The Green New Deal promised us all an:
• Economic environment free of monopolies
• Economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work
These were but two bullets from the ambitious Ocasio-Cortez Green New Deal, which was introduced as a "massive transformation of our society with clear goals and a timeline", ten years ago in 2019. It will "move America to 100 percent clean and renewable energy" in "ten years", they said.
And who could have argued against "healthy food" ? safe affordable housing for all" or "Access to nature" or any of the other nice things listed in this proposal?
Even though, on a careful reread there were some hints within the manifesto that the writer suspected this ten year massive transformation of our society would not be entirely seamless.
Well, they "put the nuts and bolts on this plan" and that's when we found out that the bolts were letters in the mail telling us we will be delivering our suvs to the central collection point for destruction within the next ten days and the nuts were enjoying an interview with someone iin a white uniform telling us our housing was not "adequate and affordable" so we will personally be moving to a central housing authority accomodation facility shortly, and dont bother packing anything.
Personally I didn't mind monopolies in the old economic model. The only one I really choked on was the fake authority calling itself our government that wanted to impose on me a massive transformation of my society. What about those of us who kind of liked the way things were and didn't mind some of the helpful monopolies in our world, who liked and even, dare I say it, appreciated, getting a break on our groceries at Costco or Walmart? And there were more victims of the "Green New Deal" , many, many more.
And Now apparently my new duties will consist of sitting around inside my new enclosure surrounded by other patriots of the global climate transformation, huddling together for the generation of soothing body heat as the minus 50C wind howls outside and the dead trees fall to the ground and rot peacefully into the soul, with Gia smiling down happily at us all.
And recalling how we used to think ourselves superior to those pre-fossil fuel era folks, those nomads who wandered across the land in their journeys to the seasonal food sources. Pitiful folks.
Wait, I have to stop now. The lectures on making bread from tree bark without hurting the tree's feelings are just beginning in the unheated newly converted hockey arena. I hope not too many of us freeze to death this time because less people mean less warmth in our new affordable housing enclosure, but then, that is the point of it all anyway, I guess.
Remember the boats?
It wasn't all that many years ago when we started to see the rubber-type boats all over the mediteranean as helpless refugees began their watery, rudderless trek across the sea to begin a better life in Europe. Opinions were initially divided on whether to let them onto the "more advanced" continent. The debate flared until an infant was photographed lying in a pitiful pose in the sand on the seashore, having apparently drowned in the sea after capsizing or falling overboard or something and hearts were stirred afresh to accept these homeless, helpless wanderers of the sea. Who could blame them? It's only right for an ostensibly christian nation to reach out with compassion for the helpless.
Fast forward a mere several years and nearly the entire European continent, along with the UK is writhing with the agonies of dealing with an ever-expanding population of tragically displaced single 20 year old boys of African and middle eastern decent for whom only limited employment opportunities appear to exist.
Canada is next in line, as our PM has announced intentions of welcoming another million or so in the next three years, a population increase of some three percent. How we are to finance this welcoming is through ever increasing amounts added to our considerable "government" debt-load.
Compassion is a wonderful thing, no argument there. Many of us on this side of the duckpond are here because someone somewhere welcomed us when we were the ones requiring new housing. In addition, north america is comprised of family groups from all over the world and we mostly do get on reasonably well despite all the media pronouncements of the latest racist incident. And yet, I have a question.
Why does our collective, and especially our official compassion, begin and end with those suffering in the middle eastern region? Why do we hear absolutely nothing, not a single mouse squeak, about welcoming the white farmers being murdered in South Africa and whose lands and homes are being confiscated from them; land they've farmed for generations? What about them?
What about the unfortunate Japanese, displaced by Fukushima, or the sad fate of the Indonesians when the tsunami washed over their beach and destroyed their homes and businesses? Or the christians in Nigeria or Pakistan who are being murdered daily because of their particular mindset? Have we any compassion for them, or was it all used up on returning jihadis?
Obviously no one with a lot of cash is working to disrupt european and north american society by bringing masses of people onto our porches, people whose ideology is generally hostile to those not of their peculiar faith. Farbeit from me to suggest something like that! Consider though, the methodology used in Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, arming the rebels... It's a common tactic: "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."
But if this isn't the reason and it is in fact, pure compassion which is driving mass-immigration then it must be asked, what about compassion for the rest of those who have suffered and are currently suffering miserable fates in other regions of the world?
And when it comes to walls, there is this: A wall is not a complete barrier, it is a means of being selective as to who is allowed to enter. Your home most likely has a lock on the door, which is helpful in giving some control over who is let in and who is not. Should your country not have a similar option? We who live on the North American continent and those in Europe are blessed with a considerable amount of homes and businesses which the generations before us have constructed. Should all this inheritance be turned over to a select group chosen specifically for it's antagonism towards us? An antagonism which has been and is being demonstrated daily all over God's blue golf ball? Perhaps, just perhaps, in the interests of equality, we should be giving equal consideration to other would-be refugees as well, just to break things up a bit?
George Orwell, in his famous writing "1984" allegedly posited that "the people will not revolt. They will not look up from their screens long enough to notice what's happening."
But lets cut the poor chap some slack, shall we? So he was off by a couple decades. So what?
The fact is, a lot of us rely on social media as a communication platform these days, some even to the exclusion of any actual social life whatsoever. This is a "bad" I won't even try to fix.
I do have a suggestion about how to deal with the current ridiculous level of censorship farcebook and twooter are applying through means of algorithms. Its as if you are trying to shout an important message to your friends and Zuck starts up a jackhammer to make sure your friend doesn't hear a word you are saying. Am I the only one who doesn't like this?
When I post a thing to an SM platform, I expect it to be seen by a fair portion of my contacts, not have an algorithm decide to cherry pick the two people I've recently contacted and send it only to their page. So as a means of communicating thoughts, let's give these two a great big F for FAIL. The stock market is currently agreeing with me on this but will anyone listen?
