Captain Airhead, Would You Please Go Now?

      Throne, Altar, Liberty

The Canadian Red Ensign

The Canadian Red Ensign

Thursday, February 29, 2024

Captain Airhead, Would You Please Go Now?

 Leap Day this year is the fortieth anniversary of Pierre Elliot Trudeau’s announcement that during a “walk in the snow” he had decided that he would step down and not lead the Liberal Party into the next Dominion election.  He had been leader of the Grits for sixteen years since Lester Pearson stepped down in April of 1968.   With the exception of the six month premiership of Joe Clark he had been Prime Minister all that time.   His was the third longest premiership in Canadian history.   The longest was that of William Lyon Mackenzie King who had been a different kind of Liberal leader.   King, like Trudeau, had been a traitor to Canada, her history, heritage, and traditions, but in his case it was American-style capitalist liberalism to which he had sold us out.   In the case of Pierre Trudeau it was Soviet and Chinese Communism that was his true master.   Canada’s second longest premiership was also her first that of Sir John A. Macdonald.   Sir John had been the leader of the Fathers of Confederation and never betrayed us.   Nor did Canadians ever grow tired of Old Tomorrow.   Shortly before his death in 1891 he won his sixth majority in that year’s Dominion Election by campaigning for “The Old Flag, the Old Policy, the Old Leader” against a Liberal Party that sought to move us closer economically and culturally into the orbit of the United States.   By contrast by the time Trudeau took his famous walk Canadians had grown absolutely sick and tired of him.   The Liberals were heading to defeat, Trudeau knew it, and in the interest of preserving his legacy and what was left of his reputation jumped off the ship before it sank.

The electorate’s having grown sick of Trudeau and his party should be regarded as the expected outcome when a Prime Minister remains in office for a long period of time.   Sir John’s enduring popularity can be taken as the exception explainable by the fact that he was an exceptional statesman, identified with the country he led as no other Prime Minister could ever hope to be due to his central role in her founding, and a personable leader to whom people could relate.   When a Sovereign, like Queen Victoria during whose reign Confederation took place or like our late Queen Elizabeth II of Blessed Memory, has an exceptionally long reign this is cause for celebration and rejoicing.   It is the role of the Sovereign, after all, to embody the principle of continuity and everything that is enduring, lasting, and permanent in the realm.   The man who fills the Prime Minister’s office, by contrast, is very much the man of the moment.   Premierships, therefore, are usually best kept short.

Pierre Trudeau’s son, Captain Airhead, has been Prime Minister since 2015 and Canadians are now far sicker of him than they ever were of his father.   Personally, I had had more than enough of him while he was still the third party leader prior to the 2015 Dominion Election.   Why it took this long for the rest of the country to catch up with me I have no idea but here we are.   It is 2024 and Canadians are divided on whether they would like Captain Airhead to follow his father’s footsteps and take a walk in the snow, whether they would like to see him suffer the humiliation of going down in defeat in the next Dominion Election or whether they would like to see him brought down in an act of direct divine intervention involving a lightning bolt that strikes the ground beneath him causing it to open up, swallow him whole, and belch out fire and brimstone.  What unites Canadians is that we all wish that he would make like Dr. Seuss’ Marvin K. Mooney and “please go now.”   Thermidor is rapidly approaching for Captain Airhead and his version of the Liberal Party as it eventually comes for all Jacobins.

The Canadian Robespierre seems determined, however, not to go to his inevitable guillotine without one last stab at imposing his ghoulish and clownish version of the Reign of Terror.   On Monday the Liberals tabled, as they have been threatening to do since the last Dominion Election, Bill C-63, an omnibus bill that would enhance government power in the name of combatting “online harms.”   A note to American readers, in the Commonwealth to “table” a bill does not mean to take it off the table, i.e., to suspend or postpone it as in the United States, but rather to put it on the table, i.e., to introduce it.   Defenders of omnibus bills regard them as efficient time-savers.   They are also convenient ways to smuggle in something objectionable that is unlikely to pass if forced to stand on its own merits by rolling it up with something that is desirable and difficult or impossible to oppose without making yourself look bad.   In this case, the Liberals are trying to smuggle in legislation that would allow Canadians to sue other Canadians for up to $20 000, with the possibility of being fined another $50 000 payable to the government thrown in on top of it, over online speech they consider to be hateful and legislation that would make it possible for someone to receive life imprisonment for certain “hate crimes”, by rolling it up in a bill ostensibly about protecting children from online bullying and pornographic exploitation.  As is always the case when the Liberals introduce legislation that has something to do with combatting hate it reads like they interpreted George Orwell’s depiction of Big Brother in 1984 as a “how-to” manual.  

