The Typical Politician - From Mein Kampf

I've heard a great deal over the years, from apparently knowledgeable people, about what Adolf Hitler supposedly stood for. It was mostly bad, of course, but occasionally, someone would tell me that Hitler was actually right about some things. That usually surprised me. "Some things like what?" I would ask.

I finally decided to go to the source to see for myself what this man actually said.

And boy, I found myself laughing out loud as I read some of it. Hitler actually was right about some things.

Consider the following paragraph and, while reading it, think of today's typical politician.

Do these three paragraphs describe the kinds of people who get elected into positions of power all over the West today? I think they do.

---

"TODAY it is my conviction that in general, aside from cases of unusual talent, a man should not engage in public political activity before his thirtieth year. He should not do so, because up to this time, as a rule, he is engaged in molding a general platform, on the basis of which he proceeds to examine the various political problems and finally establishes his own position on them. Only after he has acquired such a basic philosophy, and the resultant firmness of outlook on the special problems of the day, is he, inwardly at least, mature enough to be justified in partaking in the political leadership of the general public.

Otherwise he runs the risk of either having to change his former position on essential questions, or, contrary to his better knowledge and understanding, of clinging to a view which reason and conviction have long since discarded. In the former case this is most embarrassing to him personally, since, what with his own vacillations, he cannot justifiably expect the faith of his adherents to follow him with the same unswerving firmness as before; for those led by him, on the other hand, such a reversal on the part of the leader means perplexity and not rarely a certain feeling of shame toward those whom they hitherto opposed. In the second case, there occurs a thing which, particularly today, often confronts us: in the same measure as the leader ceases to believe in what he says, his arguments become shallow and flat, but he tries to make up for it by vileness in his choice of means. While he himself has given up all idea of fighting seriously for his political revelations (a man does not die for something which he himself does not believe in), his demands on his supporters become correspondingly greater and more shameless until he ends up by sacrificing the last shred of leadership and turning into a 'politician; in other words, the kind of man whose only real conviction is lack of conviction, combined with offensive impertinence and an art of lying, often developed to the point of complete shamelessness.

If to the misfortune of decent people such a character gets into a parliament, we may as well realize at once that the essence of his politics will from now on consist in nothing but an heroic struggle for the permanent possession of his feeding-bottle for himself and his family. The more his wife and children depend on it, the more tenaciously he will fight for his mandate. This alone will make every other man with political instincts his personal enemy; in every new movement he will scent the possible beginning of his end, and in every man of any greatness the danger which menaces him through that man."

---

This is the interview that made me think of Hitler's assessment of the typical politician.

From social distancing tickets to back to school plans, @HamiltonsMayor @FredEisenberger weighs in on the pandemic response. @nicolemartin has the interview. #HamOnt

WATCH INTERVIEW: https://t.co/DIBkH4gxWM pic.twitter.com/YT5BsQbDR6

— CHCH News (@CHCHNews) August 16, 2020

---

Some very old stuff

Four of the essays I wrote back in the 1990s.

What a Fucking Nightmare!

THIS is what I have been writing and ranting about FOR YEARS!

The People We Are Becoming

---

Ordering Pizza

---

"The following media includes potentially sensitive content."

WARNING!

"The following media includes potentially sensitive content."

---

No Bagels

---

The Globally Immunocompromised Mind

---

Lockdown protests break out in Europe

The Globally Immunocompromised Mind

In these dark days, as the West spirals into despotism, I have one consolation - comic relief in the form of Joe Biden, a guy who doesn't even know he's alive.

I'm really looking forward to the show, especially the presidential debates. Aren't you?

But even my more pleasant thoughts are infected with worry these days. The curve for the spread of GOVINC-19 has been creeping along on an upward trend for a very long time now.

Since Trump beat Hillary, fair and square in 2016, the spread of communist idea pathogens has gone parabolic. The public no longer has any immunities. Attempts to provide intellectual antibodies are being attacked everywhere. The global mind has become immunocompromised.

