Fear and Dependency

Misguided politics and the ever changing bureaucratic bungles of CV-19 policymakers have brought financial ruin and emotional hardship to many Canadians.  The  apparent desire to hinder free enterprise, and digitally track citizens, appears to override the common sense of having sequestered and protected vulnerable citizens from the outset.

It is questionable whether the government’s action of tracking the activities of free human beings in a democratic society is even an acceptable exercise in the first place.    And once the passport system is fully implemented, the odds of authorities ever removing such a control measure would likely be zero.    Surely, they could justify a multitude of reasons to keep it in place.  Then what?

As many governmental decisions lately appear to “reign-down” (spelling intended) from agendas external to the needs of the Canadian people, it is no wonder many citizens are concerned as to just exactly what the end game is.   The rumour-mill is buzzing because nobody can get a straight answer from those who are supposed to have the answers.  Building on a comment made by the PM himself, is CV-19 the catalyst for  Canada to become a post-nationalist state of a yet to be defined global entity, and if so, who gave him and his entourage the permission to proceed with such a project?    The Canadian people?  Not likely – they were not even consulted.  Decisions of that magnitude surely should hinge on the democratic agreement of all citizens, not the dictates of an elitist few.  It does beg the question; “Does the virus drive the desire for the control mechanisms, or the other way around?”  It is a fair question.

The medieval fear tactics implemented over a virus, that in many cases is so mild it is completely unnoticeable, seems more than a little irrational.   Intentionally or not, there is no proper context given when numbers are regurgitated daily on the news.  Why is that?  For two years, the hysteria over case counts has outranked the more informative statistics of deaths-per-100,000 and the co-morbidity evidence available.  The survival rate is officially documented at just under 100% in total cases reported.  The facts are clear, yet the scare-tactics persist, as a 2005 quote may explain:

“By keeping the population in a state of artificially heightened apprehension, the government-cum-media prepares the ground for planting specific measures of taxation, regulation, surveillance, reporting, and other invasions of the people’s wealth, privacy, and freedoms. Left alone for a while, relieved of this ceaseless bombardment of warnings, people would soon come to understand that hardly any of the announced threats has any substance and that they can manage their own affairs quite well without the security-related regimentation and tax-extortion the government seeks to justify.”  (1)

Ultimately, a population in fear tends to develop a disproportionate psychological dependency upon an ever increasing paternalistic government. If that is the endgame, Saul Alinsky would be proud.


(1)  Higgs, Robert, Senior Fellow in Political Economy. “Fear: The Foundation of Every Government’s Power”, 2005,  Research Article, Independent Institute,  Fear: The Foundation of Every Government’s Power: Independent Institute

Where Do We Go from Here?

There is too much for the concerned taxpayer to worry about right now. But even though focus and prioritizing have become complex issues within themselves, without them, no solution will ever appear.

The world has been conditioned by a pandemic, the treatment of which raises many questions, and finds few answers from those charged with its management.  The prospect of a looming catastrophe, posed by climate change alarmists, dictates that the only alternative is to shatter large parts of the present economy and restart it in some way nobody has identified.

Confusion appears to be consistently offered up over remedy.  Consider the present education system, from kindergarten to graduate school, which has been fractured by fear and division, sowed by cynical political opportunists.  How is this situation justifiable?

Additionally, technology has progressed to levels beyond the understanding of most of us, but where do we put our trust? It is not just a matter of deciding which developments will affect us in the future – it is also a matter of how some of them affect us now.

If all of this was not enough, BC is facing the most recent of a series of natural disasters. Not unnaturally, representatives at every political level are showering each other with blame for outcomes.  However, there is no doubt where the liability for the costs of all these issues will land – the taxpayer.

At a time when there is a real need for focus and prioritizing, concentrating on issues closest to home would show the best return. Local councilors and school board trustees are the ones most responsible for giving tangible value in the taxpayer’s service and, especially now, need to be held accountable.

Covid is Not a Disaster

The Covid-19 pandemic is not a disaster. It is a major inconvenience made worse by the missteps of the political, administrative, and professional decision makers involved. Its major characteristic as a problem is that it has defied a solution for almost two years.

Canadians should consider what they would do if a real disaster struck, be it fire, flood, earthquake, war, or just a genuine pestilence. Given societal reaction to the current event, all should be very concerned.

Unlike the United Kingdom Canada does not have Army Field Hospital units where the Commanding Officer can have a discussion over tea with the National Health Service, lay his hands on enough staff and equipment, and ten days later open a hospital to hold five hundred patients, expandable to four thousand.

Unlike Germany, Canada does not have a national auxiliary fire fighting and rescue service whose crews and equipment were deployed earlier this year to help respond to the sudden damage from the worst floods in five hundred years.

Unlike the United States, Canada does not have large, national, multifunctional military forces which can deploy hospital ships or integral medical support when needed. Nor does it have the National Guard which can be called out by state governors without asking anyone’s permission.

In Canada, it appears, there is a mismanagement of government that has chipped away at its country’s national disaster response capacity, and in every one of their terms since the middle of the last century, has contrived, intentionally or not, to make the problem worse.