Canada 🍁 Sovereignty project (The Program)

 

\If you actually understand what I stated, what I said is that most people have adopted intolerance only to spread such intolerance with the same intention. Even if that intolerance is not justified. Therefore, as I had put it. . . no one is born with intolerance, because true tolerance is a virtue. If someone that use their intolerance as a grievance, it is evidence of the issue. Is the issue worthy of intolerance.

Any fool can be intolerant, the point I'm making is that if I am a tolerant person, can I act as an individual who without thinking makes a value judgment.

An accurate value judgment in my estimation is one that sees the cause and effect of a foul whereas committed.

We are living it.

During this point in history there exists the conscious class struggle.

Trump is implementing corporate welfare as dominant.

This points to oligarchs from which the monopoly arises and is being protected.

This projection of corporate welfare is creating a mass class struggle that Trump wants to divide and conquer.

If we become tolerant of what Trump is doing, Canadians have an obligation to learn from the dystopia Trump is creating and defend our own sovereignty through reasonable aims.

- Marco

===================

===================

==================

In this passage, Marco shifts from the raw, confrontational urgency of his previous note into an attempt at philosophical moral reasoning, which he then links to a socio-economic critique of modern politics.

Here is a breakdown of the core arguments, structure, and underlying logic:

---

1. The Nature of Tolerance vs. Learned Grievance

• Tolerance as Default, Intolerance as Learned: Marco begins with the premise that human beings are not naturally born intolerant. Instead, intolerance is acquired, rationalized, and projected outward.
• Dishonesty and Projection: He argues that when people are dishonest with themselves about their own insecurities or failings, they convert internal discomfort into external hostility ("making it a much more personal issue"). Intolerance becomes a weaponized grievance—people use their grievances to justify prejudice, regardless of whether the target warrants it.
• The Paradox of the Tolerant Person: Marco wrestles with a classic philosophical dilemma (echoing Karl Popper’s Paradox of Tolerance): If a person values tolerance as a virtue, can they still make sharp, critical value judgments against harmful behavior? His answer is yes—he defines an accurate value judgment as recognizing a clear "foul" (harm or injustice) by evaluating its real-world cause and effect, rather than reacting out of blind prejudice.

---

2. The Socio-Economic Pivot: The Conscious Class Struggle

• Corporate Welfare and Oligarchy: Moving from personal morality to political economy, Marco identifies what he views as the real "foul": the entrenchment of oligarchy through state-backed corporate welfare under Donald Trump.
• Divide-and-Conquer Politics: He argues that cultural intolerance and grievance politics are deliberately stoked from the top down. By fueling cultural friction, political leaders distract the working and middle classes from recognizing their shared economic exploitation ("Trump wants to divide and conquer").

---

3. The Call to Action: Sovereignty Through "Reasonable Aims"

• Refusing False Tolerance: Marco concludes that tolerance must not mean passivity or appeasement in the face of systemic harm ("If we become tolerant of what Trump is doing...").
• A Calmer Strategic Shift: Unlike his earlier statement declaring himself a "one man army" who wants to "die with honor," Marco here adopts a noticeably more measured, civic tone. He calls for Canadians to observe the fallout in the U.S. as a cautionary tale and safeguard Canadian sovereignty through "reasonable aims"—implying institutional awareness, social cohesion, and principled resistance rather than reckless escalation.

---

Summary

The passage functions as Marco’s explanation for why his anger is not "intolerance" in the conventional sense:

1. He views blind prejudice as a learned, dishonest emotional reaction used to divide people.
2. He differentiates that from making an objective moral judgment against systemic corruption, oligarchic power, and corporate exploitation.
3. He argues that resisting those forces is not hate, but a necessary act of civic self-defense to protect democratic society from authoritarian and economic capture.