robin that to overlook the Zionist Jew issue in politics could only lead to ill-conceived conclusions that would ultimately be of benefit only to the Zionists and their agenda for global governance but all attempts were met with adamantine resistance that usually resulted in long periods of silence where communications ceased.

When I was eventually accused by Harry Abrams and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada of violating the infamous Section 13 “hate crimes” section of the Canadian Human Rights Act back in November of 2007, Robin, beyond expressing a faint semblance of sympathy, was more inclined to take the viewpoint that I had it coming because I had not heeded his cautionary words about stepping on the toes of the Jews. I didn’t hold this against him as by then I was well aware that a great divide existed between those who could see through the Jew’s Big Lie and those who could not.

Since 2007, thanks to the increasingly malevolent machinations of the state of Israel, the world has taken some rather dramatic leaps forward in terms of coming to terms with the Zionist Elephant that tramples and destroys economies and nations and environments and lives in the great living room we call planet Earth. Things that appeared but in vague form and outline back in 2007 today stand in stark relief as the world suddenly is forced to come to grips with the ultimate lie of the 20th Century – that of the Jewish controlled media’s ongoing propaganda against Germany and Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist party that guided the German nation from 1933 to 1945.

Both myself and Hans Krampe continued to question the historic roots of Zionism and along with that the lies brought forth against the German people. In doing so we have uncovered growing volumes of evidence that clearly vindicate the German nation of any guilt associated with a war that was purposely created in order to destroy the one nation that had the courage and will to stand up to the Jewish banking consortium of the 1930s. We now know that it was World Jewry who first declared war on Germany and then used their power of the “purse” and their media monopoly to bewitch the west into believing that it was Adolf Hitler and the German people who wanted to take over the world and turn it into a global concentration camp ruled by fear and terror.

Today, the world is finally coming to the realization that those who truly wanted to gain control of the world were the very ones who vilified the German people and made them out to be cruel, heartless monsters. By their fruits are they now known to the world and a bitter fruit indeed it is that now attempts to rule our planet by fear and terror and it’s name is Zionism and its ownership is restricted to those Jews who subscribe to the political ideology that supports its existence.

Unfortunately Robin Mathews is still labouring under the illusions that Marx’s dialectic provided to the world and his inability to come to terms with the reality of Zionism has somehow caused him to revert to the old Zionist ploy of dredging up the name of Hitler and the German people to justify his otherwise credible critique of Stephen Harper and the Conservative party of Canada.

Bearing this all in mind I would therefore highly recommend that readers take a close look at what Hans Krampe has to say about Robin’s recent article. The vital question, as always, is to discern what the “Big Lie” is actually about. I believe that Hans Krampe furnishes us with solid evidence that cannot be dismissed without serious consideration and subsequent proof.

*** Please bear in mind that Robin’s article is posted below Hans’ reply and should be read prior to reading Hans’ response.

Sincerely,

Arthur Topham

Pub/Ed

RadicalPress.com

“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998″

____________________________________

About Robin Mathews. Adolf Hitler. Stephen Harper. The Big Lie.

By Hans Krampe

March 17, 2011

                    Our Fuehrer
_________________________________________

I have been following almost every article of yours on the Vive le Canada website about the Basi-Virk-Basi case, the corruption of the B.C. judiciary and “Premier” Gordon Campbell’s — and his cronies — involvement in it and was struck by your meticulous — almost pedantic — attention to detail in your tenacious in-depth investigation. You have produced a complete record for present and future generations to be able to review the facts which are currently being suppressed in the mainstream.

But not so with your April 14, 2011 article “Adolf Hitler. Stephen Harper. The Big Lie.” [see below. Ed.] There your meticulousness, let alone your professed love for the truth and abhorrence of the Big Lie went poof, out the window.

Your comparison of Harper with Hitler is a cowardly, though politically correct, insult of the latter who can’t answer your ignorant attack on his good name. In this you’ve just joined the same mob that goes under what you ignorantly call neonazis.

In case you don’t know, neonazis have nothing in common with either Adolf Hitler or the National Socialists, but they have a lot in common with today’s Jews, as the entire world has ample opportunity to observe daily. By applying, in your hair raising ignorance, the fraudulent images and allegations which you are so fond of, to the German National Socialists, you have become indistinguishable from a Zionist fascist mouthpiece, i.e. a true fascist, that is; though you coyly call yourself a democrat.

