Dear CBC - Thoughts from a concerned listener

CLICK HERE FOR MY PROFESSIONAL WEBSITE

I have listened to the CBC most of my life. I have found, in the main, good journalism, a source of information that has for the most part been reliable. The CBC brokered in complete ideas rather than sound bites. The CBC, from my perspective, has always been left-leaning, but tolerably so. What I’ve been hearing of late is unmitigated bias and I am sorry to have been compelled to write this letter.

I am interested in economics, it is a subject that brings the human condition into sharp relief, as the saying goes, money doesn’t talk, it screams. When I began contemplating economics, I attended my local library and read books on the subject, had I stopped there, my perspective on economics would be very skewed as there was only one school of economics represented there – demand-side economics. Demand-side economics is typically favoured by those prone to centralized power and planning. The CBC has become like my library, an organization only interested in offering varying degrees of half the sorry – unless you stop it, your credibility as a thought leader will end, your credibility as journalists will end, your credibility as a truth-tellers will end and your (OUR) organization will eventually come to an end. I think the CBC has value, it offers the opportunity for an objective voice – you’ve forfeited that opportunity and taken up sides.

What compelled me to write this letter is the completely inadequate way the “Truckers’ Convoy” was covered. The new word of choice from the left was used liberally, “populists”, code now for non-intellectuals, racists and ult-right were directed toward the Truckers. CBC programs reporting offering “retrospective analysis” of the convoy featured Donald Trump early in the program – intentionally, I believe, to associate the Truckers with Trump-style politics. What I witnessed in the coverage was very close to pro-government propaganda, rather than, reporting that brokered in complete ideas. None of the nuances associated with the issues being raised there were given coverage, the CBC sensationalized news in a manner that makes CNN and Fox news look unadulterated.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, particularly the first 15 sections, are the foundation of our rule of law, the guiding principles of our society generally. The Charter holds as equity, in functional government, 400 years of common law jurisprudence. The Charter holds as equity 1000 years of spilled blood and toil. The Charter was Championed, firstly, by Diefenbaker in the Bill of Rights and then, equally as vigorously, by Trudeau senior. The Charter’s values are expressed in the United Nations charter. The principles in the Charter emanated from the enlightenment – Lock, Voltaire, Hume and the like. Voltaire’s famous quote - enlightenment “is removing the bit from their teeth and the bridle from their head”. The CBC, in failing to in a meaningful way, address the breath of the issues, Charter issues among them, associated with Truckers convoy, the CBC seemed to simply be replacing one bridle for another.

One of the issues that has been present throughout the pandemic has been the question of medical freedom, the right to the domain over mind and body. The right to medical choice is enshrined in our legal system. Normally, our right to medical choice is governed by Section 7 of the Charter – The right to life, liberty, and security of person. The spirit of Section 7, heavily distilled is as follows, one can do as they please absent harm to others. The only means by which this state of liberty can be interrupted is by the application of fundamental law. The pandemic response was wrought with infringements and breaches of this right and others – none of which have been covered by the CBC in a meaningful way. There is no compelling evidence I can find when contextualizing the pandemic response to the fair balance test, that justified the response that was undertaken in many cases.

If one takes a cursory pursual of the world’s countries with an eye toward personal freedom and prosperity you’ll find a few things in common amongst the most prosperous and free; the rule of law, a “free” market, and companionate social policies. These are the elements of Canadian society that have brought Canadians to the pinnacle of human existence, they should be supported by a nationally-funded organization like the CBC. I hear anti-capitalist rhetoric, nihilistic discourse toward the hand that has fed us so generously, the CBC should stop biting the hand that feeds us and by extension the CBC.

The national narrative has become fragmented, the population philosophically fragmented – the country is becoming illiberal. The vitriol levelled against anti-vaxxers is proof positive that scapegoatism is alive and well in Canada. The CBC tacitly and explicitly supported the persecution of people with legitimate concerns regarding vaccines. I never heard an hour-long documentary on the risks associated with the new vaccines, I never heard any discourse on the treatability of Covid 19 – the government’s policies were supported by the CBC with all the vigour of the support given to pre-war eugenics programs. I believe vaccines are the most eloquent medical solution in human history, I seek them out with vigour. In the case of several of the vaccines associated with Covid 19, new technology was used, their safety was unknown and to a degree is still being examined – Sweden has stopped short of giving them to children, I have yet to hear the CBC examine that decision in depth.

