The captain abandons his ship and claims he fell overboard. This is a metaphor for more than the Italian political scene. All current leadership in the Western World -- Britain, Europe, USA, Canada, Australia -- all are sleep walking to disaster with the same attitude as the Captain of the Costa Concordia who ordered dinner after the ship struck a rock over which he had driven his 3000 passengers, a rock which eviscerated his boat.
The political leaders of all major nations are driving by disastrous shallow waters in the Middle East, Afghanistan, Iraq, and beyond, to waive to the lobby in their domestic political scene. They preen and perform their ritual dances at elections, while enormous unfunded liabilities are increased and they build up burdens on people and powers of oppression in their governments. soon, they will strike a rock.
When they do, you can expect them, like the Italian captain, to blame their circumstances on others and leave no one in charge to handle the disaster they created. They will Schettino us all and scuttle the ship. The collapse of Rome was followed by almost 1,000 years of retrogressive disaster. For example, the bridge over the Danube the Romans had built and abandoned after 450 AD was not replaced until 1840.
The real progress of the last 500 years is in jeopardy from the world's shallow leadership, who dress like a captain but don't really know how to drive the boat or why.
Friday, January 20, 2012
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Wikipedia’s Brave Stand
Wikipedia has done no favours for me. In fact, their reports on me are evidhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifently slanted to portray me in a negative way, but I agree with and admire their stand on SOPA and PIPA. The U.S. Congress and legislators around the world are always looking for some altruistic or moral excuse to control the flow of influence and knowledge.
It is vitally important that everyone becomes aware of the inherent danger of allowing any government regulator anywhere to control, regulate, and thus cripple the small independent sources of unofficial information on small websites around the world who can’t afford to fight. In essence, the Congress and Senate in total ignorance (I hope) are sounding more and more like the Communist Party of China. Media control, knowledge control, thought control… stop it now or regret it later!
America has been the last best bastion of freedom. This fight is worth the effort. Congratulations to Wikipedia. I will write the State Department, or better still phone the consulate of the United States where I live.
It is vitally important that everyone becomes aware of the inherent danger of allowing any government regulator anywhere to control, regulate, and thus cripple the small independent sources of unofficial information on small websites around the world who can’t afford to fight. In essence, the Congress and Senate in total ignorance (I hope) are sounding more and more like the Communist Party of China. Media control, knowledge control, thought control… stop it now or regret it later!
America has been the last best bastion of freedom. This fight is worth the effort. Congratulations to Wikipedia. I will write the State Department, or better still phone the consulate of the United States where I live.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Equal Rights for All!
The above article, which appeared in the Times Colonist on January 11, 2012, clearly demonstrates the great danger of special rights based on race. The inherrent capacity for convoluted interpretations of these special rights is indicitive of the confusion that will emerge when these rights are gradually expanded, as they appear to be. We as a country have disavowed the concept of discrimination on the basis of race, with the exception of course of all the special status accorded to those who consider themselves "First Nations." The concept of a nation state attributable to a small indiginous band is inherrently falacious and contradicts the importance of equality rights for all citizens. There cannot be a stable, sensible society with concepts of "Indiginous rights" which are distinct from those of the general population. It will, in the end, produce resentment and inequitable distribution of legal rights, which after all should be accorded without distinctions as to race.
It is part of the inherrent nature of Canada, inherited from the British Crown and its declarations of the ancient past (like the Royal Proclamation of 1764) in circumstances vastly different than present day circumstances that these special rights exist.
Western Canada, if independent, would not be a successor government of the government of Canada or of the Imperial Parliament of England. As such, we could define our legal and political rights in a distinct and fair manner. This is impossible under the present constitutional arrangement, as the Supreme Court of Canada has consistently upheld various versions of legal rights based on racial distinctions of supposedly indiginous origin. This is another reason why, unless independence is accomplished for Western Canada, the end result will be a demoralized, chaotic conflict between racial groups and rights based upon racial categories. This is quite the contrary to what everyone claims to espouse in the Canadian political system.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
The Futility of Foreign Aid
Canada, I am told, gave $1-billion to Haiti for reconstruction, where I am also told that 500,000 are still homeless.
One wonders if there is actual effective assistance given for this money since so little is achieved, or if the systemic corruption which plagues Haiti is the cause. What value is there to sending money to a broken system like Haiti or Afghanistan?
One wonders if there is actual effective assistance given for this money since so little is achieved, or if the systemic corruption which plagues Haiti is the cause. What value is there to sending money to a broken system like Haiti or Afghanistan?
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
The Irony of Modern Tolerance
In the middle ages, you would be burned if you did not actively proclaim your faith in Jesus Christ. In the modern age, you can be burned if you do.
The irony of modern advocates of tolerance is their intolerance of moral or ethical absolutes. They can only tolerate views which conform with their own, which in most cases are of complete amorality, syncretistic, and based on ethical relativism. This is the current dogma of our age, which is just as intolerant as the middle ages, though in a different direction.
