Nowhere and Everywhere

Nowhere and Everywhere

 

 The word Utopia is understood to mean an imagined place or state where all things are perfect; though in the Greek where the word comes from, the word translates into ‘not place’ or nowhere.  The stitching together of these two phrases ‘nowhere’ and ‘there can be perfect place’ was probably done by some sarcastic comedian or an even more sarcastic Sci-Fi writer.  

 Unlike this author, many people believe in or present that they believe some sort of a utopian future that can actually be made manifest; imaginary places should be left to the subconscious, fairy-tales, and within fantasy books or movies.  What the perfect place looks like is debatable as ‘just right’ is subjective, this makes for a very inconvenient effort unless one feels that the might makes right; history can show us that there have been people who thought along this line, though history also informed us that the general population decided that sort of thinking required an edit (cue the song Bella Ciao).

 Everything of value comes at a cost and yet who pays the piper must be asked.  It seems that those who follow the Utopian path like to offload the cost to others, whereas those who take the path of reality typically expect people to pickup their own tab; thus showing one of the main differences in the human mindset.

 This split in mindset spans across all levels of society, at the top the political utopians see handing out benefits as a way to buy votes from the people at the bottom, while the people at the bottom see these benefits as a way to avoid labour; this sort of thinking has been going on for years.  Conversely, those who think another way understand that work has the reward of accomplishment and that typically people can make better choices for themselves and their children over some pencil pusher who only sees them simply as a number; this sort of thinking has been going on for years.

 Many a company makes the claim that their software product costs as little as a cup of coffee a week; depending on which coffee one buys that cost can range from $84.00 for an Espresso to $240.24 CAD for a Caramel Toffee Latte if you like buy your coffee at Tim Hortons; just imagine the increase in cost if Star Bucks was used as the metric.  The problem though is that the cost of the coffee is not just the beans, the cup and the labour involved.  Tim Hortons was picked for the metric because people have started to notice that the frontline workers there are primarily people from India, to the point where even the Canadian MSM has taken note.

 People consider intentions and yet act based on incentives and that is just what Tim Hortons did in their hiring practice.  The Canadian government made a policy where, when hired the salary for foreign students would be subsidized; couple that with the current immigration policy and the outcome should be obvious. 

A national level government can produce no value and therefore should be left out of any calculation of National GDP.  What a national government should only do is to set aside the value taken from the citizenry for the protection of the citizens from enemies both foreign and domestic; and through tariffs, trades facilitate the enrichment of the citizens.

  As Ronald Ragan claimed, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help’, are some of the scariest world in any language; and the more government people show up the scarier things get because each one them is on the tax payers dime.  It should seem obvious to the reader that the bigger the government gets the more it will need to be fed.  Returning to the subsidy, it must be remembered that the government can only have money by two means, collecting taxes or by printing money, and any government that does both at once will destroy its nation.

Robert A. Heinlein once wrote ‘Don’t over imbibe as you may miss when the taxman comes’ and Jesus said to have uttered, ‘Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to God what belongs to God.’  While Heinlein’s quote may have been said in jest, many people accept it as a true the sentiment and while lots of people don’t like taxation they do see taxes as a necessary evil towards having a better community.  The problem seems to be that the size of the government has become inversely proportional to the size of the Government ROI.

It is commonly known that the printing of money is the primary cause of inflation with an overabundance of corporate taxation coming in a close second; counterfeiting, theft and bribery finish off the list.  The ranking of the final three will vary depending on the nation under scrutiny.  Inflation is in fact both a current tax on the poor for it drives up existing prices on day-to-day items, all the while demanding greater taxes in the future towards paying off the national debt incurred from the central banking system.  Something of note is that as the price of things goes up, already owned assets provide more leverage to buy even more assets; in this sort of economy poor get squeezed, and the rich get to graze.

 Canada in the last nine years has become ground zero for the perfect storm for what was noted above, along with many other Western countries.  For many years now the way of the world as understood by many politicians has been to allow for national debt growth because the bigger the debt the bigger the ability to borrow against that debt which in turn generates more debt, thus more inflation; explaining the number of sides of a Mobius Strip might just have become more easily graspable for the many youngsters currently being educated.

  Many Canadian politicians understand there is a housing crisis in Canada, which is quite obvious when one looks at availability, price, transaction counts, and all of the too easy to find ‘tent cities’.  The political pendulums has seemingly swung more towards show over go in the mind of Canada’s current Prime Minister; perhaps it has always been this way and enough people simply didn’t notice at the time.  The litmus test for the integrity of anyone with power is that when things go sideways that person takes responsibility; yet the current Canadian PM is not doing that when it comes to: the lack of housing, high food costs, homelessness, and the number of Canadians out of work.  This does beg the statement – ‘if it is not worth fixing, then it is not a problem’ – as the output of a system describes the purpose of the system; please keep that front of mind when next you vote.

