For the Sake of the Children, Keep the Schools Closed

Doug Ford making every Ontario kid (and their parents) suffer because the perennial hotspots Toronto and Peel can’t or won’t get their acts together is not understandable.

“Chris Selley: Doug Ford has seriously harmed Ontario’s school kids. Now he has to fix it

Premier Doug Ford wants a ‘consensus’ among experts on the question. That’s a bit like asking Canadians to agree on a favourite colour”

This article is correct in calling out the fact of massive sadness and depression among young people, and by placing the blame upon governments and their enablers. This has been a disaster.
Where it misses the point, by far, however is the insistence that children are depressed to the point of suicide because they are not in school. Children have seen every major family gathering cancelled, missed birthdays and holidays, all under threat of arrest.
Kids don’t really know the nuances between criminal behaviour and bylaw infractions. They are told they could be responsible for the sickness or death of loved ones if they hug or even visit. They’ve seen their parents’ stress through job loss, loss of joy in living, loss of future plans.
There is plenty of depression and sadness to go around when schools are in session. This article perpetuates the myth that school provides essential socialization. Children should be much happier to be with family than they are in school, but the family is under state-induced stress to a level that hasn’t been experienced in many years. We are entering a new dark age, and the children know it.
Children see the absurdity of social distancing and mask theatre. They have been fed fear, and submission to the fearful, to a toxic level. Children see that there is something wrong with the hypocrisy of governments that either reward or punish behaviour based upon group identity. They are keenly aware of basic unfairness.
None of this will be solved by reopening the schools, especially if their teachers treat them like germ infested vermin. The teachers’ fears will be clear.
This article also skirts over the matter of toxic ideology in the school system.
Ideologically, the authority over the family assumed by modern educators is merely evil at best. The state-run and separate schools submits the interests of the family to that of the school, the “co-parents” of the child, so that the child is taught that the normal family isn’t the norm, and kids are bullied into accepting the unacceptable: transgenderism and same-sex marriage. But these two examples are but illustrations of the larger problem of a pretended neutral and secular education system. Marxist economics and Critical Race Theory must be added to this list as well.
No Christian child should be made to feel ashamed of their faith, but this is the intent of the curriculum in many cases.
All education indoctrinates—that is normal. But what is wicked is when it is done without any admission on the part of the educators that they are doing so. Modern state-run education operates from an explicitly anti-Christian worldview. In the name of inclusion, diversity, and secularism, state schools claim an objectivity and neutrality that cannot exist. Education is never neutral. So with the authority of the system comes the authority to declare Christ to be dethroned. The modern education system is a meta-narrative that explains all else.
To fight this depression, we must stop (today) doing the things to their world that brings it on. They need to know that they are safe at home, and that schools will not contradict, demean, and defeat the values they are taught at home. Their parents need to know that they can plan for their birthday and holidays. Children need to know that they can drop and see grandma without fear of bringing her death.
It is already assumed that a child as young as 12 can consent to transition from their sex to one that will never be their sex. This is with the school’s encouragement and intervention, and without parental knowledge or consent. How can parents be certain that an injection will not be administered to their child without their permission?
Sending kids back to school right now, given the above, is a ticket to their long-term and certain misery.

“You’ll own nothing and be happy about it.” You sure about that?

The Great Reset, Davos Agenda 2021 - 'You'll Own Nothing And Be Happy' - Alex HickmanThis is a must-read, right from our own Federal government. The merry band of thieves in Ottawa exhibits no awareness that the financial difficulties of the average person are in fact caused by government intervention, taxation, and meddling. Whether it is housing affordability, inflation, high energy costs, failing healthcare programs, student debt, consumer debt–all can be traced back to either incompetence or intent.
Nowhere does the article mention the billions (if not trillions) wasted in ideological projects, cronyism, waste, scandals, kickbacks, and misguided attempts to modify economic reality. Nor is there any mention of curtailment of government spending. On the contrary, “You will own nothing, and be happy about it” means that everything you own will be owned by the government, including your paycheque. We will be on government rations for life: food, fuel, mobility, housing, healthcare (already there).
Without property rights, there are no other human rights. Economic freedom is the bedrock of other freedoms.
We will naturally expect that the writers expect to be excluded from the consequences of their plans. They will, if history is any indication, personally thrive from this “reset.”
Those who created the mess now propose a solution. This solution comes at a historically high price for families and individuals who are called of God to create a just society. The Federal solution will be in the name of Social Justice but will be anything but Just: it will create a world that is antithetical to God’s order for economics.
There is no major political party that will stand against this–although some feeble protests will be made–this is where the LPC, CPC, and NDP are headed.
The only way out of this, that I see, is a revival of the Christian faith in Canada. I do not mean more churches and more programs, with the t-shirts, coffee mugs, and “Jesus junk” that is so easily marketed. I mean a real calling upon the Name of the Lord.
We can never legislate ourselves out of hell, and unless our hell-bent world chooses life in Christ, our society will fall to this.
It is anti-Christian for the church to go full Hezekiah now (Isaiah 39:8).