The CBC as a public broadcaster should be working to identify the core elements of our nation’s success, understanding the core elements of our country’s values and principles so purposely and effectively expressed in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and then offer programming that supports a unified narrative on the core elements of our federation. The job of every citizen of Canada, every institution and the CBC is to protect and preserve the values expressed in the Charter. The CBC and many others are wallowing in apathy and, in the minutia, while, insidiously, our freedoms are being taken from us one concession at a time.

Our system, like the CBC, is flawed – it would be a shame to lose either of them in my view. This is a friend talking, your present course of action is sowing the seeds of your own demise.

CLICK HERE FOR MY PROFESSIONAL WEBSITE

Generosity Works - Minimum Income - Fairer & cheaper to deliver

 

One can judge the quality of a society by the way it treats its poor, the government has a role in extending care to those who are unfortunate – “what you do to the least of my brethren you do to me” someone once said – I love the quote because it personalizes the issue. The challenge, of course, is striking a balance between extending help to the unfortunate and taxing those who can help, out of existence. Please, before you dismiss minimum income out of hand, consider the following.  

 My stepfather Charlie McDowell, lived through an economic rationalization, aptly dubbed the “Dirty Thirties”, the hardship he and his family faced was unbearable, at least to hear of, and more so, to think that it could happen again to my grandsons. Another man I knew was Rod McIndoe, he too lived through the thirties, a bigger than life kind of a man – logger and contractor; I ran some regurgitated anti-unemployment rhetoric by him one day thinking he might approve, he looked at me and laughed as though to say “if you only knew” – then he said, “it is the only thing keeping us from another depression”; this took place in the 1970s. These two men were the epitome of self-made and self-reliant and they both taught me the value of compassion and they had no inhibition in suggesting there was a role to play for government in helping the less fortunate. They knew hardship, the kind of hardship that let you go to bed cold with a growling stomach. They knew a hardship, I’d wager, that has never been experienced by a single person governing this country at the moment, me included.    

Whether you're poor because you're unemployed, underemployed, retired absent income or disabled – you're poor, you require resources. Presently we have several government departments dispensing funds to the people in need of help, CPP, Employment Insurance, Social Services … the list goes on. Every department has its own administration, set of criteria for helping, and complex operations – all of which represent OVERHEAD that adds to the costs of delivering services. Worse, much of the thrust of the administration of the programs is to ensure that people are only getting what they are entitled to – in large measure these departments assess people against set criteria and dispense funds accordingly. This is, at its core, a policing function, the challenge that arises from this process is an administrative cost, dollars spent running a department instead of helping people. If we are going to spend money helping the people who have a circumstance the effects poverty, we need to ensure that the money we allocate for help – helps.

The simplest way to ensure a base living is to provide everyone with a base income. The government would simply distribute cheques to everyone, every two weeks, those who had income exceeding the base amount would have the “base income” “clawed back” (taken back) at tax time.  This is a very elegant solution, we can be more generous, the stigma associated with social service use is gone and a base living is established.

This also is a de facto floor on living generally; minimum wage, for example, would be rendered redundant, given that the marginal advantage of employment would force wages to a living wage. The other advantage here with respect to minimum wage, is that absent the need for a minimum wage for adults, the market could accommodate youth – as it is often the complaint with minimum wages that the youth are affected due to the axis of experience and employment cost working against them. The disincentive to take an entry-level position would be nullified by structuring the program in a manner that accounts for the marginal benefit of working – that is to say – there would be a graduated exit from minimum income to full employment that would incent participation in the low paid employment strata.

Self Reliance is an under touted value now days, the ability to care for one’s own by one’s own initiative and skills. Self Reliance is a product of knowledge and resources, it needs a launch pad. Some are lucky enough to acquire the elements of Self Reliance from their parent's teaching and the good fortune that applying their skill provides income. Others require that we invest in them, to develop human capital.

Modern society is like none other in human history, in the main, it is much better than ever before, however, it has become faster, more intense to participate in and much more sophisticated. As a result, a larger portion of the population is unable to participate due to an inability to attend to modern technologies and manage the stress associated with a more rapid-paced society. Automation, mechanization, offshore manufacturing, and other macro trends coupled with governments’ inability to educate people, so people can move up the participatory food chain, has also pushed more people to the margins.