 There is an ongoing debate about Canada as to if it is Soc-Cap or Cap-Soc, meaning that within Canada is the priority - socialist first or capitalist first, and seemingly Canada does neither adequately under the current administration.  If ‘the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree’ is true, then when coupled with the level of the wealth redistribution, a paternity test now may throw some shade on Margret Trudeau’s character; that is if you believe that doing that sort of behaviour is wrong.  The world has changed from US to ME, in the course of the last fifty years, as noted by this author many times over.

 There seems to be an organized effort by many of those seeking power or keeping it towards making an environment of division.  These divisions are being centered on labels such as: race, religion, sex, gender, the political Left, the political Right, being rich, and being poor; and then add in the current level of migration/invasion which of course just adds in another item to the pigeon holes already mentioned.  While there is an underlying cause to the situation described above, and that would be ‘government’, in this case the government is in fact the numerator, NOT the denominator as it has shown itself to want to be on top, rather than below in the sense of ground up.

 A loud ‘Fuck you’ is occasionally the only reasonable response to an unreasonable situation; of-course the follow up step is in the asking of what is the unreasonable?  Upon reflection of both the US election and the up-and-coming Canada election, a certain tactic has emerged; the message of ‘here is why we are the right choice’ has been replaced with the message ‘the other people are wrong because – insert label here.’ 

 While the familial lineage of Justin Trudeau may be in question, there is little doubt in the mind of this author that the current Prime Minister of Canada plays as if he is the child of the Klaus Schwab and his World Economic Forum (WEF); the WEF though has a problem, and that problem is the nefarious slogan that states, ‘you will own nothing and be happy.’  The word nefarious was used due to the basic premise that a person’s right to property shall not be a thing, and yet there is the assumption that persons will hold care for something that is not theirs.

 The model is quite simple, a father give his son some tools and sends him off to a job-site to ask for a job, the youngster gets the job and gets to work with those tools and he eventually learns a trade; one day that son will hand down the tools to his own son.  Contrast the previous situation to the following situation – a father shows up for work and at the end of the day he drops his hammer into the freshly poured cement as he knows that he will be handed another one tomorrow leaving himself nothing to pass on to his son; this of course is not a problem seeing as his son will also be handed a hammer.  Of course all those hammers being tossed come at a cost and that cost has to come from somewhere, be it via: higher levels of taxation, higher project costs, or cheaper hammers which in turn will break sooner - the economic rot is then secured regardless.  When a person doesn’t own the thing or see any beauty in that thing then they don’t care for the thing as the thing has no value.

What many people have been doing is to decry the deeds of the current Prime Minister of Canada, deeds such as:

o       The number of ethics violations and conflicts of interest across the board with the current government.

o       The number of flights he has been on, while claiming to be working towards saving the planet. 

o       This PM’s claim toward protecting democracy and then ordering the bank accounts of people protesting non-violently locked.

What many media people haven’t been doing, is talking about the non-deeds of the current Prime Minister of Canada:

o       Halting the sale of coal to China towards curbing carbon emissions.

o       Halting immigration, towards opening up jobs and housing for Canadians.

o       Admitting that his politics is simply Communism-Light hiding behind cheap wrapping-paper decorated in solar panels and windmills made in China using coal-fired electricity plants.

 ‘The result of any system can be measured by the results of that system’, is similar to the old adage which states that ‘actions are more important than words.’  Towards adding an insult to the current injuring of Canada, the following quote will be piled atop the two presented just now: ‘Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.’  (Eric Hoffer, The Temper of Our Time.)

 This all begs the question – what is Justin Trudeau’s actual purpose and how well has he answered that call so far?

What Does the Left have left?

 Censorship is a double edged blade, with one of the side being serrated; the side that is serrated is applied to the speaker, while the smooth side is applied to listeners.  The way that censorship harms a society is that it stifles the intentions of both the speaker and the listener; many people seem to have forgotten that when a man’s tongue is cut out only message the world gets is that someone else is afraid of that man voicing his ideas.  Yet ideas don’t die, only the people who express them.

 For quite some time now politics has divided into four quadrants: on the vertical divide there the labels like Left and Right, while the horizontal divide there says Liberal at the bottom and Authoritarian at the top.  This is typically called The Political Compass and testing to see where you land is readily available on the public Internet.  If you the decide to take part in these sorts of tests, find three to five different sites as some will lean in one political direction while other sites will slant in the other.

