César Fernández-Stoll

César Fernández-Stoll
Versión hispana

Time to let the nanny go Canada


As the campaign for votes starts to pick up for the election of the new federal Parliament in Canada as Michael Ignatieff has conspired, alongside with the other two members of the royal opposition to turn the question to the people. The clamour for the preservation of the so called ‘social programs’ intends to ‘remove’ from the animosity of the agenda the reduction on taxes, potential or real, imaginary or surreal, and so the people is once again placed as the ‘receipient’ of gifts that are to be paid by their own efforts from their own pockets for the preservation of the nanny state.

The problem with ‘social programs’ is the social cost, not just in monetary terms, which already, is terrible high, but on actual social terms.

People that receive gifts, coming from the government, tend to see them as rights and worst yet, tend to always ‘rightfully’ want more and more, and the politics of ‘socially satisfaying’ the people, becomes an growing spiral with no end that will only keep growing as the very problems the ‘great idea’ foments and generates, become unbearable to the people that actually voted out of ‘compassion’ for our fellow humans to be taken care by the state, naturally, for the calamity of reducing them to plain receivers of favours as opposed to giving them the dignity of having to at least try to solve their own problems and circumstances.

And so the culture of receiving becomes a selfish mess of wanting and so the culture becomes a culture of misery of the worst kind; the one that reflects itself in the idea of deserving everything, of becoming parasites in their own right. Of course, such a cultural degradation does not come alone and in isolation because with it, a culture of predators flourish and with the selfishness that this culture impulses, human degradation becomes inevitable as the right to receive becomes the right not to be accountable for anything, or put in other words, not to be responsible for anything and does not end there because it brings as well a dependency that secuesters the imagination and creativity of the people on behalf of not fighting ofr their dignity.

Taxes, we are being persistently told, are as unavoidable as death and under that idea, we must accept them as they come and taxes, in all sorts of variations and derivatives, have multiplied to the point of menacing the very nucleus of society, the institution of the family, which of course has as base for its formation; marriage, which is and can only be, the union of one man and one woman as God created and instituted it.

Taxes are necessary to the extent of the services provided by the government are required and these services should be limited to what it is not within the reach of its constituents. Governments exist after the individuals that form the government do.

When politicians are allowed to distort the simplicity and purity of taxation to force it into become a vehicle of favour in the polls, not to mention opresion and intrution as well a sofocation and stranglment, the spiral becomes an infectious reality which tends to take the whole society towards damnation and eventual disappearance.

Social programs, as the clamour goes, belong to collectivist society or an utopia that so many times has been experimented with and which has always ended with a terrific dimension of human destruction and million of death and even worst, the lose of humanity. Collectivist societies have been formed under different names as the convenience of the times demanded or was opportunistic and appropriate or adequate: communism, socialism, fascism, Nazism, Maoism, etc. The common denominator is always the ownership of the people by the state, and of course in the ‘capitalist’ end of things, the corporate oppression of the individual by the elites.

Elitism is the prevalent force which exercise control and power over the individual through the state of the corporate establishment. The ideal is not the well being of the masses but their oppression and neutralising. Their preferred vehicle of taming is the ideal for progressiveness. There is little wonder then to find that progressive leaders tend to bring their people to flavours of collectivism.

Progress, in the sense constantly advertised by collectivism, is not equal to prosperity and growth, but rather the opposite, because as it predicates progress, this means for everyone to be equal to each other and under that consideration the only possible end is to stop prosperity and growth until everyone has reach such an absurd expectation. We are equal but before God and thereby shoujld be before the law, not to each other.

Under these parameters, families become a burden and marriages need to be distorted as anything but what they are, the union of one man and one woman before God and Him needs to be dismissed and put away as someone unnecessary, replaced by the ‘supreme government’ and governments in their acquired divine format become the ones to decide who live and who dies. Abortion and euthanasia then, become common day words as the state maintains prevalence on the cost of the so called ‘social programs’ that need to be maintained with the taxes paid for services increasingly more costly and more and more diversely offered and granted.

