The new Cabinet appointed by Justin Trudeau on
October 26 will create further damage along the
nation-wrecking, anti-social path the ruling
elites are recklessly pursuing. The choice of
ministers reflects an agenda to pay the rich for
the massive spending on infrastructure projects
required to meet the needs of the economy as a
result of the explosion of the scientific and
technical revolution. None of it is done by
putting the needs of the people at the centre,
but instead putting those of the rich and
powerful.
Yet it is more
than that, as seen in the international
performance of Trudeau and his ministers since
the 44th general election was held.
Announcements of international deals signed by
former and new cabinet ministers following the
election provide ample evidence of Canada's
subservience to the U.S. warmongering agenda and
how Canada's integration into the U.S. war
economy is subjecting Canada more and more to
the dangers of involvement in U.S. wars of
aggression, occupation and regime change.
It becomes clear why, despite the
inappropriateness of calling a pandemic
election, the Prime Minister did so in the hopes
of getting a majority government which, like
Harper before him, Trudeau would use to rule by
decree. Now, having lost that gamble, Trudeau
has used executive prerogatives in the field of
foreign affairs, to tie Canada to so many
international deals, that these will be imposed
as comprising international rule of law that
Canada is duty-bound to follow.
All of it is done in the name of the high
ideals of defending peace and democracy, which
underscores the attempt to defraud history. The
words which come out of the Prime Minister's
mouth are sycophantic groveling to prove himself
worthy of U.S. praise and beneficence, not to
contribute to solving any problem whatsoever as
they purport to do.
The new cabinet will in no way succeed to
control the damage the Trudeau government
generates on any front by virtue of its very
existence. The Trudeau government's pretensions,
among many others, to defend women's rights,
democracy, the natural environment, and the
rights of the Indigenous nations only deepen the
regime's lack of legitimacy and credibility. The
military's penchant for sexual predation on
women will not be sorted out because the
ministry is under the jackboot of the U.S.
imperialists who do not consider anyone human.
The brutal treatment of women in the military is
conditioned by an imperialist culture of
might-makes-right.
Women's rights cannot be defended so long as
Canada is a member of the warmongering NATO
alliance or participates in U.S. wars of
aggression and crippling economic sanctions
against countries deemed unfit to govern because
the U.S. says they are not democratic.
Freedom of speech
and curtailing hate-mongering will not be
accomplished by trying to cover up that it is
corporate interests and governments in their
service that spread conspiracy theories, incite
passions, spread hatred, racism and misogyny,
and then blame the people for being xenophobic,
white supremacist, racist and sexist. By
continuing to merge Canada's ministry of public
security with U.S. Homeland Security, whose very
raison d'κtre is to foment violence,
suppress dissent, and imprison African
Americans, Latinos, poor people and Indigenous
peoples fighting for their rights, Canada is
revealing its own penchant for indefinite
detention and it also disproportionately
imprisons Indigenous peoples, Blacks and poor
people. Spreading unverifiable slanders to
threaten countries that defend their sovereignty
and refuse to submit to the so-called
rules-based order of the U.S. imperialists who
call the U.S. indispensable and all others
dispensable, is also part of the
hate-incitement.
The charade that all the problems of
unfulfilled promises this government faces will
magically be resolved by appointing ministers
who are urged to "do better" is one false
promise too many. It serves to cover up all the
secret wheeling and dealing the government
engages in on behalf of narrow private
interests. These usually eventually come to
light when the working people fight the
fraudulent claims that are made, such as the
national day care program which will prove to be
another self-serving pay-the-rich scheme. This
reconfiguration of personnel within the cabinet
will not restore the democratic credentials of a
system of governance distinguished by the
politicization of private interests.
So too, no matter what pretty face is put on
the ministry of the environment, the
pay-the-rich schemes the government spawns in
the name of jobs and a green economy will not
vanish.
The cabinet appointments reveal that it is time
to make way for renewal. Canadians must discuss
and take actions which put human beings at the
centre of all decision-making power.
In 2015, when
Canadians expressed their categorical rejection
of Stephen Harper's rule by decree, Justin
Trudeau famously declared that "Government by
Cabinet" is back. The fraud of this claim is
that the trend of concentrating more and more
power in fewer and fewer hands is in no way
reversed. Far from it, the use of the "royal
prerogative" to impose decisions on the polity
has only increased as the Parliament has become
increasingly lame. Furthermore, not only do
Members of Parliament have no say in any of the
decisions they are asked to make, cabinet
ministers don't either. Theirs is but to
announce and defend what they are told.
According to Trudeau, in his ministry,
decisions are made on the basis of collaborative
discussion. They are based on science and
deliver on election promises. Ministers, he
said, speak in their own name and are not
controlled by self-serving political directives
from the Prime Minister's Office.
All of these claims are self-serving nonsense.
The structures of government from top to bottom
are based on the ones created in the 17th
century to enshrine a fictitious person of state
which all members of government and the Prime
Minister himself are sworn to serve and protect.
While the rise of the Commons against the
absolute powers of the monarch put limitations
on the royal prerogative, under neo-liberalism
government transformations, legal and
structural, have put limits on the powers of the
Commons. Rule by decree on the basis of
prerogative powers has become the new normal.
Who decides what policies are set and which
measures are taken, when and by whom? Not the
people of Canada, that is certain.
The oaths taken by Cabinet Ministers are as
follows:
Oath of Allegiance(required by
all Members of Parliament)
I, __________, do swear (declare) that I will
be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her
Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of
Canada, Her Heirs and Successors. So help me
God.
Oath of Members of the Privy Council
I, __________, do solemnly and sincerely
swear (declare) that I shall be a true and
faithful servant to Her Majesty Queen
Elizabeth the Second, as a member of Her
Majesty's Privy Council for Canada. I will in
all things to be treated, debated and resolved
in Privy Council, faithfully, honestly and
truly declare my mind and my opinion. I shall
keep secret all matters committed and revealed
to me in this capacity, or that shall be
secretly treated of in Council. Generally, in
all things I shall do as a faithful and true
servant ought to do for Her Majesty.
So help me God.
Oath of Office
I, _________, do solemnly and sincerely
promise and swear (declare) that I will truly
and faithfully, and to the best of my skill
and knowledge, execute the powers and trusts
reposed in me as (position title).
So help me God.
Individuals may choose to affirm their oath. In
such cases, the word "swear" is replaced by the
word "declare," and the expression "So help me
God" is omitted. They have no option but to
serve the Queen, however, which means the
private interests which rule the roost. The
people never enter into it. To call it a
representative democracy where government is
elected by the people is the first fraud. To say
Trudeau governs through his cabinet is the
second.
This government must not be permitted to cause
further damage to the polity and the cause of
the peoples of the world to humanize the natural
and social environment. It is time to make way
for renewal!
Canada's Pay-the-Rich Schemes to
Address Climate Crisis
Youth demonstrate outside COP26 UN Climate
Summit, November 2, 2021.
On October 29, Prime Minister Trudeau spoke to
a joint meeting of members of the Senate and the
House of Commons of the Netherlands. His
comments were followed by an exchange amongst
them, including questions on Canada's policies
on the climate crisis, in anticipation of the
COP26 Summit about to get underway. The exchange
revealed how Trudeau never ceases to invent new
ways to answer a question in a manner that is
obscurantist.
Dutch MP Jesse
Klaver, leader of the Green-Left Party, asked
why Canada's greenhouse gas emissions-reduction
targets are less than what the European Union
has pitched. Klaver asked why Canada's
expressions of concern about the climate crisis
aren't matched by action on emissions targets.