In my own personal experience, Farcebook used to be enjoyable as random people posted random stuff, much of it entertaining and often hilarious. As time went on, though, changes were introduced and interesting memes became unacceptable and right-wing straight conservative thinking suppressed. I migrated to twitter with the idea of using it to express my political opinion, and leaving farcebook to the rats and the wolves, using it basically for posting scenery pics and the occasional joke.
Now that twootter has suppressed free thought nearly totally i'm shifting to GAB. It's far more unsterilized, far more entertaining and raw and my own stuff is being noticed and responded to at about 5 to 10 times the frequency of either farceboook or twootter. This in spite of the fact that I have more than double the followers on each of both!
The nail in the coffin for farcebook was selling, lending or giving personal messages to various companies. Wutt?
Wutt gives them the right to profit from personal communications between individuals using their platform, "free" though it may be?
My two accounts are still active, but going more dormant by the day. I'll be using them to promote my business and for very little else. Gab is great and I highly recommend it.
As far as communication goes though, the people that figure most predominantly in my life will be getting text messaged. I note that texts normally arrive where they're being sent, don't involve any social media platform, and are capable of being used to distribute photos, links and even short videos. Why not use texting more? The trick will be to avoid annoying my contacts to the point of causing a pack of them to chant death slogans at my house at 3 AM in the morning, and I think this should be possible by using texting sparingly and targeting my contacts with thoughts and information relevant to them and their needs.
Nobody wants to be spammed thirty times a day. If you doubt that, read this article thirty times and get back to me. I'll probably just be here, just staring at my screen expectantly...
And may God have mercy on us all...
Having viewed Nancy Peloski's damning self-indictment about 6 times, I can say that I am not shocked at all. What she is describing is exactly what many of us have observed in politics over the years. Apparently political office is an addictive drug, and those addicted to its allure will resort to any means to attain it's benefits.
The somewhat shocking thing about the video is her candid, frank and honest delivery of the methods used by the democratic party to smear a person's reputation and then benefit financially from the character destruction they themselves have inflicted on a victim and his family.
As someone has pointed out, it takes a lifetime to build a character and only a moment to destroy it. How unfair to have one's lifetime effort of walking the straight and narrow destroyed by the actions of liars!
A case can in fact be made that character assassination is worse than murder. It's a deed done in darkness with no possible means of self-defense for the victim. It results in a living death for the victim who is forced to fight the losing battle of starting over after his alleged life of crimes which he never contemplated let alone committed.
I hope no one thinks the statements made in this clip are insignificant. It should be enough to make any thinking viewer give his TV over to Doctor 12 guage for immediate repairs!
Watch her explain the tactics used right here:
Had brunch at the Yukon Motel this morning with my good friend Jim Smarch and another gent from down under, whom we both just met. (What do you call a mix between lunch and dinner btw, cause I have those too!)
We compared skin color of our hands and with my summer tan you could hardly see any difference at all. Allan, the Australian bloke was part indigenous, part irish, and there was an instant connection between Jim and Allan, though they live separated by the thickness of an entire whole planet!
The indigenous of Australia and Canada have a lot in common and it speaks well for both of these dudes that they even allowed a scammer (white person) to sit at their table due to the rather sad "white-man" history that travels with me wherever I go. But that's all in the past and best left back there. Also not what this story is about anyway so can we just forget it oKAy!?!?
One of Allan's stories will be forever branded in my memory:
Allan had a dream in which he was sitting by a campfire with an Old Man and an Old Woman. The Old Woman was just sitting there smiling and putting out warmth and love.
The Old Man asked Allan why he was crying and he replied, because of all the damage we have done to Mother Earth!!
The Old Man replied, "your mother and I have talked about this and your mother can heal. But what your mother and I would like to see is that You get well."
I found this to be a profoundly fascinating dream. I've heard that in Japan, at the site of the nuclear detonation, there is a monument and flowers and people walking about as if nothing had ever taken place there. In Freiburg Germany photographs taken after the war show absolute destruction to the point of turning the entire city into a mound of rubble. Go there today and you'd never guess...
Yes the earth can and does heal eventually from the most awful damage folks are capable of inflicting on her. It's mankind which in danger of never getting it right and that is where we all need to focus our energy at this point.
And i'm no expert on that but I think the ability to see things from a point of view not your own is a good first step...
I live in a little village in the southern yukon called "Teslin" and it is a wonderful community in which to live. However, you cannot eat most forms of scenery, which is an abiding problem.
Economic opportunities consist of tourism in the summer and the grade A or grade B welfare plans in the winter. If you prefer to not take advantage of the welfare plans because you are healthy and prefer to do real work, it's a long wait for the flowers of spring, during which some construction occurs, roads are cleared of snow and firewood are demands met mostly by local woodcutters.
The sleepy northern status of Teslin is about to forever change though, it seems.
Over the next ten years, we're supposed to spend 110 million dollars on infrastructure upgrades and various projects, money borrowed by the liberals and force fed to the territory with great figurative trumpet blasts and grinning politicians, the spending of which is mostly as to be determined locally by consultation with the community members affected, or at least, that would seem to be an appropriate procedure. Seems its a bit more like: We built 30 lots and sold 2 or 3 so let's put in another 100 and not sell them! So, northern neighbours of mine, how do you want your 300,000 spent? Cause it's being decided for you by the chosen few.
Normally the expense of multiple millions on various projects gets ignored and the larger contractors perform the work and submit bills for the amounts they deem reasonable, but someone must have stomped on the wrong galoshes this time because in a recent rezoning meeting, roughly 20 members of the community showed up to express their concerns or to pick up some local "knowledge'. Now you must understand that 5 percent is an unusually high number of residents and probably indicates the closest thing to mass outrage ever seen in the community!
It seems the trigger was the exciting new bylaw preventing people from living on an RV on their or a friend's privately owned land. The reason given was the concern of the local council that someone may die in an RV fire. Sure enough. you betcha. Uh huh.
