Tim Pettit✓

@Tim_Pettit_

Husband. Father. Family law, strata law, litigation. Lover of the outdoors: it needs to be protected. Comments not legal advice. UEL. Neutral good. 🇨🇦🇨🇦

3K Following3.3K Followers46.4K Posts
  1. Tim Pettit✓@Tim_Pettit_
    Decolonization of BC. This is perhaps the most important election issue and, interestingly, its not being talked about. By "decolonization" I mean the various measures taken by the NDP to transfer land, money and power from the Province to indigenous groups. The Haida Agreement is an excellent example of this: - transfer of all provincial public lands in Haida Gwaii to the Haida; - transfer of provincial powers to the Haida in Haida Gwaii including the recognition of "Haida Law"; - continuation of provincial obligations in Haida Gwaii such as provision of schools and hospitals; and, - Haida claims for damages against BC including loss of fee simple lands continue unextinguished; Mr. Eby described the Haida Agreement as a template for the rest of BC: The Haida Agreement covers about 1% of BC but the Haida are but one band of just over 200. Thus, the 'template' in fact covers about 200% of BC, ie. more land than BC has proportionally. Many say that the private lands in Haida Gwaii are protected by the Haida Agreement. But they are covered by aboriginal title and the Agreement has a mechanism whereby the private lands are gradually absorbed into the Haida territory. And, again, the taxpayer will have to pay for them to remain (for now) in private hands. Then add in DRIPA with its clear and clearly unworkable aboriginal veto: Article 19 of UNDRIP. This basically requires the Province to co-govern with all of BC's indigenous groups. Thus, you have Mr. Eby's vision for BC: decolonized, dismantled, diminished. It is a BC whereby the vast majority of public lands are controlled by indigenous groups, where private lands are slowly absorbed into indigenous lands, where non-indigenous people have less access to public lands (see Joffre Lakes) and receive no royalties from resource development on same but shoulder the burden of the province's taxes and social programs, and where indigenous legal systems spring up to regulate interactions in most of the province but where non-indigenous people have no say in those laws or their administration. It is a BC where the Province loses its say in how to govern, regulate, or administer its public lands and can't even pass zoning regulations on condo buildings on aboriginal land in BC cities or prevent industrial uses on BC lakes, rivers or forests. It is a BC where the Province must pass laws and administrative measures with the free, prior and informed consent of any band affected by such a law or measure. That is the Eby vision for BC and it is shared by both his caucus and the Green party. The seeds of this future lie in the obvious outcomes of the Haida Agreement and DRIPA. Many if not most British Columbians perhaps do not see it and, indeed, there is much progressive misinformation spun to prevent them from seeing it. But, if one looks, it is there to be seen. I suspect most British Columbians, if they understood this future, would not want this future. The only way to avoid this future is to not vote NDP or Green.
    811593679.6K
  2. Tim Pettit✓@Tim_Pettit_
    Well now Ontarians can share the joy of aboriginal title claims. Constitutional amendments anyone?
    Mr Bench @therealmrbench
    Canada and Ontario vs Six Nations of the Grand River in court. Indians / First Nations / Indigenous claim they have a right to billions if not trillions in compensation. Report from CBC Indigenous
    004140
  3. Mr Bench✓@therealmrbench
    Canada and Ontario vs Six Nations of the Grand River in court. Indians / First Nations / Indigenous claim they have a right to billions if not trillions in compensation. Report from CBC Indigenous
    Download
    10933638.9K
  4. Tim Pettit✓@Tim_Pettit_
    Tim Pettit
    RT @koicows: @VoteYYJWilliams Can you imagine any person, let alone leader… publicly saying you didn’t want people of a certain label to exist? wow 🤯
    0106
  5. Tim Pettit✓@Tim_Pettit_
    Tim Pettit
    RT @Tim_Pettit_: @hbird1955 @tboyblues Yup. So every BC law must be consistent with Article 19. Thus every BC law must be amended to incorporate the Article 19 veto as appropriate.
    010120
  6. Tim Pettit✓@Tim_Pettit_
    If the Indian Act is racist legislation (it is in fairness), why do Indigenous folk resist its repeal?
