Liberal is no longer what most believe it to be
When Sheila was pushed out of a Party she had supported lifetime.
She made one simple statement " their are some very dangerous people running the Liberal party."
Time some of us started to realize what that meant. Paul Martin claims being a Liberal is a sign of higher intelligence not possible across the floor. Democracy is about debate passion comes from the debate without opposition we have dictatorship. Candidates are sent to Ottawa to represent the people those representatives when insulted or ignored in fact are representative of a population who are also being insulted and ignored. Martin states he will not support the majority in favor of minorities’ sounds nice in news bytes but his job demands he do exactly that. If a minority has a problem with government it would be up to them to convince all parties the problem exists, which needs repair. If an argument is present by opposing members they represent the voters who agree with them or the job will be up for debate during the following election. Ad agency spin can not oversee the rules of a democracy if an injustice occurs it is for the courts to decide. Making Law is the business of government the issues of healthcare child care and marriages are all provincial jurisdictions. Martin seeks to take the jurisdiction of the provinces into his own realm this violates the entire confederation agreement, which formed this country.
Social Marketing is "the application of marketing technologies developed in the commercial sector to the solution of social problems where the bottom line is behavior change." It involves: "the analysis, planning, execution and evaluation of programs designed to influence the voluntary behavior of target audiences to improve their personal welfare and that of society."
This message is from our Federal government while they are not intruding on provincial jurisdiction.
The message?
It's OK for the government to change what Canadians think as opposed to listening to what we do think.
Also a contradictory view of Liberals proud of our Canadian heritage, and determined to change it through nation building Martin talks about all the time. What can one expect from an Industrialist leading a socialist party. Socialism of the industrial view as opposed to John Lenin’s perspective they love to emulate.
Over reaching is a catchy phrase when you come to media spin it really means exaggeration and lies. Martin uses the term all the time. In anti smoker campaigns in Ontario we learned through the hub of government knowledge a website called stupid. Smokers are self-indulgent, harm others without remorse, smell like dog crap and kill babies and abuse their own children. The casualties are of course posted on Health Canada's website with more Government intelligence gathered by consensus of well paid NGOs or Lobby groups Government mercenaries who verbalize what the government dare not.
For instance the research on Health Canada’s website inadvertently proves we should all be smoking with 2/3 reduction in use and dangerous ingredients strict regulations in growing conditions and new curing processes reducing 90% of the histamines. We saw a dramatic rise in mortality in the past 45 years smoking related disease has risen by the same 2/3-figure smoking was reduced.
Go figure. Sir Richard Doll would roll over in his grave laughing if he heard what they are claiming about second hand smoke. In a Smokey bar, et al; Repace Australia 2005, Total hazardous chemicals 163 Nanograms per cubic meter oxygen, measured and verified by numerous named studies he referred to.
He claimed this level was 10,000 times the known safe level, this established the known safe level at 1.63 Pico grams per cubic meter of oxygen. He stated this was the level recognized by the American government in water air and food listed as an extreme health risk and a known carcinogen.
He went on to say after smoking bans the measured levels were 9 Nanograms per cubic meter still beyond known safe levels by simple calculation in a non smoking environment the known safe level is known to be exceeded by more than 500 times.
For comparison Benzene is a known carcinogen the known safe level is 1 part per million or 360 milligrams per cubic meter of air. The same federal government just increased the standard for Benzene in auto fuel to 1 liter per hundred. How many know what gasoline smell like?
Diesel fuel exhaust set records for growing cancers in a petrie dish real science calls diesel exhaust a carcinogen a fact they have known for 50 years successful lobby groups have kept the name Diesel off the carcinogens list. With little fanfare or media attention it was finally listed this year. How many unsuspecting mothers have been pushing baby carriages into bus and train stations for years not knowing what risk they place on their baby even today? Yet deadly invisible missiles from cigarette smoke are seen as child abuse. How many cancers have resulted over the years due to exposure to diesel and gasoline fumes, yet virtually no funds from Cancer institutes to measure the effects?
Philanthropy from the oil companies funding medical universities and involvement as sponsoring NGOs has protected oil companies for years from a label of mass murderer which would make Tobacco manufacturers pale by comparison. Come to think of it where did the business practices and ethics schooled to oil company executives originate if not with Rockefeller dominance strategies. They taught Hitler how to moralize his decisions in eugenics principles. Similar to the ethical values we see today in Canadian politics.