The transcript of the news conference shows
Trudeau saying that the fight against climate
change can't be defined by targets alone; they
must also be matched by a realistic plan to
shift the economy to cleaner energy sources.
Canada, as a major oil and gas producer, cannot
be easily compared to a country like the
Netherlands that engages less in fossil fuel
extraction, Trudeau said.
"So much of the energy is around setting the
targets rather than digging into actually having
a concrete plan or roadmap to get there,"
Trudeau said.
At an international climate summit in April,
Trudeau promised Canada would reduce emissions
by 40 to 45 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030.
This "would cut total emissions much more than
the target first pitched by the former
Conservative government and agreed to by former
environment minister Catherine McKenna at the
Paris climate talks in 2015," a writer for the
CBC's parliamentary bureau informs.
"One of the commitments I made at Paris six
years ago, even as Canada was stepping up in its
climate leadership, was that we would not move
forward in announcing targets until we had a
real and concrete plan to meet them and that's
what we've been working on over the last number
of years," Trudeau said to Klaver.
According to what Trudeau said, Canada is
"demonstrably on track to meet 36 per cent below
the 2005 targets" and will push to go even
further at it hastens the transition away from
fossil fuels.
To know why
Trudeau spoke with such confidence requires
looking into the wheeling and dealing and
agreements that will come out of the COP26
Summit and the role of the global financiers led
by Mark Carney, [1]
UN Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance.
Carney, former governor of the banks of both
Canada and the UK, was tasked with the job of
amassing the trillions of dollars controlled by
various private entities for the green deals
that are to be rolled out. Going back decades,
the financial oligarchs have been building the
regulatory and organizational structures to put
the financiers squarely in charge and turning
national governments into their enablers.
When Carney was appointed to the role, he says
he put together a team to accomplish "a simple
but vital task ... to have in place by COP26 ...
all the necessary foundations so that every
financial decision takes climate change into
account." He describes the aim of the task as "a
fundamental reordering of the financial system
so that all aspects of finance -- investments,
loans, derivatives, insurance products, whole
markets -- systematically take the impact of
their actions on the race to net zero. The
objective is a financial system in which climate
change is as much a determinant of value as
creditworthiness, interest rates or technology,
where the impact of an activity on climate
change is a new vector, a new determinant, of
value."
Carney launched two finance capital organizing
projects: the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net
Zero (GFANZ) and the Net-Zero Banking Alliance
(NZBA). There is also a Net-Zero Insurance
Alliance. Carney boasts that some "1,300 of the
world's largest companies ... supported by
financial institutions controlling balance
sheets totalling over $170 trillion, including
the world's largest banks, pension funds, asset
managers and insurers" have committed to this
new financial system. This system will include
things such as new standards for Enron-style
corporate annual reports and prospectuses to
show who is worthy and who is not of being the
recipient of the funds flowing for the "net
zero" economy.
Serving these companies and their financiers,
and wheeling and dealing with them within the
supranational bodies through which executive
powers are exercised also sheds light on the
reason why Trudeau needed to call an election in
a bid to get a majority government so as to
claim he has a mandate to push this through.
However, the ruling elite of the world are
undaunted by not getting a majority and pushing
through the new agenda based on the diversion
that the problem is extremists who pose the
greatest danger to security under conditions of
climate crisis.
The takeover of climate policies by the world's
financial oligarchs was declared at the Opening
Ceremony of COP26 by Charles, Prince of Wales,
who is being paraded nowadays as the forthcoming
"King of Canada," and hopeful to head the
Commonwealth, not a "hereditary" position, in
the not too distant future. He told the gathered
world leaders that "independent initiatives
running in parallel" would not do to tackle the
climate crisis. "The scale and scope of the
threat we face call for a global, systems-level
solution," he declared.
Unabashed, the Prince told the assembled
leaders: "Here we need a vast military-style
campaign to marshal the strength of the global
private sector. With trillions at its disposal
-- far beyond global GDP and -- with the
greatest respect, beyond even the governments of
the world's leaders -- it offers the only real
prospect of achieving fundamental economic
transition."
As to the question which loomed large in the
background: "Who pays, and how?" the answer
given was: "to align private investment behind
these industry strategies to help finance the
transition efforts, which means building the
confidence of investors so that financial risk
is reduced."
"More than 300 of the world's leading CEOs and
institutional investors have told me that,
alongside the promises countries have made ...
they need clear market signals, agreed globally,
so that they have the confidence to invest,
without the goalposts suddenly moving," the
Prince announced.
It is clear to the peoples of the world that it
is up to them to settle scores with this new
more extreme anti-people financial order that is
in the making, which is going to impact their
lives in a very big way. Everyone must lay the
claims on society which they must and not permit
decisions being made behind their backs and at
their expense to decide the outcome of the
crises which are taking place due to the fact
that ruling elites have become a huge weight
that is unsustainable. The solutions that favour
the working class and people are sensible and
must prevail.
Notes
1. Mark Carney is one of the world's
largest finance brokers, he himself a minor
wealth holder with a net worth of U.S.$35
million. He is currently a Vice Chair of
Brookfield Asset Management and Head of
Transition Investing. His work at Brookfield
is described as "the development of products
for investors that will combine positive
social and environmental outcomes with strong
risk-adjusted returns." From 2013 to 2020, he
served as the Governor of the Bank of England,
having served as the Bank of Canada's Governor
from 2008 to 2013. He was Chairman of the
Financial Stability Board from 2011 to 2018.
Prior to 2008, he worked at Goldman Sachs, and
in the Canadian Department of Finance. He is a
member of the Global Advisory Board of the
Pacific Investment Management Company (PIMCO),
which is in turn owned by Allianz SE, whose
major holdings including Apple, Microsoft,
Amazon, Facebook, United Healthgroup, Alphabet
and Tesla.
Carney was taken on as a board member of
Stripe, a global technology company building
economic infrastructure for the internet. It
welcomed Carney to the board in February 2021
as someone who would benefit the company "as
it rolls out its climate efforts globally,
enabling millions of businesses to bring more
funding to emerging carbon removal
technologies." It adds that Carney's UN role
has allowed him to "galvanize climate action
and private finance ahead of the forthcoming
COP26 conference in Glasgow."
Carney is also a member of the Group of
Thirty and the Foundation Board of the World
Economic Forum, and sits on the boards of
Bloomberg Philanthropies, the Peterson
Institute for International Economics and the
Hoffman Institute for Global Business and
Society at the European Institute for Business
Administration.
Quotes attributed to Carney in this
article are from his book, "Value(s):
Building a Better World for All," published
in March 2021 by McClelland and Stewart.
Covering Up Need for Democratic
Renewal and Anti-War Government
During his visit to the Netherlands in late
October, Justin Trudeau supported the
establishment of a NATO think tank in Canada.
This would become a strategic addition to the
more than two dozen such centres. It is
described as a "centre of excellence to study
the security threats posed by climate change."
Trudeau first
announced the intention to ask allies to support
the development of such a centre during the NATO
leaders' summit in Brussels in June. Writing for
Anti-Bellum, "a journal of NATO's threat
to world peace," Rick Rozoff points out, "The
hope is to have the design and negotiation
process take place this year and next, and start
establishing the centre itself in 2023 ...
"The Pentagon and British defence departments
have been developing climate security plans for
more than a decade. [...]
"They are headquartered mainly in European
countries, and are devoted to the study of
civil-military operations, cyber defence,
military medicine, energy security, naval mine
warfare, anti-terrorism, cold weather
operations, among others.....
"Trudeau said the very values and security
Allied forces fought to defend are in peril.
"'It's not just conspiracy theorists and
marginalized, angry people online,' he said.