    Rebel News Canada @RebelNews_CA
    An Indigenous youth advocate on the Indian Act: "We will not be assimilated into Canadian culture." She claims "Harper gave his playbook over to Mark Carney to assimilate us, but it won't work."
    132271.7K
  7. Rebel News Canada✓@RebelNews_CA
    An Indigenous youth advocate on the Indian Act: "We will not be assimilated into Canadian culture." She claims "Harper gave his playbook over to Mark Carney to assimilate us, but it won't work."
    Download
    5915818770.5K
  8. Tim Pettit✓@Tim_Pettit_
    Posts @Tim_Pettit_
    @zecentralized @KarlDHarrison @LDoerkson Is there a specific agreement you say our ancestors made? That said, I can tell you my ancestors never made any agreements with the Musqueam. Though I suspect you are speaking loosely.
    00129
  9. Tim Pettit✓@Tim_Pettit_
    Well there’s a way to motivate the federal government to consider constitutional amendments to section 35…
    Rebel News @RebelNewsOnline
    Wet'suwet'en hereditary chief Na'moks calls Carney's Indian Act comments "a distraction." Chief Allan Adam on Bill C-5 and C-39: "We will tie you up in the courts for the next 20 years if you're going to go with major development without our consent."
    4233889
  10. Rebel News✓@RebelNewsOnline
    Wet'suwet'en hereditary chief Na'moks calls Carney's Indian Act comments "a distraction." Chief Allan Adam on Bill C-5 and C-39: "We will tie you up in the courts for the next 20 years if you're going to go with major development without our consent."
    Download
    2905617652.6K
  11. Tim Pettit✓@Tim_Pettit_
    Tim Pettit
    RT @Tim_Pettit_: Disagree. You are basically ignoring the words I quoted to you. You would be correct if the phrase I quoted was not present. But it is and must be given meaning. This is your interpretation: “States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions before adopting or implementing legislative or administrative measures.” I agree. That’s not a veto. But when you put back in the missing phrase it is.
    010181
  12. Tim Pettit✓@Tim_Pettit_
    Tim Pettit
    RT @Tim_Pettit_: @hbird1955 @tboyblues “… in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing…” That’s the part that’s the veto.
    030200
  13. Tim Pettit✓@Tim_Pettit_
    Tim Pettit
    RT @brivael: This post reminds me of a conversation I had last week with a friend. He told me he was on the left. Proudly. Fine by me. So I dug a little. I asked him: "Have you ever seriously looked into economics? Because anyone who studies it in good faith, without intellectual dishonesty, will have a hard time staying on a Marxist line." His answer stopped me cold: "My entire social circle is on the left. If I'm not on the left, I'll be excluded." Not "I read the arguments and they convinced me." Not "the data supports it." "I'll lose my friends." That's the whole problem in one sentence. His politics aren't a conclusion. They're a membership card. And that's exactly what our schools stopped teaching. Too busy passing down an ideology instead of a method, they skipped the one skill that makes every other skill worth something: critical thinking. The ability to put your own beliefs on trial. To follow an argument where it leads, even when it costs you socially. Being on the left isn't the problem. You can be left, right or center and still be intellectually honest. The problem is never testing your views. Staying in pure emotion. Choosing belonging over truth. When that becomes the norm at scale, you get a sick society. One that would rather collectively accept decline than individually admit it might be wrong. A society that can't question itself can't fix itself. Teach kids how to think. Not what to think.
    Elon Musk @elonmusk
    Critical thinking should be the first thing taught to kids
    061705
  14. Elon Musk✓@elonmusk
    Critical thinking should be the first thing taught to kids
    12.3K37.5K217K33.8M
  15. Tim Pettit✓@Tim_Pettit_
    Tim Pettit
    RT @brivael: Sarah Knafo est à la politique ce qu'Elon Musk est à l'entrepreneuriat. Et je pense que ça va devenir le nouveau standard. Pas par goût. Par nécessité. Dans un podcast elle a dit quelque chose comme ça : "Quand j'écoute Macron, j'ai l'impression de voir une intelligence qui n'est pas connectée au réel. Une intelligence brillante, verbale, capable de tout justifier. Mais qui tourne à vide. Les mots ne touchent jamais le sol." Elon dit l'inverse depuis 20 ans. La physique est la loi, tout le reste n'est qu'une recommandation. Il a même fait de la recherche de la vérité la mission de xAI : construire l'IA la plus "truth-seeking" possible. Ce n'est pas un slogan, c'est une méthode. Une fusée qui ment explose. Une batterie qui ment prend feu. Le réel ne négocie pas. Et c'est exactement ce qui est en train de changer pour tout le monde. Avec l'IA, on entre dans une période de l'humanité où mentir ne sert plus à rien. Le clientélisme, le discours calibré pour plaire, dire aux gens ce qu'ils veulent entendre : tout ça avait un rendement. Ce rendement s'effondre. Les gens le sentent. Ils peuvent vérifier n'importe quoi en dix secondes, et surtout, ils voient les conséquences arriver de plus en plus vite. Parce que tout s'accélère. Et quand tout s'accélère, on voit enfin les effets des causes premières. Le socialisme, la dette, le gaspillage, l'État qui promet tout et ne livre rien. Avant, les conséquences mettaient une génération à apparaître et personne n'était jamais tenu responsable. Aujourd'hui, la boucle de feedback se referme sous nos yeux. Le succès de Sarah Knafo s'explique par trois choses très simples. Elle est smart. Elle est connectée au réel. Elle est dans la recherche de la vérité. Ça paraît évident. C'est en réalité extrêmement rare dans la classe politique française. Elle parle de chiffres, de mécanismes, de causes et d'effets. Elle ne se demande pas "est-ce que ça sonne bien ?", elle se demande "est-ce que ça marche ?". C'est ça, l'esprit critique : quand on vous dit quelque chose, vous regardez si ça fonctionne ou si ça ne fonctionne pas. Elle est en train de faire un reset de ce que veut dire "faire de la politique". Exactement comme Elon a fait un reset de ce que veut dire "construire une boîte". Marc Andreessen décrit très bien la méthode Elon. Chaque semaine, il débarque dans chacune de ses boîtes, identifie le plus gros problème du moment, descend voir les ingénieurs qui sont dessus et le règle avec eux. Puis il recommence la semaine suivante. 52 fois par an. Et Ben Horowitz résume la condition : il faut quelqu'un capable de tenir tous les sujets d'ingénierie de l'entreprise dans sa tête en même temps. Ce standard va devenir obligatoire. Demain, il sera impossible de scaler une boîte si vous n'avez pas une connaissance profonde de ce qu'elle fait réellement et une curiosité insatiable. Le CEO qui pilote des slides et délègue la compréhension va se faire dépasser par des équipes de dix personnes armées d'IA qui, elles, savent exactement ce qu'elles construisent. Même chose en politique : celui qui gère sa com au lieu de comprendre le pays va se faire démasquer en temps réel. Pourquoi maintenant ? Parce que l'IA accélère tout. Y compris la vitesse à laquelle les mensonges se paient. Un système fondé sur des mensonges finit toujours dans le mur. Ça a toujours été vrai. Ce qui change, c'est le délai. Le socialisme à la française, un gouvernement qui empile les déficits en expliquant que tout va bien, un audiovisuel public comme France TV qui fabrique un récit plutôt que de décrire le réel : avant, ces systèmes pouvaient tenir 20 ou 30 ans sur leur propre inertie. Ce temps-là est fini. Le mur arrive beaucoup plus vite. Le monde qui vient va récompenser une seule chose : la capacité à voir le réel tel qu'il est, et à agir dessus. Ceux qui cherchent la vérité vont gagner. Les autres vont simplement découvrir que le réel avait raison.