Nobody with an IQ that can be expressed with a positive number could possibly be stupid enough to think that this Prime Minister or any of his Cabinet cares about protecting children.   Consider their response to the actions taken over the last year or so by provincial premiers such as New Brunswick’s Blaine Higgs and Alberta’s Danielle Smith to do just that, protect children  from perverts in the educational system hell-bent on robbing children of their innocence and filling their heads with sex and smut from the earliest grades.   Captain Airhead and his corrupt cohorts denounced and demonized these premiers’ common-sense, long overdue, efforts, treating them not as the measures taken in defense of children and their parents and families that they were, but as an attack on the alphabet soup gang, one of the many groups that the Liberals and the NDP court in the hopes that these in satisfaction over having their special interests pandered to will overlook the progressive left’s contemptuous disregard for the common good of the whole country and for the interests of those who don’t belong to one or another of their special groups.  

Nor could any Canadian capable of putting two and two together and who is even marginally informed about what has been going on in this country in this decade take seriously the Prime Minister’s posturing about hate.    The leader of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, Pierre Poilievre, when asked about what stance the Conservatives would take towards this bill made the observation that Captain Airhead given his own past is the last person who should be dictating to other Canadians about hate.   Poilievre was referring to the blackface scandal that astonishingly failed to end Captain Airhead’s career in 2019.  It would have been more to the point to have referenced the church burnings of 2021.  In the summer of that year, as Captain Airhead hosted conferences on the subjects of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia that consisted of a whole lot of crying and hand-wringing and thinking out ways to get around basic rights and freedoms so as to be able to throw in gaol anyone who looks at a Jew or Muslim cross-eyed, Canada was in the midst of the biggest spree of hate crimes in her history.   Christian church buildings all across Canada were targeted for arson and/or other acts of vandalism.  Not only did Captain Airhead fail to treat this violent and criminal display of Christophobia as a serious problem in the same way he was treating these other types of hatred directed towards specific religions he played a significant role in inciting these attacks on Canada’s Christian churches by promoting a narrative in which all allegations against Canada’s churches and her past governors with regards to the Indian Residential Schools are accepted without question or requirement of proof. (1)

Clearly Captain Airhead does not give a rat’s rump about hate qua hate.   If hatred is directed towards people he doesn’t like, like Christians, he shrugs it off even when it is expressed through violent, destructive, crime.   If it is directed against people he likes, or, more accurately, against groups to which he panders, he treats it as if it were the most heinous of crimes even if it is expressed merely in words.   While I am on principle opposed to all laws against hate since they are fundamentally unjust and by nature tyrannical (2) they are especially bad when drawn up by someone of Captain Airhead’s ilk.

Captain Airhead’s supposed concern about “online harms” is also a joke.   Consider how he handles real world harms.   His approach to the escalating problem of substance abuse is one that seeks to minimize the harm drug abusers do to themselves by providing them with a “safe” supply of their poison paid for by the government.   This approach is called “harms reduction” even though when it comes to the harms that others suffer from drug abuse such as being violently attacked by someone one doesn’t know from Adam because in his drug-induced mania he thinks his victim is a zombie space alien seeking to eat his brain and lay an egg in the cavity, this approach should be called “harms facilitation and enablement.”   Mercifully, there is only so much Captain Airhead can do to promote this folly at the Dominion level and so it is only provinces with NDP governments, like the one my province was foolish enough to elect last year, that bear the full brunt of it.   Then there was his idea that the solution to the problem of overcrowded prisons and criminal recidivism was to release those detained for criminal offenses back into the general public as soon after their arrest as possible.   Does this sound like someone who can be trusted to pass legislation protecting people from “online harms”?

