Collectivism Revealed: Why victory has 100 fathers and defeat is an orphan

This instalment of my ‘I shall reveal unto a mystery’ series will address why collectivism impedes discretionary efforts. From Aubrey Daniels International:

“Discretionary effort is the level of effort people could give if they wanted to, but above and beyond the minimum required. Many organizations manage performance in such a way that motivates employees to do only enough to get by and avoid getting in trouble (negative reinforcement). Typically, these organizations manage by exception, providing consequences for worker’s performance only when it falls below the standard or minimum required. This approach gets immediate results, but just enough behavior to stop the threats and the potential for other negative consequences in the near future. It suppresses discretionary effort because there’s nothing in it for people to do more than the minimum required.”

In a system which eschews individuality discretionary efforts will be limited in direct proportion to the measure of conformity to the status quo promoted within this system. I know of one senior bureaucratic adviser who was asked to write an in depth report which would examine the efficiency of critical processes in the system on which this person advised. She assembled a team of international experts to advise her throughout this complex process. The ensuing report took an entire year to complete at great expense and discretionary effort. Here is the thing, when the report was completed and some of her colleagues had read it this person was warned about ‘sector loyalty’. The basic message was ‘How dare you suggest improvements that would return greater value to the end user and the taxpayers? The current status quo serves this bureaucracy very well indeed!’ This person was ostracized and had her salary reduced after the report was completed. So, I ask you, what motivation is there for someone to wish to excel at their work in such a broken system? The clear message is, ‘Do nothing more than absolutely necessary.’ If fact, she was advised by a family member to do just that. However doing such is extremely difficult if a person of integrity is intrinsically motivated. Nevertheless, for many such a system will drive out all intrinsic motivation. This is indeed why collectivism does not and cannot sustain success nor pursue excellence.

I would like to cite another example from another situation with which I am familiar. A mentor of mine was seconded to Lansing MI to manage a project on behalf of his firm. I was working as a consultant in Grand Rapids at the time and on occasion would visit him on returning to my condo in Kentwood. My friend took a great deal of care while exercising discretionary effort managing the project in Lansing. I saw him go to great lengths to ensure his project's success as he dealt with its needs while also encountering managers who resisted his efforts. Sometime afterwards he overheard a conversation back at his own facility in Ontario. Someone who had not been involved with Lansing was claiming credit for things it was not possible for him to have accomplished since he hadn’t been on site in Lansing. My mentor approached him and inquired in front of other colleagues as to how these claims could possibly be accurate. After embarrassed giggling from those who were present while my mentor called this fellow out for his prevarication the crowd melted away and the false father of success was left more than a little humiliated. Ah yes, success has a hundred fathers and failure is an orphan.

Both scenarios share this in common: collectivism. The inability to stand on one’s own two feet accompanied by the need to hide in some collective group. In a 'collective' successes will be shared by the group while failures will be blamed on whoever dared to buck the status quo. And so, I return to the definitive tome on the subject, "Manipulism and the Weapon of Guilt" written by Mikkel Clair Nissen which is available free of cost to you at this link: http://manipulism.com/ I quote from Mikkel’s forward:

“This exposure (of collectivism), based almost entirely on social science, is so controversial and comprehensively detailed that Denmark’s perceived right-wing newspaper—ironically the same newspaper that caused the Muhammad cartoons controversy in 2005 in the name of freedom of speech—will not review my book. This explicative psychological index (e.g., collectivist traits, indoctrination methods, intimidation techniques, and ways of passive coercion) is meant as a gift from me to the reader for self-empowerment through social observations, as well as a subconscious journey for the readers themselves. Please share this knowledge with friends and support my effort to alert the world.

The intimidations (threats, lies, and deceptions) in attempt to discredit me and deny this book’s honesty and preciseness are all worth my while. Regardless, this book will raise questions and effect societal changes, and the outcome will speak for itself. Wars should be fought with words—the right words—and never through coercion or terror. Welcome to my words of revolution.”

“The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything.”  —Albert Einstein

Mikkel’s book is a game changer and a must read. His main assertions are directed toward socialism, however any form of collective thought which impedes discretionary effort certainly applies as well. We live in the age where the alleged rights of groups have replaced individual liberty under law. We need now, more than ever, to be reminded of why it is critical to be deemed equal under the law. No group has more rights than any other. No matter how many social justice warriors hit the streets in pussy hats! We need to be reminded why individuals and their individual discretionary efforts count. The needs of the many do not trump the rights of the individual. Every society and every nation which has gone down that collectivist path to Hades ended up with tyranny accompanied with shared failure characterized by an adoration of the status quo.

