Signs of the Collectivist Apocalypse (SOTCA)

More rights ≠ More liberty

More rights ≠ More Freedom

More rights = A wrong

We are quickly sliding into the realm of a 'rights' tyranny. With every new "right" concocted by our hypersensitive, overly judicious, politically correct, namby-pamby nanny state, someone else looses a right.

Your right to ensure that the people you hire will do what it was that they were hired for in the first place is contravened by someone else's right to disobey and mooch. (H/T to Ezra)

Your right to free speech is contravened by someone else's (Syed Soharwardy) right to not be "offended".

Your right to have an opinion and express it is contravened by someone else's right to not have it published (McLeans Magazine & Mark Stein).

Your right to call someone an ass for being an ass is contravened by his right to not have his feelings hurt. (Kate at SDA vs. Richard Warman)

Your right to property is contravened by someone else's right to lay claim to that property (Caledonia).

Your right to protect the beliefs you hold dear is contravened by someone else's right to do what your belief tells you is sinful and immoral (Priest charged for Preaching that homosexuality is a sin).

So much for the freedom our rights were supposed to provide, but hey, NONE of our rights were ever guaranteed.

From our glorious illiberal ill-conceived and poorly legislated Charter of 'rights and freedoms'

(4) Subsections (2) and (3) do not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration in a province of conditions of individuals in that province who are socially or economically disadvantaged if the rate of employment in that province is below the rate of employment in Canada.

(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

25. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including

a) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and
b) any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.

26. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.

Our Revolution

Looking at the current race for the White house, I am struck by how "small" the candidates really are. Small ideas, petty infighting between the two Democratic contenders and small historical "footprints". The resumes of the two Democratic contenders are very thin, and even John McCain's legislative achievements are not particularly notable, except for the very confusing and almost unworkable McCain–Feingold Act.

Look at the vision that President Ronald Reagan had of America and the world, and ask yourself are the current candidates even in the same league? (Ask yourself the same questions about Canadian politicians as well).

Below is the text of Ronald Reagan's farewell address to the nation after his eight years as president, delivered in the Oval Office on January 11, 1989.

This is the 34th time I'll speak to you from the Oval Office and the last. We've been together eight years now, and soon it'll be time for me to go. But before I do, I wanted to share some thoughts, some of which I've been saving for a long time.

It's been the honor of my life to be your president. So many of you have written the past few weeks to say thanks, but I could say as much to you. Nancy and I are grateful for the opportunity you gave us to serve.

One of the things about the presidency is that you're always somewhat apart. You spend a lot of time going by too fast in a car someone else is driving, and seeing the people through tinted glass — the parents holding up a child, and the wave you saw too late and couldn't return. And so many times I wanted to stop and reach out from behind the glass, and connect. Well, maybe I can do a little of that tonight.

People ask how I feel about leaving. And the fact is, "parting is such sweet sorrow." The sweet part is California, and the ranch and freedom. The sorrow — the goodbyes, of course, and leaving this beautiful place.

You know, down the hall and up the stairs from this office is the part of the White House where the president and his family live. There are a few favorite windows I have up there that I like to stand and look out of early in the morning. The view is over the grounds here to the Washington Monument, and then the Mall and the Jefferson Memorial. But on mornings when the humidity is low, you can see past the Jefferson to the river, the Potomac, and the Virginia shore. Someone said that's the view Lincoln had when he saw the smoke rising from the Battle of Bull Run. I see more prosaic things: the grass on the banks, the morning traffic as people make their way to work, now and then a sailboat on the river.

I've been thinking a bit at that window. I've been reflecting on what the past eight years have meant and mean. And the image that comes to mind like a refrain is a nautical one — a small story about a big ship, and a refugee and a sailor. It was back in the early '80s, at the height of the boat people. And the sailor was hard at work on the carrier Midway, which was patrolling the South China Sea. The sailor, like most American servicemen, was young, smart, and fiercely observant. The crew spied on the horizon a leaky little boat. And crammed inside were refugees from Indochina hoping to get to America. The Midway sent a small launch to bring them to the ship and safety. As the refugees made their way through the choppy seas, one spied the sailor on deck and stood up and called out to him. He yelled, "Hello, American sailor. Hello, freedom man."
A small moment with a big meaning, a moment the sailor, who wrote it in a letter, couldn't get out of his mind. And when I saw it, neither could I. Because that's what it was to be an American in the 1980s. We stood, again, for freedom. I know we always have, but in the past few years the world again, and in a way, we ourselves rediscovered it.

It's been quite a journey this decade, and we held together through some stormy seas. And at the end, together, we are reaching our destination.

