James Grant: The Forgotten Depression

A while ago, when the Canadian government abandoned the ‘long form census’ and stopped collecting unnecessarily intrusive information about us, the citizens, this simple act generated great controversy.

Not just in the media – inside my family, too!

You see, my father-in-law is a Keynesian…

It is a difficult admission to make, but, alas, it is true!

My father-in-law and I love each other very dearly – and truly respect each other as professional adversaries – but, when it comes to individual freedom versus central government control, the two of us just don’t agree…  And every chance we get (much to the chagrin to the other adults in the family), we battle for the souls of the next generation of our family!!!

Especially my children – his grandchildren.

And whatever else he may be, my father-in-law is brilliantly eloquent and very, very persuasive.  Neither of which traits I posses:  rather, I counter simply with the ‘deeply uncharismatic’ reason.

So, back to the time when the mandatory (as in – you’ll go to jail if you don’t reveal to the government your innermost secrets) ‘long form’ (i.e. constitutionally – none of the government’s business) census was controversially being cancelled.

Did I mention that my father-in-law, while a student of Economy and Political Science (sic) at Ottawa U wrote an essay deeply critical of Lester B’s economic policies?  Little did he know that his prof was Lester B’s drinking buddy…and mocked him with my father-in-law’s essay.

The next day, my father-in-law got a phone call:  “Belaire!!!  So, you don’t think I know how to run this country?!?!?”

And – he offered my father-in-law a job.  On the spot.  As his special economic advisor!

Needless to say, my father-in-law accepted.  He advised Lester B on economy while he was the leader of the opposition – and penned the wording much of Lester B’s laws – especially anything even remotely dealing with the economy, while Lester B was the Prime Minister.

And he advised and briefed many of Lester B’s ministers:  from PET through Chretien to Martin and many, many others. And, he mentored many subsequent top civil servants…some of whom tried (unsuccessfully) to rope me into what eventually turned into the sponsorship scandal…but that is a different story.

(Must state:  when it came to this scandal, my father-in-law was even more idealistic and naive than I…100% blameless, as he was well retired by then…but some of his past civil servant mentees tried to ‘repay’ him by trying to draw me in to the schemes so I could benefit financially…big time…until they saw I was totally not into corruption and that given proof, I would ‘blow the whistle on them’, at which point they kind of black-listed me…  Honesty is what my father-in-law and I share and the root of our mutual respect, despite our ideological differences.)

My mother-in-law still has a scrap book of all the political cartoons that included my father-in-law – from all the main stream media publications of those days.  And yes, when PET came to power and refused to heed my father-in-law’s advice (which, surprisingly, was actually reasonable) regarding Alberta’s oil-sands, my father-in-law could no longer take the Liberal corruption and resigned.

As he says: he used to be a classical liberal – but he held on to his morals while ‘his party’ drifted away from him.

Of course, he and I disagree most vociferously about which time period is best descriptive of ‘classical liberal’ – we both seek that title, yet each of us understands it to mean a very different thing…reflecting a different ‘era’ of what either of us believes constitutes a ‘classical liberal…

OK – I’m ranting – I beg your indulgence.

Back to the issue of the ‘long form census':  we were up, at a cottage in northern Quebec, with the dog and the rabbit curled up by our feet, arguing over the benefits vs evils of the ‘long form census’.

DSC_2553

And, being the eloquent/charismatic one, my father-in-law was winning the argument – winning my babies’ minds over to the dark side!

That is – until I asked my sons what do they think the government was going to DO with all this information.

Which is what turned the tide…

Why bring up this story now?

Well, it is necessary for the young people in our society to understand what the proper role of the government ought to be – and just how easy it is for the self-appointed technocrats to usurp the decision-making process and subvert political  decision making to their pet ‘models’ and untested hypothesies…

The following video contains very strong empirical evidence for the benefit of denying governments the type of information they are most likely to seek, which would give them excuses to justify interventions in areas they have no right to intervene and interfere in!

Like, say, economy…

Eric Brazeau breathes fresh air again!!!

My dear readers,

the 17th of April, 2015, was an important day in Canadian jurisprudence:  Canada’s honest to goodness political prisoner, Eric Brazeau, was released on bail!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, there is a ton of restrictions on his freedoms.

But…

Eric walked out of the Ontario Court house at 361 University Avenue and is breathing the fresh air, basking in early spring sun, and no longer caged as a criminal!!!

Forgive me for being so brief in my report – I just got home from a 26 hour road trip in which I traveled to Toronto for the Appeal hearing, enjoyed first Timmies and then a couple of beers with Eric and some of his supporters, and capped the evening off by taking part in a JDL counter-protest against terrorist-organization Hamas supporting silly bunnies in front of the Israeli Consulate.  They shouted hate at us, we danced happily in response:  it drove them bonkers!

Then I got a bite to eat and went home back to Ottawa.

All around – about a 26-27 hour adventure, which I will be glad to recount to you in superfluous details once I wake up…in a day or two!  With pictures and videos!!!

Good night, my dear readers, good night!

Eric Brazeau in court plus a JDL counter-protest

Eric Brazeau, Canada’s honest-to-goodness political prisoner, will be in court appealing his conviction on the morning of Friday, 17th of April, 2015, at the Ontario Courts on 361 University Avenue in Toronto (I think).  At least, that is where I’m going to try to see this.

Later on that same day, there will be another important event, as per BlogWrath.

JDL-Canada is going to hold a counter-protest in Toronto:

Friday  April 17th at 5:30 pm–7:00 pm
Israel Consulate, 180 Bloor Street West, Toronto

It is in response of an event organized by the supporters of the terror group the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) who are holding a protest at the Israeli Consulate in Toronto on Friday April 17th at 6:00 pm. 

Read the rest here.

The 4 waves of feminism

OK, I found this on reddit:  but thought you folks might enjoy it!

http://i.imgur.com/jdp4oJp.png

Lauren Southern: Why I am not a feminist

Please, do keep in mind that all identity groups/politics are a tool of Cultural Marxism, and that Feminism and ‘Women’s Studies’ is just one of these:  a tool designed to destroy our society by splintering us into groups which can then be played off against each other by the social engineers.

The way to fight identity politics and Cultural Marxism is through individualism.

Political Correctness: mind-shackles from within

Last year, at the 1st annual Essentials of Freedom conference, I spoke about the difference between speech limits being imposed from the outside of oneself versus from within oneself:  I used the examples of my childhood in behind-the-iron-curtain Czechoslovakia (limits imposed from the outside) versus living in present-day Canada (limits imposed from within by political correctness).

This is why I found it particularly interesting to listen to the former President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, making the same point!

He also used the example of the pre-velvet-revolution Czechoslovakia, but he contrasted it with the modern Czech Republic…sad, so sad…but an interesting speech nonetheless!

 

So, we are now punishing thought crimes?

This is not the right way to go about this.

The prosecution admits this man broke no law – yet he is subject to an incredible loss of freedom.

This is wrong, no matter how you try to present this.

Pre-crime is not a crime:  by definition, it has not happened.  People must not be stripped of their liberties simply because they ‘might’ commit a crime.  Government does not have that right and we must let them know that we will not tolerate this type of an over-reach.

Yes, terrorism is a problem.  But this is not the solution.

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 133 other followers