The Beaver that Roared

News is that the Canadian military has drawn up plans for war with the US. And their conclusion? “Canada would be defeated in two days or less and they hope Canadians would organize into counterinsurgency guerrilla groups.”

That’s about what I calculate. Quick tank run over flat terrain to take Winnipeg. Canada is cut in two. Quick tank run over flat terrain to take Vancouver. Canada is cut off from the Pacific. Now send tanks through the broad flat plains of Alberta and Saskatchewan to secure the oilfields and the North. If Eastern Canada is worth the effort, another quick run up the Richelieu to take Montreal cuts the remainder of Canada in two once again. Hook left to take Ottawa.  Canada does not have the vast distances of Russia to buffer an invasion from the South. Easily all over in two days.

Would Canadians launch guerilla warfare? The thought seems laughable to me.

The Simple Case for Greenland

Everyone is getting excited and upset about Trump demanding Greenland. I cannot get excited. If he invades, it is a violation of international law. That would be a bad thing. But if he buys Greenland, I cannot see the harm. It would be good for Greenlanders.

And I think he has a case. Greenland is strategic. And everyone thinks it is right for the US and US taxpayers to carry the freight of defending it, while not benefitting from the territory. 

It does seem this is not fair.

Of course, the same could be said for Canada ...

No representation without taxation?

On Peace

 

“Blessed are the peacemakers,” runs one of the Beatitudes.

But who are the peacemakers? 

One naturally thinks of the Nobel Peace Prize. It is given for making peace, right?

Officially, it is given “to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”

It is dubious that the reduction of standing armies leads to peace. That was a dream of the 1920s—and arguably, World War II was the result. Disarmament is an invitation to invasion.

The logic is akin to the logic of defunding the police.

“The holding and promotion of peace congresses.” Here too we have a problem. Often enough, indeed almost inevitably, the same guys who started the war sign the peace. Yasser Arafat and Menachim Begin are previous laureates: both arguably terrorists.

Among recent laurates were Barack Obama, "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." Which seem invisible to many not on the Nobel committee. And Al Gore, "for efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change.” Whether or not you worry about climate change, what does this have to do with peace? Why not, in this vein, a Peace Prize for campaigning against tooth decay?

People do not seem to have a clear idea of how one makes peace. Perhaps people do not have a clear idea of what peace means.

St. Augustine defines peace properly. Peace is “the tranquility of order.” Peace comes with all things in their proper place, with clear lines, rules, and boundaries: passing on the right, stopping on red. No left turn. One can imagine if no one knew or kept such rules.

Peacemakers are those who establish clear boundaries, advocate for clear boundaries, and administer and enforce them consistently. Those who respect the rules.

The lawgivers, the peace officers, the justices of the peace. The honest referees.

The inclination of our postmodern world is instead to obscure all boundaries: the roles of husband and wife, of men and women; the distinction between male and female; the significance of borders; the distinction between citizen and non-citizen; the distinction between beauty and ugliness; between truth and opinion; even between right and wrong. 

This is satanic. This is pandemonium.

The Art of the Deal

 “Being good in business is the most fascinating kind of art. Making money is art and working is art and good business is the best art.” – Andy Warhol

Everybody except Andy Warhol seems to have missed this obvious fact: entrepreneurship is a form of art. An entrepreneur is a creator; perhaps the most creative of all artists. He works on the biggest canvas: the world. 

I see it every day. Many small local businesses are expressions of an artistic soul.

No, they are not designed to maximize profits. They are designed to make enough money to permit them to exist, in all their beautiful eccentricity. To express their owner’s vision: of what a cocktail should be, of the timeless traditions of the barber shop, of the beauty of old books and magazines.

It is ignorant to suppose that business is about greed. It is about “busy-ness,” that is, making things, getting things done. It is about the work, the craft, the opus, the essay. It is the joy of inventing a work of art that is self-perpetuating, that can live and run.

When asked why he kept creating new businesses, local magnate K.C. Irving responded plainly: “I like to see gears turning.” 

Money is just what makes the next thing possible, the artist’s brush, the writer’s pen

And it is grossly ungrateful not to see how much great entrepreneurs have contributed to American culture. What would America be today without P.T. Barnum? Without Henry Ford? Without Steve Jobs? Without Walt Disney? Without Elon Musk?

The great accomplishment of American culture is the entrepreneur and his art. 

We are now seeing, I believe for the first time since Washington and Jefferson, an entrepreneur in the Oval Office. And it feels as though America is coming into its own.

The Illogicality of Nationalism

Here’s an interesting anomaly of human nature. People everywhere want to emigrate to the USA. Many will risk their lives to get there, in open boats, or over barbed wire, or trusting themselves to cartels and coyotes; to get that precious green card. And yet, when Donald Trump offers union to Greenland, or to Canada, the locals act insulted and truculent. They even threaten to shoot. This does not make sense.