Captain Airhead inadvertently let slip, last week, the real reason behind this bill.   In an interview he pined for the days when Canadians were all on the same page, got all their information from CBC, CTV, and Global, before “conspiracy theorists” on the internet ruined everything.   He was lamenting the passing of something that never existed, of course.   People were already getting plenty of information through alternative sources on the internet long before his premiership and the mainstream legacy media became far more monolithic in the viewpoints it presented during and because of his premiership.   What he was pining for, therefore, was not really something that existed in the past, but what he has always hoped to establish in the future – a Canada where everyone is of one opinion, namely his.    This is, after all, the same homunculus who, back when a large segment of the country objected to him saying that they would be required to take a foreign substance that had been inadequately tested and whose manufacturers were protected against liability into their bodies if they ever wanted to be integrated back into ordinary society, called them every name in the book and questioned whether they should be tolerated in our midst.

Some have suggested that Bill C-63 is not that bad compared with what the Liberals had originally proposed three years ago.   It still, however, is a thinly-veiled attempt at thought control from a man who is at heart a narcissistic totalitarian and whose every act as Prime Minister, from trying to reduce the cost of health care and government benefits by offering people assistance in killing themselves (MAID) to denying people who having embraced one or more of the letters of the alphabet soup, had a bad trip, the help they are seeking in getting free, deserves to be classified with the peccata clamantia.   It took a lot of pain and effort for this country to finally rid herself of the evil Section 13 hate speech provision that Captain Airhead’s father had saddled us with in the Canadian Human Rights Act.   Captain Airhead must not be allowed to get away with reversing that.

It is about time that he took a walk in the snow.   Or got badly trounced in a Dominion election.   Or fell screaming into a portal to the netherworld that opened up beneath his feet.   Any of these ways works.  

The time is come.  The time is now.  Just go. Go. GO!   I don’t care how.  Captain Airhead, would you please go now?! (3)

(1)   Anyone who thinks the allegations were proven needs to learn the difference between evidence and proof.   Evidence is what is brought forward to back up a claim.   Proof is what establishes the truth of a claim.   That the evidence advanced for the allegations in question simply does not add up to proof and moreover was flimsy from the onset and has subsequently been largely debunked is an entirely valid viewpoint the expression of which is in danger of being outlawed by the bill under discussion.   In a court of criminal law the burden is upon the prosecutor to prove the charge(s) against the defendant.   Not merely to present evidence but to prove the accused to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  The same standard must be applied to allegations made against historical figures and past generations.   They, after all, are not present to defend themselves against their accusers.   To fail to do so is to fail in our just duty towards those who have gone before us.   The ancients had a term for this failure.   It is the vice of impiety.

(2)   The folly of legislation against hate was best expressed by Auberon Waugh in an article entitled “Che Guevara in the West Midlands” that was first published in the 6 July, 1976 issue of The Spectator, and later included in the collection Brideshead Benighted (Toronto: Little, Brown & Company, 1986).    Michael Wharton, however, writing as “Peter Simple” was second to none, not even Waugh, in ridiculing this sort of thing.– Gerry T, Neal

“I Survived Communism – Are You Ready For Your Turn?”

“I Survived Communism – Are You Ready For Your Turn?”

3.1KSHARES

An important warning for Canada.

The article below was written by Zuzana Janosova Den Boer, who experienced Communist rule in Czechoslovakia before coming to Canada. She said, “Having recognized all-too familiar signs of the same propaganda in my adopted country of Canada, I felt obligated to write the article below ( I survived communism – are you ready for your turn?)– because I do not want my adopted country to suffer the same fate as the country from which I emigrated (Czechoslovakia).”

Her warning is something all Canadians need to see. That’s why I’m sharing her article in full on SpencerFernando.com, and I encourage you to share it:

“I Survived Communism – Are You Ready For Your Turn?”

