It wasn't me, how we got there.

  For many people, their worldview typically expands in proportion to both their brain and their life experiences.  It all starts in the baby phase with food and touching are the only things that matter, then as the baby grows just a bit, clean diapers start to come into play as it is quite uncomfortable for them; of course this is the parents fault as it is the parents who put the diapers on the small child. At this point in human development, the world-view is limited to what the body needs and what the body can touch.

  As mobility improves for the soon to be toddler their worldview expands even further up and into the post the crawling phase.  As the mobility continues to grow many children learn where to forage for food, that would be the kitchen, and to ensure that some of the other items at the lowest level of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs are secured; some of those items being water, shelter, and sleep.  Physiological Needs, the title of the lowest level, will be revisited later.

  Our sample child is still not capable of knowing how to address the second lowest of Maslow’s layers, Safety Needs, with emotional security being the exception; thus leaving the parents holding the bag on the rest of the items at that level.  The middle level, Social Belonging, speaks of family, friendships, and more.  For the child, this possibly occurs at that point when socialization is thrust upon them by the parents.  Unfortunately, in this the current year many parents offload the socialization aspect of parenting to strangers, TVs, ‘smart phones’, and eventually pre-school followed up by actual-school.  In older times, predating the nuclear family, things were not left to strangers or even just the parents; the multi- generational family did the work, this included the grandparents, aunts and uncles, and even older cousins were involved.  Recalling that Maslow’s Hierarchy describes human needs, it is no wonder that as technology and strangers have invaded and replaced the family, the kids are no longer alright and a higher level of sociopathic behaviour has emerged within western societies.

  David Riedman maintains a database of K-12 shootings from 1966 to present, which can be found at https://k12ssdb.org/all-shootings.  An interesting exercise would be to lay on some additional data; data such as population, per capita GDP, the party of the POTUS, and some historical landmarks such like the ubiquitous spread of TV along with the advent and introduction of social media.

  Regarding the data found in the link above, following data was extracted: in 1966 the number of shootings was 9 with the average for each decade is as follows: for the 1970s - 16.6, 1980s - 22.7, 1990s - 29.9, 2000s - 37.1, 2010s - 52.6, and for the 2020s so far the average is 257.4 as only the completed years were counted with 2024 having 310 at the time of this writing.  The most shootings were at the High-School level, coming in at 61.1%.

  The purpose of any system can be understood by its output, especially when the system’s timeline extends over years and decades.  Of course, while one must always keep in mind ‘The Law of Unintended Consequences’, this concept falls apart when things are going badly and there is no effort towards correcting the course.

  Returning to the mid layer of Maslow’s Hierarchy and that Social Belonging is where the damage begins.  As mentioned earlier, the outsourcing of the socializing children has had ever growing consequences for years now, and for decades many people have been going along with this idea more and more.  Once Social Belonging fails, the Self-esteem layer becomes harder to manifest for the individual; people in this situation are not going to see any respect, any recognition of who they are, and thus they have no ego especially when they are treated as if made of cellophane.

  While K-12 shootings are the low hanging fruit for the MSM, the raise in the number of shooters is not the only signal that something is seriously wrong across society.  Without a personal identity, a person’s EGO presents much like a rudderless ship open to being boarded and commandeered; as such, with a foreign hand doing the steering, many young people ended up with an understanding of themselves that didn’t match who they are; this resulted in lives being ruined due to just how far things went with the invention of trans-gender related bottom and top surgeries.

  Falling under the umbrella of the ‘banality of evil’ is the enforcement of personal pro-nouns with the promotion of Bill C-16 in to law.  The problem with this facet of the Canadian political landscape is that Bill C-16 was done in the name of inclusivity; much like the Affirmative-Action laws down in the USA.  Both Canada’s C-16 and the US’ Affirmative-Action laws are effectively a zero-sum game with a twist; that twist being that one side and one side only has government backing coupled with the access to legal protection, and by extension, inflict legal punishment.

  Sticking with the personal pronoun topic, for some they had the need to assert their off-typical pronouns to make them feel better; an apology to the reader if you can’t determine if the proceeding words were numerically confusing, but that was the point.  This is again an indicator of what Maslow identified as social belonging, because without a solid EGO, the ID will take the upper hand.  Freud saw the danger of a ruling ID when it is left to it-self without a substantive and solid EGO.

  The personal pronoun and gender expression demands are the logical conclusion of an over emphasis on the ID.  Consider the comic book world where people are empowered and then they make the choice of using that power for helping themselves or towards the ideal of helping others; many of the classic stories follow the same story arc; typically the villains were the ones who helped themselves and the heroes were those who helped the ones without power, those being the others.

  The public Internet coupled with Social Media has changed the political landscape as first attributed to Stalin in the form ‘If only one man dies of hunger, that is a tragedy.  If millions die, that’s only statistics’ (Washington Post 20 January 1947).  It is the opinion of this author that on the day of his birth (Friday the 13th) he was born into a society of people who believed in the WE, that was changed into a society of ME around the 1980s, and that then became a society of IT WASN’T ME.  This WASN’T ME narrative is now presenting itself typically in two ways, the softer way is simply playing dodge-ball with a pointed question and the second is to point towards someone else and blame them, other-wise known as ‘throwing them under the bus’; and, when all else fails it seems that there is always “climate change” to fall back on.

 

 

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?