Mr KILROI PRESENTS | LINKS AND REFERENCE | MORE CHERISHED RIGHTS | HOME
You don't Need That!!
How many times have you heard or said that?? My bet is quite often in your existence on the planet. The favourite word of every parent next to " We'll see." I've said them both to my own child when trying to convince or defer a decision. It is natural to do it but that is not the thrust of this section.
The thrust of this section is need. Who decides what one needs? In a free and democratic society the individual decides what their needs are followed by their desires and aspirations. As you can tell from the amount of consumer goods available that your choices are almost endless. As long as you have the ability to finance it. No one stands over you saying "you don't need that". However there are groups in our society that believe that they know what you need and don't need. They feel strongly enough about that they form lobbies and try to impose their point of view on the society at large. Could you imagine an enviromental group succeeding in lobbying the government to allow only compact cars, reasoning that "people don't need anything bigger". Would you feel cheated? Would you feel less cheated if the government then said that "some people need something bigger". Then made a rule saying that only farmers and businesses could own trucks or SUVs but certain individuals could own bigger cars and trucks but they would have to get a special license. Individuals would be required to give reason as to why they needed them but convenience is not a reason. Would giving the government all of your most personal information to obtain that license be reasonable?
Here now I would like to raise a very grave issue. It affects every citizen in this Country. Many of us read about robberies, home invasions, violent beatings, stabbings, shootings,rapes and murders. It makes some people feel ill about the world we live in. Gangs, drugs, drug addicts all the really bad things about city life. While some are lucky not to have such troubles and have a bit of a comfortable distance from such things, they still happen.
We operate under the belief that the Police are here to protect us. It is there job to stop crime. We believe that the government will do something about it so we don't have to. There is a FATAL flaw in that line of thought. . Indeed the function of Police is to investigate crime and keep order hence the term "Officer of the Peace". It is not their job to protect you personally. Albeit they do swear an oath to protect life they are not the guarantors of public safety. Ah what about the Government? you say. Well the government passes legislation that become statutes after that you are on your own. It is you alone who is the guarantor of your safety and security. The Criminal Code of Canada outlines what is illegal, quite frankly if passing a statute solved the problem then there would not be any need for Police. In a perfect world that is true. Do we live in a perfect world? Here is a list of people the Government believe worthy to protect R.C.M.P. Act Amendments
Believe it or not we have groups of people that have decided that you "Do not need" the means to guarantee your safety and security. They have even convinced the government and many in the media that you "Don't need" these means. They have been so successful that even the populous at large thinks you "Don't need" the means. I'll wager that even you my loyal reader are under the same belief that you "Don't need" the means to defend your safety and security. Even though it is a fundamental right to have the means to do so. After all even the police tell us not to resist an assailant just give them what they want. It is implied that, it will keep you safe from harm, but what it fails to say is that it is not guaranteed. In fact some people after complying with an assailant have in fact suffered grievace harm, some have even died following that advice.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, sadly a toothless document. Bit of a misnomer there. Might as well called it the Charter of Privileges and Permissions
We have the right to "Security of the Person" translated the Right to Self Defense. It is the most ancient and most fundamental right a human being has (which I will expand upon later) So you have this right but what does it mean really. Well sadly in Canada you have the right to defend yourself with not much more than a feather duster, provided your assailant is not hurt. I am being facetious,but there is a sad truth under that statement. Back in the seventies I saw the prohibition of martial arts weapons. For the most part they are non lethal defensive weapons developed by Okinawan peasants to defend themselves against unruly Samurai retainers (the Samurai had Outlawed weapons of steal). Bruce Lee and company had made them famous. Indeed in the hands of an expert they could be quite lethal but not in the hands of most novices.
But wicked cool martial arts weapons were not the only casualties of Nanny. Pepper spray, tasers other tools for self defence have become forbidden to ordinary citizens. Even a sidearm has been regulated out of existence. All the statutes have done is disarmed the citizen leaving them defenceless. Which leads to greater fear and anxiety among the children(Us) and making Nanny needed more than ever. Nanny however is an empty shell with a unhealthy passive aggressive streak and will not confront the real problems head on, instead Nanny passes "Feel good statutes" that only regulate the well behaved, while the problem child carries on.
Like a good Nanny or Mother the statute took the offending objects away equally from the children (US) but did it? The problem child (street toughs) took them back when Nanny's back was turned or went for the more traditional weapons of choice Knives and baseball bats. Which are low on the radar screen but still there is a theme or pattern developing here. First of which is The Government no matter what the appearance is cannot legislate good behavior nor can it legislate against insane acts. The second is some people will not behave in a manner that we want them to. Lastly the police are not able to prevent crime just because there is a law or statute against something. There is a strong belief these days that to solve a problem all one need do is pass a law banning something and the problem magically goes away. This is an ill conceived pattern of behavior that is becoming more and more common among Governments in Canada lately
1 It is illegal to own a firearm. the exceptions are clearly stated. 1 you must have a license for the particular class of firearm
2 Must register said fire arm and have proof of registry at all times.
Yet this has not hindered a single gang member, drug dealer or other criminal elements.
The Fear of Objects
The fear of objects is an irrational fear, a phobia. Objects are inert pieces matter that if left alone will remain in a motionless state until an external force acts upon them. They have no will of their own no brain and no conscience. My old martial arts instructor stuck a knife into the Dojo's floor and said "That knife will stay there until the building collapses it will not move, it will not do a damn thing. In that state it is not a weapon it is a mere hunk of wood and steel." He then pick it out of the floor held in a threatening manner at his assistant instructor and said "Now it is a weapon." No inanimate object is capable of acting upon its own, it requires a human to determine its use. This is true of everything in life even crack cocaine. Crack pipes do not make people smoke crack it is the human who elects to.