One exception is to be made for someone building their own house in which case you may provide the village with a 5,000 dollar deposit to be returned at the end of the year in which you are allowed to live in the RV. Should a landowner decide to say "screw it, i'm living in my 48 foot million dollar RV on my own frigging land because i like it sue me" what will the village do to you? Well, seems they will fine you more and more and more until they take possession of your land. (they spelled "steal" wrong) Nice. Really makes you want to buy one of those new lots, doesn't it? This last sentence is sarcasm for any who may need this spelled out.
Remember, this is all occuring in Teslin, Yukon, population 450, a true one-horse town where bylaws didn't even exist a mere 20 years ago. Oh and horses aren't allowed, or any form of livestock apparently unless you have a 30 meter buffer from them to the edge of your property which wipes out the possibility of nearly any form of agricultural experimentation for the vast majority of residents . Dont we all feel so much safer now from all those nasty chicken bites?... blah, blah, blah.
As for the 110 million plus windfall, apparently we can look forward to another 100 plus new empty building lots being installed on the periphery of the community, up on the hill and away from the lake. The ancient forest is already being cleared to make way for this new anti-tree development, although the entire project defies explanation. Who will buy these lots when there is next to no industry or job opportunity in the community other than perhaps newly formed govt agencies to regulate and thereby prevent any form of human activity imaginable? This has yet to be determined and will likely be the topic of another govt "study". An employmnt opportunity for a summer student who is willing to sign an attestation that they agree with our prime lunatic's values?
Our Yukon premier said it best, when he stated we have to get this money spent and "we dont want to leave this money on the table" and clearly that is the focus of our leadership here in the Yukon, spending the money the Federal Govt "provides" by enslaving every canadian into more and ever-increasing swirling vats of indebtedness to the central banks who print the money by typing new numbers on their keyboards. (Nice work if you can get it.)
When, if ever, will we recognize the enormity of the frauds being commited against us all?
Must we burn tires and block highways in order to have our concerns addressed in a meaningful way? In any event it was heart-warming to see people take the time to go to this meeting and express some feeling about having our personal freedoms stripped away for the temporary emotional or financial benefit of the writers of these new laws.
Your local government is making instant criminals out of trailer-dwellers and that my friends is what is criminal in this story!!
I know we aren't supposed to call the natives in north america "indians" because the real indians will get offended. No. That isn't the reason. It's a misnomer, like the cypress hills which haven't seen a cypress tree in forever.
All of that being said, i have an indian philosopher for a friend and he comes up with the coolest thoughts at times. His latest? He said, and i paraphrase to hide the fact i have a memory like a german battle tank after the second world war,: " The main thing, the very most important main thing about communication is how it is received." Well now, isn't that just a great thought?
I am a hunter though these days my hunting is being done much more often with my nikon than with my Marlin, and it has been my experience with hunting that it isn't the type of gun that sends the bullet or the brand of ammunition that is soo very important, but how the bullet is received that makes all the difference in the world. And it is the exact same thing with human communicatio!
Another smart person i know is my third son who recently opined that, " humans weren't designed for texting." That struck me like a bannock-slap from big Jim's frying pan hand! I have recently noted that a friend and i had exchanged 36,000 texts, let alone emails and other correspondence and wow, ain't it the truth! The misunderstandings alone in those texts could write a long and beastly-boring book. To say that misunderstandings are frequent would be an understatement, a gross understatement. That's why God gave us emoticons, so we could include a facial expression to show we shouldn't be taken seriously when we call the other party a jerk. If it were not for emoticons, the world as we know it would cease to exist, birds would fall out of the air for the hate internet waves all about them and politicians all over the world would cease to speak, unable to make any meaningless promises whatsoever. Emoticons really are the stuff dreams are made of and prepositions are something you should never end a sentence with, i know.
Solution? I sure wish i knew. If you find one let me know. It may have to do with a technique i as a man, know absolutely nothing about, listening and asking for clarification, but if you know something i don't, go for it and avoid misunderstandings like the one above this piece and God be with you my friend as you seek understanding in a textiing world darkened by the lack of emoticons and dimmed by hellish misunderstandings.
According to Canada's debt clock, we've gallantly dipped into the national credit card for yet another 100 billion in the last year or so, bringing the national debt to 1.1 Trillion. Of course, this would not include the personal debt of Canadians, which would add a few more thousand to the pile.
Perhaps in response to the problem of ever-increasing interest payments, bleeding canada's bank "balance", (which of course, jeopordizes future indexed civil service "industry" pensions) we are seeing crack-downs of all kinds, breeds and types. It's almost as if someone looks down on his land of tax-cows and considers what sort of new fines and penalties the sheeple will accept so the national debt can be transfered to the ever-obedient and worshipful citizens of Canada.
Sometimes, though, the level of state-sanctified pocket-picking reaches levels approaching the absurd, even the criminal.
A headline on the propaganda box this morning, seemed rather shocking at first, second and even third glance. Some guy in Quebec just got a 52 dollar smack upside the head for leaving an "unlocked car" briefly in a parking lot. Apparently trusting people has become a criminal offense in some juridictions.
Is this a test balloon to see whether we'll accept being freedom-fined for leaving unlocked houses, or outdoor sheds or unlocked lunchkits brazenly lying about? Perhaps as revenue shortfalls continue to mount in Canada under our liberal professional pre-spenders we could move to fining people for leaving any owned object unlocked. Pens on the desk? Shoes in the lobby? Coats in the rack? (I'm being ridiculous of course... or am I?)
Exciting new Anti-trust-your-neighbour legislation could create a whole new industry or hey, even whole new government departments! We could call it the Anti-Trust Department or Trust-no-mor. With your help, trust can be beaten.
One encouraging sign is that this new source of government revenue made it onto the screen. Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks this is going beyond the level of bizardom. Consider the problem of enforcing this law. How do you go about it? You have to hire a guy to literally go through public parking lots, checking people's door latches hoping to find a car door which will open without a pry bar. Folks, we are witnessing a shift in the role of government. Our leaders are turning into drug-pushers, and stealing to prevent theft......... think about that last one! Are we really to fall down on our knees in gratitude for a fifty dollar fine because it will prevent us from having our money taken from us by force?
