The Canadian think tank called the Pierre Elliot Trudeau Foundation was founded in 2002 and has issued an annual report ever since. The front page of the PETF 2015/16 report sports a striking logo. It’s a maze consisting of a triangle within a triangle leading to a dead centre; the symbol could be “Enfolding and Protecting” or, to me, it could be “imprisoning”.
In 2007 the FBI issued a bulletin to US law enforcement agencies informing them of secret symbols which paedophiles use to signal to each other. The symbol called “BLogo”, meaning “boy lover” is a maze consisting of a small triangle enclosed in a larger triangle.
By golly. By George. It sure does look like the PETF 2015/16 logo. In fact it’s identical. What a co-incidence? I was born yesterday so I believe in co-incidences. But for those of you who might not think this is co-incidental, I suggest that the academics involved with the PETF are very unlikely to know about the 2007 FBI memo. But somebody designed that logo and that design was approved. What was the intention? Who knows. But there it is and it’s unmistakeable. It could symbolize “Protecting, Caring and Enfolding” and it could symbolize a relationship it might be hard to find your way out of once you’ve entered into it.
Know who is the chief fundraiser of Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party? That’s Stephan Bronfman, brother of Clare and Sarah Bronfman. The Bronfman sisters were among the former managers of Keith Raniere’s sex cult NXIVM based in Albany NY. These managers, including Hollywood star Alison Mack, pled guilty and were convicted of crimes including torturing, branding (with a hot iron), starving, confining, enslaving and sex trafficking young women. There has been a steady stream of illegal “refugees” ushered north across the Canadian border by traffickers ever since 2017. Let me just leave that for your consideration.
PETF 2015/16 annual Report:
"One of the defining questions of the 21st century will be how to distribute resources equitably and sustainably to a growing and diverse global population. New technologies, economic development in emerging countries, and changing demographics are just some of the factors that must be considered when tackling issues such as climate change and food security.”
How to distribute resources? Who is doing this distribution? “Equitably”? According to whose judgement? The PETF is thinking about somebody – maybe smart guys just like themselves – taking charge of “distributing resources”? And this distribution of resources will be decided according to some idea of “Equity” in the mind of … whom?
This sketches a picture of some sort of global authority. If this authority, and it must be an authority with power to act, is to distribute resources it would first have the power to collect resources at least virtually by owning these resources on a global scale. Secondly this authoritative body would have a brain, a nerve centre, a committee or a board of governors whose function would be to determine who gets what according to some standard of what is “equitable”. This standard is referred to in the PETF report repeatedly but it isn’t defined; there is no reference to any existing moral standard of right and wrong except the word “equity”, which implies equality. It sketches a picture of global equality, all the diverse peoples all to be treated the same. Everyone, the whole “growing and diverse global population” to be managed by some overarching single global distribution bureau. This is the picture that starts to emerge when the implications of this thinking are parsed.
It really starts to sound like “From each according to his ability (or his resources? His money perhaps?) to each according to his needs” – Karl Marx of course. My history teacher in grade 12 was a great guy who taught us a lot. He’s the one who taught us about Marx and his ideas. He was a socialist and freely admitted it but didn’t SELL Marxism to us in the way teachers are doing today in universities. I asked him who would manage this from-each-to-each business. His answer was quite typical of socialist thinking, as I later discovered, “Oh, that’s a mere mechanical process.” There it is, isn’t it? Human politics is a mechanical process, you can make human interactions run like a machine. Technocracy as a quasi religion is what that is. All you need is to design the perfect perpetual motion machine and let ‘er rip. “We” can program “equity” into it, set it and forget it.
“Equity” is joined by another word which is stated unquestioningly while being undefined, “climate change”. The global climate is assumed to be changing and managing the climate of the earth is an “issue” that must be “tackled” by this new global authority? If this PETF is a think tank I don’t actually see evidence of any thinking, or at least no primary thinking. Nobody seems to be asking whether there actually is global climate change in any sense that a management organization can “tackle".
If by climate change you mean that over the eons of earth’s history there have been changes such as ice ages and interspersed eras of milder climate lasting thousands of years you’re on solid scientific ground. But is that what the phrase means to the PETF? Did anybody ever think about managing the global climate as if by adjusting a thermostat?
No. This phrase “climate change” means something quite specific. It has replaced a previous phrase, “Global warming”. CL replaced GW in “think tank” literature such as this report about ten years ago because it became apparent that the earth had stopped getting warmer. Leading officials of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were revealed by leaked emails in 2009 (the Climate-gate scandal) to be panicked about the global climate undercutting their political agenda. That’s when “global warming” disappeared. But the ideology is really the same. Technology managed by a superior political organization will take charge of the levers of global climate and manage it much better than old Ma Nature used to.
Why is the UN, with the kindly assistance of wise thinkers like those of the of the PETF, working on controlling climate instead of thinking how modern technology can help humans to ADAPT better? And it’s just assumed without question, assumed like a received Dogma, that this supremely arrogant, indeed Luciferian idea, is sane and somehow practicable. “We" can “tackle” the weather to “equitably distribute” the rain to those who deserve it from those who have too much of it.
They can’t predict the weather more than a month in advance except to say its now fall and soon will be winter up here. Yet these technocrats think they can predict and even control the global climate decades and centuries into the future? This is not a sane idea.
This is arrogance crossing the boundary of outrage and heading full speed ahead to insanity and global totalitarianism. The tyranny will have a nice smiley face and that will make it totally OK. All ready to be Enfolded, are we?