'It's state actors, too, using disinformation,
propaganda, and cyberwarfare to harm our
economies, our democracies, and undermine
people's faith in the principles that hold us
together.'
"... Trudeau said [China] 'poses tremendous
challenges around the world to democracies and
our trading systems.'"
Trudeau is a mere mouthpiece of NATO
propaganda. He made the announcement at the same
time he repeated his narrative that the threats
come from right-wing and left-wing extremists.
He keeps repeating despite the revelations about
Facebook and Twitter showing they knowingly and
deliberately use algorithms to spread
disinformation on a massive scale, incite
passions, spread hate, conspiracy theories,
hysteria and social disorder. They claim it is
the young people and others doing so and that it
reflects "popular opinion." No action is taken
to hold these corporate interests responsible or
the likes of Trudeau who carry on repeating
their lies to justify establishing this NATO
"think tank" and pass legislation criminalizing
speech and protest.
A controversy has arisen about remarks by
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at the "Malmφ
International Forum on Holocaust Remembrance and
Combating Antisemitism Remember-ReAct," an
event held in Sweden on October 13. In a speech
delivered by video, the Prime Minister blamed
"extremist groups on the far-right and the
far-left" for a rise in "hatred, fear and
mistrust." Trudeau told the audience, "We're in
a time right now where around the world we see
an increase of polarization, of extremism, or
radicalization everywhere, including in some of
the most open, liberal democracies in the world.
In our elections, in our public discourse and in
mainstream communications let alone social
media we're seeing a rise in intolerance. We
see the organizations of extremist groups on the
far-right and the far-left that are pushing
white supremacy, intolerance, radicalization,
promoting hatred, fear and mistrust across
borders but within borders, as well."
Trudeau speaks as if he is the victim or a
neutral party in the promotion of
state-organized hate, racism and violence. His
new period in government will reveal a lot about
what Trudeau is up to with his talk of
"extremist groups of the far-left and
far-right," associating both with hot button
terms like white supremacy, radicalization,
promotion of hatred, etc. For him it all
furthers a self-serving purpose, as his prior
attempts to blame those he calls "extremists"
for things that he imperiously rejected or
reneged on (proportional representation), or
rooted out and banned ("foreign interference"
and "hate speech") show. This is a typical
example of the slander and attempts at
defamation of what is called "far-left
extremism" without identifying who is referred
to.
It has become the new modus operandi of
the imperialists and reactionaries in their
promotion of fearmongering and warmongering
against China and Russia. The Government of
Canada and its Prime Minister and cartel parties
provide prime examples of speaking about things
that cannot be verified. They do this when they
seek to accuse those they perceive to be
enemies, of whatever crime they have in mind,
especially to divert attention from the fact
that they themselves are committing such acts.
It is a crass method of lowering the level of
political discourse to such an extent that it
becomes nonexistent. They then blame extremists
for inciting passions and causing divisions when
they are the ones hyping up hysteria in order to
avoid being held to account on a rational basis.
The Canadian Anti-Hate Network condemned Justin
Trudeau's remarks, stating that his equation of
"anti-racists and anti-fascists with white
supremacists and the far-right ... is
disinformation. It is irresponsible. And it
warrants an apology."[1]
"The Prime Minister's Office (PMO) isn't
apologizing. In a statement to PressProgress,
the PMO indicated Trudeau stands behind his
remarks." PressProgress added that PMO Press
Secretary Alex Wellstead reiterated Trudeau's
position but declined to identify any groups
that the Prime Minister has in mind, nor who the
government defines as "extremist groups."[2]
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in particular has
come forward as a spokesperson for the obsession
of the ruling class with extremist groups to
divert attention from the civil war raging
within the ranks of the U.S. ruling class itself
which spills over into the partisan
competition for power within Canada.
Whenever rational argument fails Trudeau
which is all of the time he resorts to
repeating the mantras he has been given which
now includes ranting about his obsession. In
2017, when he reneged on his electoral promise
to end the first-past-the-post electoral system
and unilaterally went against the recommendation
of an all-party committee of the House of
Commons to introduce a system of proportional
representation, he declared that proportional
representation would pose a threat to Canada by
allowing "extremist" parties to win seats in the
House of Commons. He implied that only those
forces that join in "big tent" parties, which
according to him represent everyone's opinions
and interests, are legitimate. Never mind that
anyone in his own party, parliamentary caucus
and cabinet who does not toe the line is persona
non grata.
Now, to divert attention from the elitist and
unrepresentative character of the
party-dominated system of elections and
governance, Trudeau is obsessing about "foreign
interference" and "extremism" which the official
circles say pose the threat to liberal
democracy. In fact, it is the anti-democratic
features of the unfettered liberal democratic
institutions which are doing an excellent job of
achieving that aim all by themselves. Trudeau
went so far as to task the Minister of
Democratic Institutions with deploying national
security and secret police forces (CSE and CSIS)
to monitor political discourse both during and
between elections.
As Parliament is set to resume, the Liberals
are threatening to move ahead with their
"anti-hate" legislation which will strengthen
the state monitoring and control of social media
and the internet in general. Canadians are sure
to step up their opposition to this
anti-democratic direction of the ruling elite.
Canadians have never conciliated with this
typical modus operandi of the ruling
elite to blame the people for state-organized
racism, or the institutional promotion and
acceptance of violence against women and
factional violence to camouflage their attack on
freedom of conscience, speech and political
liberties in general, and rule by decree. A main
aim is to not permit the people to address the
need for political renewal. However, the need
for political renewal so that the democratic
process and institutions are under the control
of the people, not a phony system of
representation, is an objective need. It exists
because of the clash between the Authority
which no longer accords with the demands of the
times and the Conditions. The danger to the
democratic institutions is not from a mental
construct of "far-left extremism" or "far-right
extremism" but from the corruption inherent to
the institutions which can no longer objectively
justify their existence.
Justin Trudeau's internationally declared
statement of intolerance of what constitutes a
threat to democracy is an escalation in the
offensive of the economically powerful national
and supranational interests that have taken over
the institutions of governance wherever they
can.
Note
1. The Canadian
Anti-Hate Network (CAHN) is a Canadian
non-profit organization that monitors hate
groups and hate crimes in Canada.
2. In 2013, the
Broadbent Institute launched PressProgress,
which describes itself as "Canada's most
shared source for progressive news and
information."
The Wall Street Journal has published
a series of articles called the "Facebook
Files," based on tens of thousands of pages of
internal research provided by a former Facebook
employee, Frances Haugen. Haugen subsequently
testified before a U.S. Senate subcommittee.
The information from the documents, as well as
people's experience with Facebook, shows that
the algorithms Facebook uses serve the promotion
and "amplification" of incitement to violence,
including communal violence, and racist,
misogynist and homophobic content as well as
division of the people. The actual algorithms
are secret; their effect is known but not
exactly how they work.
Facebook introduced new algorithms in 2018
because "engagement" was declining, which was a
threat to its profits. People were spending less
time on Facebook. This is still the case and
Facebook's new markets are not in North America.
India alone said to have 340 million Facebook
users.
The new algorithms were said by Facebook to
promote "engagement" between friends and family,
etc., portraying Facebook as a platform where
all are "equal participants."
The Facebook Files provided the internal
documents which show Facebook was more than
aware that the algorithms served to "amplify
sensational posts," including incitement to
violence, racist and misogynist content, the
promotion of hate and self-loathing, etc. This
much comes out in the Facebook Files and
elsewhere, with other news outlets publishing
further information based on redacted documents
presented to the U.S. Senate committee hearings.