By joining the USA, Canadians, for example, individual would have many more career opportunities. They could expect a higher standard of living. They would have more choices where to live. Apart from Quebec, they risk losing nothing of their culture—by any normal world standard, it is the same culture. They would sacrifice nothing of their freedoms or right to self-govern. America has the same democratic traditions. Indeed, they would probably have better protection for their rights, a more independent judiciary and a longer and stronger human rights tradition. Canada, after all, only got responsible government in the 1840s, and a formal Bill of Rights only in 1960. The courts’ interpretations of the current Charter of Rights and Freedoms has grown problematic. They—we-- would also have greater security against foreign threats from genuinely oppressive governments.

And yet Mark Carney is hurrying off to China, America’s chief adversary, to cut deals that seem not in Canada’s interest, in hopes of countering American influence. Or perhaps just to spite the USA.

This behaviour seems mad and self-destructive.

I think it shows the strength of the nationalist instinct, and how it works against our interests. People are herd animals, if they follow their instincts. But the gospel truth is that all men are brothers. Even Samaritans. Even Americans.

 Appealing to this idolatry of nationalism has let many a corrupt and oppressive government seize and stay in power. 

You might, of course, accuse Trump in turn of being a nationalist, in wanting to annex Canada or Greenland. But that is a separate argument, and an argument for others to consider.

If the Islamic Republic Falls

Iran right now is hell. To keep our hopes up, let’s try to focus on the good things that might come if the regime does fall. For it might very well fall. Trump is honour bound to do his best to bring it down. The darkest hour is just before dawn.

The fall of the Islamist regime could usher in an era of peace across the Middle East. Iran has been subsidizing insurrectionist groups like the Houthis, Hamas, Hezbollah, and more. Without this support, they may evaporate. I think of the effect on the troubles in Northern Ireland when Libya’s Ghaddafi withdrew support. The Abraham Accords show a desire to bury that hatchet in some important quarters. 

Iran might become an ally of Israel again, as it was under the Shah— the Iranians might well be grateful for Israel’s help in overthrowing the Islamist regime. And they could flip from being a sworn enemy of the US to being a strategic regional ally—in Russia’s underbelly.

Russia will have lost a major ally and supplier of weapons for the current war in Ukraine. That might tip the balance.

The example of regime overthrow might also inspire Russians to overthrow Putin as well. Or the Chinese might try to take out Xi.

Along with Venezuela, and domestic supplies, Iran will give the US strong influence in the world oil market. They might be able to use this to exert pressure on China.

Iran might now develop into a prosperous and innovative nation. Under the Shah, they were on a par with Spain. There is a well-educated population, and history gives us many examples of nations that developed quickly after a period of turmoil; the Netherlands gaining independence from Spain, Spain of the Reconquista, Poland after the Berlin Wall fell. Postwar Germany or Japan. Iran’s expertise with drones shows a bit of what they are capable of.

Rumours are that a large proportion of Iranians are secret Christians. This seems plausible. Iran was not that devout before 1979—there was a move under the Shah to promote Zoroastrianism over Islam. The rule of the mullahs might now have broadly discredited Islam in the popular mind. It would be a glorious thing, from my Christian perspective, to see the revival this might become, once the lid is off, perhaps inspiring revivals elsewhere.

It seems likely that the fall of the Islamic Republic will largely discredit the modern ideology of political Islam and global jihad everywhere. The experiment has been tried; it failed. 

Keep on hoping.

God and Love

 

I recently attended a “Life in the Spirit” seminar; a program given by the Catholic Church to deepen one’s faith. These were almost the first words of the introductory video:

“Do you know the most fulfilled people in life are not those who have everything, are not those who are successful, not even those who have purpose. But the most fulfilled people in life, the most fulfilled you could ever be, is if you're able to stop and let God love you. It is the hardest thing for us to do as human beings, to let God love us, for several reasons. Why? Because we're so used to giving to others, we're so used to serving others, we're so used to pointing towards others, that we don't stop and realize that first we need to be loved.”

My immediate reaction is, no, Hell no. This is the disease that is killing us. This is Satan speaking.

Most of us think too much of ourselves. Most of us are too sure we are going to heaven. Most of us are fully aware of our need to be loved. Most of us need to learn humility. 

God loves us; but he expects things from us. We are not his pampered pets. The Gospels do not tell us to lie back and accept God’s love: they tall us to “work out our salvation in fear and trembling.” They tell us we have a purpose, and we are here to do God’s work. We are to put on a yoke. "My yoke is light." 

Jesus did not go around telling people to accept God’s love. He spoke instead of our duty to love God: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.” And after that to love and to help your neighbour. This is the opposite of what the video was saying.

