Bob Dylan Meets the Pope

 Read our analysis on SubStack--and subscribe for free!

The Nazi Test--Test Yourself and See

 

If the uniform fits, wear it.

Grad students used to ponder, “If I were alive in Nazi Germany, would I resist? Or would I have been a ‘good German’?” I imagine they still may, if any of them any longer think about Nazi Germany.

Of course, they all think they would have resisted.

Probably without considering the likelihood of torture and death had they done so at the time.

But here’s a handy guide to help you answer the question:

1. 1.      Do you support abortion? Do you at least remain silent? This, after all, is a holocaust larger than that pursued by Hitler. Unlike Hitler’s, it is explicit and open. Unlike Hitler’s, the victims are self-evidently innocent. Extra points if you also support “Medical Assistance in Dying.” This is not so far removed from the Nazi concept of “life not deserving life,” and hustling in that direction.
2. 2.      Do you believe that morality is culturally relative? That is what the Nazis believed. They too rejected “conventional morality.” It served their purpose. It can justify violating any moral principle not to your or your group’s advantage. And it can justify exterminating other culture groups, on the grounds that their morality conflicts with yours.
3. 3.      Do you believe that culture is based on race? So that, for example, criticizing Islam or aboriginal culture is a form of “racism”? If so, this ultimately justifies killing those of other races on the grounds that their culture is incompatible.
4. 4.      Do you see people as “communities,” and not as individuals? This is near the core of Nazi ideology—group think and race identity.
5. 5.      Do you blame certain identifiable such “communities” for much of society’s ills? Communities based on personal characteristics, rather than ideas or opinions? For Hitler, it was the Jews, the gypsies. Perhaps for you it is the “patriarchy”—that is, men—or “the rich,” “the billionaires,” “whites,” or some other group—often enough, it is still the Jews. Do you believe, for example, that Gaza is a “holocaust,” Jews being involved, but not the war in the Ukraine, say, or in Yemen or in Sudan? This is scapegoating, and leads to the sort of mass murder Hitler engaged in.
6. 6.      Do you believe it is legitimate to break the rules if this may produce the desired result? This too was at the core of the Nazi concept.
7. 7.      Do you believe it is important to get along with those around you? Do you think virtue is found in seeking consensus and avoiding strife? If so, you would have gone along with the Nazi ideology if in Germany in the 1930s. You would not have been a Schindler.
8. 8.      Do you believe in deplatforming, shouting down, or silencing those whose opinions you consider wrong? These are the Nazi tactics, stormtrooper tactics. They are perfectly tailored to further Nazi aims.
9. 9.      Are you opposed to getting involved in foreign wars? So was Hitler—he was all about avoiding war. He led a widely promoted pacifist movement just as he invaded Poland. He wanted to achieve his aims without war. If you will not come to the aid of a distant country if they are invaded, then by the same logic, you will not come to the aid of the Jews when they are rounded up and sent off to camps. After all, it is not your business, is it? Nobody attacked you.
10. 10. Do you believe in state control and/or heavy regulation of the private sector? This is the essence of the Nazi economic program. It usefully concentrated power in the political leadership, in the state.

Give yourself ten points for each positive answer. If you score over 50, congratulations, you’re a Nazi.

A Report from the Front

It is a shocking thing to say, but it is time to say it: the present struggle between left and right politically has become a struggle between good and evil. 

The clue that tips it all off is how, the day after the Democrats scored a sweeping win in the US midterm elections, the stock markets nosedived. Clearly, in the eyes of investors, the left is opposed to the general wealth, to material progress. Given power, it is likely to make us poorer. This suggests the general theme: the left is about destroying things. 

Whenever there is a significant new discovery, or new invention, that promises to improve our lives, the left will be against it. No fracking, no GMO, no data centres, no pipelines, no new mines, no AI. Whenever possible, regulate and restrict. Granted there is some need for oversight; but the left’s reaction seems always instinctively hostile to progress. Driven, most often, by the fear that someone else might become rich.

The left pushes for mass immigration and supports Islamism, in a fairly transparent push to destroy our culture. Culture is the essence of a good life—and they want to destroy it. They oppose all sorts of traditions individually: they are against Christmas, against traditional marriage, against Thanksgiving, against Columbus Day, against Christianity, against the traditional nuclear family, and on and on. This is all “patriarchy,” and must be destroyed.

They are against beauty, one of the three transcendental values and a cornerstone of a good life. Tearing down statues, for example: a direct assault, not just on our history and culture, but also on heroism, merit, and public beauty. They push “body positivity” and deny any privilege to or acknowledgement of feminine beauty. They celebrate men grotesquely dressing up as women. They seek ugliness rather than beauty in art. 

They deny truth itself, speaking of “my truth” and declaring truth purely subjective. 

They elevate “the environment” and non-human nature over human thriving. They lament that there are “Too many humans” in the world. They will refer to humanity as a “cancer.” They will create a national park, and not only prohibit any productive activities, but even ban humans from entering.

They support killing humans directly, with abortion and, increasingly, euthanasia. 

Their economic notions are based on the sin of envy: it is not enough that everyone have their needs met. In the end, they object to anyone else having any more than they do. And they would rather everyone be poor than let someone else be rich.