Freedom isn’t lost overnight. It’s about trends.

Here is another instalment in my ‘I shall reveal unto you a mystery’ series. Allow me to begin by stating that freedom isn’t lost overnight. Its loss is about trends. Trends driven by our commonly held beliefs, our world view, our cultural mojo. These trends emerge over time and have an origin in some specific philosophy which requires examination. But before we do so, let’s examine the symptoms of societal decline. Society will become arbitrary where subjective thought will replace objective reality. This, more than anything else, is the main symptom of social and governmental decay. Society and the way it chooses to govern itself can be compared to steering a great ship. It requires a known, predetermined course. To set such a course one must know true north, longitude, the ship’s position in relationship to them and its destination. If all things are viewed as purely subjective rather then objective, then such determinations become impossible. When empiricism is replaced with ‘feelings’, then no objective determination regarding a course can be made.

Societies and their respective governments will become ever more arbitrary under such circumstances. People will lose the ability to understand such simple things as their inherent rights. Laws will become ever more poorly understood. Governments will pass new laws which contradict previous laws, especially when the new laws ignore the very foundation for law in the Anglo-sphere, namely Magna Carta and Common Law. Government will gradually emerge as a law unto itself. Checks and balances intended to limit government will fail. The inherent rights of the individual will be replaced with rights awarded to special interest groups. Individuals in such societies will be categorized and lumped into collective entities. Woe betide the person whom the bureaucrats and collectivists cannot easily place into a predetermined group that suits their feelings about what people should be like and how they should behave. Cultural conformity will become mandatory.

Of course, such societies will always have people within them who will develop cognitive dissonance under these circumstances and thus begin to warn their fellows that their ship is about to hit the shoals. In such a system, this person will be viewed as ‘difficult’ since they dare to contradict the collective group in which they have been placed. As a person who has been an entertainer, I have experienced this very thing. My love of liberty is viewed by my fellow musicians as completely unconscionable. Waste and bureaucratic control will grow immensely in order to administer the government’s grip over the people. Government sponsored arts and sports will emerge as a means of controlling thought. The reason for such is simple, feelings will become legislated. Anything that assaults the emerging collective will be attacked by the collective. More so if there is some measure of cognitive dissonance among some of the persons who are responsible for misdirecting the ship. Empiricism will be mocked. Any call for the use of reason will be labelled as a threat to the very existence of this emerging dysfunctional system. We see this very example with Islamophobia being condemned by the Canadian government. Since a phobia is a feeling, it is certainly not up to the government to tell its citizens how they should ‘feel’. But they have.

'Feelings, nothing more than feelings'. And if you feel your government is trouncing on your rights, you’re wrong! And now as to the philosophy behind this which requires our examination, from Wikipedia http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism :

“Cultural Marxism places great emphasis on analyzing, controlling, and changing the popular culture, the popular discourse, the mass media, and the language itself. Seeing culture as often having more or less subconscious influences on people which create and sustain inequalities, Cultural Marxists themselves often try to remove these inequalities by more or less subtle manipulation and censorship of culture.

A term describing such censorship is political correctness where all views on equality that disagree with the Cultural Marxist view are avoided, censored, and punished.

Related to Cultural Marxism are various forms of relativism/subjectivism and denial of the existence of objective knowledge.

The phrase "The long march through the institutions of power" refers to Cultural Marxists slowly taking over key positions in the institutions controlling culture in order to create a new culture. In effect this will create revolutionary changes without having to resort to political violence. It also reflects a worldview where Cultural Marxists view themselves as infiltrators and subversives. (The phrase is often attributed to Antonio Gramsci but was instead coined by another Cultural Marxist (Rudi Dutschke) who was influenced by Gramsci's ideas.)

The Frankfurt School and critical theory:

The idea that a culture may be problematic is not new but Cultural Marxism in its current form originates in the Frankfurt School. The Frankfurt School is a neo-Marxist school which originated around 1923 at the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt, Germany.

The Frankfurt School developed critical theory in order to analyze and explain how culture creates inequalities. It has been extremely influential and today has branches in numerous fields such as critical race theory, critical whiteness studies, critical gender studies, critical criminology, critical legal studies, etc.

Freudian psychoanalysis was an important influence on critical theory. One example is the influential book The Authoritarian Personality where psychoanalytic ideas are used to pathologize Western love and pride of Christianity, the family, and the nation.

The tendency to pathologize opponents as being irrationally sick has continued with, for example, labels such as homophobia and Islamophobia.”

So, now you know, yet another mystery has been revealed unto you. I wish you and yours, liberty and self-determination and to hell with cultural Marxism because that is where it originated.

What is it to be a Norwegian? Yes, this applies to all nationalities. Your culture is under attack from social progressives.

Written by Helge Lurås,

Director of the

Centre for International and Strategic Analysis (SISA)  

Oslo, Norway and poorly translated by me with apologies to Helge.

In this article, Helge speaks to the complete contradiction in the belief system held by many social progressives. On the one hand, they dismiss their culture as having no intrinsic value yet on the other hand they state they have no culture. If culture is valueless why is it so important to strongly deny its very existence? Both assertions cannot be correct. But the illogic goes deeper. The detestation social progressives have for their own culture is not equally applied to the migrant's culture. To social progressives the migrant's culture must be respected to the point of being preferred to that of their own. This is insanity on lysergic diethylamide. The amount of cognitive dissonance created by such blatant contradictions should be sufficient to make a social progressive’s head explode. 

I apologize to Helge as well as to my readers for any inaccuracies in meaning in my translation of his wonderful article. It was necessary to reword some of it rather than transliterating it directly. Many phrases would have lost meaning if I had done so. Please share this blog post with your family and friends. We are in a war for the survival of our culture.

“What is a Norwegian? Yes, what is an ethnic Norwegian, and has these "Norwegians" some moral reason to still exist in two hundred years? This has actually been a highly topical, and controversial, issue in contemporary Norway. On Dagsnytt 18 (21.02.2017) a major Dagsnytt commentator Hege Ulstein stated no when she was asked if she saw any problem about ethnic Norwegians becoming the minority in Norway in the future. In 2017, the proportion of ethnic Norwegians between 77-84%, depending on how one calculates an ethnic Norwegian. When there was a halt in immigration in 1975, the proportion was about 97%.

But Ulstein went further than it. Having first recognized completely spontaneously that she had a sense of what an ethnic Norwegian was, she went on to question whether the term ethnic Norwegian should be used. For what is an ethnic Norwegian? What is the definition? What criteria should be the foundation? There were other guests in the studio who were given the task of trying to defend that ethnic Norwegians are actually something that exists. Culture and language was mentioned, and also a particular set of values. But the underlying question is very sensitive as to what role lineage, physical relationships, genes and biology have to say about "Norwegian" identity.

Ulstein and her many likeminded fellow progressives look to lure those who would use terms like "ethnic Norwegian" and also expresses concerns about those who are worried that ethnic Norwegians are becoming the minority in Norway and that national identity has a relationship to kinship and descent. As though those who use terms about how ethnic Norwegians appear should wish to deny that such a physical dimension is possible, as if this were a deeply damaging accusation.

This shows how uptight, guilt ridden and removed from reality we have become in Norway. We are human beings, we are physical individuals who (until further notice) are born of the merging of egg and sperm cells from a woman and a man. Our mind, culture and values cannot exist without the central nervous system, which is a physical thing. Therefore, unless one takes a child from the biological parents at birth, there is consistency between bloodlines and culture and values. When you come, for example, as a refugee to Norway as an adult, one has grown up and been socialized in a different culture than the one which exists in Norway. This you take with you.

It also a cultural ballast even if one has moved to Norway and takes Norwegian citizenship. And when a migrant in Norway has children, they would naturally bring at least parts of their original culture and values into the upbringing of their children. Thus, it takes a long time before a migrant will become "Norwegian" culturally, even if they wish it with all their hearts. And perhaps this may never happen, because the migrant wants to preserve parts of their culture and values even if they and their descendants reside in Norway. And biological conditions will also play a role in further assimilation. If a foreigner with Norwegian citizenship marries an ethnic Norwegian, their biological children will most likely receive more of the original Norwegian culture and values than the children of two foreigners who live (accidentally) in Norway.