Imagine someone about to marry. Would your advice be, “the hardest thing in marriage is to accept your wife’s love. Don’t do anything for her. Just be still and enjoy the love.”

No. Hell no. This video is preaching narcissism, not Christianity.

On Trump Intervening in Iran

Kitty Genovese

I guess I’m one of those neocons everyone objects to these days, on the left and on the right. A “war pig.” 

Two words: Kitty Genovese.

Kitty Genovese was raped and murdered in an apartment stairwell. None of her neighbours did anything. Nobody called the cops. After all, it was not their business.

Who believes they were in the right?

Evil occurring anywhere in the world is always our business. All men are brothers. If we are aware of evil happening, as in Iran, and we are realistically able to do so, we have a moral obligation to step in and prevent it. “None so guilty as the innocent bystander.” “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing.”

Pacifism, to my mind, is cowardice and selfishness masquerading as virtue.

Greed and the Left

Left-wingers think right-wingers are evil. Right-wingers think left-wingers are stupid. This is why right-wingers always want more discussion and debate, and left-wingers just want to shoot.

Here is a classic example of left-wing stupidity: their conviction that more power must be put in the hands of government to protect us from big corporations and “the billionaires,” because capitalists and corporations are “greedy.” Yet if they are greedy, why are they greedy? Because greed is a common human fault. That being so, civil servants in government are equally likely to be greedy; so nothing is accomplished thereby. It’s pirates robbing pirates. The left seems blind to this; nor can they conceive of members of the professions, the “experts,” being greedy.

Recent scandals surely make it obvious that greed is indeed common among government officials and professionals. But the free market system and open competition make greed in the private sector self-defeating: you get too greedy, you lose market share; you go out of business. There are no such checks on greed among the professions or in government officials—except superiors or colleagues who are equally likely to be greedy.

It is an amazing feat of stupidity that the left has never figured this out. 

Don't Defund the CBC

 

Many on the right have called for the defunding of the CBC. It is, after all, a propaganda arm of the government; is that proper in a democracy? Is it fair to ask everyone to pay for something many will not watch? And it competes unfairly with private channels and YouTubers.

I don’t think it is wrong to have a propaganda arm of the government. There is a place for public education. It is more that as the CBC exists now, its purpose is unclear and its mission muddled.

Rather than defund, I’d make it more purely and unambiguously propaganda.

It is a legitimate job of government to promote a sense of Canadian unity and Canadian identity. And Canada needs this urgently. Canadian identity and unity are tenuous at best, being a bilingual country, close to another much larger and culturally similar country, geographically very widely scattered, and, due to catastrophic recent government policies, full of recent immigrants who have been encouraged not to assimilate. 

We have a problem here, and a properly directed CBC can be a part of the solution.

There should be no programs on CBC produced in other countries. Leave that to the free market. Nor should the focus be entertainment. Leave that to the free market. As a propaganda arm, it should be one long advertisement for Canada, and an education for immigrants on Canadian culture. 

Shows on classic, traditional, and new Canadian books, movies, music, art. Shows on traditional Canadian foods and how to prepare them. Shows on Canadian history, always in a positive light. Shows on Canadian civics: how parliament works, how elections work, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Canadian law and legal traditions; how the court system works. Stories of Canadian inventors and inventions; of important Canadian industries. How is Canadian whisky made? How is Oka cheese made? How are trees turned into paper? Shows on Canadian folk traditions, traditional celebrations, traditional sports and games. Canadian accents, Canadian vocabulary and idioms. Travelogues on different parts of Canada. 

Celebrate this country. Inspire immigrants to love it and to integrate.

Nor would this be all that costly, in this era when an individual can run their own broadcast channel on the Internet. And putting this up on the Internet makes it accessible not just in every corner of Canada, but globally.

It is, after all, to Canada’s advantage to promote the Canadian brand abroad. This is good for our economy, and generates soft power.

I think it would be a good investment.

Gad Saad's Prescription to Save Western Civilization

 

Gad Saad

Gad Saad has nine points to which he says Western civilization must assent, or face extinction.

I list them, with my comments.

1. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐖𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐦𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐝𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐮𝐧𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐯𝐨𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐝 𝐖𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐞𝐬. 

I’d argue that value are values. To call them “Western values” is to concede too much, and tacitly accept cultural relativism. The West must proudly and unequivocally defend values. A society or culture without values cannot function. Nor can an individual.

We have clear statements of values we can refer to: the US Bill of Rights, the US Declaration of Independence, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Magna Carta, common law, the Ten Commandments, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Gospel. 

It should be the business of the government and the education system to promote and inculcate these values.

2. 𝐂𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐦 𝐦𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐛𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝. 