And of course, it doesn't need to stop there does it? There have been some recent improvements on the distracted driving laws across proud Kanuckistan. Even holding your cellphone nets the good people of Canada close to $300. Now, obviously, texting while driving, or in some cases, texting while sitting at home in your lazyboy, can be a serious offense and can be super dangerous, no argument there. But you wonder if it isn't over-reach when you learn that petting your cat or personal grooming (nose-mining?) or basically doing anything other than obediently staring straight ahead through your windshield, both hands on the wheel at ten and two o'clock, not even glancing at your gps or speedometer? (might wanna try that argument next time your're caught speeding) can sure cripple your earnings for the day.
How to cope with all these liberal-imposed freedom-chains? Personally, I already consider any fine i get to be a supplementary freedom tax and don't really look at them as punishments anymore. It allows me to retain my dignity and feel i am contributing to the proud land of my birth.
The left, the right, the gays, the straights, extremists of all stripes all have something in common, they've been labelled!
Labels are a pretty useful thing. They're useful for categorizing, for example, with your receipts so they can be more easily added up at tax time. They're handy in the grocery store, helping us find the right aisle. And of course, imagine the internet without labels! It would prolly look like our current legal system, for Pete's sake! How would you find a thing?
So, we can probably agree labels have their place in our world. But...
But, what happens when we apply labels to each other? Are they helpful as a means of categorizing each other or are they more destructive than helpful? Consider a few of these we might be tempted to apply upon meeting someone initially: "wagon-burner", "carpet-bagger", "camel-jockey", "politician"... Well, I'll just stop there for now.
Its natural enough to assess the people we meet everyday on the basis of their appearance first, their words next and gradually adjust our perception of them as we go along and get to know them better. But often, there is just no time available to go through this process, so we have no choice but to just jump to conclusions and live with our initial impressions.
It is a pretty well-known military technique to inform the troops that the enemy is bad, that they are sub-human and deserving of eradication. People do not go to war to kill husbands, wives and grandpas, or someone elses son or daughter, or best friend. They go to slaughter sand-monkeys or gooks or nazis. Makes it much easier to tighten your index finger on the trigger, i guess.
And even in the pre-war context of daily life, labels, even the innocuous ones, can take on a militaristic tone pretty easily. Currently, in the west, the muslims face an uphill battle, for example. And that shouldn't perhaps surprise anyone. Extremists within the group have demonstrated a hostility to random people which is quite shocking. And the connection to the religion of Islam has been drawn in the minds of most. The fact that a great proportion of the victims of suicide bombers are in fact, muslims, seems to escape our attention and so we westerners tend to consider anyone practising the religion of islam to be immediately suspect. This is of course a bit unfair to the local muslim convenience store owner whose main concern is providing a quality service at a fair price so you'll return and he can keep his son in college in his new country, the USA.
Perhaps it would be helpful to categorize people instead merely by their country of origin? This is already being done occasionally in the mainstream but more commonly, the news reports leave out the details of the perp completely, which is certainly not helpful. All this does is leave us all wondering if the attack was not simply done by another islamic extremist and why is the media hiding this fact? If we were flat out told the explosives were planted by an immigrant from north korea, for example, (This would be of course, highly unlikely. I understand North Korea's policy on emmigration is somewhat restrictive currently) the rest of us pre-victims could all sleep a bit better knowing it wasn't done by yet another "islamist".
So, in summary, labels have their place and perhaps we need to even use them more rather than less, and develop a few new ones or at least some interesting new sub-headings to label each other more accurately. But for now, would it make sense to use country of origin or even simply, asian, arabic, caucasian, latino, etc as identifiers?
And if you don't like the suggestion, just go on with your current system and forget i said anything. I'm probably just an idiot anyway.
Atheists, like other religious extremists, are a curious bunch. Someone once said that agnosticism makes a lot of sense and is probably the most honest of all beliefs because who, really, can honestly say they are one hundred percent certain their belief in God is correct? Isn't it true that the most certain of all our beliefs is suspect, that there could possibly be another explanation for whatever belief we hold most dear?
But atheists are in another camp. Having determined no doubt through years of exhausting research that there is no God, they set out to fight against those poor fools who believe in Him. And I dare to question their research! Isn't it possible that God is in fact, very tiny for instance? Maybe He could fit inside a single molecule. In that case, every molecule in the universe would have to be examined, which would take quite awhile, according to the latest research. And what of the possibility He could move from molecule to molecule while the research is going on, in which case we have to examine every molecule at least twice to be certain "there is no God"?
Or He could be entirely invisible like say radioactivity, air (usually) radio waves, magnetism, sound waves, gravity, or the benefits of unlimited taxation. In this case, how would we ever find Him or prove He does not exist? And logically speaking, if He formed the human eye and gave it sight, it should not be too difficult to build a way to get around the problem of being seen by the eye He designed. So scientifically speaking, it is impossible to make the determination with absolute certainty that "there is no God".
And here i'll make a stunning admission: Even though i do believe in God i do not believe in the tooth fairy or even *gasp* in Santa. (Not to mention the letters spelling santa can be rearranged to spell satan. Ooops i just mentioned that! My bad)
And though i don't believe in the tooth fairy I don't go around loudly proclaiming that fact. I don't argue at the coffee shop with my buddies saying, "come on guys, you know there's no such thing. You could leave a million teeth under a million pillows for a million billion trillion years and no tooth fairy would ever leave a dollar there". And what is the reason I don't do that? Because even though i dont believe in the tooth fairy, I don't hate the tooth fairy. He or she or ze (haha) just doesn't exist so why would i bother?
And yet the atheists go on arguing against the existence of God, (which cannot be scientifically proven). Why do they do this? Does it bother them that others believe and even worship this non-existent Being, or do they simply hate God and claim they don't believe in Him to get him back for not answering their prayer or for letting their pet orangutan die? Well, I don't know the answer to that question but I bet its a bit different in every case.
And why does all of this even matter?