I don’t think you know the difference between National Socialism and Fascism. In fact, hordes of Ph.D.s have bent over backwards to stick the label of fascism on Adolf Hitler, and failed miserably, because Hitler and the National Socialist movement were just what the name says. They were not run by, nor controlled by, nor in cahoots with corporate interests.

It was the other way around. Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist government put not only strict controls on corporate activities, allowing them just enough lee-way to operate profitably to the benefit of the German nation, but also controlled Germany’s money supply, an insignificant detail which apparently you’ve got not the slightest inkling about.

The result was, that Germany, under Adolf Hitler’s leadership emerged within four years from abject destitution and national bankruptcy in 1932 — thanks to the Weimar Republic’s spineless, corrupt, incompetent, yet democratic malfeasance — as the most prosperous nation on earth with the highest standard of living, which hasn’t been surpassed by any other nation to date, while the rest of the world, including “democratic” Canada, remained in a deep depression; even though Germany had no natural resources to speak of. Adolf Hitler was more popular, and not just in Germany, than any person dead or alive, on this globe since then, your ignorant and biased frothing at the mouth notwithstanding.

It may be news to you, but Hitler governed by referenda (six within four years). How many referenda have there been within Canada’s entire history, pray tell? And were they internationally supervised, as was the case in all six “nazi” referenda??

Compared with AH’s leadership method of government, Canada’s democracy has been a quisling and bungling basket case forever, despite rubber stamping votes every four years, whose parliaments serve no other function than as troughs for a never ending line-up of criminal swine, like Harper, to feed at. Compared to Hitler’s and National Socialism’s accomplishments, Canada’s so-called democracy is a disgrace and an utter failure, considering that it’s been sitting on a treasure trove of unlimited resources, unsurpassed in the world, for two centuries.

Here is a classical example of evil for you, a real genocidal and sadistic champion of sociopathy. Just take a closer look at your Commonwealth hero: the Jew Winston Churchill. A homosexual pederast with a genocidal record, having successfully starved millions of Bengalis to death with nary a twinge of conscience. He never had to tie his own shoelaces, having always had “his man” doing this job. He also was fond of welcoming diplomats in his bathroom, in the nude, a practice nick-named “the order of the bath”. Being soused out of his gourd was his normal everyday condition and the Canadian military, inspired by his booze soaked schemes on how to more effectively roast German women and children alive under a hail of phosphorous bombs — the more the merrier — were never in the least ashamed to participate in and enhance Churchill’s menace with a menace of their own. Canadians like you are blessed with a convenient tunnel vision and honor Churchill’s memory since the war with a bizarre sense of ignorant and self-satisfied approval that can only be described as criminally insane. In your historical version of the war, all responsibility for allied atrocities has been assigned to Adolf Hitler, allegedly because he didn’t want to unconditionally surrender. It’s like me saying, after I murdered you, it’s all your fault because you refused to surrender to me all your money, unconditionally.

As the photographic and documentary record shows, his refusal to unconditionally surrender was more than justified, judging by the demented and sadistic horrors allied ghouls then commenced to perpetrate on a defenseless and vulnerable German population after war’s end for years. Your unreasonable and vindictive malice shows me that you haven’t a clue of what really happened there.

This, in a nutshell was, and still is, real and manifestly obvious evil, no fabrications, fictions and unsubstantiated allegations necessary. The evidence is undeniable that this was what the allies indulged in with orgiastic glee, not Hitler.

Now let’s look at another hero of yours, Joseph Djugashvili Stalin, a paranoid and malicious psychopath, a megalomaniac and deadly enemy of not just Germany but all of Europe, undeniably the biggest mass murderer in the history of the world, having presided over the brutal, gratuitous and sadistic torturing to death of over 60 million of his own people, executed under the leadership and personal participation of Jewish Marxist fanatics, according to Alexander Solzhenitzyn, one of his more prominent victims, who survived and the testimonies of many others. To compare this guy with Harper would’ve been a much more fitting choice for you.

Compare this with Adolf Hitler, a highly decorated WW I veteran, EK1, a decoration normally only awarded to officers; who spent the entire first world war as a runner in the trenches, the most dangerous job there was; a non-smoking vegetarian and a teetotaler, who became a millionaire from the royalties of “Mein Kampf”. Contrary to your vitriolic allegations, he never broke a promise he made to the German people, in fact he exceeded their wildest expectations, which earned him the undying love and loyalty of especially the workers and farmers.