In business we often refer to a business as having “critical mass”, having critical mass being a circumstance whereby, the business has optimum capital and human resources to effectively participate in a given market circumstance.  Being impoverished is a circumstance of being massless, no resources, and the longer one is impoverished the worse it gets – it is hard to go to a job interview, or knock on any door when you’re missing a front tooth. When an established person’s car breaks down, they call someone and put the repairs on their credit card, an impoverished person misses work or looses work due to the loss of transportation. For the impoverished person, problems are bigger and opportunities are harder to get to.

A minimum income fulfils state obligations to Liberty in Section 7 of the Charter, Life, Liberty and Security of Person. The most coercive element that exists in society is a growling stomach; it is the absence of any secure income that drives people into exploitive circumstances. We can afford to do this, in fact, it is likely to cost less, the minimum income is the most efficient way to deliver resources due to a reduction in administrative costs. It requires the co-operation of the provinces, as it promises to significantly reduce the cost of delivering services they are likely to want to participate.

Minimum Income has inherent in it a transition, a transition that will eliminate the requirement for the personnel at the Employment Insurance Department, the CPP Department and several others. They will see Minimum Income as a threat, they have a job and they want to keep it – a perfectly understandable position to take – however, position that can foment resistance to change.  They need to be guaranteed that their interests will be addressed, some will retire, many, with a basket of good skills, can be redirected to other work the government needs to be done – none should find themselves in a reduced circumstance. 

CLICK HERE FOR MY PROFESSIONAL WEBSITE

Click Here to see how Finland is Contemplating this Solution

Populism - Scourge or Nothing

Populism it seems can be a label levelled at anyone – far-right populists, left-wing populists; there can even be centralist populists. Of late, in the mainstream media, the term is wielded with all the effectiveness of a lightsaber. I only began examining the term because someone called me a populist for pointing out, that while the protestors in Ottawa needed to be made to stop impeding the general population, they had valid points. Having been labelled a populist I thought I should attempt to understand the semantics of the term, I discovered it is a nearly impossible task. I can say, it is readily used by sycophants eager to curry favour with the establishment – merely because populists often are anti-establishment. I do observe that the term is readily used of late by people who expound upon progressive values only to trample them for political interests.

Click here: MY PROFESSIONAL WEBSITE
Click here: FOR MORE THOUGHTS ON POLITICS

If living through the cold war years, worried about the nuclear holocaust and then, feeling the euphoria of seeing the Fall of the Wall, and then again, having to fear for humanity, then making observations and criticisms of the “establishment” that allowed it to happen means I am a “populist”, I guess I am. If watching governments make the same mistakes over and over again, and then making observations, criticisms and suggestions to the “establishment” to correct said mistakes, makes me a “populist”, then I guess I am. If speaking truth to power to correct massive distortions in the public’s map of reality makes me a “populist”, then I guess I am. If an undying commitment to the cause of freedom, civil rights and the rule of law makes me a “populist”, I guess I am. If pointing out, that the post-Bretton Woods world order, despite the “establishment’s foibles”, effected the greatest advancement for humanity GENERALLY in human history makes me a populist, I guess I am.  If by pointing out that bad capitalism caused the blight this is destroying the prosperity a market economy in concert with compassionate governance can give, makes me a “populist”, I guess I am.

I read an article once that said we overrate character and underrate the environment. We are all a product of our environment and at times, no matter our will, no matter our intent, no matter character – environment wins – events dear boy, events. The challenge we are facing now is that we have 100-year problems and 4-year leaderships. Challenges of the nature of Afghanistan are 100 hundred-year challenges. We have left a mess in Afghanistan; we have abandoned courageous who people who fought and died for the cause of freedom. The mere glimpse of an opportunity to have our way of life and they risked everything for it, we left them the very tyrants that attacked us and have propagated a multitude of affronts to humanity – worse, we left the tyrants better armed and stronger. Was this Joe Biden’s fault, no, George Bush’s fault, no, the good men and women that risked their lives for the cause of freedom, no. The thing that has wrought our efforts is systemic, everyone is willing to use anything to differentiate themselves every four years. The polls erode resolve, we fold – this pattern has brought us to where we are.