It matters because if the God of Moses does not exist, then the law he gave Moses in the form of the 10 suggestions is absolutely irrelevant and certainly should not be followed with absolute certainty. Furthermore, none of our laws should be based on it either. And that is what we are seeing in our courtrooms today. People rage when a convicted killer is set free as recently happened in who could have guessed california? Why are they upset? Most scientists and anonymous sources agree there is no god so the ten suggestions don't matter either. We got here through millions of years of evolution and survival of the fittest after all. That deportee was stronger than the young girl he killed; it's just natures way of weeding out the weak and the sick!
Do you find that argument reprehensible? You should! But how, without God and His Ten Commandments, do you argue people shouldn't kill each other at Walmart on a Friday night? How do you argue that human life is more important than animal life? Plenty of horses have been shot for no greater crime than spraining an ankle, and now gramma's hip is broken and she's suffering there in that great big house that my whole family could be enjoying right now anyway, so thanks for all the cookies but...
So what do we use to argue its wrong to kill each other? Our feelings? Okay, lets try that one. We live in a democracy, ostensibly anyway, so if the majority feel it's wrong to kill each other, then we'll just pass a law about it. But wait! There are times when most people feel hatred for an individual, maybe a child molester or some other miscreant for example. Is it "ok" to kill such people? Let's vote on it. (I really like the Swiss system for deciding on ticklish subjects like that one. They have referendums on almost everything. We should follow their example. It would stop a whole lot of oligarchs in their golden paths. But anyway) Do you see the path we're on and why we're on it? Judges making decisions all over the world, without any solid absolute basis in law. Just referring to past decisions in other cases and public outcry and like that. Kind of like Pilate sending Christ to the cross, not because of his own opinion, but because of the crowd screaming at him. So he caved to peer pressure. Wouldn't you?
So i sit here kind of amused watching law and order breaking apart into little sects, choosing what sort of laws they want in their little enclaves and then having to fix and adjust them constantly, law books piling up in law librairies all over the land like so much cordwood, nobody really understanding what is legal and what is not anymore, cops making arrests in debatable matters and letting the "courts sort it out" and they are so, so good at that, arent they?
But back to all you atheists for a minute. Why, if you so firmly don't believe, are you so adamant about ramming your non-beliefs down the rest of our throats? Why, is every cross everywhere on earth suddenly 'offensive", for example? Some of you fight religion wherever you find it, and so successfully have you been that people everywhere have become afraid to even mouth the words "Merry Christmas" at the time of the year when the saviour of their own souls was born? But fight on, brave atheist, the battle is not yet won. It must be discouraging at times to consider the billions of people on the planet who still believe, despite all of your efforts. And should you succeed in your quest to eliminate faith, you will face your greatest challenge when you come face to face with Uknowwho...
In a discuss with a facebook friend the topic of left wing, right wing politics came up and to simplify and boil down my understanding of what a left winger is, i made the statement that left wingers are lazy and want everything for free and they want the rich to be taxed to pay for it, while the right wingers are the hard-working types.
True though it might be, it wasn't all that well received by my left-leaning social media friend. It seems "I always know exactly what to say!" So to gain a better personal understanding of the wings i decided to look into a more formal definition because obviously there are other issues involved and often an individual's preference overlaps back and forth between the two disciplines.
What if we all came rubber-stamped in advance with an L or an R on our foreheads? Wouldn't that save us a lot of time and argumentation? Then we might go a step farther and divide the country into the two camps and see who fares the best. Can you hear it? The caterwaulin', the hue and the cry from the parasitic class? But, but, ... muh free ride from cradle to coffin!!!
Actually i am a bit puzzled about what exactly all the differences really are and the line seems to be blurred with lefties tripping over to the right side and vice versa, like so many unfaithful partners on a moonless friday night. Why not a greater fidelity with your chosen wing? Is everything optional? And if so, what are we even talking about? Right wing, left wing, takes two wings to fly??? That one i understood better when i found myself fixing my old generator. The governor wasn't governing, the spark plugs weren't sparking right and the pistons weren't nevermind. Well, anyway. It was pretty sweet to see how the governor works. Weights slide out from the centre as the rpm increases and that works a little lever that controls the fuel flow to the carburetor, or like that. This clever device keeps the engine from over-revving. Made me wonder if there might be some merit in the idea of cooling an overheating economy through taxation and redistribution. And, see, there i go, toying with the dark side!!
Why am I right wing? Well, this goes back a frightening long time to when i was a little rascal (dad had another more descriptive term) growing up on a saskatchewan prairie farm/ranch. I needed a jackknife pretty bad, that one in the store, with the "premium stock knife" stamped on the blade, the bone handle and the comfortable feel. But the needed 3.65 was no where to be found in my immediate surroundings. As i wrestled with the problem, a thought struck me, (ouch!!) and i asked my dad what a flat tire costs him. What if i picked the rusty nails from the farmyard dirt so that would cease to happen? We struck a deal and i got my knife! My first business! Of course nowadays, it would probably be an illegal business, unlicensed and woefully unregulated as it was, but back then, it all worked just fine.
A simple story, but the main reason i have always believed in finding a market and supplying its needs when i need resources myself. And my heart goes out to anyone who CANNOT work, but in reality, almost anyone able to digest cream of wheat should be able to produce some kind of a product. But what do we see in our land today? Millions of young, fit, able men and women producing jack while collecting benefits meant for leg-draggers and service dog owners.
In fact, I see two classes of parasites, upper and lower, and the upper one is living a lot better than the worker ants. And isn't it fascinating that the whole system, which now in effect penalizing the very people who drive the trucks, who till the soil, who repair the fords in order to keep the nursery rich with mothers milk, began as an argument in favour of "helping the poor"?
Personally i am highly suspect when someone approaches me asking for resources for old uncle Bob who broke a leg and it's his wife's birthday and she's threatening to break his other leg if he forgets this year so he sent me to get something to buy his wife a gift, but when the government does it, we all just lie down right there on the ground, begging to be robbed. Oh pppplease, just take my money. Sir!!