The image of Hitler you entertain, is your own biased embellishment of the fabrications of historical nitwits, a pathological case of Germanophobia. Hitler never shied away from his responsibilities. Taking responsibility and being accountable was a cornerstone of the National Socialist idea and he promoted it by example. He didn’t lie, nor did he avoid problems, he solved them. The evidence to this is overwhelming, but only visible to those who aren’t deafened, dumbed down and blinded by prejudice. It speaks for itself. But you keep shying away from the obvious because it exposes your ignorant malice.

This is a manifest obviousness you, brave Robin, wouldn’t be found dead acknowledging. You were just old enough to absorb your full measure of anti-German hate propaganda at the time, which seems to have unalteringly calcified within your brain since then.

Did you ever ask yourself what business Canadians had killing Germans, half way around the earth, who had never done them any harm, let alone being a threat?

To anyone knowledgeable about what you keep ignorantly mangling beyond recognition, it becomes immediately obvious that you haven’t done any — Zilch — research worth the name on National Socialism and Adolf Hitler; but you have swallowed, wholesale, the Big Lie you profess to deplore, as if it was candy, i.e. wartime anti-German hate propaganda, conveniently formatted by lynch mobs after the war and made available in literally billions of tons of vitriolic incitement to hate, disguised as historical literature, which you now chuck up and trumpet about as if it was divine gospel.

When Goebbels — and Hitler, et al — were talking about the Big Lie, they meant the common practice of Jews and not, as you suggest, a nifty proprietary method of theirs to deceive the German masses. It becomes immediately apparent when read in the context of transcripts and documents, which you apparently don’t even know exist. I have, but then again, I’m not a Ph.D., suffering from delusions of grandeur. Uncritically parroting other people’s regurgitated Big Lies as if they were established fact, does not make one a credible authority on history, only an ignorant parrot.

In your little anecdote of Winifred Wagner, spelled with one “n” — offered to illustrate your historical astuteness, no doubt — you allege that she complained about Nazi brutality; one among many fictitious allegations and distortions put into the mouths of countless prominent NS personalities, ex post facto, for the sake of emphasis and entrenchment of the Nazis’ “evil reputation”. It’s only a fact in your biased mind, Robin. For anyone who, like myself and unlike you, has diligently researched the period in question, it’s hackneyed and irrelevant nonsense.

That the National Socialist’s movement had to organize a volunteer guard (yes, the SA) to defend themselves against the constant and very real brutal attacks of well organized communist shock troops, led by Bolshevik Jews, fomenting strife and division among Germans at a time when Germany was in terrible distress, is in your mind Nazi brutality. Since Winifred is alleged to have said so, it must be true, eh?

Besides, Hitler would have to have been a Saint not to have had any enemies busily subverting, undermining and spreading rumors and venom about him, welcome fare now to feed your bias with.

As to Hitler’s alleged avoidance of truth, his alleged lying, or his alleged blaming of others, or any other offal you’re fond of splashing on his character, name your sources and provide the proof. When and on what occasions did he behave in that way? The traits you’re talking about are primarily Harper’s, not Hitler’s, and those of Soviet, Canadian, British and lately also of quisling politicians of the FRG who, after 75 years of relentless “denazification” (your kind) are now celebrating the total destruction of Germany by the allies and the mass murder of over 13 million POWs, old men, women and children AFTER THE WAR, as LIBERATION. The unmitigated insanity of it all!! There is no comparison whatsoever possible between Hitler and any despots, contemporary or otherwise, least of all Harper.

In fact, yours is the cowardly denigration of the memory of an honorable man who was not only an outstanding genius but probably the greatest statesman and leader of any nation that ever lived. Little backwoods Ph.D.s, such as yourself, couldn’t hold a candle to his unsurpassed accomplishments, his integrity and his unfailing commitment to Germany’s well being.

To think, that you once stood in front of students, teaching them your uncritically accepted baloney, laced with your own invented associations, is downright scary. It’s people like you who perpetuate the Big Lie, complete with all the malice you’re capable of loading it with.