It's no wonder we are experiencing an unprecedented clampdown on all basic liberties in response to the latest flu-like virus. Not only has there been almost zero pushback, but the compliant masses have embraced their incarceration. The governor of New York has a stunning 77% approval rating despite having pushed COVID-19 into the state's nursing homes, killing thousands. They have applauded it. And woe to anyone to dares question it.

I doubt they would have gotten away with turning society into an open prison back in '57 - '58 when the Asian Flu killed about 1.1 million people, or in '68 - '70 when the Hong Kong Flu killed another million. Woodstock would have been canceled.

But by 2020 the population had been psychologically stripped of any prior cultural and political resistance to collectivist tyranny by half a century of intensive communistic brainwashing on every thought-shaping front.

When you drill down to the roots of commie collectivist ideology what you find is a burning hatred of mankind which also explains why leftists are so opposed to people telling jokes and having fun.

As part and parcel of preventing people from having fun, what if the commie left manages to cancel the presidential debates like they are canceling dissent everywhere else?

---

This is why I don't have Corona-Phobia.

---

---

US Crowds Defy Lockdowns

---

Stay Home and Go Outside.

---

The Not So Novel Coronavirus

May 22, 2020 Review

Censorship Update. May 23, 2020

Another comment was censored by the Liberal Party's propaganda platform. From their page about retail surcharges to recover damages caused by GOVINC-19 lockdowns.

Stay Home and Go Outside

---

A friend wrote to me this morning saying,

"Check out Doug Ford's Mussolini style rant about more testing. "We need to test all taxi drivers, Uber, transit, random...on and on. He sounds like a psychopath. Wouldn't surprise me if they hire by-law testers that will have the authority to stick a squab up your nose or your arse."

===

I replied,

They already set the stage for all of this as far back as when they mandated seat-belts and motorcycle helmets. It was a violation of basic human rights back then, which is why people like me opposed it, but the counter-argument as was perfectly stated, re seat-belts by then Ontario Attorney General, Roy McMurtry I believe went,

"In a free society, rights imply responsibilities."

The "right" in that case was free medical care. The "responsibility" was in submission to government edicts aimed at keeping medicare costs down.

THAT WAS ALWAYS THE MAIN REASON I WAS AGAINST SOCIALIZED MEDICINE from the start. I recognized the principle that was being established and that you could not have your cake and eat it too. You can't have socialism AND freedom. It's one or the other.

Ironically, it was the generation of Canadians who supposedly fought for FREEDOM in two world wars who then came home and voted themselves into slavery, in exchange for "safety" and other free stuff.

I used to joke that, if ever they adopted government-funded dental care, mandatory tooth brushing would follow, along with roadside checkpoints where cops with tongue depressors would order us to "say ah!"

And here we are. Almost.

===

Something I wrote way back around the time Ontario's NDP government-mandated bicycle helmets,

Intrusive Freedom

Republished on this site:

Intrusive Freedom

---

My reply to a tweet defending the insufferable air-head, Catherine McKenna's touchy-feely video of her swimming exercises.

"Agree to disagree" is an absolutely cringe-worthy statement when ONE SIDE of the disagreement has the POWER to impose THEIR OPINION upon you through the force of law. The next time someone takes a shit in your living room will you be content to just "Agree to disagree?"

— Dic Mac (@BloatnThSlumbos) May 22, 2020

Orange County Dr. Jeff Barke Breaks His Silence on COVID 19

---

Intrusive Freedom

Here is another letter that I sent to the editor a couple of years ago in response to several other letters commenting on the proposed (at the time) bicycle helmet law. No, the Spectator didn't print this one either.

It is perhaps a little unfair to post my response without giving you the opportunity to read the letters to which I am responding. For this I apologise.

Let me say, however, that Jason Brooks wrote a fine letter in opposition to the intolerable limit on personal freedom represented by the helmet law. Linda Lamb and Morgan Krantz both supported the law.

A while back a poll was taken asking Canadians what they thought was the best way of funding new government programs:

1. taxes,
2. borrowing or
3. the government should use it's own money.

A significant number of respondents picked (c).

In her rebuttal to Mr. Jason Brooks Linda Lamb states the following, "The one sentence in his letter about 'the government using my tax dollars for the whole abominable scheme' is the one I wish to address because, simply speaking, it is sadly uninformed."

