Demonic Activity

 

Although he calls himself a secular man, Tucker Carlson believes in demons. He suggests that there is no other way to account for what is happening in the world. He sees a demon wherever there is a strong drive to do something that is in nobody’s best interests. He cites sexual transitioning for children. How can anyone actually want that?

And he is right. This is what demons are: independent wills that seem to supersede our own. The classic example is alcoholism. First the man takes a drink; but eventually, the drink takes the man, and is in control. So too with addictions generally. Because these are independent wills, they are by definition independent persons. There is a “demon rum.” 

It does not follow, as Carlson goes on to suggest, that UFOs or UAPs are demons. As purely spiritual beings, demons cannot act on the physical plane except through human agency. We should not be able to see them.

Although, who knows? That may be no more than a rule of thumb. Perhaps from time to time that veil is lifted. This, indeed, is understood to be so in ancient beliefs around the world. Djinn are “hidden ones,” not exactly “invisible ones.” Greek gods could reputedly manifest at times, as swans or rainbows or old men on the road or showers of gold.

Leaving that aside for now as too esoteric, we can understand demons as more or less what we commonly refer to as “vices” or “addictions.” (But without postulating some independent external will, where do they come from? Surely it cannot be “our” will if it leads us to our own destruction? If it is a will against our will? Can we have two selves?)

Look for some human behaviour that seems destructive and does not make sense, and you have probably found a demon. 

And by this standard, demonic activity does indeed seem to be growing. Aside from “gender transitioning” for children, the growing epidemic of fentanyl and other dangerous drugs is demonic. The mobs celebrating October 7, chanting “from the river to the sea, and demanding the elimination of Israel are demonic. Antisemitism generally is demonic. The rash of statue toppling, street renamings, and church burnings is demonic. 

I would argue that the entire edifice of feminism is demonic: it has always been against the best interests of women as well as suicidal for the culture as a whole; and I think this was evident from its start. The early feminists had to hold “consciousness-raising” sessions to convince women that they were oppressed by being allowed to stay at home, grow flowers, and raise babies. And by not having casual sex.

Envy and lust were at work here.

Marxism is demonic. Marxism presented itself as a scientific theory, and it was long ago disproven in scientific terms: its predictions did not come true. The proletariat did not grow and grow more impoverished, wealth did not become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. We did not get worse and worse depressions;  nowhere has the proletariat spontaneously seized power. Communist revolutions were supposed to happen in  the most industrialized societies: in Germany, Britain, the US, perhaps, but certainly not agrarian Russia, China, or Vietnam. And of course, anywhere Marxism has been applied, the results have been disastrous, including history’s worst mass murders. So how, other than demonic activity, to explain its continuing vitality, especially in intellectual circles?

Behind the Marxist mask are the vices of sloth, greed, pride, and envy.

Psychology is another demon. People cling to it, and to their favourite psychological theory, with an irrational fervour, despite the fact that all these psychological theories have heretofore been disproven in scientific terms. And the basic premise, that one can study the human soul objectively,  as an object, is ridiculous. And none of its techniques can be demonstrated to work.

Postmodernism is another demon. It is immediately self-invalidating. It asserts that there is no objective truth, so that we can have “your truth” and “my truth.” Yet, if there is no objective truth, “there is no objective truth,” as an assertion of truth, cannot be true. And yet postmodernism in various forms keeps spreading.

Where does this all end?

It more or less must end in some religious revival. The only question is how bad it can get before this happens. I cannot predict; I hope it happens in my lifetime. And there are inklings. Like Tucker Carlson, a secular man, becoming convinced there are demons.

Batra on Israel vs. Iran

 

Lilley on Pro-Terrorism Demonstrations in Ottawa

 

It's All Coming Out

 

Keeping track of what is going on in the world is liable to drive one to despair. So many people are getting away with so many things. The slaughter on October 7. Putin in Ukraine. Unknown people , possibly foreign angst or terrorists, flooding into the US. People shoplifting brazenly in SF and not getting arrested. Homelessness; rampant drug use. Lawfare against political opponents. Everyone in authority turns out to be a pedophile. Attempted censorship everywhere. The list goes on. Every time I check on X, it is a half dozen more horrifying revelations.

But perhaps this is the point: every time I check on X. A large part of what may seem to be some new chaos is that at last, thanks to the Internet and Elon Musk, we are actually hearing about things that previously were silenced—it is not so much that matters and morals are spiralling downward, but that things that dwelt in darkness are finally being brought to the light. 

That, and the inevitable reaction by the guilty parties, trying desperately to close the spigots and lash out.