By Zuzana Janosova Den Boer

It was scientifically proven that communism is the only social-economic system providing the masses with justice and equality – 100% of scientists agree on this. The topic is not up for debate!”, so proclaimed my professor during one of his lectures on the subject ‘scientific communism’, while the country of Czechoslovakia was still under communist control. I was reminded of his blustery pronouncement the first time I encountered the spurious claim that “a consensus of 97% of scientists agree global warming is man-made.” Most people don’t question scientific statements because they think they are facts. They do not understand that scientific statements must always be challenged, because Science is not about ‘consensus’ideology is.

In March of 2007, the website WorldNetDaily published an article entitled “Environmentalism is new communism”. In it, the former Czech president, Vaclav Klaus, stated: “It becomes evident that, while discussing climate, we are not witnessing a clash of views about the environment, but a clash of views about human freedom.” He goes on to describe environmentalism as “the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity.” Klaus has also written a book: “Blue planet in green shackles”, in which he states “communism and environmentalism have the same roots; they both suppress freedom.” He also warns that any brand of environmentalism calling for centralized planning of the economy under the slogan of ‘protecting nature’ is nothing less than a reincarnation of communism – new communism.

Klaus understands communist propaganda very well – he should. Most of us who lived and suffered under communism can instantly recognize any signs of communist ideology, no matter how slight or subtle. Since I received my own vaccination of communist propaganda, during the first 27 years of my life, I too am immune to this disease. If someone is trying to ‘save me’ against my will, I’m instantly wary and ready to fight back – if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. So try to imagine how I feel, now as a Canadian, when I see the same tactics and hear the same phrases I saw and heard for years under communism, only this time in English!  If you think I’m paranoid, or that communism in North America is far-fetched, then good luck to you – I hope you enjoy what’s coming your way:

“You [North] Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept Communism outright; but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of Socialism until you will finally wake up and find that you already have Communism. We won’t have to fight you; we’ll so weaken your economy, until you fall like overripe fruit into our hands.”

Nikita Khrushchev  (1960)

Communism can be characterized by a single word: deception. Communists never disclose their real intentions. They are fraudsters who employ different identities, names and slogans, all for one goal: totalitarian enslavement. Since 1970, the goal of the Communist Party USA has been to subvert environmentalism and use it to advance their agenda. In 1972, Gus Hall, then chairman of the Communist Party USA, stipulated in his book “Ecology”:

Human society cannot basically stop the destruction of the environment under capitalism. Socialism is the only structure that makes it possible …This is true in the struggle to save the environment … We must be the organizers, the leaders of these movements. What is new, is that knowledge of [a] point-of-no-return gives this struggle an unusual urgency.

This idea was incorporated into the US Green Party program in 1989 (the same year soviet communism collapsed), in which the fictitious threats of ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’ are used to scare the public into believing humanity must “save the planet”:

This urgency, along with other Green issues and themes it interrelates, makes confronting the greenhouse [effect] a powerful organizing tool … Survival is highly motivating, and may help us to build a mass movement that will lead to large-scale political and societal change in a very short time …

First of all, we [must] inform the public that the crisis is more immediate and severe than [they] are being told, [that] its implications are too great to wait for the universal scientific confirmation that only eco-catastrophe would establish.”

Do you think the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is promoting science rather than socialism?  Read the following admission from the co-chair of the UN IPCC Working Group III, during an interview in 2010 with the Swiss newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung:

“We must free ourselves from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy … We must state clearly that we use climate policy de facto to redistribute the world’s wealth.”

Do I have your attention? Then let me describe to you how communist propaganda and methodology work.  There are 3 main stages:

1.      Polarization  (KGB term: “demoralization”)

2.      Destabilization

3.      Revolution

Stage 1:          Polarization – Divide and Conquer

In order to win power, communists first polarize their target society. The notion of injusticeis introduced. One group of people – poor workers – are made to feel victimized by a second group, to the point that they demand civil discourse. Who are these people that supposedly victimize poor workers? Here’s a clue:

Communists don’t care about poor people, they just hate rich ones”  – George Orwell

The one thing a communist cannot abide is a wealthy person. For communists, the rich are owners of private businesses, especially successful ones. They are loathed and demonized as heartless, spiteful monsters who exploit their employees and don’t care about their welfare. The rich are public enemy #1 – they don’t care about people or the environment; they care only about profit and wealth. Dare to disagree?  Then you are a “denier” and “imperialist traitor”, and after completion of stage 3, you will be physically liquidated.