You can speak to any informed person anywhere on the political spectrum and explain the destabilizing effect of inequity in society, you can point to a thousand historical examples where inequality has caused calamitous outcomes – they will see the problem. Why then does inequity exist, because, never in human history has someone found a source of prosperity and avoided wanting to build a monopoly. The way this propensity merges with democracy – success generates resources, resources influence the acquisition of power – creates regulatory capture, regulatory capture impairs disruption / creative destruction, stifles innovation, generates red tape and creates barriers to entry for non-incumbent actors. This all feeds inequity, the affected parties become disgruntled and seek other solutions; by failing to effectively address this issue, the prosperity of the most successful is endangered, as is the elevated standard of living we all enjoy is threatened.

The single biggest element in our democracy that allows systemic failure is the absence of proper accountability functions in government. The second element is the incapacity to generate long-term policy; this is exacerbated by the nature of modern discourse and division. The first is fixed by making government accountability functionality a priority and transparent to the electorate – this way facts rule, metrics rule, clearly stated outcome is achieved or not and spin looses traction. The second is mitigated by adherence to first principles as expressed in our constitution and expressing in clear terms the source of our good fortune.  If working toward making democracy work so it improves the lot of all and effects a generalized state of prosperity makes me a “populist”, I guess I am.

National Defence - PREPARE PREPARE PREPARE

 

The degree to which Canada’s ability to defend itself has been degraded is alarming. The situation in Ukraine has highlighted the fact that the post-WW2 world order is fraying. The west generally has walked away from confrontation, demonstrated a lack of resolve and abandoned allies in nearly every major confrontation since WW2. A multi-polar world similar in nature to pre-WW1 has emerged. We are sitting atop of a tinderbox comprised of strident competitors, a multi-polar geopolitical reality, a perception by our competitors that we are unwilling to throw down the gloves and a lack of realization on the part of leadership and the population generally how fast our way of life can end.

Click here: MY PROFESSIONAL WEBSITE
Click here: FOR MORE THOUGHTS ON POLITICS

Imagine a scenario whereby, the Ukraine / Russian conflict ends with Russian success. Imagine then that there is a push by Russia into eastern Europe. Imagine then, China sees the build-up of troops in eastern Europe and the resulting depletion of troops in the Pacific Region as an opportunity to take back Taiwan. Imagine then that China sees an opportunity to expand its efforts in a manner that challenges the US proper. Imagine the US military is preoccupied with this reality and Canada comes under attack and we no longer have the US to rely on to defend our country – as they have done vicariously since, it would be safe to say, 1960. Now we must defend ourselves. It is fundamental that as a nation we can defend ourselves, to hold our own territory against all comers. Presently, given the state of our military and the expanse that is Canada, we would be unable to defend ourselves.  Whether the need to protect our country comes via this scenario or another is really of no issue, the issue, however, is if the need were to come now, we are ill-prepared.

When the crunch comes there is only you and I to defend our country and the people we love. Institutions are absent the ability to fire a gun, you and I must do that. It is important that as leaders we prepare for the worst, Machiavelli in his book Prince and Principalities expounds on the obligation of the “Prince”, ergo leader, to peruse his territory and contemplate its defence – I am eager to remind you, the world has changed little since he offered this advice. I have thought a great deal about how we might defend Canada, it is a complex task. The only certainty in this contemplation at this point is that the military is under-resourced to do the job, it would fall to civilians in concert with the military to defend Canada. It is for this reason that we must prepare our civilian population for the task and introduce the military to civilians in a manner that facilitates a productive interface should the need arise.

OTHER THINKING ON THE SUBJECT

Islam More Pain or More Solution

Isis - Russia Dark Clouds are Forming

Islam & West Contemplations on way forward

Ottawa-shootings rational response, please

Better to Jaw than War - If war comes, we need the tools to confront aggression

I am in constant contact with young Canadians, they are adventurous people – jumping from planes, skiing off cliffs, repelling off the side of mountains – they are fit and tough and what we will need when the chips are down.  Further, I am familiar with the cultural make-up of the million firearm owners, hunters and gun sport enthusiasts, people who we will need when the chips are down. We have four-wheel drive clubs, snowmobile clubs, and mountaineering clubs – all people we will need when the chips are down. We have a wealth of professional groups – tech specialists to engineers – all people we’ll need when the chips are down. The key to defending Canada is exciting the capacities of these groups to effect our defence. The sooner we call on them all, the sooner we integrate their willingness and capability the better prepared we will be. I believe, if you queried most Canadians, if we found ourselves in Ukraine’s position if they would you help defend us – they would answer yes.

The Swiss model is admirable, in that, every able-bodied person is trained to participate in the defence of the nation. The government, as a product of interfacing with their people through training, believes in its people enough to trust them to have and use firearms in an appropriate way. The only drawback I see in this model, as I understand it, is participation is mandatory. The model I would suggest for civil defence would be like the Swiss model, only less formalized and voluntary. The goal of creating an effective defence force is to extract human and physical assets from the civilian population in a way that mitigates the cost of activity the civilian population chooses to do anyway and in so doing you mitigate the cost of to government having access to those assets.

By way of example, of the million restricted and vetted gun owners in Canada many are enthusiasts and as such spend their time honing firearm skills in the military context. These groups, usually in gun clubs, could be approached and brought into the civil defence fold. If one reflects on Ukraine’s circumstances now, they are handing firearms out to people who have had little experience with them. I am a civilian that has spent my life in BC’s wilderness, and I am a pretty good shot, I think they would love to have me in Ukraine right now – if Canada ever suffers a similar fate, we want everyone with skills to be ready and available to interface effectively with the military. If the government were to approach this group and offer to provide them with military-issue firearms and supply ammunition to practice with, and to keep these firearms and sundry related items at the ready in the event of strife, many of this group would be happy to participate. Further, if the military were to offer attractive and exciting training opportunities, like repelling out of helicopters etc., along with a “community” / “social” element to the process the skill set of this group would be greatly expanded.

This model could be expanded to other groups as well, four-wheel-drive clubs, for example, have local knowledge, explore the countryside in groups of vehicles and would enjoy the opportunity to interface with military personnel in various ways. Many are hunters and pursue other outdoor sports, hence they have a unique skill set that represents an asset in the civil defence space – civilian evacuation, troop movement, munitions transport and the like. There is a huge resource in the civilian population in the form of existing assets that the government can access by offsetting the cost of ownership by intermittent payment, tax considerations etc. thereby, increasing capacity many many fold at little or no extra capital cost.

Formal military training is useful and can be provided via a modularized educational program. The goal would be to offer the training on a self-paced basis or to interface with civilian organizations' skill groups. By way of example, you may have a person in a gun club that is a part of the military program and is a heavy-duty mechanic – you could provide an online course augmented with onsite training to have them certified on equipment that is peculiar to the military – upon completion, you would reward this person for their time and offer other benefits for being at the ready and to retain their interests. This type of human capital comes at a greatly reduced cost relative to full-time military personnel.  

The reality at the moment is, that if Canada were in the same situation as Ukraine, we would have to augment military capacity with civil assets – so we should build out that interface NOW. The other reality is, if faced with a conventional army like the Russian army we would be forced to defend ourselves in unconventional ways. We’ve been taught these unconventional modalities in a very painful way in Afghanistan, we should take that lesson and apply it to our circumstances. We can teach people to be gorilla warriors, we can prepare for such a war and we should.

President Eisenhower warned of the “military complex” and its motivations and expansion. When the government embarks on procurement for anything, especially a new piece of military equipment, nobody is setting out save the government money, they are there to make money. I recently read an article about a new gun the Canadian military developed and purchased, a gun, when I divided the total dollar amount spent on the guns by the number of guns purchased, I arrived at a number of approximately $2500 – I am assuming this was a typo. At the fall of the wall, the Taliban was buying Kalashnikovs for about $50. The first 303 British I purchased I paid $30 for, and I could buy ammunition to practice with at Surplus Herbies for pennies a shot. We likely have millions of 303 British warehoused somewhere, they are old, outmoded, still, in the hands of a half million Canadians sitting on hillsides, they would be a serious thorn in the side of an enemy. Taliban, with Kalashnikovs, wearing sandals, sent the world's two most powerful armies home with unmet objectives – effectively defeated. While in Canada, Canadian moms are researching the safest SUV to drive Jonny to preschool, young Afghan kids are cutting their teeth on the butt of their Dad’s Kalashnikovs, listening to how great grandfather beat the British is a nearby pass and then again how his Dad killed a squad of Americans the exact same way 100 years later. The point I am making here, it is culture and the willingness to defend ourselves that will determine our success, if we are smart we can likely do it with what we have on hand – never underestimate the power of 34-0-0 and diesel fuel in the hands of the most resourceful people in the world.