 Dear reader, if you happen to be a progressive or happen to stumble across one, there is one question and one question only; that needs to be asked, which is ‘if and when you stop progressing, please describe the world that you will have built for me?’  This is the question, especially under scrutiny, that no one seems to be able to answer; probably be-cause they never really thought it through.

 Currently, a problem in many social conversations is that few people can define the Left and the Right with any certainty and so new words needed to be introduced into the lexicon to describe people outside of those two systems; one of those words is ‘woke’  and the other is ‘progressive’.  The second word, in the previous sentence is a good sounding word seeing as everyone wants to move forward, and yet this author is seeing only regression for the last decade plus, for there has been a plethora of unrest at the civilian level.  The first word was co-opted from a smaller portion of society and got perverted on its way to ubiquity within society; ‘woke’ means ‘to see’ or ‘to know’; yet what the subject matter for the seeing and knowing is now being prescribed, almost as if it was orthodoxy.

  The Enlightenment, circa the 18^th century, strove to chase away superstition and faith in favour of reason and it advocated for liberty, tolerance, fraternity, national rule by the people, a separation of church and as one might guess ‘progress’.  The problem that is now coming to light is that for some, mostly the selfish, there are certain perspectives where the those values are not to be held in equal balance for all; typical this is framed in the ‘rules for thee, but not for me’ sentence.  How this usually works is that one person demands their liberty, all the while demanding tolerance from others; for the idea of ‘fraternity’ seems to have been disposed of along with the contents of the chamber pot from last night.

 Once one accepts the idea of an apex predator within an ecosystem, the existence of an apex group member within said predatory group must be obvious; according to Darwin, all life is hierarchal.  Excluding humans, the rest of nature typically ignores the principle of might makes right, as the rest of nature knows not what is right or what is wrong.  The ideas of right and wrong are human values and even then there is no global consensus on this matter; the lion has no sympathy for the gazelle’s fate and the gazelle has no empathy for the hunger of the lion; for these are typically human traits and even then, these are not applicable to all humans.

  There are two main factors at play that have brought down the good intentions of The Enlightenment; those are Time and us Humans.  When given enough time many a human can and will solve a given problem and typically that problem can be stated as such: ‘I want a better life tomorrow than I have today, and then I want my children to have an even better life than what my tomorrow is going.’  This is a noble cause so long as one maintains a state of mind in which The Enlightenment is holistically considered.  Once any of the six pillars of said Enlightenment are forgotten, ignored, or stripped away, a new era must begin; to paraphrase Yoda from the Star Wars movies – “Begun, the “ME” Wars have.”

 The acts undertaken in WW2 wrought a plethora of damage around the globe, this is a fact.  Yet the most significant outcome of WW2 was the phrase ‘never again’.  The problem with the word ‘never’ is that it represents a very long time.  For us humans it typically lasts as long as living memory, which is typically three to four generations.  However yet as mentioned earlier people die, but when it comes to ideas, not so much.  We know this because some ideas no matter how good or bad always seem return. 

 The ‘never again’ mantra gave life to the UN, the EU and eventually the bureaucratically established ‘Deep State’ in many so called other ‘free countries’.  Seemingly, persons are being placed into positions of power where they can impact member countries, yet those persons are being moved ever more distant from the people.  Please understand that those in the UN are appointed and yet they are allowed to, or are trying to, set policies for the member states and beyond.  Perhaps paintings of the royals of old can be held up as a mirror to those presently seeking power while skirting the electoral process; though upon consideration, a picture of Dorian Grey may be more appropriate when one contemplates the sheer number of skeletons some of these power seekers have inside and outside of  their closets.

 There seems to be a metaphorical scent in the air and some people are starting to notice it is turning foul.  The saying ‘a house divided can not stand’ can be applied to nations as well, and there seems to be efforts towards dividing nations from the inside by stacking the political deck while pulling a slight of hand towards emptying the pot. Many people have heard the leader of the World Economic Forum proclaimed that people would have to adjust their lives to the ‘the new normal’; though it is becoming ever clearer that this phrase has expanded beyond Klaus Shwab’s intent towards taking over the world.

 In bygone days wars were fought over resources, first it was food, land, and slaves, then it became coal for heat and steal, with the last big ruckus and to a certain point still is on-going over oil and its variances.  Seemingly, the new landscape that has opened up for raping and pillaging are the narrative and the opinion.  The old saying ‘facts don’t care about your feelings’ has been renovated to the point where now many people’s feelings no longer care about the facts.  For these feelings-first people, there is also a ‘new normal’, for now the masses are ever increasingly shifting towards the social media platforms in their pursuit for the facts as an alternative to what appears to be some sort of orthodoxy centered entirely on faith, a faith which presents itself at a level similar to any fundamental religion.