If everything is relative, nothing means anything or has any genuine value. All actions are licit: there is nothing really wrong, say, with murder. Morality and truth are not culturally conditioned; that is the fascist order. A bridge designed by English engineers will not collapse because it is put up in India. Culture is a tool; it is not a god.

3. 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐝𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐦𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐬. 

The concept of group rights is inherently prejudiced, discriminatory. It is incompatible with the concept of human equality and human dignity. Culture belongs to people, and to all people; people do not belong to their culture. One man is not responsible for the acts of another. We must abolish all forms of “affirmative action” -- and aboriginal status.

4. 𝐀𝐥𝐥 𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐥. 

A culture is a set of tools, a technology for a good life.  History or travel shows us that some cultures work better, produce a better life. This should not be surprising—just as a pneumatic drill is more efficient than a stone axe for breaking up concrete. When we find a particular tool or culture or cultural element superior to another, it is both stupid and prejudiced not to appropriate it or assimilate to it.

5. A𝐥𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐟 𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐖𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐞𝐬.

This would always have been obvious to anyone who had done a serious study of comparative religion. Unfortunately, our secular leaders have generally been ignorant of religions. “Western” values and “Western” culture are based on the Bible and the Christian tradition. “Western culture” ere is really a secularist euphemism for “Christendom.” Other belief systems will be more or less compatible, to the degree that they diverge from Christianity. 

This should be a consideration for immigration policy. Specifically, Islam is not compatible with liberal democracy—it is a competing ideological an governmental system. There is a reason why almost no Muslim countries are democracies.

6. 𝐍𝐨𝐭 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐢𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞. And assimilation is 𝐚 𝐫𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭.

Assimilation, not multiculturalism, should be promoted and funded by government. Other ethnicities have their own home countries and governments; Canada is the proper domain of Canadian culture. Canadians have nowhere else to go. It is Canadian culture that makes Canada Canada. 

Nationalities should accordingly be preferred for immigration based on their record of assimilation and their cultural similarity to Canadians.  How well and quickly will they be able to fit in?

7. 𝐈𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨𝐥𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞, 𝐜𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧-𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐟𝐬 𝐦𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐛𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐞𝐧 𝐦𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐞. No sacred cows. 𝐍𝐨 𝐞𝐱𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬.

Here we have a problem. Granted that we may be in a desperate situation due to reckless immigration policy in the recent past. But we cannot deport people based on their assumed beliefs. That amounts to violating Saad’s third principle, that people must be judged as individuals, not groups.

We can and should certainly deport anyone in the country illegally. And I could see it as justifiable to revoke all citizenships granted, say, in the past twenty or thirty years. These folks would then have to reapply, and could be refused if they had engaged in any criminal acts or relied on public assistance during their tenure. They could also be given a values test; although of course, they might lie on it. Future citizenships could similarly be made probationary for twenty or thirty years.

8. 𝐈𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐲 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐟𝐚𝐯𝐨𝐫 𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐡𝐨𝐦𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐲. Meaning: 𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐢𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐞𝐬 𝐬𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐚𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧.

I would add to this that sane nations should prefer immigrants from cultures that have a generally favourable view of the host culture. One does not want to import enemies.

9. 𝐙𝐞𝐫𝐨 𝐭𝐨𝐥𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐬𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐟 𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐬. If an ideology constitutes an existential threat to freedom, criminalization is 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐲𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐲 — 𝐢𝐭’𝐬 𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟-𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞.

Here I disagree. We must not police thought nor speech. Government is not competent to do this, and cannot be trusted to do this. Freedom of thought, freedom of conscience, and freedom of speech are core values.

Beliefs with which we disagree must be argued against, not silenced. And government can actively argue against them. More on this, perhaps in a future post.

Saad is pessimistic; he does not believe this can be turned around. His judgment is tutored here by his experience in his home country, Lebanon. It was flooded by Muslim immigrants, and collapsed into civil strife. Reading between the lines, it is Islam with which he is most concerned.

He may be right; but I see public opinion moving rapidly on these issues.

Who Killed Renee Good?

 

It is hard to tell what really happened in the recent shooting of an anti-ICE protester in Minneapolis. 

My guess is that the woman, Renee Good, did not intend to hit the police officer with her car. That seems too reckless. How would that have helped the cause for which she was protesting? Did she really want a life sentence in prison? My guess is she was trying to drive away from the officers demanding she get out of the car, as an act of defiance, and did not see him there. Or she panicked.

However, I cannot fault the officer for firing at her either. He was, as far as he could tell, being assaulted with a deadly weapon and at risk of his life.

It was probably a tragic accident. 

But it is not a good or smart idea to taunt or try to call their bluff on armed officers on duty and about their business. The responsibility for her death rests with Ms. Good.

Why the Iranian Regime Will Fall

Bullseye.