Internal Facebook research concludes as much
and that the algorithms have had a negative
effect on public discourse. The proposals to fix
this from the groups Facebook set up internally
to study the matter have been largely ignored
because implementing them would "reduce
engagement" and have a negative impact on the
pursuit of maximum profits.
The suggestion is that this content, which
harms society, is "amplified" because this is
what people respond to and comment on, share,
and "like." In fact the algorithms have changed
the way news media operate, with news media
complaining to Facebook that news items or
features on matters such as healthy eating could
not get any "reach." Political parties which
form the cartel party systems of government also
acknowledged that Facebook had changed how it
frames their platforms.
Facebook's "amplification" of what it calls
sensational posts, together with the use of fake
accounts and single user multiple accounts
(SUMAs) to post material which the algorithms
will give preference to, changes the whole
equation by presenting a fraudulent portrait of
what is "popular." For instance, one report says
eight people were the original source of false
information about COVID-19 and negative effects
of vaccinations which "went viral" -- this is to
say that Facebook algorithms took it "viral." It
is not a matter of what people using their own
name and account are in fact saying and sharing.
The rulers, pundits and media then use the
hysteria created by the algorithms to declare
that "people" are racist, misogynist, extremist
and so on.
Another thing these hearings on the Facebook
files have shown clearly is that community
standards, by which violent posts and whatever
else secret vested interests have been assigned
to remove, do not apply to politicians with
legislative seats or cabinet posts, "well known
personalities," entertainers, and the like.
Millions of users are considered VIPs who are
exempt from the "community standards." Facebook
uses a program called "Xcheck" that in 2020
included 5.8 million people who were
"whitelisted" and exempt from the usual
standards. They have impunity to post anything
they want; it will either not be removed, or
only removed with the approval of the top
executives of Facebook, or only after it has had
time to go viral.
The role of fake accounts and SUMAs to post
huge amounts of content is also significant.
Facebook algorithms permit a single user with
multiple accounts to create a large amount of
traffic conducive to promotion by the
algorithms. Facebook researchers found that
links popular with "heavy users" were
disproportionately associated with false
information, and that viral content favoured
conspiracy theories, hate speech and hoaxes.
Facebook claims to regularly remove fake
accounts, although researchers agree that there
is no systematic approach. SUMAs are not against
its standards, and multiple accounts are
considered a significant source of new accounts.
Of course, some SUMAs are legitimate as a person
might have an account strictly for communicating
with family and close friends, and another
which is public. However, Facebook is not
forthcoming about the significance of fake
accounts or SUMAs to its bottom line, or its
relationship to what it calls "heavy use" and
the association it has found with hate,
violence, false information and conspiracy
theories. The researchers also conducted dozens
of experiments where they discovered that as the
speed and length of a sharing chain grew, so did
the odds that the content was toxic.
Facebook researchers created an account for a
fictitious person they named Carol Smith. Her
account was one of other fictitious "users"
created in 2019 and 2020 by the researchers who
were studying the effect of the algorithms
introduced in 2018. Smith described herself as a
politically conservative mother from Wilmington,
North Carolina with an interest in politics,
parenting and Christianity and followed Fox News
and then-President Donald Trump. In just two
days, Facebook was recommending groups dedicated
to QAnon for Smith to join. Within one week her
feed was filled with groups and pages that had
violated Facebook's own rules, including those
against hate speech and disinformation, NBC News
reported. The researcher described Smith's
Facebook experience as "a barrage of extreme,
conspiratorial, and graphic content." This
conclusion was repeated consistently with other
accounts of fictitious people created by the
researchers. These findings were included in the
documents presented to the Securities and
Exchange Commission and provided to Congress in
redacted form.
Finally, the documents indicate that Facebook
has resisted all recommendations from its own
staff to make the necessary changes to its
algorithms to stop its active role in promoting
hatred, violence, and racist, misogynist and
homophobic content. Instead it is
"experimenting" with what it calls
"disaggregating harmful networks," which means
Facebook decides which groups or organizations
are creating "social harm" and then deprives the
group of new members and minimizes connections
between its existing members. Any group or
organization so targeted would have its content
"demoted" in news feeds, and users would not be
notified of its posts. The documents show that
Facebook actively suppressed the "Patriot Party
Movement" after the January 6 rampage on Capitol
Hill and a German group called Querdenken.
Whether such suppression is actively used at
present against other groups and organizations
has not been revealed.
"In cognitive
warfare, the human mind becomes the battlefield.
The aim is to change not only what people think,
but how they think and act. Waged successfully, it
shapes and influences individual and group beliefs
and behaviours to favour an aggressor's tactical
or strategic objectives. In its extreme form, it
has the potential to fracture and fragment an
entire society, so that it no longer has the
collective will to resist an adversary's
intentions. An opponent could conceivably subdue a
society without resorting to outright force or
coercion."
This is how Johns Hopkins University &
Imperial College London describe the new domain
called cognitive warfare. Their article published
by NATO Review on May 20 seeks to inform
and promote debate on security issues. NATO Review
points out that the views expressed by the authors
are their own and do not purport to constitute the
official position or policy of NATO or member
governments. They contextualize the new domain of
"cognitive warfare" within the range of challenges
in emerging domains of conflict that can arise
from the introduction of new and disruptive
technologies. The domains of space and cyber, for
example, came out of developments in rocket,
satellites, computing, telecommunications, and
internetworking technologies. Whereas, the new
domain called cognitive warfare is enabled by the
increasingly widespread use of social media,
social networking, social messaging, and mobile
device technologies.
Aims of Cognitive Warfare
The article states:
"The aims of cognitive warfare can be limited,
with short time horizons. Or they can be
strategic, with campaigns launched over the course
of decades. A single campaign could focus on the
limited aim of preventing a military manoeuver
from taking place as planned, or to force the
alteration of a specific public policy. Several
successive campaigns could be launched with the
long-term objective of disrupting entire societies
or alliances, by seeding doubts about governance,
subverting democratic processes, triggering civil
disturbances, or instigating separatist movements.
"Combined arms
"In the last century, the innovative integration
of mobile infantry, armour, and air resulted in a
new and initially irresistible kind of manoeuver
warfare. Today, cognitive warfare integrates
cyber, information, psychological, and social
engineering capabilities to achieve its ends. It
takes advantage of the internet and social media
to target influential individuals, specific
groups, and large numbers of citizens selectively
and serially in a society.
"It seeks to sow doubt, to introduce conflicting
narratives, to polarise opinion, to radicalise
groups, and to motivate them to acts that can
disrupt or fragment an otherwise cohesive society.
And the widespread use of social media and smart
device technologies in Alliance member countries
may make them particularly vulnerable to this kind
of attack.
"Fake news not required
"It is useful to note that false information or
fake news are not required to achieve the aims of
cognitive warfare. An embarrassing government
document, hacked from a public official's email
account, anonymously leaked into a social media
sharing site, or dribbled out selectively to
opposition groups in a social network, is
sufficient to cause dissension.
"A social messaging campaign that inflames the
passions of online influencers can cause
controversies to go viral. Social media groups may
be motivated to organise demonstrations and to
take to the street. Official denials or ambiguous
public responses in these circumstances can add to
confusion and doubt or to entrench conflicting
narratives among segments of the populace.
"While fake social media accounts and automated
messaging "bots" can augment this dynamic, they
are not required. (A recent MIT study found that
the emotions of surprise and disgust alone make
messages go viral and regular users, not bots,
rapidly re-send them.)
"Our clever devices
"A paper copy of your favorite newspaper does not
know what news items you prefer to read. But your
tablet computer does. The advertisement you saw in
the paper does not know that you went to the store
to buy what was advertised; your smartphone does.