 The use of the word faith above may be misplaced because with the religious faiths there is simply trust in what is true; where as these feelings-first people actually obfuscate existing facts be it by omission or by redirection; though those efforts seem to be failing due to the overwhelming nature of there attempts.  A prime example of this that is fooling no-one is the reporting on crime, which then gets coupled with the lack of reporting detail in the old style media.

 Please consider why many a media report on crime where the alleged perpetrator is described as “The police are seeking a tall man last seen in a dark jacket, black jeans, and a beard.”  This description is missing the obvious element of skin colour that should have been obvious when the beard was noted, thus leaving the reader with only assumption.  This situation is exasperated by the fact that if the perpetrator is white then typically is when skin colour is noted.  Much like any judge, the Main Stream Media should only address the facts while ignoring personal feelings, and personal political positioning.

 It used to be that both sides of the political divide within many a country could agree on what plagued most of said country’s citizens, with the only argument up for debate being which path is the best path towards a solution; this has been regulated to the dustbin of history as now even the problems can hardly ever be agreed upon regardless of the scale in which the discussions occur; be it at the local, the state, or national levels.  Terms such as ‘irregular immigration’ and ‘no person is illegal’ are forms of linguistic redirection in that these terms fail to admit the one simple fact; the law had been broken the moment the illegal migrant stepped one foot over the boarder. 

 The saying, ‘don’t bury you head in the sand’ got expanded to ‘when you bury your head in the sand you end up leaving your ass in the air.’  This has become a problem for the feelings-first people who obfuscate facts because, because while narrative can change opinion, the truth will remain, because the facts will not go away. 

What is called the political Left, has for the most part been running the West for just about forty years and frankly the West has changed and not for the better.  Over the last forty years the political elites have drifted away from the common people and when any politician tries to return to appealing to the common people, they are called ‘populist’ at best, or ‘far-right’ which is becoming evermore typical.  The use of the term ‘far-right’ as a pejorative is the indicator of the political leaning of those who use it.

 Now that the narrative has been set, it has to be asked, how are things going after the last few decades of the tutelage under the Left?  Here is a headline like list of some of current situations:

• Woman banned from gym, after complaining about being shown a penis in female change room.
• 28 year old man commits suicide after learning he will never be able to breastfeed the baby he wanted yet can’t have.
• Scandal erupts in England over Grooming Gang cover up, raped girls ignored.
• Pride parade held hostage by Hamas supporters by using a human road block.
• Climate Change Girl supports rocket strikes on Israeli citizens.
• Toronto Police refuse to enforce Obstructing Traffic Laws on people engaged in prayer. (Toronto Municipal Code 950 Section 950-300B)
• Since May 2021 at least 33 Canadian churches have burned to the ground.
• Young men being forced out of dating scene as #MeToo has been weaponized by women; are the men acting in an involuntarily or voluntarily way?
• Social media platform Rumble leaves France after threats of fines for not removing certain posts.
• China’s TikTok blocks Western content toward controlling their social narrative.
• Tim Hortons under fire for hiring only foreign students after government provides subsidies.
• Bill C-63, the Online Harm Act, draws criticism as it lacks any definition of what is harmful.

  Back in the 1970’s there was a popular statuette representing ‘See no evil, Say no evil, and Hear no evil’.  Unfortunately there wasn’t a forth monkey expressing ‘Do no evil’, though what that one would look like is beyond the scope of this writing.  While evil is understood to be wickedness and immorality, the chance for subjective analysis of what is wicked or immoral always exists, and many people will, if not almost must, leverage that to their advantage.  For Leftist, the three original monkeys are the archetype of their perfect world; unfortunately they can’t seem to incorporate the forth, consider the historical death counts in communist countries.

  The stated goal of the socialist and communist ideologies is to balance a society by eliminating greed, which has about the same percentage of success as cancelling human lust. 

 In a debate, Jordan B Peterson put forth the question ‘how do we know when the left has gone too far?’  The answer to Dr. Peterson’s question seems quite simple, when they don’t say anything about their evils, when they don’t want you to see their evils, and when they don’t want to anyone to hear about their evils.  In other words, when they achieve enough power to control the narrative rather than letting society decide what should or should not be spoken; for whoever controls the public discourse controls the social mindset, and by doing so, they are ignoring any understanding of the banality of evil, just like every other tyrant.

 "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." 

- Eric Hoffer, The Temper of Our Time -