    071806
  16. Tim Pettit✓@Tim_Pettit_
    Tim Pettit
    RT @KarlDHarrison: @LDoerkson needs to be very clear about what has been going on. His proposed audit is a great idea. Friend of mine high up in a B.C. resource company told me that Eby insisted on trade missions to China including “chiefs”. The Chinese were, I’m told, very confused about who they were particularly when they pulled out the inevitable head garb. They were running around telling the Chinese about how their tribes control all the land in B.C. and how they need to get their draw from anything that happens in our province etc etc The chiefs brag and boast about how they have made UNDRIP into law. It’s time for this nonsense to stop and to stop quickly. #RepealDRIPA @elevatereport
    Sam Cooper @scoopercooper
    "So we have to move beyond this very parochial notions of the government of Canada and British Columbia when it comes to indigenous land rights." Grand Chief Ed John with the First Nations Summit helped create the action plan. "What we've seen in the past in our trips to China ... is that industry groups do present in China, but they present their views and we've seen governments present their views, but there was no one out their telling our stories," he said. "Chinese authorities as well as the Chinese peoples are largely unaware of indigenous peoples, much less the rights of indigenous peoples." John said the strategy educates Chinese investors about the legal interests First Nations have in their traditional territories. Yuen Pau Woo with the Asia Pacific Foundation believes the strategy will streamline trade between China and Canada in the areas of energy, fisheries and forestry. +
    0708
  17. Sam Cooper✓@scoopercooper
    "So we have to move beyond this very parochial notions of the government of Canada and British Columbia when it comes to indigenous land rights." Grand Chief Ed John with the First Nations Summit helped create the action plan. "What we've seen in the past in our trips to China ... is that industry groups do present in China, but they present their views and we've seen governments present their views, but there was no one out their telling our stories," he said. "Chinese authorities as well as the Chinese peoples are largely unaware of indigenous peoples, much less the rights of indigenous peoples." John said the strategy educates Chinese investors about the legal interests First Nations have in their traditional territories. Yuen Pau Woo with the Asia Pacific Foundation believes the strategy will streamline trade between China and Canada in the areas of energy, fisheries and forestry. +
    2315143217.4K
  18. Tim Pettit✓@Tim_Pettit_
    Tim Pettit
    RT @timthielmann: The problem British Columbia faces is that we have already given the Chiefs everything that they want. And so the only real options are to bribe them again, a short term fix, which just tightens the noose, or to fight them. I don’t mean that literally of course. Doerksen will be tempted to listen to his liberal advisors and do what Christy Clark did which was bribe them – the largest payouts we had ever seen in exchange for pipeline consents. Or he can draw a line in the sand and basically apologize for the false promises of the past, return control to the people of this province, and reestablish democratic governance. that doesn’t mean giving up on indigenous people here. he can pledge to deal with the actual problems holding back first nations communities. And that is the perpetuation of historic grievances which perpetuates victim culture rather than the rewarding of those who overcome cycles of abuse and dependence. Financial and political support would focus not on those who complain the loudest, but on communities that create goods and services that are valuable to their own communities and the broader British Columbian public.
    Odessa Orlewicz @OdessaOrlewicz
    WAR Declared By BC's Indigenous If DRIPA Is Repealed- Which Was Promised By The BC Conservative Government.
    09505
  19. Odessa Orlewicz✓@OdessaOrlewicz
    WAR Declared By BC's Indigenous If DRIPA Is Repealed- Which Was Promised By The BC Conservative Government.
    Download
    698143449157K
  20. Tim Pettit✓@Tim_Pettit_
    Tim Pettit
    RT @Tim_Pettit_: Agree that DRIPA and s 35 rights are different and repealing DRIPA doesn’t impact on s 35 rights. Don’t agree that repealing DRIPA necessarily leads to expensive litigation. Indeed, its repeal may assist in avoiding bad deals for B.C. Frankly I suspect that expensive litigation is a result of court decisions on aboriginal title and related issues, while well intentioned, that are entirely unsustainable and frankly not consistent with the core precepts of a liberal democracy.
    0201
  21. Tim Pettit✓@Tim_Pettit_
    Tim Pettit
    RT @brivael: Yesterday I was talking with a guy who worked at the European Commission. He told me their project was perfectly on track. That immigration isn't a problem. And what struck me most wasn't the sentence itself. It's that he genuinely believed it. That's the real issue. These people aren't lying to you knowingly. They're so disconnected, so deeply fed by the system that formed them, that they live in a parallel world. A world of reports, panels, summits and press releases. A world where reality is whatever the institutions say it is. Remember: captured institutions no longer describe reality. They prescribe it. And people like him live inside the prescription. They never step out of it. They never see the street, the town, the neighborhood that changed in ten years. And when they do, they already have the words ready to explain why what they're seeing isn't really there. That's what a fake world is. Not a lie told by people who know the truth. A lie believed by the very people telling it. And that's exactly why it's going to collapse. Because you can lie to people for a very long time. You can't lie to reality. Hayek explained it. The USSR proved it. The polls are confirming it. A system that can no longer see reality can no longer correct itself. And a system that can no longer correct itself has already started dying. The people in Brussels think history is on their side. They're living in the same illusion the Politburo had in 1985. The parallel world always ends the same way: the day it collides with the real one. So stop asking yourself if you're crazy for seeing what you see. You're not. You're just one of the people still living in the real world.
    Brivael Le Pogam @brivael
    We live in a completely fake world. And that's why everything feels chaotic. Why everything around us is burning. Let's start with one number. In 1972, 7 out of 10 Americans trusted the mainstream media. In 2025, only 28% did. The lowest Gallup has ever measured in half a century. Nearly 7 out of 10 Americans no longer believe what they're told on TV. Have you ever asked yourself why? Not "because people became conspiracy theorists." Not "because of social media." The real reason is that people feel an increasingly violent gap between what they're told and what they see with their own eyes. And that gap is not an accident. It's the product of a war between two camps. On one side, those who want to preserve reality: nations, cultures, borders, heritage. On the other, the globalist camp. And you need to understand its project in full. First, a world without borders. Not just physical borders. All borders. Between nations, between cultures, between what belongs to you and what belongs to everyone. And at the end of the chain, between true and false. Second, the hybridization of every culture. They sell it to you as openness, richness, diversity. But a culture is precisely a border. A language, a memory, customs, a way of life that isn't your neighbor's. When you blend everything together, you don't get a super-culture. You get the absence of culture. A consumable, interchangeable mush with no roots. And look closely at which culture you're asked to "deconstruct." Never anyone else's. Always Western culture. Its history, its religion, its family, its heroes. The end goal of the project isn't blending. It's the erasure of the West as a civilization. Now, the point almost nobody understands. Most of the leaders carrying this project never thought it up. They designed nothing. They are products. They went through the same schools, the same universities, the same think tanks, the same newsrooms, the same dinners. The system trained them, selected them, promoted them. They recite a script they mistake for their own thinking. You don't need a conspiracy when everyone was cast from the same mold. They're puppets, but sincere puppets. That's exactly what makes them dangerous. And that mold has a history. It has an intellectual architect: Antonio Gramsci. Gramsci, an Italian Marxist, writes in the 1930s from Mussolini's prisons. He makes an observation: in the West, the workers' revolution failed. Why? Because here, power doesn't rest only on the state and the police. It rests on culture. On schools, universities, the press, the Church, the arts. What he calls cultural hegemony. His conclusion: you don't take the West by frontal assault. You take it through a war of position. You conquer minds, language and institutions first. Political power then falls on its own. In the late 60s, German activist Rudi Dutschke summed up the strategy in one phrase: the long march through the institutions. Fifty years later, look at the universities. Look at the major newsrooms. Look at the NGOs, the international agencies, the HR departments, Hollywood. The march is over. The institutions have been