At this point, I believe Trump has no alternative but to intervene in Iran. He gave a clear warning that he would if the regime began mass killing. This has encouraged the protesters. Now the regime has called his bluff. If he does nothing, he will lose leverage in all future negotiations. The Iranian people will feel betrayed. Aside from the practical considerations, Trump and the world would know he had let the protesters down. That he had wimped out, just as he has accused Obama of doing. 

He must do something big.

But we also can assume it will not be the insertion of US troops at scale. That would be too much for Trump’s base, and Iran is not a country that would be easy to take militarily.

Reports are that the protesters have control of the port of Bandar Abbas. Were I the US, or Israel, or the Gulf States, I would be ferrying in small weapons as quickly as possible, along perhaps with agents and unidentifiable mercenary soldiers. Arm and organize the people for guerilla action, and it becomes much harder for the authorities to repress to restore control. Think Northern Ireland.

But this is probably not spectacular enough for present public relations needs. Trump’s probably going to have to do some bombing. 

He does not want to hit Iranian infrastructure—that would harm the general public. That might help the regime. 

He does not want to hit the Iranian army—they are potential allies. 

He wants to hit IRGC facilities, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Better yet—and most like Trump—I see him levelling the homes and haunts of the top leaders of Iran, in hopes of cutting off the regime’s head in a surgical fashion. I suspect he could do this without risk of American casualties by firing cruise missiles from a submarine stationed in the Gulf.

Whatever he does, at this point, his honour almost demands it be enough that the Iranian regime does fall. It cannot be seen to have been in the end ineffective, or Trump loses.

 Let’s see.

Going Ten Rounds with Jesus

A portrait of Jesus based on the Shroud of Turin

Atheists often mock the idea that Jeus was blonde and blue-eyed. Some years ago, some group reconstituted the face of a 1st Century Palestinian Jew, based on excavated skulls, and presented this as what Jesus must really have looked like. Most notably, and obviously propagandistically, their supposed reconstruction had a frightened look on his face.

Portrait of Jesus as reconstructed from ancient Palestinian Jewish skulls.

I don’t know where these atheists are seeing many blonde, blue-eyed images of Jesus. An occasional artist has no doubt taken liberties, perhaps to make the point that Jesus was a man like us. The iconography of the Virgin Mary, or Joseph, is much more variable. The iconography of Jesus is pretty consistent. He is dark and Middle Eastern looking, with brown hair, brown eyes, beard, and with a reasonably prominent nose. Just as you would expect. This is not to say he is going to look like some random man who lived at the same time he did. There is a trail of icons establishing this appearance dating back to the early centuries AD.

Based on the Shroud of Turin, however, there is one thing that the common iconography seems to get wrong. The usual image of Jesus on the crucifix shows a slender build. The Shroud suggests someone stockier and more muscular; built like a boxer.

And surely the Shroud is right. Jesus presumably worked as a carpenter from adolescence to age thirty. He should have developed strong muscles from swinging hammers and saws and carrying logs.

One wonders why we ever thought otherwise. I suspect it is part of the general falsification of Jesus as “meek and mild.” The sort of Jesus a Ned Flanders would feel most comfortable with. Someone who could not hurt another person even if he wanted to. Let alone single-handedly drive the moneychangers out of the temple.

Subtle; but a subversion of the Christian message.

Why Trump Really Wants Greenland

 

Some are suggesting Trump’s recent moves, on Venezuela and Greenland, are an indication he is preparing for a major war.

Granted, they would be strategic in case of a world war. Trump is generally shortening supply lines and consolidating US resources and industries. But this is merely judicious. It is always wise to have a strong defense. And here are calculations that China will make a lunge for Taiwan in 2027.

But if this were about Greenland’s strategic value in case of war, making it US territory now is unnecessary. Denmark is a NATO ally. It would be easy to cut a deal to establish US bases there without any change in sovereignty. Even without this, in the case of war, the US could quickly land and take it over, as the US and Britain did with Iceland when it was Danish territory during the Second World War.

Which leaves the real motive rather simpler: Trump is a showman, and he wants to be remembered as one of the greatest US presidents. He has an ego: he likes seeing his name on things. He wants to be on Mount Rushmore.

As a major territorial acquisition, Greenland would put him up there with Jefferson, Lincoln, and Polk. Venezuela is a major national security triumph, and the oil is strategic. But Trump’s eye may really be on Cuba, now likely to collapse without its Venezuelan support. Then he would have solved a national security problem twelve presidents in a row could not solve, including the much-lauded Kennedy and Reagan. . I can even see him moving to annex Cuba once the current government collapses. The annexation of Cuba has been proposed by other presidents going all he way back to Jefferson. As far back as 1854, the US government declared Cuba “essential to US security.” Imagine if Trump were the one to finally do it? And why not--America once annexed Puerto Rico in the same way.