The irony of modern advocates of tolerance is their intolerance of moral or ethical absolutes. They can only tolerate views which conform with their own, which in most cases are of complete amorality, syncretistic, and based on ethical relativism. This is the current dogma of our age, which is just as intolerant as the middle ages, though in a different direction.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Property in Canada in the 21st Century
All my life, I have fought for the rights of the individual against the power of the state. I have never fought a battle where I wasn’t out-gunned, out-horsed, out-manoeuvred, out-manned, and out-supplied by the enemy. The state and its endless minions have all the money they ever require to take away the rights of the individual. The individual stands alone.
It is, however, the individual, not the mass of any state that makes the state great or small, significant or insignificant. England without Drake, Churchill, Sir Walter Raleigh, Captain Cook, Wellington, or Nelson might be England, but what would it be in the world of conquest? England without Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Wesley, Newman, Woolsley, Byron, Tennyson, and many other great writers would still be England, but where would it be in the world of literature?
The great statesman, warriors, poets, priests… It was their individual achievements which shine in history. It was the great Romans from Cicero to Seneca who made the history of Rome great, not the mass minions of subservient, obedient slaves. Freedom is their one distinction. They lived in societies where they could buy, beg, borrow, or steal the freedom they needed, and thus could rise to who they really were – divine creators of the great destiny of man. Nothing else will ever change the world for the better. Why did they strive to so achieve? Because they desired to better themselves and acquire property, in the main. Without property, none could or would have the time and leisure to create anything. They would be busy with the necessities of life.
What distinguishes an Indian reserve, with its uniform under-cared for homes and mess? Is it really race or culture which is so indelibly fixed in the Indian psyche? No, race and culture quickly adapt and adopt, as is the case today. Few Indians today could survive as their ancestors did, having too often adopted the lethargy so easily available in modern culture in Canada and North America. Is it the lack of enough government funds to build new homes as the old ones deteriorate from lack of care? No, it is the lack of individual ownership of private property, which would motivate each individual to take pride and care of what they have earned and own.
The destruction of private property, be it by overt arbitrary, brutal forfeiture, or forfeiture by the gradual increase in taxation will eventually result in the equal distribution of poverty.
Why do we work? For money, so we can buy nice things for ourselves and those we love. The nice things are property. This gives us comfort, joy, satisfaction, and security which the state cannot give. Living in a state-funded apartment quickly deteriorates into living in a violent, drug-ridden ghetto. Without respect for, and security of property, all life, all work, all human endeavours become equally worthless and meaningless.
What we do to the Montague property, we can and will do to anyone else’s property. I am, at present, and have been since Monday the 14th of November, for the last two days, in a courtroom in Kenora, Ontario, deciding whether about $120,000 worth of firearms and other personal property is forfeit to the state because Mr. and Mrs. Montague possessed it without a license to possess it from and issued by the government. That, simply put, is the crime of the Montagues for which Mr. Montague was sent to jail for eighteen months, and Mrs. Montague was to forfeit all her firearms. They did not commit a crime with the firearms, have never threatened anyone’s security with the firearms, and did not take anyone’s property with the firearms. They held the firearms without a license from the government.
In ancient Rome, property was secure. In Rome of the decline of the 4th Century AD, magistrates would multiply laws to create new offences, to confiscate property to pay the magistrates. Law can become an extortion racket through civil forfeiture, through arbitrary forfeiture, created by regulatory offences.
Newer and various forms of the modern version of the decline of Rome is accomplished by the legislation called civil forfeiture laws, which make it possible for the state to take from the individual property for criminal offences that are deemed to have occurred in relation to or in connection with firearms for the mere act of possessing them. In some cases, this may be justified. In other cases, it may not. However, the arbitrary actions of the government in passing Section 491(1)(b), have determined that no court shall ever have discretion to decide whether the firearms should be forfeit to the government or not. As it’s written, it automatically occurs, whether it is justified in fact or not in the circumstances. No court is allowed to consider that issue.
One of the more frightening aspects of this arbitrary law, and of the interpretation of it placed on that legislation by the prosecution, were the words in the factum of the Crown attorney: “the Bill of Rights is just another statute. The Bill of Rights, although it has property rights included, is not of any effect on the legislation passed by Parliament.”
To hear those who advocate for the absolute dissolution of property of any kind, express their views, one can see how readily mobs could be swept along, out of ignorance, to the society in which the Soviet Union eventually was obliged to live. Those institutions based on the destruction of private property will eventually fail, because no society is greater than the individual, and no individual will work without the hope of earning private property. That’s why the Montague case is so significant. That’s why whatever happens to the Montague property could happen to your neighbours tomorrow and yours the day after.
It is, however, the individual, not the mass of any state that makes the state great or small, significant or insignificant. England without Drake, Churchill, Sir Walter Raleigh, Captain Cook, Wellington, or Nelson might be England, but what would it be in the world of conquest? England without Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Wesley, Newman, Woolsley, Byron, Tennyson, and many other great writers would still be England, but where would it be in the world of literature?