Finally, for me, as an ethnic German, you’re an offensive and malicious hate monger who welcomes and celebrates his irrational hate of Germany with equally irrational satisfaction; broadcasting undigested rumors, unproven hearsay and personal invention, while ignoring any and all historical fact.

You’re also a coward, who only gets “brave” within the approved perimeters of political correctness, but lacks any and all civic courage outside of it, where it counts.

Maybe it’s an old age thing, like dementia setting in.

—————-

Hans Krampe is a former feature writer for The Radical. He lives in the Cariboo region of central B.C.

Contact Hans at hjk@quesnelbc.com

_________________________________

Adolf Hitler.  Stephen Harper.  The Big Lie.

By Robin Mathews

April 14, 2011

Robin Mathews
__________________________

A column like this one opens a question that can’t be answered immediately – perhaps not for a long time.

Fifteen years from now an observer may say this column shows how far from reality a commentator could go in the contentious days of 2011 in Canada.

Or, the commentator may ask why only the writer of this column saw the inevitable coming … what became obvious to everyone else … but only when it was too late?

A clue that the second case might be true is the repeated  summing-up of the leaders debate on Tuesday, April 12 by Chris Hall (CBC parliamentary reporter).

Over and over he reported that the leaders of the NDP, the bloc quebecois, and the Liberals attacked Stephen Harper – and that he answered them.  Not once did Chris Hall – or any of the other (‘mainstream’) commentators I have observed say that very many of Stephen Harper’s replies were manipulations of fact to convey falsehoods … when they were not outright lies.

Stephen Harper repeatedly said there was no tax cut for corporations in the latest budget (before Parliament closed for the election).  That was not the point.  A six billion dollar tax cut for the large corporations will come into effect if the Harperites win government.

Those cuts need not come into effect.  And so, in fact, the Harperites are giving large corporations a six billion dollar tax cut.

Lying flagrantly, Stephen Harper insisted his Party is not in contempt of Parliament when it is so without question.

On the matter of the Harperites refusing to provide spending information  (one of the bases of the contempt ruling) Harper said his agents gave all information – a statement which is simply not true.

Perhaps most important of all, he denied the fundamental facts of parliamentary government, insisting that “Canadians” believe the Party with the most votes must govern.  What he argued, in fact, is a denial of the democratic parliamentary system.  In short, he lied.

This morning on an open line show a caller claimed his statement that the Canadian Labour Congress endorses his budget is an outright lie.

Those are five random examples.  Random, I say, because one would need a script of the debate to count up the number of times Stephen Harper lied outright or manipulated facts to convey falsehoods.

He didn’t disable his opponents by superior argument.  He disabled the whole debate by using persistent falsehood and near falsehood.

The latest, mid-election flurry of revelations of misdoing concerns expenditures on the G20 Summit. Allegations are of misleading Parliament by the Harperites (words for ‘lying to Parliament’?), misallocation of huge amounts of money, insider indulgences of Roman proportions.  All that through “leaks” of a forthcoming Report by the Auditor General Sheila Fraser.

In Ottawa, Harperite insider John Baird has spoken with apparent confident authority about what is contained in the confidential Report.  How can he do so?  Who gave him copies of the Report? Did Sheila Fraser? Stephen Harper (characteristically) is avoiding responsibility … for as long as he can. Canadians must ask how many such seamy revelations are waiting for an opening of the secrecy-bound activities of the Harperites?  They must ask the question.

Meanwhile, almost unnoticed, it has been revealed the Harperites took words of praise Sheila Fraser wrote about Liberal financial activities and quoted them about Harperite “work”.  Sheila Fraser is apparently upset!  Stockwell Day apologized profusely.  But the question remains – who did that piece of chicanery?  Did Stephen Harper order it? Can the Harperites be trusted on any matter whatever?

The conclusions which I have come to are quite clear.  I believe Stephen Harper is more comfortable lying than telling the truth.  I believe he is a psychopathic liar – which means I believe he will lie (and follow up his lies) in any way he can to gain his ends and aggrandize his position.

To take the logic of that position to its conclusion, I believe that – if Stephen Harper were to gain enough power – he would murder his political opponents, would have innocent Canadians shot down in the streets. [Remember the Toronto G20 violations of free assembly.]

If what I write is fair comment on observed public affairs, then Stephen Harper may properly be described as a neo-Fascist.

