• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, 11 years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Western Provinces of Canada Separate?

Free episodes:

These guys are the greatest. I learn so much from them. Susan Kokinda from Promethean has swiveled my head around the British Imperial System vs the American System (had never been aware of that) and the Anglo-Dutch Banking System - it's amazing. And when these 4 get together for their amiable chats it's the best. I'll post a few more chats just for the fun of it - they are a very breezy and very deep listen.

Published January 11, 2026: [Video Run Time 32:25] CRYPTO RICH POLITICS
"Trump’s Greenland Plan Exposed (ft. Kokinda, Krainer & Luongo) Today, Tom Luongo, Alex Krainer, and Kokinda explain why Trump's move for Greenland isn't just a headline it's a calculated 4D chess move in the Arctic. If you thought our Iran breakdown was deep, wait until you hear their verdict on this."


Alex Krainer's take on NATO is out of whack. NATO was formed as a league of Democratic Nations for the purpose of providing mutual support in the event of an attack on any member nation, and the Soviets were considered the most likely threat for such an attack in the future — and they weren't wrong. Had Ukraine already been in NATO, Russia wouldn't have put one boot on the ground there. Don't believe that? Have a look at what they were doing in Georgia before they hit Ukraine. It was basically a field test for what was to come in Ukraine.

 
Last edited:
Alex Krainer's take on NATO is out of whack. NATO was formed as a league of Democratic Nations for the purpose of providing mutual support in the event of an attack on any member nation, and the Soviets were considered the most likely threat for such an attack in the future — and they weren't wrong. Had Ukraine already been in NATO, Russia wouldn't have put one boot on the ground there. Don't believe that? Have a look at what they were doing in Georgia before they hit Ukraine. It was basically a field test for what was to come in Ukraine.
There's another way of looking at NATO, and that is that it was formed by the British to control America. Because at the end of WW2 there was no reason to fear Russia. They had fought on 'our' side. In fact their losses far exceeded our losses. Russia was not our enemy but the scenario got flipped due to Britain (the death of FDR and the singular voice of Churchill). Trump is ending NATO's Imperial Control.

Through the Marshall Plan America rebuilt Europe and then - by virtue of Europe's finances not being caught up in rearming - it could spend its money on socialist programs and institutions. NATO - in effect - was America being given the role as the policeman of the world, patrolling the waters of the world to make free trade possible and to fight Britains's 'forever wars'.

The American System (vs the British Imperial System) - operative up to WW2 - saw Britain as the enemy, not Russia. In this short video Susan Kokinda goes into detail regarding the War Plan Red of the 1920s.

Published January 12, 2026: [Video Run Time 12:39] Promethean Updates
"In this episode, Susan Kokinda explores the historical and modern implications of War Plan Red, a 1920s U.S. military plan for war against Britain and its proxy, Canada.

"She argues that Donald Trump is reviving this strategic clarity to end 80 years of British influence over American foreign policy, discussing his recent moves regarding Greenland and NATO.

"Kokinda connects this stance to broader economic and political actions Trump is taking to dismantle monopolies and financial cartels, aiming to restore American sovereignty."

TIMESTAMPS
00:00 War Plan Red: The Last Time the Military Knew Our Real Enemy
02:04 NATO Leaders Now Discuss Protecting Greenland FROM the U.S.
05:25 War Plan Red: When America's Military Planned for War Against Britain
07:45 Breaking the Cartels: Trump Takes On Housing, Healthcare, and the Military-Industrial Complex

 
Last edited:
At around 11:00 she says the key phrase: "Trump's moves on Greenland aren't about territorial expansion, they're about ending NATO as an instrument of Imperial Control .... "

[I have to insert this note here because I lost the editing window]
 
There's another way of looking at NATO, and that is that it was formed by the British to control America. Because at the end of WW2

Actually, UK Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin was the driving the concept for a transatlantic alliance against Soviet expansion, supported by Canadian diplomat Lester B. Pearson, who helped draft the treaty, and US Senator Arthur Vandenberg, whose resolution enabled US participation.

there was no reason to fear Russia. They had fought on 'our' side. In fact their losses far exceeded our losses. Russia was not our enemy but the scenario got flipped due to Britain (the death of FDR and the singular voice of Churchill). Trump is ending NATO's Imperial Control.

