Wednesday, September 21, 2005

The Solution to Canada's Troubles?

Why, we need a dictator of course! We ask our loyal readers to imagine they are part of a loving union, approved and sanctioned by the Government. Leaving all crazy notions of self interest and personal responsibility in the public dumpster where they belong, which man do you feel would best secure the health of the nation?

Is Jack Layton our man?

NDP Leader Jack Layton says his party will bring in a bill this fall to ban private medicare.

A Supreme Court decision on a Quebec case earlier this year approved some forms of private health care and Layton says its time to draw the line.

His bill wouldn't ban existing private services but would stop any future expansion across the country.

It's time to ensure the survival of publicly funded medicare, he says.



Or is the man who refuses to call an election in the interests of public justice and enlightenment the people's choice?


Canada's competitive edge in the looming economic showdown with China and India must be honed soon after its toddlers leave the crib, Prime Minister Paul Martin said Tuesday.

The prime minister said his proposed national child-care plan will help Canadian tots get a head start in a global economy where only the smartest countries will thrive.

"It's about development and learning during the crucial time in life when potential is most readily nurtured and developed," Martin said in an address to senior bureaucrats.


The Spirit of Fascism

"Then none was for a party;
Then all were for the state;
Then the great man helped the poor,
And the poor man loved the great;
Then lands were fairly portioned;
Then spoils were fairly sold:
The Romans were like brothers,
In the brave days of old."

Lord Macaulay




Fascism does not prescribe any particular form of Government, yet it does not admit the existence of political parties because it has been determined that party government is government in the interests of one class or section of the nation, and moreover invariably leads to useless obstruction and the delay of necessary and urgent public business. It frequently causes the weakening of laws that are whittled down to placate opposing political groups. Thus the Fascists have resolved that only a truly national Government can hope to sweep aside the domination of vested interests and apply measures for the welfare of the majority of the people of the whole nation. In bald terms, it is a continuous union Government somewhat after the plan adopted in many countries during the world war, when party interests were sought to be forgotten for the common good. Fascism definitely considers party government as exceedingly wasteful of both time and money and not at all in the public interests, because it has been demonstrated that in so far as such administrations have been concerned in the past, each succeeding government has been deprived of the collaboration of "the opposition", who frequently squandered their talents in artificial and unprofitable criticisms of the government policies, thus wasting the time of ministers instead of turning their talents towards constructive assistance. Furthermore the necessity of finding fault on the one hand, or making plausible excuses on the other (the Fascists say) leads to the parliamentary success of men who are lawyers by profession rather than to the success of men possessed of practical ideas for the advancement of the nation's general welfare. Then, too, the Fascists point out that the inefficiency of the average political minister lies largely in the fact that he frequently takes over the administration of a department dealing with a phase of government of which his ignorance is abysmal. The Fascists declare that experience has proven that the political party system, with its general elections, is not at all a system under which national control of policies for the general benefit of the whole state can be attained as a result of serious non-partisan interests. Rather, they claim, that the general election is a periodical disturbance of the course of set policies by many and varied suggested alternatives for purely party advantages, and that parties are often carried into power by waves of allegedly popular emotions artificially stimulated by the party press, or the retention in power of men who serve their friends rather than the State, and who by virtue of subsidies from special interests who have received offices and favours, seek only the retention of power. The Fascists point out also to the influences exercised upon the public mind by the subsidized party newspapers at such general election as subversive to the interests of the nation.

[..] Employers and workers in their respective associations and trade unions nominate those men whom they think best fitted by their patriotism, character and ability to represent them. It is obvious that within the ranks of any trade or group, representataive men are better known to their comrades and colleagues than they can possibly be to the crowds that have to choose them in the hurly-burly of a popular election in some vast territorial constituency. Such men are really representative, not only of the particular associations formed to protect the special interests of the workers or employers who elect them, but also of the general welfare of the people. For in Parliament they must defend their interests by rconciling them with the nation as a whole.

[..] Every five years the electors at large have an oportunity of expressing their confidence in or disapproval of the work of the government by means of a plebiscite on the national list of candiates of Parliament. They do not vote on rival political programmes which they do not understand and which may or may not be put into effect, even if approved.

They simply vote on the list as a whole, "yes" for approval, "no" for disapproval.

[..] In this system the unions (workers and employees) form the foundation of the government. . . Practically all its citizens become by law either members of, or connected with, some union or association.

One may join or not, as he pleases, but whether he joins or not he must pay into the treasury of the appropriate organization the same dues as a member and is entitled to any financial benefits accuring to membership. In the case of workers this contribution amounts to one day's pay per year; the contributions of the employers are very large.

Is Fascism the Answer?
S. Alfred Jones - November 1933


1 Comment:

Pietr said...

"One may join or not, as he pleases, but whether he joins or not he must pay into the treasury of the appropriate organization the same dues as a member and is entitled to any financial benefits accuring to membership. In the case of workers this contribution amounts to one day's pay per year; the contributions of the employers are very large."

What this means is,if you try to dissent from conformity, you will still have to give material support(ie conform),but you will lose any representative voice.
And he says it so nicely!