The fact is, from Grenada to the Washington and Moscow summits, from the recession of '81 to '82, to the expansion that began in late '82 and continues to this day, we've made a difference. The way I see it, there were two great triumphs, two things that I'm proudest of. One is the economic recovery, in which the people of America created — and filled — 19 million new jobs. The other is the recovery of our morale. America is respected again in the world and looked to for leadership.

Something that happened to me a few years ago reflects some of this. It was back in 1981, and I was attending my first big economic summit, which was held that year in Canada. The meeting place rotates among the member countries. The opening meeting was a formal dinner for the heads of government of the seven industrialized nations. Now, I sat there like the new kid in school and listened, and it was all Francois this and Helmut that. They dropped titles and spoke to one another on a first-name basis. Well, at one point I sort of leaned in and said, "My name's Ron." Well, in that same year, we began the actions we felt would ignite an economic comeback — cut taxes and regulation, started to cut spending. And soon the recovery began.

Two years later another economic summit, with pretty much the same cast. At the big opening meeting we all got together, and all of a sudden, just for a moment, I saw that everyone was just sitting there looking at me. And one of them broke the silence. "Tell us about the American miracle," he said.

Well, back in 1980, when I was running for president, it was all so different. Some pundits said our programs would result in catastrophe. Our views on foreign affairs would cause war. Our plans for the economy would cause inflation to soar and bring about economic collapse. I even remember one highly respected economist saying, back in 1982, that "the engines of economic growth have shut down here, and they're likely to stay that way for years to come." Well, he and the other opinion leaders were wrong. The fact is, what they called "radical" was really "right." What they called "dangerous" was just "desperately needed."

And in all of that time I won a nickname, "The Great Communicator." But I never thought it was my style or the words I used that made a difference: It was the content. I wasn't a great communicator, but I communicated great things, and they didn't spring full bloom from my brow, they came from the heart of a great nation — from our experience, our wisdom, and our belief in principles that have guided us for two centuries. They called it the Reagan revolution. Well, I'll accept that, but for me it always seemed more like the great rediscovery, a rediscovery of our values and our common sense.

Common sense told us that when you put a big tax on something, the people will produce less of it. So, we cut the people's tax rates, and the people produced more than ever before. The economy bloomed like a plant that had been cut back and could now grow quicker and stronger. Our economic program brought about the longest peacetime expansion in our history: real family income up, the poverty rate down, entrepreneurship booming, and an explosion in research and new technology. We're exporting more than ever because American industry became more competitive and at the same time, we summoned the national will to knock down protectionist walls abroad instead of erecting them at home. Common sense also told us that to preserve the peace, we'd have to become strong again after years of weakness and confusion. So, we rebuilt our defenses, and this New Year we toasted the new peacefulness around the globe. Not only have the superpowers actually begun to reduce their stockpiles of nuclear weapons — and hope for even more progress is bright — but the regional conflicts that rack the globe are also beginning to cease. The Persian Gulf is no longer a war zone. The Soviets are leaving Afghanistan. The Vietnamese are preparing to pull out of Cambodia, and an American-mediated accord will soon send 50,000 Cuban troops home from Angola.

The lesson of all this was, of course, that because we're a great nation, our challenges seem complex. It will always be this way. But as long as we remember our first principles and believe in ourselves, the future will always be ours. And something else we learned: Once you begin a great movement, there's no telling where it will end. We meant to change a nation, and instead, we changed a world.

Countries across the globe are turning to free markets and free speech and turning away from ideologies of the past. For them, the great rediscovery of the 1980s has been that, lo and behold, the moral way of government is the practical way of government: Democracy, the profoundly good, is also the profoundly productive.

When you've got to the point when you can celebrate the anniversaries of your 39th birthday, you can sit back sometimes, review your life, and see it flowing before you. For me there was a fork in the river, and it was right in the middle of my life. I never meant to go into politics. It wasn't my intention when I was young. But I was raised to believe you had to pay your way for the blessings bestowed on you. I was happy with my career in the entertainment world, but I ultimately went into politics because I wanted to protect something precious.

Ours was the first revolution in the history of mankind that truly reversed the course of government, and with three little words: "We the people." "We the people" tell the government what to do, it doesn't tell us. "We the people" are the driver, the government is the car. And we decide where it should go, and by what route, and how fast. Almost all the world's constitutions are documents in which governments tell the people what their privileges are. Our Constitution is a document in which "We the people" tell the government what it is allowed to do. "We the people" are free. This belief has been the underlying basis for everything I've tried to do these past eight years.

But back in the 1960s, when I began, it seemed to me that we'd begun reversing the order of things — that through more and more rules and regulations and confiscatory taxes, the government was taking more of our money, more of our options, and more of our freedom. I went into politics in part to put up my hand and say, "Stop." I was a citizen politician, and it seemed the right thing for a citizen to do.