Multi cultural heritage is in fact a short lived heritage it began with Trudeau's rendition of a constitution Cretin took it to new levels only to be out done by Martin. Divisions of culture to augment reginalization nice little boxes for management purposes and to be played against each other to embellish leadership during an election. The press? Well in hand, as the Federal government is the largest purchaser of media in Canada. The Pan Canadian strategy will soon have us paying 75% sin taxes on hamburger and allowing 300% tax rebates to industry friends who advertise healthy choices. Gifts all around will keep medical and media communities singing along for decades. Zieg Heil.
Canadian Heritage is and was always one culture not many. Others don't deserve to live in culturally diverse neighborhoods they deserve to live in mine.
Red was the dot on the planes which bombed pearl harbor, The arm bands on the nazi SS and of course the Chinese and Russian flags among others. At a time when someone could be run out of town on a rail for supporting Socialism we wound up with a red maple leaf, signifying the end of Canadian culture and Identity. Martin now goes the next step as a centrist he steals what is popular from the Left and the right and goes the third way. It was amusing to hear one of his supporters recently calling an opponent the name befitting the elitist single party dictators.
1 comment:
If you need an argument to shut down encroachment on our rights. I can give you the most compelling one. Paul Martin swears he knew nothing about the sponsorships in Quebec the basis for Gomery. He was head of treasury board and well placed at the head of the party yet knew nothing like Hogan's heroes Sgt. Schultz knew nothing.
Here is an example of him dong the exact same thing and the process continues the sponsorships for the rest of us are called Social Engineering and the training manual is on Health Canada's website.
In Quebec they are not as concerned so much with the money being stolen as the Gov. Through sponsorship conning them and manipulating the public will. That is the real trust lost which will support a stronger argument at the next referendum for separation.
The process if brought into the public light would raise the ire here as well as laws are being written stealing our rights based in the same process applied in the sponsorship scandal of which Paul knows nothing about. Does he know now? As the process continues through our health ministry also on his watch.
Social Engineering at Health Canada
http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&hl=en&id=ikOc98-li5YC
The book review After Liberalism: Mass Democracy in the Managerial State
by Paul Edward Gottfried - Provided by Princeton University Press Touching on the misconception Liberalism is still what most if us believes it to be. In fact the new Liberalism adapts a previously feared Health advocacy and science by consensus previously associated with a fascist state. Smoking was the wedge issue to bring science and medicine onside holding opinions silent thinking the end will somehow justify the means. Now the expansion through the Pan Canadian strategy will continue the process of domination while public concern sleeps. Lulled by many Media pronouncements of new research and new study information blatantly exaggerated through ad agency creations blended in with actual news events.
Health and social Interventions the strategy and training of the process
http://www.who.int/hia/en/
Synopsis
In this trenchant challenge to social engineering, Paul Gottfried analyzes a patricide: the slaying of nineteenth-century liberalism by the managerial state. Many people, of course, realize that liberalism no longer connotes distributed powers and bourgeois moral standards, the need to protect civil society from an encroaching state, or the virtues of vigorous self-government. Many also know that today's "liberals" have far different goals from those of their predecessors, aiming as they do largely to combat prejudice, to provide social services and welfare benefits, and to defend expressive and "lifestyle" freedoms. Paul Gottfried does more than analyze these historical facts, however. He builds on them to show why it matters that the managerial state has replaced traditional liberalism: the new regimes of social engineers, he maintains, are elitists, and their rule is consensual only in the sense that it is unopposed by any widespread organized opposition.
Throughout the western world, increasingly uprooted populations unthinkingly accept centralized controls in exchange for a variety of entitlements. In their frightening passivity, Gottfried locates the quandary for traditionalist and populist adversaries of the welfare state. How can opponents of administrative elites show the public that those who provide, however ineptly, for their material needs are the enemies of democratic self-rule and of independent decision making in family life? If we do not wake up, Gottfried warns, the political debate may soon be over, despite sporadic and ideologically confused populist rumblings in both Europe and the United States.
Further insight can be found in this explanation of the new reality in Liberal policies by Pierre Lemieux he describes a book By Robert Proctor http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id1.html
Very much in the mind of Globalists Such as Paul Martins life long financial advisor Maurice Strong known in Communist nations as “Mr. UN”
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2000/jan/00011302.html
His efforts focus primarily in the World Health Organization. The plan is laid out including a plan for domination through HIA Health Interventions.
Former head of the WHO Tobacco strategy Robert Collishaw
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html
http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1998/en/pr98-29.html
http://www.smoke-free.ca/factsheets/pdf/Q&A-healtheffects.pdf
http://www.sepp.org/reality/courtrules.html
The effects of propaganda and hate messages aimed at individuals.
http://www.geocities.com/smokersunited/Abuse1.htm
http://www.quitsmokingsupport.com/buttout.htm
http://www.alkalizeforhealth.net/boycottACS.htm
http://jech.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/54/3/162
Collishaw has been given free reign in fact to guide the efforts of the Federal Health ministry in Propaganda campaigns which are completely contradictory to extensive research findings at the WHO regarding the true danger in Second hand smoke, in actual fact they found no substantial harm the only significant finding was a curing effect among children with smoking parents, yet every Canadian has been led to believe the smoke to be one of the deadliest pollutants ever known.
This is a small accounting of how much it costs taxpayers in Canada alone while industry is handed corporate welfare it is left to the citizens to pay the real costs of Health advocacy..
http://www.lufa.ca/news/news_item.asp?NewsID=4484
http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.nsf/html/ch9719e.html
Pierre Lemieux is a visiting professor of economics at the Université du Québec à Hull.
The Independent Review, v.IV, n.2, Fall 1999, ISSN 1086-1653, Copyright © 1999, pp. 303–306
From the vantage point of a late-twentieth-century observer, the public health
policies of the National Socialists who ruled Germany from 1933 to 1945
seem surprisingly modern. Those policies are illuminated in Robert N.
Proctor’s most recent work, The Nazi War on Cancer (Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1999), which documents the war on cancer and other public health campaigns
by the Nazis. A historian of science at Pennsylvania State University, Proctor
has written extensively on medicine, public health, and their relations with politics
and, especially, with National Socialism.
The Nazi government was known, and admired, for implementing the most progressive
public health policies of its time. State-of-the-art research and regulation
were applied to occupational, environmental, and lifestyle diseases. Cancer was declared
“the number one enemy of the state.” Nazi policy favored natural food and
opposed fat, sugar, alcohol, and sedentary lifestyles. The existing temperance movement
against alcohol and tobacco became more active under the Nazis, who were involved
in what Proctor calls “creating a secure and sanitary utopia.”
Not surprisingly, American narcotics officials of the time admired the Nazi war
on drugs. Today, admiration would probably go in the other direction.
The longest chapter of Proctor’s book is devoted to tobacco, “a focus justified,”
explains the author, “by the startling fact—heretofore unnoticed—that Nazi Germany
had the world’s strongest antismoking campaign and the world’s most sophisticated tobacco
disease epidemiology” (pp. 9–10). It is well known that Adolf Hitler himself was
a rabid antismoker, but the antismoking movement and interventionist public policies
THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW
304 . PIERRE LEMIEUX
of the Nazi era involved much more than Hitler’s personal whims. Tobacco was attacked
as a “relic of a liberal lifestyle” and as “masturbation of the lungs.” It was in Nazi
Germany that medical researchers, some with strong Nazi connections, first established
a statistical link between smoking and lung cancer. Antismoking crusaders published
magazines like Auf der Wacht (On Guard) and Reine Luft (Pure Air). Half a century
before the Environmental Protection Agency enlisted junk science against “environmental
tobacco smoke,” antitobacco activist Dr. Fritz Lickint coined the term “passive
smoking.” (He also thought that coffee was a carcinogen!)
Many antismoking controls were enacted, including restrictions on advertising
and bans on smoking in many workplaces, government offices, hospitals, and, later, in
all city trains and buses. Women could not legally purchase cigarettes in certain places.
“The German woman does not smoke,” proclaimed a Nazi slogan.
In 1941, the Institute for Tobacco Hazards Research was created under the direction
of Karl Astel. A dedicated Nazi who committed suicide in April 1945, Astel
thought that opposition to tobacco was a “national socialist duty” (p. 209). As president
of the University of Jena, he banned smoking in all university buildings. It is to
Astel’s institute that Proctor traces the most path-breaking scientific work on the relations
between smoking and cancer.
Proctor is puzzled and distressed that “Public health initiatives were pursued not
just in spite of fascism, but also in consequence of fascism” (p. 249). But his book is
weak on the analysis of this issue: in the closing chapter, where he tries to deal with it,
he does not go much further than stating that German fascism was a complex mixture
of the good and the bad. Fortunately, the extensive documentation provided by the
author gives us the means of pushing the analysis beyond where he left it.