The great statesman, warriors, poets, priests… It was their individual achievements which shine in history. It was the great Romans from Cicero to Seneca who made the history of Rome great, not the mass minions of subservient, obedient slaves. Freedom is their one distinction. They lived in societies where they could buy, beg, borrow, or steal the freedom they needed, and thus could rise to who they really were – divine creators of the great destiny of man. Nothing else will ever change the world for the better. Why did they strive to so achieve? Because they desired to better themselves and acquire property, in the main. Without property, none could or would have the time and leisure to create anything. They would be busy with the necessities of life.
What distinguishes an Indian reserve, with its uniform under-cared for homes and mess? Is it really race or culture which is so indelibly fixed in the Indian psyche? No, race and culture quickly adapt and adopt, as is the case today. Few Indians today could survive as their ancestors did, having too often adopted the lethargy so easily available in modern culture in Canada and North America. Is it the lack of enough government funds to build new homes as the old ones deteriorate from lack of care? No, it is the lack of individual ownership of private property, which would motivate each individual to take pride and care of what they have earned and own.
The destruction of private property, be it by overt arbitrary, brutal forfeiture, or forfeiture by the gradual increase in taxation will eventually result in the equal distribution of poverty.
Why do we work? For money, so we can buy nice things for ourselves and those we love. The nice things are property. This gives us comfort, joy, satisfaction, and security which the state cannot give. Living in a state-funded apartment quickly deteriorates into living in a violent, drug-ridden ghetto. Without respect for, and security of property, all life, all work, all human endeavours become equally worthless and meaningless.
What we do to the Montague property, we can and will do to anyone else’s property. I am, at present, and have been since Monday the 14th of November, for the last two days, in a courtroom in Kenora, Ontario, deciding whether about $120,000 worth of firearms and other personal property is forfeit to the state because Mr. and Mrs. Montague possessed it without a license to possess it from and issued by the government. That, simply put, is the crime of the Montagues for which Mr. Montague was sent to jail for eighteen months, and Mrs. Montague was to forfeit all her firearms. They did not commit a crime with the firearms, have never threatened anyone’s security with the firearms, and did not take anyone’s property with the firearms. They held the firearms without a license from the government.
In ancient Rome, property was secure. In Rome of the decline of the 4th Century AD, magistrates would multiply laws to create new offences, to confiscate property to pay the magistrates. Law can become an extortion racket through civil forfeiture, through arbitrary forfeiture, created by regulatory offences.
Newer and various forms of the modern version of the decline of Rome is accomplished by the legislation called civil forfeiture laws, which make it possible for the state to take from the individual property for criminal offences that are deemed to have occurred in relation to or in connection with firearms for the mere act of possessing them. In some cases, this may be justified. In other cases, it may not. However, the arbitrary actions of the government in passing Section 491(1)(b), have determined that no court shall ever have discretion to decide whether the firearms should be forfeit to the government or not. As it’s written, it automatically occurs, whether it is justified in fact or not in the circumstances. No court is allowed to consider that issue.
One of the more frightening aspects of this arbitrary law, and of the interpretation of it placed on that legislation by the prosecution, were the words in the factum of the Crown attorney: “the Bill of Rights is just another statute. The Bill of Rights, although it has property rights included, is not of any effect on the legislation passed by Parliament.”
To hear those who advocate for the absolute dissolution of property of any kind, express their views, one can see how readily mobs could be swept along, out of ignorance, to the society in which the Soviet Union eventually was obliged to live. Those institutions based on the destruction of private property will eventually fail, because no society is greater than the individual, and no individual will work without the hope of earning private property. That’s why the Montague case is so significant. That’s why whatever happens to the Montague property could happen to your neighbours tomorrow and yours the day after.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Life Since 2010
Since 2010, when I last posted, I have fought for free speech in a number of cases, such as Tremaine, before the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal. I will be seeking leave in the Supreme Court of Canada. Jack Klundert's cases (all four trials in Windsor) for alleged income tax evasion, and his third appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal have demonstrated the power of Canada Revenue Agency and the limits of resistence to state-sanctioned authority. The Von Dehn case demonstrates that even distributing copies of the law can be a word-crime in Canada. All this indicates the battle continues to preserve what's left of our freedom.
The Montague case demonstrates even the lawful possession of firearms can be rendered criminal by imposing licensing conditions on peaceful gun owners and then seizing their guns and even their homes. The power of the state grows daily. Resistence is the duty of all lovers of liberty.
I intend to write more often of the importance of the struggles I engage in, and to more frequently post on my YouTube channel, which I hope you will view. The frustration of not having a voice, or hearing others speak the truth, incites me to communicate.
My cancer diagnosis has made me realize the importance of expending every moment in pursuit of our highest, best goal. This, I intend to do.
The Montague case demonstrates even the lawful possession of firearms can be rendered criminal by imposing licensing conditions on peaceful gun owners and then seizing their guns and even their homes. The power of the state grows daily. Resistence is the duty of all lovers of liberty.
I intend to write more often of the importance of the struggles I engage in, and to more frequently post on my YouTube channel, which I hope you will view. The frustration of not having a voice, or hearing others speak the truth, incites me to communicate.
My cancer diagnosis has made me realize the importance of expending every moment in pursuit of our highest, best goal. This, I intend to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)