Nation Of Cowards

By Jeffrey R. Snyder


“Cowardice” and “self-respect” have largely disappeared from public discourse. In their place we are offered “self-esteem” as the bellwether of success and a proxy for dignity. “Self-respect” implies that one recognizes standards, and judges oneself worthy by the degree to which one lives up to them. “Self-esteem” simply means that one feels good about oneself. “Dignity” used to refer to the self-mastery and fortitude with which a person conducted himself in the face of life’s vicissitudes and the boorish behavior of others. Now, judging by campus speech codes, dignity requires that we never encounter a discouraging word and that others be coerced into acting respectfully, evidently on the assumption that we are powerless to prevent our degradation if exposed to the demeaning behavior of others. These are signposts proclaiming the insubstantiality of our character, the hollowness of our souls.

It is impossible to address the problem of rampant crime without talking about the moral responsibility of the intended victim. Crime is rampant because the law-abiding, each of us, condone it, excuse it, permit it, submit to it. We permit and encourage it because we do not fight back, immediately, then and there, where it happens. Crime is not rampant because we do not have enough prisons, because judges and prosecutors are too soft, because the police are hamstrung with absurd technicalities. The defect is there, in our character. We are a nation of cowards and shirkers.


Should you ever be the victim of an assault, a robbery, or a rape, you will find it very difficult to call the police while the act is in progress, even if you are carrying a portable cellular phone. Nevertheless, you might be interested to know how long it takes them to show up. Department of Justice statistics for 1991 show that, for all crimes of violence, only 28 percent of calls are responded to within five minutes. The idea that protection is a service people can call to have delivered and expect to receive in a timely fashion is often mocked by gun owners, who love to recite the challenge, “Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first.”

Many people deal with the problem of crime by convincing themselves that they live, work, and travel only in special “crime-free” zones. Invariably, they react with shock and hurt surprise when they discover that criminals do not play by the rules and do not respect these imaginary boundaries. If, however, you understand that crime can occur anywhere at anytime, and if you understand that you can be maimed or mortally wounded in mere seconds, you may wish to consider whether you are willing to place the responsibility for safeguarding your life in the hands of others.


Do you believe that you are forbidden to protect yourself because the police are better qualified to protect you, because they know what they are doing but you’re a rank amateur? Put aside that this is equivalent to believing that only concert pianists may play the piano and only professional athletes may play sports. What exactly are these special qualities possessed only by the police and beyond the rest of us mere mortals?

One who values his life and takes seriously his responsibilities to his family and community will possess and cultivate the means of fighting back, and will retaliate when threatened with death or grievous injury to himself or a loved one. He will never be content to rely solely on others for his safety, or to think he has done all that is possible by being aware of his surroundings and taking measures of avoidance. Let’s not mince words: He will be armed, will be trained in the use of his weapon, and will defend himself when faced with lethal violence.

Fortunately, there is a weapon for preserving life and liberty that can be wielded effectively by almost anyone – the handgun. Small and light enough to be carried habitually, lethal, but unlike the knife or sword, not demanding great skill or strength, it truly is the “great equalizer.” Requiring only hand-eye coordination and a modicum of ability to remain cool under pressure, it can be used effectively by the old and the weak against the young and the strong, by the one against the many.

The handgun is the only weapon that would give a lone female jogger a chance of prevailing against a gang of thugs intent on rape, a teacher a chance of protecting children at recess from a madman intent on massacring them, a family of tourists waiting at a mid-town subway station the means to protect themselves from a gang of teens armed with razors and knives.


In the mid-sixties there was a public service advertising campaign targeted at car owners about the prevention of car theft. The purpose of the ad was to urge car owners not to leave their keys in their cars. The message was, “Don’t help a good boy go bad.” The implication was that, by leaving his keys in his car, the normal, law-abiding car owner was contributing to the delinquency of minors who, if they just weren’t tempted beyond their limits, would be “good.” Now, in those days people still had a fair sense of just who was responsible for whose behavior. The ad succeeded in enraging a goodly portion of the populace, and was soon dropped.