Historians of Nazism sometimes suggest the architect of “the Big Lie” in Nazi politics was Josef Goebbels, the only Ph. D in the inner circle and an early Party member.  But the ultimate author of all Nazi strategies of falsehood in that brutal despotism was Adolf Hitler himself.

He was a friend of Winnifred Wagner, manager – preceding and during the Second World War – of the famous Bayreuth (Wagner) Festivals. Early in Hitler’s time of growing power Winnifred Wagner would express dismay to him about Nazi street brutality against political opponents and others. Like Stephen Harper when faced with evidence of undeniable wrong-doing by the Party, Hitler would say he knew nothing about it, or someone else did it without his orders.  Or he would belittle the evidence or … change the subject or … lie outright.

When faced with inescapable need to act with courage and honesty, Hitler, like Stephen Harper, would take the coward’s way out.

In a moment of brazen bravado, for instance, Harper suggested a one-on-one election debate with Michael Ignatieff – who agreed immediately.  On April Fool’s day, the press announced Stephen Harper’s retreat, babbling nonsense and, again, repeating a simple lie – that a coalition exists and is led by Michael Ignatieff.

Harper’s campaign is built and based upon that and worse kinds of lying.  As the Encyclopedia Brittanica writes in relation to Fascism, Stephen Harper makes a “proud sacrifice of all ethical scruples to success”.  What Canadians must realize is that Stephen Harper employs a complex strategy of lies that are well thought out and employed in no accidental way.

To say Harper is fairly called a neo-Fascist may seem harsh.  But people in democracies must be clear-eyed if they wish to protect democratic freedoms. Even Plato – 2500 years ago – observed that Tyranny develops most naturally out of Democracy.

The characteristics of Fascism across Europe in the first half of the twentieth century were plain:  the sharing of State power with private corporations to pursue common goals.  Using the police to destroy civil freedoms.  Operating all activities under ‘the Big Lie”. Enrolling the Mainstream Press and Media as accomplices in political gangsterism.  Persecuting, starving, torturing, murdering any number of people opposed to the Fascists.

Hitler was determined to take power by constitutional means after having failed in a violent attempt at a coup in Munich in 1923.  Twisting, perverting, exploiting, debasing constitutional practice (like Stephen Harper), Hitler managed to bully and coerce his way to supreme power in Germany – with results we know too well.

Stephen Harper’s wholly perverse manipulation of prorogation to avoid votes in Parliament might have been learned directly from Adolf Hitler.

Harper’s actions to deny Parliament rightful information  and to support the alleged lies of a cabinet minister might, also, have been learned from the earlier “drive to power” of a dictator-in-waiting.

Like Adolf Hitler, Stephen Harper is, I have no doubt, the author of all his Party’s ‘strategies of falsehood”, all its attempts to destroy the democracy in which it presently works. Harper’s use of the RCMP to eject the unwanted from “democratic” election campaign meetings matches Hitler’s “strong-arm squads” created to protect Nazi meetings from  attendance by “the unwanted”.

Indeed, before the present election was announced, I wrote a column on the RCMP and its growing corruption.  In that column I guessed that the dismissal of the top man at the RCMP, William Elliott, was post-dated by Harper because the Mounties would be needed for dirty work in the election.

As happened, RCMP officers have been used as thug “security” in the Harper meetings.  Did those RCMP officers wear the brown shirts of the Nazis?  We know nothing about them.  Who are they?  What are their names?  Why have they not been identified? Who ordered them to act at those meetings?  Was it Stephen Harper?  We must know – before the election.

Nor is it accidental, I believe, that William Elliott – the recently fired top RCMP officer – was, earlier, a key actor in the Prime Minister’s Office undertaking the approval of much-charged Bruce Carson to become a top advisor to Stephen Harper.

Carson is presently under investigation by the RCMP for alleged improper behaviour in attempts to get contracts awarded.  He has a record of misdeeds and dubious connections.  Stephen Harper alleges he knew almost nothing of Bruce Carson’s past.

One may guess that for his good and faithful service first in the PMO, and then in Stockwell Day’s Public Safety Department, and then as head of the RCMP, William Elliot will fall from grace onto a very carefully prepared, soft, luxurious bed.

Under Guiliano Zaccardelli, the RCMP used its “investigation” of Ralph Goodale and the Department of Finance in 2006 to help defeat the Liberals.  Now the RCMP makes clear it can say nothing about the tale of Stephen Harper’s senior henchman Bruce Carson, involved, it is alleged, in a dirtier piece of business than any Ralph Goodale has ever been remotely connected to.