Let us recall that fascism is based on the subjection of the individual to the collective.
As Benito Mussolini wrote about the twentieth century, “For if the nineteenth
century was a century of individualism, it may be expected that this will be the century
of collectivism and, hence, the century of the State” (Italian Encyclopedia 1932). The
German brand of fascism, National Socialism, was characterized also by racist (as opposed
to purely nationalist) beliefs. Let us recall further that, everywhere in the West,
public health doctrine has drifted from public-good concerns, such as sanitation or
contagious diseases, toward a frontal attack on individual choices and politically incorrect
lifestyles (see my review of Jacob Sullum’s For Your Own Good in The Independent
Review 3 [Winter 1999]: 460–65).
The relationship between fascism and public health is probably more symbiotic
than Proctor admits. After reading The Nazi War on Cancer, the careful
reader will be well positioned to understand why fascism requires strong public
health policies. For the fascist state needs “valuable human material”—as we
would say today, healthy “human resources.” Nazi slogans reported by Proctor
are more explicit than what present-day crusaders would dare to employ: “Your
body belongs to the nation!” “You have the duty to be healthy!” “Food is not a
VOLUME IV, NUMBER 2, FALL 1999
HEIL HEALTH . 305
private matter!” Again anticipating today’s health fascists, the Nazis’ National Accounting
Office outlined the so-called economic costs of smoking. Erwin Liek,
sometimes called the father of Nazi medicine, thought that curing cancer required
moving from “care of the individual” to “cancer prevention on a large scale—for
the entire people” (p. 25).
The public health mixture becomes more powerful with the added ingredient of
racism supplied by the German brand of fascism. Public health campaigns contribute
to the preservation not only of a population of taxpayers and conscripts, but also of
the “German germ plasm.” But this additive was not really required; collectivism
would have sufficed: “Germany’s physician-führers,” Proctor notes, “were less concerned
about the health of the individuals than about the vigor of ‘the race,’ the socalled
folk community” (p. 122).
Proctor takes care to distance himself from libertarians who would see fascism’s
invisible fist in today’s repression of smoking: “My intention,” he writes, “is not to
argue that today’s antitobacco efforts have fascist roots, or that public health measures
are in principle totalitarian—as some libertarians seem to want us to believe” (p. 277).
This conclusion is only logical: if F (fascism) implies P (public health), it does not follow
that P implies F. Of course.
But society does not live by logic alone, and one must inquire whether the logic
of human action—what Ludwig von Mises called “praxeology”—traces institutional
connections that tie public health and fascism in closer ways. Besides the fascist
Leviathan’s need for healthy subjects, I suggest that still other connections help to
make sense of the disturbing evidence produced by Proctor.
One such connection is that both fascist policies and the modern public health
ideology require a powerful state. State power is the common denominator, and a
necessary condition, of both fascism and strong public health controls. Proctor reminds
us that public health concerns were well known in the Weimar period and that
the world’s first state-supported anticancer agency was founded in Germany thirtythree
years before the Nazis gained power. But, he writes, “What was new in the Nazi
period were augmented police and legislative powers to implement broad preventive
measures” (pp. 21–22). The police powers implied by fascism allowed the public
health ideology to show its real nature.
The Nazi state apparatus had a “Reich Health Führer,” with which office the
name of Leonardo Conti, a strong antitobacco activist, remains associated. Under
Conti, central registries were established for many diseases and addictions. Nazi Germany
was a transparent society, where individuals were prevented from hiding their
lives from the state, as absurdly illustrated by the 1938 ban on attic storage. Thousands
of “registered” alcoholics fell victim to the sterilization program under the Law
for the Prevention of Genetically Diseased Offspring. Although many of the health
fascists were prosecuted and condemned at Nuremberg, Conti escaped by hanging
himself in his cell.
THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW
306 . PIERRE LEMIEUX
Thus, fascism naturally leads to public health tyranny, which in turn requires extensive
state powers. Such is the logic of political institutions and the growth of state
power. The main danger of the present public health movement does not lie in its fascist
roots so much as in its capacity to justify and call for tyrannical government power.