The editorial you read does not know that you
enthusiastically shared it with some of your
closest friends. Your social network system does.
"Our social media applications track what we like
and believe; our smartphones track where we go and
who we spend time with; our social networks track
who we associate with and whom we exclude. And our
search and e-commerce platforms use these tracking
data to turn our preferences and beliefs into
action -- by offering stimuli to encourage us to
buy things we might not otherwise have purchased.
"Thus far, consumer societies have seen and
accepted the benefits. The tablet computer serves
us news stories that it knows we will like,
because it wants to keep us engaged.
Advertisements are displayed that conform to our
tastes, based on our previous purchases. Coupons
appear on our smartphone to encourage us to stop
at the store that, by some apparent coincidence,
is on our current route already. Social networks
present opinions that we heartily agree with. The
friends in our social network circles share these
opinions too, as those who do not are quietly
'un-friended' or leave on their own.
"In short, we increasingly find ourselves in
comfortable bubbles, where distasteful or
disturbing news items, opinions, offerings, and
persons are rapidly excluded -- if they appear at
all. The danger is that the society at large may
fragment into many such bubbles, each blissfully
separate from the others. And, as they drift
apart, each is more likely to be disturbed or
shocked whenever they come into contact.
"The regular bustle and commerce of the public
square, the open debate in a public forum, the
sense of a common res publica (public affairs) of
a pluralistic society these moderating
influences may become weakened and attenuated, and
our sensibilities more easily disturbed. What once
was a vibrant open society becomes instead a
collection of multiple closed micro-societies
cohabiting the same territory, subject to fracture
and disarray.
"Our weakened minds
"Our cognitive abilities may also be weakened by
social media and smart devices. Social media use
can enhance the cognitive biases and innate
decision errors described in the Nobel-prize
winning behaviourist Daniel Kahneman's book Thinking,
Fast and Slow.
"News feeds and search engines that serve results
which align with our preferences increase
confirmation bias, whereby we interpret new
information to confirm our preconceived beliefs.
Social messaging apps rapidly update users with
new information, inducing recency bias, whereby we
overweight the importance of recent events over
those of the past. Social networking sites induce
social proofing, wherein we mimic and affirm
others' actions and beliefs to fit in with our
social groups, which become echo chambers of
conformism and groupthink.
"The rapid pace of messaging and news releases,
and the perceived need to quickly react to them,
encourages 'thinking fast' (reflexively and
emotionally) as opposed to 'thinking slow'
(rationally and judiciously). Even established and
reputable news outlets now post emotional
headlines to encourage viral diffusion of their
news articles.
"People spend less time reading their content,
even as they increase the frequency in sharing
them. Social messaging systems are optimised to
distribute short snippets that often omit
important context and nuance. This can facilitate
the spread of both intentionally and
unintentionally misinterpreted information or
slanted narratives. The brevity of social media
posts, in combination with striking visual images,
may prevent readers from understanding others'
motives and values.
"The need for awareness
"The advantage in cognitive warfare goes to him
who moves first and chooses the time, place, and
means of the offensive. Cognitive warfare can be
waged using a variety of vectors and media. The
openness of social media platforms allows
adversaries easily to target individuals, selected
groups, and the public via social messaging,
social media influencing, selective release of
documents, video sharing, etc. Cyber capabilities
permit the use of spearfishing, hacking, and
tracking of individuals and social networks.
"A proper defence requires at the very least an
awareness that a cognitive warfare campaign is
underway. It requires the ability to observe and
orient before decision-makers can decide to act.
Technology solutions can provide the means to
answer some key questions: Is there a campaign
going on? Where did it originate? Who is waging
it? What might be its aims? Our research indicates
that there are patterns of such campaigns that
repeat and can be classified. They may even
provide 'signatures' unique to specific actors
that can help to identify them.
"A particularly useful technology solution may be
a cognitive warfare monitoring and alert system.
Such a system could help to identify cognitive
warfare campaigns as they arise, and to track them
as they progress. It could include a dashboard
that integrates data from a wide range of social
media, broadcast media, social messaging, and
social networking sites. This would display
geographic and social network maps that show the
development of suspected campaigns over time.
"By identifying the locations, both geographic
and virtual, in which social media posts,
messages, and news articles originate, the topics
under discussion, sentiment and linguistic
identifiers, pacing of releases, and other
factors, a dashboard could reveal connections and
repeating patterns. Links between social media
accounts (for example, shares, comments,
interactions) and their timing could be observed.
The use of machine learning and pattern
recognition algorithms could help quickly to
identify and classify emerging campaigns without
the need for human intervention.
"Such a system would allow real-time monitoring
and provide timely alerts to NATO and Alliance
decision-makers, helping them to formulate
appropriate responses to campaigns as they emerge
and evolve.
"Considerations on resilience
"Since the early days of the Alliance, NATO has
played an essential role in promoting and
enhancing civil preparedness among its member
states. Article 3 of the NATO founding treaty
establishes the principle of resilience, which
requires all Alliance member states to 'maintain
and develop their individual and collective
capacity to resist armed attack.' This includes
supporting the continuity of government, and the
provision of essential services, including
resilient civil communications systems.
"Some key considerations for NATO at this time
are how best to take the lead in defining
cognitive attacks, how to help Alliance members
maintain awareness, and how to support more robust
civil communications infrastructures and public
education frameworks in order to enhance the
capacity to resist and to respond."
Latest Federal Challenge to Human
Rights Tribunal Decision
Smacks of Coercion and Blackmail
The federal government has once again filed an
appeal in Federal Court to overturn the 2019
decision of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
(CHRT) that compensation be paid to Indigenous
children and their families. The federal
government is using this latest appeal to force
the Indigenous victims of Canada's racist child
welfare funding practices to agree to a lesser
compensation package than what was awarded by
the CHRT. If not the case will drag on in the
courts for years to come! It stinks of coercion
and blackmail by the Trudeau Liberals
masquerading as due process and rule of law.
Pretending to be socially responsible,
Indigenous Services Minister Patty Hajdu called
it a "protective appeal" which will be on hold
while the parties sit down and try to negotiate
an agreement out of court. If the victims do not
"negotiate" a deal to the federal government's
liking, the Liberal government will continue its
legal appeals.
The appeal argues
that in finding systemic discrimination, the
CHRT overstepped its jurisdiction. It also
argues that the "one size fits all approach" of
equal compensation for all the victims is
unwarranted. If the government appeal is
successful, presumably each child and parent
victim would have to demonstrate specific
individual trauma which would in turn determine
how much compensation is to be paid. The
government for all its crocodile tears about the
suffering and post-traumatic stress suffered by
the Indigenous peoples, has the effrontery to do
such a thing. It must not pass!
The 2019 CHRT ruled that Ottawa "willfully and
recklessly" discriminated against First Nations
children living on reserve by underfunding child
and family services. It found the conditions
that led to seizure of Indigenous children by
child welfare services were the direct result of
these wilful and reckless acts by the Canadian
government.
The CHRT ordered that Ottawa pay the maximum
the tribunal could award, $40,000 compensation
to each child as well as each parent and
grandparent victim of this racist practice. The
rationale for the decision was the enormity of
the crime committed. The CHRT stated "this
amount is reserved for the worst cases. The
Panel believes that the unnecessary removal of
children from your homes, families and
communities qualifies as a worst-case scenario
... a breach of your fundamental human rights.
The Panel stresses the fact that this amount can
never be considered as proportional to the pain
suffered and accepting the amount for remedies
is not an acknowledgment on your part that this
is its value. No amount of compensation can ever
recover what you have lost."
