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.