I think we have stopped a lot of what needed stopping. And I hope we have once again reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.
Nothing is less free than pure communism, and yet we have, the past few years, forged a satisfying new closeness with the Soviet Union. I've been asked if this isn't a gamble, and my answer is no because we're basing our actions not on words but deeds. The detente of the 1970s was based not on actions but promises. They'd promise to treat their own people and the people of the world better. But the gulag was still the gulag, and the state was still expansionist, and they still waged proxy wars in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

Well, this time, so far, it's different. President Gorbachev has brought about some internal democratic reforms and begun the withdrawal from Afghanistan. He has also freed prisoners whose names I've given him every time we've met.

But life has a way of reminding you of big things through small incidents. Once, during the heady days of the Moscow summit, Nancy and I decided to break off from the entourage one afternoon to visit the shops on Arbat Street — that's a little street just off Moscow's main shopping area. Even though our visit was a surprise, every Russian there immediately recognized us and called out our names and reached for our hands. We were just about swept away by the warmth. You could almost feel the possibilities in all that joy. But within seconds, a KGB detail pushed their way toward us and began pushing and shoving the people in the crowd. It was an interesting moment. It reminded me that while the man on the street in the Soviet Union yearns for peace, the government is Communist. And those who run it are Communists, and that means we and they view such issues as freedom and human rights very differently.

We must keep up our guard, but we must also continue to work together to lessen and eliminate tension and mistrust. My view is that President Gorbachev is different from previous Soviet leaders. I think he knows some of the things wrong with his society and is trying to fix them. We wish him well. And we'll continue to work to make sure that the Soviet Union that eventually emerges from this process is a less threatening one. What it all boils down to is this. I want the new closeness to continue. And it will, as long as we make it clear that we will continue to act in a certain way as long as they continue to act in a helpful manner. If and when they don't, at first pull your punches. If they persist, pull the plug. It's still trust but verify. It's still play, but cut the cards. It's still watch closely. And don't be afraid to see what you see.

I've been asked if I have any regrets. Well, I do. The deficit is one. I've been talking a great deal about that lately, but tonight isn't for arguments. And I'm going to hold my tongue. But an observation: I've had my share of victories in the Congress, but what few people noticed is that I never won anything you didn't win for me. They never saw my troops, they never saw Reagan's regiments, the American people. You won every battle with every call you made and letter you wrote demanding action. Well, action is still needed. If we're to finish the job, Reagan's regiments will have to become the Bush brigades. Soon he'll be the chief, and he'll need you every bit as much as I did. Finally, there is a great tradition of warnings in presidential farewells, and I've got one that's been on my mind for some time. But oddly enough it starts with one of the things I'm proudest of in the past eight years: the resurgence of national pride that I called the new patriotism. This national feeling is good, but it won't count for much, and it won't last unless it's grounded in thoughtfulness and knowledge.

An informed patriotism is what we want. And are we doing a good enough job teaching our children what America is and what she represents in the long history of the world? Those of us who are over 35 or so years of age grew up in a different America. We were taught, very directly, what it means to be an American. And we absorbed, almost in the air, a love of country and an appreciation of its institutions. If you didn't get these things from your family, you got them from the neighborhood, from the father down the street who fought in Korea or the family who lost someone at Anzio. Or you could get a sense of patriotism from school. And if all else failed, you could get a sense of patriotism from popular culture. The movies celebrated democratic values and implicitly reinforced the idea that America was special. TV was like that, too, through the mid-'60s

But now, we're about to enter the '90s, and some things have changed. Younger parents aren't sure that an unambivalent appreciation of America is the right thing to teach modern children. And as for those who create the popular culture, well-grounded patriotism is no longer the style. Our spirit is back, but we haven't reinstitutionalized it. We've got to do a better job of getting across that America is freedom — freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of enterprise. And freedom is special and rare. It's fragile; it needs protection.

So, we've got to teach history based not on what's in fashion but what's important: Why the Pilgrims came here, who Jimmy Doolittle was, and what those 30 seconds over Tokyo meant. You know, four years ago on the 40th anniversary of D-Day, I read a letter from a young woman writing of her late father, who'd fought on Omaha Beach. Her name was Lisa Zanatta Henn, and she said, "We will always remember, we will never forget what the boys of Normandy did." Well, let's help her keep her word. If we forget what we did, we won't know who we are. I'm warning of an eradication of the American memory that could result, ultimately, in an erosion of the American spirit. Let's start with some basics: more attention to American history and a greater emphasis on civic ritual. And let me offer lesson No. 1 about America: All great change in America begins at the dinner table. So, tomorrow night in the kitchen I hope the talking begins. And children, if your parents haven't been teaching you what it means to be an American, let 'em know and nail 'em on it. That would be a very American thing to do.