Then how has the scheme been financed? Ms. Lamb doesn't bother to say.

But since she refutes Mr. Brooks claim that tax money was used... and since borrowed funds are merely deferred taxes...
reference to the above noted poll leaves the happily informed Ms. Lamb with the uncomfortable claim that the one remaining source of financing, (c), was used. Interesting.

Instead of explaining why Mr. Brooks is uninformed she goes on to explain some of the horrors that befall brain injured people and that when a person receives a brain injury the taxpayer ends up picking up the tab.

Welcome to Ontario Ms. Lamb. That's called socialized medicine.

The truth is that when you embrace socialism you renounce freedom. The two are absolutely incompatible.

In a free society Mr. Brooks might well purchase long term personal insurance or he might not. He might even get a discount if he agrees to wear a bicycle helmet. Either way, his decision does not put the taxpayer at risk.

In a system where the financing of health care has been coercively monopolized by the government is it any surprise that the peaceful activities of our neighbours become a matter for legislative compulsion?

When it comes to the point where the government decides to mandate the use of condoms or other birth control to alleviate pressures on the welfare state we can expect another letter from Mr. Brooks decrying the tyranny.

Surely we can expect also a rebuttal from Ms. Lamb happily informing us of the costs associated with a laissez-faire sexual regime (all of the BILLIONS of dollars associated with welfare, the treatment of venereal diseases, government run daycare etc.).

Is it time to license sex and romance?

A word also on the letter from Morgan Kranstz. It was titled, "Momma, why wasn't Uncle Jason wearing a bicycle helmet like I do?"

This is a very convenient title since it can be used over and over again as the nanny state becomes ever more happily informed and new laws proliferate restricting and regulating all kinds of activities, from taking a shower to maneuvering a wheelchair.

All you have to do is replace the word 'bicycle helmet' with the relevant safety device.

Examples, "Momma, why wasn't Jason wearing a (life jacket, ear plugs, safety goggles, Scott air pack, steel toed boots, shoulder pads, jock strap, condom etc.) like I do?"

Mr. Kranstz says that he would rather lose some 'personal freedom' than have to explain to a child that Jason might not have been hurt if he'd been wearing a bike helmet. It never ceases to amaze me at how easily some people will forgo their 'personal freedom'.

How much 'personal freedom' is Mr. Kranstz willing to lose in order to avoid the necessity of explaining other unpleasant facts to young children?

Perhaps a law mandating that everyone wear helmets all of the time would eliminate the need for Mr. Kranstz to explain anything to children.

Mr. Kranstz most interesting statement has to be that, "Personal freedom is essential in our society, but when I have to pay for someone else making a mistake while exercising that freedom, it becomes intrusive."

Well Mr. Kranstz, so long as you live under a system of socialized medicine you are forced to pay for the mistakes of others. That is, after all, the essence of socialism.

If you do not wish to pay for the mistakes of others then it is socialized medicine which you must oppose... not 'personal freedom'.... unless you really think that at some point there will be sufficient restrictions on behavior to prevent anyone from making a mistake... ever.

Of course, you can not support such a regime since you have clearly stated that 'freedom is essential'.

If Mr. Kranstz finds the repair of bicycle head injuries intrusive then one can only wonder at his reaction to the fact that over 40% (U.S. figures 1987) of all accidents happen in the home where 'personal freedom' still predominately reigns. As long as this situation is allowed to continue Mr. Kranstz must feel that he is living under the gravest form of intrusive tyranny.

But really now, Mr. Kranstz, don't you think you're stretching it a bit when you say that someone's decision not to wear a bicycle helmet is intrusive? Since everything we do involves a degree of risk, Mr. Kranstz, is there anything at all that a person could do without being 'intrusive'?

According to a recent Spec Article, "The risks of obsession with risk" (Aug 23) your chances of injuring yourself in a chair or in bed are 1 in 400. So, even though I may sustain injuries when I go to bed tonight I won't lose any sleep knowing that Mr. Kranstz considers my 'personal freedom' to do so 'intrusive'.

---

A much earlier version of this essay was published here.