However The Soviet Union was not a democratic nation. It was a one-party state controlled by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) and, for much of its history, functioned as a totalitarian or authoritarian regime.

Through the Marshall Plan America rebuilt Europe and then - by virtue of Europe's finances not being caught up in rearming - it could spend its money on socialist programs and institutions. NATO - in effect - was America being given the role as the policeman of the world, patrolling the waters of the world to make free trade possible and to fight Britains's 'forever wars'.

I think that's stretching the reality of the situation to accommodate a particular "conspiracy theory" like perspective — of which there are several we could go down e.g. The Illuminati, Rosicrucians, Freemasons, Alien Lizard people and so on.

The American System (vs the British Imperial System) - operative up to WW2 - saw Britain as the enemy, not Russia. In this short video Susan Kokinda goes into detail regarding the War Plan Red of the 1920s.

Published January 12, 2026: [Video Run Time 12:39] Promethean Updates
"In this episode, Susan Kokinda explores the historical and modern implications of War Plan Red, a 1920s U.S. military plan for war against Britain and its proxy, Canada.

"She argues that Donald Trump is reviving this strategic clarity to end 80 years of British influence over American foreign policy, discussing his recent moves regarding Greenland and NATO.

"Kokinda connects this stance to broader economic and political actions Trump is taking to dismantle monopolies and financial cartels, aiming to restore American sovereignty."

TIMESTAMPS
00:00 War Plan Red: The Last Time the Military Knew Our Real Enemy
02:04 NATO Leaders Now Discuss Protecting Greenland FROM the U.S.
05:25 War Plan Red: When America's Military Planned for War Against Britain
07:45 Breaking the Cartels: Trump Takes On Housing, Healthcare, and the Military-Industrial Complex

Oh sure — The war between the USA and UK goes all the way back to the War of Independence. So that's always in the background. The video you included is interesting, but not all there is to the Greenland story. It actually says that Greenland wants to deal directly with the USA — and I don't blame them. The UK is collapsing.
 
I think that's stretching the reality of the situation to accommodate a particular "conspiracy theory" like perspective — of which there are several we could go down e.g. The Illuminati, Rosicrucians, Freemasons, Alien Lizard people and so on.
No conspiracy theory. It is a description of events as the decades played out, acknowledged by innumerable historians of whatever proclivity. America was the lynchpin of NATO that poured its treasure into 'defending' Europe and fighting its wars. Targeting Russia was a British 'thing'.
 
No conspiracy theory. It is a description of events as the decades played out, acknowledged by innumerable historians of whatever proclivity. America was the lynchpin of NATO that poured its treasure into 'defending' Europe and fighting its wars. Targeting Russia was a British 'thing'.
Sure — so are the other "conspiracy theories" ( The plandemic included ). I'm using the phrase "conspiracy theory" very loosely there. Just because such ideas tend to get pushed over into that category, doesn't mean they're not true. In fact, it seems that more often than not, there's more to them than the PTB ( whoever they are ) — want us to know. I just watched one on TUBI called Zeitgeist that uses "descriptions of events that played out" — by those accounts they're just as true. Here's Part 3 as seen on YouTube. It drags on and on — but many relevant points.

 
Last edited:
Our trouble is we do not know history - certainly not recent history, in detail.

Sources:

Christopher M. Bell, 'Thinking the Unthinkable: British and American Naval Strategies for an Anglo-American War, 1918-1931',
The International History Review, Vol. 19, No. 4 (Nov. 1997).

Kevin Lippert, 'War Plan Red: The United States’ Plan to Invade Canada and Canada’s Secret Plan to Invade The United States' (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2015)

Stephen Roskill, 'Churchill and the Admirals'

Ben Wilson, 'Empire of the Deep: The Rise and Fall of the British Navy'



Published January 27, 2019: [Video Run Time 10:02] Historigraph Channel

 
Here's a bit of analysis to do with Canada. I was listening to this when I was jolted awake when Kokinda states at around 27:00 that 'first it's Greenland, the next is Canada." I would recommend listening to the whole first 27 minutes since that will give a lot of context. They are a fun group to listen to and are always worth a listen.

