Here in this press conference, Green Member of Parliament Elizabeth May shares her concerns with the many omnibus bills being pushed through Parliament with little scrutiny. She illustrates how the Greens (1 MP) and the NDP (New Democratic Party) – 5 seats, have no chance to speak or vote since they have lost official party status. Thus we end up with no real representation promoting actual peace. The NDP has just rejected the leadership candidacy of Yves Engler. He made the fatal error of making negative comments about NATO. The party board of directors consists entirely of union executives, the labour side of capitalism, thus preferring the status-quo of the military-industrial complex. When desperate for new members, the NDP might cater to environmentalists and peace activists, then drop them when inconvenient.
In this press conference, Ms. May goes on to underline support for NATO and only trading with "defenders of democracy" in Europe and support for "Ukraine," whatever that is. NATO will keep pressing Ukrainians into service in their proxy war against Russia, down to their last man, and now women, also now being caught up by the press-gangs as well. The end-point thinking of these "Ukraine" supporters is that Russia owes Ukraine massive reparations, while the end-point of my thinking results in USA & NATO owing Ukraine massive reparations. Very, very significant difference, and to see the difference, you need to read the history. I say "Ukraine" whatever that is, because it is a patchwork of other territories. Western Ukraine was ruled for hundreds of years by Poland and eastern Ukraine is full of Russian-speaking settlements.
Now what if... What if the whole top of the Northern Hemisphere could work together in peace instead of inventing the imaginary threats? That includes Canada, Europe and Russia. But no, Canada continues to be an obliging appendage to the U.S., voting at the UN as a guaranteed second vote along with the U.S. and the Zionists, sending troops to the Baltic nations to deliberately irritate Russia, sending patrol ships to the Taiwan Strait to irritate China, alongside U.S. deployments. Aren't these activities an over-reach of extension of power for a so-called middle power? What could Russia think of those Canadian troops in Latvia, practicing landing their out-dated fighters on public highways? Imagine Canada inviting Russia to do military maneuvers a few kilometers from the U.S. border? The Americans would go ballistic, literally. But nobody cares what Russia thinks. Canadian troops are actively deployed in Latvia in 2025 as part of Operation REASSURANCE and the NATO battlegroup, serving as the framework nation for defense and deterrence, conducting major exercises like RESOLUTE WARRIOR 25, and extending their commitment through 2029 under Canadian leadership to secure NATO's eastern flank against potential threats, with over 3,000 CAF members involved in land and sea operations throughout the year. Potential IMAGINARY threats, mind you.
How can we get a better trade relationship with China (such as reducing canola and pork tariffs) while being a deliberate irritant around Taiwan? NATO should have been disbanded at the end of the Cold War (1991), not being repeatedly being rejuvenated by the military-industrial complex to keep boosting arms sales. And as I have said, NATO at the time was a worthwhile bargaining chip for getting a UN Security Council actually capable of performing its intended function. As I have written before it was Brzeziński's plan going back to the 1970s to attack Russia through Ukraine, divide it up and go on to further surround China for the final takedown. But now, with Pedo-Trump's Monroe Doctrine 2.0, it looks like they are shifting focus to pivot (Obama's term) directly to China, beginning with chasing China out of Latin America, even though China is those nations' largest trading (and investment) partner. If they can cut China off from these Latin American resources, they might have a chance of directly attacking China. But, contrary to what they imagine, they do NOT have the military resources to take on China, so any conflict could soon go nuclear. And where would fallout from that go? West Coast - no problem for D.C.!
Support for NATO is not a peace effort. NATO was built precisely to do an end-run around the United Nations' system of consensus. America has no hegemony under consensus, it must act unilaterally. The UN was established to end wars of aggression; NATO was set up to make them permanent. Perhaps the last use of a UN Security Council resolution to allow a war to proceed was for "Operation Desert Storm" 1990-1991 in which the U.S. pushed Iraq out of Kuwait. George H. W. Bush carried out the resolution exactly, then went home. But Netanyahu was so upset with not going ahead and taking Iraq totally out that he shifted support and funding to Bill Clinton to win the next election. The later 2003 invasion of Iraq (Shock and Awe) was done with NATO not UN permission. Promoting NATO is not an act of peacemaking.
Another point Ms. May mentioned is losing carbon taxation. This is more fallacy, see Can Oxygen Pricing Save the Environment? These societies depend on cheap energy to function, witness the decline in European productivity following them being cut off from cheap energy from Russia. These large populations came into being by fossil energy usage – both must be wound down in tandem. I still fail to convince Dr. James Hansen of the folly of his "tax-and-dividend" scheme (price carbon and rebate to consumers to ensure buy-in) and his promotion of nuclear energy. You CANNOT install nuclear energy unless you can guarantee 500 more years of intact civilization, then 200x that amount of time for the first leg of decay of your nuclear wastes, keeping that storage secure all that time. These time periods are beyond human understanding.
§In other matters, there is an excellent report by Hans Jonsson, "The man who reads the dead," about a researcher at the British Museum studying ancient texts. Read why reading is so important, why ancient languages are translated incorrectly because people didn't think they had modal verbs, and much more! One sentence near the beginning of the article seems to be not further developed: "The argument that monotheistic religions 'brought evil into the world'." Note that the "Evil" was already present; its awareness was lacking. Saying that the Ten Commandments brought sin into the world entirely misses the point. The issue was that normal human behaviour was called out as inappropriate, thus allowing others to shame you for its commission. But the main point of the commandments which humanity NEVER learned, is that these simple rules form the very basis for a just civilization. Thus, even to this day, we still have murder and theft and the other vices degrading social progress. Wann werden sie es endlich lernen? And even with Apostle Paul's admonition that this is (should be?) an age of Grace, the same message applies to have a just society: you cannot contemplate murder, theft or rape under the aegis of love (agape αγαπη). But here we are, carrying this burden on society into the future. As any observer from other worlds would see, there is obviously not yet any civilization on this planet – we carry on while ignoring the pre-requisites.
Leave a comment! This is a re-direct to my Substack page.
Return to Limits to Progress Main Page
If you would like to send a donation, please send an Interac eTransfer to email address below. Thank you!
©2025 Kathleen McCroskey
Send your e-mail comments and questions to: