No, the Liberals don’t help the poor. If they wanted to, they wouldn’t legislate policies that create such a destructive economic environment. They wouldn’t promise cheque after cheque and handout after handout. They wouldn’t print money at unprecedented rates. And they wouldn’t feed the welfare machine a diet of the lives of the impoverished.
Why is the notion that “Liberals are warm idealists and Conservatives are cold logicians” still relevant? Granted, the Conservative Party of Canada is just as Liberal as Trudeau’s government, but nonetheless, as campaigns commence, government promises, practically wrapped in dollar bills and presented with forced smiles, will be delivered into our homes via ads on the internet or commercials on t.v.
All this— $10/day daycare, near-indefinite CERB (or one of its many variations), or more bailouts—manipulates a voter to say, “This government is compassionate!”
But of course, there’s nothing compassionate about serving a man breakfast in bed while you burn his house down; there is nothing compassionate about Liberals giving handouts to the poor while systematically destroying the country.
Do we need any more proof than what we already have? Look at the government’s economic track record.
Granted, it’s only abysmal from a certain point of view. If we believe that the government’s desire is to strengthen and stabilize the economy, their policies are terrible.
But that’s not the government’s desire.
In fact, I think their aim is to paralyze the economy, crash it, burn it to the ground, and in its place, replace it with an apparatus of socialism built on the Liberal’s cruel and contemptible manipulation of the poor.
To this end, the Liberal model of fiscal and monetary policy is succeeding with supreme efficiency.
Take our inflation, for example. Do we really believe that the board members of the Bank of Canada, or other educated bureaucrats, some of them very highly trained with distinction, are stupid? We hear frustrated voters complain and say that Trudeau and his cabinet are totally incompetent and cannot navigate even the most insignificant problem.
But that’s not true. Trudeau and his bureaucracy are not incompetent; they’re competent. Frighteningly component. Brilliantly component. And if the desired destination is the destruction of Western values, culture, markets, and society, why would the government chart a different course?
Regarding inflation, it’s not that monetary officers don’t know how to stop the problem. They do. It’s easy—stop printing. But of course, that would mean the market would crash for a little while (which is politically undesirable), people would struggle, and most disagreeably for the Liberal/globalist plan, the economy would be healed (or at least healthier than it is right now).
So they don’t stop inflation, on the contrary. They keep printing money and harming all of us, especially the poor.
3. A Broken Government
The problem is, who can argue against the government? For they no longer appeal to facts; they appeal to emotion. They are immune to logical arguments because governance is no longer about logic but pathos. To try and argue that “Inflation is going to harm the poor because their spending power is drastically reduced and it acts as a hidden tax” is like bringing a sword to a gunfight. For the Liberal will reply, “Not at all. The poor are hurting. They need handouts from the government in order to survive, and we must print the money to provide said handouts.”
Now, a man might argue that printing money and handing it out is not the most effective or even ethical way of “helping” the poor, and he’d be right. But where would that lead him? He’d be called a bigot, not compassionate, and probably a racist. None of these slanders appeal to fact, they probably aren’t even true, but if the opposition screams loud enough, and if the man doesn’t defend himself with the ferocity of a lion, they seem to stick.
So we must ask ourselves, “Why would we continue to struggle against the government like this in our present capacity?” What’s the point in having debate, in jostling back in forth in the House of Commons, if logical argument is no longer an accepted method of verbal exchange? Certainly, a man must fight to uphold values like morality, stability, order, and freedom, but the way in which we’re trying to do so right now—debating in Ottawa—will never work. Instead, there must be a new avenue—independence—with smaller government and objective law, that defends the inherent and infinite value of man.