Consider in this light the Kennedy Centre being unofficially renamed the Trump Kennedy Centre. Consider Trump’s new ballroom appended to the White House—larger than the White House itself. Trumping the famous “Lincoln bedroom” by quite a bit. He also plans a triumphal arch within view of the Lincoln Memorial and in the same Neoclassical style—in effect, a Trump Memorial to rival those of Lincoln, Jefferson, and Washington nearby. Not to mention Napoleon.

One might consider this all rather childish. Trump is an overgrown child. Okay, but so far, it all also looks beneficial to all. Greenlanders would probably be better off, more secure, wealthier, with greater freedoms, under the USA than under Denmark. Venezuelans are certainly better off without Maduro, and Cubans would be exponentially better off as part of the US. The new Trump ballroom will cost taxpayers nothing, and improve the White House. The Trump arch will cost taxpayers nothing, and instantly become a tourist attraction. Adding Trump’s name to the Kennedy Centre costs taxpayers nothing. 

So I, for one, am good with it.

The Fatal Flaw in Meaning-Centred Therapy

I believe that the growing epidemic of “mental illness,” drug abuse, self-mutilation, and suicides in North America is all due to a loss of any sense of meaning in life. Resisting the call to religion, a psychology-oriented friend suggests instead the value of “Meaning-Centred Therapy,” based on Viktor Frankl’s “logotherapy,” based on the postwar philosophy of existentialism. It “helps people find purpose and meaning in life, even amidst suffering, by focusing on creating, experiencing, and sustaining meaning, often through structured exercises to connect with sources like values, relationships, and creativity.”

Can you see the problem? This approach has two premises: first, you are depressed because you feel there is no meaning to life. Second, you are right, there is no meaning to life. You need to make something up. That will be $80. Thanks.

You cannot “create” meaning. You cannot pull yourself up by your own bootstraps.

Religion tells you what the meaning of life is.

“Meaning-Centred Therapy” should lead to despair.

Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT)

 

A friend endorses CBT—Cognitive Behaviour Therapy. The idea, he says, is that “it identifies self-defeating beliefs and cognitive distortions that maintain depression, anxiety, addiction, etc. And it replaces these beliefs with more accurate, realistic and positive ones.”

But note the assumption here: that the patient/client’s depressing thoughts are wrong, or unrealistic. That is not a fair assumption. We should really expect that the average person has an unrealistic bias towards optimism—people tend to believe what they want to be true. Nobody wants bad things to happen.

There is a theory called “depressive realism.” Some studies that suggest depressed people are better than others at predicting future events, and more realistic in understanding their inability to control events. George Orwell and Winston Churchill both considered their chronic depression their superpower allowing them to face the hard truths others wouldn’t. 

This seems to me a serious problem for CBT. First, it may be convincing some poor patient to walk off a cliff, figuratively speaking, having convinced himself is not really there. 

Second, it may be encouraging him not to make necessary changes in his situation, assuring him that everything is fine as is. So trapping him in his mental illness. 

Third, it is objectively immortal to encourage another to lie to himself, given that truth is of transcendental value. 

Fourth, a perceptive patient is likely to see this flaw in the treatment, and the consolation will not work from the start. It will only deepen their despair. Just like many find it impossible to be moved by a John Denver song. 

“Sunshine almost always makes me high...”

Prayer, by contrast, gives reasons for authentic optimism: God’s in control. All will be well, and all will be well, and all manner of things will be well.

My friend is impressed by studies that show CBT actually works. He quotes AI: “evidence-based methods like CBT are proven to help with various mental health issues, often working as well as medication or even better in combination with it.”

That last clause is the key: “success” is measured as “working as well as medication.” There is decent evidence that psychiatric medication does not work, so this actually suggests CBT and other “evidence-based” psychotherapies do not work.

Following is a passage quoted from an unpublished manuscript of mine:

Trevor Turner writes, in 2004, “recent critiques have shown that recovery and readmission rates in schizophrenia before 1950 were no different and that antipsychotic agents might even do more harm than good.”  A 2013 study by Harrow and Jobe concludes “there is very little systematic evidence for the long-term benefits of antipsychotics. There is even some longitudinal data suggesting the opposite.”  Discouragingly, Harrow and Jobe say that “in our longitudinal studies, the sample of schizophrenia patients who were untreated for many years showed significantly better outcomes than did those on antipsychotics.”  An Alberta Hospitals study in 1978 produced similar results. 

Doubts have surfaced for antidepressants as well. Studies indicate a 10% improvement in symptoms above placebo for the SSRIs, the “Prozac”-like medicines currently favoured.  But as Horowitz and Wilcock point out, this is not a clinically significant result.  Moncrieff and Kirsch point out that, given the criteria used, a sleeping pill would have scored as well.  “Longitudinal follow-up studies,” they add, “show very poor outcomes for people treated for depression both in hospital and in the community.”  