From the Foundation for Economic Education: The Soviet and Nazi Inception: A Married Ideology

The Soviet and Nazi Inception: A Married Ideology

The manikin of socialism was identical for the Nazis and Soviets.

It has become fashionable to wear Che Guevara or red hammer-and-sickle t-shirts as a mode of social protest against the oppression of Western society. Those who fight the injustice of Western democracy often are readily accepted and celebrated throughout American academia as they don these symbols of resistance.

Would these same heroes of justice and equality wear shirts with the Nazi swastika or pose for a photo with a flag of the Parteiadler of the Third Reich? A negative response would indicate either willing hypocrisy or a blinded understanding and knowledge of history since Karl Marx and Frederick Engels are the fathers of both children: the swastika and the hammer-and-sickle.

From its inception, advocates viewed “less civilized” peoples as obstacles to their revolution. Frederick Engels referred to the residual fragments of people who have survived in the cracks and crevices of European society without obtaining the status of capitalist. The Basques of Spain, the Gaels of Scotland, and the French Bretons, among others, were destined to perish in the “revolutionary world storm” that was sure to come.

Here are the precise words of Engels from the 1849 edition of Neue Rheinische Zeitung No. 194:

There is no country in Europe which does not have in some corner or other one or several ruined fragments of peoples, the remnant of a former population that was suppressed and held in bondage by the nation which later became the main vehicle of historical development.

These relics of a nation mercilessly trampled under foot in the course of history, as Hegel says, these residual fragments of peoples always become fanatical standard-bearers of counter-revolution and remain so until their complete extirpation or loss of their national character, just as their whole existence, in general, is itself a protest against a great historical revolution.

Such, in Scotland, are the Gaels, the supporters of the Stuarts from 1640 to 1745. Such, in France, are the Bretons, the supporters of the Bourbons from 1792 to 1800. Such, in Spain, are the Basques, the supporters of Don Carlos. Such, in Austria, are the pan-Slavist Southern Slavs, who are nothing but the residual fragment of peoples, resulting from an extremely confused thousand years of development.

That this residual fragment, which is likewise extremely confused, sees its salvation only in a reversal of the whole European movement, which in its view ought to go not from west to east, but from east to west, and that for it the instrument of liberation and the bond of unity is the Russian knout — that is the most natural thing in the world. [emphasis added]

Not only did early socialism insist on the forced assimilation or destruction of lesser developed nations in a Darwinian struggle for existence, but the principle itself was also as much a part of the doctrine as Marx was a part of Engels and vice versa. In an 1859 pamphlet named “Rhine and Po,” Engels spelled out this concept. He stated:

No one will assert that the map of Europe is definitely settled. All changes, however, if they are to be lasting, must be of such a nature as to bring the great and vital nations ever closer to their true natural borders as determined by speech and sympathies, while at the same time the ruins of peoples, which are still to be found here and there, and are no longer capable of leading an independent national existence, must be incorporated into the larger nations, and either dissolve in them or else remain as ethnographic monuments of no political significance.

To be left as an inconsequential racial remnant would be one thing, but Engels went further when he commented on the inevitable counter-revolution and its solution.

The next world war will cause not only reactionary classes and dynasties but also entire reactionary peoples to disappear from the earth. And that too would progress.

The danger of leaving these “remnant people” alive was the counter-revolution they would be sure to bring, which was, according to Engels, an unacceptable threat to the socialist cause. Instead, these reactionary nations who rebel against the new socialist order should be destroyed to have only their names known to history. They would be forcibly assimilated or destroyed in the wake of the revolution, and Engels had little sympathy for them.

Eagerly awaiting the worldwide socialist revolution, early socialists were struck dumb when the workers of the world did not unite to throw off their chains during WWI. Instead, millions of working-class men took up arms to fight for king and country for a schilling and died by the millions on the Western Front, the great charnel house that still holds the lifeblood of forgotten generations. The post-war failure of socialism was realized around the world, save for the USSR under the control of the Communist Party and Nazi Germany under the National Socialist German Workers Party.

The platform for Soviet socialism was nearly identical to that of National Socialism under the Nazi Party. Though the application of Soviet socialism was Marxian in nature—committed to international socialist revolution and the elimination of class enemies—and National Socialism under the Nazi Party was instituted to the elimination of racial enemies, both were dedicated to the remaking of mankind through class struggle.

The New Soviet Man was to be created from the morass of the old Russian Empire and the scorching away of nationality, religion, and family loyalty in the kiln of forced revolution. Endemic to both Soviet and Nazi socialism, the destruction of class and racial enemies was a literal, not figurative, stage of revolution.

A new Soviet society would be sculpted, and state-controlled education, mass arrests of class enemies, and government-controlled media would be the tools used by Stalinist artisans. Similarly, the Nazi Party of the Third Reich, being at war with human nature as it is, was equally committed to the remaking of German society through the eugenics work of Dr. Josef Mengele and others. Not pure Marxists, the Nazis sought to create a new master race through the termination of racial enemies.

Endemic to both Soviet and Nazi socialism, the destruction of class and racial enemies was a literal, not figurative, stage of revolution. Whether it be dekulakization and destruction of generations-old buildings such as Christ the Savior Cathedral in Moscow in 1931, or the eradication of the “racially inferior” as under the Nazi Party, both versions of socialism were dedicated to constructing a new social reality by any means necessary and saw themselves as not so distant partners in the struggle.

These two socialist systems were so similar, in fact, that major leaders of the day often compared them favourably. While speaking at a public event in Berlin in 1925, Josef Goebbels compared communism and the Hitler ideal and noted that their differences were slight by comparison. Dr. Goebbels went on to say that Lenin was the “greatest man second only to Hitler,” which was meant to draw an alliance between the Communism of the USSR and the National Socialism of the Third Reich.

Similarly, Western leaders operated with the full understanding that the Hitler faith and that of Stalin were peas from the same pod. Winston Churchill viewed Communism and Nazism as breeding one another and alike in all major essentials. In 1937, Churchill compared compare Nazism and communism.

There are two strange facts about these non-God religions. The first is their extraordinary resemblance to one another. Nazism and communism imagine themselves as exact opposites. They are at each other’s throats wherever they exist all over the world. They actually breed each other; for the reaction against communism is Nazism, and beneath Nazism or fascism communism stirs convulsively.

Yet they are similar in all essentials. First of all, their simplicity is remarkable. You leave out God and put in the Devil; you leave out love and put in hate; and everything thereafter works quite straightforwardly and logically. They are, in fact, as alike as two peas. Tweedledum and Tweedledee are two quite distinctive personalities compared to these two rival religions.

Like two gems harvested from the same socialist strata, communism and Nazism varied only slightly in their application of Marxism, but were both were equally totalitarian in nature.

In addition to belonging to the shared brotherhood of worldwide socialism, clearly, both communism and Nazism were equally totalitarian. The Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises saw the similarity clear enough as he noted that German socialism worked toward a collective life in which government infringement on private life, with the time-honored aim of eliminating private property, did immeasurable harm to the population.

It’s true enough that socialism, by its design, is oriented toward total control; the economic and social philosophy of National Socialist German Workers’ Party and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics are equally apparent. As Ludwig von Mises noted about Nazi Germany:

But in substance all enterprises are to become government operations. Under this practice, the owners will keep their names and trademarks on the property and the right to an “appropriate” income or one “befitting their ranks.” Every business becomes an office and every occupation a civil service. . . . Prices are set by government, and government determines what is to be produced, how it is to be produced, and in what quantities. There is no speculation, no “extraordinary” profits, no losses. There is no innovation, except for that ordered by government. Government guides and supervises everything.

The Nazis rejected the call to international revolution and the class warfare of their Soviet Marxist kin, however, this made them no less socialist. All substantial power and ownership of German business under the Third Reich, while managed and owned by individuals, was in the hands of the state.

Price controls, salary caps, and production quotas were set by the nation and left owners to navigate a glut of bureaucracy. Although the Nazis did not build or maintain a holistic command economy and thus were not traditional socialists after the Marxian model, the agricultural sector was set up, according to von Mises, in conformity with the “socialism of the German pattern.”

The manikin of socialism was identical for the Nazis and Soviets.

This can hardly be called a free market. The thin veneer of private ownership of German industry faded away under the endless tide of government interventionism, which only served to create shortages of essential goods and overproduction of superfluous non-essentials. In this way, the economic practice of the Nazis and Soviets was very similar.

The manikin of socialism was identical for the Nazis and Soviets. Doomed shawls of Soviet Marxism can be replaced with cursed vests of National Socialism, but each hid the rotten mask of the utopian paradise—one created from the hammer-and-sickle and swastika.