More than 50,000
child, parent or grandparent victims are to be
compensated as a result of the CHRT ruling.
A second order by the CHRT upheld Jordan's
Principle, which compels the federal government
to ensure that essential health and social
services to Indigenous children are inclusive
and provided without delay. This includes
providing services to children who do not have
"status" under the Indian Act.
It is now 14 years since this case was first
brought against the federal government. Enough!
The brutal and inhumane legal actions of the
Canadian government aimed at overturning the
CHRT decisions and/or forcing the victims of
Canada's racist Indigenous child welfare
practices to negotiate a lesser compensation
package than what has been ordered. No more! Not
in the name of the Canadian people! This ongoing
travesty of justice has to end. No to colonial
injustice!
Justice for Indigenous Children
and Families, Now!
(With files from CBC, CTV, and
APTN)
Canada's Role in New International
Pay-the-Rich Corporate Tax Scheme
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) announced in early October that
136 countries, including Canada, agreed to a
"two-pillar plan on international tax reform."
Canada's Deputy Prime Minister and Finance
Minister Chrystia Freeland was ebullient with the
development. Spouting nonsense about fairness, she
said: "Canada strongly supports international
efforts to end the corporate race to the bottom
and to ensure that all corporations, including the
world's largest corporations, pay their fair
share. Today's agreement will ensure a level
playing field for Canadian workers and Canadian
businesses in the global economy."
"Those who do business in Canada must pay their
fair share. Canada has a clear national interest
in this multilateral deal, which protects against
erosion of the tax base and which will generate
additional revenue for Canada," she added.
On the two-pillar tax plan, the Department of
Finance Canada writes, "Pillar One of the OECD
agreement will ensure that the largest and most
profitable global corporations, including large
digital corporations, pay a fair share of tax in
the jurisdictions where their users and customers
are located.
"Pillar Two of the OECD agreement will ensure
that multinational enterprises are subject to a
minimum level of tax of at least 15 per cent, no
matter where their profits are earned. This will
help to end the race to the bottom in corporate
taxation."
Showing how all these representatives of the rich
sing from the same song book written by the rich,
according to the Department of Finance, Deputy
Prime Minister Freeland and U.S. Secretary of the
Treasury Janet Yellen at a meeting in Washington,
DC, on October 12, "welcomed the
once-in-a-generation agreement on the two-pillar
approach to international tax reform agreed on
October 8 by 136 countries in the OECD-G20
Inclusive Framework on Base Erosion and Profit
Shifting.
"The Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary
underscored how this historic agreement will end
the race to the bottom in international taxation
and how it is a win for middle class workers and
for businesses in Canada and the United States.
"The Deputy Prime Minister highlighted how Canada
and the United States have worked very closely to
make this international agreement possible.
Canada's strong preference is for a multilateral
agreement and the Deputy Prime Minister shared
Canada's plan to transition from the DST (Digital
Services Tax) to the OECD-level agreement."
The enthusiastic and congratulatory words from
the political elite attempt to conceal an
imperialist agenda to block sovereign countries
from fashioning their own arrangements and tax
regimes with those global companies wishing to
operate in their economies. The OECD agreement in
effect allows the multinational enterprises open
access to 136 economies without any specific
concern for the needs of those economies, peoples
and countries involved. The accounting and
determining of the claim of the governments on the
produced value remain in the hands of the private
global oligopolies.
The role of the oligopolies in proposing and
writing the Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD) global corporate tax regime
has sparked discussion over their political
influence in the sovereign affairs of the peoples
of the world. The only countries opposing or not
included in the global tax regime are those in the
forefront of defending their national sovereignty
and dignity, such as Cuba, the Democratic People's
Republic of Korea, Venezuela and Nicaragua. These
countries are courageously upholding their
sovereign right to control those affairs that
affect their countries and peoples, and oppose the
interference and attacks of the U.S.-led
imperialist system of states and global
oligopolies.
The OECD global corporate tax on the oligopolies,
at a 15 per cent minimum rate, is designed to
supplant any individual Digital Services Tax that
countries are already applying or were
contemplating for introduction.
The OECD global corporate tax does not interfere
with the monopoly right of the oligopolies to
determine their corporate profit on which the tax
would be applied. Large corporations are generally
notorious for their secrecy and ability to
manipulate their gross income and resulting
profit, no matter how large, to magically
disappear their taxable net corporate profit.
How profit is determined relates to the
determination of a price of production for goods
and services. However, as long as setting the
price of production is under the control of the
oligarchs and their motive to expropriate maximum
profit, it is not going to be a scientific
rendering of the new value workers produce and its
distribution. The price of production according to
the oligopolies and the ensuing profit they report
are entirely self-serving, to support their aim of
maximum profit and pillage of the countries where
they operate.
The OECD global corporate tax is yet another
attack on the sovereignty of nations and their
right to control their affairs and direction. The
aim is to continue the imperialist plunder of the
peoples and nations of the world. To prettify this
attack with flowery self-congratulatory words is
the standard neo-liberal practice to turn
everything on its head to appear beneficial to the
people rather than an assault on their rights and
claims.
The peoples and nations of the world have the
right and social responsibility to determine their
own affairs. If any multinational enterprise wants
to do business in any country it must come under
the control and regulations set by the sovereign
people of the nation. If not, no agreement can or
should be reached. The imposition of international
rules such as the OECD global corporate tax
regime, written and set by the oligopolies and
their imperialist governments, must be opposed by
all. Any agreement on international trade must be
on a nation-to-nation basis, for the mutual
benefit and development of the peoples involved,
not the private interests of the global oligarchy.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) is a forum of 38 countries
encompassing the U.S.-led imperialist system of
states. The OECD declares its members as committed
to U.S./UK-style party-controlled democracy and a
market economy dominated and controlled by
powerful private interests and their immense
wealth and property.
The new tax replaces any national corporate tax
on those oligopolies that may now be in place or
those being contemplated.
The criteria for a corporation to be subject to
the OECD global tax regime is an annual gross
income of 20 billion euros (U.S.$23.2 billion) and
a certain threshold of self-declared corporate
profit. Mining companies, regulated financial
services and pension funds are excluded from the
tax regime regardless of their global reach and
income.
The OECD global tax agreement is said to affect
from 69 to 78 "multinational enterprises" or
global oligopolies depending on their
self-declared annual gross income and profit. The
oligopolies are involved in multiple businesses
with a focus on digitized enterprise such as
Amazon, Google and Facebook (Meta).
The combined annual gross income of the 78 or so
oligopolies would be $1.8 trillion at a minimum,
which is greater than the total gross domestic
product of Canada. The multinational enterprises
involved in the OECD global tax regime are
outnumbered by the 136 countries that have been
corralled into the international tax plan. These
countries will forego any national corporate tax
on these oligopolies and receive a portion of the
global OECD tax according to a prescribed formula
beyond their control.
The OECD global corporate tax rate on declared
profit is set at 15 per cent, which is lower than
the current rate in almost all countries of the
world. Only a handful of countries under direct
imperialist control -- so-called tax havens where
multinationals can register their business, such
as the Cayman Islands, Bahamas, Bahrain and Kosovo
-- have lower corporate tax rates although certain
jurisdictions in the U.S. are quickly overtaking
those places as preferred tax havens.
In response to the OECD's tax deal announced
October 8, Oxfam's Tax Policy Lead Susana Ruiz
said: "Today's tax deal was meant to end tax
havens for good. Instead it was written by them."