And why is it exactly, that although calculations have shown we work well into the fall just for the purpose of paying our fair share, it is still not enough and here in resource rich Cubanada we find ourselves sending our finance minister all over the globe with hat in hand, begging for loans to fund our liability, currently estimated at around a trillion with a tr golden loonies? Why oh why wasn't stripping us of all worldly goods enough to satisfy the needs of the sidewalk class? Why is anybody on the street with near one hundred percent taxation?
Like the Judge said, "You mean to tell this court that you killed this poor woman simply to rob her of a couple quid?" and then the reply, "Well your honor, a pair of quid 'ere and another couple there and it starts to really add up!" Or using our current fiscal model, a couple billion 'ere and a couple there...
Like Donald Trump and the CNN, fear and love cannot co-exist. In fact "perfect love drives out fear". Strangely, the opposite is also true: Perfect fear drives out love. And that is a big problem! When I camp out under the stars in the yukon, my food cache is placed some distance away so that if a bear should wander through my camp at night, (I've had it happen at least twice, probably more times, I sleep pretty "sound"ly!) I want him to have the option of eating something already prepared. And I do something else. I keep a .45/70 beside me within handy reach because I want the veto on who eats who!
On my recent trip to Europe, I saw nary a bear. The country would lend itself very well to these entertaining creatures, but fear of them has caused them to be destroyed. I personally think that is rather sad. It's also a bit comforting when you roll out the bedding for the long dark night!
Fear has had a YUGE effect on us wee humans! Is fear a powerful human emotion? It has prompted us to invent and manufacture burglar alarms, anti-virus software, helmets, bullet-resistant haha vests, install nuclear bunkers, build enormous battleships and mighty armies. What's the last thing you bought because of fear? Who have you avoided or ignored or even mistreated because of some fear? Don't we pay our taxes and fines because we fear the penalty of not doing so?
Perfect fear drives out love. Infact, if all human fear disappeared tonight, whole business sectors would collapse overnight! The insurance industry, all security-related businesses, the safety-equipment sector would evaporate immediately for a few examples. Many of you would stay in bed because it's simply the fear of losing your paycheck that's getting you up and out the door in any weather.
Not all fears are bad! But when we begin to fear the people around us to the degree that's happening now, I fear the inevitable outcome!
Military aggression falsely hiding under the term "defence". What a laugh! As if I would defend my home by travelling to Bangkok and killing someone there. This is ridiculous, evil and needs to stop...Now! Many individuals have truly "paid the ultimate sacrifice" trying to stop military aggression. Martin Luther King, John F Kennedy, to name two. There is YUGE money in war. This is how the elitists rose to world financial dominance. The individuals profiting from these "conflicts" are to blame and sometimes, indirectly, so are you and me! Let's get involved in fighting for more control of how our taxes are misused.
In order to slam the brakes on these abuses of power, it will be necessary for men of courage to come forward and take a stand. It's not a matter of military might, shooting up the bad guys and walking off ignoring the explosion behind you. All that results from that is more "peeved off" citizens who have had to bury their dead because we made them dead. Of course this triggers more violence and the cycle never ends. We need to get truly accountable government. It is possible and it has been done before with outstanding results. Consider, how tiny man Ghandi overthrew the whole British Empire by taking a passive stance and refusing to bow to the authorities of his day. India is free of British colonialism to this day because his approach did the trick! We need similar men and women today. Most of us recognize these days, the insanity of being forced through taxation to fund endless 'conflicts' overseas, the ludicrous absurdity of being forced to fund even the mechanism for enforcing taxation on ourselves!
It can't be right to refuse the refugees of wars you initiate access to food and medical care. This is a cruel and confusing dictate. Hopefully reason and a desire for a better world for innocent victims of criminal warfare will eventually rule the day.
And it can't be right to isolate a nation by building walls as if for a herd of cattle.
What we need to see, and shortly, is a cutting back of the absurd levels of military funding. Massive cuts to the multi-layered federal and state bureaucrasies would also bring about the conditions required for growth and the hope of a better morning tomorrow. Andrew Jackson had the right idea back in the 1800s. When a desire to truly improve things takes hold, it can and will be done, hopefully in a peaceful but were essential, in a forceful manner.
You're rolling down the highway. Windows down, enjoying the smells and sights as the country flows by the darkened view of your tinted lenses. Then, BOOM! Tire blown, you're busy, fighting the wheel, finally bringing your finely crafted machinery to a halt in a cloud of dust and smoking hot rubber.
Do you change all four tires, trade vehicles, sue all the tire and car manufacturers in the world for the mental cruelty you just endured? No, the sane thing to do is swap the blown tire for a new one and motor happily on! This is so obvious, you are probably feeling a little offended having me explain such basics to a seasoned pro driver like yourself. And yet, there's a point to be made as it relates to the rash of multiple shootings with which we are being confronted.
Already there are questions of all sorts going around, and a large number of people question every news report on the tele, and probably wisely at that! For instance, how is it possible to have in depth reporting and full front page news with multiple opinion columns all over the media within 24 hours of the actual carnage? Its almost as if the stories have been prepared before the event, just like right after 911!
Not to mention, there are vested interests in the military industrial complex, the news media, and the US government itself, which can all be expected to profit from every provocation to war. Governments apparently all over the world, are quite interested in making us all into disarmed, helpless sheep. This of course, makes any population that much easier to control, use, or even exterminate for that matter.
All that aside, the thing is, it is mighty unfortunate that when an event such as Orlando occurs or is fabricated for our entertainment, all sorts of ridiculous unworkable "solutions" are proposed, such as bombing the Muslims, building walls around the non-muslims, changing the laws around firearms ownership, further complicating life for non-violent gun owners.
All of these divisive "solutions" are useless in stopping mass killings and all have been and are being tried.
Here's a radical new one: Carry out justice by trial and sentence of the perpetrator of the crime .... only. Change the flat one and motor on. It is possible that another mass shooting may occur, yes, but can anyone bring an argument to the table that holds more water than a well-shotgunned balloon that bombing muslims in Syria or anywhere in the middle east you can name is going to somehow even reduce the violence allegedly occuring all over the United States? The dude was supposedly from Afghanistan, a nation that should be totally terrorist-free for many years now. We all know the definition of insanity. Why then, do we continue to support governments, businesses, religions and media who insist on engaging in it?
