Say you had a next-door neighbour named Sam who abuses his dog. Sometimes his dog comes to your property to seek refuge, but he just crosses right over the property line, retrieves his dog, and keeps beating it. When you confront Sam about his behaviour, he claims it’s justified because he fed and trained the dog when it was a puppy. Also, he says, there’s ten more dogs at the pound waiting to be adopted, and if his ungrateful dog runs away he’ll just get a replacement and it’s no skin off his back. In fact, Sam says, he’s a hero because those dogs at the pound might die if they don’t get adopted.
Well sure, I guess Sam is right about one thing: he’s unlikely to suffer much harm if his dog runs away. But you can’t seriously argue that Sam’s ability to abuse his dog without repercussions makes that abuse moral. And that assessment doesn’t change whether the pound has a hundred dogs waiting for adoption, or a thousand dogs, or no dogs at all.
And clearly this argument holds a fortiori when we are discussing the relationship of free human beings to the governments they institute, rather than dogs to their masters. But Homelanders often like to pretend that their country’s large population or high number of immigrants & naturalised citizens make it perfectly acceptable to abuse emigrants and renunciants, or to ignore their concerns. A fairly typical example is this recent comment by a law professor trying to “justify” the U.S. government’s violation of American emigrants’ fundamental right to renounce citizenship:
A bit of picking and choosing of numbers to made things sound dramatic. In 2013, 750 Americans renounced citizenship. That’s 1/3 of 1% of the traffic through LAX (LA International Airport) on a single day. At that rate, assuming no births or deaths or in-migration, we’ll run out of Americans in 4 million years.
Then Sam threatens the neighbours’ dogs too
Next, emboldened by the lack of response to his beatings of his own dogs whether on his own property or his neighbours’ properties, Sam claims the right to beat your dogs too on the theory they’re really his dogs, because your dog was a puppy of a dog adopted from Sam or your dog’s mother hid under Sam’s porch when it was giving birth, and you never paid Sam $2,350 to get a formal notification certificate proving that your dogs don’t belong to him.
However, Sam says he won’t actually need to beat your dogs if he can just look in your window to keep an eye on them. He says steaks are going missing from his house, and he just wants to make sure his dogs aren’t misbehaving and stealing his steaks.
Should you let Sam look in your windows, even if he promises he’ll just check up on the dogs and not peep at your daughter in the shower? Of course not. Anyone with the slightest bit of self-respect would press charges. If Sam’s earlier actions of beating his dogs weren’t already criminal, invading his neighbours’ privacy definitely is, and someone with that little respect for his neighbours is a menace to everyone on the street.
And once again, the morality of Sam’s actions has zero relation to the number of dogs at the pound waiting for adoption, or the number of people who want to buy a house on your street, or how good-looking people think Sam is, or any other such irrelevancies.
At what point does it become the fault of all the dog owners on the street for not stopping Sam?
But suppose you don’t call the police. Not only that, you foolishly lend your lawnmower to Sam, because if you don’t he might let his lawn get overgrown and then property prices in the whole neighbourhood would suffer, and besides that he offers to pay you couple of bucks every time he uses your lawnmower.
Next, Sam catches an animal that really was stealing steaks from his house. It turns out he wasn’t lying about the thefts. Of course, the animal Sam caught was one of his own home-grown fat cats, rather than his neighbour’s dog, but that doesn’t matter in Sam’s logic: now he says if you don’t let him into your house any time he wants to check up on your dog or beat it, he won’t give you back your lawnmower.
At this point, it’s your own fault and you should write off your lawnmower entirely. If you’re lucky, maybe your dogs will bark at Sam next time he comes by, and scare him away. It might take them a few tries before they succeed, of course. But the fact that they’re even making an effort just proves that the dogs have more dignity than their human protector.
“A linchpin, also spelled linch pin, lynchpin, or lynch pin, is a fastener used to prevent a wheel or other part from sliding off the axle upon which it is riding.”
That describes Canada. As I said before, Canada could put an end to the empire by refuting the dollar in lieu of natural resources. Nato, as the “North Atlantic Treaty Organization” would lose loads of credibility if the member with the longest north Atlantic coast line left the gang and exposed what a sham it is. Canada, with the help of the hegemon, has managed to propagate this meme that somehow they are this lilly-white peace loving neutral country. If Canada were to in reality act like a neutral country instead of a pawn to the hegemonist, then she could put a stop to the never ending wars on the spot. Nope, Canada doesn’t have anyone approaching the integrity of a Ron Paul, and Canadians are tools.
Lynchpin of Nato is the right word. The US is the axis. The Zionists are driving the wagon.
I tend to agree with most of your comments. It seems to me, many of our key politicians are in bed with corporate America.
“Lynchpin of Nato is the right word. The US is the axis. The Zionists are driving the wagon.”
Once again I concur. I would say that the wagon of worldwide hegemony has many wheels and Canada is just one lynchpin on one wheel. However, it only takes one loose/lost wheel to seriously impede hegemony’s progress. I wish my nation would do the right thing and pull the pin.
But Canada is also a lynchpin in the dollar axle. If Canada demanded Canadian dollars, or perhaps gold, for oil that would mean that countries around the world, whether run by central banks or not, could diversify out of US dollars and into Canadian dollars secure in the knowledge that they would be able to purchase vital resources with these reserves. Implicitly, Candian dollar reserves are backed up by Canada’s natural resources.
In the current state of affairs, US dollars are implicitly backed up by Canadian resources because just like the rest of the hegemon’s vassal states, Canada accepts unbacked and electronic US dollars in exchange for real wealth. Furthermore, by participating in the IMF, World Bank, OECD and other Central Banking based fiat money organs, Canada is also a lynchpin to this corrupt system that has lead the world through 2 world wars and decades of turmoil (Overthrowing Other People’s Governments: The Master List).
It is no coincidence that Central Banking and the Welfare State started before the first world war and really came to power afterwards. But it took generations to get to where Canadians can accept marginal tax rates of over 45% in BC, and even more on the east coast. Continually here on this blog one reads statements like “I don’t mind paying my taxes to Canada”, “I’m a minnow”, “Fat Cat tax cheats”, etc. This is the mentality of somehow one is morally bound to all pay taxes demanded as long is they are “terratorial”. Here is a good explanation of why this argument is fraudulent:
The “Social Contract” Is a Fraud; Anyone Trying to Enforce It Is Acting Criminally
The Federal Register reported 2,092 renunciations in 2013, almost triple what the quoted number in the article said. I was among the names reported in July 2013 and it was more than a year after the fact (Feb 2012). Having paid $450 gringo bucks to go through the process, and now reading that it has been raised over 5x to $2,350 doesn’t make me feel lucky, or smart, just right. There should be no fee to give back a passport you don’t want.