For the rest of us, the innocent many, any sudden flood of new knowledge is traumatizing; it upsets your world view, and so your mental equilibrium. What you thought was true, and possibly based your life on, isn’t. Wait; you can’t trust doctors? You can’t trust science? You can’t trust the justice system? You can’t trust the results of elections? You can’ t trust cardinals and popes? 

Anyone might experience cognitive dissonance, and a sense of  emotional betrayal, and depression, as a result. 

As Aristotle put it, the seed of knowledge is bitter, but the fruit is sweet. It is nevertheless better to know. And be able to improve.

Tucker Carlson argues, in his interview with Joe Rogan, that the evidence is plain that JFK was killed by the CIA; and Nixon was driven from office by the CIA/FBI. The evidence was always there. We knew long ago that J. Edgar Hoover had files on everyone in politics. We just never went there in our thoughts. It’s just that, in the past, with the media pipeline controlled, misdirection was possible. On this, and on any issue. Now somebody’s sure to blow the whistle, post the video, and the word gets out.

UFOs/ UAPs are another example. Evidence has been around since at least the forties. Only recently, official and semi-official sources are confirming that it is all real. Why? 

Perhaps because everyone now has a smartphone. It is no longer just a rare blurry photo, or just an eye-witness account, that they have to discount. Now there are too many videos and electronic detections to plausibly deny…

So the world seems to be going crazy. But it was always crazy. And amidst the apparent craziness, a new and more solid perception of reality may be emerging. This new reality may be shocking to some. For example, Carlson observes that the obvious explanation for UFOs and their capabilities is that they are spiritual, and not physical, entities.

A lot of people, I feel, are turning to God. Especially those closest to the best sources for the new information. Candace Owens just entered the Catholic Church. Jordan Peterson, Joe Rogan, Dave Rubin, Tucker Carlson, Russell Brand, have been publicly and rather quickly moving towards a more religious view..

The biggest con of all has been the claim that he does not exist, and the spiritual world, the world of ideal forms, does not exist.

No Evidence of Mass Graves

 

Tucker Carlson on UFOs

 

1847

 

People are waking up everywhere to a growing totalitarianism. The Young Turks are turning. Bill Maher seems to have turned. The lid is coming off, in the public square. With much thanks to Elon Musk.

But governments are not backing down. Never mind the madness in Canada. The Biden administration is now suing a company for discrimination for requiring a criminal background check of potential employees before they hire. This, apparently, disproportionately affects blacks. They have amended Title 9 , without any congressional mandate, to force schools everywhere to let men use women’s washrooms, and to remove due process in charges of sexual assault. 

In Canada, Trudeau’s new budget pushes up the capital gains tax, further discouraging any new investment, while Canada’s productivity is already collapsing due to a lack of new investment. They are actively discouraging development of our natural resources. In a time of high inflation, they are jacking up the carbon tax.

Where does this end? The troubling thing is that the US administration, Trudeau’s, and governments elsewhere in the developed world, seem to be showing contempt for the general public, for average folks, their traditions, wellbeing, and safety. How, in a democracy, can this make sense to them? Do they plan to fix the election?

Surely they do. In the US and Canada, they are doing whatever they can to fix the election in plan view, by censoring dissent and pursuing their opponents through the courts.

Given that they will go this far, if Trump wins anyway, will the apparatus of government simply refuse to obey? Tucker Carlson believes the Deep State took out Kennedy and Nixon. Why not Trump?

But the public has greater visibility with the Internet than it used to. They are more likely now to see and understand. And with the Internet, they have better ability to organize outside of government, making totalitarianism harder to enforce. 

I dread the thought, but I now see actual revolution as likely. I fear that flag is going to go up soon in at least one major developed country. 

Those currently in power are to blame. But the short-term results are likely to be terrible for everyone. 

Carlson on Trudeau?

 https://youtu.be/b4Cd3Ud0orQ?si=ONDyeJCAPRJ8Uhxn

The Deep State Took Out Nixon?

 

https://x.com/MarioNawfal/status/1781736785757806911

Culture and Civilization

 

Our civilization seems to be falling apart. Probably the one essential reason is that we have lost the plot. We have lost our sense of what civilization means and why it is of value. 

The term is rarely used any more, and if it is, it is misused. We absolutely must not, any longer, insist that all cultures are equally civilized. They are not.

In simplest terms, “civilization” means literally citification. For a culture, it means having fixed abodes; having a system of writing; and having a government with consistent rules and enforcement on at least the level of a functioning city and hinterland. 