... Moncrieff and Kirsch conclude that “selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors have no clinically meaningful advantage over placebo. Antidepressants have not been convincingly shown to affect the long-term outcome of de-pression or suicide rates.”  In his 2011 book The Emperor’s New Drugs, Kirsch concludes, “When we analyzed all of the data ―those that had been published and those that had been suppressed―my colleagues and I were led to the inescapable conclusion that antidepressants are little more than active placebos, drugs with very little specific therapeutic benefit, but with serious side effects.”

Prayer is better—it gives reason for optimism.

The Cost of Free Love

It is common for young American women to delusionally believe they are “10’s.” A popular topic for videos is some woman of average attractiveness or less insisting to an interviewer that she could have any man she wants. Surveys show the average woman wants a man in the top 10% in terms of wealth and height.

Which leaves a lot of women unmarried in their forties and wondering why no man would “step up” and produce the ring. Are modern men so afraid of responsibility? What happened to all the good men?

Little girls have always been raised with too much self-esteem: assured they are adorable. Feminism, teaching contempt for men, has not helped.

But the biggest causal factor is the modern acceptance and encouragement, since “the pill,” of casual sex. It has given women this false perception of their desirability.

After all, they have all the evidence they need that they are highly desirable. Evolutionary instincts tell men to have sex with as many women as they can. So any young woman of average attractiveness will find she has no trouble attracting attention from men who are “10’s.” Giving her the clear impression that this is her league. She will distain average men. 

And she will keep waiting for that proposal that will not come.

Subtract the casual sex, and this would not happen. Not expecting sex without marriage, young men would no longer swarm women of only average looks. They would largely only pay attention to women they hoped to marry, and women would have a much better idea of their true market value and who their true suitors were. There would be less sex, and more love.

We would have more marriages, more children, a lot fewer bitter older women feeling cheated by men, and a lot fewer young men bitter towards women.

We messed up with the sexual revolution. 

What Just Happened Overnight?

I woke up to one of those surreal moments when all at once the world does not seem real. What—the US just invaded Venezuela, captured the president, and he has now been arraigned in court in New York? And all of this happened overnight? I slept through an entire war?

Hard to take that in. 

Besides sounding impossible, isn’t this a grave violation of international law? First, invading another country with whom you are at peace, and second, targeting the leader personally to take them out. 

Back when Bush Sr. invaded Panama to arrest Noriega, that was my position. 

But international law is not really codified; it evolves, like the common law. And I think it is evolving. 

It began with the massacre in Rwanda. Popular opinion condemned the French in particular for not stepping in and preventing it, when they had the ability. They, and the UN forces, were constrained by this doctrine in international law that one must not interfere with the internal affairs of another country. This left a deep trauma. Surely that cannot have been right.

In reaction, when things got nasty in Serbia over Kosovo, NATO collectively decided they had the right to intervene—although Kosovo was long an integral part of Serbia, with no history of independence.

The idea had evolved to a right and perhaps a duty to intervene to protect human rights in another country, when the violations are egregious. After all, all men are brothers. Do we want another Holocaust, and another? Had Hitler not invaded Poland, would we merely accept his extermination of the Jews as an internal affair?

Amnesty International and the UN Human Rights Watch accuse Maduro of multiple violations of Venezuelans’ human rights. On that basis, given this new doctrine of international law, Trump had a right to intervene. Not acting solely on his own opinion, but on that of recognized international bodies. He acted alone, not with a coalition of other nations—but that was necessary to make the action swift and relatively bloodless.

Does this give other regimes the right to do likewise? After all, this was more or less Russia’s justification for invading Ukraine: to defend the human rights of Russian-speakers in the Donbas against a “fascist” Ukrainian government.

That is no doubt a concern. But it is about what aggressors could always do under the old rules: fake some false flag operation, and claim they were defending themselves. This is what Hitler did to justify his invasion of Poland. In either case, we have to rely on the general opinion of nations. Are the claims plausible?

For Trump and America, there is also the issue of the drug scourge. It is a crisis in North America. Is it reasonable to see them, as Trump does, as a weapon intended to weaken the US? Wasn’t that what Britain did to China with opium centuries ago? Hasn’t China openly claimed they are pursuing war by unconventional means, “wolf warriors”? There are claims, too, that Venezuela has been subverting elections elsewhere, including the US.

Must the US just sit there and accept this? With changing technology, the weapons of war have changed. Perhaps we must begin to act accordingly.

And if you are justified in going  to war, Trump did so in the quickest and most bloodless way.