And the proportion of foreigners with Norwegian citizenship living in Norway will of course have a bearing on how much of the original Norwegian culture is transferred to the immigrants. For if foreigners hardly meet Norwegians in their immediate environment, they have no opportunity to "learn to be Norwegian." Then there will be a lack of Norwegian values and culture to continue, but something else as well. And brought forward it will be characterized by the culture of those who moved here had with them as their cultural baggage.

There is thus a connection between kinship and descent on one side and the values and culture on the other. Hypersensitivity to think about the concepts of human and biological sciences in the same breath is due to, of course, the Western settlement with racism and Nazism after World War II, but it has led to some absurd fallacies and denials. The case is obvious, but will be denied the same way: it makes sense to talk about "Chinese", "Sherpas," "Eskimos" and "Swedes", it also provides meaning to talk about "Norwegians". And a person who is born of two Norwegian parents, with four Norwegian grandparents, has very high probability to have at least some other values and culture than a person born in Norway of two Somali parents. If people within the country live in a parallel society, these differences can persist in hundreds and thousands of years. And if the starting point is so in appearance different ethnic groups that Somalis and Norwegians, these cultural differences will also be visible for just as long, including for geneticists studying DNA.

It has become commonplace to ask the question: but what does it mean to be Norwegian? And it is not one single criterion or a single common denominator for this. But such a lack of absolute precision, is no different for the question about what it means to be Chinese. And strictly speaking, also not for the question of what it means to be Christian, or Muslim or Buddhist. But that does not mean it does not exist, or is meaningful to talk about Chinese people, Muslims, Norwegians, Christians and Buddhists. And all can relate in practical life to the fact that there are Muslims and Chinese people even though none of them manage to answer with one simple criterion what that would entail.

So, the problem is not that there is no single criterion for what it means to be Norwegian/ethnic Norwegian (we are now forced to call some ethnic Norwegian rather than simply Norwegian because e.g. a Somali with Norwegian citizenship in the political correct sense will also be called "Norwegian"). The problem is rather that anyone would expect there to be any single criteria for what it means to belong to a specific ethnic or national group, that is, that one at all ask the question: what will it mean to be Norwegian, Chinese etc.? And that one would expect a concrete answer.

To make a diagnosis in psychiatry one needs to meet the "diagnostic criteria" for various conditions and diseases. There can, for example, be twenty different criteria that are related to a personality disorder such as psychopathy. Patients are not expected to meet all of these criteria. But one can, for example, assert that the condition is met if one turns out of 14 of the 20 criteria, or one to get ‘so and so’ many "points" in a total "score for psychopathy." So, we can also understand the suffering "ethnic Norwegian." Now it is fortunate that we need not make such research on ethnicity as we do for a disease such as psychopathy, but for both the "Norwegian" and "psychopathy", there will be obvious cases after cases where we can rule out that one is a Norwegian or a psychopath.

Keep this in mind the next time people with utopian ideas of social and political experimentation trying to put you on the defensive with questions such as: what does it really mean to be Norwegian? Most will likely understand very well and intuitively if they are ethnically Norwegian, if they are partial Norwegian ethnics or if they are of foreign ethnicity who hold Norwegian citizenship. And when such people want to remove the concept of Norwegian and ethnic Norwegian from the vocabulary, then it is indicative of an extreme desire to change the social and political realities. Hege Ulstein and Company are probably not always conscious of it themselves, but such a social manipulative system of political correctness was perfected in the Soviet Union, and it is totalitarian.”

'I shall reveal unto you a mystery'

And the latest in my 'I shall reveal unto you a mystery' series is as follows: I spent a great deal of my career as a quality resource and lean consultant diligently looking for ways to reduce waste, cost and variation. Why? Because to service the customer better private industry must produce component 'X' at ever higher quality at increasingly lower cost. If you hope to understand why bureaucracy is failing the reason lies there. Instead of creating a culture of energetic hunters of waste they diligently set about creating a culture where fewer and poorer services are provided at ever increasing cost. Thus, bureaucracy grows. It then also follows that bureaucrats will often support those political parties most willing to continue to increase funding to them thereby entrenching ever greater wastefulness. If you take this same paradigm and apply it to the private sector it would equate to managers reducing the shareholders' dividends as well as losing market share due to their products and/or services, no longer remaining competitive in an open market. Of course, such a manager would be fired if they were foolish enough to pursue such a course. In the public sector, however, managers who pursue this course of action (inaction) are rewarded for 'sector loyalty'. This is also why they are dead set against permitting the government from offering solutions in the private sector since bureaucracies cannot compete in an open market.