They see everything as a contest for power. “The personal is political.” For the sake of achieving power, they are prepared to violate any established social norms, rules of engagement or traditional morality.

This simply can no longer be characterized as people disagreeing in good faith. This is good versus evil.

Survivalism Finds Its Moment

 Read about it on our SubStack feed.

The Vatican in Schism

 Read it on Substack.

Arius

Culture Matters

A Haitian street scene

A while ago, I mentioned to a leftist friend that a big reason I chose to settle in New Brunswick was for the presence of French culture, which I loved growing up in Montreal, and sorely missed.

And his response was, “yes, cultural diversity is good.”

Wait—that’s not what I said. He was tacitly insisting that one culture, even subjectively, even in terms of personal preference, cannot be better than another. 

This is about as sensible as saying that all forms of transportation are equally good, or all governments or forms of government are equally good. A culture is a set of tools for a good life. One tool can always be better than another.

Surely no one has the right to deny the magnificent accomplishments of Greek culture, for example—a nation of only 10 million today. Any honest man must see the magnificent accomplishments of Jewish culture—only about 15 million today. 

RFK Jr. recently noted, in a speech, that the Muslim world has contributed almost nothing to world culture for the past several centuries, despite amounting to about 2 billion people. No Nobel prizes, no new inventions, no great literature, and no stable government. Something is wrong; this is a failing culture.

In a recent news report, El Salvador is sending troops into Haiti, to recover four of their soldiers kidnapped by a local gang. Haiti is always in chaos. This is a failed culture.

I have lived in a number of places around the world, and travelled to others. I certainly did not find life in all of these places equally comfortable, safe, or pleasant. I miss Korean culture mightily. I do not miss the culture of Qatar or Saudi Arabia. Other than money and consumer goods, there was so little there. When Geoguessr drops me somewhere in Europe, I am charmed. When Geoguessr drops me somewhere in Africa, or Indonesia, I am struck by the ugliness and disorder of the place.

Some cultures are actually harmful to mankind, and ought to be eradicated. One might cite Nazi Germany. Or, in Biblical times, Sodom, Gomorrah, or Canaan. Some proposed tools prove too dangerous. We no longer use asbestos as insulation, either. Or fly airships filled with hydrogen.

Of course, different cultures have specialties too—better in one sphere, worse in another. The French are unmatched for their visual sense, except perhaps by the Russians. The English are best at managerial systems and record-keeping. The Italians are best at cuisine. This is the great benefit derived by immigrant cultures like the USA, Canada, Australia, or Singapore. We can pick the best features from each, to form a new culture superior to all. 

Unfortunately, this advantage is being destroyed by the leftist doctrine of DEA, multiculturalism, and cultural equality. Germans or Scots may have a strong tradition in engineering; but we must not hire Germans or Scots, they are overrepresented. Instead, we must hire some sub-Saharan African. This is a fine way to destroy a culture.

The counter-argument given at this point by the left is that these failed or less successful cultures are in the state of poverty and chaos they endure because of colonialism; because they were exploited and possibly infantilized by the Europeans.

That will not wash. In any place you might name, the Europeans left generations ago. Somalia became independent in 1960. Haiti became independent in 1804. They have been in chaos ever since. Compare Spain: Columbus discovered the Americas the very year Spain managed to fully decolonize from the Moors. Within a generation, they were the world’s greatest power. The Dutch Republic achieved independence from Spain in 1648; they had already started to develop an East Indian empire in 1604. The Irish keep winning Nobel Prizes for literature—despite centuries of suppression of Irish culture and economic exploitation under Britain. They only achieved independence in 1921. Germany has risen from ashes since 1945, and twice since 1918. Korean culture was systematically suppressed by Japan until 1945—look where they are now. And the Jews—they emerged from genocide only in 1945 to re-establish their present prominence. 

The original premise of world colonization by Europe was actually that they were there to introduce peace, order, human rights, and a better way to less accomplished lands. To build railroads and canals and civil government. 

The results in many lands once they pulled out seem to validate this assumption. One can see the decline of Zimbabwe since majority rule; one can see the fall of South Africa. One can see the political chaos and repression in the Muslim world.

And perhaps the most obviously failed cultures of all are those currently glorified as “indigenous” or “aboriginal.” Cultures that never emerged from the stone age, never invented the wheel or writing, and were at near-constant war. Not smart or kind to want to preserve them.

What Others Think of Us

In my work, I get to talk to a lot of people from China, both in China and in Canada. I had an interesting talk with one last night. He himself travels regularly between Canada, China, and Europe.

He lamented that Canada and Western Europe were destroying themselves with “woke politics.” He said Chinese people used to think Europe was clean, orderly, and safe. Now they are afraid to visit. He believes Europe cannot be saved now; it is too late. He is grateful that there is no woke attitude in China. 

He finds DEI appallingly unjust and harmful to development.

He thinks Muslim immigration is a problem. 

He thinks Brampton is not a good place to visit or to live; dirty and dangerous because of the South Asian immigrant population.

He thinks it is a mistake to bring in so many low-skilled immigrants.

He thinks censorship is worse in Canada now than in China.

He thinks Canada is on a rapid downward slide. He thinks the best thing to do would be to join the USA.

Just so you know what the Chinese man in the street thinks...