In a press
release, Oxfam points out: "This deal is a
shameful and dangerous capitulation to the low-tax
model of nations like Ireland. It is a mockery of
fairness that robs pandemic-ravaged developing
countries of badly needed revenue for hospitals
and teachers and better jobs. The world is
experiencing the largest increase in poverty in
decades and a massive explosion in inequality but
this deal will do little or nothing to halt
either. Instead, it is already being seen by some
wealthy nations as an excuse to cut domestic
corporate tax rates, risking a new race to the
bottom.
"Calling this deal 'historic' is hypocritical and
does not hold up to even the most minor scrutiny.
The tax devil is in the details, including a
complex web of exemptions that could let big
offenders like Amazon off the hook. At the last
minute a colossal 10-year grace period was slapped
onto the global corporate tax of 15 per cent, and
additional loopholes leave it with practically no
teeth.
"This deal is an unacceptable injustice. It needs
a complete overhaul. The OECD and the G20 must
bring fairness and ambition back to the table and
deliver a tax plan that won't leave the rest of
the world to pick up their crumbs and scraps."
Oxfam Notes
One hundred and forty countries have been
negotiating the two-pillar tax framework under the
OECD-G20 umbrella. The first "pillar" aims to make
the world's largest corporations pay more taxes in
the country where they earn profits. Based on
current proposals, Oxfam estimates that it will
affect only 69 multinationals and would only apply
on "super profits" above 10 per cent. Loopholes
could let the likes of Amazon and "onshore"
secrecy jurisdictions like the City of London off
the hook. Extractives and regulated financial
services are excluded from the deal.
New analysis by Oxfam estimates that 52
developing countries would receive around 0.025
per cent of their collective GDP in additional
annual tax revenue from the "Pillar One" proposal
endorsed today.
The second "pillar" seeks a global minimum
corporate tax rate. The OECD tax plan dropped "at
least" from a proposed minimum global corporate
tax rate of "at least 15 per cent" and further
delayed its full implementation from the
previously planned five years to 10 years.
The 15 per cent rate is well below the UN
Financial Accountability, Transparency and
Integrity (FACTI) Panel recommendation made
earlier this year, which called for a 20 to 30 per
cent global corporate tax on profits. The
Independent Commission for the Reform of
International Corporate Taxation (ICRICT) has
called for a 25 per cent global minimum tax to be
applied.
A 25 per cent global minimum corporate tax rate
would raise nearly $17 billion more for the
world's 38 poorest countries (for which data is
available) than a 15 per cent rate. These
countries are home to 38.6 per cent of the world's
population.
Developing countries are more heavily reliant on
corporate tax. In 2018, African countries raised
19 per cent of their overall revenue from
corporate tax, compared to just 10 per cent for
OECD nations.
It should be noted that the global corporate tax
proposed by the Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD) does not deal
with tax havens, where corporations and wealthy
individuals conceal their money through trusts and
other devices. A Wikipedia article on tax
havens mainly located in the United States, notes:
"The U.S. receives tax and asset information for
American assets and income abroad, but does not
share information about what happens in the United
States with other countries. In other words, it
has become attractive as a tax haven.
"The Tax Justice Network ranks the U.S. third in
terms of the secrecy and scale of its offshore
financial industry, behind Switzerland and Hong
Kong but ahead of the Cayman Islands and
Luxembourg.
"Andrew Penney from Rothschild & Co described
the U.S. as 'effectively the biggest tax haven in
the world' and Trident Trust Co., one of the
world's biggest providers of offshore trusts,
moved dozens of accounts out of Switzerland and
Grand Cayman, and into Sioux Falls, saying:
'Cayman was slammed in December, closing things
that people were withdrawing ... I was surprised
at how many were coming across that were formerly
Swiss bank accounts, but they want out of
Switzerland.'
"A 2012 study by various U.S. universities showed
that the U.S. has the most lenient regulations for
setting up a shell company anywhere in the world
outside of Kenya. Tax havens such as the Cayman
Islands, Jersey and the Bahamas were far less
permissive, researchers found, than states such as
Nevada, Delaware, Montana, South Dakota, Wyoming
and New York. '[Americans] discovered that they
really don't need to go to Panama,' said James
Henry of the Tax Justice Network. For example, a
single address in Wilmington (1209 North Orange
Street) is listed as the headquarters for at least
285,000 separate businesses due to Delaware's
desirable corporate taxes and law, and it is
estimated that $9 billion of potential taxes is
lost over the past decade, due to the Delaware
loophole. Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump
have firms registered in North Orange Street, and
lawyers, trust companies and financial firms
including Rothschild & Co are moving offshore
accounts from locations such as Switzerland and
the Cayman Islands into the U.S. to take advantage
of the country's loose regulations, calling it the
'new Switzerland.'
"Mark Hays of Global Witness said, 'The U.S. is
one of the easiest places to set up so-called
anonymous shell companies,' and Stefanie Ostfeld
from the same organization said that 'the U.S. is
just as big a secrecy jurisdiction as so many of
these Caribbean countries and Panama.' More than
1.1 million live legal entities were incorporated
in Delaware at the end of 2014. An increasing
number -- more than 70 per cent -- of those were
LLCs (limited liability companies). The Delaware
Division of Corporations said in August 2015 that
'an LLC entices all types of people since it is
easy to operate and oversee,' and Delaware is
currently one of the few states without sales tax.
Delaware does not tax companies which operate
there, nor their royalty income. However, the LLC
is more popular and often less expensive in states
such as Wyoming, Nevada and Oregon. Approximately
668,000 anonymous LLCs are registered just in
those three states."
Offshore Tax Avoidance
The Wikipedia article continues: "Despite
this, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group
(PIRG) said in 2014 that the United States loses
roughly $184 billion per year due to corporations
such as Pfizer, Microsoft and Citigroup using
offshore tax havens to avoid paying U.S. taxes.
According to PIRG:
"- Pfizer paid no U.S. income taxes 2010-2012,
despite earning $43 billion. The corporation
received more than $2 billion in federal tax
refunds. In 2013, Pfizer operated 128 subsidiaries
in tax havens and had $69 billion offshore which
could not be collected by the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS);
"- Microsoft maintains five tax haven
subsidiaries and held $76.4 billion overseas in
2013, thus saving the corporation $24.4 billion in
taxes;
"- Citigroup maintained 21 subsidiaries in tax
haven countries in 2013, and kept $43.8 billion in
offshore jurisdictions, thus saving the
corporation an additional $11.7 billion in taxes."
A Guardian article reports, "Many
super-rich people are choosing South Dakota, which
has created the most potent force-field money can
buy -- a South Dakotan trust. If an ordinary
person puts money in the bank, the government
taxes what little interest it earns. Even if that
money is protected from taxes by an ISA
[individual savings account], you can still lose
it through divorce or legal proceedings. A South
Dakotan trust changes all that: it protects assets
from claims from ex-spouses, disgruntled business
partners, creditors, litigious clients and pretty
much anyone else. It won't protect you from
criminal prosecution, but it does prevent
information on your assets from leaking out in a
way that might spark interest from the police. And
it shields your wealth from the government, since
South Dakota has no income tax, no inheritance tax
and no capital gains tax.
"A decade ago, South Dakotan trust companies held
$57.3 billion in assets. By the end of 2020, that
total will have risen to $355.2 billion. Those
hundreds of billions of dollars are being
regulated by a state with a population smaller
than Norfolk [England], a part-time legislature
heavily lobbied by trust lawyers, and an
administration committed to welcoming as much of
the world's money as it can. U.S. politicians like
to boast that their country is the best place in
the world to get rich, but South Dakota has become
something else: the best place in the world to
stay rich. [...]