captured. And that's when you understand why the world feels fake. When the institutions that are supposed to tell you the truth become the instruments of a project, they no longer describe reality. They prescribe it. Then, in the middle of this system, one man stood up against it. Elon Musk. He understood before anyone else that the heart of the machine is control of information. So he did the one thing that could truly crack it: he bought Twitter for $44 billion. He opened the Twitter Files and showed the world how moderation worked from the inside. He gave millions of people their voice back. And that's why he backed Trump. Not out of affection. Out of strategic clarity. Because Trump isn't a program. Trump is an antibody. The immune response of a social body that someone tried to dissolve. When a civilization senses it's being erased, it produces antibodies. They're rough, imperfect, loud. But they're proof the organism is still alive. Trump is the antibody to the empire of lies. But here's the good news. This project is doomed. Not just because we'll fight it. Because it carries the same flaw as every communist system, and it will end the same way. This isn't the communism of collective farms. It's the communism of norms, cultures and identities. But the structure is identical: an elite that believes it can redesign society from the top down. And Friedrich Hayek explained 80 years ago why that always fails. Reason one: the knowledge problem. The knowledge that makes a society run isn't in anyone's head. It's scattered across millions of individuals, in millions of local situations. No planner, no committee, no elite can gather it. Markets work because prices aggregate that knowledge. The Plan fails because it claims to replace it. Reason two, and this is where Hayek becomes prophetic: traditions, cultures and moral codes are knowledge too. Compressed knowledge. Centuries of trial and error, rules nobody invented but that survived because they worked. Hayek calls it the fatal conceit: believing that the reason of a handful of men can redesign what millennia have selected. Destroying a culture doesn't free people. It erases the memory that allowed them to live together. Reason three: the dynamics of lying. When the Plan collides with reality, it can't admit its mistake. So it needs propaganda, to make people believe the Plan's goals are their own. And it needs coercion, for those who refuse to believe. In The Road to Serfdom, Hayek devotes an entire chapter to this: The End of Truth. And another with a crystal-clear title: Why the Worst Get on Top. In a system that has to lie to survive, the best liars rise. That's the loop. Reality resists. You lie to hide the failure. The lie demands more control. Control produces more failure. Until collapse. That's exactly what you're living through today. The world feels fake because it is. The chaos you see isn't the end of the world. It's the noise a system of lies makes when it crashes into reality. The USSR lasted nearly 70 years. It collapsed all at once, without a war, because nobody believed Pravda anymore. Today, nearly 7 out of 10 Americans no longer believe their media. You see where I'm going with this. Reality always wins. The only question is how long we're willing to live inside the lie before we look it in the face.
    077709
  22. Brivael Le Pogam✓@brivael
    We live in a completely fake world. And that's why everything feels chaotic. Why everything around us is burning. Let's start with one number. In 1972, 7 out of 10 Americans trusted the mainstream media. In 2025, only 28% did. The lowest Gallup has ever measured in half a century. Nearly 7 out of 10 Americans no longer believe what they're told on TV. Have you ever asked yourself why? Not "because people became conspiracy theorists." Not "because of social media." The real reason is that people feel an increasingly violent gap between what they're told and what they see with their own eyes. And that gap is not an accident. It's the product of a war between two camps. On one side, those who want to preserve reality: nations, cultures, borders, heritage. On the other, the globalist camp. And you need to understand its project in full. First, a world without borders. Not just physical borders. All borders. Between nations, between cultures, between what belongs to you and what belongs to everyone. And at the end of the chain, between true and false. Second, the hybridization of every culture. They sell it to you as openness, richness, diversity. But a culture is precisely a border. A language, a memory, customs, a way of life that isn't your neighbor's. When you blend everything together, you don't get a super-culture. You get the absence of culture. A consumable, interchangeable mush with no roots. And look closely at which culture you're asked to "deconstruct." Never anyone else's. Always Western culture. Its history, its