Of course, as ‘social programs’ multiply and the people culture grows towards the receiving end; the number of people in the receiving end only tends to increase because the culture direction is such, of receiving, not of giving. Giving is distorted as charity through the government and so the recipients of the benefits of this ideal are transformed into the human misery reflected by a culture that refuse to give, because that is now the duty of the state and the elites in control will always know better to whom this ‘charity’ will need to go which of course, has to be towards the ones politicians find more appropriate as they too expect to receive from the people the benefit of their votes, as long as they can vote this is, because even democracy becomes distorted towards an act of satisfying majorities or minorities, always to the mercy of the elites in power. The individual relationship each of us has with God becomes an obstacle and so it is forced to be distorted towards invented rights which end trumping all other basic and fundamental liberties.

Income tax is the main institution to control and obliterate people towards a collectivist society with plenty of ‘social programs’ to offer, because it is the way to dictate over the people what they should or should not do or consume, directly and indirectly exercising power over the market and so, prices do not become a consequence of supply and demand but of political ‘direction’. If the elites are entrenched on the environment, only they will decide what is and what is not beneficial to the environment and so the exploitation by the unkwon or untruth, or in simple words, by ignorance make businesses friends of the goverfnment prosper and grow and corruption becomes the only livign standard.

Income taxes force families to live under constant stress, imposing both spouses to work so that the high cost of the ‘social programs’ can be paid. This is of course true for the families and individuals that actually still work for living, the providers of the rest of the, voluntary or involuntary, parasites that live of the system.

As families are the only natural and healthy way a society has to build a future within their own cultural background and roots, oppression of the family and distortion of the essence of marriage, causes only a similar distortion in society and other means are needed to be found to offset the consequences of the idealistic ‘social programs’ that elites maintain.

Moving is supposed to be a human right and so people should not be prevented to move wherever they so decide to go. With the ‘success’ of collectivist societies, immigration constitutes a social matter that elites need under their control as well, because with the ‘benefits’ of the ‘social programs’ peoples from other cultures tend to look for the opportunity to live of the state as well, of course not having to ‘adjust’ to the new environment because after all, competing for jobs is not at the top of their priorities and so, immigration becomes a vehicle of cultural multiplication and ‘tolerance’ as well as of vote building.

When the state is ‘in charge’ gimmicking God, the state assumes God’s roles and so a new morality is instituted which of course becomes flexible because it is relative to what the receiving culture can absorb and so nothing then can become or be considered normal or natural and so gender stability ceases to be on behalf of flexible gender ‘tolerance’ or sexual orientation and the same can be said aboout every other moral considerations.

Freedom is a gift from God and so it is only relative to our own accountabiliuty to Him and to the law that is written under God. In the collectivist society of ‘social programs’ as people expect only to receive and never give, then under the fallacious scheme of collectivism, freedom becomes relative to the state and not to God and as the elites requirement of accountability becomes diffuse and freedom disappears under a cover of relativism best know as ‘political correctness’.

Truth is absolute but in the collectivist society because it too needs to be adjusted to the circumstances as the interests of the elites dictate it also becomes relative to the requirements of the ‘programs’ to be preserved.

The actual decision required under any election is on what path to follow.

Is it the surrendering of everything to collectivism?

Or is it accepting being created by the only living God who love us, gave us the necessary gifts to be free, gave us the family through marriage, to grow and prosper as well as multiply and, Who wants us to be free accountable only to Him? Who loves us to the extent of giving us His only son to die on the cross for our redemtion and His resurection so to give us hope and the truth for our faith.

For the former, the choice can be just a matter of closing the eyes and picking anyone in the establishment as all of the options seem to go for the same piece of collectivism, for the later, the need is to cautiously inquire over who is going to have the courgae to chose life and freedom and to look after dismantling, not necessarily immediately but certainly going into that direction, the collective society of ‘scoial programs’, reducing the size of government, giving it back to the people under a true democracy from the individual, limiting the reach of the state to what is exclusively services required by the people because the people cannot provide them individually to themselves. By finally letting go the nanny and assume the maturity we claim to have reached by exercising our right to vote.