“We must hate. Hatred is the basis of communism. Children must be taught to hate their parents if they are not communists.”  – Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

During the first stage, communists focus on altruistic people – people with big hearts, full of good intensions, who believe in doing good, for goodness’ sake. Why? Because idealistic people are usually naïve and easy to manipulate, especially via their emotions.  Recognizing how essential these people are to the success of his revolution, Lenin referred to them as “useful idiots”.

Stage 2:          Destabilization

During the second stage the basic values of society are targeted for change. This always starts with education:

Give me your child for eight years, and [he or she] will be a communist forever” –  Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

Communism always uses teachers and the education system to impose its ideology and promote its values – through indoctrination. My own indoctrination started in elementary school. In grade four, we all had to become Young Pioneers. From that day, we were taught about the ‘imminent danger’ posed by capitalistic countries. The curriculum in school gradually but firmly established admiration for communism and loyalty to the communist party. We were constantly reminded of how we live in the “best political system in the world”, the “country with the best social justice and equality”.

Our teachers participated in this process, either voluntarily or involuntarily. I remember teachers who actively reinforced communist indoctrination in schools.  They exploited a child’s emotional immaturity, lack of experience and knowledge –vulnerability – to impose their communist ideas, beliefs and values. They took advantage of their position of authority, of the natural trust that children place in teachers, to brainwash a young and vulnerable generation – to train the next generation of communists. Scare-mongering was a favorite tactic: “Embrace communism! Fear capitalism! Otherwise, your country will be overtaken by imperialists and you will be exploited! … Who is not with us is against us!”

If you think this can’t happen in Canada, then I have news for you: it’s been happening for some time, in both Canada and the US. The environmental cause was targeted years ago by communists as a catalyst for promoting socialism and paving the way for communism.

New communism is based on all the old communist ideological principles and beliefs, but uses environmentalism as its agent of change, to completely alter the core values of western democracy and destabilize (demoralize) society.

As illustrated by the following excerpt from Captain Eco, written by Jonathon Porrit-Ellis Nadler and published in 1991, children are being indoctrinated in our schools, being made to believe that it’s their responsibility to ‘save the planet’:

“Your planet is in serious trouble – from pollution, toxic waste and the loss of forest, farmland and fresh water… Your parents and grandparents have made a mess of looking after the earth. They may deny it, but they are little more than thieves. And they are stealing your future from under your noses.”

Some more examples:

·        In May 2012, a grade-3 class took to the streets of Toronto with signs, to protest the construction of the Northern Gateway pipeline. The protest was organized by their teacher and a local community volunteer. Pure Marxist method.  Just like these kids, who marched in protest to “save the planet”, we too were made by our teachers to march with banners and signs to save our country from imperialists.

·        In 2011, in Laval, Quebec, a six-year-old boy was disqualified from a teddy-bear contest because a Ziploc was found in his lunch instead of a reusable container. How did this boy feel, after being ostracized and excluded from his peers? Maybe he felt punished for his parents’ action. What’s the next step?  Encourage children to report their own parents, who use Ziplocs instead of reusable containers – denunciation is common practice during communism.

·        In April 2018, an Edmonton father went to an elementary school to see his grade-4 daughter’s play. In the play, the children sabotaged a factory, in the name of climate-change, then went on to save Alberta from its “evil oil industry” and “greedy oil barons”. Textbook communist methodology – demonizing the private sector (oil industry) by representing them as “greedy oil barons”.

In some university lecture halls, professors are also trying to indoctrinate the new upcoming proletariat. Every time I see elite university students protesting capitalism and advocating socialism, I wonder if they realize that if they succeed, it will be their very last protest. In an interview recorded in 1984, KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov described the consequences of ideological subversion (indoctrination). Here is a short excerpt:

A person who is demoralized (indoctrinated) is unable to assess true information, the facts tell nothing to him….even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents, with pictures … even if I take him, by force, to the Soviet Union and show him a concentration camp, he will refuse to believe it … until he will receive a kick in his fat bottom.”