By this definition, none of the indigenous people of Canada were, at first contact, civilized; they were, to use the literal meaning of the term, “savages”. This is a simple descriptive statement. We used, even in my grad school days, to use the euphemism “primitive.” That is, they had not developed socially to the civilized level.

It should further be uncontroversial that a culture that has failed to develop writing, fixed dwellings, and consistent government is inferior to a culture that has. 

Probably the finest cultures are those that first developed such things; imitation is easier. And culture is persistent. My travels and long sojourns abroad leave me with distinct opinions on what cultures are most civilized. Egyptians, Greeks, Jews, Chinese, are, to my mind, in the top rank. Interestingly, these are also the nations that have been civilized for longest. No doubt they have perfected the art of education.

But there is also something to be said for recent success. Cultures can also no doubt weaken or become diluted. I have to respect the British, with their remarkable talent for social organization: the common law, the parliamentary system. Thay have, if I may be so bold, been a civilizing influence in the world. I feel, for example, that the average immigrant from the West Indies is distinctly more civilized than an average African-American. The difference, I presume, is the education system modelled on the British.

I say that as someone without a drop of English blood in my veins. And mostly Irish blood—the one nation and culture that has least reason to love the English.

Broadly, to be civilized means to be capable of cooperating in large groups. This implies, in turn, an ability to suppress one’s immediate desires to achieve a goal. This is unnatural; it takes work. That work is the work of education, and education is the key to civilization.

But the payoff is more than that. The ability to defer gratification is also the essence of all moral behaviour. It is what makes us human, not animals. It is the secret to material success, to acquiring wealth. And it is what gives us all the higher things in life—the arts, the grace notes.

Education is the key, and the key part of that education is what we call the humanities: religion, philosophy, history, language arts, literature. They teach us to be human; beginning with Aesop’s fables and the fairy tales.  

And, alarmingly, we no longer see the point of the humanities. That marks our doom.

Lacking this education lacking civilization, is disastrous both on the cultural and the individual level. It is the reason Canada’s indigenous people remain in a deprived and desperate state, five hundred years after first contact. Compare the Jews who immigrated to these shores since the complete catastrophe and genocide of the Holocaust. Who is doing better?

The difference is in child-rearing and the education system. Indian children are essentially taught nothing; they just run about and do as they like. They do not learn deferred gratification. Jewish kids have to go to school after school and learn the Hebrew language and all the ancient legends.

There may need to be a balance. Civilization is not an unmitigated good—the conflict between the demands of society and the natural man was the topic already of the world’s first epic, the story of Gilgamesh and Enkidu. I myself prefer the relative spontaneity of American music to the rigid formalism of Asian or European styles.

Everyone dreams of being a pirate, or escaping to the wild open range and living like an Indian. Perhaps the strongest civilizations allow for some such release, to keep the system elastic. The English, or  the ancient Greeks, always had the option of going to sea; the Americans to head West. It is also the genius of the Sabbath.

But we also seem to be losing that safety hatch.

Civilized people need to be aware of the issue. You do not, as a practical matter, want uncivilized people living just across the fence from you. They might drop in at any time, break down your door, smash your things, rape your wife, and devour your children.

Consider the events of October 7.

The essence of the general mild anti-American prejudice among Canadians is that the average American, broadly speaking, is less civilized. Well-meaning, but boisterous, less polite. They will come for a visit, and look in your fridge. If they are at home, they will walk around in their underwear. They are childlike.

Of course this is a stereotype. Nevertheless, it is generally true, and it is a real thing—and that is the effect of culture.

Tucker Carlson Outlines the Problem

https://x.com/VigilantFox/status/1781567790257758254

With a Bullet

 

The kids ask, why don’t wars other than Vietnam have a soundtrack?

They are influenced largely here by the soundtrack to Full Metal Jacket. This is their prime source of information about Vietnam.

But they do have a point. There was a burst of musical creativity at the time of Vietnam, far better than anything we’re hearing now. And a lot of it was seemingly inspired by the turmoil and the opposition to the war. Times of general crisis are good times for the arts; take Renaissance Italy. This is because art is here to heal confusion; the imagination spontaneously kicks in when times are bad, seeking some order or pattern over the rainbow.

But I immediately dispute their unlearned premise that other wars did not have a decent soundtrack. They just haven’t seen “O What a Lovely War.” 

The Second World War too generated some great music. It just hasn’t, to my knowledge, been set to film in the same systematic way. 

