Should we Canadians apologize to the USA for how we acted from 1740 to 1775?

To what degree is national debt of the United States a nasty practical joke on American citizens?

  • The USA national debt is zero to ten percent a nasty practical joke on Americans

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The USA national debt if eleven to twenty percent a Neo-Malthusian practical joke

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The USA national debt is twenty one to thirty percent a Neo-Malthusian practical joke

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The USA national debt is even more so than thirty one percent a Malthusian joke on Americans

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Actually Compound Interest Over Time is a nasty practical joke on all eight billion of us.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other answer please be specific in a reply.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Our Elitist leaders may well have prevented us productive workers from destroying the environment.

    Votes: 1 100.0%

  • Total voters
    1

DennisPTate

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2025
Messages
2,930
Reaction score
1,129
Points
163
I believe that we Canadians owe the United States an apology for how our ancestors treated our ally The United States from 1740 to 1775. It is my belief that the exaggerated obedience of Canadian elected officials to London made the American Revolutionary War almost impossible to avoid.

In our defence it is likely that an astonishing small number of our ancestors actually understood how Compound Interest Over Time was being implemented in order to turn American citizens into economic slaves who would run endlessly on an allegorical economic treadmill?

[Alain Pilote, The History of Banking Control in the United States] :

The happiest population
franklin.jpg
Benjamin Franklin

We are in 1750. The United States of America does not yet exist; it is the 13 Colonies of the American continent, forming “New England”, a possession of the motherland, England. Benjamin Franklin wrote about the population of that time: “Impossible to find a happier and more prosperous population on all the surface of the globe.” Going over to England to represent the interests of the Colonies, Franklin was asked how he accounted for the prosperous conditions prevailing in the Colonies, while poverty was rife in the motherland:
“That is simple,” Franklin replied. “In the Colonies we issue our own money. It is called Colonial Scrip. We issue it in proper proportion to make the products pass easily from the producers to the consumers. In this manner, creating ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay to no one.”
The English bankers, being informed of that, had a law passed by the British Parliament prohibiting the Colonies from issuing their own money, and ordering them to use only the gold or silver debt-money that was provided in insufficient quantity by the English bankers. The circulating medium of exchange was thus reduced by half.
“In one year,” Franklin stated, “the conditions were so reversed that the era of prosperity ended, and a depression set in, to such an extent that the streets of the Colonies were filled with unemployed.”
Then the Revolutionary War was launched against England, and was followed by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. History textbooks erroneously teach that it was the tax on tea that triggered the American Revolution. But Franklin clearly stated:
“The Colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters, had it not been the poverty caused by the bad influence of the English bankers on the Parliament: which has caused in the Colonies hatred of England, and the Revolutionary War.”
The Founding Fathers of the United States, bearing all these facts in mind, and to protect themselves against the exploitation of the International Bankers, took good care to expressly declare, in the American Constitution, signed at Philadelphia, in 1787, Article 1, Section 8, paragraph 5:
“Congress shall have the power to coin money and to regulate the value thereof.”

The bank of the bankers


hamilton.gif
Alexander Hamilton


But the bankers did not give up. Their agent, Alexander Hamilton, was named Secretary of Treasury in George Washington's cabinet, and advocated the establishment of a federal bank to be owned by private interests, and the creation of debt-money with false arguments like: “A national debt, if it is not excessive, will be to us a national blessing... The wisdom of the Government will be shown in never trusting itself with the use of so seducing and dangerous an expedient as issuing its own money.” Hamilton also made them believe that only the debt-money issued by private banks would be accepted in dealing abroad.
Thomas Jefferson, the Secretary of State, was strongly opposed to that project, but President Washington was finally won over by Hamilton's arguments. A federal bank was thus created in 1791, the “Bank of the United States”, with a 20 years' charter. Although it was termed “Bank of the United States”, it was actually the “bank of the bankers”, since it was not owned by the nation, but by individuals holding the bank's stocks, the private bankers. This name of “Bank of the United States” was purposely chosen to deceive the American population and to make them believe that they were the owners of the bank, which was not the case. The charter for the Bank of the United States ran out in 1811, and Congress voted against its renewal, thanks to the influence of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson:


jackson-andrew.jpg
Andrew Jackson​


“If Congress,” Jackson said, “has a right under the Constitution to issue paper money, it was given them to use by themselves, not to be delegated to individuals or corporations.”
Thus ended the history of the first Bank of the United States. But the bankers did not play their last card.

The bankers launch the war


[Alain Pilote]


If all of us do not understand this aspect of our history then the majority of our children and grandchildren will tend to remain as economic slaves on a never ending allegorical treadmill of work, work, work, work and just barely pay off the mortgage.


Note: it is my firm belief that this is the perfect job for MR. WAYNE GRETZKY to prove that he can accomplish more than what Prime Minister Mark Carney could imagine was possible and he could potentially do so in record time?

Note: some of my own ancestors had the last name "Mason" and they were allowed to freely move to Country Harbour, Guysborough, N. S., Canada due to their being "United Empire Loyalists." They were allowed to freely leave what could be termed "Dixie." The United States deserved far better treatment than what our ancestors did in the three decades before the American Revolutionary War.


 
Last edited:
It is my belief that we Canadians DO DEFINITELY OWE ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS AND TAXPAYERS AN APOLOGY FOR THE WAY THAT PRIME MINISTER PIERRE E. TRUDEAU ACTED IN 1974!

This apology that we Canadians should give to America should lead us Canadians to a genuine shift in how we behave from 2026 to 2036!





canada-public-debt.jpg




Here is essentially the identical same graph about the growth of the national debt of the USA also from 1919 to 1983:


us-public-debt-graphic.jpg


I actually attempted to mount a campaign against Mr. Justin Trudeau before he became National Leader of Canada's Liberal Party and an important part of my platform was to simply apologize for the seriously awful error made by Prime Minister Pierre E. Trudeau back in 1974 that I believe was done deliberately by extremely influential "Neo-Malthusians" in BigBanking who believed that it is THEIR DUTY to set in motion the basic idea behind the 2010 Bill Gates lecture, "Innovating to zero."


The Canadian and USA economy are facing the real possibility of a "Dystopian Nightmare" as robotics and Artificial Intelligence replace a high percentage of our workers over the next twenty to thirty years and if the rather obvious implications of P. M. Pierre E. Trudeau's massive error from 1974 does not become common knowledge in Canada and in the USA THEN BOTH OF OUR GOVERNMENTS, will just keep on giving essentially all real POWER to BigBanking!

Under our rather extreme set of circumstances now at the end of 2025, we Canadians are forced to become more well informed about our history and how what happened here affected the USA?

AMERICAN CITIZENS need to understand how what I believe was a massive deception over fifty years, was pulled off on all elected officials in the USA, by the deliberate messing up of an excellent Bank of Canada policy.

My suspicion is that the Banking official from Europe may have had damaging video footage that Prime Minister Pierre E. Trudea did NOT want to be made public and that is VERY POSSIBLY one of the most logical reasons as to why he would make such a huge and obvious error back in 1974?



I believe that the basic idea behind "innovating to zero" is obviously part of the flavour or mix in essentially everything that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau did, but THERE IS A GOOD SIDE TO ALL OF THIS, it seems to me as if forty five million Canadians are all set up for a number of Class Action Lawsuits based on the events of the last decade plus, some of the evidence that is put forward in www.TheyLied.ca/
 
Last edited:
Canadians should apologize for coming to Florida in the winter and wearing dark socks with sandals.
 

Thank you, but what if we Canadians came up with a proposal to pay off the national debts of both the USA and Canada at the same time that the USA Dollar goes down to par value with the Canadian Dollar?

In theory, this is possible!

 
Your poll choices are stupid.

$38T is real

In some ways it is "real" but the wealthiest of the Neo-Malthusian thinkers are so determined to save the environment of the earth from overly productive American and Canadian blue collar workers that they have resorted to rather drastic measures since well before 1798 when Thomas Malthus wrote up "Malthusian Catastrophe Theory."


Neo-Malthusianism updates Thomas Malthus's theory, arguing that unchecked population growth inevitably strains resources, leading to crises like famine, poverty, and environmental collapse, but expands beyond just food to include water, pollution, and climate change as critical limits, advocating for population control (like contraception) to prevent disaster. While Malthus focused on food, neo-Malthusians see broader ecological limits and potential humanitarian disaster from overpopulation, differing from original Malthus by supporting birth control for societal benefit.


Core Beliefs
  • Resource Limits: Population growth will outpace resource availability, not just food, but water, energy, and clean environments.
  • Catastrophic Outcomes:Uncontrolled growth leads to societal breakdown, hunger, poverty, and ecological disaster
    .
    • Urgency: Combating overpopulation is a critical, urgent global problem.




Key Differences from Classical Malthusianism
  • Broader Resources: Extends Malthus's food focus to include pollution, climate change, and other ecological factors.
  • Population Control: Supports birth control (contraception) as a means to improve living standards, unlike Malthus's original opposition.
  • Technological Optimism: Acknowledges technological advances but remains pessimistic that they can overcome fundamental resource limits indefinitely.






Modern Relevance
  • Neo-Malthusian ideas influence discussions on sustainability, climate change, and population policy, often fueling debates about family planning and environmental limits.
 
In some ways it is "real" but the wealthiest of the Neo-Malthusian thinkers are so determined to save the environment of the earth from overly productive American and Canadian blue collar workers that they have resorted to rather drastic measures since well before 1798 when Thomas Malthus wrote up "Malthusian Catastrophe Theory."
No, they don't care a fig about the environment. Their goal is Marxism, they use government environmental rules, and laws, to impoverish the population, and gain power.

"Green is the new red".
 
No, they don't care a fig about the environment. Their goal is Marxism, they use government environmental rules, and laws, to impoverish the population, and gain power.

"Green is the new red".


I believe that you are absolutely correct and I strong suspect that Mr. Bill Gates might well have refused to read the script for "Innovating to zero" if it were not for that nasty footage from Epstein Island?

I suppose the phrase "Chinese Honey Pot" is subject to at least some range in how it can be defined?
 
I believe that you are absolutely correct and I strong suspect that Mr. Bill Gates might well have refused to read the script for "Innovating to zero" if it were not for that nasty footage from Epstein Island?

I suppose the phrase "Chinese Honey Pot" is subject to at least some range in how it can be defined?
Of course. But there are three groups fighting for control, the Marxist globalists, the maoist Chinese, and the fascist islamists.

All three groups are at war with western civilization.
 
Back
Top Bottom