Something went wrong. It is that the old regimes, be they ancient empires or Medieval feudal constructs, lived in a stable condition for centuries, even millennia before dissolving and vanishing.
By contrast, the so-called modern democracies have been
around only two centuries, and they are beginning to melt like Snowman on a hot
Summer day. Why is that?
To answer that question, we examine an important aspect in
the daily unfurling of a modern jurisdiction. It is the way that business is
conducted between the various parties, and how those parties relate to the rulers.
The latter part happens through legal measures that take the form of taxation —
and this is precisely where the nature of the regime is revealed.
A glance at the taxation scene in a modern day jurisdiction
even without the need to get into a deep analysis of what transpires beneath
the surface, is sufficient to tell the story of how much the regime called
Liberal Democracy, has deteriorated with regard to financial matters.
Extrapolated to the rest of the governing system, the discovery tells a great
deal about the functioning of the jurisdiction and its stability.
So then, what is it that so glaringly jumps to the eye of an
observer who is watching a modern taxation scene? Well, the observer will see a
massive industry that is staffed by amateurs, bookkeepers, accountants and
economists who command a high honorarium — all of them advising on how to get
around the law so as to minimize the tax that’s payable to the government,
whether or not legal loopholes were embedded into the law.
In fact, skirting the law in the so-called democracies, not
just in taxation but in every aspect of getting on with the day’s work,
consumes a great deal of time and effort, leaving very little with which to do
useful work. And this is why those democracies accomplish little, thus earn the
designation inefficient.
How did all this develop?
Studying an ongoing example is the best way to understand how
things must have developed to reach the current condition. In fact, it is an
example I am familiar with because it affects my life even now, as it has for
several decades. The story comes down to my own Canadian Government persecuting
me for several decades as commanded by a foreign criminal syndicate I
displeased by refusing to trash my own people and praising theirs.
Now that I reached an advanced age, I asked the Government
to fulfill the promise of holding itself accountable, and suggest a remedy we
can both live with. More than two and a half months have passed and I have not
heard from the government. And while this is the reality on the ground, rumors
of all kinds are swirling around the reasons why the Government, headed by one Justin
Trudeau, is not responding to my appeal one way or the other.
Simply stated, the speculation is that Trudeau believes he
has bigger fish to fry than spend time resolving my case. That’s because a
resolution will break the story behind the case into the mainstream media, thus
hurt his chances at getting reelected. And so, Trudeau will delay looking into the
case till after the election; an event that may not take pace for several
months. This tells a great deal about the priorities that the Liberal Democratic
rulers assign to the cases that cross their desks.
Here, the stakes on one side consist of reelecting a person,
and on the other upholding the moral imperative of doing justice to someone
that suffered for several decades under the very government which holds the key
to resolving the problem it has itself created. And in the same way that there
exists an entire industry to deal with the idea of minimizing the taxes owed to
the government, there exists an entire industry made up of lawyers and
paralegals who will work for a high honorarium on seeking justice for those who
feel they were treated unjustly.
But the nature of the Liberal Democratic system of
governance being that you can skirt the law all you want as long as you do not
break it, people take advantage of every situation that opens to them, and
run with it as far as they can. This
holds true also when it comes to the speculation that’s generated when the
government withholds information that may do it electoral damage if revealed to
the general public. And without that transparency, justice is lost behind the
wall of silence that’s erected by those who adhere to the adage: You scratch my
back and I scratch yours.
So then, how far has the speculation gone as to how much
more some people believe Justin Trudeau will sacrifice to make sure the case at
hand will not get in the way of his reelection?
The answer to this question lies in the telling of a story
that’s so far fetched, it is difficult to believe even by those who hold that
the system of liberal democracy is so rotten, nothing can be too debased for it
to allow. And so, the story goes as follows:
Justin Trudeau is sacrificing not only the principles of high
morality and justice to protect his chances at getting reelected, he is also
risking the breakup of an alliance that was teetering on the breakup but
recovered when Ukraine was invaded. Now, Trudeau will take the alliance back to
the bad old days when the new members from Eastern Europe discovered that
Liberal Democracy was sold to them as a moralistic system but turned out to be
as demonic as it can ever get.
Helpless at first to do anything about it, the unfolding of
my story gave them the opportunity at long last to register their discontent.
They did so by denying Sweden and Finland the right to gain membership in the
NATO alliance till Canada honors its word and resolves my case. And so far,
Justin Trudeau has continued to prioritized his personal interests over those
of the Western Alliance.