Did you know that from the American perspective Canada IS the Cartel?

Published January 13, 2026: [Video Run Time 36:48] CRYPTO RICH POLITICS Channel
"Susan Kokinda, Alex Krainer & Tom Luongo break down Trump’s [future] trip to Davos and which side he’s really on. Is Trump going to Davos as an America First outsider taking on the globalist elite, or is he joining their agenda? In this explosive panel, we dig into what his visit really means for sovereignty, globalism and the future of US power."

 
Here's a bit of analysis to do with Canada. I was listening to this when I was jolted awake when Kokinda states at around 27:00 that 'first it's Greenland, the next is Canada." I would recommend listening to the whole first 27 minutes since that will give a lot of context.

When it comes to weapons and illicit drug "superlabs" — the USA has more of them inside their own border than Canada, so maybe they ought to clean their own house before making it an excuse to go after Canada.
 
Currently, inter-provincial travel in Canada is a Constitutional right. Separation would eliminate that for Albertans, corralling them into a landlocked country one sixth the size it was before, reducing unrestricted travel across Canada by 88% — without a valid Alberta passport. In other words, we'd need government approved documents just to go to BC for a day trip. That doesn't make Albertans more free at all. Plus it further alienates Albertans from Canada when we should be trying to work-out differences.

Secondly, separatists outside the upper-level corporate offices of the big energy sector, also seem to be under the delusion that all the money currently being shared with the rest of Canada will somehow end-up in their personal bank accounts — It won't. However, it will go into the bank accounts of the big energy companies and their CEOs, 73% of which are foreign based, and 60% of which are American owned.

So in reality, instead of making everyday Albertans more prosperous,.separation would just make it easier for foreign big money makers to syphon Alberta's wealth into their own bank accounts outside Canada while leaving us on the hook to clean-up their giant messes. They've done it in numerous other countries around the world — and they'll do it here too ( they already are ).

So IMO, as someone who was born here in Alberta before all the division and mess caused by big energy — separation is a big con, and I don't mind that the elites have to share their wealth with the rest of the country instead of taking it for themselves. Of course, to those in the big energy sector, I'm a heretic — maybe even an eco-extremist. After all, big energy is safe and clean and effective — right?

Lastly — what about Canadians outside Alberta who think of Alberta as part of their country? Shouldn't they have a say? I might not ever travel to Quebec — but I recognize it as a very important part of Canada and that it would damage our nation if they were to simply claim it was no longer part of Canada. Our sense of national pride and unity is being eroded by these selfish corporate and political interests — and I want no part of that.

I'd like to see Canada stay united and work out problems constructively together — even if leaving might put a few more dollars of some kind or another in my personal bank account.To add— IMO, Premiere Smith's current approach of advocating for Albertans to have the best of both worlds ( A sovereign province within a united Canada ) has the best potential for solving all the problems.

 
The following is not my text - comes from my news feed - just going by that this idea seems to be heating up .... who knows?
Add to this there are posters who think that Saskatchewan and eventually BC will join in ......

***************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Myth: “Alberta could never survive as an independent country. You’re landlocked. You’ll never get your oil to market.”

That argument sounds strong - until you actually look at the leverage Alberta already holds.

Right now, Alberta is landlocked in two ways:
Geography
Policy

We can’t change geography.
But policy? That’s entirely different.

Under Ottawa, Alberta is landlocked by federal laws, regulatory delays, political ideology, and governments openly hostile to resource development. Even when projects are economically viable, nationally beneficial, and globally strategic, they’re blocked, delayed, or strangled in red tape.

That’s policy landlocking.

Independence removes that barrier overnight.

And here’s what most critics ignore:
Alberta isn’t powerless in the geography equation either.

Take British Columbia.
People say, “BC would never let Alberta ship oil through their province.”

Reality check:
The Lower Mainland runs on Alberta fuel.
The Trans Mountain pipeline feeds the Burnaby refinery. That refinery supplies gasoline, diesel, jet fuel - the lifeblood of Vancouver’s economy.
If Alberta fuel stopped flowing, the Lower Mainland would face shortages in roughly four days.
Airports.
Trucking.
Gas stations.
Emergency services.

This isn’t a threat. It’s economic interdependence.