(Yuri Bezmenov – on “Useful Idiots” and the True Face of Communism)  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4kHiUAjTvQ

The children currently attending our elementary schools will vote in 10-12 years. How many of these children are being (or have already been) brainwashed into believing that in order to “save the planet”, they must vote for a government that will stop “destroying the planet”, by eliminating private ownership and taking control of production?

“The philosophy of the classroom in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next

Abraham Lincoln

If you believe warm, cuddly socialism leads to utopian communism, in which equality and social justice prevail, then allow me to impart some insights about the ‘social justice’ delivered to us by communists. You deserve to know a little about the substance in which you will have to swim, before you dive into the cesspool called communism.

Stage 3:          Revolution

After gaining the support of a majority, communists call for a democratic election. If they win it, they seize power and abolish democratic elections altogether. At this point, members of opposition parties, along with all other opponents deemed to be a potential threat, are ‘physically liquidated’. (In case you aren’t familiar with this quaint communist phrase, it means executed). Private businesses are immediately seized and confiscated – nationalized. Key supporters who now finally realize how they have been manipulated and exploited (i.e. useful idiots who are no longer useful) are either jailed or executed, to prevent the formation of any dissident movements. All other useful idiots, having fulfilled their purpose of bringing communists to power, are now either enslaved into the new ideology, or disposed of in a variety of prescribed ways. A new privileged elite of communist party leaders is now formed. (No hypocrisy here! After all those angry claims of exploitation by a privileged elite, what’s the first thing communists do once they gain power?) Leaders of every key institution or organization: company, hospital, police, school, etc. are now replaced by an official member of the communist party. Competence, ability or fitness for the job is no longer relevant or required; the only prerequisite is loyalty to the party.

Economic Consequences of Communism:

Do you think communism failed because of oppression?  No. You can brainwash and threaten people, keep them dangling like puppets, until the supply of goods starts to disappear.   Economic reality always prevails.

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other’s people money.” – Margaret Thatcher

 The economic consequences of communism are always the same – poverty, and this one comes with an ironclad guarantee – a lifetime warranty. People always spend their own money more carefully than someone else’s. Capitalism is about efficiency. Private businesses must spend their capital very carefully. They cannot afford to make investments in their business, unless they are sure it will be worth it. A mistake could result in an increased price for their product, reduced cash-flow, loss of competitiveness, eventual bankruptcy.

In a centrally planned economy, all production is controlled by government. The revenue required to operate the government and the economy is obtained through taxation. Because a centrally planned economy is not subject to the laws of supply and demand, financial goals become meaningless, since there are no penalties for not achieving them.  Thus, long-term government plans are never fulfilled and financial goals are replaced by imaginary production quotas. The result is profligate waste and inefficiency on a monumental scale. Communism institutes mandatory employment with pre-determined duties and salaries. The problem is lack of goods and services. Even if you have money, you will have few opportunities to spend it for your own benefit.

Both socialism and communism believe in the abolishment of private business; economic resources may be ‘publicly owned’, but they are controlled by government. Communism is implemented in two stages. During the first stage (socialism), wealth is distributed to people according to their productivity. During the second stage (communism), wealth is distributed according to individual need, but it is the government who decides what those needs are, and if they even matter, not the individual. Remember the key word: deception? Socialism equals communism. Any political party or organization that advocates socialism is advocating communism. If you think socialism cares about democracy or freedom, then reread “Stage 3: Revolution” above.

Life under Communism:

What is life under communism like? In the Eastern Bloc countries, shortages of basic goods began in the 1980s. People had to get up at 3 AM in order to stand in line for basic necessities: bread, milk, meat, eggs, toilet paper, oil, et cetera. You could stand in line for hours and not even get a chance to buy something, once products ran out.

Other appealing aspects:

·        Want an apartment? You can’t buy one; real-estate markets don’t exist. You’ll probably get one (eventually) for free, but the government will decide the size, type, location, as well as your position in the queue, which may take years.

·        Want a car?  You must first submit an application, or buy a permit, to buy a car from the government, then wait in line, for years. The wait time might be 2-3 years, or it could be as long as 7-10 years.

·        Want to use some recreational facilities (government built, of course) for your vacation? You need to be approved by a labor union, and wait.