And the second assertion in 'I shall reveal unto you a mystery' today is this: This explains why socialism will always fail to provide what it has promised. Equality of opportunity to compete is replaced with equality of outcome. Let me cite a few examples; Obama increased the cost of American healthcare under Obamacare hence the new administration looking for more cost-effective options to better serve Americans to ensure they have access to affordable and superb health care. Yet, social progressives are behaving as though the new administration wishes to rob Americans of affordable health care instead of helping them obtain it at a lower cost. You see, progressives loathe the very idea of competition and choice. It precludes Big Sister from doing their thinking for them and in the progressive mind free market capitalism is anathema. The same also applies to the incredible and inexplicable increase in cost of K-12 education here in Ontario. The entrenched and gross inefficiency in Ontario's education system serves the government's agenda while absolutely destroying our children's future thereby making them ever more beholden to and indoctrinated by Big Sister. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/education-spending-in-canada-whats-actually-happening.pdf

And my third and final assertion in today’s, 'I shall reveal unto you a mystery': “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” - Winston Churchill. I quote Winston in this regard as it reminds us, albeit in simplistic terms, the real mojo which lies behind socialism and modern social progressivism. Yesterday I asserted that progressive doctrine is dependant on self-pity, self-loathing, and self-righteousness, for they lie at the heart of the illness, but let us examine the illness’s symptoms beginning with envy. To define this, I will borrow an idea with which I am lamentably all too familiar having lived in Scandinavia; ‘Janteloven’, otherwise known as ‘The Law of Jante’. If I were to attempt to define it, I would say that it's a principle placing importance on equality and egalitarianism while disparaging individuality and personal achievements or otherwise challenging the status quo. Here are its ten principles:

1.   You're not to think you are anything special.

2.   You're not to think you are as good as we are.

3.   You're not to think you are smarter than we are.

4.   You're not to convince yourself that you are better than we are.

5.   You're not to think you know more than we do.

6.   You're not to think you are more important than we are.

7.   You're not to think you are good at anything.

8.   You're not to laugh at us.

9.   You're not to think anyone cares about you.

10. You're not to think you can teach us anything.

I believe that I can make a very good argument supporting that this is the overwhelming consensus of thought behind social progressivism. It is no wonder that it has taken hold so well in Scandinavia since the cultural framework which would support social progressivism already pre-existed socialism. Also since laissez-faire capitalism is completely dependant on individualism and the honouring of individual achievement, it follows that Scandinavia was the perfect place where socialism would take hold. In Norway, the Scandinavian country with which I am most familiar, there are only two areas where personal achievements are lauded: arts and sports, since both may be used to further the state’s socialist agenda. This trait is also common to all socialist states. I certainly see the same situation here in Canada where virtually all the artists whom I know, and I know a great many personally, are social progressives. I hope I have challenged a few of you to think and perhaps offended more who cannot abide free thinking, it was my intention to do so.

The left-versus right political divide, what does it really mean? Are you confused? Let me explain.

The typical left-right divide places Marxism and Communism on the far left, with socialism as a more moderate and democratic form of socialist government, with liberal slightly left of centre, conservatives slightly to the right of centre, libertarianism further right with fascism and Nazism on the far right. But is this descriptor accurate? It looks like this when explained pictorially.

It will take a few quick sentences to explain what we were taught in school is false. The reason it is false is due to a fundamental lack of understanding regarding what we need to measure. I suggest we must measure freedom. Individual rights and liberty under law.  If you look at individual liberty under law versus the freedom robbing totalitarian ideologies which seek to control us in whatever form they may take, whether that be Fascism, Nazism, Socialism, Stalinism, Marxism, Maoism, and yes, Islamism. Each demands blind obedience to that particular ideology. Each subscribes to government regulating our lives and our business affairs versus constitutionalism which recognises the inherent rights of each individual to pursue prosperity, happiness and individual dignity. Only when you look at politics in this manner will you come closer to understanding the truth. Here is what a spectrum that measures this looks like in pictorial form.