When Mayer Amschel Rothschild, written also Anschel, (23 February 1744 – 19 September 1812) joined the banking industry, it is doubtful he had any intention of enslaving most of the entire world in perpetual gov-fueled debt.
And yet, that is what some his very clever descendants accomplished. And if you grasp almost nothing else of the lessons that the last two centuries of history are there to teach, you really need to understand the significance of what his descendants accomplished in the field of banking.
In any true democracy, elected officials maintain their power over the people by keeping the majority happy. There are moral issues with this but for now, let's let that lie. A popular means of accomplishing this has been to announce that the wealthy are the problem and need to be taxed and their wealth redistributed amongst the impoverished, and who of us doesn't feel just a bit impoverished now and again? You are poor, it is taught, not because of your laziness and your many addictions but because of the vexatious oppression of un-named capitalists. Elect the talker and he will fix all of that, goes the bedraggled old spiel.
Now one of the Rothschilds recognized that in this system there would be an insatiable need for currency to satisfy the cravings of the masses and that politicians would inevitably cave to public demand. Now if the governments of nations were to print their own money to fulfill these requirements to stay in office, well enough and fine. But, how would the banking industry benefit from this arrangement, playing second fiddle to all the governments of the world? Better to have them all begging at your doorstep, no?
Some politicians can be bought and some cannot. The ones that could be bought fell to the scam and the others were by one means and another, swept aside. John F Kennedy was possibly one of these. He saw the issue with having a privately owned banking cartel printing money from thin air and borrowing it to the government at interest. He understood that this would inevitably enslave the public through the creation of huge amounts of unrepayable public debt and spoke against it. Draw your own conclusions about who shot him and why.
Now this last bit affects you and me and everyone else in the room. Giving an exclusive license to print a countries currency to any private individual would never have flown by the people of the United States had it been put to a vote and so the Central Bank of the States was named the Federal Reserve, indicating falsely that it is owned by the people for the people. It is most decidedly not. A backroom deal if ever there was one!
And so, here we are today, almost every nation on earth indebted to the Rothschilds banking empire, which was created by an arguable fraud in the first place. Counterfeiting is a serious offence after all, whether done legally or illegally. Anyone have any non-violent ideas on how to put things right? If we do not put a stop to the public borrowing of privately printed currency very soon, this is one group who will shortly own much more than the half the world they currently control. Maybe it doesn't matter who our descendants spend their working lives desperately
struggling to repay, but i think it does.
Nooo internet?? Whatever shall we dooo??
Both the left and the right claim the moral high ground as the libertarian scoffs at the mere concept of any grown adult being controlled by his nanny-state like some wayward brat.
Meanwhile, national debts in most countries spiral space-ward in great sweeping uncontrollable arcs. Amid all this confusion it's easy enough to catapult blame; nearly impossible to fix the problems or even point to a workable solution.
One must be found though, and soon, or we shall all be "grinning like dogs ourselves, and running about this 'ere swamp, 'ardly happreciating the difference between christmas and easter."
(R.M.Patterson. The Dangerous River)
And as Mr Public begins to experience the inevitable shortages the coming currency/business collapse will create he will become more and more unruly. The controlling sector will of course resort to some sort of shock and awe-inspiring response with increasing militarization right here where we live.
How will we who find ourselves on the less-pleasant end of this pokey stick respond? How will we cope? Will we cow to the threat of violence and comply with whatever orders we're given? Will we "temporarily" dump even our morals for survival purposes? Short of massive civil disobedience, what steps can we take to protect what we value?
Well, here's a couple er three ideas. Take 'em or leave 'em. One thing I've noticed is that we are most vulnerable when we're on the move. The man at home flipping channels rarely gets "carded" or receives a traffic ticket. Which is not to say no one should travel. Of course it will be necessary. Just take advantage of whatever opportunities for limiting travel there may be and travel when surveillance is most likely to be offline.
Secondly, it will be difficult to perform any kind of undetected transaction when cash is confiscated & disallowed "to fight criminal activity and terrorism". Bartering goods and services may be useful should it come to that. In fact it is a useful system already and certainly done even on international levels. Not every transaction needs to be converted to tax-vulnerable dollars. Owning some silver or gold coins might come in handy but in a national food shortage situation, nothing is likely to compare to the buying power of a bag of rice.
Thirdly, communication. How will you connect with your network if the internet goes black for the "middle class"? Haven't done much with this one so far but ham radio, CBs, FRS are all possibilities. Having a common pre-designated remote meeting point might be some kind of a a plan.
In all these things, of course, one hopes that some thought and preparation ahead of time may prevent "didn't see that one a'comin'".
Actually I plan to survive the whole thing even after I "depart this mortal coil" and that's why i'm not really all that afraid of what's coming to the little blue planet, third rock from the sun, having made my peace long ago with the One who formed the human eye. (Does He not see?") And a personal caveat: I don't know what will come of all this and I'm not saying any of the above scenario will play out in fact. Like the woodcutter who was asked which way the tree he was cutting would fall responded. "How should I know? I'm not a bloody prophet!"
Wikipedia defines "Statism" as "... the belief that the state should control either economic or social policy, or both, to some degree..." Now obviously, people have several beliefs, not all of which are correct. In times past, students were taught that scientific viewpoints developed through someone presenting a hypothesis, or theory on a subject, which was not to be taken as absolute fact really at any point. Experimentation would then be performed which would either support or refute the theory and the theory would then be altered to conform to the growing body of evidence for or against.
The purpose of this writing is to present the idea that Statism has for many years taken on many of the characteristics of a religion.
When we see clips of the North Koreans for example, and the current leader is strutting about waving, there are people waving frantically, shouting his praises, tears of joy and admiration streaming down faces. If this is not worship, it surely is a kissing cousin to it.
Obama's initial victory celebration was a similar display. The enormity of the crowd thrilling to his takeover of the presidency of the United States was impressive by itself. The cheering was so heartfelt and vocal that he could hardly complete his victory speech.