religion, its family, its heroes. The end goal of the project isn't blending. It's the erasure of the West as a civilization. Now, the point almost nobody understands. Most of the leaders carrying this project never thought it up. They designed nothing. They are products. They went through the same schools, the same universities, the same think tanks, the same newsrooms, the same dinners. The system trained them, selected them, promoted them. They recite a script they mistake for their own thinking. You don't need a conspiracy when everyone was cast from the same mold. They're puppets, but sincere puppets. That's exactly what makes them dangerous. And that mold has a history. It has an intellectual architect: Antonio Gramsci. Gramsci, an Italian Marxist, writes in the 1930s from Mussolini's prisons. He makes an observation: in the West, the workers' revolution failed. Why? Because here, power doesn't rest only on the state and the police. It rests on culture. On schools, universities, the press, the Church, the arts. What he calls cultural hegemony. His conclusion: you don't take the West by frontal assault. You take it through a war of position. You conquer minds, language and institutions first. Political power then falls on its own. In the late 60s, German activist Rudi Dutschke summed up the strategy in one phrase: the long march through the institutions. Fifty years later, look at the universities. Look at the major newsrooms. Look at the NGOs, the international agencies, the HR departments, Hollywood. The march is over. The institutions have been captured. And that's when you understand why the world feels fake. When the institutions that are supposed to tell you the truth become the instruments of a project, they no longer describe reality. They prescribe it. Then, in the middle of this system, one man stood up against it. Elon Musk. He understood before anyone else that the heart of the machine is control of information. So he did the one thing that could truly crack it: he bought Twitter for $44 billion. He opened the Twitter Files and showed the world how moderation worked from the inside. He gave millions of people their voice back. And that's why he backed Trump. Not out of affection. Out of strategic clarity. Because Trump isn't a program. Trump is an antibody. The immune response of a social body that someone tried to dissolve. When a civilization senses it's being erased, it produces antibodies. They're rough, imperfect, loud. But they're proof the organism is still alive. Trump is the antibody to the empire of lies. But here's the good news. This project is doomed. Not just because we'll fight it. Because it carries the same flaw as every communist system, and it will end the same way. This isn't the communism of collective farms. It's the communism of norms, cultures and identities. But the structure is identical: an elite that believes it can redesign society from the top down. And Friedrich Hayek explained 80 years ago why that always fails. Reason one: the knowledge problem. The knowledge that makes a society run isn't in anyone's head. It's scattered across millions of individuals, in millions of local situations. No planner, no committee, no elite can gather it. Markets work because prices aggregate that knowledge. The Plan fails because it claims to replace it. Reason two, and this is where Hayek becomes prophetic: traditions, cultures and moral codes are knowledge too. Compressed knowledge. Centuries of trial and error, rules nobody invented but that survived because they worked. Hayek calls it the fatal conceit: believing that the reason of a handful of men can redesign what millennia have selected. Destroying a culture doesn't free people. It erases the memory that allowed them to live together. Reason three: the dynamics of lying. When the Plan collides with reality, it can't admit its mistake. So it needs propaganda, to make people believe the Plan's goals are their own. And it needs coercion, for those who refuse to believe. In The Road to Serfdom, Hayek devotes an entire chapter to this: The End of Truth. And another with a crystal-clear title: Why the Worst Get on Top. In a system that has to lie to survive, the best liars rise. That's the loop. Reality resists. You lie to hide the failure. The lie demands more control. Control produces more failure. Until collapse. That's exactly what you're living through today. The world feels fake because it is. The chaos you see isn't the end of the world. It's the noise a system of lies makes when it crashes into reality. The USSR lasted nearly 70 years. It collapsed all at once, without a war, because nobody believed Pravda anymore. Today, nearly 7 out of 10 Americans no longer believe their media. You see where I'm going with this. Reality always wins. The only question is how long we're willing to live inside the lie before we look it in the face.