BC needs Alberta energy just as much as Alberta needs Pacific access.
That’s not weakness.
That’s leverage.

Now zoom out.
The Port of Vancouver is Canada’s primary gateway to Asia. The majority of container traffic from Asia lands there and moves east by rail - through the West.

If Alberta were independent and negotiations turned hostile, Canada would suddenly face its own geographic reality:

Trade corridors are mutual.
Energy corridors are mutual.
Rail corridors are mutual.

You don’t get to say “no pipelines” while expecting uninterrupted access to ports, rail, fuel, and infrastructure.

That’s not how sovereign trade negotiations work.

Independence doesn’t isolate Alberta.
It flips the negotiating table.

Instead of pleading with Ottawa to approve infrastructure, Alberta would negotiate directly - as a sovereign energy producer that:

• Supplies fuel to western Canada
• Hosts critical rail corridors
• Produces globally demanded commodities
• Sits between Pacific ports and eastern markets
• Has the economic capacity to expand export infrastructure rapidly
The biggest shift isn’t geography.

It’s bargaining power.

Inside Canada, Alberta has limited leverage. Federal governments can ignore us because political incentives reward blocking development.

As an independent nation, Alberta would negotiate trade access from a position of strength, backed by:

• Energy security leverage
• Transit corridor leverage
• Continental trade relationships with the United States
• Strong fiscal capacity
• Global demand for oil, gas, agriculture, petrochemicals, and critical minerals

And here’s the part critics never address:
Markets want Alberta energy.
The constraint isn’t demand.
It’s federal obstruction.

Independence removes policy landlocking and replaces it with sovereign decision-making.

Would negotiations be tough? Of course.

But the idea that Alberta would have less leverage outside Canada is simply wrong.

Right now we’re landlocked by ideology.

Independence removes that barrier and turns Alberta from a politically constrained province into a strategic energy state negotiating as an equal.

We don’t lose leverage.
We gain it.
Alberta.jpg
 
It all sounds good but Alberta Independence is pure whimsy and simply does not reflect what the majority of Albertans feel regarding their ties to Canada. This is a small minority movement within the electorate and is certainly not affecting other provinces around them. Sure there's disgruntlement within this province, as there is in Quebec. That's nothing new for this young country.

Given the size of Canada and its vast geographical differences, there's some regional angst and disparity everywhere you go. But what binds Canada together are values and ethics that we all hold pretty firm on when it comes to being a multicultural nation that sees nation building as an ongoing process focussed on the diverse needs of peoples across the nation. We redistribute the wealth to support varying needs across the country trying to build a strong safety net for everyone who lives here.

Some of those policies may not sit well with some Albertans who believe they're being hard done by when it comes to transfer and equalization payments but that doesn't mean they want to leave the country.

Canada's future remains bright based on a set of values that has only strengthened who we are as a nation that is still coming to terms with its colonial past but celebrates its immigrant history and the ties that bind us together.

Support for Alberta independence similar to Quebec

Poll shows Alberta Independence. Would make Quebec Exodus Look Minor

Without question, when pressed to it, the majority of Albertans want to stay in Canada and would rather leave Alberta than give up on our nation.
 
The following is not my text - comes from my news feed . . .

None of that outweighs the counterpoint — but at least it tries to do so in a relatively objective way, rather than simply degenerating into emotional cat calls against opponents of separatism. Personally — the biggest driver for me has nothing to do with anything in the article. That's just big energy making a power play to get out from under regulations that would slow down the giant mess they're making while literally siphoning wealth out of the ground in Alberta.

My reason is that the Federal Government illegally invoked The Emergencies Act to violently quell relatively peaceful and legal protests against ( insert forbidden subject here ) — turning Canada into a totalitarian state led by oligarchs in big tech, MSM, and big pharma. Had someone handed me a petition to separate then — I would have signed it in the blink of an eye.

Now — it's still just as bad. Noboady has been held to account, and the PM's unethical tax shelter has been exposed. Of course he's just the tip of a much bigger worldwide iceberg.