The real issue is collectivism versus individualism. The left asserts that just societies can only be achieved by coercion from big government while those of us who subscribe to liberty under law believe that constitutional law must limit government such that government cannot exceed its legal mandate to govern. This latter form of governance protects the individual from the tyranny of the many. It is not leaders who really matter per se, it is constitutional law which can force the executive, legislative and judiciary branches of government to recognise and respect the rights of each individual. And, as importantly, a 4^th Estate vigilant in calling out government when and if it exceeds its legal mandate to govern. No group of people has rights, no class of persons have more rights than any another, but every person has equal rights under law! That and that alone can ensure freedom!

Why ‘crazy making’ is de rigueur in big business and big politics

I haven’t written a blog post in some time so I apologize to those who care to read my rants. I promise you that today’s post will resonate with at least some of you. Have you ever been forced to call a service provider to end up in an endless loop of electronic phone entries so that you may speak with a real human being in the hopes of resolving an issue? It has been my experience that often the problem fails to be resolved even after repeatedly suffering through the same process. Yesterday I had an agent from Bell call me and ask if I would be interested in purchasing more of their services. Here is the thing, I just cancelled my Bell TV and internet services on November 30^th. When I asked the agent why I would renew Bell services since they had overcharged me and failed to supply me with the services for which I had paid, her reply was, “I am sorry you feel that way.” I answered, “This had nothing to do with my feelings, your firm failed to provide me with the services for which I have paid!” She then retorted smarmily, “There is no need to be angry!” ‘Crazy Making 101’, when caught with your hand in the cookie jar, blame the person you are ripping off for being annoyed. The inability to take responsibility and project blame onto the injured party has become a universal phenomenon and I believe I know why. I also know that these mega corporations can ONLY function in the manner in which they do because our government has created the regulatory nightmare that permits them to rip us off while choking out their smaller competitors.

But first, since nothing is new under the sun, let us examine our own history. Certainly the inability to assume responsibility is reflected profoundly by the manner in which both big government and big business operates. In the Anglo-sphere we were wise enough to put a system of checks and balances in place so that such tyranny could be kept in check. That system is founded on Magna Carta and Common Law which protect our inherent rights. All current excesses are a direct result of ignoring that legacy. There have been many times throughout history within the Anglo-sphere when people have been forced to take up arms in this ongoing struggle to reign in tyranny. Government has often be forced to be accountable to its citizenry, as opposed to special interests and wealthy political insiders.

Allow me to cite the example of the MacKenzie-Papineau Rebellion of 1837-1838. William Lyon MacKenzie was the first mayor of Toronto. He was also a Classical Liberal a la John Locke and Adam Smith who published a newspaper known as the ‘Colonial Advocate’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_Advocate . This newspaper advocated for democratic reform in the Canadas. A wealthy class of political insiders known as the ‘Family Compact’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Compact  exercised most of the political, economic and judicial power in Upper Canada. MacKenzie was faced with a significant challenge to mobilize enough dissent to end their tyranny. His newspaper was the means by which he did so. He was the ‘fake media’ of his day. The Family Compact were enraged by MacKenzie’s rants and stopped at nothing in an attempt to shut his newspaper down. They simply wouldn’t bear him daring to state the truth about them and their undue influence over the legislature and the economy.

Permit me to quote from Wikipedia; “In 1824, Mackenzie established his most famous newspaper, the Colonial Advocate. It was initially established to influence voters in the elections for the 9th Parliament of Upper Canada. Mackenzie supported some characteristically British institutions, notably the British Empire, primogeniture and the clergy reserves, but he also praised American institutions in the paper.

The Colonial Advocate had financial difficulties, and in November 1824, Mackenzie relocated the paper to York. There, he advocated in favour of the Reform cause and became an outspoken critic of the Family Compact, an upper-class clique which dominated the government of Upper Canada. However, the newspaper continued to face financial pressures: it had only 825 subscribers by the beginning of 1825, and faced stiff competition from another Reform newspaper, the Canadian Freeman. As a result, Mackenzie had to suspend publishing the Colonial Advocate from July to December 1825. He purchased a new printing press in fall 1825 and resumed publication in 1826, now engaging in even more scurrilous attacks on leading Tory politicians such as William Allan, G. D'Arcy Boulton, Henry John Boulton, and George Gurnett. However, Mackenzie continued to amass debts, and in May 1826, he fled across the American border to Lewiston, New York to evade his creditors.