·        Want day-care for your child? Submit an application, and wait.

·        Want a garage for your car? Submit an application, and wait. I submitted an application for a garage in 1988. When I left Slovakia in 1997, I still had not received a response.

Sound idyllic? But here’s the best part: there’s no guarantee you will ever receive an apartment, car, garage, daycare, recreation, or anything else you might want. If there is anyrecord (ever) of your non-compliance with communist ideology, you will receive nothing. As one communist leader informed me, after I refused to become member of a socialist party: “Forget about an apartment, forget about day-care, forget about a salary raise, forget about any benefits.”   Communism results in the poverty of an entire society. By comparison, free-market capitalism has lifted the highest number of people out of poverty in human history.

Corruption under Communism:

Because of lack of goods and services, corruption and bribery become endemic under communism. Of course, corruption also exists in capitalist countries, but communism elevates it to a completely different (systemic) level.

 “It’s not what you know, but who you know.”

To function, in order to survive, you must have a network of connections, and pay bribes, for everything:

·        Education may be for free, but there’s no guarantee you’ll ever get into your desired school’s program, even if you have top marks. The state might have different plans for you, or for your child. But with good connections, and the timely delivery of a valuable gift to the school principal or party leader, anything is possible.

·        Health care may be for free, but if you want your doctor to be sober for your surgery, better pay up. Paying bribes to doctors in cash or gold was common in the Eastern Bloc. I was even told how much I must pay by the doctor himself.

·        Police are a special case: corrupt, enjoying their power immensely.  Did you speed? Your choice is between a lesser bribe and much more expensive ticket. No court, no argument, no place to complain.

·        Need anything from government employees? Good luck. Communists invented stamps of different sizes and shapes. To get your document (or permit) stamped, you must pay a bribe.

·        Want a new book, new clothes, or a better piece of meat? Better know the saleswoman and be really nice to her.

·        Your car has broken down and needs repair? Oh dear, now you’re in real trouble. Leaving a car in a repair shop entails the risk of good (functioning) components in your car being secretly replaced by inferior (or non-functioning) ones. The good components will be sold or exchanged for other goods. This is how exchange markets work under communism.

Due to lack of goods, everyone steals. We used to say: “Who is not stealing from the State is robbing his own family”. Without connections, you will remain in a queue for a very long time.

And finally, here’s a truly delicious irony for you. Do you think communists care about the environment? I remember hills near chemical plants laid bare, denuded of vegetation by polluted air and acid rain from towns where heavy metals were produced, places where aluminum had poisoned the ground-water, cities where the haze from industrial smog was so thick you couldn’t see through it, and it hung there for months, places where noxious compounds in the air forced residents to wear face-masks. Naturally, there were environmental laws, all conveniently ignored, in the name of glorious socialism.

The worst part is fear, of being arrested, of being tortured, of dying as a political prisoner in a prison, labour camp or uranium mine (slow death from radiation poisoning), incarceration in an insane asylum (you have to be crazy to oppose the regime), or of the same thing happening to someone you love. Fear is the primary tool for keeping people silent and obedient. Those who do not comply are interrogated, tortured, intimidated, put under surveillance as MUKL (destined for liquidation) by the Secret Police, or just killed (quicker and much easier). Those political prostitutes called informers are everywhere, especially universities. They’ll report everything you do or say. Forget about freedom, of action, speech or even thought. The Party controls everything, and you voted for them, didn’t you?

“Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. Those who have known freedom, then lost it, have never known it again”  – Ronald Reagan

How many people have been murdered in capitalist countries for not being supporters of capitalism? How many have been murdered by a capitalist state for being anti-capitalist?  If we turn the questions around and ask how many have been murdered in communist countries, the answer is between 80 to 100 million, globally.

We are currently in the second stage (destabilization) of the new green communism.  

Are we so gullible that we can be taken without one shot, as Khrushchev predicted? Have we all taken our (many) freedoms for granted? Are we prepared to gullibly give up those freedoms to those advocating ‘socialism’, or are we prepared to resist the tide of radical leftism? Socialism equals communism – and after reading this article, I hope you have no illusions about what it is or where it leads.