 
Last edited:
None of that outweighs the counterpoint — but at least it tries to do so in a relatively objective way, rather than simply degenerating into emotional cat calls against opponents of separatism. Personally — the biggest driver for me has nothing to do with anything in the article. That's just big energy making a power play to get out from regulations that would slow down the giant mess they're making while literally siphoning wealth right out of Alberta.

My reason has to do with how the Federal Government illegally invoked The Emergencies Act to violently quell relatively peaceful and legal protests against ( insert forbidden subject here ) — turning Canada into a totalitarian state led by oligarchs in big tech, MSM, and big pharma. Had someone handed my a petition to separate then — I would have signed it in the blink of an eye.
Are you referring to the blockades at the borders during the trucker protest?

'While the protests were centered in Ottawa, they had spread to various locations, including strategic border crossings such as the Ambassador Bridge in Ontario, the Emerson crossing in Manitoba, and the Coutts crossing in Alberta.
Key details regarding the Emergencies Act and Alberta:
  • The Situation in Alberta: Prior to the invocation, the RCMP in Coutts, Alberta, had seized a cache of firearms, ammunition, and body armour. The investigation led to charges of conspiracy to commit murder against some individuals involved, which the federal government cited as evidence of a threat to national security.
  • Purpose: The Act was used to supplement provincial authorities, specifically to deal with the blockade of critical infrastructure (like the Coutts crossing) and to authorize the freezing of financial assets of participants.
  • Legality Ruling: Although a 2023 inquiry found the use of the Act "appropriate," a 2024 Federal Court ruling—upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal in January 2026—ruled that the invocation of the Emergencies Act was unreasonable and unconstitutional. The courts found that the situation did not rise to the level of a national emergency and violated Charter rights.
Although the Alberta government (under Premier Jason Kenney at the time) was critical of the invocation, the federal government used the Act to address the blockades occurring across Canada, including Alberta."

While perhaps not a national emergency per se I was good with keeping our borders open and stopping those trying to commit murder. There was way too much racism associated with the trucker protest for my liking. I don't think it makes us a totalitarian govt by any means.

What I question is Daniel Smith's use of the notwithstanding clause to jump on the rights of striking workers and trans youth.
 
Are you referring to the blockades at the borders during the trucker protest?

'While the protests were centered in Ottawa, they had spread to various locations, including strategic border crossings such as the Ambassador Bridge in Ontario, the Emerson crossing in Manitoba, and the Coutts crossing in Alberta.
Key details regarding the Emergencies Act and Alberta:
  • The Situation in Alberta: Prior to the invocation, the RCMP in Coutts, Alberta, had seized a cache of firearms, ammunition, and body armour. The investigation led to charges of conspiracy to commit murder against some individuals involved, which the federal government cited as evidence of a threat to national security.
  • Purpose: The Act was used to supplement provincial authorities, specifically to deal with the blockade of critical infrastructure (like the Coutts crossing) and to authorize the freezing of financial assets of participants.
  • Legality Ruling: Although a 2023 inquiry found the use of the Act "appropriate," a 2024 Federal Court ruling—upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal in January 2026—ruled that the invocation of the Emergencies Act was unreasonable and unconstitutional. The courts found that the situation did not rise to the level of a national emergency and violated Charter rights.
Although the Alberta government (under Premier Jason Kenney at the time) was critical of the invocation, the federal government used the Act to address the blockades occurring across Canada, including Alberta."

While perhaps not a national emergency per se I was good with keeping our borders open and stopping those trying to commit murder. There was way too much racism associated with the trucker protest for my liking. I don't think it makes us a totalitarian govt by any means.

The blockades were no worse than the blockades imposed by the Government's ( insert forbidden subject here ) mandates, which prevented cross border travel for those opposed to the ( insert forbidden subject here ) — So I didn't have a problem with them. However, the crackdown also included squads of imported police to clear protesters out of Ottawa as well as freeze bank accounts — including those of passive sympathizers who simply donated in support of the cause.

What I question is Daniel Smith's use of the notwithstanding clause to jump on the rights of striking workers and trans youth.

Unions can be both part of the problem and part of the solution, and the health of "trans-youth" are under the jurisdiction of their parents — not some social movement. In both cases — I think Smith has taken a fair minded approach, and that with few exceptions, those who don't see that, haven't listened so much to what she's actually said, as to the way her critics have spun it.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top