And that's about all I have to say tonight. Except for one thng. The past few days when I've been at that window upstairs, I've thought a bit of the "shining city upon a hill." The phrase comes from John Winthrop, who wrote it to describe the America he imagined. What he imagined was important because he was an early Pilgrim, an early freedom man. He journeyed here on what today we'd call a little wooden boat; and like the other Pilgrims, he was looking for a home that would be free.

I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it and see it still.

And how stands the city on this winter night? More prosperous, more secure, and happier than it was eight years ago. But more than that; after 200 years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true on the granite ridge, and her glow has held steady no matter what storm. And she's still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home.

We've done our part. And as I walk off into the city streets, a final word to the men and women of the Reagan revolution, the men and women across America who for eight years did the work that brought America back. My friends: We did it. We weren't just marking time. We made a difference. We made the city stronger. We made the city freer, and we left her in good hands. All in all, not bad, not bad at all.

And so, good-bye, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin weighs in:

I found this set of quotes on the Canadian Republic blog. A nice summary of what we are up against, and how Progressives intend to extinguish this Dominion of Canada and our rights and freedoms:

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin quotes:

While the State exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no State.

The bourgeoisie is many times stronger than we. To give it the weapon of freedom of the press is to ease the enemy's cause, to help the class enemy. We do not desire to end in suicide, so we will not do this.

A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie.

The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.



It is time to fight back!

We'll either die free or we die trying.

Let a million boycotts bloom

The idea of boycotting the 2008 Summer Olympics has been raised in the Blogosphere and the MSM over China's outrageous conduct in Tibet. The fact that this conduct has been ongoing for decades should be no surprise to anyone, but China has received a pass until now for many reasons.

China's growth as a regional power has benefited us in the West. In the 1970's, they provided a potent counterbalance to the USSR, allowing the Western powers to maintain growing and vigorous economies in the face of Soviet power, rather than developing a full wartime economy with all the deprivations and dangers that would imply. The USSR's wartime economy paid to subjugate its empire and face against the Western alliance and China.Unable to sustain these expenditures, the USSR collapsed, ending the Cold War.

China's economic growth, powered as it is by supplying the West with inexpensive consumer goods has reduced the inflationary pressure that the huge growth of government in the West creates, allowing a large fraction of the population to maintain middle class lifestyles that otherwise would be unobtainable. (Only massive cuts in government taxation and spending would achieve the same result) The proliferation of inexpensive goods also powers the rise of the "big box" retail segment of the economy; providing jobs and opportunities to millions of people with limited prospects across North America.

But these goods for us are only temporary and situational. China wants the world to respect her and treat her as "The Middle Kingdom" (in the Chinese world view, the centre of the Universe), and uses foreign trade and currency as tools to achieve her goals. The Olympics are a giant propaganda fest for the Chinese, and they had seen it as their global "coming out party" to take their place on the world stage.

Given the strong incentives to maintain the status quo, Western government will not institute a full boycott of the 2008 Olympics. There will be the usual hand wringing and statements to mollify the masses, but the games will go on and China will attempt to capitalize on this opportunity.

Freedom, like Free Speech, is really a self help project. While the Presidents and Prime Ministers of the world talk about Tibet and China's human rights record, we the people can take concrete and effective actions starting now to change things.

First off, look at your purchases. What do you really need that is made in China? While it may be impossible to completely eliminate Chinese goods and services from your shopping list or portfolio, you can certainly cut down on your financial contributions to China's war chest. Retailers will respond to lessened demand by dropping or substituting Chinese products with ones from other sources.

Second, directly ask your retailers to substitute Indian goods for Chinese goods. India is cost competitive with China, but shares many of the values of Freedom, Property Rights and Rule of Law with Canada and other Western nations. We can maintain the benefits of low cost consumer goods and support our friends at the same time.

Third, let all your media outlets know you will not be watching, listening to or reading about the Olympic games. Let all their advertisers know as well. Limiting the coverage of the Olympics also limits the ability of China to send their spin over the air. The media will respond to threats to their viewer ship and advertising monies by airing other shows and covering something else.

If one million Canadians were to do this it would have a huge impact. One million people is a market share too big for any Canadian retailer to ignore, and their behavior and purchasing decisions would have to change because of the actions of you, the readers. If big and small retailers shift their purchasing away from China, it will start to hurt the Middle Kingdom in the pocket book. Even minor layoffs in China have the potential to create ripples of unrest, and for a brittle society like China, that is something the Communist Party cannot allow.

The cost to you is low, the risk is minimal, but the potential payoff is immense. If Chinese behaviour can be curbed in Tibet, then their intransigence and hostility towards the West in other areas (such as their support for the murderous regime in the Sudan, or human rights violations within China) will also be defanged; we can maintain the boycott until we are satisfied with their behaviour, and no one has to wait for the politicians.

Act now. Free Tibet.

HRC debate going mainstream

The ongoing battle for the right to free speech in Canada has finally leaked from the Blogosphere and is starting to enter the mainstream of consciousness through the MSM. Ezra Levant lists several stories in this post, and sees evidence of an organized counter offensive by HRC's to state their case in the media and defend their positions of power and privilege, which is an expected response.

Reading Levant's post and following the links reveals how far we have fallen in this Dominion of Canada; the senior HRC officers who speak for the HRC's have such weak and ineffectual arguments and apply the power of the State in such nonproductive ways that they are essentially conceding there is no actual purpose being served by them. At the same time they betray a colossal arrogance, presuming to override the laws of Canada at their whim and bypassing existing procedural and judicial process to do so and bristling with offence when their activities are exposed for inspection and questioning.

Once you read this, I would encourage readers to look at Ezra Levant's entire site for detailed descriptions of how the HRC operates as a Star Chamber; allowing blatant conflict of interest and collusion between "complainants" and "investigators", manipulating or creating "evidence" and so on. Mark Steyn, another Canadian author under attack by the HRC has a great deal to say on his site as well, as well as Connie and Mark Fournie.

You too can have a say, go to this site and look up you Member of Parliament. They need to hear from their constituents that HRC's have no purpose in a Liberal Democracy under the Rule of Law, and should be disbanded. Get writing.

I will give Ezra the last word as to why we all need freedom of speech to protect us from the arbitrary power of the State:

I know a little bit about South Africa and the end of Apartheid. It happened because of the decision by the white minority to relinquish power. That decision came about because of a relatively free debate -- a debate in which "offensive" ideas, like the equality of all races, was permitted in the main. There was some censorship, of course -- and, of course, that censorship was used by the Apartheid government to muzzle its more rambunctious critics. And that's the point: weak and powerless people often have no other remedy besides free speech. It was the case with the suffragette movement in the 1920s, with the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s, and the anti-Apartheid movement in South Africa in the 1980s.

Dion: "Next Election About the Environment"

Yeah.

Stick with what you know?

Except that the closest DeYawn ever got to doing anything about the environemnt was naming a pet.

And then there's this...

"At the next election, it's unavoidable that the environment, climate
change, the green revolution we need to make, will be at the core of the
campaign,"

Hmmm, wouldn't this lead to the Libs going head to head with the Greens? A veritable battle of Titans! I can see it now, a political cage match between Dion and May. Like watching Pee Wee Herman mud wrestle Rosie O'Donnell for a bag of low fat, soy infused organic rice cakes.

905 Call 911

The Liberal Party of Toronto.

"But that building and rebuilding also requires a party to speak to
Canadians about Canada. The Liberals speak to Torontonians about
Liberals."

Signs of the Collectivist Apocalypse (SOTCA)

It is obvious to anyone who reads Atlas Shrugged, that throughout it, the policies and programs undertaken by the ubiquitous Thompson government and the so called Peoples States, combined with the altruistic and nihilistic tendencies of anti-heroes like James Taggart and Wesley Mouch are leading to the final destruction of society. Indeed the book culminates in a collectivist apocalypse and the escape of the heroes and heroine to Galt’s Gulch.

Like the canary in the mineshaft I seek to warn you all that we may be looking at the same fate somewhere down the road.

So just to keep tabs on the situation I introduce a recurring theme to Uncommon Sense, a chirp here and there which I will call…

Signs of the Collectivist Apocalypse (SOTCA)

My first entry is about the US Treasury and a sweeping power grab by its new Head

The regulatory blueprint proposes eventually vesting new powers in the Federal Reserve as a "market stability regulator" -- effectively formalizing a role the central bank already has adopted recently by expanding the list of financial firms which can borrow directly.

It would give the Fed authority to demand that all financial system participants supply it with full information on their activities and grant the Fed a right to collaborate with other regulators in setting rules for their behavior.

Woosh!!! Super Finance Cop to the rescue!

Hold on a sec... Weren't these the same guys that were at least partially responsible for the sub-prime fiasco? Foxes in Hen houses anyone?

The great Cash and Cars Giveaway

Or How Dalton Made us all Pay

WINDSOR, Ont. - Ford of Canada will use a $17-million investment from the Ontario government as part of a $168-million plan to reopen the Essex engine plant in southwestern Ontario, but the company warned Monday it will not expand the project further without direct participation from the federal government.

Excellent Dalton McSquirmy throwing good money after bad, just to be threatened by the Ford company that it will all be for naught if they don't get more!!!

It's almost like he wants to be the Premier of a have not province...

Liveleak strikes back.

** 30/3/2008: Liveleak Update **

On the 28th of March LiveLeak.com was left with no other choice but to remove the film "fitna" from our servers following serious threats to our staff and their families. Since that time we have worked constantly on upgrading all security measures thus offering better protection for our staff and families. With these measures in place we have decided to once more make this video live on our site. We will not be pressured into censoring material which is legal and within our rules. We apologise for the removal and the delay in getting it back, but when you run a website you don't consider that some people would be insecure enough to threaten our lives simply because they do not like the content of a video we neither produced nor endorsed but merely hosted.

The movie is back up.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7d9_1206624103

Hey! Islamofascists, UP YOURS!

Fitna Update.

The vast majority of responses I've read to this movie waiver between a relieved sigh that the movie is not as provocative as feared, and insinuating that Geert Wilders is trying to provoke the violence that they fear.

My question, and the question that every rational person should be asking is; Is there anything in the film that is not true?

The answer is of course, no. So why defend the indefensible?

The fact is the people calling on us to not provoke are saying that we (the west) should just ignore the problem. They believe that if we just shut up and don't mention the fact that these people have sworn to butcher each and every one of us then everything will be okay. They seem to believe that we should ignore the Jihadists warnings because the possibility of them living up to their murderous ideal is so slim? They want us to spew inoffensive politically correct platitudes till we reek in the hope that the terrorists will suddenly like us.

Where have I heard of that policy being forwarded before?

Oh, I remember, only then the slogan wasn't "Don't provoke" it was "Peace in our time."

Breaking the power of the Progressives

The thing that I can't understand is that in the polls both Conservatives and Liebrils are very close to being tied. What could it possibly take for these people to see that party for what it is?

This interesting question was posed on Army.ca, but I'm sure many people on both sides of the fence are asking that very question, and wondering how to change these numbers for their own benefit.

The past strength of the Liberal Party resides in the fact that many powerful groups benefit from the growth and implementation of "Progressive" ideology (i.e. government and quasi government unions, bureaucracies, government companies like the CBC and farmers and businesspeople who have discovered how to milk the system). These interest groups will go to very great lengths to maintain their hold on power. The Liberal Party and their beneficiaries have also discovered how to manipulate the population, using the promise of social programs to bribe the voters, inversion of language to disguise concepts (think about what "progressive taxation" really means, for example), and the use of ad hominem arguments and contrived scandals to suppress or eliminate debate on various topics. Controlling institutions like schools, the media and the courts also ensures things go the way "they" want. Progressives attempt to control the input, the dialogs and the output, just like every other totalitarian ideology throughout history.

For Canadians, the fight against the HRC's may represent the first crack in the Progressive's armour. HRC's operate as "Star Chambers" to enforce the memes of Political correctness, and as currently constituted operate beyond the law. Once this battle is joined fully, it may occur to many people that there are lots of other bureaucracies and government agencies which also infringe upon our rights and freedoms, and action must be taken against them as well. Political parties which have strong ties to these institutions also need to be taken down.

I know this is a battle which will be fought against with all the weapons in the Progressive armoury, and all the more difficult since most of these people and institutions have access to the resources of the State itself. There is a sea change coming as more and more people have finally realized that what is going on outside their houses and inside their lives no longer matches with the picture Progressives (of any political party) try to paint. The rise of the CPC and corresponding small Classical Liberal parties at the provincial level (Wildrose Alliance, Saskatchewan Party, Reform Ontario) suggests to me that enough people are becoming engaged and there is now a real chance this battle can be won in the end.

The Liberal Party is currently riven by internal divisions and lack of resources, but rest assured the Progressives will continue to prop it up so long as it holds the promise of power and riches. Once it is clear the Liberal Party no longer can carry on as a brokerage party and offer the spoils of the State to its supporters, they will desert it for the NDP, Bloc and Green parties to whatever extent they offer rewards to their supporters.

We'll either die free or we die trying.

Fitna

WARNING: The film contains hate speech, and persons in the film call for the murder of entire nations, the establishment of a totalitarian theocracy, praise Hitler and the holocaust and denounce liberalism, democracy and rational thought.

Also contains graphic visual content.

UPDATE: After hearing a/another prominent Canadian Muslim defend Islam as a religion of peace on CTV Newsnet this afternoon in response to the film I have just tried the video link again only to be informed that LiveLeak has removed the film because of credible threats on the lives of LiveLeak employees.

Peaceful eh?

Found It again.

Two systems battle for our souls

In Canada, we have an interesting split in our approach to things. The "west" is entrepreneurial and freewheeling, while the "east" is rule bound and bureaucratic. It is the Two Solitudes of Hugh Maclennan and Lord Durham. It is Trudeau with his determination of a single rightness that must be imposed versus a pragmatic acceptable of the possible and the reasonable.

Throughout most of human history, the top down model predominated. This worked fairly well through most of prehistory and history, since it essentially replicates the "authoritarian" leadership style taught to military leaders as being appropriate in emergencies. For most of human existence people lived in a constant state of emergency and there was little time to resolve problems before a large hungry animal or sword stroke resolved it for you.

The development of democratic and free market systems took a long time and is not fully accepted even now. Much of the success of the "Progressive" movement comes from manufacturing or exploiting emergencies then imposing "solutions". Institutions like the Academie Francaise and others attempt to systemically organize and categorize facts to provide the elite with the "best" solutions, but there is a fatal flaw to this in the long term; these organizations are biased to provide solutions pleasing to the rulers while to be truly effective they need to provide empirically correct solutions. If they are pleasing all the time their position is assured until they are swept away in some disaster they failed to avert, while if they strive to be "correct" all the time they run the risk of displeasing their masters and losing their position. The elite is also aware of the problem to some extent; if the solutions they implement "work", they remain on the throne for another season, while if they fail, they will be overtaken by some disaster as well.....

I suspect that societies based on the impersonal nature of the free market and the unfettered nature of individual freedoms gain their strength from the fact they ultimately do not have to answer to anyone, but are measured against an objective and empirical reality. (Ayn Rand’s ghost is sitting on the couch and having a cigarette while I write this). You might say or do something which upsets someone, or propose and implement a plan which no one else agrees with, but if your arguments are better or the results can be replicated and are better than previous results, why then these ideas and processes will filter into the general population and be adopted by almost anyone.

This is ultimately intolerable to the first category of rulers and wannabe dictators, which explains why “Progressives” employ such a wide ranging series of strategies to suppress discussion (Political Correctness, speech codes, HRC’s etc.) and devote so much time and effort to ignore or suppress facts, figures and metrics. Why debate a real climate scientist when the ad hominem attack of shouting "Climate Change Denier" is a so much faster and easier way to stop the debate?

This explanation is a bit different from the more common explanation of top down and hierarchical systems being brittle and inflexible in the face of unexpected problems, but I think it answers the question “why” such systems fail in a more understandable way than the usual appeal to interactions increasing at a geometric rate until they are unmanageable. After all, the Chinese civilization has been around for a long time with few stumbles, they have managed to discover a way of minimizing the damage that pleasing the Emperor can do to the system with a fairly strict system of meritocracy at the bureaucratic level.

Ultimately, there really is a point where complexity overwhelms the system, and equally there are real emergencies that require hands on attention by leaders assuming authoritarian powers. Liberal Democracies are still the best at dealing with these situations, any number of solutions are potentially available and leaders like Churchill, Roosevelt, Thacher or Reagan are waiting in the wings to try to find the best solution. Competing illiberal societies have a shortage of solutions and leaders, and that is why they fail in the end.

Canada had gone far down the illiberal, top down system favored by "Progressives". A look at the eastern half of the nation, where these attitudes have gained the greatest power is also a look at mostly have not Provinces and a greedy and timorous outlook on life. Here is where the demand for handouts and patronage is the loudest, where opposition to Canada taking a role as a "Leading Middle Power" is the strongest and where bureaucracy is most entrenched. The western half of Canada is less imbued with demands for patronage, handouts and bureaucracy, and as a result has become more dynamic in many fields.

Since Canada has been dominated at the federal level by "Progressives", our national decline is in direct proportion to how much Ottawa has been dominated by the imposition of a top down and hierarchical political culture. The current government can make limited gains against the tide, but must content itself with a process of slow starvation of the organs of bureaucratic power for now. Even in a majority situation, I suspect the process of reversing the culture will not be easy, and the cultural attitudes of the eastern provinces will be transmitted for a generation or more via university graduates, businessmen addicted to government handouts and the provincial and municipal governments desperate to cast blame on external factors to hide their own mistakes and maintain their positions of power.

For the reader, we must now work to overturn the top down and hierarchical systems wherever we find them. The current battle against the CHRC and all its clones is an important first step. Similar battles are being fought in other venues, such as the fight for Western grain farmers to sell their own product without State intervention, or Ontario taxpayers to control their own earnings. Its time to roll up our sleeves, and get to work.

An Inconsistent Truth

More Global Warming Heresy...

"Yeah, you know, like when you put your car into reverse you are causing it to enter a period of less rapid forward motion. Or when I gain a few pounds I am in a period of less rapid weight loss."

Huh?

Beg your pardon?

Religion of Litigation

Defame Islam, get sued?

Hey Islam… Get stuffed!

I await your indictment.

This aught to be good, Zip vs the Muslim World.

An Inconsistent Truth

The Anti-Global Warming Dog Pile

It’s a full tilt, body slamming, turf eating, elbow and knee filled fact frenzy!

http://davidwarrenonline.com/index.php?id=858

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=377568&p=1

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=364265

http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2008/03/couple-of-inconvenient-facts-in-another.html

Add your links in the comments.

Little Kremlin on the Prairie

"The product of ones effort belongs to the person who made that effort in the first place and it is their undeniable right to do with it as they wish"

h/t - Making Sense with Nicholls

It's All About The Oil!!!

Yes it is.

There, feel better?

I do.

Now for the truly dense I’ll explain why. Bear with me, this next part involves actual principals of international relations, not just clichés and utopian cravings.

In this world there exists a concept we call sovereignty. The simple explanation of that notion for the purpose of this post is that nations have the right to act in and with their national self-interest in mind. There is nothing, no law, and no power that can usurp the ability of nations to exercise this self determination. The only thing limiting the ability of each nation to exert this sovereign power is their individual ability to back up their sovereignty with that other weapon in the arsenal of the modern state, the use of force.

Now, back to the war in Iraq. Yes, it is all about the oil. Eight out of the US’s top 15 oil suppliers hail from the Middle East. Those nations represent approximately 40% of the US’s oil supply. You do the math.

Oil is black gold, and in this case it is most certainly a major reason for the war. It is in the USA’s national self-interest to ensure that it has all the resources necessary to maintain the growth and stability of its economy. Today, tomorrow and always.

The US, acting in its self-interest needed to send a straightforward message to the nations of the Middle East. That message was “Do not screw with our supply”. It was delivered with shock and awe aforethought, it was not a mistake, there was no confusion, there was no failure of intelligence. The weapon of mass destruction that America feared was a threat to America’s supply of oil.

The preceding may have offended some sensibilities but I’m not done yet. You see America’s rough and ready pursuit of rational self-interest is also in our self interest. The US economy is the world’s largest economy; it is the engine of the world’s economy and our largest trading partner by far. If the cost to ensure the safety of that economy is one murderous dictator or one hundred it is well worth it.

So the next time some greasy utopian moron complains that it’s all about the oil, stop equivocating, repeat after me…

Yes it is.

What Do You Know, They Do Get It

They just don't like it...

Tax cuts by Conservatives leave government hamstrung: Critics

For me this is an "Oh Yeah Baby!" moment. Hamsring and handcuff the government? By all means, and don't forget to hobble and shackle it while you're there.

I don't want government to come running with bags of money (our money) every time a business gets a fiscal bloody nose, and there are damn few (if any) economic situations either global or national that will not, or can not correct themselves in a free market. Don't believe me, take his word for it.

"Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney signaled that he sees a glimmer of hope that financial markets are righting themselves, and cautioned authorities against overreacting with new rules that might ultimately hurt the economy."

Seems like Ms Rand is two for two...

"The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, and to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law."

Participatory Economics

Some people have no sense of history. I recently came across a post on the London Fog which attributed the idea of Participatory Economics to a Michael Albert. A quick perusal of the post and the related article on Wikipedia (I know, but it is a fast and easy first reference) gave me enough information to know that I had seen this idea before, and to predict the ultimate denouement of any society foolish enough to adopt it.

Participatory Economics, or Parecon as is is sometimes called, is one of the bizzare offshoots of Socialism. It seems most closely related to Communitarianism, or maybe an extension of the Cooperative movement's ideologies. The tangled logic that Michael Albert and his supporters use to explain the theoretical advantages of Parecon is worth reading if only to hone your own skills in debate. Don't let the fact that human nature, economic incentives and historical evidence is completely ignored or discounted by Parecon theorists dissuade you; it is important to know and understand how the other side thinks and frame their arguments. Incidentally, the very premise of Parecon and its socialist cousins is that people are not free agents, and cannot take actions to change their circumstances inside the framework of free market democracies. One only has to listen to the musical stylings ofDavid Allan Coe to undercut that argument.

Now I could go into a long post and describe the various ins and outs of the theory, and rip holes in the flimsy fabric with arguments drawn from classical economics and history, but this has already been done for us, and much better. I knew I had seen the basic premise of Parecon and its ultimate denouement before; Ayn Rand laid it out in her 1957 novel "Atlas Shrugged" in the story of Starnesville and the destruction of 20th Century Motors . Novelists apparently have a better understanding of history and real life than economists.