A mob of 11 young Tories, led by Samuel Jarvis, took advantage of Mackenzie's absence to exact revenge for the attacks on the Tories printed in the Colonial Advocate. Thinly disguising themselves as "Indigenous peoples of the Americas", they broke into the Colonial Advocate's office in broad daylight, smashed the printing press, and threw the type into Lake Ontario. The Tory magistrates did nothing to stop them and did not prosecute them afterwards.

Mackenzie took full advantage of the incident, returning to York and suing the perpetrators in a sensational trial, which propelled Mackenzie into the ranks of martyrs of Upper Canadian liberty, alongside Robert Thorpe and Robert Fleming Gourlay. Mackenzie refused a settlement of £200 (approximately the value of the damage) and insisted on trial. His legal team, which included Marshall Spring Bidwell, argued effectively and the jury returned a verdict of £625, far more than the amount of damage done to the press.

There are three implications of the Types riot according to historian Paul Romney. First, he argues the riot illustrates how the elite's self-justifications regularly skirted the rule of law they held out as their Loyalist mission. Second, he demonstrated that the significant damages Mackenzie received in his civil lawsuit against the vandals did not reflect the soundness of the criminal administration of justice in Upper Canada. And lastly, he sees in the Types riot “the seed of the Rebellion” in a deeper sense than those earlier writers who viewed it simply as the start of a highly personal feud between Mackenzie and the Family Compact. Romney emphasizes that Mackenzie’s personal harassment, the “outrage,” served as a lightning rod of discontent because so many Upper Canadians had faced similar endemic abuses and hence identified their political fortunes with his.^[5]

Mackenzie took advantage of the money and fame which the trial had brought him to re-establish his business on sound financial footing.”

I encourage my readers to read the entire article on MacKenzie I have posted from Wikipedia. You will learn of the challenges he faced as well as what the wealthy political insiders of his day did to silence him. Although the MacKenzie-Papineau Rebellion failed to overthrow the government, sufficient public awareness and the accompanying sympathy for the cause of liberty under law broke the stronghold of the Family Compact. By 1849 the Baldwin Act was passed, the two provinces of Upper and Lower Canada were united as the ‘Province of Canada’, and we finally had achieved responsible government with limited suffrage, since only those who owned land and were male could vote. I quote from http://www.lsuc.on.ca/Great-Library/Blog/More-Ephemera_-The-Baldwin-Act/ “The Baldwin Act, also referred to as the Municipal Corporations Act, 1849, was Ontario’s first municipal statute. It was named after Robert Baldwin (1804-1858), who was co-premier and Attorney General at the time and at various other times lawyer and Law Society of Upper Canada Treasurer. The Act was passed in 1849, came into force on January 1, 1850, and was described in The Municipal Manual, 11th ed., as “it may be regarded as the Magna Charta of municipal government in Canada”’

The Magna Carta of municipal government indeed. A most fitting epithet for this vital step toward elected, responsible, limited government under the rule of law in Canada. Without MacKenzie and Papineau and their dedication to the cause of liberty under law this act would not have been passed in 1849. They had broken the Family Compact's grip which was referred to by Lord Durham as, "a petty, corrupt, insolent Tory clique". If you cannot see the similarities between this and our current political-economic situation then you are truly blind, stupid or both. Today we see wealthy political insiders who are deep in bed with big banks and big multinational conglomerates on a global scale! They are choking the life out of democracy and truly free economies within the nation states they influence. Just as political insiders did in the past, these oligarchs pillar and vilify all who dare report the truth about them. They call what has amounted to nothing short of prophecies as ‘fake news’! Brexit and Trump are only the beginning of proving them to be wrong.