    1055861.8K83.1K
  23. Tim Pettit✓@Tim_Pettit_
    Tim Pettit
    RT @CNDinshorts: Aaron, great questions and to the second point - “Replace it with what?” Here’s a concrete proposal to have that constructive conversation, objectively and openly. A three-to-five-year national transition. A defined budget. A clear destination. Equal citizenship. 1. Sunset the Indian Act, and similar programs and policies, and transition its race-based administrative structures. Establish a finite, publicly accountable funding envelope, clear milestones, and a target of three to five years. Protect essential services throughout the transition to full conclusion. 2. Create self-governing Native communities and regional districts. Transition reserve lands into a modern framework of local government and secure fee-simple ownership. Communities could manage their affairs, build businesses, attract investment, and join provincial municipal associations alongside other mayors and communities. 3. Make land decisions transparent and evidence-based. Any proposed expansion must be justified by demonstrable need, fair valuation, and clear criteria, not ancestry or historical use alone. Give residents of the affected community and neighboring communities a meaningful vote on proposed land additions. If an expansion is rejected, the community can move forward with its existing land base and pursue future purchases under the applicable provincial rules. Consider the Okanagan Indian Band: its seven reserves cover approximately 11,282 hectares, or 113 km², according to its own website. That deserves an objective discussion about population, geography, housing needs, economic viability, and the best use of land, not assumptions in either direction. 4. Negotiate final agreements. Federal, provincial, and community representatives must address existing treaties, outstanding claims, land arrangements, and obligations through lawful negotiations. Establish a finite transition budget, transparent reporting, and a clear end state rather than leaving disputes unresolved or open indefinitely. 5. Put constitutional reform to Canadians. Within the transition period, launch a national education process, including mandatory, fact-based Grade 12 civics education, and a national referendum seeking a public mandate on proposed constitutional changes, including Sections 25 and 35. Any resulting amendments must then follow the applicable constitutional procedures and involve the required governments and Indigenous representatives. The objective is to move beyond permanent status-based administration and toward equal civic status under a common framework, while preserving culture, history, and heritage. This is evolution, not erasure. Communities would retain the freedom to preserve their heritage, establish cultural and conservation areas within their new boundaries as fee simple villages, towns, and municipalities, and develop their local identities. But government should be transparent, funding accountable, land decisions evidence-based, and legal obligations resolved completely and fully. We also need to listen to the people living in these communities. Are public funds delivering measurable results? Are local residents seeing the benefits? Are current arrangements creating opportunity and independence? Those questions deserve honest answers, not assumptions or endless announcements. It's time for one country. Equal citizenship, local ownership, accountable government, and a funded transition with a deadline. @Aaronpete_, this is what replacing the existing framework could look like. Let's put a practical proposal on the table and invite Canadians and the communities directly affected to scrutinize it, improve it, and decide the way forward.
    0108
  24. Tim Pettit✓@Tim_Pettit_
    Tim Pettit
    RT @Tim_Pettit_: @RussDiabo Hmmm. So the B.C. Legislature isn’t allowed to do its main job which is to pass, amend and repeal legislation?
    0401.9K
  25. Tim Pettit✓@Tim_Pettit_
    Tim Pettit
    RT @GeoffRuss3: Following their historic landslide victory, the BC Conservatives have secured a majority government. Yet beyond the legislature, the NDP continue to control nearly every public body, from ICBC to BC Ferries, filling key positions with their own appointees. Without holding government, the NDP still command the state apparatus. They have never been the province's 'natural governing party', but if allowed to maintain their institutional footprint, they will come to be seen as the norm rather than the exception. If the @Conservative_BC intend to undo the last decade, they must purge these partisans, shrink the government payroll, and reform the public sector. Policy is essential, but political power is decisive, and without broader institutional control, the new government will be left managing a hostile bureaucracy. My latest for @WDiminishment - Link Below.
    015705
  26. Tim Pettit✓@Tim_Pettit_
    Tim Pettit
    RT @Tim_Pettit_: @MelissaMbarki The endpoint of Reconciliation must be equality. No more special rights to anyone. Anything else isn’t reconciliation of wrongs but simply repetition of wrongs. New wrongs but wrongs nevertheless.
    040962
  27. Tim Pettit✓@Tim_Pettit_
    Great article @RobShaw_BC I still think there are further elements such as the seeming war the Eby government was waging against the integrity and existence of the Province itself. That is unique in our political history and suggests a dark and destructive element to the modern NDP.
    Rob Shaw @RobShaw_BC
    The @bcndp left 2 years of majority gov on the table, in part because of a caucus, cabinet and party that refused to stand up to a sinking leader and start the process of finding a new one. Instead, he drove the party off a cliff. My latest in @BIVnews:
    310542K
  28. Rob Shaw✓@RobShaw_BC
    The @bcndp left 2 years of majority gov on the table, in part because of a caucus, cabinet and party that refused to stand up to a sinking leader and start the process of finding a new one. Instead, he drove the party off a cliff. My latest in @BIVnews:
    558252546.5K
  29. Show more posts