TCC
Well-known
- YouTube
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
www.youtube.com
Sun political columnist Brian Lilley talks with Steve Bannon, former advisor to President Donald Trump. Bannon explains the importance of Canada to Trump, and how it ties in with the Panama Canal and Greenland.
23 Minute Video
. . . . .
@Margery was thinking of you dear sister when viewing this. I believe this is likely accurate in Trump's reasoning. He did say on Ingram that he saw Canada as needing to be the 51st state of the US. But for that to happen a ton of things would have to fall into place. Trump would see Poilievre as somewhat rogue to deal with because of his stance against Trump's overture to the 51st state language. One thing that i have noticed, which is huge on a Trump list is: Who can Trump trust to work with?
This idea of discovery in the USA is primarily an exercise to weed out the establishment types because there are a lot of republicans that have allegiance to globalism. So being able to detect who those players are would be overall important to Trump. But then there is also a different layer. A layer of who might not be globalistically aligned but perhaps too ideological for their own good, or ideologically too outside the sphere of where Trump would see things need to shift to. On that one i would say Poilievre qualifies. A man that would want to help his country. But might be too close to his own ideology to make room for geopolitical shifts associated with how America is positioned to move. This would make sense. Whereas Poilievre may be far more patriotic wanting to put Cananda first during a time Canada would of necessity, instead of in compliance with geopolitical regional shifts to protect America.
Now this really makes sense (per the Bannon interview). In other words, Poilievre might have too much focus on Canada while not considering the greater importance of partnering with USA geopolitical ventures to secure overall trade routes. Now this also makes sense but does on its face sound selfish. Would it be true that to put Cananda first would literally mean putting America first in securing geopolitical regions, perhaps?
Without the geopolitical infrastructure it would appear Trump is after for US protection, Canada would not have America as much of an ally over time. Which would position Cananda as more under the influence of Europe or China. These are kind of the bigger issues that seem to co-exist in our day and age with how to understand the impact other nations might have on America or the West should certain measure not be taken seriously. Therefore, what seems to be up for grabs is this: Will the West be wise enough to secure geopolitical arenas to head off future threats that would impact having substantive sovereignty in the region? It looks like it comes down to that. In that case scenario, if America is not considered with enough esteem (in America's legitimate role in securing regional infrastructure), then the ability for Cananda to be strong on its own to withstand how foreign influence might gather against democracy in general will not have as much support.
So all in all, it would seem to be an indicator of our day and age. Not having forward thinking about this might well put democracies in the future under immense pressure and weakness. To not foresee this encroaching danger would be a dangerous ideology to have even if it seemed very conservative. So to me it makes sense that Trump would have issues with Poilievre, because Poilievre's knee-jerk reaction to US tariffs (placed for negotiations to occur) suggested Poilievre to be perhaps understood by Trump as grandstanding. Like wanting to protect Canada first instead of realizing that because of current American economics, using worldwide tariff strategy is necessary to counter balance central banking globalist power plays against the USA. To not recognize that nor consider America's necessary role in that theater, is to kind of be in the way of reducing overall globalist central banking infrastructure. To only see it as how Canada feels about it and start a fight with America (that has a leg up on being able to actually challenge central banking globalist strategy), can tend to label oneself as a rogue element that is not on board with what America has to do if it is to offset globalist power structure. If this is something that would need to be explained to Poilievre, it is anyone's guess how Poilievre might be able to work with all that.
From what i understand, it would be like a do-gooder that means well, but inserts themselves perhaps in things all over the place that prevents general greater over all needed changes. But instead draws more attention to their own do-gooder station and agenda. While the greater issue is globalist worldwide threat. In this way, it would be easier to work with someone like Carney that is already manipulatable. Because Carney is part of the devil you know that you are proactively involved in taking down. And will work out his own demise at it washes out. One of the biggest hurdles in overcoming the Hegelian Dialectic syndrome view in evangelicals would be the huge blind spot in how Trump does have a skill of helping his adversaries create their own quicksand pit to drown in. There are many examples of this. But if you are able to see more clearly the highway to good tidings in world economics, it is a given your selfish enemy will be short sited by the sheer notion that they are not looking at things through holistically responsible eyes. But selfish tunnel vision desire. So the immature ones in those scenarios would by nature of their alignment to folly will tend to build their tombs. In my estimation, I believe the 4 years between Trump presidencies was strategy of this Calibur. America had to go through it first. We had to see Biden admin clearly demonstrate their failed system to America to actually want Trump admin ideas to help. Trump without support = no Trump. The people have to behind him. In light of that there may be less time for Canada to rival back and forth. For it would seem that Poilievre would get like a Trump 45 type term. And that, for Cananda, would be a delay of the inevitable perhaps. Where instead it would seem that the advantage momentum against globalism is with America. To somewhat not align with that, would be like Church denominations fighting each other along the way not being able to be the best witness corporately but jockeying for "best denomination" status.
Not saying that that is great for Cananda, that Carney build his own tomb while running Cananda. But if it is already a piece of moving machinery the overall strategist knows better how to collapse, it is wiser to take them for that ride. One you are already collapsing. I see this different than an interest in wanting to collapse Canada to take it over. But rather political strategy to help Cananda become a greater working part of downing globalist overarching reach. If that might make sense? In any event, i'd be curious as to your thoughts on this when you have a chance.
Blessings dear sister. 