Canadians will soon have the chance to demonstrate if, and how much, they treasure their freedom.

Good luck, Canada!

Zuzana Janosova – den Boer

Outrage over group’s use of Toronto library threatens freedom of speech

Outrage over group’s use of Toronto library threatens freedom of speech

The Globe and Mail

Free speech is the cardinal right – the right that underpins all others. Yet how casually we brush it aside.

This week in Toronto, a small group held a memorial service at a public library branch for a lawyer who had defended Holocaust deniers and other figures on Canada’s far-right fringe. Spokesmen for Jewish groups said they were outraged that the Toronto Public Library would provide a platform for such a gathering. Mayor John Tory was “deeply concerned.” Members of city council said they were shocked. “Those tied to hate and bigotry have no place in our libraries,” Councillor James Pasternak said.

They seemed entirely oblivious to the threat to freedom of expression. If the library takes it upon itself to decide who has the right to speak, where does it end? If it denies space to a far-right group, what happens when a far-left group comes along? What would it say to the many Canadians who suffered under communism if someone who denies the crimes of Stalin or Mao wanted to hold an event and was denied? What would it say to Toronto’s large Tamil community if extreme Sinhalese nationalists were not permitted to hold a study meeting at the library about the crushing of the Tamil separatist movement in Sri Lanka?

Opinion: We need to protect free speech on campus

It is precisely to avoid making these judgments that the library takes a neutral approach to those who book its spaces. It doesn’t demand to vet their opinions in advance. As long as they follow basic rules of conduct, they get the space. So it is absurd to suggest that the library is somehow endorsing or countenancing the views of those who held this week’s memorial.

Critics of the event seem especially upset that it took place in a “public space,” under the roof of a publicly funded institution. It is not hard to see where that dangerous argument could lead. If people whose opinions are deemed beyond the pale are to be kept out of the public libraries, why not the public parks, the public squares, the public streets? Who gives them the right, some might say, to wave their nasty placards where all can see, or publish their rank opinions where all can read? Surely public spaces are where free speech, however outrageous or obnoxious, should be allowed to flourish. That is the principle behind the famous Speakers’ Corner in London’s Hyde Park, where people of every opinion and background get the chance to sound off in public. No one says that because the authorities allow it they are giving their stamp of approval to what is said.

Libraries, in particular, should be havens for free expression. They are the places citizens go to learn about the world in all its complexity. Librarians are always facing pressure from one group or another to ban books that they say might corrupt morals or spread hate. They are right to fend off such attempts. Librarians are guides to the world of knowledge, not arbiters of it. They should be equally impartial about who meets in library spaces.

Banning objectionable speech short of direct incitement to violence is always a mistake. Those who object to this week’s event and gatherings like it have other ways to respond. One is to protest. If a hate group holds a rally, hold a rally condemning hate and praising tolerance. Another is to correct. When deniers spout nonsense about how many died or didn’t die in the Holocaust, fight back with the undeniable facts.

The last option – perhaps the best when it comes to the tiny, miserable group of cranks who are Canada’s white nationalists and Holocaust deniers – is simply to turn away. They feed on publicity like this week’s fuss. Instead of fulminating against them or attacking the library for giving them space, ignore them. They don’t deserve even a minute of our time, much less all the air time and headline space they got this week.

No matter how we choose to respond to offensive opinions, it is important to remember the danger of suppressing them. Even in a blessed place such as Canada – a strong, stable democracy with a respected Charter of Rights and Freedoms – freedom of speech can be a fragile thing. We saw that just recently, when three editors left their jobs after an angry pile-on over the complicated issue of cultural appropriation.

In a 1945 essay on free speech and the profusion of it in Hyde Park, George Orwell wrote: “The relative freedom which we enjoy depends on public opinion. The law is no protection. Governments make laws, but whether they are carried out, and how the police behave, depends on the general temper of the country. If large numbers of people are interested in freedom of speech, there will be freedom of speech, even if the law forbids it; if public opinion is sluggish, inconvenient minorities will be persecuted, even if laws exist to protect them.”

On the evidence of the library affair and other events lately, public opinion in the Canada of 2017 is sluggish indeed.