I wish to remind you that MacKenzie won his case against the Family Compact’s attack on his presses and was awarded punitive damages because of Magna Carta and Common Law. The judge, who himself was a member of the Family Compact, could not disregard Common Law regardless of his personal sympathies. Our greatest hope resides in our noble heritage of liberty under law. One the current political class will do everything it can to make us forget. They will project and use crazy making as a thinly veiled excuse to rob us of our inherent rights. They will call us xenophobes and bigots. They will tell us that we don’t care for the common man when they are in fact his oppressors. Stick to your guns and remember that this moment of history is even more defining than the one MacKenzie and Papineau faced. We are up against a global cabal so insidious, so heinous, so evil that their only goal is to make us slaves to a system which propagates global unrest and instability while ignoring the rule of law. The current immigration crisis is proof of such. The current attempt to undermine the electoral college in America is another. The fact that Soros is cooperating with Justin Trudeau on immigration issues that only this sovereign country should decide as well as is funding a campaign to silence alt-media is further proof of this wicked globalist cabal. They are admittedly seeking to turn Canada into a 'post-national state'. That, good readers, is treasonous. God bless you all. I pray for this nation to awaken from its slumber!

When NAZIs party like it's 1939 - Europe in chaos

http://www.swissinfo.ch/ger/konzert-von-rechtsextremen_5-000-neonazis-schockieren-die-schweiz/42524780

With five thousand neo-NAZIs partying like it's 1939 in Switzerland, which has until now has been relatively immune to the trouble of the E.U. since it is not a member, there is proof that the oligarchs in power within the Schengen area have created the most volatile situation seen since NAZI's (Fascists) and Communists were vying to destroy Western Civilization. And it is worthy of note that it is still the same type of wealthy ideologues behind it. The same enemies of freedom who would rather argue over which flavour of totalitarian, big government, freedom-robbing, oligarchy they prefer. The majority of Europeans appear not to want limited government. The necessary separation of powers between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government needed to create a system of checks and balances simply doesn't exist.  And, as in North America, an independent and diligent 4th Estate ready, willing, and able to criticize government is lacking. Europe has favoured oligarchs and tyrants in its past and continues to do so. Moreover, what Europe desperately needs today is a return to a recognition of the sovereignty of each nation state within it, a renewal of respect for each nation's distinct cultures, and the freedom to allow each nation to manage its own economy and relationships with their neighbours. National sovereignty within Europe has been torn apart by cultural Marxists who insist wrongly that all people are the same and all economies alike. Cultural relativism and historical revisionism are key elements of the Frankfurt School's socialist ideology https://www.marxists.org/subject/frankfurt-school/. It is the basis for their plan to create a socialist cultural revolution. And, as Europe descends into chaos, there's proof it ain't workin'!

As badly, here at home folks have forgotten that we are founded on a tradition of government limited by law with the necessary system of checks and balances to prevent oligarchs from assuming too much power. The traditional understanding of left-right politics is utter nonsense. There are only those who want their government to answer to them versus those who are willing to surrender their personal and economic freedoms to the state. Just think of the illegal search and seizure powers we have given to agencies of the state since 911. The very foundations of government limited by Magna Carta and Common Law are under assault.

Here is an excerpt from Andre van Heerden's wonderful article, 'Are You Part Of The Leadership Crisis?' http://bizcatalyst360.com/are-you-part-of-the-leadership-crisis/  which explains why such ideologies have taken hold in the west. "Ideological thinking, as exemplified in the prejudice and bigotry that repress rational thought today, grows out of the rejection of the reality of objective truth, and the consequent belief that we are all free to make our own truth. An ideology is a fictitious reality that excludes all knowledge that doesn’t support its claims. It is an attempt to justify might over right. So the cultural silos we know as ideologies, the pseudo-rational manifestos of power and self-justification, like laissez faire liberalism, socialism, neo-fascism, neo-Marxism, libertarianism, technocracy, consumerism, racism, scientism, and the currently dominant model of globalisation, all arise from a widely held worldview, a metaphysical stance with no scientific grounding, that says that there is no such thing as truth, other than the reality we create for ourselves." 

This past weekend I even had a so called friend tell me that I was a Fascist since I believe in liberty. Obviously the poor fellow does not know that Fascism is a variant of Socialism with big business and big government deep in bed with one another. Fascist means 'to bundle' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_symbolism. Fascism personifies everything those of us who believe in law, order and good governance loath! It blew my mind that anyone who knows me could equate me with someone who would wish enormous state control over our lives! The government that governs least, governs best. Such is the ignorance and arrogance of our age where the common man no longer understands liberty. Sadly there is now a majority who haven't even noticed that our freedoms have been surrendered to the state.