This may be the way of the future. Trump did something similar in Iran, the recent “twelve day war.” Which may now be bearing its final fruits in regime collapse. Go in, strike decisively, take out your opponent, and leave. He did something similar with Isis in Syria and Iraq. He seems to have understood something about how war has changed.

Bush Jr. could have done the same in Afghanistan or Iraq. The initial victories were quick and easy. He made the mistake of hanging around and trying to colonize.

It looks like Putin tried to imitate Trump’s approach in Ukriane—go in with a surgical strike, take out the opposing government, and it’s over. But Putin botched it. Russia does not have the technical capability and organization. They had to try it with brute force.

And Ukraine suggests that conventional war, in which armies line up on the field and shoot at each other, is obsolete; and of course, nuclear war works for nobody. Might it actually be the way of the future, and more just and humane, to fight by surgical strikes with superior coordination and technology?

The taking of Maduro seems, in any case, a brilliant strategic victory for the US. It should have an immediate effect in Iran, just when such a signal is needed. Trump has as much as said it is a warning to them. If they obviously violate Iranians’ human rights during the current protests, the US is will similarly step in. They are “locked and loaded.” “We know where you live.” 

A dealmaker, Trump is a brilliant psychologist.

This makes it much more likely the Iranian government, already on a knife edge, will fall.

Now imagine if Venezuela becomes, under a new government, an American ally, which is naturally likely to occur. Imagine if Iran soon also, under a new government, becomes a close American ally. Lots of oil previously used as a geopolitical weapon against the US and its allies now comes under their control. A huge geopolitical win.

Especially since it is oil sales that are propping up Putin and financing his aggression in Ukraine. He too may now see the writing on the wall. Three birds with one stone?

Or four birds... It should also have a dramatic effect in Cuba, already in desperate economic conditions, hanging on by a thin stream of oil extending across the Caribbean from Venezuela. Their source of electricity, and financial support until recently, is gone. 

It would surely be a great morale boost to America, and a boost to its prestige, if this thorn in its side were soon removed. Gulf of America indeed.

And, of course, the action is well calculated to frighten other hemispheric regimes into shutting down the drug trade and avoiding antagonizing America.

2026 is starting with a bang. Happy 250th birthday, America.

. 

Iran Rocked

Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi

I am following events in Iran. Things seem to be developing quickly. I hear that police are in some cases joining the protesters, that IRGC stations are being found abandoned, and that the security forces deployed are Arabs, not locals. These are strong indications that the regime’s grip is failing. Usually the tipping point in a revolution is when the security forces melt away or join the crowds—when the regime cannot command its enforcers.

There is also a credible shadow government in the wings, under the Crown Prince; and the crowds know it. Israeli agents are surely on the ground, helping things along. The good old International Jewish Conspiracy, you might say.

What will the world look like if the Iranian regime collapses?

It will do damage to Russia, surely. Russia is close enough to the brink itself, with its hands full in Ukraine, and it has been relying on Iran for drones, perhaps other aid. This could tip that balance. Not only that—revolutions are contagious. An Iranian collapse may give courage to Russians sick of the war and the sanctions and the repression to try the same. 

It would be another huge accomplishment for Trump, to start the new year. Pretty lucky, with the midterms coming up. And it would be a cautionary tale to other American opponents not to poke the hegemon too far. The American sanctions and the American bombings surely contributed to this event, and certainly look like they did, which may be more important.

The contemporary Axis of Evil has been Russia, China, and Iran. Now that one is knocked out, the other two look weaker and more vulnerable. If one tiger was paper, are the others as well?

And who knows where else the contagion of revolution might spread? China? Venezuela? Cuba? Belarus? Georgia? All have looked restive recently. Each domino endangers the others.

Presumably this is very good news for Isael and Middle East peace. The Iranians have been funding conflicts in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Palestine, and Yemen. Now that funding will be gone. The Irish Troubles ended when funding stopped flowing from Libya. So something similar might happen here.

This may also tend to discredit the ideology of political Islam. Iran was the leading example of this in practice, and it will have ignominiously failed. That fit of xenophobic reaction may have had its day. Time to wake up and join the world.

There have been rumours of secret mass conversions to Christianity within Iran, inspired by the oppression of the Islamist government, yet hidden for fear of punishments. It may be, with the lid off, that there will be a rush of public conversions to Christianity and Zoroastrianism soon.

Which will encourage Christian revival elsewhere.

Before the Islamist Revolution, Iran was an important regional power, with a GDP on a par with Spain. Newly allied with the West, it might again develop rapidly and be again a bulwark of American foreign policy in the region. And a powerful ally of Israel as well. 

I suspect post-revolution, Iranians will be as pro-Western as the various populations of the old East Bloc turned out to be after the Berlin Wall fell.

I have several Iranian friends who have been wanting this badly. I hope it happens this time for them.