What about:

Run Rabbit Run

Blood on the Risers

Lili Marlene

The D-Day Dodgers

They Say That in the Army

The White Cliffs of Dover

We’ll Meet Again

I’m a Cranky Old Yank in a Clanky Old Tank

We’re Gonna Hang Out Our Washing on the Siegfried Line

Colonel Bogie’s March

Der Fuhrer’s Face

The North Atlantic Squadron

Bless ‘Em All

There’ll Always Be an England

This Is the Army, Mr. Jones

Coming in on a Wing and a Prayer

O How I Hate to Get Up in the Morning

And, although I find it too smarmy, “Don’t Sit Under the Apple Tree.”

Somebody really should do a stage show like “O What a Lovely War” around these songs.

Trudeau Is Leaving

 

Just putting down a marker.

It looks as though Justin Trudeau is planning to resign. Which is only sensible on his part. Dominic LeBlanc is being set up to replace him; and he is probably the Liberals’ best play.

Will it save the Liberal Party?

The Canadian Political Landscape

 

A recent discussion prompted me to outline my understanding of the Canadian political landscape.

There are only two coherent views of government, two coherent ideologies. One sees the state as like a family. Everybody is responsible for everybody else. The government is in the role of parent. It has a moral duty to do whatever it can for the good of the whole, in trust, and to help everyone in need. This is the classic conservative view, as articulated by Edmund Burke. 

The other is that the government is in the role of a contractor. There is a social contract, under which the government has specific responsibilities. The government is not our parent, because all men are created equal. We freely hire it to do a specific job. Whenever possible, we decide for ourselves, because we are all adults and free will is the reason we exist. This is the classic liberal view, as articulated by Jefferson or Lord Acton. 

I am a liberal, and have always been a liberal. My views have not changed since adolescence. Then, these views seemed to put me on the left; now, they seem to put me on the right. Left and right have lost all meaning, it seems.

Liberalism has often been confused with sexual libertinism, which is something else. The proper liberal definition of liberty is that given by Pope St. John Paul II: freedom is freedom to do what is right. After the right to life, the prime and essential human right is the right to conscience; because without free will, we cannot act as moral beings. Sinful acts are not expressions of freedom, because we become enslaved to the sin. That is what vice is.

Government must not decide for us on moral questions.

The liberal will not want laws against sodomy or pornography, for example, unless their exercise can be shown to infringe on the rights of others. But he or she will certainly not want the state endorsing sodomy or pornography, or giving them special privileges, or a public forum. Forcing others to endorse sodomy, pornography, or the like; publicly funding them; or teaching them to children in state schools as positive values; is profoundly illiberal, as it forces some to go against their conscience. Laws against sodomy or pornography are less problematic, since nobody is bound by conscience to engage in masturbation or homosexual sex.

Liberalism requires opposition to abortion. The right to life is fundamental.

“Hate speech” laws are profoundly illiberal, as well as antidemocratic.

The entire edifice on which liberalism is built, is the doctrine of human equality and the importance of free will. These are Christian principles; you could also say Jewish. Without Christianity, without ethical monotheism, they collapse. Any government that does not acknowledge this and support the Jewish and Christian religions is illiberal. This does not mean obstructing freedom of religion for any citizen.

The rap against liberalism is that it does not provide for the less fortunate, as conservatism argues for. The liberal response is that government entitlements subvert morality by supplanting charity. Private charity is a moral act; there is no morality in paying taxes. Government entitlements also subvert free will by teaching dependence; they violate the doctrine of human equality; and they violate property rights.

That said, nobody should be left homeless or to starve or to die from lack of medical care. This is no departure from liberal principles; a basic social safety net follows from the right to life. The idea, currently popular, of having a Guaranteed Annual Income actually originated with Milton Friedman’s “negative income tax.” There is also a liberal argument, made by Friedman, that education should be free to the individual, including college or university, on the principle of human equality and no inherited privilege.

A liberal position logically calls for a strong defense. Government exists to protect our rights from being infringed. This includes protecting us from foreign enemies. It also implies support for alliances, the concept of collective security: that is exactly what government is for on the individual level.

As a liberal, I do not want government legislating morality, because that interferes with the exercise of free will, and therefore with the human mission to become a moral being.

Moreover, it violates the principle of human equality. There are no superior beings competent to know better than the individual what is best for every individual. Were there, there is no mechanism to ensure they are the ones that end up in government.

But I can respect the conservative or Red Tory position. Sometimes, with an ill-educated or ill-informed electorate, or in times of social chaos, when the structures of civil society are absent, it is perhaps best.

Now, given this definition, the Canadian Liberal Party is not liberal. The liberals, as opposed to the Liberals, are now what in Canada are called “Blue Tories.” 