This is the fundamental problem of the Nanny State it requires fear to operate, fear of objects and fear of your fellow man. Media generates and perpetuates the fear in the mind of the public, fear motivates people to look to the government for solutions after all they have the power to make laws and enforce them. but the objective of Government is Power. Like the crack addict they are always hungry for their drug "Power". Under the pretext of the greater good they affect the lives of every good citizen. As we become more dependent upon them to look after us we become co-dependents we are willing give up our rights for security. We become helpless children always looking for Nanny to make things right for us. Like crack cocaine it is a false promise.
The Side of Socialism never talked about
The is a side to Socialism that is rarely mentioned. A side that is not theoretical but indeed has been put into practise.
I would like to mention now a word that today is never spoke of in polite socialists circles. None the less one cannot mention a Socialist Nanny State with out including it. It is as much apart of social engineering as politcaly correct speech. And Now A Word About .....Eugenics. Explaning eugenics in the simplest of terms is the ridding society of undesirable elements. Here is an article by journalist Micheal Coren Socialists made eugenics Fashionable . I could never do the subject justice however Mr Coren does it quite well
Socialists made eugenics fashionable
Michael Coren, National Post Published: Tuesday, June 17, 2008
An exhibition of the history of those scientific ideas that gave a grimy intellectual veneer to the Nazi genocide opened recently at the Canadian War Museum in Ottawa. The collection centres on eugenics, the notion that humanity can be improved and perfected by selective breeding and the elimination of individuals and groups considered to be undesirable. Entitled Deadly Medicine: Creating the Master Race, it reveals how it was not thoughtless right-wing thugs as much as writers and scientists, the intellectual elite, who led the movement.
The exhibit is important, accurate but, regrettably, long overdue. It also fails to stress just how much the socialist left initiated and supported the eugenics campaign, not only in Germany but in Britain, the U. S. and the rest of Europe. Playwright George Bernard Shaw, English social democrat leader Sydney Webb and, in Canada, Tommy Douglas were just three influential socialists who called, for example, for the mass sterilization of the handicapped. In his Master's thesis The Problems of the Subnormal Family, the now revered Douglas argued that the mentally and even physically disabled should be sterilized and sent to camps so as not to "infect" the rest of the population.
It is deeply significant that few if any of Douglas's left-wing comrades in this country or internationally were surprised or offended by his proposals. Indeed the early fascism of 1920s Italy, while unsavoury and dictatorial, had little connection with social engineering and eugenics. The latter German version of fascism was influenced not by ultra conservatism in southern Europe but, as is made clear in the writings of the Nazi ideologues, by the Marxist left.
The most vociferous and outspoken of the socialist eugenicists was the novelist H. G. Wells, author of The Time Machine, The War of the Worlds and The Invisible Man. He argued in best-selling books such as Anticipations and A Modern Utopia that the world would collapse and from this collapse a new order should and would emerge.
"People throughout the world whose minds were adapted to the big-scale conditions of the new time. A naturally and informally organised educated class, an unprecedented sort of people." A strict social order would be formed. At the bottom of it were the base. These were "people who had given evidence of a strong anti-social disposition", including "the black, the brown, the swarthy, the yellow." Christians would also "have to go" as well as the handicapped. Wells devoted entire pamphlets to the need of "preventing the birth, preventing the procreation or preventing the existence" of the mentally and physically handicapped. "This thing, this euthanasia of the weak and the sensual is possible. I have little or no doubt that in the future it will be planned and achieved."
The people of Africa and Asia, he said, simply could never find a place in a modern world controlled by science. Better to do away with the lot. "I take it they will have to go" he said of them. Marriage as it is known would have to end but couples could form mutually agreed unions. They would list their "desires, diseases, needs" on little cards and a central authority would decide who was fitted for whom.
Population would be rigidly controlled, with forced abortion for those who were not of the right class and race. Religion would be banned, children would be raised in communes and all would be well. The old and the ill would, naturally, have to be done away with and doctors would be given the authority to decide who had a right to live, who had a duty to die.
In the United States socialist writer Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood and the mother of the abortion movement, called for a radical eugenics approach as early as the first years of the 20th century. She wrote of the need for "a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring. It is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them. Herein lies the key of civilization."
The key of civilization. Unlocking the doors of a hell once unimaginable but now, after the Holocaust, the Ukrainian genocide, Pol Pot and Mao's mass slaughter, entirely within the grasp of contemporary sensibilities. History is often clouded by fashion and the whims of the victorious. Because some of the most pernicious intellectual criminals of the past century wore red they have escaped condemnation. It is time for the clouds to clear and the fashions to change.
www.michaelcoren.com - Broadcaster Coren's biography of H. G. Wells was described by The New Yorker as "superb" and The Times as "outstanding."
Addictions and Recovery
The first step is recognizing you have one. The next step is working toward getting the monkey off your back. Unlike chemical addictions, addictions to power and the dependency upon government power is easier but just as lengthy. There is not a 12 step program to follow. It requires one to be scrupulously and diligently suspect of every government. It requires you to act. Let your representatives in Government know your thoughts on their policy. Just because it does not affect you, it might affect someone you do know. Now for the hard part. even though you might agree with the legislation in principle ask your self "What rights are abrogated?" just remember something you hold dear might come under the eye of the Government like riding ATV's or something. but most of all FIGHT THE URGE TO UTTER THE SENTENCE. "THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD DO SOMETHING ABOUT THAT"" The odds are there is a law on the books already that could apply. Educate yourself, ignorance of the law and our rights is no excuse. When you finally realize that you don't need the government to act as your second mother, we all might begin to see the end of
The Nanny State
"Lets pass more laws and regulations. We know we can't actually do anything but we can't look like we can't. VOTES PEOPLE!!! votes are at stake! (to be continued)