Perhaps there is, in the moral field, a neat connection between the morality of an
action and the goodness of the intentions underlying it. But, contrary to what Proctor
seems to assume, there is no such correlation between human intentions and their
social consequences. Since Bernard de Mandeville and Adam Smith, economists have
appreciated that egoistic intentions can lead to good consequences for others. Similarly,
good intentions can lead to undesirable consequences: as Friedrich Hölderlin
wrote, “What has always made the state a hell on earth has been precisely that man has
tried to make it his heaven.” It is therefore not surprising that the good public health
intentions of the Nazis had some awful consequences, or that such a bad ideology as
fascism lead to some good consequences in terms of public health.
Or did it? Can we say that Nazism produced good public health measures? Perhaps,
but only if we are blind to the costs they imposed on individuals. In fact, there
are no public health consequences that are good in themselves regardless of their
costs. Even if we accept that smoking contributes to lung cancer, this fact does not
justify prohibiting adults from doing what they want with their own lives. Against the
twenty thousand German women who perhaps were saved from cancer by paternalist
Nazi policies, one has to count not only the aggressions and deaths brought about by
the political power necessary to effect that outcome, but also the cost to these women
in terms of their own liberty and dignity.
Another issue looms behind Proctor’s description of German life under the Nazis.
Despite the tyrannical powers of the state, despite even the war, power was never
completely centralized in Germany, contentious issues continued to be debated (at
least within the Aryan tribe), cancer research was pursued, and the tobacco industry
fought tooth and nail against the prohibitionists. Physicians cooperated with the regime,
most often willingly, just as Christopher Browning’s “ordinary men” murdered
Jewish women and children (Christopher R. Browning, Ordinary Men: Reserve Police
Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland [New York: HarperCollins, 1992]). In
other words, life maintained an appearance of normality. Just as it does today.
Of course, there is a difference of degree between the Nazi tyranny and the quiet
administrative tyrannies under which we now live, but perhaps future observers will
wonder how, at the end of the twentieth century, an apparently normal life could coexist
with the accelerated onslaught on our liberties.
Despite his lack of a firm grip on political and economic issues, despite his naïveté
about Leviathan and public policy—or perhaps because of the apparent objectivity that
may be conveyed by these shortcomings—Robert Proctor has produced a remarkable
piece of scholarly research that is bound to influence public health debates.
The media has largely failed in pursuit of monetary concerns to inform the public and perform the essential element to take out the garbage when such is necessary. The public has been abandoned as the past showed in the German experience we can only hope the devastating effects of Health advocacy has always been seen in the past. Doctors were hanged at Nuremberg a look back should clearly show us why do we dare go to that place again while we exchange values of integrity and moral values in exchange for monetary gain. The WHO offers deals to appropriately named stakeholders expressing returns on investments feigning populace as the earned value while in fact huge sums of cash are the true motivator in partnering with the halls of power. 7 Trillion dollars the populace paid for over a hundred years of paying disproportion shares of taxation is now being used not for charity but political power.
Isn’t it time a new Lobby formed to stale date the cash needed for research and feeding the hungry in Africa rather than forcing deals raping resources and controlling research to protect industry concerns Industry seeks now not only to protect themselves while they continue to poison us and create cancers they now seek to dominate and replace democracy through the same domination principles which earned their wealth.
Tobacco monsters were created and the Tobacco industries were demonized, it is quite possible they were part of the plan. The Tobacco taxes and settlements were simply in addition to markups added to the consumer price of the product. Cost to the industry nothing. In reductions to manufacturing facilities and advertising the product is now more profitable than ever. The consumer pays again. Industry needs to be brought back into the tax roles and raise the standard of living at least to the point it was 35 years ago when a home and traditional family life were possible for everyone.
This from an article of the power struggle in media circles and where we have landed.
http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/05-1NRspring/83-87V59N1.pdf
In the newspaper industry, though,
Especially in the past two decades, the
Concept of increasing the investment
In editorial quality, or even moderating
The impulse to cut newsroom budgets,
Has become a battle. eld. On one side:
Editors with a blind faith in the power
Of potent journalism to win readers
And improve society. On the other
Side: business-oriented managers with
An unbending commitment to controlling
Costs and hitting the numbers that
Reward investors.
If you made it this far, good for you, can you now go farther and write some letters to get that money out of industry’s hands and moving finally toward real charity in search of freedom for the financially oppressed. Bonao asks for .7 of GNP to be a burden of the population. Isn’t it time we drew from the funds already paid for sitting in Charity foundations around the planet.
Post a Comment