"In just three years, the amount of money held
via secretive structures in the U.S. had increased
by 14 per cent, the Tax Justice Network said. That
is the money pouring into Sioux Falls, and into
the South Dakota Trust Company."
For further information, see the Americans for
Tax Fairness article on tax havens here.
See also this report on U.S. tax havens here
for current corporate tax rates throughout the
world.
U.S. President Joe Biden and his Democratic
Party are carrying out negotiations to get the
Build Back Better Bill passed by the U.S.
Congress. All the negotiations are about which
section of the ruling elite will get what; which
oligopolies will prevail to abscond with how
much money from the treasury. All of it is done
under high sounding ideals of jobs, housing,
healthcare, education and the like.
It is reported that close to $2 trillion in
expenditures have thus far been agreed to by the
parties in the Congress. The banks are very
happy. They will be able to lend $20 trillion
globally against this free money based on
interests rates from 2 to 30 per cent for just
sending an email to this or that bank account.
Not a bad deal for the financial oligarchy.
These are the perks of controlling the state
apparatus. No matter which party is in power,
the financial oligarchy makes sure that the
methods of robbery are refined and a vicious
fight takes place over the spoils.
These robbers are not in the least concerned
about the security of the people. Their security
lies in organizing the movement to affirm basic
rights to a livelihood, health care, education,
housing, food, freedom from violence,
discrimination and war and of speech and
expression. All over the world, the peoples are
fighting for their right to be, as identified by
themselves as they lay the claims which they
must on the societies they depend on for their
very being.
Communist organizations in Russia were joined by
representatives of political parties and
democratic and progressive organizations from
more than 80 countries at a march and rally in
Moscow honouring the 100th anniversary of the
Great October Socialist Revolution.
November 7, 2017.
November 7 marks the 104th anniversary of the
1917 Great October Socialist Revolution in
Russia. In "ten days that shook the world," the
first ever socialist workers' state was created.
The architect of that revolution, the great V.I.
Lenin, spoke to its significance saying that
this revolution undertook the task of completing
the democratic revolution that got underway in
England in the 1660s. Old forms of governance
based on liberal democracy and a bourgeois civil
society were replaced with new ones. This
created a socialist civil society with full
employment, free education, health care and
housing for all and no taxes. It provided
political equality before the law, full
democracy to elect and be elected, no class
privileges and no exploiting classes. It
affirmed that peace, prosperity, freedom and
fraternal unity of the peoples are not merely a
utopia, a pipe dream. They are attainable and
the necessity of our times.
Today, the dregs
of the deposed ruling classes of that time are
consumed with a spectre of communism which
haunts them every time they engage in practices
which go against the people's interests. They
have created a stereotype of socialism which is
a figment of their deranged imaginations,
dominated by morbid preoccupation with their own
demise. Such was the case in the United States
where the Trump campaign declared that a vote
for his adversary was a vote for socialism. Such
is also the case in the defamatory imperialist
propaganda against the Communist Party of China
or Putin's Russia which are called authoritarian
regimes that must be brought to heel by
following the constitutional order espoused in
the United States, Britain, Canada and other
countries. This constitutional order is a
Westminster-style democracy based on the 17th
century Covenant Thesis, which was given rise to
after the English Civil War in the 1660s. Though
outdated and not in sync with the needs of the
21st century, the rule through ministerial
prerogative powers is said to be the paradigm of
democracy.
The so-called rules-based international order
these powers espouse is in fact the paradigm of
authoritarian rule. Nonetheless, accusations are
hurled against those who are seen to be rivals
over control of the sources of cheap resources,
labour, markets for the export of capital and
zones of influence. All of it is used to divert
the attention of the workers and peoples of the
world from how decision-making takes place, and
how to create a system which is able to
effectively channel all the human and material
resources of their countries in a manner which
favours them. This is something which cannot be
done by imposing police rule as the U.S.
imperialists and their allies, including Canada,
are doing.
Where the decision-making power lies must be
acknowledged if a system is to be devised which
puts it into the hands of the people. It is
important to study the achievements of the
Soviet Union and the people's democracies on
this front, the difficulties they faced and
their cause. Unless theoretical work is done to
provide modern definitions for democracy,
people's power, majority rule, public interest
and all other related affairs, the ruling
circles will continue to usurp the political
power and wield it against the interest of the
working class and people.
In fact, the more the counterrevolution
launched since the fall of the former Soviet
Union deepens, the more the significance of the
Great October Revolution to human history
increases. It was the restoration of capitalism
in the Soviet Union which led to its collapse in
the 1989-91 period. It was not a failure of
socialism but of capitalism. Since then, the
consequences of the U.S.-led brutal neo-liberal
anti-social offensive and the wars it has
unleashed to achieve regime change and
domination, have caused tremendous damage to the
peoples of the world and planet earth.
In the conditions of the retreat of revolution,
the world is now waking up to take stock of what
it means to have a society such as the one which
came into being just over one hundred years ago
when Soviet Russia was established and Soviet
power created a new society where the workers
decided all matters in a manner which favoured
their interests.
The conditions of the present are forcing all
concerned to look at the most important events
of the past with the eye of the present, to
assist in securing the future. All over the
world, the peoples are striving to bring new
forms into being, based on democratic principles
which vest sovereign decision-making power in
the people in a manner which is consistent with
the needs of the 21st century.
The October Revolution brought to power those
forces which lay dormant in the bosom of the old
society. The workers, peasants and the
intelligentsia and other working people
established a power which favoured them for the
first time in human history. Not only did the
October Revolution bring an entirely new class
to power -- the working class -- it also
inspired the workers and oppressed of all lands
to embark on the same path.
The crisis created out of the First World War
was resolved in favour of the people when the
October Revolution ended that bloodiest war in
history, a war fought between the imperialist
powers for the redivision of the world.
Lenin declares Soviet power, October 26, 1917,
at the historic meeting of the Second All-Russia
Congress of Soviets at the Smolny Institute.
This was the first revolution that created an
entirely new society. Socialism appeared on the
world historical scene, as predicted by Karl
Marx. The practice of the proletarian revolution
ushered in an entirely new period, the period of
ending the exploitation of persons by persons
and of creating a society based on the working
class constituting the nation and building it in
its own image.
The founder and leader of the Communist Party
of Canada (Marxist-Leninist), Hardial Bains,
emphasized that during the entire period which
has followed the October Revolution, "people
have been profoundly imbued with change.
Everything points to a great upheaval in the
making for the renewal of the society again at
this time. Workers cannot but draw the
conclusion that prejudices and dogmas are no
substitute for a clear conscience and scientific
analysis, on the basis of which the crisis in
the sphere of ideas can be overcome and
cognition can take place in favour of the people
and that this is the necessary ideological
preparation for renewal."[1]
"This period in history is increasingly
bringing forth the necessity to look at all
events in history with an open mind, by
depending on the body of knowledge and
experience of life itself to come to pertinent
conclusions. A grasp of the present, a strong
handle on what is going on in front of one's
eyes, has become vital to ward off that
blindness which presents events in history as
the work of some evil forces, instead of
recognizing them as important milestones on the
high road of civilization," Hardial Bains added.[2]
The Communist Party of Canada
(Marxist-Leninist) hails the Great October
Revolution with a great deal of revolutionary
optimism, by always keeping in mind that it is
the working people who are to decide their
future themselves. It is their stubborn
persistence to bring about the renewal of the
world today which reinforces the Party's resolve
to answer the call of history.
Notes
1. TML Daily, Vol. 22, No. 27,
November 7, 1992.
2. TML Weekly, Vol. 48, No. 38, November
3, 2018.
(TML Archives. Lead photo
teleSUR)
Video
(To access articles
individually click on the black headline.)