As IF Times

One of the most common justifications for any and most political policies today is that such implementation is to ensure ‘safety’. This seems to be the method by which all politicians have figured out is a means of passing laws which would otherwise be unpalatable.

The most famous justification came in the aftermath of the attacks on New York in 2001.  Following the discovery of a would be terrorist who apparently had hidden a bomb in his shoe, the entire planet started a protocol of airport security screening which exists to this day.  Thus began a couple of decades of shoe removal, x-ray scanning and pat downs at airport terminals. Though there has been no record of any further terrorist efforts thwarted by such security, millions of nail clippers and water bottles have been confiscated.  But the procedure has taken a life of its own as everyone routinely accepts the procedure because it’s for their safety.  Thus, a muti-billion dollar bureaucracy is now an essential part of daily life.  Only now, it’s become worse, because now, electronic iris scans are virtually mandatory…for your safety.

As recently as only a few years ago, the world was paralyzed by an apparently dangerous virus which necessitated draconian measures of isolation and protection for…your safety.  Regardless of how non-sensical or invasive the protocols were, people were obliged to follow the new safety rules to be able to move about in society.  As the ensuing years have passed, it’s become evident just how preposterous those edicts were.  Recall standing six feet apart at the airline counter, but then only to sit elbow to armpit next to someone on the plane for 5 hours.  Or to mask up upon entering a restaurant, but then able to de-mask once seated.

Related to this was the over the top response to peaceful protesters in Ottawa who didn’t happen to agree with the government’s draconian edicts.  Police were sent out to trample protestors…for their safety.

When politicians run for office, they are often known to invoke the ‘for your safety’ card in proposing new rules just to live in society, as if they were protecting people from some cataclysmic danger.  We will soon see the push for central bank digital currencies…to protect the public of course.  We now have cars that monitor your driving habits…again for public safety.

How did civilization survive through the eons without pearl clutchers restraining us at every opportunity?  I can make the argument that this is a phenomenon related to females and female leaders.  The very idea of safety resonates more with the female populace than it does for males.  It is not in the nature of most men to do things based on the safety of a particular action. I will wager that everything from seatbelts to helmets and airbags have at their roots an appeal to women’s notions of safety.  If you’ve ever shopped for any baby product, safety is the number one selling feature above all.

Men don’t generally worry about safety as it relates to ascending or descending a mountain.  Safety doesn’t hold them back from exploring new lands or to go up in a rocket to other planets.  Safety doesn’t hold them back from spending vast sums on capital projects and risky ventures.  In the grand scheme of things, all great things have been accomplished by doing things outside of the confines of safety.   Civilization is not about safety.

But somehow over the years, the overriding aspect of ‘safety’ is baked into so much of our everyday lives that innovation and freedom are stifled, leading to a flaccid and fearful society.   Where?  Well Canada is a prime example of a smothering nanny culture.  The present environment of creeping big government has been increasingly responsible for the dearth of innovation and ambition.  Young, ambitious people are leaving to more hospitable nations. According to Statistics Canada, record numbers of people are leaving Canada within 2 years of arriving.  Of course there are other issues as well such as high housing costs, but much of that could be mitigated by policies aimed at growth instead of protectionism and alarmism.  Protecting everything under the guise of safety leads to a stagnant nation which will not grow and will in fact shrink.

Masculine sensibilities must return.  There has to be a preference for growth and risk taking in order for any civilization to progress.  Looking backwards and being fearful of every path taken will lead to insular and stagnant societies.  We don’t need to be protected at every step in our lives.  We have become prisoners of the safety lie.

Maybe the pundits were right. Maybe the guardrails should be taken off to cull the herd of the terminally inept.

Addendum.  Just a day after this was published, Senator Tammi Duckworth urges re-instatement of shoes off policy at airport security points. They are caricatures of themselves.

By now we’ve all been made aware of the ultimate goal of the goblins of the World Economic Forum and their goals for the New World Order: You will own nothing and be happy.  To most people raised in a time of working to achieve the basic necessities of life such as a home and perhaps basic transportation, this is a galling affront to their value system.

For the majority of time in man’s existence, the ‘ownership’ of things, especially of land, was the purview only of the powerful and rich. If you could keep intruders from your lands, then it was yours.  It was a simple matter of having enough ability to keep interlopers at bay.  So you only needed to have an army to bully others off your land.  These people wound up being kings and masters of their domain.  But for the average peon, they were relegated to working on such lands for the powerful owner but derived no ownership rights.

With the creation of the New World, the Americas, also came the privilege of property rights.  Ordinary working people were allowed to actually own land that was purchased from some authority.  Rather than having to actually fight to defend their property, they were given legal rights of ownership.  We can argue that this sense of permanence and belonging created strong communities because they were willing to defend a home which was theirs.  We can also argue that this grounding also gave birth to industry and real democracy since the achievements of one contributed to the achievements of many.

One of the greatest aspirations of most North Americans is to own their own home. Planting roots in a community to achieve this gave stability to that community.

The WEF statement pushes back strongly on this notion and in fact targets the reversal of hundreds of years of western civilization.  Once again, they want to concentrate ownership of virtually all things to the State, or at least to a very small cabal of owners.

This is offensive to anyone who has worked during their lives to improve the circumstances of their families.  Nobody wants to work for some entitled gnome.  That’s what you’d think.

But if you think about the trends in society over the past few generations, that WEF goal may not be that far-fetched and in fact they are making progress towards their goal.

Does anyone really ‘own’ their home?  Of course, there are property rights assigned to ‘owners’ but there are also property obligations, notably permanent property taxes. Not to mention the long term finance costs to banks for the majority of owners.  Cars have gone the same way.  Early on, it was feasible to actually own a car within a short time.  Now, it’s preposterously expensive to own a car and so accordingly, many turn to leasing for a term of between 3 to 5 years instead of ownership. Thus you’re effectively renting a vehicle only to renew the rental at the end of the term.

What about a simple phone?  There’s no such thing.  In addition to paying perhaps over $1000 for the newest phone product, you are tethered to a long term contract to use the device.  Who doesn’t have a phone these days?  Phones have been inextricably woven into our everyday lives not just for communication, but also for entertainment, for payments, for access, and most of all for identification.

Speaking of entertainment, the models have all moved to subscription plans.  You don’t buy DVD’s anymore.  You have a subscription to Netflix, Amazon Prime or any of the multitudes of video platforms.  Thus you pay every time you consume a video.  You don’t own a video as you used to be able to.   How about music?  Does anyone use CD’s or records anymore?  Why would they when they can stream on platforms such as Spotify?  But now, you pay a subscription fee just to listen to your favorite music. Interestingly, I have noticed the growing popularity of Ipod style devices which store music without subscription, so perhaps at least in this instance, there’s pushback.

Even in the field of healthcare, people are pushed into subscription models just to see a doctor.  Doctors don’t work for themselves, they are all part of large HMO’s which dictate how their services are dispensed.  Vaccines?  You don’t just get them once, you have to have them regularly like software updates.

Businesses have cleverly created business models that capture subscribers for the long term by selling convenience.  And it’s working.  People are so used to having instant gratification that they unwittingly pay constantly for things that they used to own outright. Now people are tethering themselves to long term consumerism. Ironically the rampant consumerism driving the west has led to people owning fewer things.  Don’t look now, but it looks like the Globalists are having their way.