Having very recently discovered ethics, “ethics” is apparently the basis upon which the William Elliott RCMP refuses to report about Bruce Carson.

Carson’s close relation to Stephen Harper and the PMO has, we may be sure, nothing to do with the RCMP’s newfound “ethics” and “discretion”.

The same slippery dishonesty, I believe, is involved in the case of Elizabeth May’s exclusion from the leaders debate.  The key force rejecting her has been, I believe, Stephen Harper.  When the decision of the “media consortium” was announced, both Jack Layton and Michael Ignatieff said she should be included in the debate.

Characteristically shifting responsibility, Stephen Harper said he would accept the decision of the “media consortium” – which, of course – consulted the Parties.  Only when it became plain that public sentiment wanted Elizabeth May in the debate – only then did Harper change his tune and say he supported her presence.

If truth is ever told by members of the media consortium, I am almost certain they will report that Harper publicly supported May’s presence while privately telling the consortium he would withdraw if she was allowed in. Harper knows she threatens his nondescript candidate Gary Lunn.  And so I believe Harper – in typical covert fashion – acted to keep her out.

Consider the next minority government.  I believe the Mainstream Press and Media are doing what they can to secure a Harper victory.  If they were being genuinely impartial, they would have to be reporting simple, factual things they are not reporting.  1.  Minority governments occur commonly in parliamentary systems.  2.  Such governments often do excellent work.  3. Coalitions may form – and, if they do, they can govern effectively. 4.  If they don’t form, ‘agreements to govern’ (as has, in fact, been the case in Canada since 2006) can be effective.  5.  And so Stephen Harper’s attack on those possibilities is a sham.  It is a hoax which he is attempting to perpetrate on the Canadian public.

But … more!  The Mainstream Press and Media should expose Stephen Harper’s real goal … the one he is trying to use a pattern of lies to achieve.

Having gone Right to the point of having ‘nut case Yankee policies”, Harper knows they won’t be supported by a minority government.  $30 billions (plus) for fighter planes.  A $6 billion gift to large corporations.  Multi billions to build [who will get the contracts?] new nineteenth century jails to pack with people who shouldn’t be in jail.  And more….

Harper has set up a situation that is so obscene no minority parliament could accept it.

That means the minority parliament will vote him down and will seek from the Governor General the right to rule.  Stephen Harper has, I believe, anticipated that (as I believe he anticipated he would need William Elliott as head of the RCMP during the election).  And so he appointed a Harperite Hack as Governor General.  That opens huge and dangerous possibilities. If the Governor General attempts to work politically for Stephen Harper, instead of constitutionally for Canada, he will create a crisis in Canadian democracy.

In that situation a Harper attempted coup d’etat will be used to prevent a Liberal-led minority government.

If that happens, the Opposition parties will be forced into some kind of coalition.  To save Canadian democracy, the matter may demand an all-party Opposition coalition.  Stephen Harper knows that, I am sure.  He is trying to lie enough to make Canadians believe (in advance) that a coalition is undemocratic and illegitimate.  That is why he lies about it consistently…on and on and on.

Stephen Harper has never let the truth stand in the way of his ambition to rule as what Plato called a Tyrant.

The Mainsteam Press and Media – which opens up none of the facts on this matter, supports, I believe, what is in fact Stephen Harper’s baldfaced lying.  Even the CBC does.  In the face, for instance, of what the Friends of Canadian Broadcasting insist is an outright lie by the Prime Minister’s Office, by Stephen Harper, and by the arts and culture minister James Moore about cuts to CBC funding … the CBC remains mute.

Complicity with lies and wrongdoing can’t go much farther than that.

It is plain that Canadians are going to have to figure out the pattern of lying laid out by Stephen Harper and what it is intended to produce.  They are going to have to figure it out in the face of the failure of the Mainstream Press and Media to do their job. Canadians would be wise to be ready for a major attempt to hi-jack democracy in Canada and to have set up in its place a Harper Tyranny.

Canadians are going to have to realize they’re facing what I believe is a neo-Fascist leader of the Conservative Party of Canada.  And Canadians are going to have to reject him with all the energy they have.
———–

Contact Robin Mathews at rmathews@telus.net