I can hear many in Canada’s academic circles saying, Neil, you are advocating militarizing our country; this is an action that promotes war. Worse, you’re advocating trusting everyday citizens with firearms and knowledge related to defence. This is my question for them, how many are advocating returning to Afghanistan to promote human rights or to even bring to Canada the young Afghan people who risked their lives in the pursuit of our way of life – very few if any. Why? The Taliban offers too strong of a deterrent. I advocate these measures because I know and because it is a truth clearly indicated by history, that the best deterrent is capacity – capacity means the likelihood of my grandsons ever having to use a rifle is greatly reduced.  

 

 

 

 

 

Letter to Parliament - Overarching Narrative Required

Click here: Peace Initiative

The events of the past few years, primarily the Covid 19 response, but also, the disaster response in British Columbia and the events related to Ukraine have brought serious societal fissures and governance deficiencies into resolution. The propensity for every challenge that faces us being distorted by political discourse and then the extreme division it is causing has become alarming. There are many causal factors coming to play, the one that is most damaging is the fragmentation of our nation’s narrative, the cleaving of social perspective between “progressives” and “anti-capitalism” movements versus the “establishment”. This internal competition for hearts and minds is played upon by external players whose interests are served by exacerbating social division.

Click here: MY PROFESSIONAL WEBSITE
Click here: FOR MORE THOUGHTS ON POLITICS

Canada is an exemplary country, we educate our people, we have a compassionate social perspective, and we enjoy a standard of living that puts us at the pinnacle of human existence – ever. The social strife that has been emerging is threatening both the egg and the goose, there are movements afoot that are keen to throw away the various systems and institutions that provided us with all we have.  I observe governments, businesses, professionals, and members of the public conducting themselves in contempt of the foundational elements of our society, treating fundamentals like the rule of law, hard-won civil liberties as hurdles to get over rather than attending to both the spirit and the letter of the law. When foundational elements of our society, the very principles our country is founded on, are seen to be manipulated or ineffective a crack opens for further division fueled by “revolutionary” and competing narratives.

What is missing is an overarching narrative, one that is held by us all. I have posted Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms on various social media platforms and encountered people afraid to give it an open and hardy affirmation, yet they will in confidence – I hope this concerns you all. In my youth attending our public education system, there were many many instances when teachers would contrast our free society with that of the Soviet Union. George Orwell’s book Animal Farm was read aloud to me by my teacher in grade 6 and we talked about the evils of unchecked and centralized state power.  I would encounter a clear and common narrative that our way of life, our governance modalities and institutions supported by our market system was the best system there is. There are two things Canadians need to know, that they are presently the most prosperous people in human history and how that happened – unless priority is given to ensuring that Canadians do know, our society will unravel and all we’ve built here will implode under the weight of a people with maps of reality distorted by political spin and the voices of dissidents foreign and domestic.

OTHER THINKING ON THE SUBJECT

Islam More Pain or More Solution

Isis - Russia Dark Clouds are Forming

Islam & West Contemplations on way forward

Ottawa-shootings rational response, please

Better to Jaw than War - If war comes, we need the tools to confront aggression

The first step in the process then is agreeing on a narrative that serves to stabilize and support our country and our values and secondly, propagandizing that narrative. One symbolic gestor to start the process would be to have every member of parliament stand at attention in front of the parliament buildings while the first 15 Sections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms scrolled by on big screens with Old Canada playing and the entire undertaking being streamed to every media channel in the country. The process would close with the Governor-General giving a short speech extending to Canadians permission to preserve and protect the values expressed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms with vigour and pride. Our people and the enemies of freedom need to see we stand together and for something.  

Having agreed on the theme of the overarching narrative, the government could actively promote the narrative through various initiatives – more intensive Canadian Studies in schools and actively market the narrative via various media forums. Further, the subversion of western values is hardly contained in our borders – it is far-reaching. We need a collective effort on the part of the CBC in concert with like-minded entities like the BBC, ABC and others to tell the story of our prosperity – a truth demonstrated by merely listing the most prosperous peoples in the world – the G20 to start – who have gained their prosperity by the combination of civil rights, a market economy and robust social supports.

Unless we fill the void, the absent narrative, others will fill it with their own interests in mind; the assent of authoritarianism will continue unabated. Shakespeare taught us that “the pen is mightier than the sword”, however, unless the pen is used pervasively and persuasively apathy will leave no other option than the sword. The world is standing on a precipice, rarely has our way of life been more challenged – the “dark clouds of authoritarianism” are looming – action is required now.

 

---

 [NT1]