Similar enthusiasm has been shown for other world political leaders through history, though they all have had their detractors. We've all seen the grainy videos of Adolph Hitler and the enormous crowds cheering him on to victory with heartfelt exuberance.
And what of the comments we hear daily on the street anytime there is a problem, real or perceived? The response is nearly always, "the government should....." Its as if they had almost omniscient power to solve problems when in reality, many of those involved have no desire to solve our problems coupled with even less means of solving them. When approached with a real issue, almost to the man, the response will invariably be, "my hands are tied" "the courts have spoken on this issue.", "let me refer you to my colleague over in...". Simply translated, what it means is, "I will get my paycheque to the penny automatically deposited to my account on the designated day. Why are you here and how soon can you leave so i can go back to admiring my reflection in the office mirror?"
Perhaps I am being a bit unkind. Certainly there are those within the system who view themselves as needed members of society, there to direct the help to those who need it the most, and i myself have been the beneficiary of the system at various times. And yet, some sense that the power of government to involve itself in the minute details of our daily lives is limited seems to be generally lacking. And what is even more baffling is the fact that any adult human being would fall to the ground in adoration of a system which is currently confiscating well over 50 percent of our earnings whilst providing dubious benefits such as bombing foreign countries into oblivion and murdering foreign officials for the sake of some vague concept called democracy.
Perhaps, human beings were created with an innate desire to worship Someone and when that purpose is suppressed through lack of belief in a Superior Being or for general hostility towards him, the worship goes helter skelter to hockey teams, govt officials, the latest shoe design or even ones own personal self. Not that there is any of that going on these days, I just mention it as an idea, a sort of you know, hypothetis, if you will?
And who knows, maybe we can be forgiven for giving the glory for our present state of general well-being to the state. After all, it has the general appearance of a Provider, Protector, Source of all knowledge, puppies and all things wonderful in our lives, even if all of these things would be there without it.
Answer: Doug Martens.
Seriously though, there is an ancient African proverb I just made up about an elephant who makes a deal with a local monkey. The monkey is to bring him all the bananas he can eat and in return the elephant promises him protection from the jaws of the local lion.
This arrangement works for a time but the monkey grows restless and leaves for a week or two. the elephant decides this will never do so he shackles the monkeys ankles with a pair of large coconuts so he will be easier to round up when the need for his services arises.
Next morning the elephant is feeling peckish and asks the monkey to do his thing, to which the monkey replies, "Sir, these coconuts you have provided me with are just too heavy and i can no longer climb the tree.
Perhaps this morning you could just reach up the tree with your great, giant nose and pick your own?"
In a rage the elephant picks the monkey up with his trunk and dashes him against the tree, killing him instantly, and no one ate bananas in that part of the jungle for some time.
There are some principles in this ancient parable which relate quite directly to the times of introspection in which the oil and other industries find themselves. Hopefully, the result of all these businesses closing their doors will not be as tragic as that met by the unfortunate monkey.
Ooops! Just gave my whole idea away with the title. Must be more vigilant in the future!
After 25 years of doing much the same thing during my work-week, i sort of go on auto-pilot. And despite all the warnings from my well-meaning Dad, fail to keep my mind and my body together. Hence the title of this blog, skull-tripper. Take a trip and never leave your job!
A few days ago, while working away with the chainsaw, then, this little idea popped in, quite unannounced. (It would have been scary if there would have been trumpets) What if we could direct our taxes to the department we wish to support? Granted, paying no taxes whatsoever would be my first choice, but that seems unattainable for the moment. And yet, perhaps the ratchet principle could be used in reverse to gradually reverse the noose around all of our collective necks . You know, for the good of the collective, as it were?
Wouldnt it be neat to arrive at the end of your T1, (The form we canucks use to divest ourselves of worldy wealth once a year) and have before you a drop-down list of governmental services. What I'm picturing is something like this:
Well, you get the drift. Since we all have to do our bit to keep the country running, and since this is supposed to be a 'democracy" wherein the majority decides what is to be done, maybe it is finally time to stop electing one person and giving him/her/it our personal pin numbers so they can rob us blind and decide to subsidize all the investments in their portfolio, not that That would ever happen!
So, thats my idea and you're very welcome!
I don't think I am the easiest guy in the world to shock. I've spent a lot of time on the internet and 56 years on this planet and seen a lot of crazy things, some quite shocking! But what's happening in the land of the free and the brave is really stunning! In fact, I just finished a twitterment with a few people who were strongly stating their position that Kim Davis is right where she belongs... in prison and that i was a s-head and an idiot for thinking otherwise!
I used to have a youthful fantasy that people who were in jail were dangerous killers, rapists and the like but no more! Her recent incarceration actually makes me wonder how many more harmless souls are "currently occupying detainment facilities" in the United States. After all, her crime was ..... (deep booming voice) .....not filling out government-approved, gay marriage license form.
Granted, it was her job. Granted, people who don't do their jobs are commonly fired. But if we jailed everyone who fails to execute every command given them, who would be left to guard the jail or fix potholes?
And there is something deeper. The state is clearly making a statement here. "If you work for us, you will do as you are told or you will suffer extremely harsh consequences." At least, if I was a state office worker in another county that is the message i would be taking home for the weekend.
And so, what are we left with but a huge assortment of people who believe that their deeply-held personal beliefs must be set aside while they administer the duties given them from on high, no matter how personally reprehensible they may find them to be.
Each official is eyed by another and all the rebels are weeded out until we have a great pyramid structure of people all joyfully willing to lick their masters boots. Just doing their job. Mao Tse Tung would be so proud of you all! Perfect little followers! Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Amin and a few others too.
Which brings up another point. What of nurses who refuse to perform abortions or "assisted death proceedures for the elderly"? Jail, presumably, right in the next cell to Kim.
So my question of the day is this. What sort of officials, if any, do we want ruling over us? The kind that have no spine, no willingness to attempt to change things they believe are wrong? The kind who will do whatever they are told to keep the cheques coming and the prison guards away? Because that is exactly the system court decisions like this one are creating for the rest of us.
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams