More serious followup:

If you acknowledge that Canada is now home for us, then what suggestions or recommendations do you have in order to resolve this conundrum? First Nations people hold claim to the land, and yet non-First Nations also hold ownership titles to their individual homes and land that way. The reserve system is at best imperfect, and yet any large change in the status quo would result in thousands if not millions of people displaced and dispossessed; you yourself have railed against any type of forced-relocation camps (reserves, internment/concentration camps).

So, what do we do?

We as citizens cant do much because we as a group here even, cant reach the greater population and illuminate them to what is going on, specially with our corrupt banking system.
(By the way, some 5 Canadian Banks have had their rating drop by this Moody's institution last week... like other countries, watch as austerity cuts will be on the horizon. )

So mass protests are kind of out of the question... seeing how even with the occupy movement in which many people knew it had a good cause with how corporations (and their none tariff import goods) are taking away jobs and inflation making people work like slaves (of course nowhere like America's black slave past)... people are still too comfortable compared to the rest of the world to get out of their homes and make a change.

To change the status quo, I really think the first nations struggle could be the answer in which their independence would trickle down for the rest to be somewhat more stably independent.
If the natives of this land have been granted to keep some territory, could the leaders get some kind of support from none western aligned countries to extract any minerals... I would bet some remote lands that the aboriginals hold, could hold diamonds that in reality are not as rare as its reported, but a monopoly is kept around it to keep its value high. Outside mineral geologist will be needed with care for the environment too if things go forward.

These kind of ideas will not go over well with the elites, so by force they'll stop any kind of wealth coming into the hands of the people, specially the small aboriginal population that rightfully claim lots of Canada's land and could re-invest that money for more development.

This stoppage of extraction will then show the true face of our government to more people, local and outside of Canada.

Another tactic, a local one, could be to gather a majority of first nations clan members in which claimed lands like the UBC forest grounds (that have recently been given back after a treaty had expired) to build on... but for some reason, probably money incentive, the leaders decided to keep the grounds intact.
I say fuck that, if a majority can over rule whatever agreements and build a resort or large hotel there... students and tourists world wide would pay good money to stay there and that could be a good cash cow... but I bet the Crowns police would stop this too.

Like I stated before, if the first nations can generate wealth independently, this money would flow to other Canadian businesses just like how B.C.'s 9 billion dollar Marijuana trade money will find its way into local businesses.

This could be a starting point for a long term struggle plan to get more independence from the government.

Other things Canadians can do... this is small time stuff, but try converting peoples front and back yards with perennial (lives for a long time) fruit trees or herbs so that again we are more independent from the system and maybe we can start bartering more like how Craigslist is setup and maybe even some genius can devise an online money credit status system which would take us further away from the devaluing dollar.

In the 1600's, a European king started a money exchange system using whats called tally sticks and this angered the money master that had a monopoly on world banks at the time because they couldn't manipulate the cash.
Its hard to explain its value without knowing how the banking system works and its history but lucky all is easily shown in this 3 hour video where I first found out about it.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936

.

So what is going on?
Mass protests about what? To what end? Protests only help if there is a goal, and I am curious what you believe the proper goal would be.
I can't disagree there.

What kind of struggle? What kind of independence? Again, you're a bit fuzzy, I'm not saying we don't need change, but I'm not sure what kind of change you're advocating. Nelson seems to want revolutionary change (military action), but in that case you'd end up with the wrong end of a gun pointed at you.
They have been granted territory--we've discussed this, and it's the Reserves. Again, admittedly, the Reserve system is massively fubar'd, and if you mean "full development rights" on the reserve land that they have, or in expanding the current reserve areas, I'm not entirely opposed. Again, the question is "how do we do it?" Anyone who currently lives on land that First Nations would like to claim would have to be relocated against their will--and you've repeatedly stated that you're opposed to that. So, again, specifics?

Which elites? Isn't it your supposition that The Elites want to develop the land regardless of who owns it, and as such if it's First Nations who are signing the papers or someone else...they'll still win. So where's the loss in granting more rights to First Nations? Isn't it more logical to assume that First Nations would be more eager to sign contracts and rights in order to stimulate their local economies in order to fund more local development and gain more use of the natural resources themselves?

But perhaps my logic is flawed.

It's interesting that earlier you said that The Elites are opposed to First Nations development, and now that you say First Nations don't want to develop the land. Are you not the one who has repeatedly discussed the respect First Nations have for the land?

Or a stronger position on interdependence--both of us are outsiders commentating on things we have no direct knowledge of. I look forward to giving First Nations the chance to develop and profit from the resources of the land, and I expect they do too.

I don't see how farming is related to First Nations rights issues. Nor how "devaluing the dollar" would be of any assistance either.


Also: as far as your commentary on economics goes, saying that a king in the 1600s planned to have our current system of economics (which is essentially what you're implying) is fairly amusing. The system of economics we use now has been about as planned as a drunk guy stumbling around his own house: stumbling, bumping into things, occasionally falling down a little (or a lot) but still moving to the washroom. And hopefully not dying on the way.



And yes, I realize I did cut out some of the stuff you mentioned, but as I and others have repeatedly said in this thread, we should focus on First Nations issues. Of course everything is interrelated in some way or another, but this isn't the thread for that.

Were you born in Canada, or did you emigrate from Iran to Canada?

Just curious.

Props to you for returning to this thread, not many people will continue a discussion when the position they take is in an extreme minority.

Few land claims would result in substantive displacement.

One portion of First Nations people pursue land claims for the monetary benefit of owning natural resources. The reasoning given to dispel the appearance of outright greed is that the injection of funds would help uplift the troubled state of First Nations people. Nelson takes this position, and that's why he's willing to go to war over pipelines.

The other portion of First Nations people pursue land claims to maintain stewardship of ecosystems, which is in part motivated by the desire to continue to practice traditional lifestyles and also by the general desire to protect the land.

Surrey was once the location of some of the richest agricultural land on earth, but it's been so heavily seeded by human development it will never again support much life. That makes the land of no especially significant value to First Nations people looking to act as stewards. It's also not the location of billions of dollars in fossil fuel resources. The lack of billions of dollars in resources rule out the significant monetary value a successful land claim has to the other group of First Nations people. Most all large population centers fit the profile of Surrey, so First Nations land claims have minimal interference with the majority of non-First Nations land claims. The point of conflict really only exists when resources get involved, and that's just about money and short term jobs.

Honestly, when it comes down to stewardship and resource rights, I am definitely on the First Nations' side. And it's my understanding that you're right--very few land claims would result in mass displacement, but (and maybe this is just my misunderstanding) it seems as though CiC is in a general sort of way advocating the mass exodus of all non-ancestral Canadians.

I'm one of those people who feels that the people whose genes have been sequenced in order to create new therapies should be owed some small royalties of the profits netted by the pharmaceutical companies, so on that same vein I absolutely believe that one should be able to exercise full rights over what you control--be it land or bodies. So resource rights? Stewardship rights? Hells yes.

I agree, CiC seems to believe all non-First Nations people should either GTFO or pay First Nations people rent for living on ancestral lands. I might be misunderstanding, but that appears to be his position distilled.

I believe all humans are stewards of the Earth, and that unless we decide to give up on Earth altogether and start work on terraforming Mars, we as a society need to become far better stewards in the very near future. First Nations culture views the land differently from other cultures, so in the short term, I believe these communities make the most effective stewards and can earn that title through land claims. Of course, that's just my very personal take.

Thanks and I was born in Iran.

Nope, you have a sea of text before you to prove otherwise.

:lol This is by far the best thread this year. Hey Arash, do you mind giving us an in depth explanation of who our Zionist rulers are?

Not at all, call be brain washed but here is how I put the puzzle together.

In Ancient times we have

http://i.imgur.com/AXMEP.jpg

hmmm, someones knocking at the door :suspicious:

Wait, how do we know you're not sent by the real rulers to put blame on zionists and detract us from finding out the truth?

Or you could very well be a zionist agent yourself. I don't know if I trust you man.

Advocating money and food independence works against being at the mercy of our lords.

I forgot to mention that the "Rothchilds" factually setup Isreal and the modern term Zionist embodies who is in power.
If the little state of Isreal nuked Russia or China, you can bet nukes will be retaliated against Europe and the US.

No, no, no...

You have such limited insights in some instances, it's mind boggling.

You need to start reading and comparing various scholarly sources of history, instead of just accepting what is presented by tinfoilhat.com as truth.

Before you suggested, Jews were the only group who committed usury and that's why they were expelled from Europe.

Now you're also suggesting, Jews crucified Jesus, because he advocated against usury.

That is NOT accurate.

Catholics have been heavily involved in usury for ever.

The Catholic Church didn't actually prohibit usury until 1437, and even after that, a 2000 florin "fine," absolved you of any wrong doing for a full year.....

The wealthiest families in Europe were bankers, and they all loaned money, and they all had considerable influence over the Catholic Church....

I suggest money changers killed Jesus not Jews as a whole... and it was supposedly the only time Jesus got angry and flip over their tables in business.

I would also like to point out that ethnic Jews were never expelled from Isreal so people that may have been doing unsound business could have been converts or a small number of Jewish business men.
http://electronicintifada.net/conten...-ideology/7753

I have read that supposedly even American officials in the old days banned people of this religion from doing business for unfair trading... so its not just that it was their religion that got them in trouble as you claim.

Lastly if high powered people were practicing usury in Europe, wouldnt small business men that also did the same be in competition to them, thus expelling any one from their background stopped this.

Ethnic Jews were expelled from Europe in various stages, it was not a select group of corrupt businessmen who were persecuted.

Christians were taught to hate Jews because they belonged to a different religion. Pagans received the same treatment.

I guess Im wanting a more scholarly answer like they were expelled because Jews would convert Christians or that they didnt want people practicing false gods in their eyes.

Credible sources of study would be good too.

A peer-reviewed, scholarly answer.