Nearly all of the gun control measures offered by Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI) and its ilk embody the same philosophy. They are founded on the belief that America’s law-abiding gun owners are the source of the problem. With their unholy desire for firearms, they are creating a society awash in a sea of guns, thereby helping good boys go bad, and helping bad boys be badder. This laying of moral blame for violent crime at the feet of the law-abiding, and the implicit absolution of violent criminals for their misdeeds, naturally infuriates honest gun owners.


Gun control is a moral crusade against a benighted, barbaric citizenry. This is demonstrated not only by the ineffectualness of gun control in preventing crime, and by the fact that it focuses on restricting the behavior of the law-abiding rather than apprehending and punishing the guilty, but also by the execration that gun control proponents heap on gun owners and their evil instrumentality, the NRA. Gun owners are routinely portrayed as uneducated, paranoid rednecks fascinated by and prone to violence, i.e., exactly the type of person who opposes the liberal agenda and whose moral and social “re-education” is the object of liberal social policies.


The liberal elite know that they are philosopher-kings. They know that the people simply cannot be trusted; that they are incapable of just and fair self-government; that left to their own devices, their society will be racist, sexist, homophobic, and inequitable — and the liberal elite know how to fix things. They are going to help us live the good and just life, even if they have to lie to us and force us to do it. And they detest those who stand in their way.


Full article here.


Chinese Miners For Chinese Mine


A China-backed mining company, which plans to open a huge coal mine in Northeastern [British Columbia], says that it wants to bring in a [Chinese] workforce of 400 from China to mine the coal. Ironically, the request for Chinese workers is similar to the requests for Chinese workers made by Chinese businessmen in the Vancouver area over 100 years ago. At that time, the Chinese businessmen imported Chinese labourers from China, paid them much less than Canadian workers would have received and displaced many Canadians from their jobs, forcing Canadians into unemployment or causing them to move out of British Columbia to look for work. Canadian workers fought back by demanding that Chinese low-wage labourers be taxed to discourage Chinese businessmen from bringing them to Canada or that the workers be excluded from coming.

B.C. Federation of Labour President Jim Sinclair has rightly protested the current proposal to bring in Chinese labourers. In addition, Mining Association of British Columbia CEO Michael McPhie has rightly said that “the concept of importing an entire mine crew is something that we have not seen before”. “And we would want to take a really serious look at the implications.”

Even the mining company’s project description admits that immigration of up to 400 employees into small communities will have “cultural and social ramifications” but that the company would work with local governments and community representatives to “alleviate potential impacts”.

Those who still do not want to admit that there was ample justification for the original Chinese Head Taxes should listen carefully to statements being made today. Similar “Canadian Workers First” statements were used in the past as the reasons for the Head Taxes and the Chinese (Labourer) Exclusion Act. There is absolutely no doubt that these 400 Chinese workers should be “excluded” from entering Canada and that the mining company should be compelled to adopt a “Canadian Workers First” policy if it wants to extract Canadian resources—as Canadian governments did in the past.

The mine will be located near Chetwynd, British Columbia — Pop. 2500 which is close to three First Nations reserves, all of which suffer from high unemployment and whose workers are under-represented in the area’s petroleum and gas industries.

First Nations Band Councils across Canada should have made statements on the immigration issue long ago. They should have demanded a significant share of new jobs. It is intolerable, on the one hand, to have unemployment rates of 70 to 90% on First Nations Reserves and, on the other hand, to see Canada’s federal government bringing in hundreds of thousands of immigrants to fill jobs. A relative boom in employment should be a time for federal and provincial governments to ensure jobs for Canada’s own unemployed, particularly First Nations people, who are often not even counted in the number of unemployed.

Even subsidizing traveling costs of unemployed Canadians, especially First Nations from remote reserves, is probably cheaper than subsidizing administrative (and other) costs of immigrants who travel from distant countries to Canada. Further[more], subsidizing immigrants with social assistance once they arrive makes no sense–yet Canada continues to do this with hundreds of thousands of recent immigrants. Our federal government should not be submitting to the hysteria of some employers who have exaggerated Canada’s labour shortage in order to obtain cheap labour (permanent and temporary) from outside Canada.


Also read:

Immigrant Workers NOT Needed here.

Canadians Want Jobs, Too! here.

The Myth of Labour Shortages here.

Canadian Workers Not Wanted here.

Hiring Mexican workers here.