But the Liberal Party is not conservative either. Those are the “Red Tories.” Like the conservatives, the Liberals want big government, and want to restrict free will and the individual--liberty. But the Liberals, and the modern left generally, are a third thing, not a coherent philosophy of government but a collective madness, inchoate rage, an urge to control everything, kill everyone and then commit suicide. Nazism, Marxism, wokeism, postmodernism, Mao's Cultural Revolution; it is all the same thing. There is no God, nothing is real, there is no right and wrong, gimme.

I believe Justin Trudeau is the worst prime minister Canada has ever had. The first qualification for office has to be wanting what is best for the country. Trudeau has no allegiance to Canada; he is on record saying there is no Canadian cultural mainstream. Canada to him is no more than a geographical location. The second qualification is mere competence; Trudeau has no relevant experience or education and no idea what he is doing. He is only play-acting. The third qualification is honesty, and Trudeau is as corrupt as he thinks he can get away with. Scandal after scandal, and no remorse.

All this before even getting to his political ideology, which is just the aforesaid collective tantrum; and then his specific policies. He has Canada on track to join the Third World. I suggested this to colleagues in New Blue six months ago, and to them that seemed hyperbolic. Now everyone in my feeds online seems to be saying it. The figures on falling productivity are obvious.

Trudeau has also done a remarkable job of destroying Canada’s international standing, built up with blood, sweat, and tears over the years. I am particularly sensitive to this, as a Canadian who lived for so long abroad. Our reputation abroad was one foundation of our prosperity, vastly underestimated. Canada had widespread and favourable brand recognition. Trudeau is an instinctive bully; he likes to pick fights and try to dominate. And he is too stupid not to pick fights with international leaders he encounters. Nor does he care about the damage he is doing.

Boris the Cat

 

Friend Xerxes tells the story of Boris the Cat, a companion animal on a solo cruise around the world. 

His column is titled “The Absence of a Happy Ending.” With an added “[Reader alert: This column is a downer]”

Somewhere in the South Atlantic, Boris fell overboard, and was not seen again.

“When things go wrong, we’re told to have faith. As Julian of Norwich once assured us, ‘All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well.’

            “I wonder if Boris would agree with her.”

As though this advice was for cats. Anyone who’s had a cat as a kid could have told him, cats do not live long in any event.

So why this melodramatic reaction, particularly when men, women, and children are dying daily in Gaza, or the Ukraine, and gruesomely in Israel on October 7? And yet it is the unmet cat, who died many years ago, that occupies Xerxes’s thoughts?

Jung once said, sentimentality is a scaffolding concealing brutality. Hitler loved his dogs. 

I fear we no longer care about humanity. Making much of “nature” and cats and the like is a scaffolding concealing our own brutality from ourselves, at times when in our hearts we know we are guilty of it. We reassure ourselves by manifesting exaggerated delicacy. Goodness! We wouldn’t swat a flea! We lament the death of every cat!

Death, after all, is every cat’s ending. “Death, a necessary end, will come when it will come.” 

The conventional belief is that an animal’s consciousness, when it dies, simply ceases to be. Lights out. That is not tragic: it is neutral. Sad because this cat’s life was a few years shorter than it might have been? 

Then where is the concern over aborted children?

Boris may have briefly felt panic. There is a Jewish prayer, “Lord, don’t let me die while I’m still alive.” I imagine that is a prayer against panic, against facing death unexpectedly. If so, Boris’s panic must have been brief. Cats are not renowned swimmers. A small furry animal in a turbulent sea? 

And if this is Xerxes’s or his readers’ main concern, do they spare a thought for the terror of animals led to slaughter, whose meat they eat every day?

Xerxes then makes Boris's death a parable to suggest that we invented heaven to console ourselves, because we want a happy ending.

But that does not work. Xerxes probably knows this in his own heart. He has a Christian education. Animals, according to traditional Christian belief, based on Aristotle, do not go to heaven. If heaven were only wishful thinking, we would surely insist that Boris did, and we would have our happy ending. Why does Xerxes choose an example that does not work?

Because his real point is a concealed one. He wants to believe we are all like cats, and cease to be at death. That is his wish for a happy ending. 

Because the alternative, as Xerxes neglects to note, is not heaven. All people do not go to heaven. In fact, in most traditional views of the afterlife, few do. There is an alternative destination, or perhaps two or three. Or, for Buddhists or Hindus, an infinite number of possible destinations, of future lives.

And moderns in general try hard not to believe in God or the afterlife, and insist that man is no better than an animal, a cat, and exalt nature, because of a guilty conscience, and terror at the just consequences of our actions.